Muslim gladiator wrote:
And my speech about this verse is old; actually that is what Muslims say 1400 years ago. Actually my speech is not old but your knowledge of Arabic and Quran are not strong.
Read El-Tabari Tafsir, especially this part:
الْقَوْل فِي تَأْوِيل قَوْله تَعَالَى : { فَإِنْ كُنْت فِي شَكّ مِمَّا أَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْك فَاسْأَلْ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَاب مِنْ قَبْلِك } يَقُول تَعَالَى ذِكْره لِنَبِيِّهِ مُحَمَّد صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : فَإِنْ كُنْت يَا مُحَمَّد فِي شَكّ مِنْ حَقِيقَة مَا أَخْبَرْنَاك وَأُنْزِلَ إِلَيْك مِنْ أَنَّ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيل لَمْ يَخْتَلِفُوا فِي نُبُوَّتك قَبْل أَنْ تُبْعَث رَسُولًا إِلَى خَلْقه , لِأَنَّهُمْ يَجِدُونَك عِنْدهمْ مَكْتُوبًا وَيَعْرِفُونَك بِالصِّفَةِ الَّتِي أَنْتَ بِهَا مَوْصُوف فِي كِتَابهمْ فِي التَّوْرَاة وَالْإِنْجِيل ; فَاسْأَلْ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَاب مِنْ قَبْلِك مِنْ أَهْل التَّوْرَاة وَالْإِنْجِيل كَعَبْدِ اللَّه بْن سَلَام وَنَحْوه مِنْ أَهْل الصِّدْق وَالْإِيمَان بِك مِنْهُمْ دُون أَهْل الْكَذِب وَالْكُفْر بِك مِنْهُمْ . وَبِنَحْوِ الَّذِي قُلْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ أَهْل التَّأْوِيل . ذِكْر مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ : 13835 - حَدَّثَنَا الْقَاسِم , قَالَ : ثَنَا الْحُسَيْن , قَالَ : ثَنِي حَجَّاج , عَنْ اِبْن جُرَيْج , قَالَ : قَالَ اِبْن عَبَّاس , فِي قَوْله : { فَاسْأَلْ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَاب مِنْ قَبْلِك } قَالَ : التَّوْرَاة وَالْإِنْجِيل الَّذِينَ أَدْرَكُوا مُحَمَّدًا صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنْ أَهْل الْكِتَاب فَآمَنُوا بِهِ , .........
Kai replies:
Here is a quote on the subject, a summary from Camilla’s Adang’s book, Muslim writers on Judaism & the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/tahrif.htm
The following citations are taken from Camilla Adang’s book, Muslim Writers on Judaism & the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm. It is published by E. J. Brill Leiden 1996 (Brill Academic Publishers 1997), ISBN: 9004100342.[2]
Adang focuses her attention on the following Muslim authors, specifically the last nine:
1. Abu’l-Rabi‘ b. al-Layth (c. 8th century A.D.).
2. ‘Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari (b. 810 A.D.).
3. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. Muslim b. Qutayba (b. 828 A.D.).
4. Ahmad b. Abi Ya‘qub b. Ja‘far b. Wahb b. Wadih al-‘Abbasi (b. first quarter of the 9th century A.D.).
5. Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (b. 839 A.D.).
6. Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. al-Husayn al-Mas‘udi (b. 893 A.D.).
7. Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-Tayyib b. Ja‘far b. Muhammad b. al-Qasim (ibn) al-Baqillani (b. 950)
8. Abu Nasr Mutahhar b. Tahir al-Maqdisi.
9. Abu’l-Rayhan Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Biruni (b. 973 A.D.).
10. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. Hazm (b. 994 A.D.).
The first 7 writers were of the opinion that the Hebrew Scriptures remained intact, with the last 3 claiming that textual corruption had taken place. Ibn Hazm was the most vociferous of those who held that the text of the Hebrew Bible was corrupted.
It will be our aim here to specifically focus on the views of the first 7 Muslims. We do this to demonstrate that the first Muslims did not hold to the position that the previous books, specifically the books of the Hebrew Bible, were corrupted to such an extent that its message was unreliable, no longer accurately reflecting the original message of the OT prophets.
Ibn al-Layth
... In the epistle of Ibn al-Layth, on the other hand, tahrif is clearly interpreted as a distortion of their sense: whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad mentioned, but the People of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and professes his belief - and Caliph Harun’s - in the authenticity of these scriptures. This point of view seems to be shared by Ibn Rabban. (p. 224)
Ibn Rabban
... The accusation of deliberate distortion of the Torah, which we find for example in the works of Ibn Hazm, is nowhere voiced in Kitab al-din a’l-dawla ... he refers to a distortion of the interpretation of the scriptures and not of the text itself ... However, Ibn Rabban could ill afford to reject the Torah as a forgery, for this would deprive him of the main proof he adduces for Muhammad’s veracity; the frequent occurrence of his name and description in the Jewish - and Christian - scriptures. To a large extent, the same goes for Ibn Qutayba’s Dala’il al-nubuwwa. (p. 225)
Ibn Qutayba
... Ibn Qutayba used the Torah not only as a book in which the advent of the Prophet is foretold, but also as a historical source ...
... It is clear that what is meant by tahrif is giving a wrong interpretation to an otherwise genuine text. Ibn Qutayba does not question the authenticity or validity of the Jewish scriptures, and nowhere does he accuse the Jews of having distorted them.
Admittedly, he states in his Ma‘arif that the Torah was burned at one point, but he immediately adds that Ezra reinstated it after the Jews had returned to Syria ...
The statement about the restoration of the Lost Torah probably goes back indirectly to the apocryphal IV Ezra with which, as we have seen in Chapter Four, Ibn Qutayba was acquainted in one form or another. We see the motif of Ezra as the inspired restorer of the holy scriptures recurring in the works of other historians, among them al-Tabari. (pp. 225-226; underlined emphasis ours)
Al-Ya‘qubi
As in the cases of Ibn Rabban and Ibn Qutayba, tahrif does not seem to have been an issue for al-Ya‘qubi...
... Most important, however, is the fact that like Ibn Qutayba al-Ya‘qubi sees no reason not to accept evidence from the Torah. (pp. 226, 227)
Al-Tabari
... A study of his explanation of the verses in which the accusation of tahrif occurs, as well as those in which similar allegations are leveled at the Jews, allows us to summarize his views on the issue as follows:
... When Moses ordered the Israelites to express their repentance, they used a phrase other than the one they had been told to use: instead of hitta - which according to Goldziher may be derived from the Hebrew hata’nu, we have sinned - they said hinta. The distortion that was effected here was an oral one, and al-Tabari does not link it with the written text of God’s word. The same applies in the case of the seventy elders who accompanied Moses to Mount Sinai and were allowed to hear God’s speech. Once they returned to their people, some of them gave a false report of what they heard, distorting God’s spoken words, but not the written Torah, as is explicitly stated by al-Tabari. (pp. 227-228; underlined emphasis ours)
The rabbis are admonished in the Koran not to hide their knowledge in their desire for power and worldly gain. Yet some of them write a book according to their own interpretations alongside the Torah, and twist their tongues, so that the Muslims might think that what they misrepresent is from the book of God and part of His revelation, while in actual fact, God never revealed any such thing to any of His prophets. In so doing, they add to God’s book what does not belong to it. Again, the context suggests that al-Tabari understands these additions as oral, not textual ones. When these rabbis twist their tongues, they distort the real meaning of the words into something objectionable, scorning Muhammad and his religion.
Al-Tabari explicitly states what he understands by distorting the word of God: changing its meaning and interpretation, deliberately bending its original meaning to something else. (p. 229)
There is no suggestion in al-Tabari’s Tafsir that the Torah was lost or perished at some point in history. In his Annales, however, the author does state that it was burned and lost, but that Ezra miraculously restored it:
When [the Israelites] returned to Palestine, they had no divine scripture, for the Torah had been seized and burned, and it perished. Ezra, one of the captives in Babylon who returned to Palestine, spent day and night grieving over it, in solitude. While he was in waterless valleys and in the wilderness, grieving over the Torah and weeping, lo and behold, a man approached him as he sat, and [the man] said, "O Ezra, what grieves you?" Ezra said, "I grieve over God’s scripture and covenant which was among us, but our transgressions and the Lord’s wrath against us came to such a pass that He made our enemy prevail. They slew our men, and destroyed our country and burned our divine book, without which our worldly existence and our life to come has no meaning. What shall I weep over if not this?" The man said, "Would you like it to be returned to you?" Ezra asked, "Is that possible?" "Yes," the man replied. "Go back, fast, cleanse yourself, and cleanse you garments. Then be at this place tomorrow."
Ezra went back, cleansed himself and his garments, and went to the appointed place. He sat there, and the man came carrying a vessel filled with water - he was an angel sent by God - and gave Ezra to drink from that vessel. The Torah then presented itself in Ezra’s consciousness. Ezra returned to the Children of Israel and set down the Torah for them, so that they might know what it permits and what it prohibits, its patterns, precepts and statutes. They loved it as they had never loved anything before. The Torah was established among them, and with it their cause fared well. Then he died. In the course of time, the Israelites considered Ezra to be the son of God. God again sent them a prophet, as He did in the past, to direct and teach them, and to command them to follow the Torah. (pp. 230-231)
Al-Baqillani
... It would seem that al-Baqillani simply assumed it to be authentic, albeit abrogated ...
Apparently al-Baqillani believed that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original, and could serve as the touchstone with which to compare the statements made by the Jews. The term as used by him stands for inadvertent errors made in the process of translation, rather than deliberate alterations effected in the text of the Torah. (pp. 234, 235)
Al-Ma‘sudi
According to al-Ma‘sudi’s account of the Torah - which echoes that of al-Ya‘qubi - the text of the Torah was not corrupted; no new laws were introduced; the old ones were just reinstated ...
... The one time he addresses the issue of tahrif – in the Muruj - it is clear that he accuses the Jews of distorting the sense of the Torah, not the text ...
So far, we have only encountered authors who subscribed to the view that the misrepresentation of the Torah referred to in the Koran merely concerns the meaning of the Torah and not its text. As may be concluded from al-Tabari’s Tafsir, however, the opposite view also had its partisans. With al-Maqdisi we turn to an authority who had his misgivings about the authenticity of the text. (p. 232; underlined emphasis ours)
Adang concludes:
... It was found that the MAJORITY of our authors subscribe to a mild interpretation of the Koranic allegation of large-scale tampering with the Torah by the Jews (tahrif); according to this interpretation, only the sense of the biblical text had been changed while the text itself remained intact. Only al-Maqdisi and Ibn Hazm believed that the text had suffered distortion. The person held responsible by Ibn Hazm for corruption of the Torah was Ezra the scribe, who was generally put in a very positive light by Hazm’s predecessors. Apart from al-Tabari, the authors who held to a moderate view of tahrif felt justified in using the Bible as a historical source and for apologetical purposes. (p. 251; underlined and capital emphasis ours)
Thomas F. Michel supports the conclusions of Camilla Adang. In his English translation of Shaik-ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiyya’s response to Christians, Michel writes:
The term tahrif finds its origin in the Quran. In its verbal form it indicates an accusation hurled four times (4:46; 5:13; 5:41; 2:75) against Jewish leaders and carries the meaning that they quote their Scriptures wrongly out of context. On this basis a distinction was made early in the polemical tradition between tahrif al-lafz and tahrif al-ma‘na, the first referring to actual textual distortion and corruption, the second referring to the false and distorted interpretation of basically sound texts.
The early Muslim polemicists, such as ‘Ali al-Tabari, the Zaydi al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim, and Al-Hasan ibn Ayyub, applied the concept of tahrif al-ma‘na to the Christian as well as Jewish Scriptures. The later polemicists of the Ash‘arite school such as AL-BAQILLANI, AL-GHAZALI, and FAKR AL-DIN AL-RAZI, approached the Bible AS BASICALLY SOUND IN ITS TEXT but misinterpreted by Christians and Jews.
Ibn Hazm in his Al-Fisal fi al-Milal wal-Ahwa wal-Nihal, carefully built a case for the verbal corruption of the biblical text. According to Ibn Hazm, the Bible is not a message of God which contains some erroneous passages and words, but is of the status of an anti-Scripture, "an accursed book," the product of satanic inspiration. His conclusion marked A DEPARTURE FROM THE PREVAILING OPINION BEFORE HIS TIME and was followed by subsequent writers only with careful qualifications. Although the majority of later polemicists rejected Ibn Hazm’s conclusions as extreme, by the strength of his argumentation he influenced all subsequent polemical literature. The question of tahrif of scripture was one that no polemicist - Christian, Muslim, or Jewish - could leave untreated. (Michel, A Muslim Theologian’s Response to Christianity [Caravan Books; Delmar, NY, second printing 1999], pp. 89-90; bold and capital emphasis ours)
CONCLUSION
The previous quotes provide additional evidence that the Muslim assertion regarding the textual corruption of the Holy Bible finds little support from the writings of the first Muslims. It is rather evident that the majority of the first Muslim polemicists (if not all of them) believed that the text of the previous scriptures, at least in the case of the Hebrew Bible, remained intact.
The obvious reason why some Muslims of the past such as Ibn Hazm (and many today) argued that the Scriptures have been corrupted is that the message of the Holy Bible is directly opposed to the claims of the Quran. In other words, the Holy Bible and the Quran contradict each other on key, fundamental issues showing that both cannot be correct. They may both be wrong, but they can’t both be from the same God. Hence, the dilemma for the Muslim is quite apparent since to accept the Holy Bible as the preserved Word of God is to reject both the Quran and Muhammad. But to attack the Holy Bible is to discredit the Quran and the earliest Muslim sources which confirm the authority, availability, and authenticity of the previous scriptures.
It is a fact that the Qur’an refers to certain corruption and the Old Testament text, but never the Injeel! What does that reveal? Basically, that even though the Torah according to the Koran could be corrupted, this in no way applies to the New Testament.
Secondly, what kind of corruption of the Old Testament are we referring to? If you look at my first reply, I mentioned that some Jews were locally corrupting the Old Testament, we are not looking at a full scale corruption over the entire inhabited earth.
What I also pointed out was, that these individuals corrupted the Koran as well.
Unless you can show me where the Koran refers to a full scale corruption of the Old Testament text, your claims remain futile, but then again if you succeed you have merely debunked your own prophet who believed these Scriptures.
Yet again if you succeed, you would still need to point out where the Koran explicitly reveals a full scale corruption of the Injeel!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
{[94] So if you (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, (i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) then ask those who are reading the Book (the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).}
In the original writing, nothing is written about Muhammad’s name, neither is there any reference to the particular books.
The passage refers to those who were reading the book before Muhammad; these are clearly the people of the book
I do not know if you are blind or your can not see. Always Muslims say, This is a translation of the MEANINGS of the Quran. No one never say it is a translation for the Quran itself. Because of any Holy book can not be translated. That what Muslim say every day and night. Why?
Kai replies:
I am totally lost here
In what sense do you differentiate between meaning and text, is the meaning not found within the text?
And what do you mean by: a holy book cannot be translated, the vary fact that we have a multiple number of Koranic translations, and the translations more or less agree, verifies that the Koran can be translated.
Muslim gladiator:
Simply because using other words can not be like the original term at all.
For example,
If the original context for any novel was like that:
I got a new book
Then I wrote it like that
I had a new book
or I obtained a new book
for me a Muslim that is an interpolating for the context.
Kai replies:
Again, you need to clarify what you mean here!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Something else about this subject,
Ever community has especial terms and if you tried to translate the words to another language, it will not make so sense, so the translators lead to translate the meanings.
For example in English there is a term says
"Knock on the wood" which means thanks God this stuff still work out.
If I translated it like how it is for Arabic, it will not make any sense.
Another term like
"We will rock you" which means we will shake you and make you listen to us. If I tried to translate it into Arabic literally, it would not make sense.
That is why Muslims say every day and night the Bible is just a translation which it lost a lot of its sense. It is not the real words of God. And some people understood some of its words like not how it should be.
Kai replies:
Every language has some peculiar words, like in my language the word of ‘foolish’ is ‘swooped’, however this relates perhaps to 0.1 % of a language; and supports in no way your proposition that the Koran cannot be translated.
Muslim gladiator:
Anyways, return back to the verse, in the translation where the translator put the name of our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) to explain for those who does not understand Arabic the pronouns in the Original context. (You) means our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) otherwise from where did you get this verse belongs to our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him). We have no problem with each other about this verse belongs to our prophet.
Kai replies:
Again I am virtually lost here!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Putting some names and some phrase inside two practices for explanation is a famous thing in translation,
And I will give an example from the Bible, one from Old Testament and another one from the New Testament,
(2 Samuel 1:1 ,(King James Version)
{18(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)}
Mark 5:13 (King James Version)
{13And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.}
Mark 14:40 (King James Version)
{40And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,)
neither wist they what to answer him.}
Tell me, why the translators of King James Version put brackets inside some their verses rather than is it for explanation?
Kai replies:
As to the brackets of these text, they have been there since the very beginning. That is not the case with the Koranic passage that you posted, such as Sura 10: 94, where the brackets include translators interpretations and Sura 7: 157, where Deuteronomy 18 and the Gospel of John is not included.
You fail also to understand the science of Biblical narrative, in which editions are acceptable, as long as they are include by other prophets or priests to provide a fuller historical context. If the brackets originate from these, they are not later interpolations by copyists or scribes, but editions by earlier prophets. Let me also mention that narrative might include historical sources which are not revelatory or inspired to provide a historical context, and these might be translated within brackets. However, these have been there since the beginning.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
I hope you understand the verse much better now.
Kai replies:
I understand absolutely nothing, I am more confused than ever
Muslim gladiator:
Quote:
Hence they are called the people of the book
Clearly in this passage, Muhammad is doubting his own revelation, and what is the solution to the problem? Well ask those who read the previous Revelations.
Your conclusion is these individuals are converts to Islam, such as Abdel Allah bin Salm.
My challenge at this point is: show me a passage which relates this passage of the Quran to Jewish or Christian converts to Islam, particularly to Abdel.
Virtually nothing in the text reveals anything about the converts to Islam.
Hence you have failed to prove this, and even though you did, it would not prove the slightest thing, except that Muhammad doubted his revelation and needed help from the previous books.
In fact Muhammad trusted the previous revelations; you tell me why it was necessary for Muhammad to boost his confidence of prophethood on the Torah and Injeel if they were corrupted.
Your challenge has been based on a wrong idea. Read what I have said before.
Kai replies:
Yes you have said much but proved nothing!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
But if you need another verses talked about the people who has been converted,
Here we go,
(Surah 7, Verse 157) (The translation of the Meanings of the Quran)
{[157] Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad (peace be upon him)) whom they find written with them in the Taurât (Torah) (Deut, xviii, 15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16), - he commands them for Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained); and forbids them from Al-Munkar (i.e. disbelief, polytheism of all kinds, and all that Islâm has forbidden); he allows them as lawful At-Taiyibât ((i.e. all good and lawful) as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods), and prohibits them as unlawful Al-Khabâ'ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons, foods), he releases them from their heavy burdens (of Allâh's Covenant), and from the fetters (bindings) that were upon them. So those who believe in him (Muhammad (peace be upon him)) honor him, help him, and follow the light (the Qur'ân) which has been sent down with him, it is they who will be successful.}
Kai replies:
Why don’t you read the passage again and tell where John xiv 16 and Deut, xviii 15 is found in the text; this is what I mean by interpolation.
You USING A CORRUTED VERSION AND YOU ARE SELLING THIS CORRUPTION AROUND THE WORLD!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
(Surah 5, Verse 83) (The translation of the meanings of the Quran)
{[83] And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad (peace be upon him)) you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the truth they have recognized. They say: "Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses.}
The translation of the meanings of (Surah 3) (Verse 113)
{[113] Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of Allâh during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer.}
I hope that be clear?
Kai replies:
No it clarifies nothing of what you propose; it only clarifies that the earlier Muslims assumed the Revelations to agree.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Second time InshaAllah I will reply the points about the manuscripts of the Quran and sings of our Prophet in The Bible with evidences.
Kai replies:
Go ahead
But:
1. Where is the big surprise?
2. In what way were you to shake my faith?
3. How about all my replies, which you have not yet been able to respond to; are you gona deal with these issues?