Salvation and Belief

[muhammad_isa]

..continued from the thread "salvation" and "enlightenment"..

..I believe the Bible is Revelation because God says so.
You believe the Qur'an is Revelation because God says so.
See ... ?

Not really.
The Bible is a collection of scrolls from various authors.
The Bible canon was not decided by God.
I understand that many Chrstians believe the Bible to be "revelation", in the sense that its authors were inspired by G-d, and G-d rightly guided everybody responsible for its existence.
However, this belief cannot be substantiated academically.

I believe that the Bible is based on truth. Take the gospels, for example. They are authors that reported what Jesus said and did. This is equivalent to "hadith" in Islam .. we don't say they are the word of G-d or 100% accurate. They are accounts which while reliable, might leave room for doubt without cross-referencing with other manuscripts.

I don't believe that the Qur'an is the word of G-d because He says so
I believe its the word of G-d after contemplating its contents, confirming the previous prophets in the Bible.

According to contemporary sources, there was no single compiled book by the time of Muhammad's death.

It doesn't matter.
Let's consider when the Qur'an might have been altered/corrupted
What evidence do we have that it is different from a Qur'an of say, 1000 years ago?
There is none!

What you are basically saying, is that it got corrupted over the first 200 years.
It is certainly possible that people remembered it differently, and it was written down incorrectly, and in a subsequent time some Qur'ans were destroyed and others kept.
This also assumes that any Muslim who challenged another was silenced.

OK so let's say this actually happened. What particular verses have been changed?
The ones that disagree with the Bible?

No .. Muslims have known from the beginning that G-d is not 3 persons. So do the Rabbis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Er, no ... I don't know where you got that idea from ... the reasoning of the crucifixion is quite clear, it was political.

It was noted that Pilate appears as an advocate pleading Jesus' case rather than as a judge in an official hearing

wikipedia - Pilate's court

Also, what about Matthew 27?

24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”
25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”
Bible - YLT

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus out of the way because they feared a popular uprising and a subsequent Roman response..

There is no evidence of that. Pilate and Herod were satisfied that Jesus was not a threat.
Jesus, peace be with him, did not preach rebellion against the Romans.

Perhaps you'd like to show me where he did?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Muhammad Isa, let's hope we can keep this discussion on an even keel.

Can I assert from the beginning, again, that I am not anti-Islam. Rather I am pro-scholarship, and take issue with my own tradition's received doctrines when the evidence is significant enough to suggest the contrary.

The Bible is a collection of scrolls from various authors.

As indeed is the Qur'an, a collection of the Words of the Prophet from various oral and text traditions.

The Bible canon was not decided by God.

Was it not? Then by the same token nor was content of the Qur'an, as the process by which they came about is somewhat similar. The link provided earlier shows that there were thousands of words attributed to the Prophet which were dismissed as not from him.

I understand that many Chrstians believe the Bible to be "revelation", in the sense that its authors were inspired by G-d, and G-d rightly guided everybody responsible for its existence. However, this belief cannot be substantiated academically.

Nor can the Moslem's belief in the source of the Qur'an.

I don't believe that the Qur'an is the word of G-d because He says so

Nor do I the Bible.

I believe its the word of G-d after contemplating its contents...

I believe the same of the Bible, and I have faith that others believe their sacra doctrina are worthy of their faith and belief for the same reason.

... confirming the previous prophets in the Bible.

Ah ... if by this you mean that the Prophet was foretold in the NT Scriptures, as per "another Paraclete" of John 14:16, for example, we tend to read that as eiseges, a dubious reading of the text for subjective reasons.

It doesn't matter.

Well it rather does, from the point of context. But I'm not making an issue — there's no NT text that was contemporary with Jesus.

Let's consider when the Qur'an might have been altered/corrupted
What evidence do we have that it is different from a Qur'an of say, 1000 years ago?

I'm suggesting the Qur'an was put together from a variety of sources, employing a variety of materials, and was edited and redacted in the process, culminating with the finalised version of the text. Again, the link I supplied has ample evidence of source materials and their dating and provenance.

By the same token, the substance of the NT remains essentially unaltered for the past 2,000 years, and certainly none is evidenced according to citations of the Fathers as early as the 2nd century. Origen was so prolific is his quotations is almost possible to construct a NT text from his works alone!

What you are basically saying, is that it got corrupted over the first 200 years.

I would not say corrupted, neither intentionally or by accident ... simply that when considering the text one has to take this process into view.

No .. Muslims have known from the beginning that G-d is not 3 persons. So do the Rabbis.

D'you see the distinction between the Christian Trinity and tritheism?

 

[Thomas]

24 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.”
25 And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”
Bible - YLT

I think that rather proves my point, that the Jews forced Pilate's hand?

 

[Thomas]

There is no evidence of that. Pilate and Herod were satisfied that Jesus was not a threat.
Jesus, peace be with him, did not preach rebellion against the Romans.
Perhaps you'd like to show me where he did?

I never said He did. He didn't. Jesus was wholly innocent, the victim of political machinations.

I'm really iterating the facts as they are presented in the New Testament:

Jesus was on His way up to Jerusalem, performing many astonishing miracles along the way. The Sanhedrin got to hear about it, and a council was called to determine what to do: "The chief priests therefore, and the Pharisees, gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed. From that day therefore they devised to put him to death." John 11:46-52

This is interesting. The text in italics indicates that because Caiphas was High Priest that year, spoke with almost Divine/Prophetic authority. He presents the death of Jesus as necessary, to prevent a popular revolt that the Jewish authorities will not be able to contain and this will allow the Romans to intervene and put it down with typical harshness. Also, they can use the death to rally the people back to rabinnical Judaism, as Josiah had done centuries earier at the start of the Second Temple Era when he 'discovered' the Book of the Law in the ruins of the temple.

The Sanhedrin arrested Jesus, "And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death" (Matthew 26:59-60). The take Him up to Caiphas, who sends Him on to Pilate, who wants to keep well out of it, the last thing he wants is a populist martyr, and sends Him up to Herod Antipas to sort out, who sends Him back to Pilate who, faced with a riot,'washes his hands' of the affair, condemns Him to death, and tells the Jews he's doing it at their insistence (cf Matthew 27:24).

A note: The Jews took Jesus to Pilate because they said it was unlawful for them to execute a man. This was patently not true, as they tried to stone Him on previous occasions, and had the authority to try, condemn and execute their own people on religious grounds — they were going to stone the woman taken in adultery, were they not? — but the Jews wanted Jesus dead, but wanted someone else to do it, in case they became the object of populist discord, so they employed false witnesses and whipped up a mob to see that it was done.

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

According to the Shi'a (which I am) Imam 'Ali had compiled the Quran in a single volume during the life of the Prophet. Ali, who was a Hafiz (one who has the entire Quran memorized) was alive when the third Khalif Uthman, a companion of The Prophet, had the writtings of Zayd ibn Thabit (and others) brought to him to be put together for distribution.

The first Khalif (Abu Bakr) and the second Khalif (Umar) also had the writtings of Zayd.

Zayd was Muhammad's personal scribe charged (by Muhammad) with the duty of writting down and keeping the Quran - all of which was done under Prophet Muhammad's supervision.

There were still many Hafiz alive at that time and there has always been Hafiz.
There has been for a long time now yearly competitions for Hafiz reciting Quran,, where there is judging of pronunciation, inflection, pace, rhythm and so forth.

Imam 'Ali also compiiled books on the chronology of the revelation and on Arabic Grammer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..There were still many Hafiz alive at that time and there has always been Hafiz.
There has been for a long time now yearly cometitions for Hafiz reciting Quran,, where there is judging of pronunciation, inflection, pace, rhythm and so forth.

Imam 'Ali also compiiled books on the chronology of the revelation and on Arabic Grammer.

Exactly. The Qur'an has always been memorized.
Nevertheless, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it got corrupted at some point.
The evidence does not show that it is very likely though.

I'm suggesting the Qur'an was put together from a variety of sources, employing a variety of materials, and was edited and redacted in the process, culminating with the finalised version of the text.

What might have been changed, and why?

..As indeed is the Qur'an, a collection of the Words of the Prophet from various oral and text traditions..

Words of the prophet? Why does the Qur'an use the "royal we" in that case?
[ as does the Torah, for that matter ]

4 Never came there unto them a revelation of the revelations of God but they did turn away from it.
5 And they denied the truth when it came unto them. But there will come unto them the tidings of that which they used to deride.
6 See they not how many a generation We destroyed before them, whom We had established in the earth more firmly than We have established you, and We shed on them abundant showers from the sky, and made the rivers flow beneath them. Yet we destroyed them for their sins, and created after them another generation.
7 Had we sent down unto thee (Muhammad) (actual) writing upon parchment, so that they could feel it with their hands, those who disbelieve would have said: This is naught else than mere magic.
Quran - The Cattle

Are you saying that Muhammad, peace be with him, fraudulently claimed to be G-d?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

My experience is that in the past 50000 years of human history mankind learnt many lesson via the Stick rather than the Carrot.
So they passed by Islam.
So as per Koranic belief, what does modernity offer that enhances the future of Islam?
So as per Koranic belief, What is salvation? Then What happens?
So as per Koranic belief, we can find a way to leave this world? And go where?
So as per Koranic belief, What is the difference between life here and salvation in paradise?



Jai Shree Krishna,
the one and only eternal transcendent Supreme Personality of Godhead,
may I serve His servants,
Bhaktajan

 

[RabbiO]

Also, they can use the death to rally the people back to rabinnical Judaism, as Josiah had done centuries earier at the start of the Second Temple Era when he 'discovered' the Book of the Law in the ruins of the temple.

Let's start with these-

Josiah was king prior to the destruction of the First Temple.

Not only was there no rabbinical Judaism during the time of Josiah, there was no rabbinical Judaism during the time of Jesus.

 

[Arif Ghamiq]

Prophet Muhammad did not over throw the Byzantine Empire - it was over thrown in 1453 by the Turks (Ottomans).

The Prophet mentioned most by name in Quran is Musa/Moses - 136 times.

Isa/Jesus is mentioned 25 times by name (as is Adam) and Isa is referred to many more times by various titles, such as "Son of Mary'. Mary is mentioned about 70 times.

Muhammad is mentioned 5 times by the name "Muhammad" and once as "Ahmad" and is referred to many times as "Rasul" (Messenger) & Nabi' (Prophet).

Ibrahim/Abraham is mentioned by name 69 times.

Ishaq/Issac 17 times & Ismail/Ishmael 12 times

Yaqub/Jacob is mentioned 16 times.

Nuh/Noah is mentioned 43 times.

Idris/Enoch is mentioned 2 times.

Dawud/David is mentioned 16 times.

Sulayman/Solomon is mentioned 17 times.

Lut/Lot is mentioned 27 times.

Yusuf/Joseph is mentioned 27 times.

Yunus/Jonah is mentioned 4 times.

Hud (not mentioned in the Bible) is mentioned 25 times and Salih (not mentioned in the Bible) is mentioned 9 times.

The name Allah is mentioned in The Quran 2699 times.

Allah is referred to as Ilah ("God") 147 times.

The phrase Allahumma - "Oh Allah" is in the Quran 5 times.

 

[Thomas]

According to the Shi'a (which I am) Imam 'Ali had compiled the Quran in a single volume during the life of the Prophet.

OK, that's one tradition. Scholars have shown that other traditions contradict that idea, and several narratives appear:
"The Prophet died and the Qur'an had not been assembled into a single place", "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers" and "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a mushaf (codex) was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah" ... source wiki

Then we have the scholarship which argues that there are more than one versions:
"The Sana'a manuscript contains older portions of the Quran showing variances different from the Uthman copy... While the upper text is almost identical with the modern Qurans in use (with the exception of spelling variants), the lower text contains significant diversions from the standard text... The Sana'a manuscript has exactly the same verses and the same order of verses as the standard Qur'an. The order of the suras in the Sana'a codex is different from the order in the standard Qur'an. Such variants are similar to the ones reported for the Quran codices of Companions such as Ibn Masud and Ubay ibn Ka'b. However, variants occur much more frequently in the Sana'a codex, which contains "by a rough estimate perhaps twenty-five times as many [as Ibn Mas'ud's reported variants]".

And this:
... Gabriel Said Reynolds, professor of Islamic Studies and Theology, published a commentary clarifying the unique differences between extant ancient Qur'an copies. He defines the lower text of the Sana'a palimpsest as ”a rare Qur’anic palimpsest – a manuscript preserving an original Qur’an text that had been erased and written over with a new Qur’an text.” Reynolds explains that the lower script of the Sana'a palimpsest ”has so many variants that one might imagine it is a vestige of an ancient version that somehow survived Uthman’s burning of all versions of the Qur’an except his own.”

Furthermore, Reynolds affirms the ”Sanaa manuscript... is almost certainly the most ancient Qur’an manuscript [and] contains a surprising number of variants, including completely different words.” Reynolds concludes that the Sana'a manuscript is ”our most ancient manuscript of the Qur’an [and] does not agree with the standard text read around the world today.”

... the Birmingham Quran manuscript (has been carbon-dated) to before the year 645 with a 95.4% accuracy ... is believed to be older then the Sana'a manuscript, and is seen as the oldest Quran manuscript. Moreso, the discovery of a Quran manuscript by the University of Tübingen in 2014 also proved to date from the early second half of the 7th century. A more recent study of one of the most ancient Quran manuscripts by François Déroche was the Codex Parisino-petropolitanus, containing 46% of the text of the Quran, dated to the early second half of the 7th century, from around the same as the Sana'a manuscript. source wiki

What does all this mean?

Simply that the appearance of the Qur'an is not so quite as cut and dried as Islamic authorities would like us to believe. It's a more organic process, with more steps along the way. And more than one source, including pre-existing narratives wound into the text. Perhaps they've seen the impact of text criticism on the Bible and Jewish and Christian history, and are trying to preserve Islamic history from the same kind of investigation.

For me, from the standpoint of faith, it's a discussion among scholars and, taken broadly, immaterial. My only point is that from a scholarly point of view, one cannot hold the genesis of the Qur'an as something quite remarkable and utterly distinct from the genesis of the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament.

 

[Cino]

Let's start with these-

Josiah was king prior to the destruction of the First Temple.

Not only was there no rabbinical Judaism during the time of Josiah, there was no rabbinical Judaism during the time of Jesus.

But the precursors were already there, at the time of Jesus, I thought. Aren't they roughly equivalent to the group called the Pharisees in the gospels and in Josephus?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..A more recent study of one of the most ancient Quran manuscripts by François Déroche was the Codex Parisino-petropolitanus, containing 46% of the text of the Quran, dated to the early second half of the 7th century, from around the same as the Sana'a manuscript.

What does all this mean?

Simply that the appearance of the Qur'an is not so quite as cut and dried as Islamic authorities would like us to believe..

So you keep saying. Why don't you tell us what might have changed, and why?

 

[CobblersApprentice]

For me, from the standpoint of faith, it's a discussion among scholars and, taken broadly, immaterial

Yes. Indeed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. Indeed.

Why? What is immaterial about it?
How can truth be anything that you want it to be?

 

[CobblersApprentice]

Why? What is immaterial about it?
How can truth be anything that you want it to be?

Oh, I just knew I should have kept out of this one!

Really, as I see it, to recognise certain disputes as "broadly speaking, immaterial" is by no means to see "truth" as "anything we want it to be."

" They search the scriptures daily, for in them they think they have life" (NT) This said, rightly or wrongly, of the Jewish people.

As I see it, Truth is not a text, nor any particular interpretation of a text, corrupted or not. Truth is not a proposition to follow.

As said elsewhere, for some the Word is Text, for others the Word is a Person. Mohammad, the means by which the Text is given. The Bible, the means by which the Person is revealed.

It seems that you see Jesus merely as a prophet, one whose words are important to be heard and followed and acknowledged as Truth. You miss the point, if I might say so.

Back to Saichi........

 

[Thomas]

What might have been changed, and why?

Ha, that's the same question I put to critics when they question the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures. The point is not to imply the messga ehas been altered, but simply to assert its origins are organic, the text emerges/evolves as texts tend to do ...

Please understand, I'm not arguing the veracity or otherwise of the content, rather I'm simply saying the Qur'an is a testament to man's apprehension of the Divine. The Prophet (pbuh) underwent a unique experience, which he recounted to his followers. I neither dispute nor doubt that. Simply that the journey from the oral tradition to the written page was an organic process ...

Words of the prophet? Why does the Qur'an use the "royal we" in that case?
[ as does the Torah, for that matter ]

As with the Hebrew Scriptures, the use of the plural suggests the transcendent order. It is a narrative device used by the authors of sacra doctrina, but it's not invented by them.

4 Never came there unto them a revelation of the revelations of God but they did turn away from it.

The OT and the NT says much the same.

5 And they denied the truth when it came unto them. But there will come unto them the tidings of that which they used to deride.

Ditto.

6 See they not how many a generation We destroyed before them, whom We had established in the earth more firmly than We have established you, and We shed on them abundant showers from the sky, and made the rivers flow beneath them. Yet we destroyed them for their sins, and created after them another generation.

Here I happen to believe we see man's interpretation of history. Ancient man saw himself as the plaything of the Gods, it's there in the literature of the region, it's there in the antics of the occupants of Mount Olympus.

Hebraic monotheism begins to change this viewpoint, but struggles with the idea of a benign and loving God who does not protect His people from waves of invasion, of occupation. Rather, they see this as the '(super-)natural' consequence of a broken contract. Personally, I do not. I do not believe God destroys people, or indeed a people, for their sins.

7 Had we sent down unto thee (Muhammad) (actual) writing upon parchment, so that they could feel it with their hands, those who disbelieve would have said: This is naught else than mere magic.

Of course.

Are you saying that Muhammad, peace be with him, fraudulently claimed to be G-d?

Not at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..As I see it, Truth is not a text, nor any particular interpretation of a text, corrupted or not. Truth is not a proposition to follow..

Of course truth is not "a text".
Why do we have courts of law? To determine the truth, no?

In the same way, we can attempt to use logic & reason to determine ANY truths..
If that was not possible, then spiritual truths would be unobtainable.

 

[Thomas]

Let's start with these ...

I'm sorry, RabbiO, that's my bad for playing fast and loose.

I was suggesting Caiphas' words implying that the sacrifice of one man might restore orthodox belief is somewhat reminiscent of the discovery of the Book of the Law during the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem (621BC).