| | |
| ||
|
The following is a typical polemical text written by a Muslim which is on his own webpage arguing that the Bible is corrupt and why he believes it's not the word of God. His approach is to use his own conjectures and beliefs which are contrary to logic, and in fact what the Quran says.
Let us begin...
As a Muslim, I never believed that the so called "the Bible" is the same as the Injeel mentioned in the Holy Qur'an.
As a Muslim that ignores what al-Quran says about the Bible,
And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)
The scripture before thee, was the scripture of the 'People of the Book', namely the Jews and the Christians.
Why would God command Muhammad, to refer to the Scriptures of the Christians and the Jews if they were corrupted?
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)
Here is a command to the Christians claiming to hold onto the scriptures given to them by their God, would God have commanded the Christians to stand fast to books that are corrupted.
Clearly the Muslim's accusation is illogical when we compare what has been written in the Qur'an.
1400 years a go, the Injeel itself was partially correct, and at that time, Allah used to remind the people of the book to follow Mohammad (PBUH) since he is the true Messenger of Allah that was mentioned in their Injeel "at that time".
Now the Muslim is as gracious to say that it was partially correct, but he fails to tell us when it was *fully* correct, he has already failed in his Mission in bringing the ultimate proof that the Injil that we have today, the New Testament is the not the Injil spoken of in al-Quran, al-Quran never mentions that al-Injil at the time of Muhammad was 'partially correct', the Muslim is using an un-Quranic statement to back up his own empty claims.
Al-Qur'an on the other hand speaks of the Injil as being a Book written by God, which we can therefore comfortably assume is free of errors, unless the Muslim wishes to declare that when God writes a book that it contains errors and corruption.
Now if the Muslim was to follow his Qur'an he would realise that al-Injil at the time of the 'prophet' was in fact one of the books of God that was held by the people of the book. Good! So that wraps up a lot of the arguments, all we need to do is find a copy of the Injeel from "that time" i.e. 7th Century and we know what Injeel Muhammad was talking about and we can confirm that that Injeel is indeed the word of God.
We only need to consider the earliest Codex which was written about 200 years before Islam came into existance and the Prophet appeared on the scene, to realise that the Injil we have today is the same as the Injeel of that time and would therefore have been the same Injil that would have existed at the time of Muhummad. So, if the Taurat and Injil are the same today as they would have been in the seventh century, we then have the ultimate proof that the Bible we have today is the Word of God as confirmed in al-Quran. As to al-Quran confirming al-Injil and al-Taurat to be the word of God, it is our Muslim friend who clearly demonstrates that he cannot even follow his own holy book but gets caught up with his own zeal.
One has to remember that the ultimate corruption of the so called Bible happened back in the Mid Centuries by the Church, and even at that time it was too late to refer to such book as the Injeel.
Proof! Proof! Please if you are to have a credible argument please try and use a single shred of proof. Even if the Bible was corrupted during the middle ages (which it may well have been), then we then have to look at manuscripts before this time and use them as the basis for translating the Bible, which is in fact what the translators do today.
In the Mid Centuries, the Church had the power to rule everything, and as a matter of fact, the Church edited and twisted their book so they can gain peoples' heart and, of course, their Wallet. The Church also used to offer its followers, and for a Hefty price, the so called the "Repentance Pass". Christians at that time, used to purchase such passes as a guarantee for complete forgiveness, salvation and an entry to Heaven. Money was and still and will be the number one strive in Christianity.......
Again this argument has no proof of scripture corruption, Christianity will be used to other people's advantages and twisted and perverted like all religions until it contradicts the teaching of the religion, the Muslim is using a completely unfair stance in trying to portray money as being the way of getting into heaven Christianity preaches belief in God not money. Islam is no exception in being used as an excuse for driving corrupt regimes and lust for money. This does not prove that the Bible we have today is not the same as the earliest surviving copies.
Back to our subject about the so called "the Bible". Christian missionaries in almost every discussion of the Qur'an assert that the Qur'an asks Muslims to believe in the Bible as a revelation of God. Many Muslims tend to fall into this trap by saying that "we believe in the Bible as revealed book."
Once the Muslim accepts this fact, the evangelist can point out that the Bible contradicts the Qur'an and that since the Bible has precedence over the Qur'an and since Muslims are required to believe in it, it therefore logically follows that the Bible is right and the Qur'an is wrong.
But the Qur'an says no such thing. There is no reference to the Bible in the Qur'an whatsoever.
If only they* had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)
* = The Christians and the Jews
The Christians are referred to as People of the Book (singular) not Books, surah 5:69 clearly mentions al-Taurat, Al-Injeel and all the revelations from your Lord. So the people of the Book singular believe in many revealed Books. The Bible to the Christian and Jew is merely a book which contains a collection of books revealed by God to his prophets
The Qur'an mentions the Taurat and the Injeel. The Taurat is the book given to prophet Moses. This is not the equivalent of the Torah/Pentateuch of the Jews and Christians, since much of it was not written by prophet Moses. And the Taurat is definitely not the Old Testament since the OT includes dozens of books attributed to other prophets before Jesus
Christians believe the first five books of the Pentateuch to be written by Moses. Please read Surah 5:69, it clearly states all other revelations given by God so the Taurat does not just mean the first five books al- Quran does not deny this, but can allow for the additional revalations of the other Old Testament prophets. If the Muslim wanted to make his position credible then he should show us what he believes to be the real Taurat instead of just using his own conjectures.
The Injeel is translated as the Gospel revealed to prophet Jesus. This is not the New Testament. The New Testament is a collection of 4 biographies of Christ, 27 epistles of St. Paul, and other books on the lives and adventures on the followers of Christ. There is no record of a book revealed to Jesus.
The last sentence is where the argument falls down, if there really had been an Injil that was just revealed to Jesus and written by him then let the Muslim produce one, or at least provide proof that one was in existence. As the to the credibility of the overwhelming proof that the four gospel writers are the recorders of the Gospel in it's written form and this would have been the Injil at the time of Muhammad, this argument used by the Muslim has no leg to stand on.
Perhaps the closest to it are the words of Jesus himself, which constitutes less than 10% of the NT.
This is an assumption widely made by Muslims that al-Injil must have been written by Jesus. Well what do the Christians believe? Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God and each writer was inspired to write God's word, so in fact the real author of the Bible is God, Christians also believe that Jesus is the Word of God and God himself (John 1:1) which means that in fact it was Jesus who wrote the Bible, which includes the four Gospel accounts, so in fact Jesus did write the NT and the rest of the Bible. This means that the Injil we have today, the same Injil at the time of Muhummad and before the time of Muhummad and the religion of Islam was divienely authored by Jesus Christ.
Therefore to say that Christians changed the Bible is an inaccurate statement, and can cause trouble in a discussion, because the Christian can then ask questions such as: Who changed the Bible? When exactly was it changed? How do you know it was changed if you don't have a copy of the original?
If the Muslim wants to make a credible point, then he must not go in half hearted like this brother but actually be prepared to answer such an ugly accusation by not avoiding such valid questions. If he really believes Islam is following God, then why does he discredit it so much by hiding away from such relevant questions?
The Bible, or at least the New Testament, cannot be an altered copy of the Injeel because it is a completely different book. In fact, the original Bible or New Testament (the very first one) did not correspond to the Injeel, Taurat, or Zabur in the first place.
I beg to differ on grounds of logic, if this really was the case then we need to compare the earliest manuscript copies we have of the Bible books with the Bible we have today and then draw a logical conclusion, the Muslim is quite at Liberty to check these out and draw a logical conclusion, which in fact the Bible translators have done, it would be fickle to use nothing but the earliest and most reliable manuscripts when translating the Bible. The Muslim will have to rethink his strategy instead of making such weakly made comments.
It doesn't matter how unreliably it was transmitted; the Bible does not correspond to the Qur'anic Injeel.
Please bring us the Injil mentioned by al-Quran, not what you think the Injil should be. The Injil that would have existed at the time of 7th Century.
It is not that the Christians have changed the original, but rather they have the wrong book, altogether.
Good, I am glad we agree that the scriptures we have today have not been changed. Now if the Muslim would be prepared to furnish us with the correct book (in his own opinion, and not necassarily that of the Quran) then maybe he would have the beginnings of a slightly credible argument.
The words of Christ are possibly the closest thing to the Injeel.
But it is the words of Christ that this Muslim refuse to believe in.
The recently discovered Gospel of Thomas, which is nothing but a list of sayings of Jesus, is even closer to the Islamic concept of Injeel. Therefore, it should be kept in mind in discussion with Christians that the Bible has not been changed, but rather the original documents chosen as the word of God were incorrect.
I believe the Muslim means the gospel of Barnabas. If so, the gospel of Barnabas is a very tiered out argument that has been proven fruitless time and time again, it is a forgery, if this is really closer to the 'Islamic concept' then this does nothing to help the cause of Islam in endorsing a forgery to support it's argument.
Was salaam