Messages

Peace be upon you..

I need all of 5:68, and 5, and all the book to know what it means!

Yes certainly you are correct. What I wrote concerning "The Book" and "Torah" is based on my understanding of
a) the passage,
b) the overall usage throughout the Qur'an and
c) The historical context at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an

Wasalam
Zack

HI Student,

Going to your last question first of where to buy, is your prefered language English / Arabic, other or both. If Arabic, this is the best translation for download (although it is not the whole Bible which is generally 39 "Surahs" in the Old Testament and 27 in the New= 66). The link is:

www.secretsofthegospel.com

The articles will explain a lot. If you want to buy a hard copy, you can order it from:

http://www.arabicbookshop.net/main/details.asp?id=177-80

Re your questions Torah, Zabur, Injil.... I believe Quran studies is a work in process, trying to disentangle ourselves from assumptions. Torah Zabur Injil,  literally means:

a) Taurat (The first 5 Books of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament) 
b) Zabur = Pslams: (The largest book of worship by Nabi Daud in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament
c) Injil = Gospel (The message Nabi Isa brought, recorded in the New Testament)

So with that if we take 2 verses from the Qur'an as follows:

Say: "O people of the Book, you are not upon anything until you uphold the Torah and the Gospel (Injil) and what was sent down to you from your Lord." 
 5:68

If you are in doubt regarding what We have sent down to you, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before you. 
10:94

From what I understand, "The Book" is the Bible (as explained above), and the Bible language in Arabia at the time was Syriac. This is why the Quran speaks of "Now we have a Book we can understand" (54:17 / see article: http://quransmessage.com/articles/why%20in%20Arabic%20FM3.htm)

The Torah, Zabur, Injil are generic terms used by the Qur'an that refer to the contents that is to be followed in the Book.

Hope this makes things clearer.

Wasalam

Zack

Hello Student,

Sorry, I am not Br. Joseph (-: , I saw your post unanswered for a few days and thought I would give a quick response. I agree with you, this would be great if there was some articles answering your questions, however this being "Quransmessage", Br. Joseph I may feel once starting down that path it can become a whole separate topic. On the other hand, my view is you can't really approach the Qur'an correctly without having a basic understanding of the Bible.

Before posting a few bullet points, I noticed Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible  gives a good range on dating, ranging from those who seek to be critical to those who are conservative. A few quick points:

- Genre: The Quran is originally an oral recitation, designed to ryhme to enhance memorisation. You cannot approach the Bible like this. Re Genre, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre
- The Gospel was oral for a certain period.... This is often misunderstood. After 30 - 60 years, it was put in writing for 4 different audiences.... which is why accounts of the Gospel brought by Jesus.
- The complete Bible (39 Books of the Hebrew Bible and 27 of the New Testament) was compiled into a complete volume long before Prophet Muhammad. The translation in Arabia at Muhammad's time was in Syriac, (known as the Peshita- simple translation). The people holding to this BIble would have been "The People of the Book."

Anyway.... I thought I would start with that..

All the best,

Zack

Hello,

My primary point was answering the question of Ahmad in the reasons for different styles between the Bible and Qur'an, which is the topic of this post. The secondary point is focussed on what the Qur'an says about this topic. I encouraged reading the articles on this site in regards to the Bible, as well as to why the Qur'an is in Arabic. If you dispute any of the conclusions on this site, (of which I generally agree) I am sure the moderators would be fine to interact with you.

In regards to the timing and locations of writing of the 4 accounts of the Gospel brought by Jesus, that is another topic for another thread.

As-salam Alaykum,
Why is the style of writing of the Bible so different than the Quran. For example, In Quranic stories there is usually little details and the emphasis is on providing guidance. However in the Bible the stories are much more detailed to the extent that it may seem difficult to extract guidance from it. Why is this the case when both the Bible and the Quran are from the same author.

Hello Ahmad,

That is a great question. I would like to respond with a few thoughts....
- The Qur'an and the Bible must be very different, as they are almost opposite in literary styles. The Qur'an was revealed to "Recite", rhyme and rhythm so that it is easily memorised. The Bible is intended as a written account. This means it is going to be vastly different in style.

- Despite this contrast, the Bible and the Qur'an (as presented by the Quran) is intended to be in unity with one another. (Surah 10:94). The idea that the Quran was revealed to supercede the Bible is a later Islamic tradition that does not have basis in the Quran. The People of the Book at the time of the Quran were those holding the Bible in Arabia at the time of Muhammad, which was in the Syriac language, which is the same Bible used till today.

- You said about the Bible being much more detailed......that is because any document closer to the time of the event (eg. for the Hebrew Prophets) will naturally contain more detail.

- There was a comment form "relearning" about the Bible being like the "Hadith". This creates serious problems, as because the Qur'an is constantly referring, and affirming the unity of the Muhammad's revelation received with the Bible (Held by the People of The Book) in numerous places.... that would mean that the Qur'an is pro-Hadith. Obviously that is not the case.

The Bible is diverse, however all are considered divinely inspired, (The Kitab of Allah) much of the writings of the New Testament are divinely inspired letters written to the early communities of faith, who were struggling as the Hebrew tradition was that only Jews were the true "Ummah", and non-Jews were required to follow the Jewish cultural practices.

So Ahmad, it is more having a basic framework / Background for the Holy Books.... and appreciate their unique styles.

If you look at Br. Josephs articles on this site related to: The Arabic Language, The Bible etc., that would provide some good input..

Hope this helps,

Wasalam
Zack

If one simply views the Quran as a historical text and nothing else, then indeed the argument that the text closer to the event would seem most accurate.

Dear Br Joseph,

I don't think I was referring to the Qur'an as "only a historical text and nothing else." For someone who sees the Qur'an fully as the divine word of God, it still clearly doesn't present itself as a "Systematic history" of the prophets, when compared to the Hebrew Bible. This is evident with the lack of chronology and flow. I would think a more accurate way to approach the Qur'an for the Qur'ans believers is to view it as a call to repentance, where it is utilising the oral stories of that time, to communicate this message of repentance.

With this the stories are not intended to be necessarily for the purpose so its listeners would know history, but so the stories would help people to repent and turn to God.

For me personally, a Muslim can take this approach without doubting its divine origin in any way, yet stand in harmony with previous books, as well as standing firm from an academic perspective.

Wasalam
Zack

This version of the story can be found in The Bible [see Genesis 6:13, 6:17, 7:19-21, 8:9, 9:16, 2 Peter 3:5-7). The story told in The Quran is a little different.

Hello Wakas & Joseph,

I want to respond to the approach concerning these sort of questions... The primary historical source seems to be consistently the Qur'an when referring to the Prophets. I believe it should be the Old Testament as the primary source, then the New Testament, then the Qur'an. This is in no way devaluing the Qur'an. The reasons are:

- From my understanding, the Function of the Qur'an is NOT a systematic historical record. It IS an oral recitation using oral stories to call Arabia to repent.
- The Hebrew Bible is over 1,000 years closer to the event, and relates the historical records of its own Prophets.

When dealing with events of history with the emphasis upon the Qur'an, in my mind, this is the result of hundreds of years of tensions between Islamic dynasties and Jews and Christians. This is an area where there needs to be a major new approach within Islam.

Nevertheless, I think this site is fantastic!

Wasalam
Zack

Hello all,

As I have mentioned concerning the Qur'an lately, there needs to be a reminder of the CONTEXT.

The legal and moral instructions (such as those verses relating to homosexuality) within the Qur'an are what the Arab armies recited as they brought tribal Arabia under a single creed and leadership. Beyond that, there was instruction to ensure that the laws of Christian and Jewish cities were not to be affected, with those people considered a part of the "community of faith."

Wael B. Hallaq writes in his book "The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law"...

The Arab army with their families consisting primarily of tribal nomads, rather than take up residence in the newly won cities, for the most part inhabited garrison towns as a separate class of conquerors.... The standard Arab policy adopted during the entire period of the conquests were for the invading Arabs to ''establish a covenant with every city and people who received'' them. They were to give these people ''assurances and to let them live according to their laws, for the conquered to regulate their own affairs exactly as they had been doing prior to the advent of Arab conquest.'' 

With this as a context, with the Qur'ans legal instructions being recited and applied to Arab armies who did not have laws to unite them, and NOT for those conquered in the early 7th century, it is difficult to use the Qur'an to justify the punishment of Muslims, let alone non-Muslims.

Wasalam
Zack

According to orthodox school of thought, this kind of thought is clear Bid'ah, a heretic thought.

I meant to say in regards the idea of "Orthodox"... Someone once said, "Orthodoxy = the strongest heresy" Ie. If you are in Utah, USA.... The mormon belief is Orthodoxy... "Orthodox" is just what the majority is following. The day our allegience is with what is "orthodox", that is the day of stagnation.

Wasalam

[SOME]

The Qur'an was clearly revealed at the time of Muhammad for, as Truth Seeker says, to be relevant for the context of Muhammad.

So now it is not relevant according to you?

According to orthodox school of thought, this kind of thought is clear Bid'ah, a heretic thought.

I have never said the Quran is not relevant to now.. I have said that it is relevant to the historical context of Muhammad. And SOME contexts change. Please see the my latest post on recent discussion on the Sharia law...

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4253

Re "orthodox School of Thought", is any one on this forum following that? 

Wasalam
Zack

peace Hassan,

Surely prophet Muhammad did not, on his accord, make up everything he was preaching and every act/ritual (such as the salat, zakat, hajj, fasting, upholding of justice, etc) which he performed (which we are instructed to emulate), correct? Those acts must have come from somewhere, correct? But what (scripture) could have inspired many of Muhammad's acts (which is now incumbent on us Muslims to perform)?

Moreover, how and from where did the prophet learn how to perform the Salat, how to make Hajj, how to observe the month of Ramadan, etc? The logical answer would be: from the Quran; the prophet learned how to perform those rituals solely from the Quran.

Can you give us a very brief overview on your take on:
salat
hajj
sawm
zakat

Hello all,

Responding to the posts above, in particular the origins of Salat, Hajj etc... Everything PRE-EXISTED Muhammad. In fact the ritituals go all the way back to Abraham.  For example please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRLFeldPG3Y

I believe Ramadan, salat was already practiced by Mecca prior to the revelation of the Qur'an. The message of the Quran is not about formulas for rituals, but the opposite.... The Quran is about the recognising of diversity in the Ummah and not forcing a specific ritual. The Quran is about unity, those previously saying "Our formula is correct", but instead a message of repentance from associating gods with God.

This is what is the tendency of the Quran centric movement, in removing later tradition it removes the text from its context, and end up trying to find a verse for every situation in the 21st century.

I said in another post that the concept of Mecca being in "Jahiliyah" is a later tradition. Mecca and the Arab tribes already knew of Salat, Ramadan etc... however lived compromised pseudo-faith..partly due to not having an Arabic Kitab; which is what is confronted by the Quran.

Someone mentioned about the pre-existence of the Qur'an... I believe this is a tradition that emerged far later. The Qur'an was clearly revealed at the time of Muhammad for, as Truth Seeker says, to be relevant for the context of Muhammad. 

Wasalam
Zack

Hello

Thanks for your excellent post. It is good to bounce concepts that we have never really questioned.

Firstly a couple of points as background to QS 5:48 (and thanks for pointing out the context 5:44-48).... Both for the Hebrew Torah, and the Injil, following "The Law" people do not inherit heaven and salvation by following "the law." Heaven is undeserved compassion and grace by God.

From what I understand, the usual Hebrew term translated for"law" being torah, does not really equate to the English word "Law", but more like "instruction." Or another way to put it, God gave Moses a Instructions for life for the Hebrews. Therefore even these instructions are a type of "Mercy from God", so that we could experience life to the fullest.

In contrast, there are probably over 100 verses in the Injil referring to how at the time of Isa, Jews had made the law into a burden that no-one could carry, such as: Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Luke 11:46

Another key verse is: Then Jesus told them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words, the instructions, were to help mankind, not for mankind to serve the law. The other issue was the Torah represented ethnic pride with Jews saying "Follow our culture and law, then you go to heaven."

With all the confusion at the time of Isa, the Injil says for all the pagans so not to be confused: a) Love God & Neighbor, and all the "Laws" of the Prophets are fulfilled  b) Be filled with the Holy Spirit (God's presence), so to know right from wrong. Despite this, I believe the vast majority of instructions from the Torah are still beneficial for Christians. The big difference with the Injil is that everything is "Internal / heart focussed".

Anyway with that as background, the instructions of the Torah, Injil and Qur'an I believe were very practical. They were related to the environment of the people they were given. Instructions related to food were given so people would not get sick in the desert. For an eskimo, some of the instructions would be different.

Now that being said, I believe most instructions overlap in all Holy Books and ARE universal for mankind to experience true life. In responding to your other points.....

And the Quran confirms its the final revelation from God. So it seems that there is 3 different laws that were permitted by God. I'm trying to see how to make sense out of what your saying that the Law is not meant to be universal.

As I have mentioned, in having more than 1 "law", the law can not be a single universal law, because different environments demand slightly different instructions from God for a people. Also I think we need to be careful with the statement "Quran confirms final revelation", as I believe it never is intended to be a superior revelation or contradictory to the others... it just happened to be after the others.

If this was only meant to be time specific and not reaching other nations or people, and that it may be changed when people feel that its time then how can one understand and comprehend verses like the ones below?

68:36-38 What is the matter with you? How judge ye? Or have ye a book through which ye learn- That ye shall have, through it whatever ye choose?
45:6 These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?

For example God expects that society should come up with a certain minimum age of marriage. He does not specify what age it is. But He does detail that they should be past the time of puberty and have sound judgment. How does one determine this? Remember there certain laws that God has commanded to be upheld by society in a whole. There probably is not much that is expected from society really. From my limited knowledge the laws that are fixed, are those to do with inheritance, marriage, divorce, witnesses, punishment for corruption, taxes(zakat), theft, repentance, and maybe a little bit more. Also if what your saying is true or should be followed, there maybe a risk of people having excuses of not praying, not fasting, not doing any of the commandments that God ordained for His servants. These would be claimed as 'old ways'. [/quote]

The above verses, and the whole Qur'an is deliberately revealed in Arabic for Arab peoples of the 7th century, that they would be united under a creed and system. The areas you mentioned (inheritance, zakat, specifics on punishment) in particular are those that would be questionable in having universal application. The reason is that God instructed the Hebrews and those with the Injil with variants to this. However the law about minimum age for marriage I would say does NOT have any variants in the Injil and Torah.

Also how can society just turn away and choose a different law after God's words are made clear to them and manifested in many ways. In what purpose do these books serve us then if we may just choose what we feel is right. God say do 'x' and we do 'y'. After all the laws in the books are only just. The topic to me is a little more complicated than I thought. This is something I have to give more deep thought into soon Insha'Allah. Would like to see more opinions including brother Joseph Insha'Allah.

Based on the logic above, others would say "How does God say "x" in the Torah, but we do "y"...., yet Gods Holy Books should not contradict with one another? There are only 2 options: Gods law given through the ages is universal but contradicts itself or God's Law is not universal. You are correct..... there has been many assumptions and this is more complex than people think.

Wasalam
Zack

[When Muslims first met Christians"]

Hello Br. Joseph and friends,

Thank you for the time you took in your reply to the original post. I will reply to your responses briefly below, but before that to add the following...

-   Just so to be clear, my points relating to IQSA were fairly random, and from what I understand there is a general direction in their scholarly research but no "official position." I also understand there has been significant progress relating to the origins of Islam, but the origins of the Qur'an and how it evolved is more of a mystery. You mentioned:

The Quran's own testimony even as a historical record supersedes that of latter extant sources.

Certainly I think that is the view of credible scholars today. HOWEVER, do we accept the contents of the Qur'an primarily based upon:

-   HEART BELIEF: That is, a heart and emotional allegiance to the Qur'an, with the view that because the Qur'an says something, I accept it as having eternal application no matter what... OR
-   HEAD BELIEF: I accept the Qur'an because it is stands up from an academic perspective. It also should be analyzed in its context, deconstructed, so to get its original meaning in its context.

The recent book "When Muslims first met Christians" analyses over 150 pages of interaction / comments between Eastern Syriac Christians and "Arab occupiers" from 635AD – 670AD, 100 years before the earliest Muslim commentaries. The conclusion is that the expansion of the Arab Empire was political, and had little emphasis on a spiritual message, with little or no reference to the Qur'an in this period. There was also not major disruption to life during the invasion in the 630's by Arabs.

In my view, at best the Qur'an at this time was an internal Arab oral message primarily for Arab warriors, possibly with it being transcribed by the 630's, but not readily accessible. Was it ever meant to be a Book beyond Arabia, I am not sure? Rec-creating the context and removing the mysticism of the Qur'an can only be a healthy thing, and I believe create a more global acceptance of the Qur'an from non-Muslims. Back to the responses of a couple of the previous comments..

- Over 50% of Qur'an words are from a non- Arabic origin, primarily Syriac. (The Foreign Vocab of the Quran: Jeffrey).... I would be interested in hearing Br Josephs view on this, as his articles would seem to de-emphasize the importance of Arabic. I find academic work in this area very tenuous and arguably, pointless.

The issue of foreign vocab in the Quran more relates to Islamic traditions that viewed Arabic as a superior and heavenly language..... when the reality is that the Arabic of the Quran incorporated many foreign words into their language.

- Islam was not a distinct religion until possibly 50 years after Muhammad, and with the original Shahadat on coins etc. not including Muhammad. Again, much reliance is being placed on latter sources / or the existence of latter sources to interpret earlier events. The Quran itself should be used as the earliest historical source to interpret this period.

I believe the evidence is from the non-usage of Muhammad in the Shahadat, as well as the non-usage of the word "Caliphate" PRIOR to the end of the 7th century, whilst AFTER the century the standard Shahadat and referring to the Caliphate changed. This is evident on inscriptions etc. (See Book "Muhammad and the Believers"

- Arabia just before the time of Muhammad was somewhat monotheist, and not Jahiliyah as often suggested.

Certainly the immediate audience / contingent that the Quran primarily addressed appeared in the main, to be Jahilliya. This of course does not automatically imply the whole of Arabia, granted, but what proportion this accurately represented is a debate outside the remit of this response.

Actually I was referring to indigenous Arab tribal peoples.... Their position was one of associating other lesser deities with God. (ie. stars, angels, saints etc.). In other words, those who were considered in Jahiliyah lived in compromised monotheism, already knowing Bible characters. In this, the degrading of pre-Muhammad Arabia to "Jahiliyah" is seen as a means of elevating the Messenger.

- The purpose of the Quran was to preach a message through using stories known by the Arab community. The stories may or may not be historically accurate. The truth of the Quran's stories is not the point, the point is the preaching of a message.

How does one argue today that a particular narrative never occurred or was conjured out of the sheer necessity to present a story embellished almost to appeal?

Again, this is partly how you approach the Quran text.  This is not to imply that the Qur'an is incorrect... but to educate listeners with historical information is not the goal;... the issue is using known stories, whether factual or not, to call people to repentance.

Wasalam
Zack

[/quote]

Salam Zack,  I know it's your view but i wonder if it's what you think about all these "warfare" ayats ? I mean all of them ? What is your proof that those ayats are not intended for us and what do you think the principles we should draw from them ?
[/quote]

For me the main reason that these war verses are not intended for us is that the Quran is deliberately revealed in Arabic for Arabia, as has been explained by Br Josephs article "Why is the Quran in Arabic", such as....

014.004 "And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly."

With this, its specific instructions relate to an Arab context, a context of uniting Arabia under a central confession. When we take these verses given for Arab warriors and apply them literally today, we are removing them from where they were intended, and it is very dangerous.. a revelation for Arab warriors "so that they can understand clearly."

Principles are such as 2:190, not going past accepted boundaries in war....,

Wasalam

Zack

[for us]

Salamon,

From 2:216: كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ (It is written for you to fight) Who though must, and mustn't we fight?

Hello Salamon, I am sure Br. Joseph or one of the moderators will respond to you. However for now, this is an example of why the Qur'an needs to be read in its historical context. The Qur'an is a recitation primarily for Arab warriors, with possibly over 100 verses relating to warfare. These verses were never intended for us. There are principles we can draw from, however beyond that these verses are instructing 7th century Arab warriors.

That is my view anyway.

Wasalam
Zack