Messages

Hello Student,

Going back to your original request, an online resource..... I think the reference given does not exactly answer your question in that it is the site of an ancient manuscript of the first complete Bible.

The primary issue with New testament translations today of the original portions of manuscript is subtle misleading changes that support the creeds of much of the church since the 4th century, that being of God in 3 persons. However if you can be prepared to understand the people of the time of the Bible, Nabi Isa etc., used father, son etc in a symbolic sense.. not in a physical sense, that is the biggest misunderstanding averted. There is a translation and commentary which attempts to avoid these misunderstandings.. It is: www.revisedenglishversion.com . It has a commentary to help avoid confusion, although sometimes the commentary can have quite academic language. With this and some other guidelines, there are no issues with the Quran and the Bible. At the same time, Bible translations in general are getting closer to the original, because translators can't get away with deliberate major mistakes like they used to.

The sensitivities of Muslims to the Bible and CHristians to the Quran are simply traditions long after even the Hadith. The quran itself has no issues with the Bible, in fact encourages the approach of Student. (Surah 10:94).
Wasalam
Zack

Hello,

I would say I do not agree with Bro Nouman Ali Khan and the explanation given. Prophet Musa was someone who was raised not in an Israelite environment, under the Pharaoh. The statement "O my people" makes a lot of sense, as it is reinforcing his identity as a citizen of Israel, despite being raised in a non-Tauhid setting.

As of Nabi Isa, the Hebrew ethnic identity and citizenship is totally dependant upon the MOTHER, NOT THE FATHER. He spoke with authority and firmly to his own people, calling the segment of Pharisees "A brood of vipers". He could only be firm like this to his own people. His greatest challenge was that the Pharisees were presenting themselves as "Gods people" (Ummah) based on their ethnic identity as a Jew. This is the theme of the Injil by Isa, Paul, Peter and others... the challenging of this ethno-centric misconception, with the Ummah being presented in the Injil as extremely inclusive, even the non-circumcised Roman empire being a part of the Ummah, based upon repentance and faith in the God of Abraham.

Wasalam
Zack

I meant to say Br Joseph how much we appreciate your articles. They are having a broad impact, a lot more possibly than you realise. At the same time a part of us having a slightly different view on some things and not it being a big issue is the spirit of  the Quran, which was inclusive prior to the Arabisation of Islam...

Keep moving forward in your work and be encouraged!

Wasalam

Dear Br. Joseph,

I might respond to your to your comments in this thread (pasting them in) as this part of my discussion does not relate to the return of Jesus. You mentioned:

However, I would kindly add that as far as the Quran being a later document or a revelation '550 years after' this does not by inference preclude the Quran as the primary authoritative source of interpretation for believers. For believers, the author of the Quran (God) is not subject to time.
As I trust that you will appreciate, in contrast to human writings that may suffer in authenticity and authority over the passage of time, a 'later' scripture by a timeless God would arguably be most authoritative and most authentic especially if Gods own commitment to protect its message is accepted (15:9). Please note: The Arabic word 'tukh'funa' comes from the root KHA-FA-YA which carries the meaning of what is unapparent / has become imperceptible / has become dim to the sight / or suppressed, or obscured to the mind. It also carries the meaning of something which has become 'concealed'.

I agree with your response.... However it is more to do with the different functions of the different Holy Books. I understand one of the functions of the Quran with the words "A corrective / Reminder", being consistent with previous revelation. In mentioning 550 years later is not to imply the Quran not being authoritative. However it is correcting issues in a 7th century  Arabian context, including misinterpretation of scripture and even words in manuscripts that would seem to be deliberately mistranslated to support some trinitarian views. Although much of these issues addressed continue to be issues today I am sure.

The reason for returning to the New Testament for discussions on Jesus, returning to the Torah concerning Moses etc. is that their text is generally written as a systematic text of events in that era. Muslims often speak as if everything you need to know about Jesus is in the Quran! How tragic! The Quran is not designed as a systematic story of these events. Besides being a corrective, it is a revelation that is an introductory overview for a people who did not have access to the previous Kitabs in their language.

A part of the problem is that Christians view the Quran as an Arab centric Book, Muslims view the Injil as a Roman centric Book; which is all just the baggage we carry.

Regards

Robert

The Ahadith which do not contradict Quran are to be believed and this Hadith strengthen the
belief in Quran therefore we have to believe.

There is one problem..... you have never mentioned the Quran to support what you are presenting.

Regards
Robert

Bro Zack I would like to tell about a Sunna/Hadith. Once Omer Bin Khattab told the Prophet that he was reading Taurh( Tauraith) whereupon the prophet told him that even if prophet Moses come back he had to follow Quran & be a member of his Ummah. Moral ? Moses had to follow Quran only.

Re your comment above, I am confused. This is www.quransmessage.com , correct?

Hello Sadar,

Yes, I read the Qur'an most days. And when we read the Qur'an, it is clear it does not point to itself, nor does the Prophet Muhammad point to himself. From what I understand, the Qur'an exists, amongst other reasons:

To remind us of the previous revelation:QS    38:11
So Arab speakers at the time of Muhammad can understand the previous revelation QS 12:2, QS 43:3-4

I believe the paradigm you present is that of a "Quranist" approach, rather than being Qur'an centric, as Br. Joseph explained in the below link, which I quote....

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/542672849203180

It remains an undisputable fact, that the Quran dedicates a plethora of verses to support Biblical narratives and identities (musaddiqan). It clearly expects its audience to be familiar with Biblical notions and goes out of its way to ratify the general integrity of the Torah and the Books of the prophets (Tanakh) (2:136). It is important to remember that the Quran's purpose is not to rewrite the Bible (5:15) but to confirm and also act as a 'furqan' (25:1). It protects the essence of the message of the previous scriptures, whilst also acting as a discerner of its truth (muhayminan).
Thus the blanket rejection of any source 'Biblical' is wholly unsupportable from a Quran's perspective. It serves no other purpose but to precariously dismiss a large portion of the Quran's verses which contain tremendous wisdom. Such an approach is not only intellectually and academically unwarranted, it can also be argued as disingenuous.

Wasalam
Zack

Hello all,

It has been a long time since I have posted, so thought I would touch base again!!

I posted a part of this on another link, however most of it deals with a different topic, the attitude towards the previous scripture.

As I have mentioned in the past, I believe the Qur'an has a unified message with all of the previous scripture. I am surprised that people on this forum do not take that in to account, with this being the most open-minded of all forums in allowing the Quran to speak for itself. Nearly all of the posts of even many of the senior members of this forum seem to have the assumption that the Holy Books of God are at war with one another! Although this is certainly not surprising, as Christians consider the Qur'an as a handbook for warfare. Someone once said, we read the Holy Books not based on rational thinking, but with eyes influenced by centuries of political baggage!

From what I understand, the Qur'an is consistently presenting itself as a reminder of the former books, and a corrective to incorrect interpretation of the former Books by a segment of Christians at the time of Muhammad.

On the other link, there was discussion concerning the second coming of Jesus.  I am not sure why an investigation of whether Jesus is returning is based on the Qur'an anyway, when that revelation is 550 years after Jesus. Clearly the Gospels need to be carefully examined. The same as if questions concerning Moses, the Torah is the primary source. The response of "We don't go there, it is corrupted" is simply an escape and robs the individual of an exciting journey of learning. Again I am surprised how regularly on this forum the easy escape of "The corruption of scripture" answer is given, when that is the most blatant post-Quranic doctrine that was formalised even long after most other traditions challenged by this site....

I think a new approach this area, instead of taking the easy path of sidelining previous scripture, will attract some of the best minds, both within Islam and Christianity, who are on a journey of rediscovering the message of Muhammad, as well as that of Jesus! It is my view that real engagement of topics is best achieved when there is serious engaging and learning from other peoples... ie... "O people, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another."

In fact, I would go one step further. I have my doubts it is possible to truly understand the Qur'an without a study of Hebrew scripture, the Gospels, and even Church History.

Wasalam
Zack

Wasalam
Zack

I would like to add another perspective on this discussion. Simply because the Quran is silent on the matter of the second coming of Jesus, it does not mean it is not a reality.

As I have mentioned in the past, I believe the Qur'an has a unified message with all of the previous scripture. I am surprised that people on this forum do not take that in to account, with this being the most open-minded of all forums in allowing the Quran to speak for itself. From what I understand, the Qur'an is consistently presenting itself as a reminder of the former books and a corrective to interpretation of the former Books at the time of Muhammad. I am not sure why an investigation of whether Jesus is returning is based on the Qur'an anyway, when that revelation is 550 years after Jesus. Clearly the Gospels need to be carefully examined. The same as if questions concerning Moses, the Torah is the primary source. The response of "We don't go there, it is corrupted" is simply an escape and robs the individual of an exciting journey of learning. Again I am surprised how regularly on this forum the easy escape of "The corruption of scripture" answer is given, when that is the most blatant post-Quranic doctrine that was formalised even long after most other traditions challenged by this site....

So with that in mind, the key question is what does the New Testament (I strongly dislike that term), say about end times and the second coming? This has caused thousands of books being written by Christians with all sorts of bizarre stories. However the key phrase that Jesus was asked and was repeatedly used was "When is The End Of the Age? I am one who is committed to understanding context. These were questions asked by Jews to Jews. The response by Jesus and his followers is that the "End Times / End of the Age" is imminent and in fact had arrived." It was the end of the Hebrew sacrificial / Priest / Temple system, this was "The End of the Age", and we know from history that occurred in 70AD with the destruction of the Jewish Temple. The system that became ethno-centric (Jewish) was constantly challenged by Jesus; and it came to the end.

In other words most of the Second Coming / Judgement / End Times discussion is actually a lesson of long gone history, not the future. I wonder whether traditional Islamic Eschatology (The study of End Times) has been influenced by Western Christianity thinking?

Wasalam
Zack

Hello all,

Just read Fred Donner's book "Muhammad and the believers at the origins of islam, which was mentioned on this post a couple of years ago. It would seem to be coherent with most of the views on this forum. Quite amazing, from someone who has no personal belief in Islam.

Has anyone read this book? It was written 2 years ago, has there been new light on this topic in recent times?

Wasalam
Zack

Hello Seraphina,

I take a bit of a different view from the discussion below. In some recent Bible scholarship (See: The Arabs in the shadow of Israel) there is a realization that from the time Ishmael was declared the father of a great nation and blessed, that became a reality. With this, there are 3 important points to realise:

- Ishmael's descendants prospered and were blessed by the God of Abraham throughout their history according to the Bible and secular history. a) They prospered in wisdom (the wisdom of Solomon was compared to the descendants of Ishmael); b) they prospered in material wealth (the primary source of gold, frankincense etc.); c) They prospered militarily: Throughout their history they were rarely invaded.
- We need to view Ishmaels blessed descendants not through the political climate now. Ishmael's descendants lived side by side with Isaac's descendants through much of their history. Sheba's interaction with Solomon; and much else throughout the Bible etc. In fact, for the desendants of Ishmael and Isaac the departing from the "Tauhid" faith occurred ROUGHLY at a similar time, around Solomon.
- The physical location of Ishmael and Isaac's desecndants were side by side, with Ishmaels descendants somewhere in modern day Jordan. (not southern Arabia)
- The interpretation and translation of Genesis 16 - 22 is based upon a bias against Ishmael. An example of this is the current translations "He (Ishmael) will live in hostility of his brothers" as compared to all translations up till 50 years ago "He will live to the East of his brothers."

There is a strong basis from the Bible and history to recognise Ishmael as a prophet like the others. When tradition is put aside, Gods Holy Books do not contradict or lie.

Wasalam
Zack

I have always understood from scripture that suffering and hardship is the instrument that God uses for the formation and strengthening of character. Without hardship, a person cannot grow in strength.

The people who change this world for the better are those who have the strength of character to be self-sacrificing, and yet do not consider a strange thing when they face trials. They will be experience a reward beyond their physical life on this earth.

This is the spiritual law of suffering which God has pre-determined.

Wasalam

[only]

Hello Br Joseph and Zafreen,

It has been some time since I have contributed. I appreciate your input, although I am not totally sure I agree on all the points....

- Firstly, as an additional point, I assume that Messenger usually would be equated to apostle (from apostos), which has an understanding of a "sent delegate".
- Re the general understanding of the ceasing of the Messenger and Prophet (or for Br. Joseph just the Prophet), I believe that these terms were not as "elevated" and exclusive as they are now. In particular the term messenger / rasul / apostle was a non-religious term used in everyday language. (I am assuming that is correct for rasul). Prophet Muhammad repeats "I am only a messenger" Tradition has made this term into something beyond its original meaning.

As for prophet, although I am not an Arabic scholar but interpreting prophet / nabi more generically, it would seem to me 33.40 could not be a dogmatic universal end to the office of the prophet. My sense would be that "the seal of the prophets" was referring to a confirmation to Arabia of the previous revelation. If indeed it was the last of the prophets, the terms of reference was that Arabia would never see another Prophet like Muhammad. I do not believe that Muhammads understanding was that he was universally the last prophet. In contrast to this, for non-Arabia (ie. the West), possibly God intends to raise up a prophet from among them to call their own people back to the same God as Muhammad.

At a minumum, I feel both Islam and Christianity need regular "prophetic voices" to call them back to the straight path. (prophetic being a function, not a position)

Wasalam
Zack

HI Wakas,

OK thanks so much for that. Another book I came across on the topic Modernist Islam, 1840-1940: A Sourcebook.... have you come across that and heard good reports?

I also have asked previously on other posts the level of acceptance of a Quran-centric approach. In your view: Would it still be under 5% of those who identify themselves as Muslims embrace this paradigm? Is it considered a sensitive issue for Muslims to the point they are not "Public" on their views?

Regards
Zack

[If I were to read on those who contributed the most significantly to the pioneering of this paradigm, say from 19th century onwards, who would they be?]

Hello all,

I am sure that like most renewal movements there are those who prepared the way somewhat, and that the "Qur'an centric" (as Br. Joseph likes to refer it) is no different. If I were to read on those who contributed the most significantly to the pioneering of this paradigm, say from 19th century onwards, who would they be? I have read of a name such as Muhammad Hussein Hakyal. Although obviously there are varying views even within this field.

Regards
Zack