Messages

In regards to the above, I assume the direct revelation with the Qur'an was the oral revelation that was recited, which could have formed into a Book been anything between 1-20 years later, we do not know for sure? My point here is not to question the transmission, but the tradition of Islam that the revelation was a pre-existing book instead of oral, which from what I have read is a very late tradition with the concept taken from Logos Christology. Would that be your thinking? In some ways, have both Christianity in viewing Gods revelation in both Islam and Christianity become "Book-centred", when ultimately both were an oral revelation?
[/quote]

Hello Br. Joseph,

I think you slightly misunderstood my point above. I was not questioning that the Qur'an as a written book was compiled during the life of Muhammad. That is why I said the transmission from oral to text could have been anywhere between 1-20 years... from the time of the revelation to the time of final compilation before Prophet Muhammad passed away. The point is that as in Christianity, from what I understand traditional Islam is "book-centered", in the case of Islam believing an eternal written Kitab with God. I assume this is not your view? Even if transmission from oral to a final text was a 2 year process, the revelation of the Quran was still oral, and for strategic retention of that revelation, it was decided by Muhammad to put it into a text format.

As I mentioned in another post, the Christian writer James Dunn explains that people in the 20th / 21st century have very little appreciation for the reliability of oral transmission in the pre-printing press era. I think there is no problem with the reliability of the Quran revelation being recited by the followers of Muhammad for a 1-20 (or maybe even a 1-10 year period) year period before it being organised into a single text. This was the nature of the world during that period.

Zack

['Higher Power']

[/quote]

However, the notable difference (it would be argued) is that the narrative of the Quran was a 'direct' revelation from a 'Higher Power' inspired directly to a mortal. Hence, it is expected that the use of language would be most eloquent and effective. That certainly does seem to be the case if the Arabic Quran is listened to and understood directly.

This would be different from say a scripture that was not 'direct' in the same sense but testimonies taken down and then translated by later followers of the religion into another language. The 'Greek' Bible would arguably be one such example.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph

[/quote]

Hello. Thank you very much for your response. In regards to the above, I assume the direct revelation with the Qur'an was the oral revelation that was recited, which could have formed into a Book been anything between 1-20 years later, we do not know for sure? My point here is not to question the transmission, but the tradition of Islam that the revelation was a pre-existing book instead of oral, which from what I have read is a very late tradition with the concept taken from Logos Christology. Would that be your thinking? In some ways, have both Christianity in viewing Gods revelation in both Islam and Christianity become "Book-centred", when ultimately both were an oral revelation?

On your point above about the difference between revelations, I think a key point is in the book of Hebrews in the NT "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets and at many times and in various ways, but in these last days (last days of the Jewish priest/sacrificial system) God has spoken to us by Christ." Gods revealing his word was in unique ways. For the Bible as well as the Quran, Jesus had a unique connection to "the word" (QS 3:45 / John 1:14), where Gods word was intimately connected to Jesus, and where his words were not his own. (John 7:16)

Wasalam
Zack

Hello Br. Joseph and forum-readers,

I am not very familiar with the topic of the language of the Quran, however does the view of  Arthur Jefrey (The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Quran) (I have only skimmed the book) that the Quran has a significant amount of non-Arabic words. In other words, the purpose of the Quran is to be communicative....whatever language that was used in Arabia for particular words, they were the ones the Quran was communicated in. Therefore, besides the majority of 7th century Arabic,  the Quran has significant amounts of Syriac, some Greek, Hebrew, Ethiopian etc, throughout, as those were the languages communicated in Arabia for specific words. Would this be your view?

It could be said that this is no different to any language on the planet. Similarly, Christians are surprised to hear that the New Testament is written in such basic, everyday Greek that could be understood... not some "high language".


Regards
Zack

I have not read any scholar so far who suggests that Jesus did die and was resurrected. What I find is that some suggest that although he was put on the cross, he did not die but recovered and healed.  As the Quran categorically rejects the notion of Jesus dying on the cross, I think this could be a sticky one to address. 

Jesus, in the future which may lead to Jesus being acknowledged as a Messenger with mighty powers, rather than God [One from God rather than God Himself].

Thank you for your response. Re no Islamic scholars affirming the crucifixion as a historical reality, for starters the owner of this website I would consider an Islamic scholar (-:   . Beyond that, Abdullah Saeed, a leading Islamic scholar in his book Reading the Qur'an in the Twenty-First Century: A Contextualist Approach has a whole chapter on the history of Islamic interpretation in regards to the crucifixion, viewing the non-crucifixion as "reactionist interpretation", interpretation formed not due to the initial revelation, but due to a political situation. Beyond that, a modern Islamic scholar Muhammud Ayoub affirms the crucifixion.

These individuals (excluding Br.Joseph) would have an "eastern" rather than "western" view of the crucifixion. That means that  the spirit / Word that strengthened and worked through Jesus did not die, only his body did. All of the above give an academic basis for their views from the original text. I have seen 3 approaches of scholars to synchronise the Bible with the Quran re crucifixion. This has been mentioned at the link http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1035.msg4526#msg4526.

Wasalam
Zack

If agreeable with you, I am happy to share your post with a wider audience on my own Facebook page to see if anyone would like to share any comments. My readership on Facebook is quite large and includes a good representation of wider society including academics from various countries and theological positions. Therefore, your thoughts would arguably be shared with those that may want to comment further, possibly from an academic perspective too.

If you are happy with this, please let me know how best to identify you / your post, so that readers can understand the background context e.g. 'Christian' who believes in the Quran's testimony or something similar.

I can always post the direct link back on the forum too so you can monitor any comments.

Regards,
Joseph

Thank you Br Joseph. Yes please copy my post to your Facebook with the suggested back ground context from a "Christian who believes in the Quran's testimony"

I have commented on 1 or 2 other sites, it seems there are very few sites such as yours which attempts to put aside the tendency of answering through emotion, allegiance to dogma and tradition. I find quranmessage quite different.

Wasalam
Zack

I am writing this partly in response to another link http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1264.msg5907#msg5907 which was enquiring re how to view the previous scriptures. Relating to this, I want to write down in point form my thoughts how I see what a Holy Book based Islam and Christianity will look like in the future.

Before that, I want to mention 2 points in response to the posting link:

-   I believe the Qur'an is coherent and has a unified message with the previous Holy Books. Supposed doctrines that oppose each other between the Quran / Bible: (eg. Father / Son of God has been discussed in link http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1234.msg5850#msg5850) are more misinterpretations. In fact, the evidence clearly shows that translations now are now closer to the original manuscripts than the Torah, Zabur and Injil (Old and New Testament) at the time of Muhammad. Blatant mistranslation of words to support in particular a Trinitarian doctrine is no longer possible without being exposed (although still subtle double-meanings can be misleading).

-   One of the biggest underlying departures from scripture that has been held by Christianity and followed by Islam is that of "Replacement Theology". For Christianity that meant: Christianity replaced Judaism as the true religion; Injil replaced the Torah; Greek replaced Hebrew; Rome replaced Jerusalem; Christians replaced Jews as God's sole "Ummah"........You can see how Islam followed: Arabic replaced Greek; Islam replaced Christianity; Qur'an replaced Injil; Mecca replaced Rome; Muslims replaced Christians... This thinking divides and destroys the planet and is not supported by any of the Holy Books. There is one community of Gods people, not two or three.  That is the religion of Abraham.... that religion is one of submission, whether one is Jew, Christian or Islamic label. Islam as a religion replacing Christianity wasn't anything to do with Nabi Muhammad. Christianity replacing Judaism wasn't anything to do with Nabi Isa.

In regards to the Islam / Christianity of the future:
a) The catholic creeds of the trinity will be done away with, and Christianity return to the "Shahadat Tauhid" of the Bible.
b) Islam re-acknowledge the Bible as scripture as per the Qur'an. From what I understand and have read from recent Islamic scholarship, the idea of corruption and rejection of scripture is far more recent that Islamic Secondary sources, even post 1000AD. This will include catching up on 1000 years of re-interpreting what the Torah and Injil says.
c) Islam re-acknowledges the death and resurrection of Isa. This again is starting to gain momentum amongst modern Islamic scholars. The idea of the substitution / or non-death of Isa on the cross is an earlier interpretation, maybe as early as the 8th century.  Understanding that the death of Isa on the cross was a central understanding of the "People of the Book" and of history, and yet it never being discussed  by Muhammad; yet a single verse being interpreted to change a central message of the Book endorsed by Muhammad has all sorts of problems.
d) It will become increasingly common for Christians to recognise Muhammad as a Prophet.
e) Islam re-embraces Isa as the figure that God spoke through in a distinct way, and shakes of its suspicion of the name.
f) Although remaining distinctive, a breaking down of the division between Muslim/Christian.

Anyway, I partly see beginning signs of things moving this way, and partly my belief that this is what you end up with when one follows the "quran message". I would love to hear your thoughts....

Wasalam
Zack

Hello all,

Oh yes... I left out John. Just adding to Br. Joseph which I agree with, from a post yesterday in the "Bible category" is relevant here...There is only one Injil. Injil (Gospel) means "Good News", and so "Jesus was given the INjil" is literally translated "Jesus was given the Good News." What you refer to as 4 Injil's, are actually 4 inspired writings / testimonies by those in the era of Nabi Isa of the one Injil. It is generally understood there were 4 different audiences. For example, the record of Matthew is more written for the audience following the Torah, Hebrews...and in fact deals with issues relating to living under the Torah / Sharia.

Adding further, a scholar by the name of James Dunn, who is recognized as one of the premier theologians for Christians, however is controversial because he actually reads the Bible with an interpretation that is somewhat more in sync with the Quran / Hebrew mindset. Anyway one of his key points is not to have an understanding of  the written Injil (N.T.) as having an original book revealed shortly (ie. 3 years) after Isa, and everyone is looking for the original. That never happened!

He explains that our mistake is thinking in a "printing press / book" mindset for the Holy Books. On the contrary, it was an amazing oral society (as was Arabia with the Prophet Muhammad). Stories and recitations were memorised and compared. The Jews trusted this system for a 1000 years! Later, these memorised stories were transcribed and cross-checked with witnesses etc. and God enabled these witnesses to write the gospels that there is today. 

This mindset will help Muslims to move away from the idea of looking for "The Lost Injil". That is a 20th century mindset, as if I misplaced a book somewhere and can't locate it. (-:   I hope this helps....

I ask myself if the table mockering over the cross of Jesus I.N.R.I is expressing the view of the Romans about Jesus to be an Nazara.
Isn't it translated as Jesus the Nazarene King of the Jews.

No, it is just "Jesus, King of the Jews" in Matthew, Mark and Luke...

Hello,

I know Br Joseph has partly answered this question in a couple of articles:

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

Technically you are correct, there is only one Injil. Injil (Gospel) means "Good News", and so "Jesus was given the INjil" is literally translated "Jesus was given the Good News." What you refer to as 4 Injil's, are actually 4 inspired writings by those in the era of Nabi Isa of the one Injil. It is generally understood they were 4 different audiences. For example, the record of Matthew is more written for the audience following the Torah, Hebrews...and in fact deals with issues relating to living under the Torah / Sharia.

Wasalam
Zack

Hello all,

I am interested as an outsider looking in with some of the dynamics happening within the Islamic community, and the  Quran-centric approach. I know there are similar sensitivities with Christology reform within Christianity.

My questions are:
- Roughly what % of Muslims would embrace somewhat of a Quran-centric approach? 1% , 2% etc? (I know like Christology reform, there are all sorts of levels of reform)
- Is the Quran-centric approach mostly outside of the Middle East?
- Would the Quran-centric approach as on this website be something that can be discussed openly offline? To what extent: is this paradigm limited to open-minded Muslims: or could it be promoted in a public Islamic event?

Wasalam
Zack

[I find no proof that this was a later 'insertion' into the NT text as to my knowledge, the old manuscripts retain the word 'Abba' followed by a Greek transliteration (Pater - Father) which informs the readership what it means.]

[/quote]
The use of "Abba" is against the law of Musa(ten commandments) and Jesus would never ever deal against the previous law.If you say father than logically there must be a Mother and a child.

Kind regards
[/quote]

In regards to your point above there are 2 responses:
- I quote Br Joseph in his link on this topic I find no proof that this was a later 'insertion' into the NT text as to my knowledge, the old manuscripts retain the word 'Abba' followed by a Greek transliteration (Pater - Father) which informs the readership what it means.
- And secondly, what is a foundational qualifier to this topic that I stated at the beginning:  Re the above, "Hebrew figures of speech make great use of sonship terminology, e.g., sons of Babylon, sons of the kingdom, sons of the evil one, sons of thunder, sons of peace, sons of the light, sons of darkness, sons of heaven, and sons of the resurrection. Obviously, such titles neither imply biological offspring, nor suggest that a woman could literally be impregnated by thunder or light." The problem occurs when the Nazarenes / Nashara use that phrase in Arabia. "Obviously, literal translation of ben elohim (son of God) was even more vulnerable to evolve into heresy in Arabia not only because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad, but also because of how easily such titles were confused by pagan idolaters to refer to that which the Qur'a¯n condemns unequivocally."

I understand this is a very foreign concept in referring to God, however it is simply a linguistic issue where "father" doesn't mean "father" when transliterated, the same as islam doesn't mean Islam when transliterated. I belief Br. Joseph has stated his position, as well as I. Hopefully it is clear now.

Wasalam
Zack

[[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?]

Dear All,

As-salam alaykum

Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.

[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255

[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0

Regards,
Joseph

Continuing to my post above, In regards to the other link by Br. Joseph concerning the Nasara, he referred to possibility to them being Nazarenes and that being open to debate. I personally feel slightly stronger that a Nazarene/Nasara presence even in the region of Mecca was a reality. The reality is that the Nazarenes were known as the original followers of Isa, who are referred to as muslims in the Qur'an. The question is, is the Quran a continuation and is coherent of the teachings of Isa and his followers? If it is not, then you start going down a path that Gods messengers and His Books contradict and oppose one another, which creates a big mess. From studies, it would seem to be there was a segment of "This original" that the Prophet Muhammad knew of.

Wasalam
Zack

[[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?]

Dear All,

As-salam alaykum

Please see below my humble perspectives on some related topics.

[1] Who are the 'Al-Nasara'?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=1255

[2] 'My Father' in the Christian Bible
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0

Regards,
Joseph

Thank you Br. Jospeh. 

A couple of comments on the attachments referred to...
- Firstly "Father". I will agree with most of the article, however I don't quite understand the references to "Father" in the New Testament limited to the 3 passages. These are the 3 where the Aramaic word Abba ( www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=abba&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1) is included, as well as the Greek word for Father pätār (www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3962) . The Greek word for Father as a metaphor for God is used over 100 times, such as "Father in heaven" etc.

Compared to the other passages where this is variants in manuscripts and obviously a deliberate mistranslation of  a particular word / words to support a political / theological agenda... "Father" is very much imbedded into the text throughout scripture, and as you say is unlikely to have been a later addition. With this, as I was saying... Father as a metaphor for God by Nabi Isa and is a metaphor that was understood for Gods loving nature. The change of meaning later in Christianity and at the time of Muhammad is a whole different matter.

Wasalam
Zack

My question is why did God not mention that he sent Jesus to "Yahoud" instead he uses the term "Bani Israeel"?

And who are the disbeliever and blasphemers among "Bani Israeel" other than "Yahoud" and "Nasara".
regards

Yes, that is correct... There were many disbelievers among Jews and Israel both during the time of Isa, and the time of Muhammad. Technically Jews were only a subset of Bani Israel. The tribes of Israel had been scattered for many centuries before the time of Isa.
The followers of Isa went into the East to "The lost scattered tribes of Israel," which a part of them became the Church of the East.

The Nazarenes / Nashara were only known as the Hebrew speaking followers of Isa. They were enemies of the Jews, because the Jews did not recognise Isa as the Almasih. The Nazarenes were also the enemies of Christians, as Christians believed they had replaced them as Gods people. Therefore they were without a homeland, many finding a homeland in Arabia.

Wasalam
Zack

You mean to say that Ben Elohim is Hebrew Tauhid  language is what messengers understood is Oneness of God. Are you telling that Ben Elohim means not son of God? Or what ? Can you elaborate? Thanks.

What I am saying is from the evidence, for the Hebrew Prophets / Messengers (Musa, Daud, Isa) the phrase "son of God" was a figure of speech that was acceptable to them that basically meant "Gods appointed". This was over 500 years before it meant something different for Christians.
In fact, the same can be said of "Father". Jews could not say the name of God (Yahweh) out of fear of defaming His name. The alternative / figure of speech for Isa that described Gods love for mankind was Father, so that is what was used by him. Never did any thought of understanding of trinity etc. come to the mind of the first followers of Isa when Father was used.

What I am saying is that over time use of these words changed their meanings when going to Arabic / Greek and other languages. (because of the more restrictive use of terms like ibn and walad in Arabic).