Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@SlaveofAllaah

Just my 2 cents as this topic is covered can we go ahead with the Scripture of Bible as this argument would go on infinite otherwise. I request the moderator of this thread:) USR to go ahead with my request and only with his consent.

You don’t want to discuss the Hadith’s and any other possible scripture that has a bearing on Islam? I would like to wait for USR to look through what we discussed to date and respond because something else might also be necessary to need more answers.

What about some apparent inconsistencies/problems in the Qur’an, should we leave them? Why the haste?

[Das_Reich]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

How safe would they have been if they did this during the political turmoil in those days?

which period are you refering to ? the fitna or the aftermath

Regarding fitnah as I have previously mentioned these peolpe were bitter enemies of uthman yet they did not add or delete anything from “his version” of Quran…in those days these people were in power politically and militarily and could do as they pleased…so that is an additional proof that there was nothing different in the various readings
In the aftermath of fitna it is true these people (Qurra) were ruthlessly suppressed by the ummayyads yet that could not stop them from spreading their political beliefs amongst their disciples, …some did it subtlely and lived others were more outspoken and were killed. Point is these people were not easy to contain and most of the narrations prasing their leader (who was ummayyds opponent in the fitna) could be traced to them.Just imagine they made sure that the virtues of their leader were wellpreserved in the memories of their disciples so that they are still in our books , yet NOT a single disciple of theirs would ever claim that there were seperate versions of the Quran …so it streches the imagination that such a thing could have been kept secret for so long by people who were Quran recieters.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

Dear Guppies, please halt all posts to this thread till I reply to Old Mans original post. I feel this thread has more information about Quranic history and is digressing more into a muslim specific debate. I want this to be a dialogue, not fault finding. We want to discuss aspects of both scriptures but not confront here.

I value everyones post here and I apologize for being missing. We want to bring out facts not refute each other as being false. The facts will be left for onlookers to study and comprehend for themselves as we have done throughout these series of threads. Jazakallah.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

The Qur'an being in such high esteem and inportance for Islam will make it slightly difficult for me to fully debate this topic. I have too much respect for various Guppies and will endeavor to not be blasphemous. If I do transgress, it will be done due to a lack of knowledge or sensitivity on my part, I now already ask for forgiveness and understanding.

Because of the importance, and possible divergent questions/answers, anyone should feel themselves free to ask questions or give sound answers to questions they consider they have knowledge off. Just don't digress into too many lines, otherwise rather open thread dedicated to that line of reasoning.

Your uprightness is appreciated and I would expect the same from you on my part.

@The Old Man

The Christians hold the Bible (Old and New Testaments) as their scriptures defining the religion and theological doctrines. Various other manuscripts and authors are often consulted for clarity when theologians debate on issues but the final word should come from the Bible as a whole. I can't stress it enough that the Bible should be read as one book with all being in harmony. Christianity does not depend on the Bible as a faith to exist and if the Bible disappears tomorrow, I believe Christians will all of a sudden find that they have less problems accepting each other's denominations. The way to live should be the voice of the Holy spirit and not the Bible.

To draw some similarities here I would our Quranic tafsir is the same relying on theologians and clerics who explain the Quran using ahadith and other historical and theological material.

The other thing you have stated from an Islamic view point can be interpreted as Aqidah and Shariah. The Quran conveys the aqidah and shariah as well however the common denominator among all the revealed scriptures to the Prophets we believe in was the Aqidah meaning, they all preached the same creed i.e. Monotheism of Allah SWT. The Shariah part varied from Prophet to prophet throughout the ages, the Shariah given to Muhammad SAW was meant for all mankind since we believe Muhammad SAW was sent as a prophet to all of mankind.

So to state if the Shariah is lost either literally or in practice what binds muslims together is the same Aqidah i.e. Oneness of Allah SWT and Muhammad SAW being the last messenger. This similar to your saying if Christians were to loose the bible you would all still get along together, that would be because you hold fast to the same creed. In fact if you objectively look at this aspect in both muslim and christian worlds, they both are dwelling upon their creed only i.e. Aqidah and the Shariah or laws from the scriptures inspite of being there are lost because they are hardly implemented in either muslim or christian countries as they should be. In the christian world I do not know of any country, which practices the laws of the bible in the state judicial system, whereas in the muslim world you will find many but distorted implementations of the Shariah.

@The Old Man

To start the conversation/dialogue, let's firstly just consider the Islamic scriptures. I know every Muslim KNOWS how the Qur'an originated but let's revisit some aspects.

As far as I know the Qur'an was not physically written and supplied from heaven but was narrated by the Angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. Logically I accept that Gabriel used Arabian as language. The Qur'an then was dictated by the prophet Muhammad to various persons present who wrote it down on various artifacts. All was compiled in one book after the death of the prophet Muhammad. At sone time later, one Qur'an was chosen to represent the complete and authentic one and all others (not necessarily incorrect copies) were destroyed. All Qur'ans stem from this one as copies. The original One does not exist anymore, exact copies of it does.

I think you are trying to state a history of quranic compilation as briefly as possible. The Quran actually existed even before Muhammad SAW was born but it was revealed later to Muhammad SAW. It was written in Lahw Al Mahfooz (Book of decrees I think) with Allah SWT and it was descended to the first heaven on the night of Al Qadr. From thereon Angel Gabriel would descend with it to Muhammad SAW in bits and pieces. Now written here in the physical sense as we humans know it, I cannot say if it is the same but symbolically I think it would mean it existed in some concrete way.

There was only one Quran ever though its recitation differed among non-muslims later on because of difference in dialects. Written arabic in the time of Muhammad SAW was not punctuated. The ones destroyed were the ones who text was not correctly punctuated. The text content was the same. The copy that was kept intact was the one that had been punctuated so its pronounciation would the same as that of Prophet Muhammad SAW. The original Uthmani Quran stills exist in Uzbegistan. This was the first compiled book form of the Quran.

My questions for you here though would be:

1 - How did Jesus receive the gospel?
2 - Where did the original Armaic gospel go?

I will have more questions Inshallah!

@The Old Man

While the Qur'an is considered Holy and pure by Islam, there also exist other scriptures called Hadiths which explain in more detail various concepts of Islam initially mentioned in the Qur'an.

Please feel free to correct and give more information to above short summary. I will in time want to discuss some in more details.

Quran is the scripture however hadith are not graded as scriptures or let me say they are one degree less than the Quran. How much of the bible is originally gospel and how much of it is explanation. Is there a way to separate the gospel verses from those that explain them from the bible?

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

Thanks for the information.

@USResident

My questions for you here though would be:
1 - How did Jesus receive the gospel?

I know the Qur’an mentions that Jesus gave a gospel. Jesus never gave a gospel in the way the prophet Muhammad did, and never commanded one to be written. The four gospels in the Bible are also not the only ones written. They were though accepted by the early church as correct and taught from. Three consisted of disciples that were constantly in the presence of Jesus (John, Matthew and Mark), while one was compiled by a Christian historian Luke after speaking to various people and reading what was available.

So, to answer your question, I will have to say Jesus did not “receive” a gospel but taught from himself.

2 - Where did the original Armaic gospel go?

There were none as per above. All New Testament books were written in Greek with the possible exception of Matthew who might have written in Hebrew/Aramaic as the people he wrote the gospel for were mainly Hebrew Jews.

How much of the bible is originally gospel and how much of it is explanation.

Difficult to say. The Old Testament (Jewish Bible) is composed of

(a) Historical books including parts that explain ceremonial and other laws.
(b) Poetic and Wisdom books.
(c) Prophetic books.

The New Testament is made up of

(a) Four Gospels detailing Jesus’ life and teachings while on Earth.
(b) A historical book detailing the growth of the church in the first about 50 years after Jesus.
(c) Letters from various Apostles to churches and persons containing teaching.
(d) A prophetic book Revelation.

Is there a way to separate the gospel verses from those that explain them from the bible?

I doubt it. Some Bibles have a red letter edition with the words attributed to God and Jesus in red. The Bible is one interwoven compendium of about 66 books.

From the Old Testament era there exist various books some scholars sometimes use for information but they are not considered of the same status as the books in the Old Testament, e.g. Apogrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Jewish writings such as the Talmud. Most Christians don’t even know they exist and few preachers have read some.

From the New Testament era (till now), there also exist various books/documents some scholars sometimes use for information but they are not considered of any status relative to the books in the New Testament. Many of these manuscripts were written hundreds of years after Jesus and try and indicate that they were written earlier by claiming to be from some apostle or disciple. Few preachers use them although some might know of the more valid one’s.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

I think everyone else can start posting again.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

Thanks for the information.

My pleasure.

@The Old Man

I know the Qur'an mentions that Jesus gave a gospel. Jesus never gave a gospel in the way the prophet Muhammad did, and never commanded one to be written. The four gospels in the Bible are also not the only ones written. They were though accepted by the early church as correct and taught from. Three consisted of disciples that were constantly in the presence of Jesus (John, Matthew and Mark), while one was compiled by a Christian historian Luke after speaking to various people and reading what was available.

So, to answer your question, I will have to say Jesus did not "receive" a gospel but taught from himself.

So can we consider Bible a divine revelation then. What you have stated here is that Mark, John and Matthew composed the gospels as disciples, so why is the common impression today that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they were actually taking dictation?

@The Old Man

There were none as per above. All New Testament books were written in Greek with the possible exception of Matthew who might have written in Hebrew/Aramaic as the people he wrote the gospel for were mainly Hebrew Jews.

Where did this gospel possibly go? And why were they written in Greek? Should the bible not have been written in the language of the people it first addressed? Following from the earlier statement that Matt, John and Mark were disciples of Jesus PBUH, why would they (with the possible exception of Matt as you have stated) write in Greek?

@The Old Man

Difficult to say. The Old Testament (Jewish Bible) is composed of

(a) Historical books including parts that explain ceremonial and other laws. (b) Poetic and Wisdom books. (c) Prophetic books.

The New Testament is made up of

(a) Four Gospels detailing Jesus' life and teachings while on Earth. (b) A historical book detailing the growth of the church in the first about 50 years after Jesus. (c) Letters from various Apostles to churches and persons containing teaching. (d) A prophetic book Revelation.

I doubt it. Some Bibles have a red letter edition with the words attributed to God and Jesus in red. The Bible is one interwoven compendium of about 66 books.

From the Old Testament era there exist various books some scholars sometimes use for information but they are not considered of the same status as the books in the Old Testament, e.g. Apogrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Jewish writings such as the Talmud. Most Christians don't even know they exist and few preachers have read some.

From the New Testament era (till now), there also exist various books/documents some scholars sometimes use for information but they are not considered of any status relative to the books in the New Testament. Many of these manuscripts were written hundreds of years after Jesus and try and indicate that they were written earlier by claiming to be from some apostle or disciple. Few preachers use them although some might know of the more valid one's.

So wouldn't it make sense to at least extract the actual divine message as much as possible then have separation between the actual verses and those that explain it, doing this might change the doctrines of Christianity considerably or may be not. Have you ever heard of the Q verses?

[SlaveofAllaah]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

Not my point. Why not revelation scripture in other languages the same as Qur’an? Where is the scriptures of other cultures? Why only the Qur’an and the Bible mentioned? Surely these other prophets would also compile scriptures?

This is going round in circles, i leave for you to find the answer

This information from the Hadith, I suppose. Why would Uthman destroy the Qur’an’s due to different recitation, as armughal state in posts 4 and 10, if the different recitations were accepted by the prophet Muhammad? Surely Uthman can’t override the prophet Muhammad? If this is true, that the prophet Muhammad accepted the different pronunciations, the logic and reason that armughal gave for destroying the early Qur’ans are null and void and another better reason should be looked for.

Answered by USR

What was this better reason other than that there were felt at the time that discrepancieas could exist…

This history of Islam would be a good idea and this concept is hammered by armugal in all his posts that tiem Islam spread like fire, that which is never happened in the history of mankind.

It

does seem strange to me that it was not confirmed in the Qur’an because such an important issue should have been. Please copy-paste the Hadith describing this meeting between the prophet and Gabriel.

Short but sweet article for all your info and the first line is the hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html
The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur’an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death

Then you have no proof that there might not have been other revelations if the prophet Muhammad lived longer as he continued to give revelations after this. This mean for an outsider like me that the Qur’an might not be complete and hence not the last word.

Have you heard the Last sermon of the Prophet before he died well Prophet says and in front of 114,000 companions now thats a huge no. declares that Have I reached the message to you and all the companions said yes and looked upto Allaah to bear witness.
Well more for it in the Quran, Allaah is let every word out revealed to you. Well i dont think so you want more confirmation.You mean whether this piece of INfo is covered inthe Quran well i told you its 5:3 not i feel argument would be mundane after this. Well

1. Quran is not biography of Prophet 2) Quran talks about Prophecies but never mentions date as its one of the Unseen which is only Attributed to God.

(Could you give me the Qur’an reference for changing the prayer direction - not for this discussion)

So, ‘abrogation’ means that some rule/meaning in the Qur’an was changed in the same Qur’an?

002.144YUSUFALI: We see the turning of thy face (for guidance to the heavens: now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. The people of the Book know well that that is the truth from their Lord. Nor is Allah unmindful of what they do.

The order was confirmed by the prophet Muhammad?

Repeated question and confirmed on top.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@SlaveofAllaah

Islam spread like fire, that which is never happened in the history of mankind.

It is good being positive towards one’s religion. One should though also be able to be objective and make statements with a clear mind. A statement such as above shows a lack of knowledge of the rapid spread of Christianity and Communism (to name but a few) which equaled, and maybe bettered, the spread of Islam. Making such a dubious statement does not make for good dialogue/debate.

The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur’an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death

I did not read about it in the Qur’an. Could you please give a reference?

Interesting (proving that I sometimes follow links!) is the part of your quote you left out, namely: Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.. Again proving what I previously questioned (post 20) w.r.t. the destroying of the early Qur’an. If the prophet Muhammad was OK with the different recitations and dialects, how come Uthman disregarded it as per armughal’s post 4 and 10?

002.144YUSUFALI: We see the turning of thy face (for guidance to the heavens: now Shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque: Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. The people of the Book know well that that is the truth from their Lord. Nor is Allah unmindful of what they do.

I was referring to the change from Jerusalem to Mekkah…

[SlaveofAllaah]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

[QUOTE]

It is good being positive towards one's religion. One should though also be able to be objective and make statements with a clear mind. A statement such as above shows a lack of knowledge of the rapid spread of Christianity and Communism (to name but a few) which equaled, and maybe bettered, the spread of Islam. Making such a dubious statement does not make for good dialogue/debate.

[/QUOTE]

I am extremely sorry, Allaah in the Quran is asked us to be patient and I am infact patient for your above comments your entitled to, since this is not the thread to pass this comments. Well, I am extremely sorry if you have to prove me wront I need authentic stuff if you can prove me wrong please PM me.
I regard your comments, and passing such statements which I wouldnt do to you though you have made some comments which are wrong, well its ok.

[QUOTE]

I did not read about it in the Qur'an. Could you please give a reference?

[/QUOTE]

Again you seem to going round in circles, probably your upto looking into some anti islam websites, unless you read it with open mind the objective of this dialogue is lost, here i m here for knowledgeable debate. I have written over and over again it is the hadith which is proven this and I have written great deal in this thread about this topic well its left to you. If i am not convincing you its my bad.

[QUOTE]

Interesting (proving that I sometimes follow links!) is the part of your quote you left out, namely: Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.. Again proving what I previously questioned (post 20) w.r.t. the destroying of the early Qur'an. If the prophet Muhammad was OK with the different recitations and dialects, how come Uthman disregarded it as per armughal's post 4 and 10?

[/QUOTE]

If armughal is done it its his mistake, please read my posts above probably you did not understand what armughal stated read my rebuttal in this thread i have commented and going round in circles and hence there is no point arguing. Well i can pullthe same topics with Bible well i dont wont to, and hence in the future i am not answering to such topics at all.

[QUOTE]

I was referring to the change from Jerusalem to Mekkah....

[/QUOTE]

I never mentioned in my previous posts, its Jerusalem to Makkah that means you knew about it well you can ask any muslim brother in this complete forum what is that verse referring to.Well, its left upto you to believe me.

Thanks for your response.

[armughal]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

I was referring to the change from Jerusalem to Mekkah…

when the Prophet (saw) was in Makkah, he was ordered to take Jersusalem as the Qibla (the place towards which one faces when offering prayer), which was the Qibla of earlier prophets as well…
since the people of Makkah held the Kaaba in the highest esteem, being the House of Allah, hence oly true believers wud follow the Prophet (saw), in facing Jerusalem…

when the Prophet (saw) moved to Madinah, many jews were present there as well, and some of them joined muslims just, without being muslims, just to know the inside news of whats going on among them…
to show these hypocrites, it was ordered to change the Qibla from Jerusalem to Makkah (Kaaba), to expose these hypocrites, and well and truly these jews did not follow the Prophet (saw) on this change…

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@USResident

So can we consider Bible a divine revelation then.

Since Christians consider Jesus as God humanised, it can be considered as divine revelation “directly from God Himself” rather through intermediatories. For those NOT considering Jesus in the same way as Christians, Jesus indicated that he ONLY say what God the Father intend to say, making it “divine revelation”.

What you have stated here is that Mark, John and Matthew composed the gospels as disciples, so why is the common impression today that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they were actually taking dictation?

Jesus never told them to sit down and start writing. He taught and they wrote it later. Christians believe that they did their writing inspired by the Holy Spirit, because they were filled by the Holy Spirit and it jell with each other and what we know of God from the Old Testament.

Where did this gospel possibly go?

There was never a gospel as indicated by the prophet Muhammad. Jesus NEVER gave such a gospel or book.

And why were they written in Greek? Should the bible not have been written in the language of the people it first addressed? Following from the earlier statement that Matt, John and Mark were disciples of Jesus PBUH, why would they (with the possible exception of Matt as you have stated) write in Greek?

Greek was the language of the learned man, Latin of government, and then each nation had his own mother tongues. Most people in those days knew Greek and Latin. It’s like English today. Almost all Romans knew Greek.

With the diaspora (exile of the Jews) many of them forgot their mother tongue Hebrew. It was so bad that in Egypt some 70 Jewish Rabbi’s got together and translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek for the Jews to be able to use it (the Septuagint). While SOME Jews in Jesus’ time understood Hebrew, almost all understood Greek. The New Testament actually make frequent mention of Hewbrew and Greek communities of Jews.

If you wish for the Qur’an to be read all over the world, you have to make it available in the most popular languages of the world, understand?

So wouldn’t it make sense to at least extract the actual divine message as much as possible then have separation between the actual verses and those that explain it, doing this might change the doctrines of Christianity considerably or may be not.

No it would not make sense. Jesus’ teachings are set in a specific environment and the environment influenced what was taught.

For example, as Jesus and his disciples left the tempel and they started to talk about the glory of the temple, Jesus started to discuss the end-of-times. When John the Baptist send a deputation to Jesus, Jesus explained about John’s importance and why he was send.

In fact, I believe that circumstances also prompted the prophet Muhammad to respond in a certain way to teach/explain something that happened in his day and age…

Have you ever heard of the Q verses?

Yes

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@armughal

to show these hypocrites, it was ordered to change the Qibla from Jerusalem to Makkah (Kaaba), to expose these hypocrites, and well and truly these jews did not follow the Prophet (saw) on this change…

Thanks, armughal. Not for this discussion but could you tell me if this change was referred to in the Qur’an?

[armughal]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

Thanks, armughal. Not for this discussion but could you tell me if this change was referred to in the Qur’an?

the Quranic verse tells the Prophet (saw) to change his Qibla to Makkah…
it does not explicitly mention Jerusalem as being the earlier Qibla, but the fact is well known…

the verses related to this change are as follows…

Quran 2:143-145
*The foolish of the people will say: **What hath turned them from the qiblah which they formerly observed? Say: Unto Allah belong the East and the West. He guideth whom He will unto a straight path. **

Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels.( i.e. turn back to his old religion) In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah’s purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.

We have seen the turning of thy face to heaven (for guidance, O Muhammad). And now verily We shall make thee turn (in prayer) toward a qiblah which is dear to thee. So turn thy face toward the Masjid-ul-Haraam (i.e. Kaaba in Makkah), and ye (O Muslims), wheresoever ye may be, turn your faces (when ye pray) toward it. Lo! Those who have received the Scripture know that (this revelation) is the Truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

And even if thou broughtest unto those who have received the Scripture all kinds of portents, they would not follow thy qiblah, nor canst thou be a follower of their qiblah; nor are some of them followers of the qiblah of others. And if thou shouldst follow their desires after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, then surely wert thou of the evil-doers. *

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

Since Christians consider Jesus as God humanised, it can be considered as divine revelation "directly from God Himself" rather through intermediatories. For those NOT considering Jesus in the same way as Christians, Jesus indicated that he ONLY say what God the Father intend to say, making it "divine revelation".

Within that context I can agree with you. Now to prove or disprove the validity of it is actually a debate so we will not touch on that.

@The Old Man

Jesus never told them to sit down and start writing. He taught and they wrote it later. Christians believe that they did their writing inspired by the Holy Spirit, because they were filled by the Holy Spirit and it jell with each other and what we know of God from the Old Testament.

Would it be possible to inspire them differently meaning we can see differences among the gospels written by them. Did they write their gospels during the time of Jesus PBUH? If not, then it should not be considered authenticated by its revealing authority.

@The Old Man

There was never a gospel as indicated by the prophet Muhammad. Jesus NEVER gave such a gospel or book.

The Quran clearly states that Jesus PBUH was given the Ingil (Gospel as we call it).

@The Old Man

Greek was the language of the learned man, Latin of government, and then each nation had his own mother tongues. Most people in those days knew Greek and Latin. It's like English today. Almost all Romans knew Greek.

With the diaspora (exile of the Jews) many of them forgot their mother tongue Hebrew. It was so bad that in Egypt some 70 Jewish Rabbi's got together and translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek for the Jews to be able to use it (the Septuagint). While SOME Jews in Jesus' time understood Hebrew, almost all understood Greek. The New Testament actually make frequent mention of Hewbrew and Greek communities of Jews.

If you wish for the Qur'an to be read all over the world, you have to make it available in the most popular languages of the world, understand?

However it is very possible to loose some meaning from the original language during translation. Moreover, if Jesus PBUH was God as in Christian belief, then I think it would have been possible for him to reveal it in Greek if he had so wished. One question would be that did Jesus PBUH speak Greek?

I agree that it would need to be presented in translated languages but that does not justify the fact the its language of origin should be changed or lost. And it is a well known fact among muslims, that we sometimes cannot get a word for word translation of Quranic Arabic into English, so those who read only the translation in English sometimes are taken aback at certain verses unless they read their tafsir. For instance, a famous one quoted by many occidentalists is the verse about beating the wife. Now in English there really was no closer literal word for translation however when you read th tafsir of this verse it becomes clear beating is not the same beating as one would understand by reading the translation of this verse in isolation.

@The Old Man

No it would not make sense. Jesus' teachings are set in a specific environment and the environment influenced what was taught.

For example, as Jesus and his disciples left the tempel and they started to talk about the glory of the temple, Jesus started to discuss the end-of-times. When John the Baptist send a deputation to Jesus, Jesus explained about John's importance and why he was send.

In fact, I believe that circumstances also prompted the prophet Muhammad to respond in a certain way to teach/explain something that happened in his day and age....

I see no harm in such verses being there if they were part of his divine message, they certainly would carry some principle to uphold and understand beneath the context of the scenario, there are numerous such verses in the Quran. The verses may be symbolic of there present day setting however the underlying principle is what is most important and for the reader to understand. For instance, you can find ahadith or verses where it would state when a person dies the soul ascends to heaven. Now for people 1400 hundred years ago, it would have made sense for this even in a literal way because it was not known that the earth is spherical however in a literal context today someones up is really the other persons down on the other pole of earth. So the underlying principle would be that he soul is taken towards heaven. Ascension meaning it moves away from the dead body.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

Thanks, armughal.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@USResident

Would it be possible to inspire them differently meaning we can see differences among the gospels written by them. Did they write their gospels during the time of Jesus PBUH?

The gospels were all written after Jesus ascended. Same as the Qur’an was compiled AFTER the prophet’s death…

If not, then it should not be considered authenticated by its revealing authority.

Why not?

The Quran clearly states that Jesus PBUH was given the Ingil (Gospel as we call it).

I know. One of the reasons why Christians don’t take the Qur’an to be revealed scripture. Near the end of this dialogue I would like to list a number of reasons why Christianity can’t accept the Qur’an as revealed scripture in stead of a summary. I will then give you and others the opportunity to maybe explain some. You can then list some problems from the Isalamic side against the Bible. this can then form the summary of this topic.

However it is very possible to loose some meaning from the original language during translation.

No translation. The language was the initial language the gospel was written in, namely Greek.

This is a problem I have with the issue of the Qur’an only being fully understandable when read in Arabic. As previously mentioned, I do NOT believe that it is impossible to give the correct meaning in another language during translation if the translator do a good job. In Christianity we have various translations and often people who are not accustomed with the original languages use these to get a bigger picture of what is meant in a certain chapter/verse. It is as if you have a number of language scholars sit next to you explaining the verse/chapter.

What MIGHT happen, is not that meaning get’s lost, but rather a different meaning substituted due to incorrect interpretation of a verse - something that can happen even when reading in the original language. The moment the written word enters your mind, YOU become the translator (even of your own mother tongue), and mistakes can happen as can be proved how many times people are misunderstood.

One question would be that did Jesus PBUH speak Greek?

Yes, and most probably Latin as well. But even if Jesus only spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, it still doesn’t mean that the gospel writers couldn’t write it correct down in Greek or any other language.

we sometimes cannot get a word for word translation of Quranic Arabic into English, so those who read only the translation in English sometimes are taken aback at certain verses unless they read their tafsir.

It is not about the words, it’s the meaning. Surely the meaning can be 100% translated? In your example, a good translator would use a sentence to illustrate the meaning, and then there would not be any difficulty. In Afrikaans we have a word that originated in the Defence Force "vasbyt. Literally translated it mean “to bite firmly” but it is not what is meant when the word is used. “Vasbyt” should be translated as “to keep going when it get’s tough or to not quit”. The meaning CAN therefor be translated.

In compiling Bible translations the better translations use even hundred’s of translators from various denominations to give the meaning. This prevents one group from twisting the message to their theological views. I see NO reason why the same can’t be done for the Qur’an. There might always be the scholars of the original language who will debate the correct meaning of a word, but that is therotical and should not be able to influence the meaning and essence of a section of scripture.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

The gospels were all written after Jesus ascended. Same as the Qur'an was compiled AFTER the prophet's death....

Nop, I would disagree here. The Quran was orally memorized before his demise and it had been written down though not in book form but it existed in its entirety. The number of orators of Quran in the Prophet SAW time far exceeds the number of disciples who had written down the gospel let alone if any had ever committed it to memory. There is much difference between compiled and written.

@The Old Man

Why not?

If it was not written till Jesus PBUH ascended then how could he have verified that what was written was what he had spoke. The differences among the gospels indicate that each one may have either understood or heard differently unless you attribute the differences to the Holy Spirit.

@The Old Man

I know. One of the reasons why Christians don't take the Qur'an to be revealed scripture. Near the end of this dialogue I would like to list a number of reasons why Christianity can't accept the Qur'an as revealed scripture in stead of a summary. I will then give you and others the opportunity to maybe explain some. You can then list some problems from the Isalamic side against the Bible. this can then form the summary of this topic.

Why would this matter if the Quran stated Jesus PBUH was revealed the Gospel or conveyed a Gospel of his teachings whereas that is what exists in Christianity today i.e. Gospel of Mark, Gospel of John, Gospel of Luke etc. When it is said that Jesus PBUH preached the gospel I don't think it is implied that he carried around one in his hand but they message he delivered whether as Prophet or God to the Jews was his gospel similar to the fact that the message delivered by Muhammad SAW as a Prophet was the Quran.

We can definitely summarize later on reasons for not accepting each others scripture, that would be in line with the purpose of this thread.

@The Old Man

No translation. The language was the initial language the gospel was written in, namely Greek.

Was it written or memorized as Jesus PBUH spoke? From your explanations it does not seem to be the case. What methods were used to preserve what Jesus PBUH preached that eventually shaped the Gospel?

@The Old Man

This is a problem I have with the issue of the Qur'an only being fully understandable when read in Arabic. As previously mentioned, I do NOT believe that it is impossible to give the correct meaning in another language during translation if the translator do a good job. In Christianity we have various translations and often people who are not accustomed with the original languages use these to get a bigger picture of what is meant in a certain chapter/verse. It is as if you have a number of language scholars sit next to you explaining the verse/chapter.

What MIGHT happen, is not that meaning get's lost, but rather a different meaning substituted due to incorrect interpretation of a verse - something that can happen even when reading in the original language. The moment the written word enters your mind, YOU become the translator (even of your own mother tongue), and mistakes can happen as can be proved how many times people are misunderstood.

No no. I think you misunderstood what I said. The Quran is not fully understandible even if read in Arabic without its tafsir and support of ahadith. However there are certain verses which after being translated word for word need an accompanying explanation to further elaborate it. The reason, it is translated word for word is to prevent extrapolations in the translation but its meanings are perfectly understandible reading the tafsir. As you acknowledged earlier it is diffcult to separate the original divine verses from explanations now, this is because of scholarly extrapolations being included in the text of the Bible. So even though it may seem useful it blurred the demarcation between the original text of the bible and its exegesis now. The exegesis could always have been kept separate if so willed.

@The Old Man

Yes, and most probably Latin as well. But even if Jesus only spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, it still doesn't mean that the gospel writers couldn't write it correct down in Greek or any other language.

Unless they memorized the gospel. Is their any evidence of that they did? Say if 100 people memorized something word for word and later a scribe was tasked to pen it down, it would fail verification with those 100 orators if there were mistakes. I think what I am missing here is any historical aspect of what measures occured to preserve the gospel as Jesus PBUH preached it.

@The Old Man

It is not about the words, it's the meaning. Surely the meaning can be 100% translated? In your example, a good translator would use a sentence to illustrate the meaning, and then there would not be any difficulty. In Afrikaans we have a word that originated in the Defence Force "vasbyt. Literally translated it mean "to bite firmly" but it is not what is meant when the word is used. "Vasbyt" should be translated as "to keep going when it get's tough or to not quit". The meaning CAN therefor be translated.

This highlights a very good point. Languages should be understood in the idiom or time when they were spoken. I just wanted to diverge here for a moment to say that the Children of God or Son of God translated terminology should be understood with its connotation in its originally spoken Greek then or Armaic from the time of Jesus PBUH. It did not mean literal son of God at the time when it was spoken however today it is being taken in the literal sense.

@The Old Man

In compiling Bible translations the better translations use even hundred's of translators from various denominations to give the meaning. This prevents one group from twisting the message to their theological views. I see NO reason why the same can't be done for the Qur'an. There might always be the scholars of the original language who will debate the correct meaning of a word, but that is therotical and should not be able to influence the meaning and essence of a section of scripture.

I have stated the reason in this post earlier for this. And Quranic translations are authenticated by scholars and tafsirs were down the leading scholars or group of scholars in their respective times.

[The_Old_Man]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@USResident

If it was not written till Jesus PBUH ascended then how could he have verified that what was written was what he had spoke.

Which brings us to the Holy Spirit. Jesus never intended that some books be written. Jesus also didn’t say his followers should NOT write books. Before his death, he told his disciples he would request/send the Holy Spirit to teach his disciples and to hold them to his teachings. This was done about 40 days after his ascencion. Each disciple of Jesus has the Holy Spirit with his/her the whole time, explaining and leading him/her.

The differences among the gospels indicate that each one may have either understood or heard differently unless you attribute the differences to the Holy Spirit.

No differences w.r.t. teaching. Differences relative to how they protray certain events. Like some people witnessing a marriage and in the video they made, showing different aspects. I again state NO DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING.

When it is said that Jesus PBUH preached the gospel I don’t think it is implied that he carried around one in his hand

The questions w.r.t. Jesus’ gospel by yourself and others indicate that Islam view this reference in the Qur’an to mean that Jesus ‘gave’ a gospel or let a gospel be drawn up, e.g. 2 - Where did the original Armaic gospel go?

Was it written or memorized as Jesus PBUH spoke? From your explanations it does not seem to be the case. What methods were used to preserve what Jesus PBUH preached that eventually shaped the Gospel?

Not written nor memorised. Written down years after Jesus’ Ascencion. The Holy Spirit send by Jesus helped the writers with Jesus’ teachings.

…but its meanings are perfectly understandible reading the tafsir.

Who wrote this “tafsir”?

As you acknowledged earlier it is diffcult to separate the original divine verses from explanations now, this is because of scholarly extrapolations being included in the text of the Bible.

Could you please give an example of these extrapolations?

Unless they memorized the gospel. Is their any evidence of that they did? Say if 100 people memorized something word for word and later a scribe was tasked to pen it down, it would fail verification with those 100 orators if there were mistakes.

Only if the gospel needed to be word perfect which it doesn’t. It is all about meaning not words. The meaning can be portrayed in umpteen languages (even sign language) with NO difficulty in understanding the message - and that is what it all is about.

I think what I am missing here is any historical aspect of what measures occured to preserve the gospel as Jesus PBUH preached it.

All disciples and hundreds of other people that followed Jesus around while he taught was witnesses. None formed and gave a gospel or teaching different from what we have from the first 100BC proving that all these people agreed. If there was a difference in interpretation, it was solved by a meeting between ALL roleplayers e.g. Acts.15.

I just wanted to diverge here for a moment to say that the Children of God or Son of God translated terminology should be understood with its connotation in its originally spoken Greek then or Armaic from the time of Jesus PBUH. It did not mean literal son of God at the time when it was spoken however today it is being taken in the literal sense.

Can be proven but let’s leave for the discussion on Jesus.

[USResident]

Re: Interfaith Dialogue (Scriptures) - Islam and Christianity

@The Old Man

Which brings us to the Holy Spirit. Jesus never intended that some books be written. Jesus also didn’t say his followers should NOT write books. Before his death, he told his disciples he would request/send the Holy Spirit to teach his disciples and to hold them to his teachings. This was done about 40 days after his ascencion. Each disciple of Jesus has the Holy Spirit with his/her the whole time, explaining and leading him/her.

How does the Holy Spirit explain things to you?

@The Old Man

No differences w.r.t. teaching. Differences relative to how they protray certain events. Like some people witnessing a marriage and in the video they made, showing different aspects. I again state NO DIFFERENCES IN TEACHING.

I can agree that the general gist of the teachings may be same but I can understand historical inaccuracy. This would lead me to believe that the Holy Spirit could be misunderstood.

@The Old Man

The questions w.r.t. Jesus’ gospel by yourself and others indicate that Islam view this reference in the Qur’an to mean that Jesus ‘gave’ a gospel or let a gospel be drawn up, e.g. 2 - Where did the original Armaic gospel go?

Let me find the Quranic verse for you. It does not say that Jesus PBUH gave the Ingil but Jesus PBUH was given the Ingil, it does not say how Jesus PBUH conveyed it to his disciples.

@The Old Man

Not written nor memorised. Written down years after Jesus’ Ascencion. The Holy Spirit send by Jesus helped the writers with Jesus’ teachings.

If the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus PBUH, that implies that Jesus PBUH was able to control it or it was something of subservient nature, would I be correct is stating that?

@The Old Man

Who wrote this “tafsir”?

There are many reknowned scholars of Tafsir. I usually read Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

@The Old Man

Could you please give an example of these extrapolations?

Luke 3:23 (New American version, available from www.biblegateway.com)
And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Luke 3:23 (New Living translation, available from www.biblegateway.com)
Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

Now this is a point that was once pointed out by Ahmed Deedat as well (I am sure you are aware of him being in South Africa). He had pointed out that the paranthesis are removed from all other translations except English. This leads the reader to believe that in one case it is part of the original divinely revealed verse whereas in the case with paranthesis you can clearly understand it is meant to make the verse clearer to the reader by a helping comment from the translator. Now what I have pasted here is a difference in even English versions let alone other translated languages.

@The Old Man

Only if the gospel needed to be word perfect which it doesn’t. It is all about meaning not words. The meaning can be portrayed in umpteen languages (even sign language) with NO difficulty in understanding the message - and that is what it all is about.

Now this is a major difference between us and Christians. For us if it is revealed from God it must be word perfect and unimitable by humans. The words really draw the line between human speech and divine speech.

@The Old Man

All disciples and hundreds of other people that followed Jesus around while he taught was witnesses. None formed and gave a gospel or teaching different from what we have from the first 100BC proving that all these people agreed. If there was a difference in interpretation, it was solved by a meeting between ALL roleplayers e.g. Acts.15.

Did the disciples write a gospel in their lifetimes i.e. Mark, John and Matt?