Some Christian apologists when trying to describe the Gospels to the Muslims, claim that the Gospels are much like the Hadiths, in that the Gospels were written-collected by men, and are based on the sayings-teachings of Jesus just as the Hadiths are with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them both).
Now indeed there are some similarities between the two, but the similarities all come to an end after what we have already posted above, because there are also many differences between the two, and these differences are very important.
The main difference between the Hadiths and the Gospels is that in regards to the Hadiths, we know who actually collected the Hadiths, and we know who passed them on, and we know who actually made the original statement that was passed on. So for example person A said something, then person B heard it and he decided to pass it on and tell other persons C-D-E, and then they passed it on to others and so forth. Basically throughout the chain of transmission of the hadith, we know who is who, we know who is passing the story, and we know from where the original story came from, there is a complete line of transmission.
This is very crucial, because it means the reports are not anonymous, the reports are coming from people we know, names and persons we can identity, we know where they lived, when they were born, when they died and so forth. Again this is very important because if you know the person, you also know if they’re reliable or unreliable, for example someone who is reporting the Hadith, a person in the chain, could have been known as a liar, as someone unreliable, someone who would make things up, and therefore we know if he is passing or narrating a Hadith that we can question the authenticity. Vice versa the person narrating the Hadith can also be known as a truthful person, someone reliable etc, and therefore we know the Hadith he passing is reliant, or it’s highly likely that it is reliant.
In the case of the Gospels, we have none of this, we literally don’t know who was passing the stories, they’re all anonymous. Even the supposed collectors Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! The Gospel accounts are all anonymous accounts written-collected by persons-authors we don’t actually know, and they are narrating stories-incidents from people we don’t know either, the entire chain of transmission in the Gospels is unknown and anonymous.
Basically in the Gospel account we have the source Jesus, and then we have person A-B-C-D-E passing on the stories-teachings of Jesus, but we have no idea who these sources A-B-C-D-E are, whether they’re reliable people and so forth, we literally know nothing about them. The only person who we can say with some confidence who we know about was Paul, and yet he barely wrote anything about the life-sayings-teachings of Jesus, and oddly enough in his own writings we can see that he was at odds with the actual disciples of Jesus.
So when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, and we read all these stories and sayings of Jesus (pbuh), we are reading accounts that have been passed by people we don’t know, and they were collected in a book called Mark by an author we don’t know either, though there is much speculation about who the exact author is. On the other hand when it comes to the Hadiths, when we read a story about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), we know exactly who passed on the story and who narrated it, we have a complete line of transmission of the people who heard the saying, and who passed the saying, and who it got passed to, and we know whether these people are sound people or not.
All of this is obviously crucial, let us give an example, let’s say you heard a news story, and it’s a very big news story but there is no source, you’re not likely going to believe it are you? Especially in this day and age when there are all kind of sources-websites on the internet that sometimes report some very crazy stories, which you then find out are false, but most times you yourself know to doubt and not believe certain news stories coming from certain organizations-websites because you know they’re not reliable. And you’re also aware of organizations-websites-persons that are reliable, and so you can trust what they’re saying because you know who they are etc. So it’s very important to know your source, if you don’t know your source then as you can see you have some big issues.
Now take the same simple logic and apply it to the Gospels and Hadiths (for some strange reason people often don’t like to use this simple logic, acting like we’re dealing with some other realm), it’s important to know our sources, who we’re dealing with, who’s passing on the story, whether the person passing is it is a reliable person, or an unreliable person.
In conclusion, the Hadiths are a far more reliable and trustworthy collection of sayings-teachings than the Gospels, to put simple, in news terms, nobody would ever accept the Gospel as a source of information because it has no sources, all of its sources comes from anonymous sources, basically people we don’t know, and that my friends is not a proper source of information you can get anything from, let alone the actual teachings of God.
Categories: Christianity, Featured, Islam
The Muslim Debate Initiative 
Excellent post!
Reblogged this on thesaudinomad.
There is no appropriate comparison between the Muslim’s authentic hadees and the Christian Gospels when it comes to their authenticity. Let no Muslim be fooled by this.The only similarity that one can point out between the two is that they both speak about the lives of a certain individual.I would say that the major difference between the two is the reliability of their preservation.Muslims don’t believe that those who transmitted or collected the hadees were inspired by God like how Christians believe for their Gospel authors.And hence there can be errors and mistakes in Hadees and we don’t rule out that. And also there are ways to solve this problem and this is in no way a threat to the reliability that we have in authentic hadees as a whole ( isnad and matn). But for the Christian Gospels we should expect to not find any errors since those who transmitted them are supposed to be directly inspired by God.But sadly we have numerous errors in Gospels and in Bible as a whole.
So that’s all folks in a nutshell 😉
Hello Alif Lam Mim and Blessings to you.
Im afraid you’re understanding of what “inspired” scripture means is not correct. Basically it means “God breathed”. (2 Timothy 3.16)
We all know the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written by human beings -men. Imperfect men who had the breath of God upon them. Men who were imperfect vessels but yet were inspired. Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures. The Scriptures are always right only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God’s vision, God’s purposes, and God’s good news to humanity. The Bible’s message is directly inspired by God, and though he used human vessels to transport this message it remains accurate and trustworthy.
In this regard the Gospels / New Testament and hadith are similar. However I personally do not believe the hadith reveal Gods purpose.
In regards to the Quran however a major problem exists for Muslims. The Quran is supposed to be a direct revelation and direct recitation from God. However the Quran is full of inconsistencies, contradictions and problems. This is difficult for Muslims to explain.
First of all Qur’an has no inconsistencies neither contradictions nor any errors. I have gone through almost all the websites of Christians and Atheists all that i have seen is their lack of Understanding Qur’an and its structure. Christian missionaries take the entire Qur’an in literal sense when the Qur’an itself is in metaphor,literal,parables, and figure of Speech. So,that’s a separate issue,I will definitely not open a debate here especially on this post,beacuse i love to stay on topic. Islam Apologetics have dealt with that so called errors and contradictions.
Now, coming to Gospels. You told imperfect Men right. So, why would a Perfect GOD chose imperfect men to deliver his message and not choosing Wise and Truthful persons instead. Secondly, No two manuscripts of Bible match with each other.And yet you call it trustworthy. I don’t know how you reached that conclusion.Even top scholars of bible has recognized contradictions and errors. Like Bart Ehrman,Kenneth Cragg,Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf,Dr. Frederic Kenyon,and others. And also in KJ bible in the preface page it’s written “AND YET IT HAS GRAVE DEFECTS”. Grave Defects in God’s book??? Aaah-haaa..
I disagree Alkif. The Quran is full of historical inaccuracies, scientific absurdities, internal contradictions and obvious borrowings from other religions. It has massive problems.
If the Quran is so complicated that it can only be understood through metaphor, parables, and figures of Speech, how then can it be the Word of God? Why should the Word of God be so difficult to understand.
Besides the Quran itself says it is clear –
With it came down the truthful spirit, to your heart that you may admonish, in the perspicuous (plain to understand, precise, clear,) Arabic tongue.
26: 193-195).
“This is) a Book, the Ayat whereof are perfect (in every sphere of knowledge), and then explained in detail from One (Allah), Who is All-Wise Well-Acquainted (with all things).”
11.1
“These are the verses of the Book that is clear.”
12.1 and 27.1.
“A Book whereof the Ayat are explained in detail”
41.3
“It is He Who sends down manifest Ayat to His servant that He may bring you out from darkness into light.”
57.9.
Alif, you say this is topic of the Quran is a separate issue and you want to stay on topic. Actually this discussion of the Quran is relevant to the topic due to the hadith, New testament and the Quran all being foundational documents of the religions being compared in this post.
You ask why would a Perfect GOD chose imperfect men to deliver his message and not choosing Wise and Truthful persons instead. This argument is not logical as Mohammad was also an imperfect man.
Rather than the term “manuscripts” the correct term to use is translation. There are more than 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the NT and any variances between them are minor. In regards to different translations these are merely different ways of saying the same thing. However most Christian leaders have been trained in the Greek and Hebrew languages and read the Bible in these original languages.
Different translations are actually a strength of the Bible not a weakness. The more translations that clarify the Word of God, the better. The problem with the Quran is it is only to be understood in one language -Classical Arabic. How many Muslims understand Classical Arabic? The majority do not. This is clumsy and makes the understanding of the Quran beyond most Muslims. Because of this how can the Quran be the Word of God?
In regards to Bart Ehrman, Kenneth Cragg,Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf,Dr. Frederic Kenyon. Ehrman makes the mistake of choosing a very rigid form of fundamentalism which seeks mathematical certainty in matters of NT text. This puts him at odds with most reputable Bible scholars.
I am aware of nowhere that Kenneth Cragg Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf,Dr. Frederic Kenyon refute the Bible as the Word of God. They all support the Bible as The Word of God. Yes they may admit, as Christian scholars have admitted for centuries, that there are so called contradictions in the Bible but they all agree these are easily explained through the languages used and the context. Christians like Kenneth Cragg etc have no problem in doing this with the knowledge the written Bible is the “inspired Word” rather than the literal word.
Muslims cannot explain away the many problems in the Quran the same way due to their belief the Quran is the direct and literal word of God.
You say in KJ bible in the preface page it’s written “and yet it has grave defects”.
You are actually wrong. It is not the preface to the KJ Bible but rather the prefix to the Revised Standard Edition and I suggest you read the context around this statement. The “grave defects” they mention are with respect to the English language of the 16th Century not any Christian doctrine. If you read on into the prefix of the Revised Standard Edition you will read the publishers go on to affirm the Bible as “The Word of God”.
Alif have you heard about one of the oldest Qurans discovered in Sanaa Yemen in the 1970s. the Sanaa Quran proves that the modern Quran does not conform to the original written and oral traditions. The Sanaa Quaran proves the Quaran was changed and influenced by man.
As regards to your allegation of errors in Qur’an,I very well know about the so-called errors and contradictions in Qur’an,because I have read it in christian missionaries website like answeringislam,carm,wikislam,and so on and so forth. One thing I understood from that website that the missionaries not only take Qur’an out of context, but they also twist and turn the verses too.and they give their own interpretation of Qur’an and not the traditional Islamic one. And, that so called errors has been sufficiently dealt by Islamic Scholars and Apologetics.
Qur’an is absolutely lucid and clear and it is not difficult. You have misconstrued what I said. Each and every Muslim understand The commandments of Qur’an. Qur’an is very clear on Salvation,How to live a life, And also on human affairs.There is no doubt about that. Prables, metaphors and figure of Speech in Qur’an is easily understandable. It is not like your Bible. I have heard many Christian Missionaries saying that Jesus spoke in Parables that’s why his disciples couldn’t get him what he wanted to say. But, Qur’an and Hadees are easily understandable.
You said how many Muslims understand classical Arabic. Well, I ask you how many christians understand aramaic- the language jesus spoke, or the Ancient Greek and latin vulgate. I also ask you how many christians has memorized the entire bible in greek and latin or hebrew?? We have Many hafiz who memorized the entire Qur’an in Arabic . In my locality we have 65 hafiz.And in the world there are many. I am a Non-Arab but I do understand Arabic and also the Arabic Qur’an. I also insist people to give me reference in Arabic when the quote any verse from Qur’an or narration from any hadees.
Now regarding Sana Manuscripts. This is absolutely baseless allegation that the Qur’an is changed. What you mean by Change? The change means “change in meaning”. And all the manuscripts of Qur’an perfectly match with the Qur’an we have today with us. Puin wrote a lengthy letter in Arabic to al-Qadi al-Akwa’ of Yemen. The letter then appeared in the Daily ath-Thawra newspaper, Here is a part of Puin’s original letter:
“The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur’anic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur’an itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur’an published in Cairo in which is written:
Ibrhim next to Ibrhm
Quran next to Qrn
Simahum next to Simhum
In the oldest Yemeni Qur’anic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common.”
So it’s all about pronunciatian and spelling. Take for example the word ‘understanding’ in English. If read the following way: “undrstndng” anyone could comprehend the meaning, especially if the incorrectly spelt word was placed in a sentence. But the meaning remains the same. So Qur’an is not changed.
As regards to your allegation of errors in the Bible I well know about the so-called errors and contradictions because I have read Muslim websites. One thing I understood from these websitse is that Muslims not only take the Bible out of context, but they also twist and turn the verses and they give their own interpretation of the Bible and not the traditional Christian one. And, these so called errors have been sufficiently dealt by Christian scholars.
If the Qur’is clear Word of God it would not use metaphors, parables, and figures of Speech and you would not need Sheikhs and Mufassiroon to understand it.
You ask if I have read the Bible? Of coarse I have read it. I read it most days. I have read it from cover to cover. I have read the parables may times and find them very interesting. The Bible is much easier then the Quran for people to understand as it can be read in any language and not just Arabic.
Many Christians understand Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. You miss the point. We don’t need to read it in these languages. We are allowed to read the Bible in our own languages, not just one language, like Arabic.
That is the difference between the “literal” word of the Quran and the “inspired” word of the Bible. To be reliant on only one language (like Arabic) proves it not to be the Word of God.
You mention Hafiz. So what? Why bother memorizing the Bible when it can be read? How many Hafiz simply memorise the Quaran like parrots rather than understand it? If it is The Word of God why do you need people to help you give reference?
No Alif, The Sanaa Quran proves the pre Uthman Quran was different from the one you currently have, and yes I am aware of the quote in the Daily ath-Thawra newspaper. The respected Professor M. M. Al-A’zami of The UK Islamic Academy was also aware of this quote in his book- The History of the Qur’anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and the New Testament.
But look at what Professor Al-A’zamis own son (Aqil Azamic) says about this quote. Aqil Azamic says-
…The other thing is that Puin as a missionary minded person has a hidden agenda and by writing such a letter helps cool down the temper in Yemen and other parts of the Muslim world (he did not want to anger the Yemeni authorities and put a curb on possible future collaboration with Yemen or for that matter any Muslim country and Western ‘experts’)…
So there you have it! Prof al-Azamis son, Aqil Azami, gives a reasonable reason for Puin making this ‘denial’- to cool down the temper of the Yemen authorities.
However Alif. Even if Puin is stating no central doctrine of the Quran is affected from his studies that’s not the point. It’s the claim of the Quran being a Perfect Miracle transmission from heaven to earth from the inscribed on Heavenly Tablets.
Surah85: 21:22.
Puin says –
“The Arabic script is very defective – even more so in the early stages of its literature.”
“There are dialectal and phonetical variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
But yet the Sanaa Quran proves the Quran is not to be perfectly preserved. It is not perfect Quran inscribed on Heavenly Tablets.
This is more than just about vowels and pronunciation Alif. Here is a quote from Puin –
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ he says, “But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims – and Orientalists – will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
Puin says the oral hafidh tradition of recitation was not reliable and neither was the mushaf. Here are some more quotes of Puin –
“My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.”
“the Koran contains most of the biblical stories but in a shorter form and is “a summary of the Bible to be read in service”.
What is Puin saying here? He is saying there are variations that don’t make any sense, contradictions, texts older even than Islam, older than Mohammad’s revelations, with Christian influences. This is far more significant than any minor variations you mention.
Citing one example at a time:
You have eleven verses missing in Gospel of Matthew in chapter 18.
You have contradiction in Gospel of John between KJV and NIV.For example just take John 19:39,9:35,21:5,etc.
I can go on and cite many, which non of your past , present biblical scholars clarified it or answered rather. But that will make this comment long. And as you know i like to keep it short and simple 🙂
Now,Those who are Hafiz and Mufassiroon, they do understand Qur’an and its meaning while memorising the entire part. I have never encountered any English speaking Missionaries, who speak and cite the bible verses in Aramaic and then in English.Just as we do First cite Arabic and then explain in mother tongue.
You have again misunderstood me, because you are wired to refute and not to understand.This is a big problem with you.I said if anybody couldn’t understand any particular verse in Qur’an due to their mental ability and education he can refer to those who know. During Prophet’s time, Prophet explained Qur’an, and then the Caliphs.Even in Qur’an we are also told that if we have a dispute we should refer it to ALLAH’s Messenger and to those who know Qur’an. So that is it. And,again i wanna remind you. Qur’an is very easy to understand. But But But. There is a big but here. But if you go to Qur’an in order to refute Muslims, then you will never understand Qur’an. This is the special thing about Qur’an. It will not guide you to Light and truth. Read it objectively, you will have it. And, sadly many Christians don’t do that.
We read in Arabic just because we are told to follow our Prophet. And we are just maintaining that tradition. We have kept it alive.However, those whose mother tongue is not arabic, they can go for translation to understand it.No harm.
You said many christians read bible in greek and latin. Don’t gimme a joke. Those whose mother tongue is greek and latin they only do. Just as we have many arabian muslims. So what’s the big deal??? Tell me how many americans, french, german,spanish,british, russian, canadian, and so on so forth read Bible in it’s manuscript language. Give me the statistics.Although i know it.
You have cited Qur’anic verse 85:21-22 and you never bothered to understand it. Strange huh!! This shows how much sincere you are . And sad to say you are not only uneducated in Islamic theology, even if you are-i don’t know, then you are committing intellectual dishonesty.Now lets understand this verse,it basically says “It is inscribed in the guarded tablet of God, which cannot he corrupted in any way.” Now what is guarded tablets. It is AL LAUH AL MAHFOOZ. Now are those manuscripts that sanaa,uthmani AL LAWH AL MAHFOOZ?? DO Muslims call it AL LAWH AL MAHFOOZ??? Absolutely not. At least go and read the explanation of Ibn Kathir, Ibn al Qayyim, Ibn Manzoor. You are just wasting my time. One suggestion i wanna give you please learn Islam from its original sources. Take help of Islamic Scholars. You know what the first word of Qur’an?? It is IQRA.. which means read, recite, proclaim! So just go and take time and read it please.
Even after Puin, We also have seen Sanaa manuscripts,Uthman’s tablets, and there is no change in meaning of what we have today in our hand.
Verses missing in Gospel of Matthew in chapter 18? There is no secret in this. Most Bibles make it clear that Verse 11 Chapter 18 is uncertain. Christians have never tried to keep this a secret because this is not a problem for them. What you need to know is how Christian textual criticism works. Further more the Bible is still the most reliable of all ancient documents. More reliable than any other Greek or Roman writing.
Any so called contradictions in John 19:39,9:35,21:5 are easily explained. Please go on and cite your other examples. Christian scholars can easily explain problems in the Bible because the Bible is not seen as the direct literal Word of God but is rather the “inspired” Word of God. This is unlike the “literal” and direct recitation or word of the Quran. as a result Muslim scholars cannot as easily explain the contradictions found in the Quran .
I have explained this to you already but you are obviously wired to refute and not to understand. This is a big problem with you. One suggestion would give you is to please learn Christianity from its original sources. Take help of Christian Scholars
You say Hafiz and Mufassiroon can understand and memorize the Quran. What about the common Muslim. Most Muslims cant even read Arabic – the language it is expected to be read in. this is clumsy and proves that if the Quran as “The Word of God” cannot be read in the language it was intended to be read in then it cannot be the “Word of God”. If it cannot be understood without going to scholars then again – it is not accessible to common people and cannot be the “Word of God”.
You have obviously been lacking in your contacts with Christians. Most seminary trained theologians have been trained in Hebrew and Greek which were the original languages of the Bible.
You mention dealing with disputes with the Quran. Look how Uthman dealt with the disputes. He burnt all offending copies. What kind of a way was this to deal with a dispute. Remember Alif if you go to the Bible in order to refute Christians then you will never understand the Bible. This is the special thing about the Bible. It will guide you to Light and truth. Read it objectively, you will have it. And, sadly many Muslims don’t do that.
Yes actually there is harm for those whose mother tongue is not Arabic. The Quaran is supposed to be the literal (not inspired) Word of God and is supposed to be read and understood in Arabic.
You say only those Christians whose mother tongue is Greek and Latin read it in those languages. You are wrong. Most seminary trained theologians have been trained in Hebrew and Greek which were the original languages of the Bible.
You appear confused about the Bible, as it was not originally written in Latin. It was written in Hebrew and Greek.
Because the Bible is the “inspired” Word of God and not the “literal” word of God such as the Quran is supposed to be Christians can legitimately read the Bible in what ever language they wish. Muslims are stuck with the Arabic language.
Statistics on who speaks what language? So you are wanting to know how many americans, french, german,spanish,british, russian, canadian, speak Hebrew and Greek? What an absurd demand. Ok then if you know it – tell me what is the statistic? I would be very interested to know!
In regards to 85.21-22, Ok, lets read Ibn Kathir, Ibn al Qayyim and Ibn Manzoor.
http://islamqa.info/en/112107
Ibn Katheer said:
“in al-Lawh al-Mahfooz (the Preserved Tablet)” means, It is among the higher group (i.e., angels), preserved and protected from anything being added or taken away, or any alteration or changes.
Ibn al-Qayyim said:
“Preserved”: most readers recite this with a kasrah, i.e., it is a description of the Lawh. This indicates that the shayaateen are not able to bring it down, because its location is protected and they cannot reach it. And it is itself protected, so the Shaytaan cannot add anything to it or take anything away from it.
Allaah, may He be glorified, has described it as protected or guarded in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” [al-Hijr 15:9]. And its location is also described as being guarded in this soorah.
Allaah, may He be glorified, is protecting its location, and protecting it from having anything added or taken away, or being distorted. He is protecting its meanings from being twisted, just as He is protecting its words from being changed, and He is protecting its letters so that nothing is added or taken away…
Ibn Manzoor said:
Al-Lawh: every wide, flat surface or sheet of wood.
Al-Azhari said: al-Lawh is a flat surface of wood, and a shoulder-blade [of an animal], if it is written on, may be called a lawh.
Al-Lawh is something that is written on.
Al-Lawh: al-Lawh al-Mahfooz, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “(Inscribed) in al-Lawh al-Mahfooz (the Preserved Tablet)” [al-Burooj 85:22] means, the place where the decrees of Allaah are kept.
Every wide bone is a lawh.
So what? What exactly are you trying to say here? That the faulty Sanaa Quran manuscript the and unvalidated Uthman Quran manuscript are not the Al Lauh al mahfooz? That they do not represent the divine predestined recitation?
However the Quran cannot be what it is without it being inscripturated or written down. After all, the word Quran itself speaks to the issue of its inscripturation since it means reading/recitation. Thus, its inscripturation is an essential and necessary component of its makeup, otherwise why even bother calling it the Quran? Why not simply call it the Word of Allah? Obviously it is called the Quran because it is a book that believers are required to read and recite. So Do you believe the Quran to be a heavenly tablet and eternal or not? If so you have to admit that there is a necessary part of the Muslim scripture which is definitely created. And all you have is the faulty Sanaa Quran manuscript the and unvalidated Uthman Quran manuscript.
Your mentioning al-Lawh al-Mahfooz is nothing but an evasion from the fact that both your oral and written versions of the Quran are faulty and unreliable.
You have not adequately replied to what I said about Puin. Let me repeat what Puin said.
“The Arabic script is very defective ….”
“There are … variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ …“But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense.
“the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
Aqil Azamic says about Puins letter –
… writing such a letter helps cool down the temper in Yemen and other parts of the Muslim world (he did not want to anger the Yemeni authorities and put a curb on possible future collaboration with Yemen or for that matter any Muslim country and Western ‘experts’)…
[FINAL COMMENT]
#1.So, you said that it is uncertain.WoW!!that exactly i wanna hear from you.The Bible you claim a word of god contains uncertain parts that early men included.So,your supposed holy book contains both word of god and word of men, and you call it as a guidance. Sorry, sir.Verily this book is not for guidance.And, I shall not follow your vain desires.George Bernard Shaw accurately said that,”THE MOST DANGEROUS BOOK ON
EARTH “ (the Bible), KEEP IT UNDER LOCK AND KEY.”And you still believe that the bible in its present form is 100% world of god but not corrupted. Strange 🙂
#2. Yes, i have read the refutations on the verse i cited.It was not a refutation but kinda misguidance.Your scholars said that it is a translation error.But, in actual it was an error direct from manuscripts. Had this been translation error it would have been rectified.Since, it is a manuscript error so it is still there. Your scholars James White and Matt couldn’t respond to my e-mail properly.
#3. Nowhere its been said that we have to know arabic to understand Qur’an.Wherefrom you are getting such theories???Those whose Mother tongue are not arabic,they can use translation to understand the commandmants of Qur’an.And, Qur’an has its own methodolgy to understand. One can not apply his or her own way of understanding coz that will lead to misinterpretation.It has a set technique.When we approach we go by that technique.I am a Non-Arab,i understand Qur’an fully.I don’t go to scholar to explain me the verses.
#4. You said most Muslim can’t read arabic. Don’t make a joke out of youself 🙂 Visit India,Pakistan,Malayasia,Indonesia,Bangladesh,Sri-Lanka,China, we will show you how many can read Arabic Qur’an.Because these countries national language are not arabic.And, you said it cannot be understood without the help of scholars.I don’t know where from you getting all such bogus theories. Where in the Qur’an and Hadees does it say we have to go to scholars to understand?? Ask any 9 year old muslim kid about Islamic basic creed, DOs-Donts, he/she can explain it to you, if that kid has gone thru Qur’an and Hadees. In fact they will explain it to you better than your scholars can explain Trinity 🙂
#5. We don’t call manuscripts AL-LAWH AL MAHFOOZ. Rather it’s called MASAHIF/MUSHAF. No muslims ever said or believed manuscripts to be Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz. Nor even secular historians and Scholars who studied Qur’an believed so. You are probably the first one to say so. Because you are pretty desperate in your attempts to somehow discredit Qur’an. But soooooooooooooo saaaaaaaaddd. You failed. I have thrown the arabic word to test your knowledge on Islam , and as expected you failed. You posses no knowledge. You are ignorant in Arabic language and Islamic theology. That’s why i written above [FINAL COMMENT]. Because i don’t wanna waste my precious time online answering ignorant like you.You also don’t know the meaning of the word- “QUR’AN”.You also don’t know what else are recorded in AL-LAWH AL -MAHFOOZ besides Qur’an. You just copy and paste it, but never bothered to understand. Sir, you need lotsa Homework. ALLAH has promised to guard it that’s why the Qur’an is still uncorrupted.In regards to Sanaa Manuscripts, there’s nothing shocking about it 🙂
#6. Regarding,Puins claim of defective script.So what if the script is defective?? Does that discredit Qur’an.?? The answer is conclusively NO!! And, by the way Sir, I have seen sanaa manuscripts in Dar al-Makhtutat Library in Yemen.I had no difficulty in reading it. Because I can read Qur’an without vowels. I am trained in that.Sanaa Masahif has been used by people of Yemen to whom Uthman’s Masahif has not reached. It is basically written in short-hand, without diacretical marks,vowels.The people of that region can understand.Rest Assured there is no change in meaning and message of Qur’an.
And, as for the arabic word Mubeen, yes the Qur’an is clear in its message.You have just mis-understood it.
The author of the article makes some inflated claims. He says the supposed collectors Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! So what proof does he have that they were not Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John ? My suggestion to the author is if such claims are made, to back them up. This issue is nothing new top Christians and we have been discussing them for centuries.
The author makes two further inaccurate claims. Actually was can say with confidence we know a lot about Peter, James and John. And in terms of being at odds with the other disciples the author is again wrong. He needs to read Acts 15.22 and 2 Peter 3.15.
There are other factors that contribute to the credibility of a piece of writing rather than just the isnad or chain of transmission. For example, the time line or timeliness of scholarly compilation of such writings is important. The New Testament compares better than the hadith in this regards. It was not until Bukhari in the third century hijri that the strongest scientific study of hadith occurred. Compare this to the time line of early Christian history. Christians were having rigorous discussions about authenticity far earlier in their time frame than Muslims were in their own.
Finally Muslims criticize the Gospels at their own peril. Allah, Mohammad and the Quran confirm the Gospels (Injeel) as truth. See Surahs 5:46 and 3:3.
It must be understood that when the Qur’ân testifies the Tawrât(torah) or the Injîl(gospel) were guidance for mankind it is not referring to the present versions.You have cited 5:46 and 3:3, but you failed to understand what these two verse is saying. Popularly understood four Gospels in the New Testament are not the same Injîl revealed by Allâh to ‘Isâ(jesus). The current Gospels contain remnants of original Injîl, but for all practical purpose, the original Injîl has long been lost.
When was the Injeel lost? How was it lost and why ? Muslims have no historical proof of any lost remnant. The Christian Gospels / Injeil we have now were well established before Mohammad was even born. These were the Gospels / Injel during the time of Mohammad. It is easily proved these are the same we have today. So as a result there is no historical basis to any lost Injeel!
In the book of jeremiah, in your bible it is said that you have written it, scribes of men. I think you haven’t read it.We believe in Gospel of Jesus. The one that Jesus preached.The one that was revealed on Jesus.The revealation he received from God. Of course he didn’t preach Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, galatians, Timothy, Acts, Peter,so on and so forth. Show me the Gospel of Jesus. where is it?? History teaches us that these books were anonymous until the 180 CE at which time they were pseudonymously ascribed to two disciples of Christ, a student of Peter, and a missionary partner of Paul.These so-called “Gospels” were written many decades after the ascension of Christ (between 68 CE – 110 CE), in a language foreign to Jesus himself who spoke Syriac.I mean aramaic.
Yes I have read The Book of Jeremiah. Have you? The verse you are referring to is actually Jeremiah 8.8. Even if this passage were speaking about an actual corruption of the text, this would only be referring to the copies that were in the possession of those particular scribes. It wouldn’t refer to all the copies that were in the hands of others such as Daniel the prophet.
Other prophets affirm that the book of Moses was still available after Jeremiah. For example The Prophet Nehemiah. Read Nehemiah 8:13-14,18.
The Lord Jesus and his followers also quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never assumed that it was corrupt (cf. Matthew 4:4,7,10; 22:31-32; 1 Timothy 5:18).
It may come as a shock to but the Quran claims that there were individuals who corrupted it-
“As we sent down (punishment) on the separatists who dismember the Qur’an.”
S. 15:90-91
The Gospels pseudonymously ascribed? There was nothing pseudo about it. And yes the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written anonymously. So what ? Christians have known this for centuries and the traditional exegesis on attributing the Gospels to the traditional writers is sound in terms of historicity, cross referencing and analysis of literary style.
So what if there are uncertainties in the Bible. Christian scholars have always known about them. These are easily tolerated and explained due to the Bible being the “God Inspired Word” written by men. Uncertainties around the Quran are more difficult for you due to the Quran supposedly being the direct and literal and perfect Word from God.
If you wish to know the Gospel that Jesus preached then read the writings of Mathew, mark, Luke and John and you will learn what they recorded in terms of the Gospel (Good News) that Jesus preached.
The gospels were oral traditions and histories before they were compiled and there would also have been written notes.It is easily proved these were the same Gospels the Church believed when Mohammad was born and lived and they are the same Gospels we have today. These were the Gospels / Injel during the time of Mohammad. Mohammad was either ignorant of this or confused.
You still have not answered me when was this mysterious Injeel lost? How was it lost and why ? You still have provided no historical proof of any lost Injeel and what the remaining “remnant” is.
Further more the New Testament compares better than your most reliable hadith in terms of being compiled in an early time frame.
Jeremiah 8:8 clearly says that the scribes has corrupted the first 5 books of bible.Now by quoting Nehemiah your case isn’t proved. Because you are just assuming that it is a book of God.
Again by quoting 15:90-91, you have shown how ignorant you are.Just like your pastors and apologists who try somehow to refute but unfortunately they fail.
First read the verse in context. The context is 15:89-92. So, in this it is addressed to the dis-believers that as the jews split their religion into many parts and caused division in it. They believed in certain parts and rejected the other parts, and detracted some things from it and added others to it. Thus they had been divided into many sectarian groups, which were opposed to one another.split their religion into many parts and caused division in it. This warning is like the warning that has been sent to the schismatics (Jews)” .This is meant to warn the disbelievers that they should learn a lesson from the plight of the Jews who neglected the warning that was given to than by God, and persisted in their wrong ways, as if to say, “You arc beholding the degradation of the Jews. Do you like to meet with the same end by neglecting this warning.Thus we see that the Qur’an is saying that there are people who disbelieve in parts of the Qur’an while they believe in other parts. The Qur’an is not saying that it has been corrupted. How can it be, when Allah has promised to guard it earlier in the same Surah.
If you don’t have the gospel of Jesus, then keep quiet. I don’t want GOSPELS but Gospel. Get the point!!
New Testament is unreliable due to it’s authority , inconsistencies ,inaccuracies, contradictions and errors. We don’t know who wrote the four Gospels. All are anonymous. Why believe this to be a book of God who has no central authority. Matthew contradicts MARK,Mark contradicts Luke.what is this going on I your God’s book.?? the author of Matthew wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. We also do not really know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. All we have is a text that claimed that Mark wrote it. You Christians don’t even know where the book of Mark was written! Then why do you ask the Muslims where the Gospels were corrupted when you don’t even know where you wrote them!Now lets turn to Gospel of Luke. What Luke did was study and investigate and then wrote his own Gospel, he never witnessed anything so therefore his Gospel is unreliable already. By remnant i mean, whatever matches with Qur’an is truth and rest is written by men.
In regards to Jeremiah 8.8 Nehehmiah and Daniel were both living prophets of God who had copies of the Torah separate to the false scribes that Jeremiah was referring to.
(Isa) Jesus and his followers also quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never assumed that it was corrupt.
I don’t really care who corrupted the Quran, whether it was Muslims, Polytheists or Jews. 15.90 states it was corrupted. Yes earlier in the verse it states Allah will guard the Quran. So what? It is simply assumed based on your presupposition that the Qur’an is from Allah that it is not corrupted. However remember the Qur’an teaches that the Law and the Gospel was given by Allah. Why would Allah allow His Word in the Torah and the Injil to be corrupted? Was Allah not powerful enough to stop this from happening? How is it that the unchanging, all-powerful God is able to stop one of His books to be corrupted, but not the other?
And if He did allow this to happen, what proof can you give that God did not allow this to happen in the Qur’an? Many Quranic manuscripts that competed against what is accepted today were destroyed by Uthman. It is easy for you to claim that the Qur’an is perfect and there are not any differences in the manuscripts when all the competing manuscripts had been destroyed. You do not know if what you have in the Quran are the true words of Muhammad?
You say if I don’t have the gospel of Jesus, then keep quiet. Actually its you that needs to keep quiet if you don’t have this “mysterious remnant” Gospel of Jesus. Also please watch your manners. Your tone is rude.
Do you even know what Gospel means? It means Good news. Do you know what the good news was? Read the writings of Mathew , Mark, Luke and John and you will find out what the Good News was that Isa preached.
There was no other gospel at the time of Mohammad. It is a historical fact. The Gospels as we have them today were well established before Mohammad was even born.
You say the NT is unreliable. There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). As a result the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
The Variants in the New Testament manuscripts are minimal. . Out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.
You say Mathew contradicts Mark and Mark contradicts Luke. What you don’t understand is the nature and strengths of the synoptic Gospels. Synoptic means a general view of the main parts. Hence Mathew Mark and Luke provide the main parts not the complete detail. These parts then provide a general view. Christians and the Bible never claim the Bible to have every little detail. They each have their perspective that put together complement each other to give the wider truth. Also what you don’t realize is because the synoptics differ in details it actually proves there was no collusion between the authors to manufacture the story.
You say we don’t know who wrote the four Gospels. Actually the traditional exegesis on attributing the Gospels to the traditional writers is sound. It is sound in terms of historicity, cross referencing and analysis of literary style. You are telling me nothing knew about the discussions of anonymous writers. Christians have known this for centuries.
You say Christians don’t even know where the book of Mark was written. Actually it was probably written in Israel or Rome. So what? Muslim quibbling about details just shows you don’t understand what the Inspired Word means. “Inspired Word” means men wrote the Bible but were inspired.
Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures.
You say the author of Matthew wrote his book according to his own plans, aims and point of view and borrowed from other sources. Yes, so what? In doing this Mathew actually displayed good documentary practice in referencing to other sources plaus he had his own perspective. Again, so what? Again you are telling me nothing that Christians haven’t known for centuries.
This is exactly what the “Inspired Word” means. We all know the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written by human beings. Imperfect men, but men who had the breath of God upon them. Men who were imperfect vessels but yet were inspired. Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures.
The Scriptures are always right only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God’s vision, God’s purposes, and God’s good news to humanity. The Bible’s message is directly inspired by God, and though he used human vessels to transport this message it remains accurate and trustworthy. Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What’s more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God’s people; a common theme- God’s universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all.
You wonder why I ask Muslims where the Gospels were corrupted ? You are being evasive and avoidant. Because Muslims make the accusation about so called corruption then you as a Muslim need to prove that the modern New Testament / Gospels are not the same Injeel in existence in Mohamed’s days. You have been unable to provide no proof when changes happened, why they happened , or by whom. All you have done is raise minor points of concern that Christians have known about for centuries and avoid the important questions about some alleged corruption. All you have is some kind of Muslim conspiracy theory. Because Islam cannot explain the problem that the Quran praises the Injeel then Muslims need a conspiracy theory. History proves the Injeel Mohamad was referring to as the same we have today.
In regards to Luke, yes that’s right. Luke studied and investigated and then wrote his own Gospel. And what did he investigate. He investigated the reports of the eye witnesses. This displays good documentary practice from Luke.
You say remnant is whatever truth matches theQur’an. Oh really! How convenient. This is called circular reasoning. It is based only on a non objective and non scholarly Muslim criteria. It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view.
So what if there are uncertainties in the Bible. Christian scholars have always known about them. These are easily tolerated and explained due to the Bible being the
“God Inspired Word” written by men. Contradictions in the Quran are more difficult for you to explain due to the Quran supposedly being the direct and literal and perfect Word from God rather than the “inspired Word”.
[FINAL COMMENT]
#1. In regards to Jeremiah 8:8, it does says the Bible has been tampered with and the scribes were responsible for this. Your Christian websites like Got Question Ministries, Apologetic press admits that the Bible is corrupted.Further John H. Sailhamer also admitted of Bible corruption.Finally internal evidences also show that Bible is indeed corrupted.
#2. Again you mis-interpreted my entire point. The verse in context 15:89-93, says that the Jews have cut their Qur’an which means their Torah into pieces.They believe in certain parts of it and reject other parts.Nowhere does the verse say The Qur’an is corrupted. Reknowned Companion of the Prophet Ibn `Abbas in Sahih Al Bukhari said,”They are the People of the Book, who divided the Book into parts, believing in some of it, and rejecting some of it.” So your allegation is baseless.
#3. When Qur’an talks about Torah and Gospel, it talks about original revelation that was given to Moses and Jesus. Not what you have today. Your one is corrupted. And in regards to Why ALLAH allowed previous scriptures to get corrupted. I don’t know Sir, because ALLAH has not revealed to us that knowledge. One thing i can say from my reflection , don’t take it as formal. “The previous scriptures were meant for people of a particular region and not for mankind.And, don’t make allegation that ALLAH is not powerful because previous scriptures were corrupted. I ask you where’s your evidence that ALLAH promised to protect Torah, Gospel,Pslams?? ALLAH has promised to protect Qur’am from any kind of corruption that is why it is still in original form.
#4. The problem with you is you blindly believe your Christian scholars. You don’t go and check what they say is true or not. There is no contradiction amongst the manuscripts of Qur’an. Because I myself have checked Sanaa manuscript which is 100% confirm what is in Cairo and Topkapi musem.
#5. Competing manuscripts??You are soooo desperate in your attempt. 🙂 When Hazrat Uthman orderd to burn the personal copies, each and every tribe without hesitation burnt it. And, moreover We have existing Oral tradition with unbroken chain from Prophet. So, no chance of corruption. You can fancy yourself with the figment of your imagination that Qur’an is corrupted. Thank you for demonstrating the level of ignorance, especially when you’re debating these topics in an online academic setting and the extent of your Islamic knowledge. 🙂
#6. We Muslims believe in the Gospel that was revealed to Jesus. We don’t believe in Matthew, Mark, Luke And John. I WANT GOSPEL NOT GOSPELS!! Because Qur’an talks about Gospel not Gospels. Get the point Mister:-) If you don’t have The Gospel then stop blabbering okay.And by the way, Luke 1:1-4 nullifies that Gospel writers were inspired.His introduction shows that this Gospel is a personal letter, he wrote it for personal matters, he had copied accurately from some references, and many others wrote about this issue too. Luke did not mention in his introduction about a divine inspiration that inspired him to write,nor that the Holy Spirit came down upon him,he did not claim or even know that he was inspired! Same with MARK,JOHN,MATTHEW. And, finally Personal letters of Paul have nothing to do with inspiration. So, R.I.P. BIBLE.
#7. Yes, that which matches with Qur’an is the remnant of Jesus original teachings and rest what your bible contains are trash. and unimportant passages and unnecessary passages.
#8. Yeah-Yeah i know very well about the so-called contradiction that answering Islam, Carm.org, ABN Sat, wikiislam has written by taking the verse out of context, twisting the meaning of verses, disregarding the arabic text and by taking only english translation of Qur’an by Iraqi Jew named N.J.DAWOOD. And finally committing intellectual dishonesty and by tricks. All the allegations has been answered.
#9. OMG!!! Your comment is so long.Don’t know what rubbish you written with all the words of Probability and So what Attitude.Already it’s been 9 points. Okay to wrap up,You Christians know that your book is corrupted, and hence you try to throw every possible straw at the Holy Quran to have a fake feeling of “They are not better than us”. Well, unfortunately the Holy Quran is simply incorruptible, unlike your corrupted Bible. All the ancient manuscripts along with the mathematical structure of the Holy Quran prove the preservation, authenticity and incorruptibility of the Holy Quran. I can understand your pain, The door of Islam is always open for you. Embrace Islam and save yourself from Hell.
O People of the Book! there has come to you Our Messenger who unfolds to you much of what you had kept hidden of the Book and passes over much. There has come to you indeed from Allah a Light and a clear Book. (Holy Qur’an, Ch.5:V.16)
As you have not refuted what I said about Jeremiah 8.8 let me repeat it for you- Nehehmiah and Daniel were both living prophets of God who had copies of the Torah separate to the false scribes that Jeremiah was referring to. (Isa) Jesus and his followers also quoted from the Torah as we know it today and never assumed that it was corrupt. You have not responded to this yet.
I challenge you to produce the quotes from Apologetic press and John H. Sailhamer about Bible corruption. You tried doing this with Kenneth Cragg,Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, and Dr. Frederic Kenyon and all you revealed was you quoting of them out of context.
Let me quote Got Question Ministries-
Some Muslims accuse Christians of corrupting the Bible. While this charge would explain the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, the allegation has no credible evidence. The Qur’an praises the Bible, and scholars verify the Bible’s authenticity. http://www.gotquestions.org/Christians-corrupted-Bible.html
Let me quote Apologetic Press-
The second installment (of the discussion – Has the Bible Been Corrupted) recaps the categories of evidence that verify the integrity of the New Testament.
https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4649
You will note Got Questions Ministries says “The Qur’an praises the Bible” Remember Alif – the Quran states the Injeel as the Word of God.
If you are going to quote these web sites I suggest you do your home work better.
What internal evidences prove the Bible is corrupt ? Back this up. Actually internal evidences support the Bible. There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers containing scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity. As a result the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability. The Variants in the New Testament manuscripts are minimal. Out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever
You have provided no proof as to who corrupted the Bible, when it was done, why it was done or how. There was no other gospel at the time of Mohammad. It is a historical fact. The Gospels as we have them today were well established before Mohammad was even born. You have provide no proof for any “mysterious remnant” Gospel of Jesus.
Like I said I don’t really care who corrupted the Quran, whether it was Muslims, Polytheists or Jews. And I don’t believe it is as clear you make out that its the Torah that’s being referred to.
You say you don’t know why Allah allowed previous scriptures to get corrupted because ALLAH has not revealed that knowledge. How convenient. But yet we are created with minds and the logic does not work. My challenge to you is to remember the Qur’an teaches that the Law and the Gospel was given by Allah.
You want proof that God promised to protect Torah, Gospel, Psalms? Read Psalm 12. 6-7 and Mathew 24.35
The problem with you is you blindly believe your Muslim scholars. You don’t go and check what they say is true or not. You don’t do your home work and you misquote the likes of Apologetic press, Got Question Ministries, John H. Sailhamer, Kenneth Cragg, Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott , Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, and Dr. Frederic Kenyon. When pulled up on this you don’t even reply.
So you have checked the Sanaa manuscript with what is in Cairo at Topkapi musem. Well Alif, Dr Puin understands written and oral Classical Arabic better than you. He was quite clear. Let me repeat what he said –
“The Arabic script is very defective ….”
“There are … variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ …“But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense.
“the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
All Quran copies burnt without hesitation ? Remember the threat of Uthmans sword ! Besides the Sanaa copy was pre uthman and it proves big problems for the Quran pre Uthman.
An unbroken chain of oral tradition from the prophet. You have no proof of this. You have no proof of which Pre Uthman Quran your hafidh recite.
Puin says both the oral hafidh tradition of recitation was not reliable and neither was the mushaf.
You obviously don’t know what Gospel means. It simply means “Good News” so whether it is used as singular Gospel or plural “Gospels is irrelevant.
If you don’t have proof of any “mysterious remnant” then stop blabbering on about it. Historical fact proves the Gospels we have today were the same as in Mohammad’s day. Either Allah and Mohammad were ignorant of this or they were confused.
You say Luke 1:1-4 nullifies that Gospel writers were inspired. Really hows that? I don’t think you know what inspired means. And just because Luke did not mention in his introduction about a divine inspiration, that does not mean he was not inspired. Luke was writing as a good 1st century historian. Yes a personal letter. So what? Any mad man can say they heard from God. Mental hospitals are full of them.
What Like does say in 1-4 ? He says he undertook to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled as they were handed down by eyewitnesses and servants of the word. He carefully investigated from eye witnesses and he wrote an orderly account.
This is far my believable than Mohammad having an epileptic fit in a cave and then coming out believing he had gone mad.
How do you know Paul was not inspired. The other Apostles in his time did. You need to back this up.
So the remnant is whatever truth matches the Qur’an. Oh really! How convenient. This is called circular reasoning. It is based only on non objective and non scholarly Muslim criteria. It is like me saying the only verses in Quran that are true are those that line up with my own point of view. With circular reasoning and lack of critical thought like this no wonder the Muslim world is still in the primitive ages.
Yeah-Yeah i know very well about the so-called contradiction that answering Chritianity and all your other Muslim fundamentalist web sites taking the verse out of context, twisting the meaning of verses, disregarding the text And finally committing intellectual dishonesty and by tricks. All the allegations have been answered.
You Muslims know your Quran does not match its miraculous claims and falls apart when examined closely.
The mathematical structure of the Quran. So what are you saying the Holy Quran needs modern maths to support it now. How desperate!
… at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Phillipians 2.10
Are you prepared to pray to God to reveal truth to you even if it goes against your religion? Alif all will bow to Christ The Mesiah. You must embrace him now to obtain everlasting life. Do not harden your heart to this message.
The article says the hadiths are far more reliable then the hadiths! This is one of the most less informed remark given. Have you guys read the hadiths? I mean all of them? Do you know much stupidity is mentioned in these volumes and some horrible things. The bible is and will remain the book of the faith of God and the Quran is inspired by satan to rob man away from the true book of life.
I have read Hadees.Hadees are far more reliable than your Bible. To grade it Authentic,Good,and Weak we have methodology. What about your Bible? It has numerous inconsistencies.You insert additional verses in bible at one time and take it away the other. No two manuscripts match.And there are many More. Your top bible scholars recognized the contradictions go and ask them. All your claims are flimsy and baseless. Instead of criticizing and learning Islam and Quran from Christian websites, Leran about Qur’an from Mufassiroon and Sheikhs.
You say no two manuscripts match. I think you mean translations rather than manuscripts. There are more than 5000 early Greek manuscripts of the NT and any variances between them are minor. Sophisticate criteria exists to determine the accuracy of the Injeel / Gospels and the New Testament.
In regards to different translations these are merely different ways of saying the same thing.. However most Christian leaders have been trained in the Greek and Hebrew languages and read the Bible in these original languages.
Different translations are actually a strength of the Bible rather than a weakness. The more translations that clarify the Word of God, the better.
The problem with the Quran is it is only to be understood in one language -Classical Arabic. How many Muslims understand Classical Arabic? The majority do not.
This is clumsy and makes the understanding of the Quran beyond most Muslims.
Because of this how can the Quran be the Word of God?
Christian scholars have always known about these so called contradictions in the Bible and easily explain them through the comparison of the languages used and the uses of context. Christians have no problem in doing this considering the Bible is the “inspired Word”. Muslims cannot explain away the many problems in the Quran the same way due to their belief the Quran is the direct and literal word of God.
There are many ex Muslim and Muslim scholars who criticize the Quran and recognize its problems. Take as examples Ibn Warraq,Nasr Abu Zayd and the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society.
You have produced no proof for your claims. Rather than you criticizing and learning of Christianity and the Bible from Muslim web sites you should learn about the Bible from Christians.
Why are Mufassiroon and Sheikhs so necessary to explain the Quran? Is the Quran not clear in itself ? And if not, then how can it then be the Word of God?
Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity was himself driven to admit that:
“[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written[Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117]
After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:
“Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference” [Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3]
I mean manuscripts not translations. When i speak or write something i write exactly what i mean. God’s words have been very liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed, and rewritten by human hands.The 3 Oldest Manuscripts Containing the Corrupted Greek New Testament ALL HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus , and ALL in Greek, Jesus did NOT speak Greek, Jesus spoke the language of Aramaic. The Codex Vaticanus manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called “umlauts”) in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain.” Codex Sinaiticus is also full of errors. Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century again HUNDREDS of years after the disappearance of Jesus (PBUH) and again Codex Alexandrinus is ALL in Greek, Jesus (PBUH) did NOT speak Greek, Jesus (PBUH) spoke the language of ARAMAIC. Codex Alexandrius contain the “Epistle of Marcellinus” and in it’s Corrupted New Testament it contents parts of books called “1 Clement” and “2 Clement”. ALL the DAMAGES to the books and the “lost folios”. The Christian scriptures were destroyed by Diocletian in 303 CE, and the Gospels were changed in the year 506 CE. Also, one million Christians were put to death under Athanasius for possessing forbidden gospels. The Christians themselves burned the Ancient Wisdom and destroyed libraries, at least 15,000,000 books were destroyed in the Middle Age.Read the book Deceptions and Myths of the Bible. According to Greek philosopher Celsus, the early Christians deliberately altered the Gospels.he said “Some of them, as it were in a drunken state producing self-induced visions, remodel their Gospel from its first written form, and reform it so that they may be able to refute the objections brought against it”.The MSS of the New Testament date from the 3rd century; and the oldest “complete” manuscripts date from the late 4th century, only fragments exist before the year 325 CE!The Pauline letters are the earliest Christian documents (50-64 CE), yet the oldest manuscripts of Paul date from the 3rd century! The four Gospels were composed in the 2nd century, yet the oldest manuscript is John Rylands P52, a tiny fragment!The NT was composed in Greek, the pagan language of Rome. But did Jesus ever visit Rome? The answer is no. There is no historical evidence to prove that Peter visited Rome and established the Church. Jesus never said anything about Rome being the center of his teachings. The Gospels are not based on eye-witness accounts.We only have fragments of the New Testament prior to the year 325 CE.The Gospels have no chain of transmission; the disciples were dead before any Gospel was written.The Gospels are anonymous documents.There is no reference to the Gospels by name until 200 CE.There are no passages quoted by the early Church fathers (Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr).The apologist Justin Martyr (d. 150 CE) speaks of events that are not recorded in the Gospels.There is a 450 year gap between the originals and the oldest manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.The original manuscripts do not exist, the Church failed to preserve the autographs.The New Testament was reproduced in the late 4th century.The NT canon was not fixed until 400 years after Jesus.The most doubted books of the NT include: 2 Peter, 2 3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelations, 1 2 Timothy, Titus. These books have been doubted by the Church fathers, and they are still questioned today.
None of the original manuscripts have survived from the early Christian The most ancient complete manuscripts (Vatican 1209 and the Sinaitic Syriac Codex) date from the fourth century, three hundred years after Jesus’ But where are the originals? And the copies of the originals? Also your most ancient manuscripts, in other words, are copies of the copies of the copies of nobody-knows-just-how-many copies of the wonder they differ In the best of hands, copying errors would be no However, New Testament manuscripts were not in the best of During the period of Christian origins, scribes were untrained, unreliable, incompetent. For example, Gen 32:30 states, “…for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” However, John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at any time…” Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible is falsified. Simple declarative statements are involved such as “no one has seen God” and “I have seen God.” Simply put, no “context” makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous.
I can go on quote many more stuffs in regards to your doctrine.That will make my comment long. Already it’s been long just because your long comment I had to write.Otherwise I like to keep my comment short and simple. But this much is okay to suffice my claim.
Now you said ibn warraq. Well out of many Some Problems Specific to Warraq, nasr abu zayd are: failure to define terms; not immersed in intellectual history; failure to even appear objective; paranoia and suspicion. Warraq mainly uses English translations of the Quran instead of Arabic like he is suppose to when dealing with the Quran.
You said why we need Sheikhs and Mufassiroon.well take a look at this verse,
4: 59- O you who believe! Obey Allâh and obey the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allâh and His Messenger (SAW), if you believe in Allâh and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.
The Quran commands us to obey those in authority, such as the scholars and the ones of knowledge, hence when we don’t understand something or need to have something explained to us then we should refer to these people in authority about the matter. The verse goes on to say that if we have any differences amongst ourselves then we should resolve this issue by first going to Allah, which means going to the Quran to see what Allah commands, and then secondly we should go to the prophet which means his sunnah which is to be found in the hadiths and see what it says. Hence in this verse the Quran is giving clear authority to the sunnah of the prophet which is to be found in the hadiths, only second to the Noble Quran.
Here is another important verse:
2: 151- Similarly (to complete My Blessings on you) We have sent among you a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) of your own, reciting to you Our Verses (the Qur’ân) and sanctifying you, and teaching you the Book (the Qur’ân) and the Hikmah (i.e. Sunnah, Islâmic laws and Fiqh – jurisprudence), and teaching you that which you used not to know.
As you can see the Quran says that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) teaches people the book, so when people consult the hadiths where they find the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) teaching us about the Quran, this doesn’t disprove the Quran as being incomplete or not clear, rather it is following the Quran. Had the Quran not instructed us to obey the prophet and consult him for explanations and rulings then one could say the Quran is incomplete, yet the Quran explains to us that we should consult the prophet who teaches the book so that we may understand it better, hence the Quran explains everything for us.
Islam has no original manuscripts for the Quran! And why? Because Uthman burned them. Why did he burn them? What was he scared of? Christianity has more than 5,300 early manuscripts, most written between the 1st and 5th centuries, before the time of paper. Apart from the scrap of Quran fragment in Leiden and the problematic Sanaa Quran, Islam has few manuscripts until well into the eighth century. And it is obvious the Sanaa Quran with all of its problems (even so called “minor variances”) proves the Quaran not to be “miracle book” – the “perfect Word of God”. It simply does not make sense that there are not any earlier Quran manuscripts. The New Testament writers wrote on papyrus, far less durable and robust than the parchment used for the Qur’an. Yet there are plenty of New Testament manuscripts that have been written on parchments that are in extremely good condition even though they predate the Qur’an by several centuries.
Why did Uthman burn the manuscripts? When Uthman had succeeded Abu Bakr and Umar as the third Caliph of Islam,
disputes arose between them as to the correct reading of the Qur’an. They had come from Damascus and Hems, from Kufa and Basra, and in each centre the local Muslims had their own codex of the Qur’an.
The simplest and safest way to ensure the prevalence of the standardized copy was for Uthman to eliminate all other copies.
Uthman’s action was drastic. Not one of the other codices was exempted from the order that they be destroyed. It can only be assumed that the differences in reading between the various texts was so vast that the Caliph saw no alternative to an order for the standardising of one of the texts and the annihilation of the rest.
If there had not been serious differences between them, why would he thus have destroyed such cherished copies of what all Muslims believe to be the revealed Word of God?
Uthman succeeded in his immediate objective, namely to impose a single text of the Qur’an on the Muslim world with the simultaneous destruction of all the other codices in existence. To the extent that the Muslim world today indeed has a single text of its revered scripture, it cannot be said that this text is a precise record of the Qur’an as Muhammad delivered it. The Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an may well have established only one text as the authorised text for the whole Muslim world, but it simultaneously eliminated a wealth of codices which were widely accepted in the various provinces and which had as much right as Zaid’s to be recognised as authentic copies.
You cut and paste and quote Answering Christianity in the following points-
In terms of Jesus speaking only Aramaic, actually Jesus probably did understand Hebrew and Greek. Out of Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin Greek is the most precise language in terms of grammar. Greek was the most precise language to communicate with humanity. Why would God limit his revelation and Word to humanity by just one language (Arabic)? The fact that God speaks to humanity through the Bible in any language he chooses makes more sense it is The Word of God than just one language (Arabic).
Any of the so called variations mentioned are minor. They do not effect the overall meaning of the scripture.
You quote Answering Christianity is stating “Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church” Yes. That’s correct, and so what? What you don’t realize this is actually a strength of Christianity. The criteria for the Canon was put to the test – and it passed! The process of canon formation lasted 400 years and the councils merely rubber stamped what most of the church already knew as the proper authoritative books. For your information the criteria for establishing the canon was very soud. It was based on -Apostolicity (written by apostle or associate of), Catholicism (accepted widely) and Orthodoxy (theology ie. Hebrew vs Gnostic)
You quote Answering Christianity is stating “According to Greek philosopher Celsus, the early Christians deliberately altered the Gospels.”
Celsus was an opponent of Chrisytianity. He had a biased agenda. The writer Origen reveals that Celsus fabricated his claims.
You quote Answering Christianity is saying There is no historical evidence to prove that Peter visited Rome and established the Church. The writer from Answering Christianity is wrong. There is strong second Century proof from early Church leaders that Peter did go to Rome.
You quoted Answering Christianity in saying “The Christians themselves burned the Ancient Wisdom and destroyed libraries, at least 15,000,000 books were destroyed in the Middle Age. “ Please provide support for this. What ancient wisdom? Which libraries? What was the historical context around this? I presume the writer of Answering Christianity was referring to the book of Deceptions and Myths of the Bible which it is partly standard “pagan theft” thesis, partly New Age material, partly conspiracy theory. It is filled with incomprehensible diagrams, polemic, and what can only be charitably be called semantic evasions. The author is styled “Lloyd M. Graham”, and we aren’t told a thing about him; there is no bibliography to speak of, and little offered in the way of proof for what is asserted throughout. To this day, no one knows who Graham is. Whoever he is, Graham starts his book with a thesis which would make even my ideological foes at infidels.org turn pale, namely, that all planets were once suns, and that our sun will someday burn out and become a planet. And further, that the Bible is just a collection of allegorical retellings of this thesis.
It also claims Jesus never existed as a person. Muslims don’t believe that do they !
It claims to be an ancient Wisdom but is just garbage. The writer of the article you cut and pasted from in Answering Christianity got real desperate with that one!
So what if Jesus never said anything about Rome being the center of his teachings? He actually said his teachings would go to all people. Rome was at the centre of the world at that time. This is a very weak point you are quoting from Answering Christianity here.
The writer of your Answering Christianity article claims the Gospels are not based on eye-witness accounts. Wrong! Have a good read of the Gospels. They were asll written in the same generation of the events. The writer of your Answering Christianity article claims we only have fragments of the New Testament prior to the year 325 CE. The Gospels have no chain of transmission and the disciples were dead before any Gospel was written. Again – wrong! The disciple John wrote the Gospel of John. In terms of the chain of transmission? There are other factors that contribute to the credibility of a piece of writing rather than just the chain of transmission (isnad) . For example, the time line or timeliness of scholarly compilation of such writings is important. The New Testament compares better than the hadith in this regards.
In terms of the Gospels being changed in the year 506 CE I presume the author of Answering Christinity is referring to Emperor Anastasius. The Canon Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were well established long before 506.Because of this it is obvious no Roman emperors edited the New Testament that we have today.
In terms of the unsupported claim that one million Christians were put to death under Athanasius for possessing forbidden gospels, this was post Council of Nicea. This had nothing to do with the relaibilty ot integrity of Biblical manscripts or the canon. It was simply an issue of Church doctrine that was debated in an intelligent manner. Any deaths that occurred were due more to the influence of the Roman Emperor, rather than the church.
The claim that there are no passages quoted by the early Church fathers (Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr) is completely and simply – wrong. There are enough references to New testament passages to construct a whole New testament just by themselves.
So what that the apologist Justin Martyr (d. 150 CE) speaks of events that are not recorded in the Gospels? Luke also mentions the sdame thing in his Gospel. There are no mysteries or surprises here and nothing to effect the reliability of the Gospels. Do you think there are sayings of Mohamad that didn’t make into hadith? I bet there was. At least biblical writers have got the honesty to admit it.
The claim the damages to the books and the “lost folios” and the Christian scriptures were destroyed by Diocletian in 303 CE seems to imply the lack of manuscript reliability. What you need to know is the new testament is the most validated of all ancient writings. More ancient copies exist than any other ancient writing, for example the Roman history of Julius Caesar, and others. Plus these copies cover a huge and wide geographic area that prevents them from being gathered together and falsified. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.
Compare this with the typical situation for other ancient histories and biographies. The detailed life of Alexander the Great, for instance which most historians believe can be reconstructed with a fair amount of accuracy, depends on Arrian and Plutarch’s late first and early second-century biographies of a man who died in 323 B.C. So the history of Alexander the Great is a leap of faith too? As are Greco / Roman concepts of democracy, medical ethics and mathematics?
There are many “non-Christian writers and texts” which confirm Christian doctrine. Cornelius Tacticus 115 AD, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, Thallus 52 AD, the Jewish Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar Sepion, Celsus, Gaius Seutonis Tranquillis, Lucian.
Many second Century Church leaders quoted from earlier Gospel manuscripts. Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.
There are other factors that contribute to the credibility of a piece of writing rather than just the chain of transmission (isnad) . For example, the time line or timeliness of scholarly compilation of such writings is important. The New Testament compares better than the hadith in this regards.
It was not until Bukhari in the third century hijri that the strongest scientific study of hadith occurred. Compare this to the time line of early Christian history. Christians were having rigorous discussions about authenticity far earlier in their time frame than Muslims were in their own.
In regards to The Gospels as anonymous documents and no reference to the Gospels by name until 200 CE, Christians have known this for centuries and the traditional exegesis on attributing the Gospels to the traditional writers is sound in terms of historicity, cross referencing and analysis of literary style.
So what if there are uncertainties in the Bible. Christian scholars have always known about them. These are easily tolerated and explained due to the Bible being the “God Inspired Word” written by men. Uncertainties around the Quran are more difficult for you due to the Quran supposedly being the direct and literal and perfect Word from God.
You say the Quran explains everything for us but yet you must consult the prophet and Sheikhs and Mufassiroon. There seems to be a contradiction? If the Quran is The Word of God it should not be difficult to understand without having to go to Sheikhs and Mufassiroon.
I forgot to mention Tishendorf and Kenyon. Here are some quotes from them.
Kenyon says-
No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading … it cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain.
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts . pg.10.
Frederick g Kenyon.
Here is an extract from a Conference of the Evangelical Church of Germany, held at Altenburg, in September, 1864 where Tishendorf said –
…attacks on Christianity are so common, the Sinaitic Bible, to be to us a full and clear light as to what is the real text of God’s Word written, and to assist us in defending the truth by establishing its authentic form.
Constatine Von Tishendorf
So in other words they both believe the Bible to be The Word of God and any of the so called variations are minor which do not effect the meaning of the scripture.
Now in regards to your baseless allegation on Manuscripts of Qur’an and to sum up all your claims and arguments regarding Hazrat Usman (R.A.) burning manuscripts of Qur’an.Well the answers are as follows-:
First of all it was not the manuscripts but the personal copies of many scribes those who used to write down while Prophet recite the Qur’an after he get the revealation were burnt by Hazrat Usman.
Secondly,Muslims were having differences in how they recited the Quran, in this case, it was the people of Sham (Syria,lebanon,jordan,yemen), and the people of Iraq.So,when one of the companions noticed this and became worried by it, specifically in regards to their differences in recitation concerning the Quran, he went to Hazrat Usman and informed him of what he had seen, and had asked Hazrat Usman to do something about the issue, lest Muslims fall into the same disputes the Jews and Christians did with their own book.At that time before standardization there were 7 dialects in which Qur’an was recited.
Now,then Hazrat Usman went for Standardization of Qur’an, that is the Qur’an should be read in the dialects of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) i.e., Quraish’s dialect and not in other dialect as the Quran was originally revealed in their dialect.This would thereby insure there wouldn’t be differences in dialectal reciation over each one another.So Hazrat Usman got rid of all unofficial documents, and replaced them with an official copy itself, and this a great evidence of the Quran’s preservation and textual integrity.For your kind information, Prophet’s personal scribe Hazrat Zaid was also present during standardization. And he was also a Hafiz-memoriser of Qur’an.This task of standardization was entrusted to the Companions Zayd ibn Thabit (Raliyallaahu Anhu), Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair (Raliyallaahu Anhu), Sa‟eed ibn As-‟As (Raliyallaahu Anhu), and Abdur- Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham (Raliyallaahu Anhu). Upon completion (in 25AH/646CE), Uthman (Raliyallaahu Anhu) returned the original manuscript to Hafsa (Raliyallaahu Anha) and sent the copies to the major Islamic provinces.And for this Hazrat Usman was praised.So Hazrat Usman (ra) didn’t destroy the Qur’an, instead, he took the best action ever possible.And Prophet Muhammad’s wife Hafsa’s manuscript was also preserved along with Hazrat Usman’s in topkapi museum,Al Hussein Mosque in cairo,Muslim Board of Uzbeks,and also in st. petersburg Russia.
A number of non-Muslim scholars who have studied the issue of the compilation and preservation of the Holy Quran have also stated its authenticity.
John Burton, at the end of his substantial work on the Holy Qur‟an‟s compilation, states that the Holy Quran as we have it today is:
“…the text which has come down to us in the form in which it was organized and approved by the Prophet…. What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad.” (Burton, John – The Collection of the Qur‟an, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p.239-40.)
Kenneth Cragg describes the transmission of the Quran from the time of revelation to today as occurring in “an unbroken living sequence of devotion.” (Cragg, Kenneth – The Mind of the Qur‟an, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26).
Schwally concurs that: “As far as the various pieces of revelation are concerned, we may be confident that their text has been generally transmitted exactly as it was found in the Prophet‟s legacy.” (Geschichte des Qorans, Schwally – Leipzig: Dieterich‟sche Verlagsbuchhandlung,1909-38, Vol.2, p.120.)
The historical credibility of the Holy Quran is further established by the fact that one of the copies sent out by the Caliph Uthman (Raliyallaahu Anhu) is still in existence today. It lies in the Museum of the City of Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Central Asia.
According to Memory of the World Program, UNESCO, an arm of the United Nations, “it is the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman.”
Now, coming to your NT manuscripts. When one looks at the NT manuscripts, what we do find are a lot of problems, in fact the NT manuscripts are the best evidence that attest to the unreliability of the NT, rather than the reliability of the NT.One of the first problems you will notice with the thousands of manuscripts is that no 2 manuscripts agree with each other, all the manuscripts contain differences and variants with one another.For e.g. just see John 1:18.and also you have in manuscripts book of hermes, and epistle of barnabus, yet you don’t have in another.and also in bible you don’t have such. In conclusion, yes you do have thousands of NT manuscripts, but these manuscripts do not attest to the reliability or preservation of the NT, they are in fact the best witnesses to the unreliability in the transmission of the NT.
Personal copies of the scribes who wrote down the Prophets burnt! Were these perfect copies not clear and perfect? Perhaps it was Uthmans copy that was not clear and perfect? Differences in recitation and dialect concerning the Quran?? How can this be? How can clear and perfect Quran have different recitations when the Arabic language is supposed to be so pure and clear? And all of this happened so soon after the prophet !
First you quote Tishendorf and Kenyon out of context to support your argument and when I rebut this you do not reply. Now you quote John Burton, Kenneth Cragg and Schwally. Who else will you quote out of context to support your view. None of these people are qualified to make any claim supporting the manuscripts. Why? Because there are no pre Uthman manuscripts. They do not exist. They are not there for anyone to compare. The most extensive pre Uthman manuscrips that is the Sanaa Quaran that proves the Quran to be faulty.
Dr Gerd Puin is a distinguished scholar of ancient classical Arabic language and Arabic palaenography. He is far more qualified than anyone you come up with. Let me repeat what Dr Puin said.
“The Arabic script is very defective ….”
“There are … variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ …“But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense.
the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
Aqil Azamic says about Puins letter –
… writing such a letter helps cool down the temper in Yemen and other parts of the Muslim world (he did not want to anger the Yemeni authorities and put a curb on possible future collaboration with Yemen or for that matter any Muslim country and Western ‘experts’)…
You mention copies sent out by the Uthman in the Museum of the City of Tashkent and is claimed to be “the definitive version, known as the Mushaf of Uthman.” You miss the point. I am talking about original Pre Uthman manuscripts. You have none. They do not exist. The only one you have is the Sanaa manuscript studied by Puin.
You are wrong in saying the thousands of NT manuscripts are evidence that attest to the unreliability of the NT,
Variants in the New Testament manuscripts are minimal. Out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.
In regards to John 1.18 this is not a textual problem but rather a theological problem that has long been resolved by theologans. In regards to the Book of hermes and The Epistle of Barnabus what you don’t understand is how the NT canon was developed. The canon development lasted 400 years and church leaders merely endorsed what most of the church already knew as the most authoritative books. The science of developing the Canon was sophisticated, similar to the science of your hadith. Criteria for canon were apostolicity (written by apostle or associate of), Catholicism (accepted widely) and Orthodoxy (theology ie. Hebrew vs Gnostic).
[FINAL COMMENT]
#1. Entire Muslim world knows that Qur’an is revealed in 7 dialects.The Prophet even said this in a hadees narrated by Abu Hurrairah(R.A.).The revelation of the Qur’an in seven different dialects made its recitation and memorization much easier for the various tribes. For example, the phrase ‘alayhim (on them) was read by some ‘alayhumoo and the word siraat (path, bridge) was read as ziraat and mu’min (believer) as moomin.Meaning are same but pronunciation are different. Now,after the death of the Prophet, amongst the arabs there arised boastful arguments on whose Dialect is superior. Even the Prophet warned not to have disputes, but still they created. And, because of this Hazrat Usman (R.A.) decided to record Qur’an only in Prophet’s dialect which is Quraishi, to get rid of this problem that arose.Then with the help of Prophet’s personal scribe Zayd ibn Thabit (Raliyallaahu Anhu), Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair (Raliyallaahu Anhu), Sa‟eed ibn As-‟As (Raliyallaahu Anhu), and Abdur- Rahman ibn Harith ibn Hisham (Raliyallaahu Anhu). He did the job.And everybody praised Hazrat Usman(R.A.). So, your allegation is absolutely baseless.
#2. The Sa’na masahif was written without any diacritical marks, vowel symbols and in short hand.The text can be read in a perfect way only if you have a strong oral tradition.Those that were unfamiliar with the Qur’an would read it differently because there were no diacritical and vowel symbols. Sa’na masahif could just be a bad copy that was being used by people of Yemen to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet.The existence of the Sana’a Manuscripts do not lend any credence to the claim that the Qur’an is corrupted. Rather the existence of these manuscript – palimpsests, demonstrate the textual integrity of the Qur’an and the grammatico-historical validity of the ahadith which verify the transcribing of the tongue of the Quraysh into a mushaf (text), for which we Muslims still use to this day. Nabia Abott and Dr. Ghassan Hamdoon and Razan Hamdoon who were manuscript researchers said that the Sanaa masahif absolutely matches with the Cairo script.
#3. You made another allegation that besides Sana there is no 1st Century Hijra manuscripts. Typical Christian missionary deception. We have Hijazi and Kufic manuscripts,also Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib manuscript, hassan bin Ali’s manuscript all from First century Hijra. So don’t lie okay.
#4. WoW!! what a lie 🙂 minor variants?? and solved?? ooOoooppPPPSSSsssss!!! Sir, in the first verse of the Gospel of Mark, the last part of the verse ‘Son of God’ is present in the Textus Receptus, but is omitted by both the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Another story of a whore and Jesus was present in the Codex Bezae and Textus Receptus both contain the above story. While P6618, P7519, Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus donot have the passage.Many alterations to the text were made for doctrinal reasons. Entire passages were added, words modified to suit the purpose of the later church, and all of this occurred whilst still being attributed to the original writers of the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is these types of modifications which are cause for concern and discredit the authenticity of the Bible, thus making it impossible to see it as a Holy Book written and preserved by God-inspired people.
You say there were disputes over dialects! How can this be when Surah 26: 193-195 says the Arabic language is plain to understand, precise, clear. Perhaps the Quran is wrong if disputes arose and Uthman had to take the extreme measure of burning competing copies.
In regards to the Sanaa Quran, Dr Puin understands written and oral Classical Arabic better than you. He was quite clear. Let me repeat what he said –
“The Arabic script is very defective ….”
“There are … variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ …“But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense.
“the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
Puin says both the oral hafidh tradition of recitation was not reliable and neither was the mushaf.
In regards to Hijazi, Kufic manuscripts and the Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib manuscript you are being evasive. The Sanaa Quran codex is the oldest and most complete pre Uthman Quran manuscript / codex in existence.
Yes – only minor variants in the Bible Alif. No lies about it. There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. The sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.
The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other ancient non Christian books. The New Testament, however, has a one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). As a result the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.
Most of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as “Christ Jesus” instead of “Jesus Christ”); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.
When all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance – and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.
In regards to doctrinal changes you over state the case. The reliability of Christian textual criticism more than identifies any changes in text. You as a Muslim wouldn’t even know about these doctrinal changes if it wasn’t for the integrity of Christian scholarship.
In tems of differences between Codex Sinaiticus Vaticanus. Bezae and Textus Receptus and Alexandrinus again you miss the point. I have said it many times but I will say it as many times as you need. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written by human beings inspired by God. Men who were imperfect vessels but yet were inspired. Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures. The Scriptures are always right only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God’s vision, God’s purposes, and God’s good news / Gospel to humanity.
In regards to the Quran however a major problem exists for Muslims. The Quran is not the “inspired word” but supposed to be a direct revelation and direct recitation from God. However the Quran is full of inconsistencies, contradictions and problems. This is far more difficult for Muslims to explain because it is seen as the direct word rather than the inspired word.
You have not replied to my argument about the canon, the Book of hermes and The Epistle of Barnabus and John 1. I am still waiting. You have failed to respond to my point of the Mushaf of Uthman in the City of Tashkent not being a pre Uthman version. You seem to be avoiding the points I make.
Because there is no reply option for the first post I will have to post my response to your first post of the three (dated 13 April) at the bottom of the thread.
Alif. I notice your tone is becoming sarcastic and rude. Please try your best to be respectful. If you cannot then you have no place in these discussions.
Let me repeat my position for you. We all know the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written by human beings -men. Imperfect men who had the breath of God upon them. Men who were imperfect vessels but yet were inspired. Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures. The Scriptures are always right only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God’s vision, God’s purposes, and God’s good news to humanity. The Bible’s message is directly inspired by God, and though he used human vessels to transport this message it remains accurate and trustworthy.
In regards to the Quran however a major problem exists for Muslims. The Quran is supposed to be a direct revelation and direct recitation from God. However the Quran is full of inconsistencies, contradictions and problems. This is far more difficult for Muslims to explain.
Since when did the opinion of George Bernard Shaw count for anything? If any book needs to be seen as dangerous and kept under lock ands key it’s the Quran. Just look at the trouble its bringing to the Muslim world.
You didn’t cite one verse but actually cited four – Matthew 18.11 and John 19:39,9:35,21:5. What basis do you have to say it is not a translation error but rather an error from the manuscripts. You need to back this up and if you cant then you need to cease making claims you can’t back up. And while you are at it maybe you would like to try and explain the difference between a translation error and manuscript error. What manuscript are you referring to?
You have not replied to my rebuttal that most Bibles make it clear that Mathew Verse 11 Chapter 18 is uncertain that Christians have never tried to keep this a secret because this is not a problem for them. You need to stick with the points being discussed.
Contradictions in John 19:39,9:35,21:5. You appear to be referring to the differences between the KJV and NIV. I’ve already addressed this, but let me repeat. Any error in scripture is limited to the shortcomings of the vessel (man) and not the message. Any such errors are limited and have no bearing on the ultimate message of the scriptures.
You said you can cite other examples – please do. I think you just copy and paste but never bother to understand.
What do you mean my scholars James White and Matt ? (Who?) What email are you referring to?
In terms of Muslims speaking Arabic, obviously if Surah if 26: 193-195 says –
With it came down the truthful spirit, to your heart that you may admonish, in the perspicuous (plain to understand, precise, clear,) Arabic tongue. Then the implication is for those that do not speak classical Arabic the Quran is not clear and plain to understand.
Your justifications for those whose mother tongue is not Arabic is not good enough. Muslims are always parroting off the Quran in Arabic without knowing what it means. This is meaningless.
You say the Qur’an has its own methodology and a set technique. What is it, some kind of maths book? Does the Word of God need to be this difficult and complicated needing a methodology and technique?
I couldn’t care less where in the Quran or hadith it says you need to have scholars to understand the Quran . You seem to be forgetting yourself. You are the one that said this.
Trinity? Yeah right. And a nine year old Christian boy can explain the Muslim pagan worship of your idol al-Hajaru-l-Aswad better than your Mullahs.
I actually couldn’t care less about AL-LAWH AL MAHFOOZ. This is just a fairy tale! You were the one that raised it simply as a distraction, an evasion from our discussion of the hafidh tradition and the mushaf. I could easily use John 1 where Christ is The Word of God to evade your criticisms of the Bible. But I choose not to due to my goal to defend the text in its own right. I suggest you do the same rather than recite fairy tales around Al Lawh Al Mahfooz.
Puin understands written and oral Classical Arabic better than you. He was quite clear. Let me repeat what he said –
“The Arabic script is very defective ….”
“There are … variations that don’t make any sense in the text”,
“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ …“But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense.
“the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”
Puin says both the oral hafidh tradition of recitation was not reliable and neither was the mushaf.
I am still waiting for you to respond to the following points-
I refuted you about Ehrman, Kenneth Cragg,Dr. W Graham Scroggie ,Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, and Dr. Frederic Kenyon. I am still awaiting your reply.
I gave an explanation through Prof al-Azamis son, Aqil Azami in tems of Puins letter to the Yemeni authorities. The reason for Puin making this ‘denial’- to cool down the temper of the Yemen authorities. I am still awaiting your reply.
You have not responded to my point that most seminary trained theologians have been trained in Hebrew and Greek which were the original languages of the Bible, and you appear confused about the Bible, as it was not originally written in Latin. It was written in Hebrew and Greek.
Im still waiting for your statistics on who speaks what language? You say you know now how many americans, french, german,spanish,british, russian, canadian, speak Hebrew and Greek? Tell me what is the statistic? Im still waiting!
Again I wait your reply to the above points you have not yet replied to.
Hadiths and Gospels are the same, they are man made and not the word of God as in the Quran or the Old Testament.
Almighty said the Quran is complete and nothing else is needed and will always be protected.
Hadiths and Gospels are alleged saying and what The Prophets did or say in their lifetimes. We are not to follow this but only the book ordained by almighty.