Bible, the Book in the Qur'an?

[Nicaea325]

As-salaamun Alaikum brother:

I've been reading some commentaries for awhile and have not stumbled any article where it is clearly defined what the bible actually is in light of the Holy Qur'an. There is no mention of "bible" in Holy Qur'an. While the Holy Qur'an mentioned "of the book", it may refer to the Torah, Psalm and Gospel which was clearly mentioned in some ayats. It is claimed that the bible has, in it, the Torah, Psalm and Gospel but I feel that this is not what the Holy Qur'an is referring to.

The bible has two major versions, not in terms of translations, but of doctrines. The Roman/Orthodox Catholic Churches have 72/73 books while the Protestant Churches have about 66 books for their bibles. I also think that the bible today in general is similar to a ahadith only, a narrative of third person. Please share your opinion in regards to my common understanding.


Sincerely,

[Zack]

As-salaamun Alaikum brother:

While the Holy Qur'an mentioned "of the book", it may refer to the Torah, Psalm and Gospel which was clearly mentioned in some ayats. It is claimed that the bible has, in it, the Torah, Psalm and Gospel but I feel that this is not what the Holy Qur'an is referring to.

Hello... Thanks for your question. I may not be the average person who is on this site, my name is Daniel from the link  "Hello from a Monotheist outside of Islam", basically someone who endeavours to be grounded in the same theology of God as you do. Re your question, firstly if we begin with a starting point of the Hawariyuun of Nabi Isa, and end with the Holy Books known in Arabia by the Prophet Muhammad, it makes things a lot lest complicated.

According to history, the Injil that was held to by the followers of Jesus was the Hebrew Gospel, based on the Gospel according to Matthew. Matthew in particular is a problem for the church, because of its positiveness to the “Sharia of the Hebrews” (Torah), as opposed to Paul’s writing of law free for the Greek speaking world. It is highly likely that some sort of copy of the Hebrew Gospel is what Waraqa Bin Naufel was trying to translatefrom Hebrew to Arabic (Al-Bukhari ), with the followers of Isa migrating to Arabia after being expelled from Jerusalem by Roman forces.

However this was not the Injil the Prophet Muhammad was calling for reform in the interpretations of the “People of the Book”, so not to refer to God as 3 persons. (QS 4:171). The people using the Hebrew Matthew in the Mecca region were script monotheists, non-trinitarians and being Semitic, enemies of Rome.The only scriptures of the Torah, Zabur Injil in Arabia was in Syriac. This is what the Qu’ran would have been referring to.  That means Prophet Muhammad only could ever read the Torah Zabur Injil in Syriac, which I am not sure was known to him. Despite this, the message of the Torah, Zabur, Injil was often orally communicated in Arabic, which left people prone to deception. We must remember, Qur’an is about bringing reform to the Trinitarian views of those holding the Injil. This gives away the greatest clue immediately. In placing an unbiased History of the church of the East in the background of the Qur’an, the Qur’an becomes alive with a lot more meaning. This is the problem with theories of corruption of scripture that neither classical Islam interpreters or the Qur’an supports.

I should add :
a)   I believe Muhammad would have disliked (as I do) the term “Old and New Testament” as it had anti-semitic / replacement connotations (ie. Injil replaced Torah; Rome replaced Jerusalem; East replaced West etc.)
b)   The above does not mean endorsement of Trinitarian dogma.
c)   Important to remember that a portion of the New Testament are letters written to the Greek speaking world, dealing with the concessus of the hawariyuun for them to not be obligated to circumcision, but following the monotheism of Abraham..
Hope this helps. It is hard to keep short (-:
Wasalam

[Zack]

I should add to the bottom points... there are mistranslations in some translations that endeavor to support trinitarian thought. Also the Syriac Bible is based on the same Injil that is held today. Re the additional 7 books in the Old testament of the Catholic Bible which is the difference with the protestant Bible, this is considered not an important issue by the Christian Church being a part of the Torah..

[Nicaea325]

As-salaamun alaikum.

Thank you for the output Daniel and I appreciate sharing your views. The point I am driving out is that responses are indirectly switched, almost unnoticeable at times, using ayats that refers to the Torah or Injil when an issue is about the veracity or authority of the bible. I don't see where it was explicitly mentioned that the bible is not ever mentioned in the Holy Qur'an.

As you may agree there are two dogmatic versions of the bible, the Catholic's and the Protestant's. I believe that the Torah and Injil does not have to be in a written form or else it could have been transcribed at the very time the prophets survived. Early Christianity existed even without these manuscripts (bible). The Gospel of Issa have spread out to the gentiles and people have benefited from it. This gain is when these gentiles accepted the Oneness of God - Yahweh, which I feel is the very objective of the gospel. These people, the gentiles, even ended up worshiping inside synagogues.

To reiterate my point early followers of Issa don't have a "bible" but the Gospel of Jesus passed through to the word of mouth. The book does not always have to be in a paperbound in my humble opinion.

Sincerely,

Salahuddin

[Zack]

As-salaamun alaikum.

To reiterate my point early followers of Issa don't have a "bible" but the Gospel of Jesus passed through to the word of mouth. The book does not always have to be in a paperbound in my humble opinion.

As you may agree there are two dogmatic versions of the bible, the Catholic's and the Protestant's.
Sincerely,

Salahuddin

Hello Salahuddin,

Thanks for your post. Yes you are correct in speaking of the oral Gospel for the first period of early followers of Isa. It is simply a matter of how long were things oral. One of the early Christian Church fathers , Ireneous, in 125AD speaks of Matthew compiling the Hebrew gospel in 50AD (which was based upon later translated by Waraqa). There wouldn't haven't been any reason for this to be untrue, as who Ireneous represented (Rome) was somewhat opposed to the Hebrew speakers.

Re the other 3 Gospel accounts (Mark, Luke, John), traditionally they have were authored in the 1st century.  However there is some basis for them being written in the mid 2nd century, based on traditions and accounts past down.

Re the letters of the New Testament which make up 50% and are mostly by Paul, these were NOT oral, simply because they are written as letters, sealed and delivered to communities of faith.

Re at the Prophet Muhammad’s time concerning the Torah, Zabur and Injil, I think it was clear that the record was in written form, and that was held by “The People of the Book,” sometimes misinterpreted.  In fact, the very pillar of the Islamic faith recognises the Torah, Zabur and Injil in book form, being belief in the Holy Books.  I believe the Qur’an in refering to the Injil is centred around the account of the Gospel presented by Isa as stated in the Holy Books, not an oral Gospel.  “So when you are in doubt about what we have revealed to you, ask those who are reading the book that was before you. Truth has come to you from your Lord, so don’t be a doubter” (QS 10:94)

However your point of the Gospel being initially oral is definitely true.

Wasalam
Daniel

[Nicaea325]

Thanks Daniel for sharing. I've been quite busy these past few weeks.

While the Holy Qur'an mentioned the Book I find it not SAFE to quickly assume that this refers to the BIBLE as we have today, regardless of the version (68/72/73 books versions). We have to make note that the Holy Qur'an mentioned Torah and Gospel BUT never about EPISTLES and other books, as INCLUDED or EXCLUDED in current BIBLE VERSIONS.

Given the fact that there is a 68 or 72 book bible before the prophet Muhammad, this does not immediately mean it was the prototype of the bible as we know today. Again the Holy Qur'an mentioned about the Torah and Gospel, not the epistles and similar books. I would still be firm in my stand that this is and never in reference to the bible (62/72/73 books versions).


Sincerely,

Salahuddin

[Zack]

Hi Salahuddin,

Thanks for your response. The following article written on this website will provide further clarification on the topic of the Bible, the link being...

http://www.quransmessage.com/articles/people%20of%20the%20book%20FM3.htm

The Injil and Torah was held by the People of the Book; the two cannot be separated.

[Nicaea325]

This is my point, despite the fact the THERE IS A CANONIZED BIBLE before the Prophet Muhammad (saws) that does NOT automatically mean it is the BOOK as mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. The Jews (of Judaism) do not even recognize the Gospel of Jesus more of the EPISTLES and REVELATION. The word BOOK, particulary in the Holy Qur'an, and the Bible are not interchangeable in my opinion.

On the canonized bible prior to our prophet Muhammad (pbuh), please allow me to use an analogy or argument.

There now exist STEALTH bombers, Apache Helicopters and Satellites as a UNIT/package (true and its cost some countries BILLIONS of Dollars to develop and manufacture these machines)

Stealth, Apaches and satellites, as a unit or package, are used for wars (true as these are used to support each other)

The Philippines is at war (true, against the Abu Sayaffs and New People's Army)

So, the Philippines is using Stealth, Apaches and satellites. (This is false, Philippines have a commercial satellites, and some outdated helicopters.) While these stealth, Apaches, and satellites, as a UNIT (canonized), do exist and used in SOME wars, it does NOT AUTOMATICALLY being used by the Philippines (Muhammad - pbuh) but instead a satellite/s or Sikorsky helicopters only. I could not think of a better example at this minute.


I have read the link* you provided and it is very enlightening and it further supported my personal view in the Tawheed. On your "The Injil and Torah was held by the People of the Book; the two cannot be separated" I doubt if the Jews are keeping either the Gospel or the Bible. The BOOK could mean the Torah, Gospel or Psalms or these three but NOT the bible. In other words there is a Torah, Gospel, and the Bible.

Thank you for your patience.


Salaam,


Salahuddin

[Zack]

Hello,

"On your "The Injil and Torah was held by the People of the Book;" .... If a study was done on the characteristics of "The People of the Book" who held held the Torah and Injil as per the Quran, it would show the People of the Book were confused trinitarians, venerating Mary etc.

Much of the Qur'an is a "corrective" to the People of the Book who did not follow the books contents. Remember, the Arabic speakers  of the People of the Book could not speak the language of "The Book" (Syriac). This is why there needed to be correction.

If "the Book" was not the current Bible that these trinitarian / Mary worshipers held to, the problem is there is no evidence of the streams of Christianity in Arabia holding to any other scripture. The Bible was canonised centuries before the Prophet Muhammad. It would be good to hear from Br. Joseph on this........

[Nicaea325]

As-salaam.

If "the Book" was not the current Bible that these trinitarian / Mary worshipers held to, the problem is there is no evidence of the streams of Christianity in Arabia holding to any other scripture. The Bible was canonised centuries before the Prophet Muhammad. It would be good to hear from Br. Joseph on this........

And why would there be no other scripture? There is the Torah and the Gospel according to the Holy Qur'an. As I have tried to explain my brother that not because a canonized bible in Syriac or Arabic existed that does not automatically mean that it is the BOOK as mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. We have to consider that the current bible in circulation maybe is just another translation or version of a bible that may have been approved or accepted by Synod of Hippo Regius which does not include the Book of Revelations (I think the Book of Revelations was added at a later time, somewhere in the 5th or 6th Century).

Now we also have to consider the logistics, how many of Syriac or Arabic bibles could really be printed with very limited resources and difficulty of making a copy? The BOOK could be a metaphor or maybe only a reference to people who believe in the teachings of the prophets. Another thing that I noticed while I am composing this is that the BOOK as menitioned in the Holy Qur'an is singular while BIBLE, as it was not mentioned as "bible", is derived from word Biblia, a Koine Greek meaning the BookS (many books). 

The Biblia which includes the scriptures of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John could be or probably the individual book that is being mentioned. Matthew spread the Gospel of Jesus, as he heard him preach, to his followers so as Mark and John and of course Paul in his own right with direct revelations "from" Jesus. I may consider that those following Matthew are Christians and maybe considered as people of the Book too, as well as those following Luke, Mark, John and even Thomas and Judas.

Yes, I would love to hear the opinion of Brother Joseph on this issue.


Sincerely,

Salahuddin