Jesus In Islam

[reepicheep]

Reply to Anyabwile RE: Biblical corruption.


The first point you seem to be making is that there are translation problems with certain English language versions of the bible. I agree. But I don't agree that this is a corruption.


You cannot "prove" corruption by looking at English translations. You must go to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and see if there are any corruptions there.


Let's consider an example from the Koran, Surah 4:11. Here are two versions of part of this verse from different English translations:


YUSUFALI:


> Allah (thus) directs you as regards your


> Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal


> to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more...



PICKTHAL:


> Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for)


> your children: to the male the equivalent of the


> portion of two females, and if there be


> women more than two,...



In these two translations, the parts in red are contractory. i.e., Yusufali includes the case "number of women = 2", while Pickthal excludes this case (i.e., number of women must be 3 or more). Do you think this contradiction proves that the Koran is corrupted? Why is it, you think, that Yusufali and Pickthal translated this passage differently? Which of these versions is correct?


To investigate this apparent contradiction, we must obviously go back to the original Arabic. Likewise, when investigating so called "biblical corruptions", we can't look only at English language translations.


Your second point seems to be: in some cases, the oldest manuscripts in existence (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, or other ancient languages) differ in some respects with each other. I concede that this is the case. But the vast majority of the differences are insignificant. In fact, I know of no instances where these differences in ancient manuscripts would change the overall message of the Bible.


Take John 6:36, as an example. In the "The New English Bible", this verse is translated as:


> But you, as I said, do not believe although


> you have seen.


But there is a footnote in this bible which says that some of the oldest Greek manuscripts read:


> But you, as I said, do not believe although


> you have seen me.



My position is that insignificant differences such as this one do not change the message contained in the Bible. If there are particular passages for which you think there exist significantly different ancient manuscripts, then let me know the details and I'll investigate.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


reepi let me help here


may be if u can pls provide the number of Surah and Ayah I guess u know these terms, i will be able to explain to u thru reading the Arabic text.


Thank u

[reepicheep]

Muslimah:


OK, I've edited my post and added in the location (Surah 4, verse 11).


Reepicheep.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


Thank u reepi


I find it obligatory since Alhamdulelah I know the language


Ok the Ayahs is determining the rulings of inheritance here.


i will explain it right from the original source. Have nothing to do with Yusuf Ali or Picktal. Mind u the translation here is translation of the meanings and does not in any way stand as Quran.


The Ayah says that Allah Commands u regarding your children that:


a male shall receive the share equal to the share of two females. In other word a female receives 1/2 of the male's share.


In case children were all females <b>but more than 2 daughters
</b>, here both daughters take 1/3 of the inheritance.


If it was only one daughter she takes 1/2 and the parents each 1/6th.


You re talking about contradiction between two translations of the meaning. Just grab any Quran in Arabic u will find the same text written with the same meaning reepi. The same for any other surahs or ayahs. All Arabic Quran books in the world are the same no contradiction. Alhamdulelah

[umm Zachariah]

Assalamu aleikum,


Just would like to add something to this subject to clarify the Muslim view.


Who Islam sees as the One who will guide us to Paradise.


And the relevance for this here is, that Islam sees Jesus, pbuh as one of His messengers that was sent to the Children of Israel.


So the Muslim belief is;


That we do not worship NONE other than our Creator


''They serve, besides Allah, things that hurt them not nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allah." Say: "Do ye indeed inform Allah of something He knows not, in the heavens or on earth?- Glory to Him! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"
The Quran 10:18


In the Qur'an, we can know Allah, SWT directly without any intercessors or middle men filtering the power, strength and connection with Him.


Allah, SWT loves you, Allah, SWT is the most forgiving and most merciful. Islam teaches that Adam, pbuh was forgiven the same moment he repented, and that death of the human body is a natural cycle.


To believe in a Loving Creator, that Judges each of us individaully and fairly.


To believe that He is All Powerful, and that He sees and knows all our actions.


To believe in that it is Allah, SWT that saves His messengers.


''Then Allah saved him from (every) ill that they plotted (against him), but the burnt of the Penalty encompassed on all sides the People of Pharaoh.''
The Qur'an 40:45


" So naught was the answer of (Abraham's) people except that they said: "Slay him or burn him." But Allah did save him from the Fire. Verily in this are Signs for people who believe.''
The Qur'an 29:24


And likwise He teaches us that He also did save Jesus, pbuh


''That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not''
The Qur'an 4:157

[reepicheep]

Muslimah wrote:


> You re talking about contradiction between two


> translations of the meaning.


Thanks for your post. I'd say it appears that Yusuf Ali made a mistake in his translation of the original Arabic (i.e., the phrase "two or more" should be "more than two").


I think we're in agreement about something here. It is illogical to assume that the Koran is corrupted because (for example) the Yusuf Ali and Picktal english translations differ. Likewise, it is also illogical to assume (as Anyabwile has done) that the Bible is corrupted because (for example) the King James and RSV english translations differ.

[umm Zachariah]

Assalamu aleikum,


If you allow me I will continue on the thread with thoughts about Isa, Jesus, pbuh in Islam.


He was sent as a sign


''He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
The Qur'an 19:21


That he was born sinless, the Muslim beleif is that everyone is born sinless


He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.''
The Qur'an 19:19


That he was a servant of Allah, SWT


"And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live.''
The Qur'an19:31


His mother, Maryam, Mary was given glad tidings of the coming of Isa, Jesus, pbuh by the angel Jibreel, Gabriel


''Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah''
The Qur'an 3:45


That he was born by a virgin


''She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!''
The Qur'an 3:47


That he perfomed many miracles


''Then will Allah say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.' ''
The Qur'an 5:110


That he was a messenger, a spirit proceeding from Him


''O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.''
The Qur'an 4:171


That he ascended to Him,


''Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.''
The Qur'an 3:55


There are more but at least here are some points about who he is in Islam.


Wasalam

[Dan]

Bismillah


"I think we're in agreement about something here. It is illogical to assume that the Koran is corrupted because (for example) the Yusuf Ali and Picktal english translations differ. Likewise, it is also illogical to assume (as Anyabwile has done) that the Bible is corrupted because (for example) the King James and RSV english translations differ."


Unlike the translations of the Bible though, the English translations came from the original language in which it was revealed. The Bible went from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the vernacular of the local people. So if the two English translations can be off slightly, imagine the amount of distortion that can occur from translating so many times from languages that differ so much. Also, the arabic Qur'an has not been altered for 1400 years. I am sure that you have heard this before and yet for some reason people are not impressed. Has anyone ever played 'telephone' in elementary school? If you have then you might understand what I am getting at.


Peace

[reepicheep]

Dan wrote:


> The Bible went from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to the


> vernacular of the local people...


This is too big of a topic to cover within this thread (we are getting seriously off topic). But I will say:


- there are approximately 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early copies, giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.


- it is true that, within these manuscripts, there are variant readings of some passages. I don't know of any variant readings which affect, in any significant way, Christian doctrine.


- biblical scholars must be very thorough and careful when they work with this wealth of information.


- there are many websites which cover this topic in far greater detail than I can. If you are interested in this topic, check out (for example) the following website:


The Bible


The following image, from the above website, illustrates the procedures biblical scholars follow when trying to recreate the lost "original" manuscripts of the books of the bible.

[Anyabwile]

Thank you for your response repicheep. I was simply responding to you saying to me 'where is the bible corrupt' The defintion of corrupt of course being = <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct </i> So you would agree that there has been a departure from the original form of the Bible in some way right? According to what you wrote below you would...

in some cases, the oldest manuscripts in existence (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, or other ancient languages) differ in some respects with each other. I concede that this is the case. <b>But the vast majority of the differences are insignificant. </b>In fact, I know of no instances where these differences in ancient manuscripts would change the overall message of the Bible.

I underlined and put the parts in Bold above to indicate the corruption and to indicate your acknowledgement of a departure from an original in someway. You clearly agree the Bible is corrupt in your detailed response to me. You know full well i'm not saying the Bible is corrupt because the translations differ, i'm saying the Bible is corrupt that you have today, because it is a <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct </i>. Goodness me, I know you know i don't mean translations, let's try and be serious here.


Regardless you acknowledged what i was saying, and proved to me by your own response you acknowledge that the bible is corrupt. Going by the definition of the word i have always understood. You cannot say the Qur'an is a <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct </i> because we have the Qur'an in the original form to compare the English translations to. So much so the english translations or any non Arabic translations are merely called "Interpretations of the meanings" on the front of the book, normally in bold and normally at the top.


<b>"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it <i>(from corruption)</i>. " (The Noble Qur'an 15,9)</b>


So, by saying the Bible has been corrupted does this mean some Goodness of "God" can not be found from it as Christians belive? Well thats another debate. I'm not going in to that, i was simply replying to your questions.