Messages

16

General Discussions / Re: The laws mentioned in Taurah & Injeel need not be followed after Quran

« on: November 03, 2016, 05:39:28 PM »

They are asked to read the Quran and refer to the Quran in order to understand which doctrines and laws became corrupted in their books. God mentions and corrects the laws and doctrines that needed correction and confirmation. God mentions, corrects and confirms their laws in the Quran, others that are not mentioned God has said that He has overlooked and brushed over much of what is in their Books.
God Bless

Nura, is the above you quoted God mentions and corrects the laws and doctrines that needed correction something that you are referring to from a word study by Br. Joseph? I suspect, as I have mentioned a number of times, that there is nothing in the Qur'an to justify this view.

I also feel that the legal instructions in the Qur'an was intended to be different to the Torah... as the law is created for a specific environment and people. For example, if God revealed a law to people living in the antarctic, the food laws would look quite different to the desert. Anyway, I hope this makes sense.

I know not many agree with me, but for me reading the Qur'an contextually is what makes sense to me...

Wasalam

Zack

17

General Discussions / Is there such a thing as "A Convert" in the Qur'an?

« on: November 03, 2016, 05:10:19 PM »

Hello all,

I want to ask if there is a Quran basis for the concept of a "convert." This relates to the following studies of Br. Joseph....

http://quransmessage.com/articles/term%20muslim%20hijacked%20FM3.htm

http://quransmessage.com/articles/what%20is%20the%20true%20defintion%20of%20deen%20FM3.htm

Based on the above articles, it would seem the whole concept of "conversion to Islam" is a tradition that does not have any basis. The true "islam" is a way of life, with the religious label irrelevant. With this, the Qur'an never promotes "conversion," but challenging beliefs.

I was reminded of this with the comment below on another thread....

There are many instances that sometimes people change their religion. They convert. According the discussions going on it is understandable that this conversion is needless. But is there any problem if anyone wants to convert from one religion to another? Is it permissible? If a christian or jew converts to Islam, then can a muslim convert to those religion. Are we free to choose within these monotheist religions?

Wasalam

Zack

18

General Discussions / Re: The laws mentioned in Taurah & Injeel need not be followed after Quran

« on: November 03, 2016, 04:55:51 PM »

There are many instances that sometimes people change their religion. They convert. According the discussions going on it is understandable that this conversion is needles. But is there any problem if anyone wants to convert from one religion to another? Is it permissible? If a christian or jew converts to Islam, then can a muslim convert to those religion. Are we free to choose within these monotheist religions?

That is a fantastic question. I was actually going to start a new thread related to that question... which I will..

19

Discussions / Re: Genesis 1:27 - Interpretation?

« on: October 30, 2016, 06:33:54 PM »

The audience of the Quran primarily were prophet Muhammad's people. The Quraish. These people were polytheists, who possibly ran off the monotheism track long before prophet Jesus, even possibly from the time the first humans have split up when they were one community. It wasn't until prophet Muhammad times that they have received guidance from God.

I say that the audience had a "Compromised Monotheism".... There are so many areas where later Muslim writings influence our thinking. The idea that the audience of the Qur'an were polytheists is an assumption. Muslim tradition / Hadith is virtually our only source of information about the jahiliyya. The following may be helpful.....

The polemic of the Qur’an against the mushrikun reflects disputes among monotheists rather than pagans.Much of the Qur’an material points to a dispute about intermediate beings, angels and others, as sources of power and influence with God. But a developed angelology and exchanges of accusations of angel worship are characteristic of many monotheist groups in the early Christian period. It is against this background that the traditional charge of shirk is usually understood. The essence of their kufr was that they recognized (through prayers, sacrifices, vows and other things) intermediaries between themselves and God: When you have understood this you have understood the meaning of ‘there is no god but God’, and you have understood that whoever calls upon a prophet or an angel, grants him authority or asks him for help, such a one has gone away from Islam.

Wasalam

20

Discussions / Re: Genesis 1:27 - Interpretation?

« on: October 30, 2016, 11:36:34 AM »

HI Hamzeh,

I think a good starting point is Br. Josephs article in regards to this topic..

http://quransmessage.com/articles/between%20hands%20or%20before%20it%20FM3.htm

I also mention again regarding how to approach variations...

- The purpose of the Qur'an is for Arabs to memorize stories known to its 7th Century audience, so to bring its audience to repentance, primarily from "A compromised Monotheism," where the audience had departed from the Greatest command of all according to Isa, "The Lord your God is one." The purpose of the Qur'an is NOT to correct the stories in the Book of the Ahli Kitab!

Wasalam

Zack

21

Discussions / Re: Genesis 1:27 - Interpretation?

« on: October 30, 2016, 10:18:32 AM »

Hello Wanderer.

Yes, no need to debate, my response to your points are on my last post above this one.

Wasalam
Zack

22

Discussions / Re: Genesis 1:27 - Interpretation?

« on: October 30, 2016, 09:43:56 AM »

Hello Friends,

Thanks for your great responses. The Qur'an context is very interconnected with the Bible, and so this is a very important topic.

I will go through a few of the key questions raised below, however firstly just to say the way I approach the Qur'an, this will helps with the variations in the Previous Books to the Qur'an. That is, the purpose of the Qur'an is for Arabs to memorize stories known to its 7th Century audience, so to bring its audience to repentance, primarily from "A compromised Monotheism," where the audience had departed from the Greatest command of all according to Isa, "The Lord your God is one." The purpose of the Qur'an is NOT to correct the stories in the Book of the Ahli Kitab! With this understanding as the context, everything changes. Differences in the story don't matter.

Why did the audience have stories that  took a different to the previous Kitab? Because the audience knew the oral traditions, they didn't have a Book in their language.

Responding to some specific questions / comments.....

If the Quran cannot be used to determine the truth contained in the Bible then one starts to assume or question would it be possible the Bible that was in the hands of the People of the Book in the time of prophet Muhammad could be different than what we have today?

There is absolutely no doubt that the Bible in the hands of the People of the Book is the same as it is today. In fact the Bible that the Prophet Muhammad was exposed to and referred still is world-renowned. You can see images of it here. I am sure brother Joseph can confirm this, and in fact I believe in some of his writings he already has mentioned this.

https://www.google.co.id/search?q=Peshitta&espv=2&biw=1440&bih=782&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5m4ntsIHQAhVEu48KHVpcADwQ_AUIBygC

When reading bible (or Hadith) the Quran MUST remain the ultimate criterion (furqan).

Placing the Kitab before the Qur'an on the same level as the Hadith creates a mess and is almost blasphemous, as the Qur'an says "If you are in doubt, ask the People of the Book." Therefore this theory elevates the Hadith over the Qur'an. This creates big problems!

But the Quran clearly says the Bible was corrupted.

Can you please explain this statement? This is a tradition even later than most of the Hadith.

This is also a question that should be considered if one was to approach the Bible without using the Quran as a guard (muhayymin).

I would love to hear from Br. Joseph a word study on this.... Surah 3:1 and other such verses. If the Qur'an is a guard, why would it guard something corrupt? Surely it would guard something of value? This whole usage of the word "Guard" is back to front... "guarding" actually affirms the value of what is guarded.

Thanks for the input. A lot of these issues comes from not the text, but our attitude towards the text, which has been affected by religious division over centuries.

Wasalam

Zack

Asalamu Alykum brother Wanderer

It seems like when people had concerns about narratives in the Bible he had defended the interpretation and did not conclusively say that there is differences in stories or that there seems to be fabrications. He had pointed out that the Bible speaks of the weakness and sins of the prophets and the expressions and language seem to not be understood by the people who read the Quran. Does he have a valid point? Maybe to a limit, but some narratives seem a little disturbing so obviously they need to be explained.

Whats more important to me is that if there is differences in clear stories between the Quran and the Bible, then one can for sure admit that there is fabricated verses in the Bible. If this is accomplished then one can also approach the Bible with a caution and a consciousness of what seems to be fabricated.

If the Quran cannot be used to determine the truth contained in the Bible then one starts to assume or question would it be possible the Bible that was in the hands of the People of the Book in the time of prophet Muhammad could be different than what we have today? This is also a question that should be considered if one was to approach the Bible without using the Quran as a guard (muhayymin).

On the other hand again the Quran does seem to say that there has been falsely attributed sayings in the name of God however God has passed over much of what has been attributed.
Salam

23

Discussions / Re: Genesis 19:30-38

« on: October 30, 2016, 12:19:14 AM »

Br. Hope stated this:

Story of Lut is one of the inconsistencies in the Bible.  Though he has been considered a righteous servant of God in Genesis:18,  yet in 19 we are told that he was guilty of incestuous sex with his daughters: clearly a fabrication.  Quran states that he was given wisdom and knowledge

My question is - was this a fabrication pre-Quranic revelation or post? Or in general, do you (Sir Joseph) happen to know or come across interpolation and tampering in the OT and NT after the Quran revelation?

Hello Student,

I am not sure what you are referring to when you say inconsistencies? Guilty of sin but being a messenger of God? A few points....
- The Qur'an emphasizes the righteous obedience of God's Messengers preaching a message of repentance as an example for others.
- The Books of the Bible present a more chronological narrative.... presenting "the good, the bad, and the ugly" of all of mankind... including every Prophet.... from Moses (murder) to David (adultery).
- I would say that Islam tradition has misunderstood this, and created a "Sinless Muhammad / Sinless Messenger" doctrine, which is not correct.

- The other thing to remember in this passage is that it is pre-Law / Pre-Torah. The culture and what was permitted by God in the early chapters of Chapters may have been quite different than later. I am not saying this action was allowable, however there is a whole different framework that we are dealing with.

- A final thing.....it is good to begin with a starting point with a) The Function of the Bible and the Qur'an are different (which means there is a different angle on events) b) The type of literature is different (The Qur'an being rhythmical for memorizing) c) The essence of the Holy Books is unified.

As mentioned previously, this commentary might help.. http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/

Wasalam

Zack

24

Discussions / Re: Genesis 1:27 - Interpretation?

« on: October 29, 2016, 11:58:04 PM »

Hello Student,

Below is a quote from the Commentary I have mentioned before from http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/ (I don't agree with everything there, but having a "Tauhid" viewpoint makes it very useful). The following explains yours question.....

The immediately preceding context of Genesis 1 is God making the animals, which are not in the image of God. So being in the image of God involves things that are unique to mankind and different from the animals. Furthermore, being in the image of God is not something that we humans “have,” it is something that we humans “are.” We are in the image of God because of the unique way God made us as humans distinct from animals. Thus, our being in the image of God is having many of the same qualities that God has, and this would include things like the desire and self-awareness to love and be loved, the desire to be part of a family, a sense of what is moral or godly, the ability to think abstractly, the desire to create, the ability to communicate at a very advanced and abstract level, and the capacity to worship God.

There are some solid biblical reasons why mankind does not have to have holy spirit to be in the image of God. One is that after the Flood, which was more than 1600 years after Adam and Eve were created and long after the Fall, mankind was still said to be in the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Thus even in our fallen state, mankind is still in the image of God, and that is the reason why God says murder is wrong and why a murderer must be punished. To get the full impact of what God says about mankind in Genesis 9:6, we must note that in the context God had been talking about killing and eating animals. Animals were killed for their meat and for their skin, and this was acceptable, but God says it is not acceptable to kill a human being because, “in the image of God has God made mankind” (NIV). Thus, humans, in their fallen state without holy spirit, still bear the image of God.

Also mentioned the following in another post that is good to remember in approaching the Bible....

a)   A lot of misinterpretation happens from not understanding how language is used in another culture. This is how “son of God” (or even man referred to as “god”) evolved from a Hebrew understanding to a Greek understanding of the Trinity. This is a part of the issue in reading such verses.
b)   We need to place the verse in context of “the bigger picture.” That is, the constraints of the Torah. The same God of the Qur’an is the God of the Torah. We need to be careful in interpreting individual verses contrary to these constraints.

Anyway I will try to find a good link / resource for this,

Wasalam
Zack

25

Discussions / Re: Genesis 18:1-26 (Shocking)

« on: October 29, 2016, 08:32:17 PM »

Hello Student (and Br. Joseph)

It is great you are asking these questions! This is one of the few forums in the world that has a section for the Bible and the Qur'an together, without a polemical objective of "One beating up the other." In response to your question, and Br. Josephs response....

- I would like to find and encourage a Hebrew and Greek scholar to watch this forum for questions like this, because of a key principle. The easiest way to get a warped interpretation on the Old Testament is to ask a Muslim what it means! In fact a Christian will often respond with their own theological glasses as well. The same goes for the Christians teaching Christians about Islam....likely in error.

- This opens up a whole topic of how Hebrew Bible describes spiritual beings in the Old Testament. It is quite broadly accepted that the often used phrases "The word of the Lord / the Angel of the Lord / the spirit of the Lord" all meant the same thing... Yahwehs revelation coming to a particular person, it may have a divinely inspired dream, vision. etc.

Or God may have spoken THROUGH a physical person, and this is portrayed as if God Himself is speaking.

My conclusion is:

a)   A lot of misinterpretation happens from not understanding how language is used in another culture. This is how “son of God” (or even man referred to as “god”) evolved from a Hebrew understanding to a Greek understanding of the Trinity. This is a part of the issue in reading such verses.
b)   We need to place the verse in context of “the bigger picture.” That is, the constraints of the Torah. The same God of the Qur’an is the God of the Torah. We need to be careful in interpreting individual verses contrary to these constraints. There is likely an explanation.
c)   The Qur’an is particularly strong on particular beliefs because of the historical context it was in… ie. Mediator figures through saints, images etc. etc. which was a “compromised Monotheism” by Christians in Arabia. The era of Ibrahim did not have this background, therefore there was not the paranoia with a particular use of language, such as “God Appearing”…. as everyone.

Anyway I will try to find a good link / resource for this,

Wasalam
Zack

26

Discussions / Re: Verse numbering in OT and NT

« on: October 27, 2016, 11:34:40 PM »

Hello Student,

In regards to verses, yes they are standard... well nearly. Sometimes the heading of the Hebrew Bible (OT) in occasionally in some translations are considered a verse in itself, therefore the chapter will vary one verse number.

Regards

Zack

27

General Discussions / Re: Prohibition of non muslims from entering Mecca

« on: October 25, 2016, 11:33:27 PM »

Hello Wakas,

Thanks for your post and the links. It makes a lot of sense, and I would have to re-read it to give any meaningful input.

I want to ask for now, and I am sure you have been asked this many times, what is your view of the understanding in Qur'an Geography, by Dan Gibson? (Which he says is taking the Qur'an at face value and deviating tradition) A  scholar in this field said to me it hasn't received recognition in the academic world because the theory hasn't been tested in journal publications etc.

However that doesn't sit with me very well, and no-one has given a strong case why this is not credible. What would you say are the 3 strongest reasons why an alternate Holy City, as explained in Quran Geography, is NOT what the Qur'an describes, and instead the outline as has been presented in the link you provided?

I have no allegiances to any belief, just want to pursue truth.

Wasalam

Zack

28

Discussions / Re: Biblical verses that allude to Jesus (pbuh) being God

« on: October 16, 2016, 10:11:56 PM »

Hello Raufiqqq,

It is so good to read of Christian and Muslim friends having an honest discussion! It is so rare, and I would suggest make a commitment to pursue truth wherever that leads, and wherever that ends up stay friends! As a tauhid Christian, I have studied this area reasonably extensively. I personally believe that we can end up in a place where the Qur'an and the Bible can be in unity in one another. In fact for Muslims, there are 2 choices... a) Gods word has been corrupted or b) The essence of the message of the Holy Books is the same. I believe "a" is a very late tradition in Islam, and cannot be correct for a number of reasons.

Anyway I won't go through verse by verse in your post, but refer to a couple of resources.....
- The question on worship to Jesus... A good book for this is "Did the Early Christians worship Jesus" by James Dunn. James Dunn is probably the worlds leading Christology scholar for the church. He answers this, showing the 3 Greek words for "worship" in the New Testament... One being for God, one for a King, and one other. The Greek word for worship for Jesus in the New Testament is that for an earthly King. Any writings by James Dunn (your friend probably respects) would help. His book "The Parting of the Ways" is very good to understanding the parting from Hebrew roots.

- Something that comes to mind is the book "Jesus and the constraints of History." Jesus lived within the "constraints" of the Torah. How to understand New testament Monotheism, the crucifixion, Jesus and the Law etc etc in that context.

- A good resource for your friend to refer to a commentary on each verse from a Tauhid understanding is: http://www.revisedenglishversion.com/
There is a New Testament verse by verse commentary for him to check.

On the other hand, in my view, Islam will need to seriously one day re-look at who Jesus is, and re-look at their view of the Bible. At this point, if we are honest, the masses have thrown out the Bible as evil... and Jesus basically doesn't exist.

Wasalam

Zack

29

General Discussions / Re: Believing in “Prophet Mohammad” is a “Must” in order to enter Heaven

« on: October 12, 2016, 10:47:21 PM »

Allah said that the people of the book (Christians and Jews) know Islam as they know their sons. Please spend some time and search for the reasons of why Jewish Rabbis and Christian Priests are converting to Islam. It’s because Prophet Mohammad is described in their books in great details. With all the alterations they caused to the Torah and Bible, Allah saved the verses that talk about Prophet Mohammad so they have no excuse.

Please spend some time and search for the reasons of why many people from of all walks of life (i.e. enemies of Islam, Hollywood actors/actresses, very racist people in Europe/America/Africa/China/India, and so on) are converting to Islam while some of them never met a Muslim nor knew anything about Islam other than “terrorism”.

With this sort of approach and mentality our spiritual life becomes like becoming members of a soccer club. What difference is shifting from Christianity to Islam compared shifting teams from Man United to Liverpool! Our spirituality is brought down to going down to an office and changing our religious status.... then we are on the straight path.

We need to get away from this thinking.... and think in terms of islam as a way of life...... your religious identity being irrelevant. Celebrating the changing of religions is celebrating sectarianism......Certainly this is the opposite of islam!! Surely we have learnt the essence of islam enough on this website to move beyond this thinking!

I will leave things here.

Wasalam
Zack

30

General Discussions / Re: Believing in “Prophet Mohammad” is a “Must” in order to enter Heaven

« on: October 12, 2016, 05:23:05 PM »

Hello Nura, Hamzeh, F,

I am really impressed with the responses to this question. A few brief additional points to consider (I am overlapping a bit with some responses above)....

We should read the Qur'an as if we were the original listeners. Otherwise we read it through the lens of 1500 years of "baggage" and conflict, warping our interpretation. That is no different to the classical Islamic period, say 900AD, interpreting through their context. Therefore we read as if:

a) islam was a way of life, not a religious group distinct from the the People of the Book.
b) There was no concept of the Bible being in error, but an understanding that the Biblical truth was being twisted as it was being conveyed orally in Arabic.
c) The Qur'an wasn't a book being carried around by the masses, it was a rhythmical recitation to enhance memorisation.
d) the contents of the recitation was for Arabs, (because it is in Arabic), as they did not have The Book in their language.
e)Many of those who recited were warriors from various previously warring clans, who naturally required ethical instruction to unite them under a simple law. History tells us that from the time of Muhammad, the united Arab armies (who had this recitation) lived in established Arab satellite towns, and did not disturb the laws of the People of the Book who lived in the cities submitted politically to the Arab Dynasty.
f) The instructions concerning the authority therefore was in 2 realms: 1) Spiritually and Politically (as a Spiritual Messenger) for the Arab Armies.and 2) A Political authority for the conquered cities.

Reading the Qur'an through a 21st century lens creates a very poor starting point for correct interpretation.

Wasalam
Zack