Powered By Blogger

Sunday, February 17, 2013

What Non-Muslim (Christian) Scholars say about the Quran?





Humanity has received the Divine guidance through two channels:

firstly the word of Allah,

secondly the Prophets who were chosen by Allah to communicate His will to human beings.

These two things have always been going together and attempts to know the will of Allah by neglecting either of these two have always been misleading. The Hindus neglected their prophets and paid all attention to their books that proved only word puzzles which they ultimately lost. Similarly, the Christians, in total disregard to the Book of Allah, attached all importance to Christ and thus not only elevated him to Divinity, but also lost the very essence of TAWHEED (monotheism) contained in the Bible.

As a matter of fact the main scriptures revealed before the Qur'an, i.e., the Old Testament and the Gospel, came into book-form long after the days of the Prophets and that too in translation. This was because the followers of Moses and Jesus made no considerable effort to preserve these Revelations during the life of their Prophets. Rather they were written long after their death.

Thus what we now have in the form of the Bible (The Old as well as the New Testament) is translations of individuals' accounts of the original revelations which contain additions and deletions made by the followers of the said Prophets. On the contrary, the last revealed Book, the Qur'an, is extant in its original form. Allah Himself guaranteed its preservation and that is why the whole of the Qur'an was written during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself though on separate pieces of palm leaves, parchments, bones, etc...

Moreover, there were tens of thousands of companions of the Prophet who memorized the whole Qur'an and the Prophet himself used to recite to the Angel Gabriel once a year and twice when he was about to die. The first Caliph Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the whole Qur'an in one volume to the Prophet's scribe, Zaid Ibn Thabit. This volume was with Abu Bakr till his death.

Then it was with the second Caliph Umar and after him it came to Hafsa, the Prophet's wife. It was from this original copy that the third Caliph Uthman prepared several other copies and sent them to different Muslim territories. The Qur'an was so meticulously preserved because it was to be the Book of guidance for humanity for all times to come. That is why it does not address the Arabs alone in whose language it was revealed. It speaks to man as a human being:

"O Man! What has seduced you from your Lord." The practicability of the Qur'anic teachings is established by the examples of Muhammad (PBUH) and the good Muslims throughout the ages. The distinctive approach of the Qur'an is that its instructions are aimed at the general welfare of man and are based on the possibilities within his reach. In all its dimensions the Qur'anic wisdom is conclusive. It neither condemns nor tortures the flesh nor does it neglect the soul. It does not humanize God nor does it deify man. Everything is carefully placed where it belongs in the total scheme of creation.

Actually the scholars who allege that Muhammad (PBUH) was the author of the Qur'an claim something which is humanly impossible. Could any person of the sixth century C.E. utter such scientific truths as the Qur'an contains? Could he describe the evolution of the embryo inside the uterus so accurately as we find it in modern science?
Secondly, is it logical to believe that Muhammad (PBUH), who up to the age of forty was marked only for his honesty and integrity, began all of a sudden the authorship of a book matchless in literary merit and the equivalent of which the whole legion of the Arab poets and orators of highest calibre could not produce? And lastly, is it justified to say that Muhammad (PBUH) who was known as AL-AMEEN (The Trustworthy) in his society and who is still admired by the non-Muslim scholars for his honesty and integrity, came forth with a false claim and on that falsehood could train thousands of men of character, integrity and honesty, who were able to establish the best human society on the surface of the earth? Surely, any sincere and unbiased searcher of truth will come to believe that the Qur'an is the revealed Book of Allah.

Without necessarily agreeing with all that they said, we furnish here some opinions of important non-Muslim scholars about the Qur'an. Readers can easily see how the modern world is coming closer to reality regarding the Qur'an. We appeal to all open-minded scholars to study the Qur'an in the light of the aforementioned points. We are sure that any such attempt will convince the reader that the Qur'an could never be written by any human being.

"However often we turn to it [the Qur'an] at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence... Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim is stern, grand, terrible - ever and anon truly sublime -- Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence."

Goethe, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, p. 526.
"The Koran admittedly occupies an important position among the great religious books of the world. Though the youngest of the epoch-making works belonging to this class of literature, it yields to hardly any in the wonderful effect which it has produced on large masses of men. It has created an all but new phase of human thought and a fresh type of character. It first transformed a number of heterogeneous desert tribes of the Arabian peninsula into a nation of heroes, and then proceeded to create the vast politico-religious organizations of the Muhammadan world which are one of the great forces with which Europe and the East have to reckon today."



G. Margoliouth, Introduction to J.M. Rodwell's, THE KORAN, New York: Everyman's Library, 1977, p. vii.
"A work, then, which calls forth so powerful and seemingly incompatible emotions even in the distant reader - distant as to time, and still more so as a mental development - a work which not only conquers the repugnance which he may begin its perusal, but changes this adverse feeling into astonishment and admiration, such a work must be a wonderful production of the human mind indeed and a problem of the highest interest to every thoughtful observer of the destinies of mankind."

Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, pp. 526-527.
"The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur'an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature? How could he then pronounce truths of a scientific nature that no other human being could possibly have developed at that time, and all this without once making the slightest error in his pronouncement on the subject?"

Maurice Bucaille, THE BIBLE, THE QUR'AN AND SCIENCE, 1978, p. 125.
"Here, therefore, its merits as a literary production should perhaps not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad's contemporaries and fellow countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well-organized body, animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history."

Dr. Steingass, quoted in T.P. Hughes' DICTIONARY OF ISLAM, p.528.
"In making the present attempt to improve on the performance of my predecessors, and to produce something which might be accepted as echoing however faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic Koran, I have been at pains to study the intricate and richly varied rhythms which - apart from the message itself - constitute the Koran's undeniable claim to rank amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind... This very characteristic feature - 'that inimitable symphony,' as the believing Pickthall described his Holy Book, 'the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy' - has been almost totally ignored by previous translators; it is therefore not surprising that what they have wrought sounds dull and flat indeed in comparison with the splendidly decorated original."

Arthur J. Arberry, THE KORAN INTERPRETED, London: Oxford University Press, 1964, p. x.
"A totally objective examination of it [the Qur'an] in the light of modern knowledge, leads us to recognize the agreement between the two, as has been already noted on repeated occasions. It makes us deem it quite unthinkable for a man of Muhammad's time to have been the author of such statements on account of the state of knowledge in his day. Such considerations are part of what gives the Qur'anic Revelation its unique place, and forces the impartial scientist to admit his inability to provide an explanation which calls solely upon materialistic reasoning."Maurice Bucaille, THE QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE, 1981, p. 18.

◔ Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) Treatment to the Christians





● In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights.

● St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possess a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.

⇛ Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) Message to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. 

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."




Wednesday, February 13, 2013

⌦ ✍ BIBLE DOES NOT HAVE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS ✍ ⌫



➲ It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that ✎we don't have the ✎originals—so saying they were inspired doesn't help me much, unless ✎I can reconstruct the originals.

➲ Moreover, the vast majority of Christians for the ✎entire history of the church ✎have not had access to the originals, making their inspiration something of a moot point.

➲ Not only do ✎we not have the originals, we don't have the ✎first copies of the originals. We ✎don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or ✎copies of the ✎copies of the ✎copies of the originals.

➲ What we have are ✎copies made later—much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from ✎one another, in many ✎thousands of places

➲ These ✎copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how ✎many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in Comparative terms: there are ✎more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the ✎New Testament.

BART D. EHRMAN IN MISQUOTING JESUS




Thursday, January 17, 2013

Bible Contradictions - The Geneology of Jesus


1 Tim.1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies" Tit.3:9 "Avoid foolish questions and genealogies".

An important part of the Jewish messiah myth (found in the old testament) is the prophecy that this messiah would be descended from certain biblical figures such as Abram and David. The New Testament is the story of the arrival of this messiah (Jesus Christ) and the cult built up around him (Christianity). Obviously in order to convince others of Jesus Christ's validity in this messiah role the New Testament writers had to include a genealogy through these figures. Both Matthew and Luke present "a" a of Christ. Lets have a look at them, from king David to Jesus.




Open your Bible to Luke 3:21-31

 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

And now read Matthew 1:6-17

1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations

The Genealogy From Luke

1. David 
2. Nathan 
3. Mattatha 
4. Menan 
5. Melea 
6. Eliakim 
7. Jonan 
8. Joseph 
9. Juda 
10. Simeon 
11. Levi 
12. Matthat 
13. Jorim 
14. Eliezer 
15. Jose 
16. Er 
17. Elmodam 
18. Cosam 
19. Addi 
20. Melchi 
21. Neri 
22. Salathiel 
23. Zorobabel 
24. Rhesa 
25. Joanna 
26. Juda 
27. Joseph 
29. Semei 
30. Mattathias 
31. Maath 
32. Nagge 
33. Esli 
34. Naum 
35. Amos 
36. Mattathias 
37. Joseph 
38. Janna 
39. Melchi 
40. Levi 
41. Matthat 
42. Heli 
43. Joseph 
44. Jesus


The Genealogy From Matthew

1. David 
2. Solomon 
3. Rehoboam 
4. Abia 
5. Asa 
6. Josaphat
7. Joram 
8. Ozias 
9. Joatham 
10. Achaz 
11. Ezekias 
12. Manasses 
13. Amon 
14. Josias 
15. Jechonias 
16. Salathiel 
17. Zorobabel 
18. Abiud 
19. Eliakim 
20. Azor 
21. Sadoc 
22. Achim 
23. Eliud 
24. Eleazar 
25. Matthan 
26. Jacob 
27. Joseph 
28. Jesus


Christian Apologetics

As we can see these two genealogies do not match up at all. Just compare the lengths for a start 28 to 44. Obviously the average generation is much larger in Matthews account than in Lukes, which doesn't seem likely, in maths average is always, average. But since the bible is a Christian book, let us see what they have to say about it, before jumping to any conclusions.

“Luke now gives the genealogies of Jesus. Matthew’s genealogy is of Joseph’s ancestors and this one of Mary, mother of Jesus, in David’s line through Nathan. Matthew goes no higher than Abraham, but Luke brings it as high as Adam. Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, and heir to the throne of David. Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head(Genesis 3:15), begins with Heli, who was not the father of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary.”- Answering The Atheist

Do they even THINK before saying stuff like this? Christians claim that Lukes account is Marys fathers genealogy through Heli and Matthews account is Josephs genealogy. This is very unlikely, as we shall soon see. If David was a common ancestor of both Marys fathers line and Josephs line then obviously the two genealogies split from David into his two sons, Nathan carried Mary's fathers line and Solomon carried Josephs line. All good to start off with, but we run into a major problem when we get to the name Salathiel and his son Zorobabel which are shared by both lists. See Mary's fathers line says that Salathiel was the son of Neri whereas Josephs line says that he was the son of Jechonias. Unless Neri and Jechonias were homosexual parents to Salathiel, there is no possible way to resolve this conflict. Even trying to go the way of father-inlaw like with Josephs father (both Heli and Jacob) doesnt work because if Salathiel wife's father was Neri and Salathiel's father was Jechonias then the Mary's fathers line would be broken. The only way to resolve the two accounts on this point is to say that one of the genealogies is wrong. This I suppose is why none of the Christians mention this particular problem in their apologetics. Wait, there is more, much worse!




Yet Another Genealogy

There is yet another genealogy of Jesus we can read from David to Babylonian captivity.Look in Chronicles 3: 10-16
3:10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abia his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 3:11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 3:12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 3:13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, 3:14 Amon his son, Josiah his son. 3:15 And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 3:16 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son

What the Christian Says

 "St. Matthew took up the genealogies just as he found them in the public Jewish records, which, though they were in the main correct, yet were deficient in many particulars. The Jews themselves give us sufficient proof of this. Though the writer (by inspiration of the Spirit) would be aware of the true ancestory, he did not see it necessary or even appropriate to take issue with the accredited genealogical table." - Looking Unto Jesus.


Jesus's Genealogy According to Chronicles 3:10-16

So the list from David to Babylon according to the old testament are:
1. Solomon 
2. Rehoboam 
3. Abia 
4. Asa 
5. Jehoshaphat 
6. Joram 
7. Ahaziah 
8. Joash 
9. Amaziah 
10. Azariah 
11. Jotham 
12. Ahaz 
13. Hezekiah 
14. Manasseh 
15. Amon 
16. Josiah 
17. Jehoiakim 
18. Jeconiah 
Mathew gives almost the same genealogy as is given here, but leaves out four generations (Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jehoiakim).


Bible Epic Fail

 So they ADMIT an error, then blame it on the Jews shoddy record keeping, forgetting that they claim elsewhere that Matthew had access to Chronicles, in fact that Jesus supposedly quotes from the old testament repeatedly. What rubbish, what absolute nonsense. They are hammering and painting to fit, true apologetics at its best. This is an example of the truly ridiculous lengths Christians will go to in order to justify their holy book. The conclusion is from this is clear. None of the bible writers knew each other, or of each others writings. Each of them wrote accounts after the fact, from hearsay, and what they decided must be true based on the messiah myth. Matthew decided he needed the magical number 14 reflected in his genealogy. ("So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations") They all got it wrong, and the Bible FAILS. Perhaps the bible writers should have heeded 1 Tim.1:4 "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies" and Tit.3:9 "Avoid foolish questions and genealogies".

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Where did our modern Bibles come from? (2)



The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.


All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible? In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:


"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."


They go on to caution us that:


"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"


The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:


"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."


Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:


"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"


Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):


"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)


"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)


"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)


"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)




A balanced look at the status and authenticity of the New Testament texts.


Friday, January 11, 2013

Quran from the Point of View of Non-Muslims




Qur'an is a book which guides human beings in several dimensions of life and nobody can deny its several special characteristics and everybody may use it according to his capacity, here we want to talk about different viewpoints of non-Muslim scholars about Qur'an which show that the divine trainings of this book will soon spread through the world. 


Of course it should be mentioned that every scholar has looked at Quran from his own point of view and has not been able to discover all characteristics and deepness of its trainings.

1) Albert Einstein (1979-1955): Quran is not a book of algebra or geometry but is a collection of rules which guides human beings to the right way, the way which the greatest philosophers are unable to decline it.

2) Will Dorant (born in 1885): Religious treatments in Quran contain worldly treatment too and all of its affairs are sent from Allah by revelation. Quran contains rules such as: good manners, healthiness, marriage, divorce, treatments with children and animals and slaves, commercials, politics, unlawful profit, debt, contracts, recommendations, industrial affairs, wealth, amercements and punishments and war and peace. Quran creates simple beliefs in simple souls, which are free from bad traditions and worship of idols. Quran has established principles of union discipline and social unity between Muslims.

3) Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1721): Quran takes the responsibility of man prosperity alone. I hope it will not be too late that time which I can unite all the scholars of all the countries together and establish a monotone society based on principles of Quran only which will guide people to prosperity.

4) Gandhi (1869-1948): By learning Quran, every body will achieve revelation secrets and religion knowledge. In Quran we don't see anything which allows using obligation to change others religion. This sacred book says in the simplest way: 'there is no obligation in religion.'

5) Dr. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe (German Poet): In 1832 said, for long years, priests prevented us understanding Quran realities and greatness of its bringer, but by improvement of sciences this book will take human attention to it and become axis of thoughts.

6) Lion Tolstue (Russian philosopher): Quran contains clear realties and tenets and human beings can utilize it generally.

7) Bernard Shaw (English philosopher): He foretells that Europe will accept religion and book of Muhammad (PBUH).

8) DR. Marks (1818-1883): Quran contains all divine messages, which exist in all sacred books for all nations. There are verses in Quran that relates to learning science and thinking and discussing and training and I confess that this firm book has corrected many of the man mistakes.

9) Dr Shebly Shommyel (1853-1917) (Special student of Darwin): Prophet of Islam took attentions of human being wisdom towards him by Quran eloquence and made them unconscious against his book.

10) Charles Francis (American professor): Bible is a book which no one knows in America but Quran is a book which every Muslim knows and it is not a lie. But it should be mentioned that being unaware of bible is a good luck for religion.

11) P.H Corbin (France contemporary Islam knower): If Muhammad thought was superstitious and Quran was not revelation, he never dared to invite man to science. No thought and no person have invited human beings to science as Muhammad did. As we see that it has talked about science 950 times.


Of course, the quotations mentioned above are very little, we would prefer no to refer to all of them and suggest the researches to research references for more information.


Why Muslims Reject the Bible as Scripture



by Ijaz Ahmad

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheemبِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Evidently for the past 1700 years, the Bible has been the scripture of the Christian faith. Islam acknowledges that scripture was given to the Christians and Jews, we call such people, “Ahlul Kitab” or the “people of the Book”. However, where we disagree, begins with the very understanding of what the Bible is. To the Muslim, the Torah was given to Moses and the Gospel to Christ, however we believe that both Christians and Jews today both do not have in their possession the original Torah or the original Gospel.

We don’t make this claim simply because we can, but we make this claim because of the evidences we possess. To begin with, the Qur’an states in Surah 2, Ayah 79 and in Surah 5, Ayah 13 that both the Jews and the Christians corrupted their scripture. This might seem odd to some Christians that the Bible was corrupted, and you may be asking if the Muslim is able to defend such a claim. We can and it’s simple. One example I am fond of using is the following argument, it goes a little something like this:-

Can you tell me which Old Testament you believe in?

DSS/ Qumran Scrolls.
Judaic Oral Tradition.
Mystery Source of the Greek Septuagint.

Can you tell me which New Testament you believe in?

Codex Washingtonesis.
Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Codices,
1 through 27.
KJV Codex.
John Mill’s 1707 Greek NT Codex.

The problem is, there is no “one Biblical text” that all Christians agree on. What you call the Bible today is a translated text based on Greek, Arabic, Syriac and even Ethiopian writings. All collected and pieced together. What you call the Bible in 2012, is not what the first Christians called it some 2000 years ago. Namely because the New Testament didn’t exist until the writings of Paul began some 14 years after Christ ascended. At the earliest, the Bible was decided upon by what was called an Ecumenical Council or a “Unity Council”, today known as the Council of Carthage in 393 and 397 AD. Yet, every Bible since that time, has varied, with no two remaining the same. Thus, what the Bible exists as today, is not considered to be the Bible which Christians in any previous century have believed in. 

The Bible is still evolving to this day, with both conservative and liberal Christian scholars attempting to define what the Bible “could” have looked like according to what each textual critic’s understanding of the text could have or should have looked like. The truth is, if the Christian scholars of now and those of the past still cannot decide on what the Bible is or what is was or what it will be, why should Muslims accept it as their scripture?

The case begets another problem, as the God of the Old Testament, proclaims that there is one eternal word of God, in Psalms 119:89, it reads:

“Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.”

Which word is it referring to? There are so many canons and codices to choose from, none being the same from the first complete codices from the third century to today. How can you ask the Muslim to accept, what the Christian faith itself cannot decide upon?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam' and God knows best.

Visit us now ==>> www.callingchristians.com