U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2016, 03:15 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,046,413 times
Reputation: 289

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I presume the Injil = Gospel.
You assume wrongly. Injil is what was given to Jesus and he preached. The nearest you would get to it is assuming it to be "Gospel of Jesus". One Gospel; not many. Where is "Gospel of Jesus" today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Btw, I am not saying the "original" Injil as revealed by Allah to the prophets in accordance to Islam were corrupted.
The original Injil was revealed to only Jesus, and not to other prophets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
What I am saying is the existing Gospels of the Christians are corrupted as claimed by the Quran. They were corrupted some time after it was revealed by Allah.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You must be confused. What was revealed by Allah; the original Injil or existing Gospels (plural)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Here is the central truth of the Gospel according to Christians;
The central truth of the gospel is that God has provided a way of salvation for men through the gift of His son to the world. He suffered as a sacrifice for sin, overcame death, and now offers a share in His triumph to all who will accept it. The gospel is good news because it is a gift of God, not something that must be earned by penance or by self-improvement (Jn 3:16; Rom 5:811; II Cor 5:1419; Tit 2:1114).
The above are based on the existing Gospel held by Christians as present.
None of them is "Gospel of Jesus" (Injil). These are gospels of John and of Paul; not the Gospel of Jesus (Injil).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Note it is the Quran which condemned [in many verses] the Gospel as corrupted by the Christians who insist Jesus is the begotten son of Allah.
No. The Qur'an does not say Jn 3:16; Rom 5:811; II Cor 5:1419; Tit 2:1114 are corrupted; the Qur'an does not even mention these gospels (plural).

As for "Begotten Son of God", Jesus never said that he is "Begotten Son of God". Christians made it up much later after Jesus. Jesus was known as "prophet" during his time. The Jews were waiting for a "prophet". After Jesus was rejected in his hometown, he made it clear that no "prophet" is accepted in his hometown (Luke 4:24). The same way Muhammad was not accepted by the Quraish in his hometown. Jesus also said about himself that no "prophet" is going to die outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). Even after the crucifixion event, people had regarded him as "prophet" (Luke 24:19).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Since the central doctrine of Allah as in the original Quran do not recognized the concept of 'sonship' i.e. an unpardonable sin,
but the existing Gospels as evident contain the concept of 'sonship,'
then we can infer the existing Gospels must have been corrupted along the way.
Injil is not existing Gospels but only the Gospel of Jesus that is only partly included in present Gospels. The concept of "Sonship" hasn't come from either Allah or from the mouth of Jesus but this doctrine was created and emphasized much later by people like Paul and Romans.

Therefore, the Qur'an does not claim that Injil was corrupted but that the Christians neglected part of the covenant (5:14). In other words, they forgot what they were told by Jesus (the Injil).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2016, 03:59 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,320,105 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I presume the Injil = Gospel.

Btw, I am not saying the "original" Injil as revealed by Allah to the prophets in accordance to Islam were corrupted.

What I am saying is the existing Gospels of the Christians are corrupted as claimed by the Quran. They were corrupted some time after it was revealed by Allah.

Here is the central truth of the Gospel according to Christians;
The central truth of the gospel is that God has provided a way of salvation for men through the gift of His son to the world. He suffered as a sacrifice for sin, overcame death, and now offers a share in His triumph to all who will accept it. The gospel is good news because it is a gift of God, not something that must be earned by penance or by self-improvement (Jn 3:16; Rom 5:811; II Cor 5:1419; Tit 2:1114).
The above are based on the existing Gospel held by Christians as present.

Note it is the Quran which condemned [in many verses] the Gospel as corrupted by the Christians who insist Jesus is the begotten son of Allah.

Since the central doctrine of Allah as in the original Quran do not recognized the concept of 'sonship' i.e. an unpardonable sin,
but the existing Gospels as evident contain the concept of 'sonship,'
then we can infer the existing Gospels must have been corrupted along the way.
The Injil is specifically the name for the revelations given to Jesus(a.s.) Just as Torah (Tauret, Tawret) is the specific name of the revelations given to Moses(pbuh) and Psalms (Zaboor, Zabur) is the name of the Revelations given to David(pbuh) They have nothing to do with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that are in the Christian Bible. Which incidentally correspond more closely to Ahadith as they are alleged eye-witness accounts of what they reported seeing and or heard. Not Gospels which means God's Word from the old English Godt's Spel in the koin Grek the word used is euaggelion (Evangelical), which meant "Good News" How and why translators translate Injil as "Gospel" I do not know except it is God's Revelation to Jesus(a.s.)

(From a non-Islamic source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

Like the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Mary, and Barnabas the Injil is not found in the Bible. except in the case of the Injil no written copy is known to exist. The Gospel of Thomas was at one time included in the Coptic and Thomason Bibles the others are found in the Gnostic Bibles. (Barnabas is Questionable and highly denounced by Christianity as it makes reference that Jesus(a.s.) was not crucified, but watched the Crucifixion of who the Jews thought was Jesus(a.s.)

The main point being. Injil does not relate to the word gospel as used in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the 4 Gospels.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2016, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,592,701 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
You assume wrongly. Injil is what was given to Jesus and he preached. The nearest you would get to it is assuming it to be "Gospel of Jesus". One Gospel; not many. Where is "Gospel of Jesus" today?

The original Injil was revealed to only Jesus, and not to other prophets.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You must be confused. What was revealed by Allah; the original Injil or existing Gospels (plural)?

None of them is "Gospel of Jesus" (Injil). These are gospels of John and of Paul; not the Gospel of Jesus (Injil).

No. The Qur'an does not say Jn 3:16; Rom 5:8–11; II Cor 5:14–19; Tit 2:11–14 are corrupted; the Qur'an does not even mention these gospels (plural).

As for "Begotten Son of God", Jesus never said that he is "Begotten Son of God". Christians made it up much later after Jesus. Jesus was known as "prophet" during his time. The Jews were waiting for a "prophet". After Jesus was rejected in his hometown, he made it clear that no "prophet" is accepted in his hometown (Luke 4:24). The same way Muhammad was not accepted by the Quraish in his hometown. Jesus also said about himself that no "prophet" is going to die outside Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). Even after the crucifixion event, people had regarded him as "prophet" (Luke 24:19).

Injil is not existing Gospels but only the Gospel of Jesus that is only partly included in present Gospels. The concept of "Sonship" hasn't come from either Allah or from the mouth of Jesus but this doctrine was created and emphasized much later by people like Paul and Romans.

Therefore, the Qur'an does not claim that Injil was corrupted but that the Christians neglected part of the covenant (5:14). In other words, they forgot what they were told by Jesus (the Injil).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
The main point being. Injil does not relate to the word gospel as used in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the 4 Gospels.
The confusion in the above is due to Khalif and Woodrow LI viewing the Injil from only one perspective, i.e. from the Quran only and NOT to what is reality.

Meanwhile I am viewing the issue of the Gospel/Injil from two perspectives within reality which is;

1. Gospels according to the Christians' perspective
2. Injil [Gospel] in accordance to the Quran and Muslims' perspective.

1. Christians' Perspective
According to the Christians' the Gospel is defined as follows;
A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The most widely known examples are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are included in the New Testament, -wiki
What is central to the Gospel is the doctrine and message of Jesus, i.e. the promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping God, with the partial evidence of his resurrection on Earth.
According to the Christians the Gospels truly reflect its central message.

2. The Muslims' Perspective
As stated by Khalif; "Injil is what was given [revealed] to Jesus [by Allah] and he preached. The nearest you would get to it is assuming it to be "Gospel of Jesus". One Gospel; not many."
The central message of this Injil [Gospel] is the promise of salvation but with no crucifixion and evidence of Jesus rising from his death.
According to the Quran, Jesus is just another prophet sent by Allah to deliver the same central message i.e. a promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping Allah.

Now, one will note the common thing with the Gospels or Injil from both perspective is the central message is the same, i.e. the promise of salvation via worshiping God/Allah. So this is not the point of contention.

The Contention
The main contention here is the Quran [& Muslims] claimed the Christians altered and omitted the critical elements within the message of Jesus after it was revealed from Allah. This critical element was the concept of 'sonship' which is attributing partner to Allah and that is an unpardonable sin. This is how the Christians were led astray.
Therefore, according the the Quran [& Muslims] the Christians CANNOT claimed the present Gospel in their hands reflect the true account and of the main elements and concepts as revealed from Allah to Jesus.
In other words, the present Gospels of the Bible in their attempt to represent the message of Allah is false and corrupted.
This is the point of the OP.
What is wrong with that?

On the other hand, the Christians claim the Bible [NT re the Gospels] is true and the Quran is wrong because Muhammad was a false messenger/prophet.

The above is the typical problem of not being in alignment with reality.
In this case Khalif and Woodrow also see the DUCK but not the Rabbit.
I saw the Duck and the Rabbit, then reconcile the two perspectives.

My point:
The Quran claimed the Christians altered and omitted the main elements of the original revelations to Jesus.
Thus by semantic implication, in accordance to the Quran, the present Gospels MUST be corrupted as reflected in its main elements, i.e. concept of 'sonship' which differ from the Quran's main elements of absolute pure monotheism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2016, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,320,105 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The confusion in the above is due to Khalif and Woodrow LI viewing the Injil from only one perspective, i.e. from the Quran only and NOT to what is reality.

Meanwhile I am viewing the issue of the Gospel/Injil from two perspectives within reality which is;

1. Gospels according to the Christians' perspective
2. Injil [Gospel] in accordance to the Quran and Muslims' perspective.

1. Christians' Perspective
According to the Christians' the Gospel is defined as follows;
A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The most widely known examples are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are included in the New Testament, -wiki
What is central to the Gospel is the doctrine and message of Jesus, i.e. the promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping God, with the partial evidence of his resurrection on Earth.
According to the Christians the Gospels truly reflect its central message.

2. The Muslims' Perspective
As stated by Khalif; "Injil is what was given [revealed] to Jesus [by Allah] and he preached. The nearest you would get to it is assuming it to be "Gospel of Jesus". One Gospel; not many."
The central message of this Injil [Gospel] is the promise of salvation but with no crucifixion and evidence of Jesus rising from his death.
According to the Quran, Jesus is just another prophet sent by Allah to deliver the same central message i.e. a promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping Allah.

Now, one will note the common thing with the Gospels or Injil from both perspective is the central message is the same, i.e. the promise of salvation via worshiping God/Allah. So this is not the point of contention.

The Contention
The main contention here is the Quran [& Muslims] claimed the Christians altered and omitted the critical elements within the message of Jesus after it was revealed from Allah. This critical element was the concept of 'sonship' which is attributing partner to Allah and that is an unpardonable sin. This is how the Christians were led astray.
Therefore, according the the Quran [& Muslims] the Christians CANNOT claimed the present Gospel in their hands reflect the true account and of the main elements and concepts as revealed from Allah to Jesus.
In other words, the present Gospels of the Bible in their attempt to represent the message of Allah is false and corrupted.
This is the point of the OP.
What is wrong with that?

On the other hand, the Christians claim the Bible [NT re the Gospels] is true and the Quran is wrong because Muhammad was a false messenger/prophet.

The above is the typical problem of not being in alignment with reality.
In this case Khalif and Woodrow also see the DUCK but not the Rabbit.
I saw the Duck and the Rabbit, then reconcile the two perspectives.

My point:
The Quran claimed the Christians altered and omitted the main elements of the original revelations to Jesus.
Thus by semantic implication, in accordance to the Quran, the present Gospels MUST be corrupted as reflected in its main elements, i.e. concept of 'sonship' which differ from the Quran's main elements of absolute pure monotheism.
You are making the same error of many translators by translating Injil as "Gospil" While there is justification in saying the Injil is a Gospel (God's word) the Injil is not found in the Bible. Most Christian probably believe the Injil never existed which is why it is not in the Bible. It is possible some of the Quotes attributed to Jesus in the 4 Biblical Gospels are from the Injil also some of the Quootes attributed to Jesus(a.s.) in the non-Biblical Gospels of Peter, Mary, Barnabas and Thomas may be from the Injil. but the Injil does not exist in I do not believe you will find any Christians that believe the Injil is a Gospel.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2016, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,592,701 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
You are making the same error of many translators by translating Injil as "Gospel" While there is justification in saying the Injil is a Gospel (God's word) the Injil is not found in the Bible. Most Christian probably believe the Injil never existed which is why it is not in the Bible. It is possible some of the Quotes attributed to Jesus in the 4 Biblical Gospels are from the Injil also some of the Quootes attributed to Jesus(a.s.) in the non-Biblical Gospels of Peter, Mary, Barnabas and Thomas may be from the Injil. but the Injil does not exist in I do not believe you will find any Christians that believe the Injil is a Gospel.
I don't think the labels either 'Gospel' and 'Injil' are the most critical to this issue.

What is critical is the essence that is revealed to Jesus by God via direct or indirect [via Gabriel] revelation and its supporting elements, i.e. the main doctrines and principles.

Quran Claimed Present 'Torah' and 'the essence that is revealed to Jesus by God directly and communicated by Jesus to his disciples' are Corrupted.

If I used the "Gospel" as a label to represent 'the essence that is reveal to Jesus by God directly and communicated by Jesus to his disciples,' I believe most will understand what I meant.

Can you imagine how cumbersome it would be if I were to repeat the sentence in blue all the time. As such it is only rational to use a label, i.e. 'Gospel' to make communication easier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2016, 12:33 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,592,701 times
Reputation: 461
To Topic:

Here is comment by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in relation to the corruption of the Torah by the Jews:
2. Surah Al Baqarah (The Cow) - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an - The Meaning of the Qur'an

Quote:
At Makkah the Quran generally addressed the mushrik Quraish who were ignorant of Islam, but at Al-Madinah it was also concerned with the Jews who were acquainted with the creed of the Unity of Allah, Prophethood, Revelation, the Hereafter and angels.
They [Jews] also professed to believe in the law which was revealed by Allah to their Prophet Moses (Allah's peace be upon him), and in principle, their way was the same (Islam) that was being taught by Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him).

But they had strayed away from it during the centuries of degeneration and had adopted many un-Islamic creeds, rites and customs of which there was no mention and for which there was no sanction in the Torah.
Not only this : they had tampered with the Torah by inserting their own explanations and interpretations into its text. They had distorted even that part of the Word of God which had remained intact in their Scriptures and taken out of it the real spirit of true religion and were now clinging to a lifeless frame of rituals.

Consequently their beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no intention or inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every such effort.

Though they [Jews] were originally Muslims, they had swerved from the real Islam and made innovations and alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting and sectarianism. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah and begun to serve mammon. So much so that they had even given up their original name "Muslim" and adopted the name "Jew" instead, and made religion the sole monopoly of the children of Israel.
Khalif, note the section with highlights.
If this section do not imply 'corrruption of texts' [as per OP] then what should it mean.?

Quote:
This was their religious condition when the Holy Prophet went to Al-Madinah and invited the Jews to the true religion. That is why more than one third of this Surah has been addressed to the children of Israel. A critical review of their history, their moral degeneration and their religious perversions has been made; side by side with this the high standard of morality and the fundamental principles of the pure religion have been put forward in order to bring out clearly the nature of the degeneration of the community of a prophet when it goes astray and to draw clear lines of demarcation between real piety and formalism, and the essentials and non-essentials of the true religion.

So they [Jews] became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every such effort.
This indicate it was Muhammad who provoked the Jews out of nowhere because he thought his religion as superior when in reality it is not the case.

The Jews are viewed as bitter enemies all because they have a different belief and it was only natural that people will always defend their existing religions. This also demonstrate Muhammad was the provocateur of the tit-for-that that led to consequential genocides and other terrible evils and violence committed upon the Jews for merely having a different belief. So much so for 'there is no compulsion in religion' !!

The real achievement of the Jews and their VERY significant contributions in all aspects of humanity to date [while the Muslims contribute good minimally but create more evils and violence] solidly prove that the Jews with their existing religion is not a big problem & issue to humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2016, 01:59 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,046,413 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The confusion in the above is due to Khalif and Woodrow LI viewing the Injil from only one perspective, i.e. from the Quran only and NOT to what is reality.
The Qur'an does present reality of what went before it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Meanwhile I am viewing the issue of the Gospel/Injil from two perspectives within reality which is;

1. Gospels according to the Christians' perspective
2. Injil [Gospel] in accordance to the Quran and Muslims' perspective.

1. Christians' Perspective
According to the Christians' the Gospel is defined as follows;
A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The most widely known examples are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John which are included in the New Testament, -wiki
Christianity, according to Christians is not only more than One Gospel but more than 4 Gospels. Gospel of Paul plays greater role in what they consider to be "Gospel".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
What is central to the Gospel is the doctrine and message of Jesus, i.e. the promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping God, with the partial evidence of his resurrection on Earth.
According to the Christians the Gospels truly reflect its central message.
You have now shifted a little. If you ask the Christians, they will tell you that Christianity depends entirely on crucifixion and rising of Jesus to life after dying on the cross, and that if Jesus did not die on the cross and rise after being dead, there is no Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
2. The Muslims' Perspective
As stated by Khalif; "Injil is what was given [revealed] to Jesus [by Allah] and he preached. The nearest you would get to it is assuming it to be "Gospel of Jesus". One Gospel; not many."
The central message of this Injil [Gospel] is the promise of salvation but with no crucifixion and evidence of Jesus rising from his death.
According to the Quran, Jesus is just another prophet sent by Allah to deliver the same central message i.e. a promise of salvation in exchange for worshiping Allah.

Now, one will note the common thing with the Gospels or Injil from both perspective is the central message is the same, i.e. the promise of salvation via worshiping God/Allah. So this is not the point of contention.

The Contention
The main contention here is the Quran [& Muslims] claimed the Christians altered and omitted the critical elements within the message of Jesus after it was revealed from Allah. This critical element was the concept of 'sonship' which is attributing partner to Allah and that is an unpardonable sin. This is how the Christians were led astray.
No. You not only get it wrong but you contradict yourself here.

How can the Qur'an claim that the 'sonship' was their critical message but the critical message was altered and omitted by the Christians?

Are you sure that you are presenting your argument correctly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Therefore, according the the Quran [& Muslims] the Christians CANNOT claimed the present Gospel in their hands reflect the true account and of the main elements and concepts as revealed from Allah to Jesus.
In other words, the present Gospels of the Bible in their attempt to represent the message of Allah is false and corrupted.
This is the point of the OP.
What is wrong with that?
You have done a lot of mental gymnastics to try to qualify your claim of OP. You cannot back it up with verses of the Qur'an. The 'sonship' is not critical element that Christians are accused of in the Qur'an but that they had "forgotten" most of what was revealed to them through Jesus through covenant with them. In other words, they have not kept up with their covenant.

'Sonship' is only "saying"; it is not preached by Jesus and not part of what was preached by Jesus. Therefore, Christians are told not to say "three" as God is only One God (the central message). The Qur'an is not saying that the Christians worship three Gods but they should not say three and should not worship Jesus or Mary (the three at the time according to the Qur'an). Mary is still worshiped in some Christian circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
On the other hand, the Christians claim the Bible [NT re the Gospels] is true and the Quran is wrong because Muhammad was a false messenger/prophet.
NT is a lot more than 4 Gospels or even Gospel of Jesus; Evangel/Injil. Gospel of Paul is not Injil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
The above is the typical problem of not being in alignment with reality.
In this case Khalif and Woodrow also see the DUCK but not the Rabbit.
I saw the Duck and the Rabbit, then reconcile the two perspectives.
You saw very little. You are miles away from the real point of contention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
My point:
The Quran claimed the Christians altered and omitted the main elements of the original revelations to Jesus.
The Qur'an has not claimed so. You will not find even one verse that claims so. The nearest you will get to is that the Christians forgot part of the Covenant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Thus by semantic implication, in accordance to the Quran, the present Gospels MUST be corrupted as reflected in its main elements, i.e. concept of 'sonship' which differ from the Quran's main elements of absolute pure monotheism.
Of course when it comes to "semantic", you have the license but not Muslims. The OP did not say through semantic "implication" but that the Qur'an "claimed".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2016, 02:04 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,046,413 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Quran Claimed Present 'Torah' and 'the essence that is revealed to Jesus by God directly and communicated by Jesus to his disciples' are Corrupted.
You keep repeating the same like a programmed robot without backing it up with any evidence from the Qur'an.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2016, 02:20 AM
 
3,168 posts, read 1,046,413 times
Reputation: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
To Topic:

Here is comment by Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in relation to the corruption of the Torah by the Jews:
2. Surah Al Baqarah (The Cow) - Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an - The Meaning of the Qur'an

Quote:
At Makkah the Quran generally addressed the mushrik Quraish who were ignorant of Islam, but at Al-Madinah it was also concerned with the Jews who were acquainted with the creed of the Unity of Allah, Prophethood, Revelation, the Hereafter and angels. They also professed to believe in the law which was revealed by Allah to their Prophet Moses (Allah's peace be upon him), and in principle, their way was the same (Islam) that was being taught by Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him). But they had strayed away from it during the centuries of degeneration and had adopted many un-Islamic creeds, rites and customs of which there was no mention and for which there was no sanction in the Torah. Not only this : they had tampered with the Torah by inserting their own explanations and interpretations into its text. They had distorted even that part of the Word of God which had remained intact in their Scriptures and taken out of it the real spirit of true religion and were now clinging to a lifeless frame of rituals. Consequently their beliefs, their morals and their conduct had gone to the lowest depths of degeneration. The pity is that they were not only satisfied with their condition but loved to cling to it. Besides this, they had no intention or inclination to accept any kind of reform. So they became bitter enemies of those who came to teach them the Right Way and did their worst to defeat every such effort. Though they were originally Muslims, they had swerved from the real Islam and made innovations and alterations in it and had fallen victims to hair splitting and sectarianism. They had forgotten and forsaken Allah and begun to serve mammon. So much so that they had even given up their original name "Muslim" and adopted the name "Jew" instead, and made religion the sole monopoly of the children of Israel.
Khalif, note the section with highlights.
If this section do not imply 'corrruption of texts' [as per OP] then what should it mean.?
You misunderstand again!

It clearly means that they have the text of the Torah intact but they created Talmud and in it their own words and it is the Talmud that became the more important to them. Therefore, it backs my point rather than your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2016, 02:48 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,592,701 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khalif View Post
The Qur'an does present reality of what went before it.
You are off point here. How can we verify that reality of what went before it? I stated you and Woodrow are not viewing reality as it is at the present where you only see "DUCK" only and not both Duck and Rabbit.

Quote:
Christianity, according to Christians is not only more than One Gospel but more than 4 Gospels. Gospel of Paul plays greater role in what they consider to be "Gospel".
I read in the Wiki article re Gospel. What is critical in all these are the essential message, i.e. the promise of salvation to eternal life.

Quote:
You have now shifted a little. If you ask the Christians, they will tell you that Christianity depends entirely on crucifixion and rising of Jesus to life after dying on the cross, and that if Jesus did not die on the cross and rise after being dead, there is no Christianity.
That is what the NT stated and obviously that is critical but as I said, what is most critical is the promise of salvation to eternal life as the balm or relieve to the terror of the trembling.

Quote:
No. You not only get it wrong but you contradict yourself here.

How can the Qur'an claim that the 'sonship' was their critical message but the critical message was altered and omitted by the Christians?

Are you sure that you are presenting your argument correctly?
Obviously I am sure of my argument.
What I meant is the critical point to the issue in that case, i.e. the concept of sonship.
The Quran claimed the Christians altered and included the concept of sonship in their texts which is not acceptable to Islam. That is the main contention.

Quote:
You have done a lot of mental gymnastics to try to qualify your claim of OP. You cannot back it up with verses of the Qur'an. The 'sonship' is not critical element that Christians are accused of in the Qur'an but that they had "forgotten" most of what was revealed to them through Jesus through covenant with them. In other words, they have not kept up with their covenant.
Note,
2:116 And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He glorified! Nay, but whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth is His. All are subservient unto Him.

9:30 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

10:68 They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a son - Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not?

18:4 And to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son,

Allah has not taken any son.
17:111 And say: Praise be to Allah, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence.
Note the above verses [there are others] where Allah condemned the concept of 'sonship' adopted by the Jews and Christians.


Quote:
'Sonship' is only "saying"; it is not preached by Jesus and not part of what was preached by Jesus. Therefore, Christians are told not to say "three" as God is only One God (the central message). The Qur'an is not saying that the Christians worship three Gods but they should not say three and should not worship Jesus or Mary (the three at the time according to the Qur'an). Mary is still worshiped in some Christian circles.
That is correct, in reality the NT never claimed Jesus as the birth son of God.

It is the Quran which stupidly claimed in the above verses that 'sonship' refer to son by birth.

Quote:
The Qur'an has not claimed so. You will not find even one verse that claims so. The nearest you will get to is that the Christians forgot part of the Covenant.
Note the verses I quote where Allah in the Quran condemned the Jews and Christians re the 'sonship' of Jesus.

Quote:
Of course when it comes to "semantic", you have the license but not Muslims. The OP did not say through semantic "implication" but that the Qur'an "claimed".
The OP is merely a title and I explained whatever is the intended meaning in my various posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top