Home: <https://www.angelfire.com/realm2/truth/islam.htm>

 

Dialogue with mike, Part 2

 

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        RE: hello Michael

   Date:

        Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:56:56 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

I am very pleased to hear from you.  I have not written back to you in a

while because I had lost hope in ever coming to any understanding with you. 

There are many reasons for this, but I can sum them us as follows:

 

1. I wanted only to make 1 point, which was that Islam does not contradict

itself in regard to it's stance on previous scriptures.  You however felt it

necessary to make this a challenge of my faith against yours and even asked

me to disprove Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

 

2. Your arguments are long and wordy and they do not follow basic logic. 

The examples you used to prove your point were almost always taken out of

context, and usually referred to something other than what you were trying

to prove.

 

3. You focussed a lot on how I stated things specifically rather than the

main point of my argument.  I am sorry if I contradicted myself at one time

or another, I am not an expert lecturer, but I believe the main point of my

argument is intact: that the Muslim view on previous scriptures is not in

contradiction with the text of the Quran.

 

In spite of all this, I am willing to have another go at it.  Before I

proceed, please help me by keeping your response as concise as possible.  I

would like for now to focus on one point, which I believe as at the heart of

this issue.  Please do not comment on what I have said in previous letters,

or even what I have said so far in this letter.  Please keep your comments

focussed on the following point:

 

2:79  Therefore woe be unto those who write the scripture with their hands

and then say "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain

therewith.  Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto

them for that they earn thereby.

 

Bukhari  9.614 Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah

'Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the

people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has

revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is

pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures

have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with

their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah,' so as to have a minor gain

for it. Won't the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them?

No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the

Book Al-Qur'an ) which has been revealed to you."

 

This verse and the hadith following it very clearly define the stance of the

earliest community of Muslims.  Please note, whether or not the Quran is

true revelation, while a very important issue indeed, is not of relevance

here.  What is of relevance here is whether the Muslims hold a belief which

is contradictory to what the Quran says.  I do not believe that they do.

 

In a previous letter I used this same verse to prove this same point, and

you responded by saying that this verse refers only to a group of Jews in

Arabia.  I am open to hearing more on this, but you have to substantiate

your claim.  While you have brought to light a very compelling instance of

this problem of writing scripture and claiming it to be from God, you have

not demonstrated that it is to be understood as the only instance of this

action.  Please provide your proof for stating that Arabian Jews were the

only subject of this verse of the Quran.

 

If you are able to do so, please stop reading this letter, and email me your

proof.  If, however, you are not, please continue reading...

 

The Quran, in fact provides another example of this same issue.

 

4:171  O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor

utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,

was only a messenger of Allah, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and

a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not

"Three". Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it

removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all

that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient

as Defender.

 

The writers of the Bible have written all these things, and have claimed

that they are from God.  Many verses, which cover these issues, have already

been removed from newer translations.  Are Muslims removing these verses

from the Bible? No, it is Christian scholars who have determined that these

verses are forgeries.  Therefor, it is clear that what the Quran says is not

only in line with what Muslims believe, but is actually true.

 

Please, if you choose to respond to this, first admit that you do not have

any proof to back up your claim that verse 2:79 is referring only to Arabian

Jews.  Second, unless you have found some other way to prove it, please

admit that the Quran does not say that the Bible of today (or that at the

time of Muhammad) is the same as when God revealed it.  Thirdly, please

remove any mention of this fallacy from your website, and apologize to your

readers for misleading them for so long.

 

Lastly, I don't know why you want to know what religion I belong to.  That

is not the issue here.  The issue here is that your website makes claims

about Muslims, which are not true.  I am simply trying to correct those

claims.  If you were a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Marxist or an Agnostic, I would

still have written the same things, and I wouldn't have questioned your

faith.  Please treat me with the same respect.

 

Mike

 

P.S.  Yes, I admit that I was a bit sarcastic in my first email.  I do

apologize for that, but I was reacting to some of the fallacies which the

Mainstream media was spreading about Islam at the time.  To your credit, you

were the only one who responded.

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

Subject:

            Re: hello Michael

       Date:

            Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:09:58 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Hello Michael,

 

It is also very nice to hear from you.  I am glad that you still have the same email address and

so can continue in our correspondence.  I hope that the way you view my intentions is not

mistaken, for I do respect respect your faith and what you believe in.  I have many Muslim and

Hindu friends that do not think that I disrepect them when I question them about their faith.

But maybe you are different.  I honestly didn't think that my question about what you believe in

was any low-blow or insult.  I just want to know where you are coming from and with what

world-view you are viewing your info.  There is a filter in us all, that when we look at things,

our particular choice of lenses allows us to interpret data in a certain subjective manner.  I just

wanted to try to understand what type you were affiliated with.  I am sorry if you feel that that

is not a natural, friendly question, and that I have disrepected you.

 

But I am confused, because you make the curious inquiry about one's faith seem rude while

then making some not so clean statements about my integrity immediately following, as if it is

not rude:

-That my arguments don't follow basic logic.

-That I should admit that I have no proof.

-That I should apologize for misleading my readers.

But I can bear with it.  Many other times have I also been accused of purposefully misleading

people and being a tool for Satan, as if I know that I am evil or something.  I just hope that we

can truly understand each other without accusations of corrupt motives.  I believe this will truly

help the progress of our conversations.

 

In any case, I would like to respond to a few things.  You say that my arguments don't follow

basic logic and that my supporting evidence is maily taken out of context.  I would say the

reverse.  For you are asking me to "understand" your main point without scrutinizing your

specific points that (admittedly) sometimes contradict each other.  I do understand your main

points.  But as I said before, you can't argue with one verse one day, and then use it to support

something totally different and contradictory the next day.  I wont quote which verses, because

you asked me not to do so from previous letters.  Even though I do believe it to be important

to keep to the main topic, I really think it is necesary to be consistent in thought.  I don't think

you have to be an expert lecturer.  I am not trying to hold up our conversation just becasue

some lyrical emphasis is not purely coherrent.  However, if the main points of your persuasion

are not complementary, then I feel the need to gently ask you about its logicality.

 

You say that you believe your argument still holds water, that the Qur'an does not contradict

Muslim believe about the authenticity of the Bible and then try to make me prove something of

only one or two Qur'anic verses.  Logic does NOT work like that.  I don't have to prove to

you that a verse only pertains to a specific people or idea.  If you want to prove to me that the

Qur'an is consistent in its revelations, then the MUSLIM has to prove to ME that the verse

talks about what he think it means.  Since you are representing the Muslim consistency, then

the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.  That is my whole point.  Neither you nor me can

substantiate our claim on the scripture without leaving doubt.  However, the burden is surely

more on you, for the consequence is obviously greater.  See, I don't need that verse.  I don't

need to prove that verse in order to keep my argument.  For I believe the Qur'an contradicts

itself in so many places on this subject anyways, that in fixing this one verse, I will still have

many more to deal with.  That is my point.  The Qur'an and the Muslim world cannot prove

that the Qur'an does not support the Bible.  They show certain verses here and there about

some things being distorted, yet they still have to give response to and explain away with

sufficient proof the many dozen of other scriptures that clearly support the Bible.

 

I find it hard to follow your logic.  While I give these verses that obviously cannot be tossed

out, which explain that Mohammed endorsed the Bible, all that anyone responds with is that "it

does not matter, because the Qur'an abrogates the previous scriptures".  Yet that side-steps

the issue.  Whether we are supposed to follow the Bible according to the law of abrogation is

not the point.  Rather, the point is whether the Bible is still in original format according to the

Qur'an.  Instead of giving a reasonable explanation, the subject is changed and the verses are

left unhandled.  Again I emphasize, the burden of proof is on you.  Some of these verses I have

listed below:

 

(Surah 40;70-72) "Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) with which We sent Our Messengers:

but soon shall they know,- When the yokes (shall be) round their necks, an the chains; they shall be

dragged along- In the boiling fetid fluid; then in the Fire they shall be burned."

 

(Surah 2:85) "Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do you

reject the rest?  But what is the reward for those among you who behave like

this but disgrace in this life? -and on the Day of Judgment they shall be

consigned to the most grievous penalty."

 

(Surah 5;68) "Say: "O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon

unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has

come to you from your Lord."

 

(Surah 2;136) "You say "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and

to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and

Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference

between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah."

 

(Surah 4;136) "O you who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the

scripture which He sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to

those before (him).  Any who denies Allah, His angels, His Books, His

Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, has gone far, far astray."

 

(Surah 4;162) "Believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been

revealed before you."

 

(Surah 29;46-47) " And do not dispute with the People of the Book, except with

means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who

inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the Revelation which has

come down to us and in that which came down to you; our God and your God is One; and it is to Him We

bow.  And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to you.  So the people of the Book believe therein,

as also do some of these (Pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject Our signs."

 

You give as further proof that since the Bible says things that the Qur'an says are erroneous

beliefs, it follows that the Qur'an cannot be supporting the Bible.  This solidifies my argument

further.  For when the Qur'an says "say not three" it never after it says that this is the corruption

of the Bible.  It never even hints at that.  Instead it says that this is what the Christians say.  If

anybody were to say some belief were wrong, they would surely warn where that belief comes

from.  But the Qur'an never makes that clear.  It always say that this and that are wrong,

people disort on this and that, but never does it warn in the same passage that this is what the

Bible is teaching.  Why is that?  Could it be that Mohammed never read the Bible and so never

knew what the Bible really said?  That since he thought is was the revelation of Allah at some

point in time, that it was to be revered, and so supported it, even without having the chance to

read it?  This makes sence then why he always attacks the trinity, and not the Bible.  Why he

attacks Jesus' deity, but not the Bible.  Why he attacks and warns of false believers and

corrupters in Christian and Jewish circles, but never the Bible.  See it is not proof that since

Mohammed said certain doctrines were erroneous that means that the Bible could not be

supported by him.  Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that he indeed did read the

Bible.

 

In summary, it seems that you have a few logical inconsistencies that need to be pounded out

before progress can be made.  I hope that you can see these.  If not, maybe I can restate them

in a more clear manner.  However, when I have time I would like to read up on my materials

to find more proof for you about the Jews changing some things in Arabia for money.

However, I can also recommend some books for you as well so you can follow this research

yourself without waiting for me to finish.  Yet, I want to emphasize that I don't need to find this

proof.  It is not crucial for my stance.  But it trust it will help with the overall correspondence

and the finding of truth.  Michael, it is very nice talking to you again.  I just pray that you are

truly open to the truth when God reveals it, just as I pray I am.  I would be nice to get to know

more of your background, if you don't consider that as insulting or intrusion.  What other topics

do you study with respect to the Bible and the Qur'an?  Keep in touch.

 

In Peace and sincerity,

Brian Lucero

 

 

Subject:

        Re: hello Michael

   Date:

        Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:53:20 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

I love your persistance.  I can't believe that you're not getting my point

though, but I will explain it again.  The Quran says that the people of the

Scripture wrote words with their own hands and said it was from God.  (2:79)

  It continues by accusing the Christians of lying when they say that the

Messiah is God (5:72), that Jesus was crucified (4:157), and that God has a

son (18:4-5).

 

These are all teachings found in today's Bible.  Therefore, the Quran is

clearly saying that these teachings were written by men, claimed to be from

God, and added to the Bible.

 

When the Quran talks about the Torah, and the Ingeel, it is referring to the

original revelation which God sent to Moses and Jesus.  These revelations

were pure and from God.  They are still intact in God's Book which He keeps

preserved, and Muslims are required to believe in those revelations, but not

to follow them.

 

This summarizes my position which I still believe is intact and well proven.

  To counter your counter arguments, I offer the following commentary. 

Emphasis is on the words which I have placed "--" around.

 

(Surah 40;70-72) "Those who reject the Book and the (revelations) --with

which We sent Our Messengers--: but soon shall they know,- When the yokes

(shall be) round their necks, an the chains; they shall be dragged along- In

the boiling fetid fluid; then in the Fire they shall be burned."

 

Notice that it specifies what the messengers were actually sent with, not

what the People of the Scripture have presently.

 

(Surah 2:85) "Then is it only a part of the Book that you believe in, and do

you reject the rest?  But what is the reward for those among you who behave

like this but disgrace in this life? -and on the Day of Judgment they shall

be consigned to the most grievous penalty."

 

Read in context, this is addressing the Children of Israel, for they did

exactly what it says.  They accepted part of what God revealed to them, but

later they rejected the Prophets, i.e. Jesus.

 

(Surah 5;68) "Say: "O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon

unless you stand fast by the --Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that

has come to you from your Lord.--"

 

The Law is the Torah, the Gospel is the Ingeel.  These refer to what was

actually revealed, not what Jews and Christians claim to be God's Word.

 

(Surah 2;136) "You say "We believe in Allah, and --the revelation given to

us--, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given

to Moses and Jesus, and --that given-- to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we

make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah."

 

Again the focus is on what was revealed, or given, not necessarily what is

written there now.

 

(Surah 4;136) "O you who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and

the scripture --which He sent to His Messenger-- and the scripture --which

He sent-- to those before (him).  Any who denies Allah, His angels, His

Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, has gone far, far astray."

 

Again, the focus is on what God sent...

 

(Surah 4;162) "Believe in --what has been revealed-- to you and what --has

been revealed-- before you."

 

Revealed!

 

(Surah 29;46-47) " And do not dispute with the People of the Book, except

with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them

who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the Revelation which

has come down to us and in that which --came down-- to you; our God and your

God is One; and it is to Him We bow.  And thus (it is) that We have sent

down the Book to you.  So the people of the Book believe therein, as also do

some of these (Pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject Our signs."

 

Notice it does not say "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to

us, and in everything you have in your books."

 

In each instance, the emphasis is on what God actually revealed, not on what

Jews and Christians say is from God.  This is very easy to understand when

you read the whole Quran, because it specifies many of the things which they

added to God's revelation i.e. Jesus as son of God, Jesus as God, Jesus

being crucified etc...

 

I hope this clarifies things more, I do await your response, and I am sorry

if I offended you with my accusations of being illogical and deceptive.  I

believe you are taking these statements out of context though, and it is

misleading whether you intend it to be or not.  Also, as far as

contradicting myself, please let me know if I should do so again.  I am not

asking you to accept my points, while they contradict themselves.  I was

merely trying to avoid a long discussion about specific things that were

said previously.  However, be merciful and allow me my chance to clarify, if

I should er in the future.  I am human after all.  I will also do my best to

allow you to clarify your points.

 

Again, I believe that if true progress is to be made, we have to resolve

this single issue first.  In the past, I was not as disciplined in sticking

to this particular topic, and you were bringing up other issues as well,

although that is not to say that those other issues are of less value in any

way.  It is, however, wishful thinking to believe that we will gain any

benefit from discussing other issues, if we cannot come to some conclusion

on this one.

 

Mike

 

_______________-----------------------------------------

 

 

Subject:

            Re: hello Michael

       Date:

            Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:37:01 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Greetings,

 

Michael, after reading your email, I feel there is hope in making progress

between the two of us - not because of what we are saying, but because of how we

are saying it.  It is nice to know that I am talking to a sincere and logical

follower of God.  Onward.

 

I am sorry for bringing up other issues along with the one of which we were

already having a struggle.  I guess my reasoning was that since there was no

progress, I guessed that bringing up a more solid and testable topic - the

Resurrection of Jesus - would be fruitful.  However, I know now that almost all

discussions really do lead back to the foundational issue of whether Muslims are

supposed to believe in the Bible or not.  I feel, like you, that sticking to the

topics, and especially specific points of divergence, is key.

 

I really am getting your point.  It makes much sense.  However, I don't think

you are getting my point.  My point isn't to prove to you whether Muslims should

believe the present day Bible and all these 'horrible teachings of Jesus being

God'.  My point is to prove to you that Muhammed endorsed the Bible.  Period.

I'm not trying to say that Muhammed believed and accepted the Biblical

teachings.  And that is the paradox.  We know that Muhammed taught against Jesus

being more than a prophet, yet he didn't teach against the 'book of the people

of the book'.  This could mean two things:  1 - The Bible today has been

corrupted and is not the same Bible in Muhammed's time.  2 - Muhammed didn't

know what was actually IN the Bible of his time, but did know what the people of

the book taught - but just that the teaching of the people of the book were

corruptions from what the Bible really said.

 

Because I believe that number 2 is the correct supposition, I hold that this is

proof that Muhammed didn't know what he was talking about.  Because he taught

against Jesus' deity, but didn't know that Jesus' deity was actually taught in

the Bible, this shows that Muhammed didn't really know what True Judaism or True

Christianity was all about.

 

I will stop here so we can catch our mutal-understanding-breath.  Tell confirm

with me that you now understand my point.  After this we can move further.

 

In Peace,

Brian Lucero

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: hello Michael

   Date:

        Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:42:40 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

  I'm still with you.  I am in the middle of moving though, and I don't have

enough time to put my mind into a proper response right now.  When I am

settled, I will get back to you.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Subject:

        hey mike

   Date:

        Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:51:21 -0600

   From:

        brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

     To:

        Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 

 

 

 

Hey mike.

 

Thanks for the update.  I thought that you cut it off again.  And so I

didn't want to annoy you by emailing you again.  I'm glad that you are

still interested.  Hopefully you undertood my point and have hopes of

coming to an understanding also.  We've been talking for quite a while

now.  It's about time we call each other distant friends.  :)    I hope

all is well with your moving situation and anything else you have going

on.  Before we start up again, it'd be nice to know more about you, your

background and where you are coming from.  I think it would lighten up

our dialogue a bit.  Take your time though, get all your stuff done

first.  Hope to talk soon.

 

In Peace,

Brian

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: hello Michael

       Date:

            Sat, 12 Feb 2005 16:27:51 -0600

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

Hey Michael,

 

How are you doing?  I was just wondering what you've been up to and if

everything is okay with you.  You know, we don't have to only email each other

when we have something to disagree on.  Though I admit that I believe that only

through being honest about differences, can we further our progress in helping

each other see certain truths.  However, I still think that common ground needs

to be made along the way.  A type of friendship if you will.  We have to be

open, not just about our own convictions about truths, but also about our

heartfelt doubts.

 

I still have not learned yet what type of Muslim you are or your background in

why you came to Islam.  I would be very interested.   I hope that you are doing

well, and look forward to hear from you.

 

Peace,

Brian

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: hello Michael

   Date:

        Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:32:21 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Hello Brian,

  I'm okay, somewhat settled now.  Thanks for the email, before we proceed

with the next round of discussion, I agree, it will not hurt to chat just a

bit.  In fact I feel I need to clear the air a bit.  I suppose I can tell

you now that I am a Muslim.  It seems you've come to that conclusion anyway.

  I do realize that my first email to you was projecting a rather non-Muslim

image of me, I do hope you'll forgive me for this.  If you'll allow me, I

will explain myself:  I was feeling sort of angry as a result of reading the

comments on your, and other peoples websites, regarding Islam.  I wanted to

confound you with some of the things I said, and I actually sent several

emails that day to several Christian websites with similar Anti-Islamic

propoganda.

 

To your credit, you were the only one who responded, and well, I feel kind

of bad about the whole thing now.  I should have taken a more even handed

approach, but I didn't think any of the people behind those sites would even

care.  I suppose it was God's will which included you in those emails, and

while I still strongly disagree with the information you've posted on your

website, It seems that you have not posted it to decieve, but that it is in

fact your understanding of the facts.

 

I came to Islam in 1996, after about 6 months of comparative study.  My

background is German and my family is Protestant.  I am an artist by trade,

and I do all sorts of graphic design stuff for a living, but my roots are in

painting and sculpture.  Now I think we can continue...

 

To sumarize our last point of discussion, let me confirm that your point

was:  Since Muhammad taught against Jesus' Deity, but promoted the Bible, it

shows that he didn't know that it was actually part of the Bible, and proves

that he didn't really know what he was talking about, and therefor could not

have been a Prophet...

 

This is my understanding of your argument as per that last email you sent me

before I moved, which I have included below.  I will await your response, to

make sure that I have it right, before I proceed to my response.

 

So long for now,

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: hello Michael

       Date:

            Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:09:42 -0600

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

Thanks for emailing me back.  Sorry for taking so long.  I just really wanted to

wait to have some decent amount of time to really invest in being sincere with

my words.  However, it seems that as time goes on my hopes of being able to sit

down and really chat are being dried up by the day.  It just keeps on getting

harder.  I can't wait for summer.

 

Your understanding of my point is correct.  And hopefully now that you see my

underlying argument, you can see why it would make sense for Mohammed to give

credence to the Biblical authority (supporting that it is indeed still the word

of God and not corrupt) while at the same time seem to ague against many of the

Bible's theological precepts (i.e. trinity, son of God, crucifixion, etc.).

This surely makes a whole lot of difference in how we see and understand each

other's perspectives.  Now my note is this, that it will be quite difficult for

you to support your point that Mohammed did indeed teach against the current

biblical precepts, and so therefore we know that the Bible was corrupted, and

therefore we know that Mohammed could not have given given credence to the

Bible's authority.  What I am saying is that it is easy to prove that the Bible

is still in it's original form teaching the same theological precepts as it has

always. And therefore because Mohammed taught against these precepts while

maintaing that the Bible is still the word of God and that we should follow it,

that Mohammed did not really understand what the true Bible really said at his

time.  This means that the only way of getting the bottom of this issue it not

to argue whether the Bible is given credence by the Qur'an, as we have been

arguing for quite a while, because both of our explantations make sense.  But

the only way is to argue whether the original Bible really contained the

theological precepts that Mohammed argued against.  I have done a lot of

research on this issue, so I you desire to follow this path, then I would be

willing to.   Tell me what you think.

 

About the chatting side of things.  It is good to know that you know that I am

sincere in my beliefs and that I am not here to try and decieve anyone.  One

question though.  Why would anyone try to decieve people purposefully?  Would

that not tell them that their beliefs are wrong if they cannot support them but

by purposefull lies?  And if that is the case, then they would not really

believe what they believe, for that is the definition of belief in the first

place, to be convinced, to have faith, to not doubt.

 

You said that you came to Islam in 1996 after 6 months of camparative study and

that you have a german protestant background.  How old were you in 1996?   And

what type of protestantism did you grow up in?  What main topics primarily

sparked your interest in searching more about Islam at the begining of the 6

months and on the other side, what main topics ultimately convinced you of its

truth at the end of the 6 months?

 

Hope to hear from you some more.

 

 

Sincerely,

Brian

 

 

Subject:

        Mike's response...again

   Date:

        Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:04:43 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

        Before we move on to discuss whether the Bible has been corrupted or not, I

would like to verify whether you have understood my point of view or not. 

It seems from your response that you have missed a few of the points that I

made.  If this is due to a lack of communication skill on my part, I

apologize, however I feel the need to explain it once more.

 

Point 1

 

There are three primary points which I feel you haven’t grasped, regarding

my point of view.  First, there seems to be a presupposition that Muhammad

should know the contents of the Old and New Testament.  While I’m not

denying that this is possible, it certainly isn’t ever claimed by Muhammad

himself.  He was inspired with the Quran, and it is the Quran that mentions

the other books, which were revealed to other people.  The books mentioned

are the Torah, which was revealed to Moses, the Zabur, which was revealed to

David, the Injeel (Gospel), which was revealed to Jesus and the book or

scroll of Abraham.  Neither the Quran nor the Hadith mention that these

books were subsequently revealed to Muhammad.  He did on occasion

demonstrate that he had some insight into their contents, but not that he

knew the whole of their teachings.  Therefore, even if you could prove that

Muhammad knew nothing of the Bibles teachings it would not weaken the case

that he is a prophet.  The Quran does however mention that there is a

consistent belief that is shared by all the prophets.  If and when the Bible

strays from this belief, it can be attributed to the writings of people, and

not to that which was revealed by Allah.

 

Point 2

 

This leads to the next point, which is, exactly which parts of the Bible are

considered to be revealed by Allah.  The Torah is the words contained on the

Tablets given to Moses on Mount Sinai.  This may account for some of the

book of Exodus, and perhaps a bit of Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

According to Jewish and Christian scholars, the first five books of the

Bible are attributed to Moses.  The Zabur are those words given to David,

known as the Psalms.  Even if we assume that the Jewish and Christian

scholars are correct, the Quran only confirms 6 out of the 39 books of the

Old Testament.  We will come back to whether or not these 6 books are in

their original state at another time.

 

The Quran specifies that the Injeel are the words that Allah revealed to

Jesus.  None of the 27 books of the New Testament are attributed directly to

Jesus, however some do claim to quote Jesus directly.  Therefor, you may

make the case that the four synoptic Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, Luke

and John, contain some or all of the words of the original Injeel.  Those

would be the words of Jesus, written in red in some Bibles.  Again, we will

have to verify whether or not these words have been kept in their original

state.

 

As for the other writers of the New Testament, namely Paul, Peter, John and

others (I don’t know all of them) The Quran never mentions any revelation

coming to them.  Nor does it mention Jesus disclosing any further revelation

after his alleged death.  This places 23 of the books of the New Testament

completely outside of what the Quran might call the Injeel.

 

Therefor, 56 of the Bibles 66 Books are not mentioned at all in the Quran. 

When the Quran mentions that some of the People of the Book wrote words, and

claimed that they were from Allah, this may be referring to these 56 books. 

Although it is important to mention that the Quran doesn’t limit the number

of revealed books to the five mentioned (Quran, Injeel, Zabur, Torah, and

book of Abraham), so I am not claiming that all of those 56 books are

complete fabrications.  It simply means that to continue to argue your case,

will require that you limit your discussion to the following ten books:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, The Gospel

According to Matthew, The Gospel According to Mark, The Gospel According to

Luke, and The Gospel According to John.

 

Point 3

 

Finally, I’d like to address an apparent misunderstanding you have regarding

the Prophet’s attitude towards the previous scriptures.  You mentioned that

Muhammad maintained "…that the Bible is still the word of God and that we

should follow it…" However, I have demonstrated several times that both the

words of the Quran, and the actions of the prophet exert exactly the

opposite of this.

Quran 2:79

Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and

then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain

therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto

them for that they earn thereby.

 

You’re probably sick of reading this verse, but I will never fail to mention

it in these discussions. This is the verse that renders your argument vain,

because it clearly indicates that Muhammad never validated the scriptures

possessed by the Jews and the Christians.  It’s important again to make the

distinction between what Allah revealed, and what the People of the Books

claimed to be from Allah.  These are clearly, according to the Quran, not

the same.

 

Sahih Bukhari

9.460 Narrated Abu Huraira

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it

in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not

believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in

Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "

 

Here, the Prophet demonstrated exactly this understanding.  Notice that he

confirms that which was revealed, but warns the Muslims not to believe in

the contents of their books.  This again confirms that the Prophet did not

verify the books of the Jews and the Christians.  He made a clear

distinction between what Allah revealed, and what the People of the Book

claimed to be from Allah.

 

Tirmidhi

69 Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah

Umar ibn al-Khattab brought to Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) a copy

of the Torah and said: Allah's Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah. He

(Allah's Messenger) kept quiet and he (Umar) began to read it. The (colour)

of the face of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) underwent a change,

whereupon AbuBakr said: Would that your mother mourn you, don't you see the

face of Allah's Messenger? Umar saw the face of Allah's Messenger (peace be

upon him) and said: I seek refuge with Allah from the wrath of Allah and the

wrath of His Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam

as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet. Whereupon Allah's Messenger

(peace be upon him) said: By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, even

if Moses were to appear before you and you were to follow him, leaving me

aside, you would certainly stray into error; for if (Moses) were alive

(now), and he found my prophetic ministry, he would have definitely followed

me. Transmitted by Darimi.

 

While Muhammad did not forbid his followers to read the Torah, he made it

perfectly clear that they were not to follow it’s teachings.  This could be

for many reasons, either because the previous scripture was abrogated, or

because it had been changed by the People of the Book.  In either case, it

clearly indicates that the Prophet did not want us to follow the Bible.

 

Quran 5:47-48

Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed

therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed; such are

evil-livers. And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth,

confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge

between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires

away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a

divine law and a traced out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one

community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath

made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye

will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

 

Read this verse again with an emphasis on the words "which Allah hath

revealed".  This is the best verse you could have quoted to prove that the

Quran wants people to follow the Gospel.  However, it again clearly makes a

distinction between what the Christians call the Gospel, and what Allah has

actually revealed.

 

The Quran never tells us, verse for verse, which passages of the Bible are

still okay, and which have been added later, but it doesn’t need to.  It

offers the simple solution of using the Quran instead.  Therefor, any idea

or concept, which is confirmed by the Quran, may very well have been

revealed in the previous scriptures, and it’s okay for Muslims to believe in

those concepts.  However, it clearly spells out which beliefs were not

revealed, such as the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the idea of

monasticism to name a few.  And it is obvious that Muslims should not

believe in these concepts, or that Allah ever revealed them to His prophets.

 

Thank you for reading, I hope you have a better understanding of my point of

view.  I want you to confirm that you understand my argument.  So far, I’ve

still been trying only to argue that the Quran does not contradict itself in

regard to its statements on the previous scriptures, if I can help you to

see this, then I consider my job done.  I do not intend for these arguments

to prove or disprove the validity of those scriptures.  This has to be done

independently, in a more objective way, just as the validity of the Quran

must be judged outside of what the Bible may say, or seem to say about it.

 

I hope to discuss further issues, regarding the Bible or the Quran, if you

desire to discuss them.  However, if you've grasped my argument, I would

still like to see you remove the section about how the Quran contradicts

itself, from your website, I feel that it is very misleading.  If you are

still unclear on this issue, I am happy to continue discussing it with you. 

I still don’t see any reason to discuss other issues, until this one is

resolved.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: Mike's response...again

       Date:

            Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:57:26 -0600

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

I really appreciate you spending time and trying to make sure that we both understand the other.  It shows

far better character than what I've experienced with other Muslims.  It is very good, as you suggested,

that we bring nothing more into even this discussion (even though it is just trying to understand the other's

understanding of the points thus far).  For even now it seem to be getting longe and longer and more

complex.  I also enjoy this format, your numbering system, to keep subjects and points seperate.  I

believe it really will help to clarify our thoughts.  I will go point by point as well.  As you've requested, I

will try to summarize from each point what I think you were saying.  Then I will give a response that I

would like you to summarize back to me to see if you understand my point.  All of this, without bringing in

new material.  It seems that we are making progress and I am hopeful that soon we will come to an

agreement on how we can interpret and apply these verses and points to the overall picture.  Note: my

numbering will be paralleled to yours.  However, I will add letters which are not parallel, but still within the

point, to add even more clarity, and hopefully brevity.

 

1.  Summary:  You said that there seems to be a presupposition that Muhammed shoud know the

contents of the Old and New Testament, but that it certainly isn't ever claimed by him.   And that even if

Muhammed knew nothing of the Bible's contents, that would not weaken his association to prophethood,

for he never claimed to know what the Bible taught.  However, he did claim to know what was common

knowledge and teaching to all prophets, and taught that if anything did not line up with this, then it was not

from God.

 

Hopefully I am corretly understanding your point.  Which I believe I am, for it is seems perfectly valid.

One thing that I do not agree with, however (which now I am glad that we clearly brought this point up,

for in the past we did not know why there was confusion at this point).  According to the Qur'an you may

be right, that Muhammed does not need to claim to know what is in the Bible (or for any other prophet:

the previously reveal scripture).

A.  However, according to the Bible, for one to claim to be a prophet, one has to know and accnowledge

the previous scriptures.  This is needed because this was the litmus test to see if one was a prophet or not,

if he agreed with the scriptures.  The claiming prophet cannot come and say certain 'truths' and then say

'whatever is in line with my teaching is the truth that is still in your scripture, and whatever is not is the

corrupted part'.  It is the reverse, the previous scripture is the assured Word of the Lord, and the prophet

is judged to be a prophet or not according to it.  This was clear to all prophets and leaders in the Jewish

nation all throughout the scriptures.  This is why it IS a prerequisite that Muhammed does claim to know

the Bible, and why I have said in the past that his claim to prophethood hangs on this (however clear I

was in trying to say it).  It is good now that we brought this up, for I thought it was a given before, and

now realize that you did not have this understanding.

 

2. Summary:  You said that the Qur'an only claims that Torah, Zabur, Injeel, and book of Abraham are

from God, even though it does not necessarily mean that it limits itself to only these. But to continue my

argument, I have only these 10 book with which to argue.

 

I have a few logical considerations for you.

A.  You said the Zabur are those words given to David.  However, the Psalms were not only written by

David, but also by Asaph, Moses, and others.  This is not point of great consequence.  But it shows at

least that by acknowledging the Zabur to be of God, it is acknowledging that authors of these Psalms to

be called by God to give revelation (whether that includes just the Zabur or not is another issue).  But this

is important when we start to define what is the Injeel.  If we take the Qur'an literally, then nothing from

the Bible can be considered to be the Injeel, for none of it was "from Jesus".  As you said, other writers

claimed to write down what Jesus said.  This gives us a problem then.  Because we have to then decide if

only the red letters, Jesus' words, are the Injeel, and if this is truly what the Qur'an means.  Or are the

comments and historical notes placed around Jesus' words also considered the Injeel.  For example,

"While Jesus was walking on water, he said "Come Peter"".  Are we only allowed to take and learn from

the words "Come Peter" and apply that to our lives.  Or do we also consider that Peter had no faith and

was compelling Jesus to invited him onto the water to prove that he was not just a spirit?  If we take the

latter, then we also acknoledge that the writers of the Gospels were annointed by God and given leave to

portray what Jesus was teaching.

B.  Furthermore, if what was taught in the Gospels was true, even if just the red ink, we see that Jesus did

give authority to these Apostles.  Apostle in the Qur'an means messanger of God.  And if Jesus, in red ink

said "these are the Apostles: ...[James, John, Peter, etc...]", then the Qur'an is also saying that (as having

already admitted that the Injeel was not written by Jesus, but by the Apostles) that these Apostles were

annointed by God to pass the Injeel of Jesus down to us (even if it's just the four Gospels).  With not

much more of a stretch of terms, we see that the other writings of the Apostles, besides the Injeel, and as

you've already agreed, contain the words of Jesus.   Therefore suggesting that maybe the Injeel, since

Jesus' words are in it, encompasses all of Jesus' teachings whether in the Apostle John's writings in the

"Gospel of John" or the Apostle John's writings in "I John" , "II John", "III John", and "the Revelation of

Jesus Christ".   We soon see that Muslims have to make up their mind as to what "Injeel" refers to and be

consistent with their definitions.  Let me ask you Michael, are you sure that the word Injeel can only mean

the first four books of the New Testament, or even that much?  If Muhammed does not clearly make a

distiction, then what "book" is he referring to in the phrase "People of the Book"?

C.  My point 2. ties in with point 1. in this:  that for Muhammed to be a prophet from God, he has to

submit the fact that the Jews and Christian were first from God.  Muhammed appeals to the fact that the

Torah contains phrophecies about himself.  Muhammed proclaims that he is the one to bring the torch of

God's teachings to the next step, while necessarily depending on the steps behind him as his authority.   It

cannot make sense that we take Muhammed as a prophet INDEPENDENTLY from what the previous

scriptures say (i.e. what Muhammed says abrogates the old; what Muhammed says it true and everything

has to line up with it or else it proves that that scripture is corrupt) while at the same time believing him

when he appeals to the 1*authority* of the previous religions to establish his prophethood.  This is key.

Please focus on this point when you summarize what I am trying to say because it is hard for me to

communicate clearly and concisely.  For I want to make sure you understand what I am trying to say.

 

1*not necessariy their infallibility or incorruptness, but that they were the reason in the firstplace or him to

be a prophet.  Muhammed is NOT claiming to bring another religion.  He is claiming to further the already

established relgion.  It DOES makes sense for some new prophet not claiming any authority of another

religion to say "My sayings are right, indepndent from what any other religion or scritpture says", for he is

not appealing to the fact that they give him the authority in the first place.  However, it does NOT make

sense for a claiming prophet who appeals to the previous scriptures and religions to say that same thing.

All he is doing is safeguarding his own authority.  There is then NO way to prove him right or wrong.  We

cannot go to the other scriptures to see if he lines up or to see if he is prophecied, for he will just say then

that those parts have been corrupted which do not support him.

 

3.  Summary: You try in this point to show why I am wrong in saying that Muhammed maintained that the

Bible is still the word of God.  I will highlight kep frases, that I understand where you are getting them

from, but disagree with such a strict and specific interpretation.

You quote a passage, surah 2:79:  "Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands

and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that

their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby."   And then say:

Summary A:  "This is the verse that renders your argument vain, because it clearly indicates that

Muhammad never validated the scriptures possessed by the Jews and the Christians."

A.  I agree that Muhammed was trying to communicate in this passage that he did not trust everything that

was call "scripture", but that one way to test it was to compare it with his reavealed Qur'an.  But let me

ask you this:  could Muhammed have been saying that although he does not believe all things titled

"scripture" are from God, he might have believed that there is a true scripture that is from God that is kept

whole with no corruptions or insertions?   Does this text allow this interpretation?  Could he have been

despising peole who write "scripture" with their own hands in any form, seperate from the untouched

scripture?  This makes a big difference.  He can still believe that there is a complete scripture that is

untouched, that the Bible is still existent even at his time in its pure uncorrupted entirety, but that people

are also corrupting scripture seperately from this.  And that this test that Muhammed instituted (comparing

the titled "scripture" with his Qur'an) to test the authenticity of these writings was only mean to test the so

called titled "scriptures" but not meant to test the known complete uncorrupted scripture.

 

You quote Sahih Bukhari, 9.460,  Narrated Abu Huraira:  "The people of the Book used to read the

Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do

not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is

revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "

And then say

Summary B:  "Here, the Prophet demonstrated exactly this understanding.  Notice that he confirms that

which was revealed, but warns the Muslims not to believe in the contents of their books.  This again

confirms that the Prophet did not verify the books of the Jews and the Christians.  He made a clear

distinction between what Allah revealed, and what the People of the Book claimed to be from Allah."

B.  Correction.  You said "distinction between what Allah revealed, and what the People of the Book

claimed to be from Allah".  You see, I agree that you are stating the correct interpretation.  But let's

understand what you are saying.  You said "claimed" to be from allah.  That does not necessarily mean

that what was WRITTEN in the Torah is what is "claimed" to be from Allah.  But that what was SAID,

was the part "claimed" to be fro Allah.  I hope you see this distinction.  I brought it out a while ago in our

talks.  Just because Muhammed warns them about what is being said, it does not mean that they are

saying what is written, or translating correctly. Why?  For the same purpose of gain.  The verse in the

Qur'an that says "they pevert and twist it with their tongues" helps to verify this interpretation of this

verse.    Note:  I agree that your interpretation may actually be what Muhammed is trying to say.  I do not

discount that possibility.  But you have to agree with me that you can neither discount my interpretation as

being a valid possibility of Muhammed is trying to say.   This is also key.  I want to make sure that you

really understand my point.

 

You quote again Quran 5:47-48: "Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed

therein."

Summary C:   You say: "However, it again clearly makes a distinction between what the Christians call the

Gospel, and what Allah has actually revealed."

C.  This is another one of those verses that can mean a few different things.   You are obviously saying

that it says to 'judge what is called Gospel to see if it really is the Word of God by what Allah has

revealed to us the Muslims in the Qur'an'.  I agree that that could be a possibility.  But could it be saying

'using what is revealed in the Gospel, as Allah's word, judge everything else in the world'?   Point B

above, I agree that both my and your interpretation had equal possibility of being right, 50-50.  However,

here in point C., I believe that by the construction of the verse, my interpretation is way more probable to

be correct that how you have interpreted it.  Whether you agree on the probability of what Muhammed

really meant according to each of our interpretations, do you at least that the way I interpreted it

(independent of expository confirmation elsewhere in scripture) COULD be what Muhammed meant to

say?

 

I will stop here and wait for your summary of my ponits and see if you understand what I was trying to

say.  I hope that we can stay focused and concise (though I admit I need to work on it more.  But i hope

there is an improvement on how well I can communicate since the last round of disussions).   I really hope

we will come to an understanding.  Thanks for your much sacrificed time.

 

With respect,

Brian Lucero

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: Mike's response...again

   Date:

        Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:22:16 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

I will respond to the points you've made.  I feel like we may be able to

move forward to new topics soon.  I will explain why as I respond.

 

Point 1

 

It seems we are finished with point 1.  That according to the Quran, there

is no requirement for Muhammad to know, in detail, the previous scriptures. 

This claim is never made, so it can not be used to show a contradiction in

Islam.  This was my goal, in showing that the Quran does not contradict

itself on this issue.

 

Your point, however, is valid, that according to the Bible a prophet, or one

who claims to be a prophet, will need to fulfil certain criteria.  I am

ready to argue that Muhammad does indeed fulfil the criteria set forth by

the Bible, although I never came across this particular aspect of it. 

However, I believe that is a different subject.

 

I propose we make a list of subjects that we can discuss. Once we have

settled the current subject, we may pick one.  I will compile this list, in

a preliminary form at the bottom of this email.

 

Point 2

 

I think we actually see eye to eye on this issue, though we may not realize

it fully.  My point, thus far, is only to demonstrate that the Quran does

not contradict itself regarding the previous scriptures.  I recognize that

some of the points you make are valid, and require further discussion, but

that will be a different discussion altogether, which will go on my list.

 

The Quran defines the Zabur as revelation given to David, hence anything

allegedly revealed to someone other than David, cannot be defined, in an

Islamic context, as part of the Zabur.  This is not to claim that all the

other Psalms were fabricated, because the Quran does not limit revelation to

the five books mentioned.

 

The Quran defines the Injeel as revelation given to Jesus.  However it does

not offer a verse by verse analysis of the Bible with which to determine

which words were revealed, and which were written by men.  It does however

make a few major points about the existence of a trinity, and whether Jesus

was or was not God.  With these major concepts in mind, the Muslim can then

determine for himself which verses may have been revealed, and which were

not.  That there is no agreed upon list of which verses of the Bible are

revealed, and which are not, is not really an issue for Muslims.  We have a

complete set of guidance in the Quran, and reading previous scriptures is

purely supplementary.  Within this scope, there is no problem of

self-contradiction for the Muslim.  This is the sum total of my argument.

 

Whether Muhammad can be taken as a prophet independently from the previous

scriptures, I think to some level it can, and actually did happen.  The

first verses of the Quran to be revealed were not the first chapter (surah

Fatiha) but actually the beginning of the 96th chapter (surah Alaq).  The

first five verses revealed mentioned nothing about the previous scriptures. 

After these first five verses, there was a break in the revelation for at

least 6 months, and possibly up to 2 years.  During this time many of the

inhabitants of Mecca became Muslim.   Some based this decision merely on the

character of the Prophet, as he was known as trustworthy and truthful.

 

Later indeed the claim was made that he was a continuation of the Prophets

of Israel.  Certainly the Jews and Christians would be judging the actions

and statements of the Prophet according to what was in their scriptures. 

This will lead us again to a discussion about whether the Biblical criteria

for prophethood are met in Muhammad.

 

Regarding your footnote 1* I offer the following.  What you' said is valid

only if Muhammad is not a true prophet.  Within the scope of our discussion,

this cannot actually be determined.  I could tell ten lies, which do not

contradict each other, but that does not make them the truth.  However, if I

tell you ten things which do contradict each other, you can determine that I

probably am either lying, or somehow confused, and therefor, not telling the

truth. Whether or not Muhammad was a prophet is an issue which will need to

be discussed independently of this discussion. I'm open to do this, and will

add it to my list.  Again, I only want to emphasize that the Prophet did not

contradict himself.

 

Point 3

 

The Quran never specifies that there is a complete and uncorrupted scripture

left over from previous prophets.  There may be, and then again there may

not.  The idea of abrogation comes in here.  Whatever is remaining of the

previous scriptures, whether revealed or not, should not be used to guide

the Muslims actions or beliefs.  Even if they are in line with what the

Quran says, we do not say they were definitely revealed, we simply do not

say they are false.  However, if they contradict the Quran, we are not

allowed to say they are revealed.  I think it makes more sense than if Allah

were to have re-revealed the Torah and the Gospel.  Many of the laws in the

Torah may not have been relevant anymore, it was much easier and streamlined

for Allah to reveal a final book.  This is exactly in line with what the

Quran teaches about previous books, like the book of Abraham.  There is no

updated book of Abraham.  It is a thing of the past, and although we believe

that the core of its teachings were identical to those of the Quran, there's

no need for it to resurface.

 

Regarding ideas and concepts which contradict the Quran, the Quran also

leaves it open.  Any of these verses may have been written by men and

inserted into the scripture.  I know it may seem too convenient, but we

can't really argue that it causes a contradiction for the Muslim.  This is

where Allah's will comes in.  If Allah willed to reveal the Quran, and

explain away the older scriptures the way the Quran does, that's His option.

  We cannot argue with God's decisions.

 

Regarding sub-point B, I understand your point.  It may not be the text

itself which is in question, but the explaination of that text which the

People of the Book provided.  I don't disagree with that as a potential

understanding of this particular passage.  However the passage I provided in

Sub-point A really leaves a wide open field.  Anything which contradicts the

Quran, may fall into this "written by men" catagory.  To the outsider, it

may seem too easy or too convenient, but to the Muslim it certainly doesn't

pose a problem or contradiction.

 

Let me mention here, that even though this issue does not cause a

contradiction for Muslims, it does not automatically lead to an assumption

that the Quran is right, and the other scriptures are corrupt.  Although

many Muslims do make this assumption, and proclaim it openly without having

done any actual research independent of their own book.  I am especially

keen on this issue, and have gotten into arguments with Muslims who clearly

have outlandish ideas about the Bible.  I think the example of the Prophet

is actually quite valuable here.  He did not openly criticize the older

scriptures, rather he showed respect.  He did not tell his followers to

claim that they are all corrupt, but rather to not validate them where they

stray from Islamic teachings.  The purpose of the Quran was never to offend

the People of the Book, and openly ridicule them and their beliefs, but

rather to guide them, and warn them, and help them to understand their own

books in light of the Quran.  Once this understanding is achieved, it is

natural that the individual Jew or Christian would accept the Quran's

authority and become a Muslim.

 

5:47-49 "Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath

revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed; such

are evil-livers.

 

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming

whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between

them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away

from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a

divine law and a traced out way.  Had Allah willed He could have made you

one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He

hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah

ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

 

So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not

their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of

that which Allah hath revealed unto thee. And if they turn away, then know

that Allah's will is to smite them for some sin of theirs. Lo!

many of mankind are evil-livers."

 

It's important to read these verses in their context.  It is not, as you

quoted, telling the Christians to remain Christians.  It is, rather an

instruction for how the Muslims should deal with the Christians.  Islam does

not enforce its belief system on others, as many have claimed.  Rather it

allowed Jews and Christians, and even pagans on occasion to live peacefully

within it's borders, once it became a political system.

 

These groups, rather than accept Islam, chose to keep their own religion. 

The Muslims are being instructed to accept this, but if any issues should

arise, the Christians should follow the teaching of their religion. So this

verse is setting a standard or precedent for the Muslims to apply when

dealing with Christians living under an Islamic State.  It is not actually

recommending to the Christians that they remain Christians, because at the

end of verse 49, it clarifies that if they still choose to reject the truth

(i.e. the Quran) then Allah will punish them.

 

It is further warning the Muslims not to follow the ways of the Christians,

and to always rely on the Quran for guidance.  Another aspect of this, which

is sorely lacking in the Muslim community, is that we should be competing

with the People of the Book in good deeds.  This actually can include

working together for common ends, like alleviating hunger and poverty, and

barring certain social problems like pornography, gambling and intoxication.

  We don't always have to debate on our beliefs.  As long as we make it

clear to the other party what we believe, then nothing should stop us from

working together on those things we do agree on.

 

I hope I'm not getting too off course in this one, but I wanted to touch on

some of those other areas of discussion.  If you can see that the issue

we've been discussing so far does not form a contradiction for the Muslim, I

believe we can move on to different areas of discussion.  If you still think

that I'm contradicting myself by being a Muslim and not believing in every

passage of the Bible, then I am all ears to hear why.  Regardless of this, I

offer my appreciation for your eagerness to respond to my queries and

statements, and I hope to hear from you soon.

 

 

Other Potential topics to discuss:

1. Does Muhammad fulfill the Bibles conditions for prophecy?

 

2. Has the existing Bible been tampered with since its initial revelation?

 

3. How can Muslims and Christians work together for common goals?

 

If you have any other ideas for topics of discussion, I'd like to hear them.

  I think we should agree on one, and try to prevent each other from

straying into other points.  It seems the most effective way of proceeding.

 

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: Mike's response...again

       Date:

            Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:25:48 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Hey Michael,

 

Thanks for your quick reply.  When we were conversing it was spring break for

me.  After that week I've been swamped again with work to do.  I shouldn't even

be on the computer right now, but I know that I should try to respond to my

emails.

 

I do feel that soon we can move on too.  Hopefully we will be able to understand

each other fully soon.  But I do feel that on some things we still are not

listening.  I believe that all of our points make sense, but it still seems we

are not talking about the same things still.  Like before, we keep adding more

and more areas of discussion to talk about but are straying from the simple,

main points of our discussion.  I will try to make myself as clear and concise

as I can.

 

Point 1:

"That according to the Quran, there is no requirement for Muhammad to know, in

detail, the previous scriptures."

 

I understand that Mohammed does not explicitly say that he has to know the

previous scriptures to be a true prophet.  But by proclaiming that he is a

prophet of the God of Abraham, he IS puting a requirement on his prophethood to

prove his authority, which he did not succeed in proving.  It is an implicit

contradiction if he cannot prove this, but it still is a contradiction

nonetheless, whether the quran says he needs to do it or not.  He still is

contradicting himself.

 

Point 2:

I gave you arguments showing how it is equally as easy to take my interpretation

from those verses as your interpretation - and actually how my interpretation is

more likely correct.  You agreed that what I said was valid.  You tell me to

read the context and then go on to tell me what the context was around one of

those verses, but give no evidence that that was indeed the context - again I

gave you an equally valid context.  We are still in the middle in interpreting

these verses (by the way, the only verses in the Qur'an that come even close to

suggesting that the previous scriptures are corrupted).  And if in the middle,

you still have not proven to me that the Qur'an does not contradict itself.

Only after assuming your interpretation (as you admitted that it was ONLY an

interpretation, and not as clear and plain as you first thought) can you say

that the Qur'an does not contradict itself.   And only after assuming my

interpretation can I say that the Qur'an does indeed contradict itself (on the

incorruption and authority of the Bible).  We are still in the middle.  And none

of us has proven to the other which it is.

 

But I hold that the burden of proof is on you and on the Muslims - as it was

first on Mohammed but failed.  The burden is not on me, it is not my religion.

And it is not even your religion or Mohammed's religion for he says that it was

Christ's religion and Abraham's religion.  So the burden of proof is not only

just on you in one degree (proving that Islam is right), but it is on you in two

degrees (proving that Islam is right AND that it is the continuance of

Christianity).  We are in the middle of which interpretation is right, and the

burden of proof is on you.  So you still have not proven that Mohammed does not

contradict himself*.

 

*Note:  The "contradiction" of Mohammed talked about in point 2 is about the

curruption / incorruption of the Bible.  The "contradiction" in point 1 is about

whether Mohammed is still implicitly contradicting himself, independent from

whether he is contradicting himself or not in backing up the Bible as the

incorrupt word of God in point 2.

 

Point 2 B:

You said that the Injeel is defined in the Qur'an as that revelation given to

Jesus.  What revelation are you talking about then if it is not as I defined it

for you?  This will be a big question for you to answer (where I don't think any

answer exists in the Qur'an) in future discussions.

 

Point 3:

Abrogation.  This is the clincher to all debate between a muslim and christian.

Whatever argument I bring, about anything, you can always fall back on this.  It

is the safeguard of Islam.  This is what protects it from accusations like

points 1 and 2 above.  There is no "scientific method" as science would say, no

possibility to prove it wrong.  Even when the Qur'an contradicts itself Muslim

scholars just appeal (and they do) to the abrogation and sovereignty of Allah to

"do what he wants, who can argue".  It is convenient as you said:  "I know it

may seem too convenient, but we can't really argue that it causes a

contradiction for the Muslim.  This is where Allah's will comes in.  If Allah

willed to reveal the Quran, and explain away the older scriptures the way the

Quran does, that's His option."

 

But it is NOT his option.  That is my point.  God made it clear how He would

conduct Himself in reference to revelation given to man.  He made promises to

Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jeremiah, David, and Jesus as to HOW He would reveal

Himself.  He said that this was the way so that there would be a test to always

use to see if someone was really sent from God.  This is contradiction number 3

about Islam.  If Islam says this is God's character and this is how he operates,

then we know that Islam is false based on just this contradiction.

 

Conclusion:

I like the idea of creating that list of topics to discuss.  I see that we have

made much improvement on understanding the other's positions on the topics

already at hand and am ready to move on.  Not because we have graduated by

coming to an agreement, but because maybe some of these other topics may help us

both see the evidences out there that help support the bigger conclusions we are

making thus far.  Before we move on, I do hope that we can first say that we

know what the other is trying to say and realize the validity of each other's

points (if there is any).  Please reflect back to me what I said in this email

so I can see that you fully understand what I am saying, and I will do the say

to you.  For I see that we often add many unnecessary topics to our discussion

to help prove something that does not need proving, for it is not the object of

our discussion or does not have relevance to what the other person is saying.

This is all done ignorantly because we don't know fully what the other's point

is.

 

I hope to hear from you soon.  But just to let you know, I will be taking it a

little slower do to my busy schedule.  Have a good week.  :)

 

With respect,

Brian Lucero

 

 

Subject:

        contradiction

   Date:

        Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:20:01 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

        Hello again.  It’s been a while, I have been trying to find the best way to

explain my position in light of your most recent response.  I am going to

try a new angle, which I hope will clear things up.  I would like to assert

that I think we almost see things eye to eye, but we have a slightly

different working definition, which is causing us to disagree.  I feel that

if we could come to an agreement on this definition, then we could at last

understand each other’s points of view.

        The word I would like to define is "Contradiction".  This is a word, which

we both use often and I think it is the key to solving our problem.  The way

I define contradiction is "a concept or statement which, when applied to

itself, proves itself wrong."  Since you stated that Islam contradicts

itself, in regard to its stance on the Bible, I have been looking for this

contradiction purely within Islam’s definition of itself, whereas you have

been actually using the Bible to show that Islam contradicts itself.  While

I do feel that it is fair to look at both sources (the Quran and the Bible)

in order to determine which faith is true, I don’t think we can use the

Bible to determine whether Islam contradicts itself.  In order to prove that

Islam contradicts itself, I believe one must use only Islamic sources,

otherwise, we will not be proving that Islam contradicts itself, but that it

contradicts the Bible.

        The reason I don’t feel it is necessary to bring the Bible into this

particular debate is that Islam has a perfectly logical argument against

doing so.  That the Bible has been corrupted, and it is no longer possible

to determine which portions of it are original.  Again, this is only within

the limited scope of our discussion, which should be "whether the Quran

contradicts itself in regard to its position on the Bible."

        This is all I’ve been trying to do so far, but I don’t think it will

satisfy you.  It seems that you are determined to bring the Bible into the

debate, and I am perfectly willing to do that.  However, we will then have

to scrutinise the Bible as much, if not more than we have been scrutinising

the Quran.  My position is that if the Bible can be shown to have

contradictions within it, or additions made to the text, then we should

accept the Quran’s statements regarding the Bible as true.  Again, if the

Bible contradicts itself or has been changed, then it will be clear that it

has indeed been tampered with, and it is no longer a reliable source of

guidance.  If this can be demonstrated, then I think we have to choose the

Quran as our source of divine guidance.

        I hope this helps to clarify my position on this issue.  I think there are

two options ahead of us:

1. Limit our discussion on whether Islam contradicts itself to Islamic

sources.

2. Expand our discussion to include the Bible in order to determine whether

it has been corrupted or not, which will help us determine whether the

Quran’s statements about it are true, or not.

 

Please let me know which option you want to take.  If you have another

option that I have not mentioned, please let me know.

 

Mike

 

Please forgive me if it seems that I have overlooked your last response. 

This was not my intention, because I feel like I have located the source of

our disagreement.  If you would like, I can respond point for point on the

statements you made.  However, in light of what I’ve written above, I don’t

think it would further our discussion.

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:52:04 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

Thanks for the response.  About you asking if you should go through my last response, I

do think it would help our discussion by one: helping me see what your understanding is

about my points, and two: helping us to further define contradiction and help you see

why I have labeled in that email more than three different types.  I will try to

respond to this last email of yours as time becomes available.  Thanks again, and I

hope to talk to you soon.

 

with respect,

Brian Lucero

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:47:19 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

  Let me respond in more detail to your last email, before you spend time on

answering my last one.  I hope you don't think I was trying to slip past

answering your concerns, but I want to make sure we don't get lost in

details and lose the big picture.  I will send a response in the next two

days or so.

 

Mike

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:36:20 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

I offer yet another point for point response to your last email…

 

Point 1:

 

The Prophet is contradicting the existing Bible, only if he cannot prove his

prophethood from the Biblical requirements.  However, this does not mean

that he is contradicting himself, because the Bible is no longer a reliable

source of information, according to the Quran. You don’t have to believe he

is a prophet based on this information alone, that would require a

comparison between the Bible and the Quran.  However, you should recognise

that He offered an explanation for why His message may differ from that of

the Bible, and that this explanation does not contradict itself or the other

teachings of the Quran.  This is further elaborated in Point 2.

 

Point 2:

A continued discussion of the following verse of the Quran.

 

2:79

Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and

then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain

therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto

them for that they earn thereby.

 

I think I have the answer.  There is a verse in the Quran, which indicates

that the People of the Book have written scripture with their own hands, and

have claimed that it is from Allah.  Your interpretation is that this verse

is referring to books which have already been weeded out of Christian and

Jewish canonical texts, and leaves room for an uncorrupted edition of the

Bible to still exist.  This leads to a problem which is, why does the

message of the Quran contradict the message of this uncorrupted Bible.

 

My answer is that yours is not the correct interpretation of this verse. 

Here are the reasons for this assertion.  First, because every single Muslim

from the time of the Prophet until now has understood that this verse is

indicating the corrupted nature of the previous scriptures.  This alone is

enough proof that this is the correct understanding for the Muslim, because

the Prophet said

 

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Verily my Ummah, or the Ummah of

Muhammad, will not agree on error and the hand of Allah is upon the

community; he who sets himself apart from it will be set apart in Hell Fire.

Transmitted by Tirmidhi.

 

The reason I can safely state that every Muslim has agreed to this

understanding of the previous scriptures is because to do otherwise would be

to openly contradict the rest of the Quran.  This is more than enough for a

Muslim to believe that ours is the correct interpretation of the verses in

question, but as a Christian, you may not be satisfied with that, so I will

provide more evidence.

 

4:82

Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than Allah

they would have found therein much incongruity (contradiction).

 

The Quran explains that it will not contradict itself.  If your

understanding of verse 2:79 were correct, then the Quran would be

contradicting itself.  If yours were the only explanation of the verse in

question, then Muslims would have a problem, but it is not.  Indeed the

explanation that the previous scriptures have been lost, hidden, altered, or

corrupted, and remain that way, is a much more logical conclusion, and has

been the conclusion of the entire Muslim Ummah (Nation).  There’s no reason

to choose your interpretation over that of the Muslims, unless you have

decided beforehand that Islam isn’t true, and you were looking for a reason

to discredit it.  There is a trend among even some who claim to be Muslims

to take verses which may have more than one meaning, and to use them to

cause division and doubt among the Muslims.  The Quran explains this

situation:

 

3:7

He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are

clear revelations--They are the substance of the Book--and others (which

are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that

which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it.

None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound

instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only

men of understanding really heed.

 

The Quran always explains itself first.  That is to say, if we want to

understand a verse of the Quran, then we have to look at what the rest of

the Quran says before we go to other sources (i.e. Hadith, scholarly

interpretations, or opinions). As a result, we find the Quran criticising

many of the beliefs which are taught in the Bible, like the divinity of

Christ, the crucifixion of Christ, the idea of a trinity, the idea of

monasticism, and many of the laws and ordinances of the Jews.  These

criticisms indicate that those ideas were not part of the original teachings

that Allah sent to his prophets. Therefor if we find those teachings in the

books of the Jews and Christians, then it is perfectly logical to assume

that they are the false teachings to which the Quran is referring.  This is

reflected in the statement of Ibn Abbas, one of the most well known scholars

among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

 

Bukhari

3.850 Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba

Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the Scriptures,

though your Book (i.e. the Qur'an) which was revealed to His Prophet is the

most recent information from Allah and you recite it, the Book that has not

been distorted? Allah has revealed to you that the people of the Scriptures

have changed with their own hands what was revealed to them and they have

said (as regards their changed Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to

get some worldly benefit thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge

revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have

never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to

you."

 

Your interpretation however serves to contradict the rest of the Quran. 

There is no reason to accept your interpretation over the simple

understanding that the Muslim Ummah has.  To do so would only serve to

undermine ones faith.  In addition to that, your interpretation could be

rejected logically, because even if Muhammad were a false prophet, he would

never have openly contradicted himself like that.  It is much more likely

that, even if he were a false prophet, he would have had a solid explanation

to why his teachings contradict those of the existing Bible, which he does.

 

I know that the logic I’m using is based on the Quran and the Hadith only,

but this is the focus of the discussion, whether the Quran’s statements on

the Bible serve to contradict the message of Islam.  Again, I want to assert

that to determine whether Islam is actually true, we will need to look at a

wider range of data, namely the Bible and other historical sources. 

However, I think that it has been demonstrated that believing in the Quran

does not necessitate believing in a self-contradicting statement about the

Bible.  Rather, believing in the Quran requires that we believe that the

previous scriptures have been altered, lost, hidden or corrupted in some

form or another, which is exactly the meaning of verse 2:79.  I really hope

this is clear to you, as I would love to move on to other topics one day.

 

I understand your point, but disagree with it fully.  I don't think it is

valid, and you will have to provide further evidence for me to acknowledge

that it is even a reasonable interpretation of the verse in question.

 

If you still want to pursue this angle, you will need to provide some proof

that your interpretation is the correct interpretation of the verse 2:79. 

This will require evidence from the Quran or the sound Hadith that there is

an existing, uncorrupted copy of the Torah or the Gospel, which is available

and in the hands of the People of the Book.  You may find references in the

Hadith, which refer to the coming of the Mahdi.  He is an individual from

the lineage of the Prophet Muhammad who has been prophesied to come to a

position of authority in the Ummah, sometime preceding the return of Jesus

(Isa).  Certain Hadith explain that the Mahdi will uncover, or dig up the

original texts of the Torah, the Gospel, and the Zabur (Psalms), in addition

to the staff of Moses and some other artefacts.  While these Hadith do

support the idea that there is an original, uncorrupted Bible, they mention

a specific time and circumstance under which those books will be uncovered,

i.e. with the Mahdi.  So these Hadith cannot be used to support your

argument.  While these Hadith do actually support my argument, I have

refrained from using them because I have not yet determined whether they are

sound Hadith.

 

In the next paragraph, you say that the burden of proof is on the Muslims...

 

The burden of proof is on the Quran because the Quran was not revealed into

a vacuum, but into a world with other religions.  Since it refers to these

other religions as earlier forms of Islam, and makes certain claims about

the state of their books, we should certainly scrutinise this information. 

However, this is going to require looking at those books, and scrutinising

them according to the statements of the Quran.  This, as I have mentioned

before is a separate topic, which I am willing to discuss.

 

If you do not accept the proof from the Quran that I have provided, or the

logical arguments that indicate that your interpretation is incorrect, then

we may have to look at the Bible itself.  I propose that if we find any

indication that the Bible has been changed (i.e. verses added or removed or

which clearly contradict each other) then we should accept the Muslim Ummahs

interpretation of the verse, and indeed the Quran as a whole.

 

Point 2 B:

 

Please remind me how you defined the Gospel (Injeel).  I remember defining

it as the words Allah revealed to Jesus (Isa).  The knowledge of whether

these words have been preserved in the existing Bible is with Allah.

 

Point 3:

 

Abrogation is not the Allah’s only reason for revealing the Quran, if it

was, then you would have a point.  However, if we look at the overall

message of the Quran, we find out, as stated above, that the People of the

Book have hidden, lost, altered, or corrupted their books.  Therefor, the

information you have in the Bible, as to how He would conduct Himself is no

longer a reliable source of information.  Indeed, the very idea that the

previous scriptures may have been altered would require that Allah reveal a

new message, in order to ensure that the believers have a reliable source of

divine guidance.  I think the topic of abrogation is secondary to Point 2,

which is the Quran’s statement on the state of previous scriptures.

 

Conclusion:

Please consider the facts and ideas I’ve presented in Point 2 especially. 

This issue has never caused Muslims any concern about the validity of their

belief, and your opinion could only be the result of a presumption that the

Quran is false.  Also consider whether we should include the Bible into our

discussion, which may help us see why the Muslim Ummah’s viewpoint is

actually justified.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Subject:

        now time

   Date:

        Fri, 13 May 2005 15:43:32 -0500

   From:

        brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

     To:

        Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 

 

 

 

Hey Michael,

 

My last final was today, so now I should have some time to respond to

your emails.  Thanks for being patient.

 

Brian

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Tue, 24 May 2005 15:36:55 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

Attachments:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Hahn/integrity.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/tahrif.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/muhaimin.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic1.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/bible_authentic2.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

I just got back from a road trip to the New York Metro area where we were

meeting with dozens of MBB's (muslims that converted to Christianity) from

Pakistani and Arab backgrounds, so I was not able to address our email dialogue

until now.

 

For our dialogue to have a deeper level of analysis requires much more time set

apart for research and reading.  I have been doing a little bit of that over the

last few months whenever I can find spare time - trying to hunt down resources

and books and what not.  It has been much fun.  In trying to respond to your

emails now, I will have to make more time for the analysis part and formulation

of my responses with ideas in a certain order.  Without drawing our dialogue out

for such extended periods of time (as it seems I have been doing since I need to

wait for free time to even start to address our emails) I figured I will save

time and energy and give you the sources that I have found thus far and let you

skim though them while waiting for me to respond in a more organized manner.

 

I have attached a few different articles produced by several people that have

done more extensive compilation of Muslims sources.  Some of the issued that are

touched on in these papers are:

-Tafsir and the Islamic scholars' interpretation of Qur'anic ayats that are

usually used to show how the Bible is corrupted (but according to the tafsir,

the verses certain meanings in arabic should not be taken in that manner).

-Definitions of Taurat, Zabur, Injil, and early muslim commentary and hadith

define these definitions differently than today's muslims (consequence being

that the Qur'an not only confirms the first five books of the Old Testament and

only the books written by David and only the words spoken by Jesus).

-Quotes companions of Mohammed and early Muslims from the Hadith and Sira

showing how the the Bible was thought of as NOT being corrupted at that time,

and even present muslims groups that hold to the authority of the Bible.

-Of course it does not leave out philosophical theology, using evidence of

syntax and wording from the Qur'an to show implicitly how the early Muslims

believed the Injil and Taurat to be still intact and uncorrupted.

 

Feel free to send comments while you are reading through this material.  I will

aslo send comments as I finish up analyzing these sources.  God-willing I will

be able to organize the material and quotes as time permits to make dialogue

much easier and faster in the future.

 

In hopes of finding the truth for both of us,

Brian Lucero

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Sat, 11 Jun 2005 08:49:07 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

  After a brief reading of the material you sent me, I have a few comments

which I want to write, before I begin a more extensive study.  At least one

person mentioned, Ibn Abbas, was clearly quoted out of context, as there are

authentic hadith regarding his belief that the scriptures of the People of

the Book were corrupted in text, not merely in interpretation.

 

  This is one, I have not looked into the others.  I will look into the

other statements as well, however, regardless of what certain scholars and

Muslim leaders have said, the Quran and the Hadith will always have the

greatest authority for the Muslims.  If anyones opinion falls outside the

statements of the Quran and Hadith, then their opinion must be rejected, and

the statements of the Quran must be accepted.

 

  I have a strong feeling that some, if not all of the people quoted have

been taken out of context, but since this new information does clearly

conflict with the statements in my last email to you, I must make sure, or

I'll have to retract some of my statements.

 

Till later,

 

Mike

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:36:30 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

It is good to know that we are making progress.  In any direction is good.  As

we are sharing evidence and dialogue we are helping one another to a gloal, as

you said - to eithe exposer contradiction or make us retract our beliefs and

reform them.  I am honored to go through this journey with you, with an open

heart - I pray to God it is open.

 

Regarding your comments:

Paragraph 1 - Please keep in mind that Ibn Abbas' statements do not have to be

taken out of context for these quotes to be authentic.  Other conclusions

equally valid:  a.  Time changes peoples' positions and beliefs (i.e. Qur'an is

notorious for this - abrogation).  b. Many quotes from Ibn Abbas might not be

authentic, but even though Islamic tradition concludes them to be ( I would

commend to you a study from an outside perspective of Islam about the science of

Hadith and serious flaw with their transmission and corruption - I have

materials for you about that if you like as well).  This would seem to make

point (c) more believable.   c. Hadith stories may contradict one another (note:

hadith are infamously known to frequently contradict).  d.  You may not have

understood the argument and why Abbas was quoted.   The papers are careful to

note that there are a range of "levels" of curruption beliefs regarding the

Biblical text from the Islamic scholars and early sources.  Not all quotes in

the papers are for the purpose of showing that they are a staunch Biblical

"in-corruptists".  e.  Other options as well, I will stop here with my list.  I

challenge you Michael to be more open to options when studying these papers

instead of only coming to quick and narrow conclusions concerning the evidence.

It IS an important topic I agree, and that is why careful study and reflection

is needed.

 

Paragraph 2 -  But Michael, this is the whole reason this study of early muslim

sources was adopted - to see WHAT the Qur'an says.  You agreed with my

conclusions that the Qur'an and some Hadith alone are not enough to conclude the

view that the Bible was corrupted.  You agreed that the possible interpretations

of your Qur'anic evidence in my view's favor was perfectly valid and acceptible,

but that it just does not agree with early muslim thought (or tafsir).  That is

WHY we are checking out the early sources, to see if your INTERPRETATION is

acceptible or if mine is more acceptible.   I think you need to revise your

parapraph number two before you dive into more extensive study, or your whole

willingness to hear the evidence as you promised afore (I can produce quotes

from previous emails about what beliefs you would revise in light of our

findings) will be naught.

 

Paragraph 3 - I think that your deeper investigation will be very fruitful.

Best of luck.   What I ask of you Michael is that before you try and find

rebuttals or counter evidence from other sources, you give a deep and fair

hearing to the material I have provided you, or else the fluidity of the

argument will be undermined and understanding of the evidence compromised (as I

have already seen with your conclusions about Abbas).  It may take a while to

finish and analyze (I am still doing so myself, going over and re-over and back

again to get a fuller picture of the situation and early muslim evidence) before

you can get to other counter evidence, but it will be most expedient.

 

I commend you on such a journey with openness.  We'll stay in contact

throughout.

 

Brian.

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction (p.s.)

       Date:

            Mon, 13 Jun 2005 02:32:32 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

p.s (from last email)  Please email me about if you understand what I am saying

under the heading "paragraph 1".  I re-read my email to you and noticed that it

was

not communicated very clearly.  So I potential in neglecting it's weight.  Tell

me if you follow my comment for 'paragraph 1".  thanks.

 

with care and respect,

brian

 

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:43:30 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

The point was understood.  My point was merely that If Ibn Abbas was being

quoted to show that early Muslims did  not believe that the Bible had been

corrupted, then they should have quoted the authentic hadith in which he

clearly says that the Bible was corrupted.  As I said, I imagine that most

of the scholars quoted probably had similar statements, which have not been

presented.  However, I am looking into the matter more carefully, and I will

let you know my findings.

 

Regarding the methodology of Hadith, I have studied it quite thoroughly, and

I am quite satisfied with it's analysis of the Hadith.  I have heard some of

the arguments against it, and I have found them to be quite shallow when

compared to the science used in verifying hadith.  I recommend you study it.

 

I must comment on some of your recent statements, however, regarding your

interpretation of the Quran.  If I've said anything in the past which

indicates that you're view may be correct, I apologize.  This is not the

case.  In fact, I remember repeatedly explaining that I reject your

interpretation, because it contradicts the rest of the Quran.  When i have

quoted verse 2:79, I've always maintained that it's correct interpretation

is that the writing which are now called 'the Bible' are actually a

collection of writings, some divine in origin, and some man-made.  Your

position is quite opposite to this, and I never have subscribed to it.

 

The point of my argument, which you may have misunderstood, was that to

arrive at an objective opinion about the Bible, one must study the Bible.  I

never meant to imply that the Quran's statements could be used to verify the

autheticity of the Bible.  My position has always been that the Quran and

Hadith are clear in their accusation that the Bible is corrupted.

 

Again, if you've misunderstood this, I apologize.

 

To make this more clear, let me explain further.  Even If through one's

study of the Bible, one came to the conclusion that the Bible was 100%

authentic, I would not retract my statement about the Quran.  This would

simply mean that the Quran was wrong, not that the Quran contradicts itself.

 

I hope this is clear to you.  Please read it again if it has not made sense

to you.

 

As it stands, my understanding is that the Bible is indeed corrupted, and I

arrived at this conclusion before I ever heard of the Quran.  I have loads

of evidence regarding it, and I would love to share it wth you.  However, as

I've maintained in the past, my only objective in our discussion is to

correct your misunderstanding about the Quran.

 

 

Mike

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:49:40 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

In response to you last email.  Maybe Hadithic Science will be a subject into which we can further look in

the future.

 

You said:

"The point of my argument, which you may have misunderstood, was that to

arrive at an objective opinion about the Bible, one must study the Bible.  I

never meant to imply that the Quran's statements could be used to verify the

autheticity of the Bible.  My position has always been that the Quran and

Hadith are clear in their accusation that the Bible is corrupted.

 

Again, if you've misunderstood this, I apologize.

 

To make this more clear, let me explain further.  Even If through one's

study of the Bible, one came to the conclusion that the Bible was 100%

authentic, I would not retract my statement about the Quran.  This would

simply mean that the Quran was wrong, not that the Quran contradicts itself.

 

I hope this is clear to you.  Please read it again if it has not made sense

to you."

 

I don't know why this is even brought up.  I never said that we can prove the authenticity of the bible by

what the Qur'an says.  I don't understand where you are getting the idea that I am misunderstanding you in

this topic.

 

You said:

"I must comment on some of your recent statements, however, regarding your

interpretation of the Quran.  If I've said anything in the past which

indicates that you're view may be correct, I apologize.  This is not the

case.  In fact, I remember repeatedly explaining that I reject your

interpretation, because it contradicts the rest of the Quran.  When i have

quoted verse 2:79, I've always maintained that it's correct interpretation

is that the writing which are now called 'the Bible' are actually a

collection of writings, some divine in origin, and some man-made.  Your

position is quite opposite to this, and I never have subscribed to it."

 

I never said that you accepted my interpretation.  All I said is that you left the playing field open.  You

challenged me to find sources that would support my interpretation.  The reason this is so crucial is that

you made a VERY strong statement as to WHY you hold your specific interpretation over mine:

 

"My answer is that yours is not the correct interpretation of this verse.

Here are the reasons for this assertion.  First, because every single Muslim

from the time of the Prophet until now has understood that this verse is

indicating the corrupted nature of the previous scriptures.  This alone is

enough proof that this is the correct understanding for the Muslim," (emphasis mine)

 

You said also in that email that other evidence would be that to accept my interpretation would be to

contraditct the rest of the qur'an on this issue.  In response I went through each verse you quoted and

showed how NONE of them are POSITIVELY saying what you think they are saying, but that they

MAY be interpreted in favor of my view.  I agree, at first glance, they seem to make an emphatic

staement about the corruption of the Bible.  But deeper investigation shows that theses verses are not

saying what modern muslims suggest, and that early muslims thought that these verses suggested

something else (based upon sintax and wording).  You charged me then with the following:

 

"If you still want to pursue this angle, you will need to provide some proof

that your interpretation is the correct interpretation of the verse 2:79.

This will require evidence from the Quran or the sound Hadith that there is

an existing, uncorrupted copy of the Torah or the Gospel, which is available

and in the hands of the People of the Book."

 

And this is where we are at.  I am giving you a few papers with many quotes of scholars and companions

and hadith about what THEY say these verses mean.   They actually quote the Qur'anic passage and then

give THEIR interpretation to each phrase in that ayat.  That is what we are looking at now.  So yes, you

made it seem to me that my interpretation would be valid if I could produce evidence of early muslim

sources showing that their interpretations were in accordance with my interpretation.

 

Changing topics now, you said in your last email, "My point was merely that If Ibn Abbas was being

quoted to show that early Muslims did  not believe that the Bible had been corrupted, then they should

have quoted the authentic hadith in which he clearly says that the Bible was corrupted.  As I said, I

imagine that most of the scholars quoted probably had similar statements, which have not been

presented."  In case you have not yet found in the papers where Ibn Abbas was quoted in talking about

the supposed curruption of the bible, I have provided in the rest of this email some of these instances in

Appendix A and Appendix B and how these quotes are dealt with in the section call "Common

Objections Considered".   Please keep reading the papers more in depth, as you will probably find the

context and quotes that you are so desiring dealt with as some point.

 

The following section within single dotted lines (Appendix A) is from the paper <The Quran Confirms the

Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 1]>.  It is about what Ibn Abbas was quoted as saying about the

corruption of the bible.   Also, some of the quotes can be found in this other section:

<http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html>.   In the paper <The Quran Confirms the

Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 2]> which I have quoted below within the double lines (Appendix

B), you can find a section about common ojbections, one of which deals with the apparent presumption

that Ibn Abbas indeed believed the bible was corrupted. Appendix C goes along with Appendix B.  I give

you these two quotes so that you can see that the papers are not just wildly quoting any early muslim

source without care or sensitivity to the context of these sources.  Maybe you missed some parts of the

paper that deal with these supposed contradictions in early muslim thought.

 

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Brian

 

 

Appendix A.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

(D:\BRIANS SECTION\BRIAN from old D\Brian's page\Apoligetics\Islam\bible\The Quran Confirms

the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 1].htm)

 

Before providing the Islamic evidence supporting the authority, authenticity and preservation of the Holy

Bible, we need to first address the following passage that Muslims often bring up:

 

"Allah made a covenant of old with the Children of Israel and We raised among them twelve chieftains,

and Allah said: Lo! I am with you. If ye establish worship and pay the poor-due, and believe in My

messengers and support them, and lend unto Allah a kindly loan, surely I shall remit your sins, and surely I

shall bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whoso among you disbelieveth after this will

go astray from a plain road. And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and

made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were

admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them

and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly. And with those who say: ‘Lo! we are Christians,’ We made

a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up

enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their

handiwork. O People of the Scripture! Now hath Our messenger come unto you, expounding unto you

much of that which ye used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Now hath come unto you light

from Allah and plain Scripture," S. 5:12-15 Pickthall

 

It is assumed that "changing words from their context" implies that the previous scriptures have been

tampered with. Several responses are in order. First, even if this were the case this would only be

referring to the Jews, and even then, not all of the Jews. The Quran testifies that there were many from the

People of the Book who wouldn’t deal falsely with God’s Word:

 

"Not all of them are alike. Some of the People of the Book are an upright people. They recite the signs (or

verses) of God in the night season and they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day.

They command what is just, and forbid what is wrong and they hasten in good works, and they are of the

righteous. S. 3:113-114

 

"Of the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the light of truth ... After them

succeeded an (evil) generation: They inherited the Book, but they chose (for themselves) the vanities of

this world, saying (for excuse): ‘(Everything) will be forgiven us.’ (Even so), if similar vanities came their

way, they would (again) seize them. Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them, that they would

not ascribe to Allah anything but the truth? AND THEY STUDY WHAT IS IN THE BOOK. But best

for the righteous is the home in the Hereafter. Will ye not understand? As to those WHO HOLD FAST

BY THE BOOK and establish regular prayer, - never shall We suffer the reward of the righteous to

perish." S. 7:159, 169-170 A. Yusuf Ali

 

Secondly, the passage says nothing about changing words from the text of Scripture. In fact, when we

consult the earliest Muslim views we soon discover that the Jews were accused of changing words by

misinterpreting the text. In the words of early Muslim exegete Ibn Kathir, taken from his comments on S.

5:13,15:

 

Then Allah informs us of the punishment He inflicted upon them when they violated His Covenant. Allah

says, <because of their breach of their covenant, We have cursed them>, that is, because they broke their

pact, Allah expelled them from His Guidance. And <made their hearts grow hard> so they will not accept

their guilt. The verse, <they change the words from their context> means THAT THEY

MISINTERPRETED THE VERSES OF ALLAH, according to their own desires, and fabricated lies

against Him. We ask Allah to save us from that ...

 

Allah informs us that He has sent His messenger Muhammad with the guidance and the religion of truth for

all the people of the earth; Arabs and non-Arabs, illiterate and literate ... the Prophet has come to explain

that which they have altered, misinterpreted and distorted and to ignore most of their unnecessary

alterations. Al-Hakim reported in his Mustadrak, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, "Whoever disbelieves in

stoning to death (Rajm) in Islam has indeed disbelieved the Qur’an and has no appreciation of Allah’s

verse, <O people of the Scripture! Now has our Messenger come to you, expounding to you much of

that which you used to hide in the Scripture>; therefore, stoning to death is that which the People of the

Scripture concealed." Al-Hakim said that the Isnad of this Hadith is Good. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 6 Surat

An-Nisa’, ayat 148 to 176 Surah Al-Ma’idah, ayat 1 to 181, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib

Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000 first edition], p. 128, 130-131; capital and underline emphasis

ours)

 

Commenting on the same expression in 5:41, Ibn Kathir repeats:

 

<They change the words from their places> that is, THEY MISINTERPRET THE WORDS AND

ALTER THEM KNOWINGLY… (Ibid., p. 167; capital emphasis ours)

 

Ibn Kathir’s comments on S. 3:78 are also pertinent to this very issue:

 

Mujahid. Ash-Sha'bi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,

 

<who distort the Book with their tongues.>

 

means, "They alter (Allah's Words)."

 

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among

Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER

AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil

REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED.

However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they

wrote themselves." Then,

 

<they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;>

 

As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi

Hatim recorded this statement ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat

Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147, abridged by a group of scholars under the

supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh,

Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: March 2000], p. 196; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

This is confirmed by Imam Al-Bukhari. In Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitaab Al-Tawheed, Baab Qawlu Allah

Ta'ala, "Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth" (i.e. in Sahih al-Bukhari, Book "The Oneness

of God", the Chapter on Surat Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22 saying, "Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an,

(Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.") we find in a footnote between 9.642 and 643:

 

"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a

single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly. [... and he

continues to speak about how the Qur'an is preserved ...] (Source:

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Appendix B.

===================================================================================

 

(D:\BRIANS SECTION\BRIAN from old D\Brian's page\Apoligetics\Islam\bible\The Quran Confirms

the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 2].htm)

 

5. Common Objections Considered...

 

F.   This next tradition is often used by Muslims to show that Ibn Abbas believed the Bible was corrupted:

 

Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, 'Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while

your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure,

undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians)

changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from

Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking

them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what

has been revealed to you!' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume

9, Book 92, Number 461)"

 

Two comments. First, even if this is what Ibn Abbas meant this would only posit a contradiction within the

hadith. We had earlier quoted from Al-Bukhari who said that Ibn Abbas believed that no one could

tamper with any of the books of Allah.[SEE APPENDIX A, Brian's incertion] Second, even this

hadith falls short of proving bible corruption. Let us repeat the relevant portion:

 

"... You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture

(Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own

hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain ..."

 

The above citation seems to refer to the following Quranic passages:

 

"So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ that they may

sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their

earnings." S. 2:79

 

We have already shown [SEE APPENDIX C, Brian's incertion]  that this passage, in it respective

context is not speaking of Jews and Christians corrupting their Holy Book. It refers to a group, not all, of

unlettered Jews who were ignorant of the content of the scriptures and falsified their own revelation for

gain. Here is the other passage that Ibn Abbas may have been referring to:

 

"There is among them a section who distort the Book WITH THEIR TONGUES: (As they read) you

would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it

is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!" S. 3:78

 

Here, the changes and distortion refers to a misinterpretation of the text, i.e. "with their tongues". The

people were evidently reciting or quoting certain things and passing it off as being part of the actual text.

This view is in accord with Al-Bukhari's citation of Ibn Abbas, where the latter stated that the Jews

changed and distorted the apparent meanings of the scriptures, yet the text remained unchanged.

 

In light of this, Ibn Abbas was not claiming that the text had been corrupted. Rather, Ibn Abbas is clearly

referring to people changing the text BY THEIR TONGUES, i.e. through their misinterpretation.

 

========================================================================================

 

Appendix C.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

(D:\BRIANS SECTION\BRIAN from old D\Brian's page\Apoligetics\Islam\bible\The Quran Confirms

the Bible Has Never Been Corrupted [Part 2].htm)

 

5. Common Objections Considered...

 

B.   Muslims say that the following passage also proves Bible corruption:

 

"So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ that they may

sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their

earnings." S. 2:79

 

This seems to imply Biblical corruption until we look at its original context:

 

"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they (the Jews) will believe in you? And verily a party

(fariq) among them hear the Word of God, then they pervert it knowingly after they have understood it.

And when they meet the believers they say, ‘We believe,’ but when they meet each other in private they

say, ‘Why do you tell them what God has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage you in

argument about it before their God? What do you not understand?’ Do they not know that God knows

what they conceal and what they make public? Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture

not except from hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS." S. 2:75-78

 

Once the passage is read in its proper context, we discover that it is not speaking of Jews and Christians

corrupting their Holy Book, but rather unlettered Jews who were ignorant of the content of the scriptures

who falsified their own revelation for gain.

 

Some Muslims claim that S. 2:79 is referring to a different group from those mentioned in 2:78 since the

group in 2:78 are said to be unlettered (ummiyuuna), implying that they couldn’t read or write. Based on

this assertion it is then claimed that these unlettered folk wouldn’t be able to write anything with their

hands, and hence cannot be the same folk mentioned in S. 2:79.

 

This interpretation is based on a gross misunderstanding of what the term unlettered actually means. A

careful reading of the Quran shows that this term doesn’t necessarily refer to people who couldn’t read or

write. Rather, it refers to people who were unfamiliar with the inspired Books of God. Note for instance

the following passage:

 

He it is Who hath sent among the unlettered ones (ummiyyeena) a messenger of their own, to recite unto

them His revelations and to make them grow, and to teach them the Scripture and wisdom, though

heretofore they were indeed in error manifest, S. 62:2 Pickthall

 

Unlettered here cannot literally mean that Muhammad was sent to people who couldn’t read or write,

since there were hundreds of Arabs who were reading and writing both before and during Muhammad’s

time. In fact, Muslim traditions assert that Muhammad had Arab scribes who would write down the

Quran for him.

 

The meaning of unlettered becomes clear from the following passages:

 

If they argue with you, then say, "I have simply submitted myself to GOD; I and those who follow me."

You shall proclaim to those who received the scripture, as well as those who did not (ummiyyeena),

"Would you submit?" If they submit, then they have been guided, but if they turn away, your sole mission

is to deliver this message. GOD is Seer of all people. S. 3:20 Khalifa

 

And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may

receive mercy: Lest ye should say: "The Book was sent down to two Peoples before us, and for our part,

we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study:" Or lest ye should say: "If the

Book had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they." Now then

hath come unto you a clear (sign) from your Lord, - and a guide and a mercy: then who could do more

wrong than one who rejecteth Allah's signs, and turneth away therefrom? In good time shall We requite

those who turn away from Our signs, with a dreadful penalty, for their turning away. S. 6:155-157

 

Some assert that Muhammad was called unlettered in the sense that he didn’t know how to read or write.

Cf. S. 7:157-158

 

Again, the Quran explains in what sense Muhammad was unlettered:

 

And thou (O Muhammad) wast not a reader of any scripture before it, nor didst thou write it with thy right

hand, for then might those have doubted, who follow falsehood. But it is clear revelations in the hearts of

those who have been given knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save wrong-doers. S. 28:48-49

Pickthall

 

Muhammad is unlettered not in the sense that he couldn’t read or write, but that he hadn’t read or written

down any revealed Scripture prior to his allegedly "receiving" the Quran. This is a view with which many

Muslims wholeheartedly agree. (Cf. http://www.quran.org/ap28.htm, http://www.quran.org/gatut.html)

 

This is precisely what S. 2:78-79 is saying, namely that a group who were unlettered in the sense of not

knowing the scriptures personally decided to concoct their own false revelation for gain.

 

Al-Tabari provides some support for this proposed interpretation by citing Ibn Abbas. Muslim turned

atheist Ibn Warraq, while writing about the different definitions proposed by scholars regarding the

meaning of ummiyyun, says:

 

"Bell thinks 'ummiyyun means belonging to the 'ummah or community, while Blachere translates it as

‘Gentiles,’ in the sense of ‘pagan.’ For the French scholar it is clear that the word 'ummi designates pagan

Arabs, who, unlike the Jews and Christians, had not received any revelation and were thus living in

ignorance of the divine law. Tabari does indeed quote some traditions that give this sense to the word

ummi: according to Ibn 'Abbas, ‘'ummiyyun (refers to) some people who did not believe in a prophet sent

by God, nor in a scripture revealed by God; and they wrote a scripture with their own hands. Then they

said to the ignorant, common people: "This is from God."’ However, Tabari himself does not accept this

interpretation, instead gives a totally unconvincing and improbable account of the derivation of the word: ‘I

am of the opinion that an illiterate person is called ummi, relating him in his lack of ability to write to his

mother (umm), because writing was something which men, and not women, did, so that a man who could

not write and form letters was linked to his mother, and not to his father, in his ignorance of writing.’"

(Warraq, "Introduction," What the Koran Really Says, Language, Text & Commentary [Prometheus

Books, 2002; ISBN: 157392945X], p. 44; underline emphasis ours)

 

Others believe that unlettered actually refers to the Gentiles, i.e. that Muhammad was a Gentile prophet

who was supposedly sent to the Gentile communities. (Cf. http://www.mostmerciful.com/ummi.htm)

 

In fact, Ibn Ishaq, in his biography on Muhammad, defined ummiyyun as Arab or Gentile converts to

Judaism:

 

... God said: ‘Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they proclaim, and some of

them are gentiles who do not know the book but merely recite passages (310). They only think they

know,’ i.e. they don't know the book and they do not know what it is in it, yet they oppose thy

prophethood on mere opinion. (Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, p. 252)

 

Guillaume has a note in which he says:

 

I This word is generally translated ‘illiterate’. In Sura 7.157 and 158 Muhammad calls himself 'the gentile

prophet'; but practically all Arab writers claim that he meant that he could not read or write (see, e.g.,

Pickthall's translation). Geiger, op. cit. 26 f., was, I think, the first to point out the only possible derivation

of the word, and he has been followed by every subsequent European Arabist. But this passage brings to

light the fact that he was preceded by these early traditionists who identified the ummiyyun as Arab

proselytes who did not themselves know the scriptures. (Ibid.)

 

Furthermore, even if it were speaking of Bible corruption, this still wouldn’t prove the Muslim claim. The

text says that only a party of them wrote false revelation and sold it for gain. The Quran says that there

were others who would not allow the revelation to be tampered with for the sake of monetary profit:

 

"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and that which has

been revealed to you, in that which has been revealed to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not

sell the signs of God for miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in

account." S. 3:199

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:19 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

Point taken, I will try to approach this issue more objectively, and respond

to the issues you have brought.  For my own sanity, I will comment on these

statements one scholar at a time.  Since I already brought up Ibn Abbas, I

will start with him.

 

Appendix A:

 

Your email mentioned…

 

“Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and

add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM

HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS.”

 

Which book did Bukhari report this statement in?  I cannot find it in his

collection of sound hadith, known as Sahih Al-Bukhari.  If it is not in the

sahih (sound) collection, then it must have been rejected as unsound. If

this is an unsound narration, it really doesn’t belong in our discussion.

 

Having studied Hadith methodology, I am aware of the danger of using

unsound, or forged hadith in coming to conclusions about the religion. 

Regarding the Hadith, there are two camps in the Muslim Ummah.  The majority

accept the authority of hadith, and refer to them when making religious

decisions, while there is a small minority which rejects the authority of

hadith, and only refers to the Quran.  Neither group would accept the

unsound opinion of a companion of Muhammad if it contradicted the message of

the Quran.

 

Appendix B:

 

“and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and

Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the

scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for

a little gain.”

 

How can one seriously argue that he wasn’t saying that the scriptures of the

Jews and Christians were changed?  It’s exactly what he says ‘changed their

scripture’.

 

“In light of this, Ibn Abbas was not claiming that the text had been

corrupted.”

 

If this is the way you’re going to argue, let me try it too…

 

In a previous email you said

“So you still have not proven that Mohammed does not contradict himself”

 

In reality, you were not saying that I didn’t prove my point, you were

actually saying that I was right.  Therefor, we don’t have to discuss this

anymore, because I am right.

 

If you really want to continue this discussion, please refrain from

blatantly misinterpreting clear statements.

 

 

Appendix C:

 

2:75-79

Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to

listen to the Word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had

understood it knowingly? And when they fall in with those who believe, they

say: We believe. But when they go apart one with another they say: Prate ye

to them of that which Allah hath disclosed to you that they may contend with

you before your Lord concerning it? Have ye then no sense? Are they then

unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they

proclaim? Among them are unlettered folk who know the scripture not except

from hearsay. They but guess. Therefore woe be unto those who write the

Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may

purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have

written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

 

Again, you have limited the meaning of this expression, where the Quran does

not limit the meaning. It refers to a group of people among Jews and

Christians, i.e. the People of the Book, who have written their own words,

and claimed them to be from God.

 

It does not say that the unlettered among them were the ones who wrote the

books.

 

It never says which books they wrote, or that those books were later

contained and removed from their collections.

 

It may have been referring to the Priests and Rabbis who kept the books.

 

It may have been referring to the 90% of the Bible which is never mentioned

in the Quran as having been revealed, i.e. books of the Old Testament after

the books of Moses, and before the Psalms, or all of the Books of the new

Testament after the Gospels.  None of the authors of these books are named

as messengers of God in the Quran. Only five are mentioned by name, Moses,

Jesus, Abraham, David and Muhammad.

 

I am going to continue researching the statements of scholars that you have

sent me, only to be thorough.  It seems futile, however to argue that any

scholar of the Quran or any Muslim would have confirmed the authenticity of

Paul’s writings, for instance, while they are never mentioned as revealed

texts in the first place (in the Quran) and they contradict the Quran’s

teachings in so many ways.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:44:04 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Michael,

 

Appendix A:

 

You can find the quote, "They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is

able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word

wrongly. [... and he continues to speak about how the Qur'an is preserved ...] "  in Sahih al-Bukhari,

Kitaab Al-Tawheed, Baab Qawlu Allah Ta'ala, "Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth" (i.e. in

Sahih al-Bukhari, Book "The Oneness of God", the Chapter on Surat Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22

saying, "Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved.") we find in a footnote

between 9.642 and 643:

(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/093.sbt.html#009.093.642) ,

however, the online version doesn't show footnotes, so this doesn't help much - you will have get a hard

copy.

 

However, this is also confirmed by Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected commentators in the Muslims

world, which can be viewed in total online (see below for link), in his tafsir:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Ibn Kathir writes:

 

     Mujahid. Ash-Sha'bi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,

 

     <who distort the Book with their tongues.>

 

     means, "They alter (Allah's Words)."

 

     Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none

among Allah's creation CAN

     REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT

THEIR APPARENT

     MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED

THEM, AND NO LETTER

     IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false

interpretation, relying on books that they

     wrote themselves." Then,

 

     <they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;>

 

     As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi

Hatim recorded this statement ...(Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat

Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh,

Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: March 2000], p. 196; online edition; bold and capital

emphasis ours)  To see the online verson: <http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=3&tid=8586>.

 

Also Ibn Kathir also wrote regarding surah 33:6:

 

     <This has been written in the Book.>

 

This ruling, which is that those who are blood relatives have closer personal ties to one another, is a  ruling

which Allah has decreed and which is written in the First Book WHICH CANNOT BE ALTERED OR

CHANGED. This is  the view of Mujahid and others. (This is the case) even though Allah legislated

something different at certain times, and there is wisdom behind this, for He knew that this would be

abrogated and the original ruling that was instituted an eternity ago would prevail, and this is His universal

and legislative decree. And Allah knows best. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Abridged (Surat An-Nur to Surat

Al-Ahzab, Verse 50) [Darussalam, first edition, August 2000], pp. 643-644; online edition; bold and

capital emphasis ours)   To see online version: <http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41287>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Appendix B:

 

You said:

[“and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and

Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the

scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for

a little gain.”

 

How can one seriously argue that he wasn’t saying that the scriptures of the

Jews and Christians were changed?  It’s exactly what he says ‘changed their

scripture’.]

 

Now Michael, assuming Ibn Kathir is right in quoting Al-Bukhari and that Al-Bukhari is right in quoting

Ibn Abbas, it is NOT ME who is aruing that "he wasn't saying that the scriptures of the Jews and

Christians were changed".  IT IS Ibs Abbas who is clarifying his OWN meaning.  It is Ibn Abbas who

qualifies the phrase, ""They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning.""  to mean

something different than the obvious insitinctual interpretation, using the reasoning that, "Yet no one is able

to change even a single word from any Book of God."  And so finally concludes that the actual and real

way to understand the initial phrase containing the words "corrupt" and "alter" and "change" is to assume

that "The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly."

 

You are putting your mind in a box Michael.  The word "corrupt" according to Ibn Abbas obviously has

more than one meaning.  For example, the Jews could have corrupted the scriptures by:

1. translating them in Arabic text wrongly, by adding to them, while leaving the originals in the Hebrew text

the same,

2. translating them in Arabic text wrongly, by taking away from them, while leaving the originals in the

Hebrew text the same,

3. a mix of (1) and (2),

4. translating them in Arabic words wrongly, by adding to them, while leaving the originals in the Hebrew

text the same,

5. translating them in Arabic words wrongly, by taking away from them, while leaving the originals in the

Hebrew text the same,

6. a mix of (4) and (5),

7. reciting them in Arabic words wrongly, by adding to them, while leaving the originals in the Arabic and

Hebrew text the same,

8. reciting them in Arabic words wrongly, by taking away from them, while leaving the originals in the

Arabic and Hebrew text the same,

9. a mix of (8) and (9),

10. interpreting them in Arabic words wrongly by neglecting certain context, while leaving the originals in

the Arabic words and the Arabic and Hebrew text the same,

11. interpreting them in Arabic words wrongly by emphasizing certain context, while leaving the originals

in the Arabic words and the Arabic and Hebrew text the same,

12.  all the above but having the Hebrew words changed as well.

13. all the above but having the Hebrew text changed as well.

13. and many more options and combinations of whatever.

 

The point is, Michael, that you cannot presume that what you think Ibn Abbas is saying is what you want

him to say.  Ibn Abbas is telling us what he means when he qualifies his OWN use of the words "corrupt"

and "alter" and "change".  Ibn Abbas' interpretation of these words are from his own exegesis of the rest

of the Qur'an and what Mohammed taught him.

 

So to answer your question that was sarcastically made of my comment...:   "How can one seriously argue

that he wasn’t saying that the scriptures of theJews and Christians were changed?  It’s exactly what he

says ‘changed their scripture’"

 

...Simple.  First, Ibn Abbas clarifies his own statement telling us exactly what "changed" does and does

NOT mean.  Second, EVEN IF he did not clarify his own statement, it would be obvious that he could

not have meant to mean many in the above list of possiblitities, for even if some Jews did change certain

amounts of documents of parts of the hebrew and arabic text as well, they very improbably could have

altered ALL of them.  If one does not agree with this last statement, then according to his logic, when the

Jews also "corrupted", "altered", and "chaged", and "perverted" God's words in the Qur'an, they had to

have corrupted ALL of the Qur'an, and so contradict themselves.

 

NOTE:  Even though all of the above is sufficient in itself in reconciling Ibn Abbas' genuine quotes and

meanings, there is extra evidence helping to support my position.

 

For example:

 

1.In other hadith, carefully note what is actually being said:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The people of the Book used to read the Torah IN HEBREW and then explain it

IN ARABIC TO THE MUSLIMS. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). 'Do not believe the people of

the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever

is revealed to you.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9,

Book 92, Number 460)"

 

Muhammad is not attacking the reliability of the Holy Bible, but rather is rejecting the Arabic explanation

of the Hebrew Bible by the Jews. Since Muhammad couldn't read Hebrew, he couldn't tell whether the

Jews were accurately and honestly explaining the Hebrew text in the Arabic language. It is little wonder

that the former warned his community regarding the Jews' explanation. So we again see Osama

misapplying his own Muslim sources.

 

2. "There is among them a section who distort the Book WITH THEIR TONGUES: (As they read) you

would think it is a part of

the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah. It is

they who tell a lie

against Allah, and (well) they know it!" S. 3:78

 

Here, the changes and distortion refers to a misinterpretation of the text, i.e. "with their tongues". The

people were evidently

reciting or quoting certain things and passing it off as being part of the actual text. This view is in accord

with Al-Bukhari's

citation of Ibn Abbas, where the latter stated that the Jews changed and distorted the apparent meanings

of the scriptures, yet

the text remained unchanged.

 

In light of this, Ibn Abbas was not claiming that the text had been corrupted. Rather, Ibn Abbas is clearly

referring to people

changing the text BY THEIR TONGUES, i.e. through their misinterpretation.

 

3.  All the other quotes I've provided in the past, which I will not regurgitate.

 

Appendix C:

 

I reference a quote from your email to support my point.  Of Surah 2.79 you said, "Again, you have

limited the meaning of this expression, where the Quran does not limit the meaning. It refers to a group of

people among Jews and Christians, i.e. the People of the Book, who have written their own words, and

claimed them to be from God."

 

I agree with you that it is NOT clear who the verse is talking about.  That is my point.  It is possible that it

refers to the unlettered folk.  It is possible that it refers to another group, or maybe all groups.  You admit

then that mine or your interpretation on this verse alone, with no extra context, MAY be the correct one.

You say, "It does not say that the unlettered among them were the ones who wrote the books." and "It

never says which books they wrote, or that those books were later contained and removed from their

collections." and "It may have been referring to the Priests and Rabbis who kept the books." and "It may

have been referring to the 90% of the Bible which is never mentioned in the Quran as having been

revealed, i.e. books of the Old Testament after the books of Moses, and before the Psalms, or all of the

Books of the new Testament after the Gospels."

 

I agree fully with your analysis.  It is NOT clear.  So, if it is NOT clear, then you admit that my

interpretation is just as valid a possibility as your interpretation, without extra context.  Now, appealing to

context, and to what Kathir and Bukhari and Abbas say this verse means when they take into account the

rest of the Qur'an and Hadith, we can see that it is clear that they interpret these phrases within these

verses similar to my interpretation, or at least give the possibility that mine is correct.

 

Assuming my interpretation seems to make the Qur'an more understandable and coherent.  On the other

hand, speaking about surah 2.72, and assuming your interepretation, we see that even if it were speaking

of Bible corruption, this still wouldn’t prove the Muslim claim. The text says that only a party of them

wrote false revelation and sold it for gain. The Quran says that there were others who would not allow the

revelation to be tampered with for the sake of monetary profit:

 

"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and that which has

been revealed to you,

in that which has been revealed to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the signs of God for

miserable gain. For

them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account." S. 3:199

 

Your interepretation only allows you to view the history of the corruption of the Bible according to the

Qur'an as limited to isolated events of small groups.

 

I look forward to reviewing your thoughts on the other early sources.

 

Sincerely,

Brian

 

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:00:26 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

Thank you for clarifying your perception of some of the issues I brought up

in my last email.  I thought I was making myself clear, and in fact, I may

have skipped some of the logical points of my argument.

 

Section 1:

 

Regarding Ibn Abbas, Let's assume he said what you've quoted...

 

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and

add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM

HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS.

 

Firstly, this comment refers to the books which Allah revealed.  It does not

mention the books which the People of the

 

Book wrote with their own hands.  The Books which Allah revealed, according

to the Quran are the Torah, the Injeel, the Zabur, the Book of Abraham, and

the Quran.  As we've discussed before, these may at most account for about

10 books of the existing Bible.  This leaves 56 (63 if you're Catholic)

books which are claimed to be from Allah, but Allah Himself never claimed to

have revealed them.

 

Ibn Abbas's statement cannot be interpreted, therefor to be confirming any

book other than those 10.  I however, have a different interpretation of

what he said, if indeed he did say it.  I will explain this under section 2.

 

Secondly, you have failed to consider the verses which explain that the

People of the Book have also hidden some of what they have revealed.  The

implication here is that, even if the original books have been preserved by

the Christians and Jews, we have no way of knowing if they are the same

books which are readily available in what is called 'The Bible'

 

Therefor, the first five books of the Bible, which are named the Torah, by

Christians and Jews, may not be the original Torah.  The original Torah,

either in its entirety, or in part, has been hidden by the Jews.

 

6:91

And they measure not the power of Allah its true measure when they say:

Allah hath naught revealed unto a human being. Say (unto the Jews who speak

thus): Who revealed the Book which Moses brought, a light and guidance for

mankind, which ye have put on parchments which ye show, but ye hide much

(thereof), and by which ye were taught that which ye knew not yourselves nor

(did) your fathers (know it)? Say: Allah. Then leave them to their play of

cavilling.

 

Whether the Jews themselves even know where the complete original text is,

is something I cannot answer.

 

 

Section 2:

The meaning of the statement of Ibn Abbas, is actually something we

discussed before.  I thought you would have remembered it, but I will remind

you.  It is indicated in the other quote which you sent, from Ibn Kathir's

commentary

 

to Quran 33:6...

 

This ruling, which is that those who are blood relatives have closer

personal ties to one another, is a ruling which Allah has decreed and which

is written in the First Book WHICH CANNOT BE ALTERED OR CHANGED.

 

Notice he mentions the 'First Book' here.  This is the Book which is kept

with Allah by His Throne.  I sent you a long email once explaining this

concept.  The following is an excerpt from that email, which refers to the

point in question...

 

-----------------------------------------

 

"Actually, this is refers to a different book all together.  This called the

Book of Decree, which is Allah’s Book.  The Revelations we get are just a

part of this Book, which was written before creation.  It contains

information about everything in the whole universe in detail.  Read the

following verses and statements of the Prophet, and I think you’ll get the

idea.

 

78.29 Everything have We recorded in a Book.

 

Narrated Abu Huraira

Allah's Apostle said, "When Allah completed the creation, He wrote in His

Book which is with Him on His Throne, "My Mercy overpowers My Anger."

 

Narrated Ubadah ibn as-Samit

Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The first thing which Allah

created was Pen. He commanded it to write. It asked: What should I write? He

said: Write the Decree (al-Qadr). So it wrote what had happened and what was

going to happen up to eternity.

 

57.22 Naught of disaster befalleth in the earth or in yourselves but it is

in a Book before We bring it into being--Lo! that is easy for Allah—

 

10.61 And thou (Muhammad) art not occupied with any business and thou

recitest not a lecture from this (Scripture), and ye ( mankind) perform no

act, but We are witness of you when ye are engaged therein. And not an

atom's weight in the earth or in the sky escapeth your Lord, nor what is

less than that or greater than that, but it is (written) in a clear Book.

 

6.59 And with Him are the keys of the invisible. None but He knoweth them.

And He knoweth what is in the land and the sea. Not a leaf falleth but He

knoweth it, not a grain amid the darkness of the earth, naught of wet or dry

but (it is noted) in a clear record.

 

33.6 The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his

wives are as their mothers. Blood relatives have a greater claim on one

another than the other believers and the Muhajirin (early Muslims who

migrated from Makkah to Madinah) according to the Book of Allah: although

you are permitted to some good (through leaving bequests) for your friends

This has been written in the Book of Allah.

 

35.11 Allah created you from dust, then from a little fluid, then He made

you pairs (the male and female). No female beareth or bringeth forth save

with His knowledge. And no one groweth old who groweth old, nor is aught

lessened of his life, but it is recorded in a Book. Lo! that is easy for

Allah

 

The Bible and the Quran are pretty long books, but they can’t possibly

contain every single fact of every aspect of creation down to the atom. 

These verses are referring to Allah’s book of decrees, which remains with

Him, hidden from our knowledge.  Here we see that the Quran is but a part of

this Greater Book, which is kept hidden.

 

56.77-79 That (this) is indeed a noble Qur'an. In a Book kept hidden. Which

none toucheth save the purified,"

 

-----------------------------------------

 

The Quran, the Torah, the Injeel, the Zabur, all of the Books of Allah

remain unchanged in this 'Book kept hidden'.  So indeed, they have not been

changed by anyone.  However, the People of the Book have hidden parts of

them, and have written some of their own, and the end result is that the

Bible we have today is not the same as what Allah originally revealed to His

Prophets.

 

More importantly, there are 56 books which cannot at all be found mentioned

in the Quran or Hadith, and no claims of any scholar of the Quran can be

used to confirm the authenticity of these 56 (63) books, because they are

simply not the books mentioned in the Quran.

 

I pray that the Truth will prevail in our discussions, and if I seem to be

closed minded, I apologize.  I have been holding back from discussing the

Bible with you in detail, but I have many details which support the Quran's

accusation that it has been tampered with.  Perhaps if we discuss these, we

could see each other's points of view more clearly.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

Subject:

            Re: contradiction

       Date:

            Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:29:39 -0500

      From:

            brian lucero <brian@lucerofamily.com>

        To:

            Michael Schmidt <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

 References:

            1

 

 

 

 

Dear Michael,

 

Part 1:

I believe that we are making progress.  About Ibn Abbas' comment on surah 33:6, I could still argue what

"First Book" acutally means, perhaps as an allusion to the revelation given to Moses, as in accordance

with the rest of the quote.  But there is no need to struggle about this quote.  It is very clear that the other

quotes of Ibn Abbas are talking specifically about the previous scriptures on earth, using terms about no

one being able to change or alter a single word, "...from ANY Book of God", and "...from His BOOKS".

More blatantly: "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO

LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED." and "As for Allah's BOOKS, THEY ARE STILL

PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED."  Michael, you can perhaps argue about the surah 33.6

comment, but these other comments are specific and clearly supporting uncorruption of the tangible texts

on earth that were in the Jews' and Christians' possession.

 

So the next question that comes to your mind is quite natural:  "Whether the Jews themselves even know

where the complete original text is, is something I cannot answer."  I believe that this is the next step in our

email correspondence, and that it is not hard track down.  We will have to find out:

1. Where are these uncorrupted texts: the Torah, the Zabur, and the Injeel.

2.  Did Muhammed actually have these uncorrupted texts in his midst at that time.

 

Part 2:

Before we go further, let us clearly define what actually "Torah", "Zabur", and "Injeel" are in the Qur'anic

and Hadithic texts.  You boldly say: "Ibn Abbas's statement cannot be interpreted, therefor to be

confirming any book other than those 10."  while making your case from this argument: "More importantly,

there are 56 books which cannot at all be found mentioned in the Quran or Hadith, and no claims of any

scholar of the Quran can be used to confirm the authenticity of these 56 (63) books, because they are

simply not the books mentioned in the Quran."

 

Is this actually true?  Maybe Muhammed's definition of "Torah" is not what your definition is.  And indeed,

history and early muslim sources will give evidence that "Torah" is NOT defined as ONLY the five books

given to Moses in the Bible, but that it is actually used in the Qur'an to talk about the whole Old

Testament of the Bible.  For example:

-------------

"... Al-Bukhari recorded it from 'Abdullah bin 'Amr. It was also recorded by Al-Bukhari [up to the word]

forgoes. And he mentioned the narration of 'Abdullah bin 'Amr then he said: ‘It was COMMON in the

speech of our Salaf that they describe the Books of the People of the Two Scriptures AS THE

TAWRAH, as some Hadiths concur. Allah knows best.’" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Volume 4,

(Surat Al-Ar'af to the end of Surah Yunus), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of

Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New

York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000], p. 179; online edition; bold and capital emphasis ours)

<http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/sixpoints.html>

--------------

Ibn Kathir says elsewhere:

And it should be recognized that many of our forebears used to apply the word "Torah" to the books of

the peoples of the scriptures. These are in their view more comprehensive than those God

revealed to Moses. This fact is attested from the hadith. (Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad

(Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed

[Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for

Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], Volume I, p. 237)

<http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/taurat.htm>

-----------------

For more on this issue, you can consulte the above web addresses or the ones following:

<http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Meherally/bible_r2.htm>

<http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Meherally/bible.htm>

 

I hope that you are still studying the material that I have provided you outside of our talks.  That would

leave a lot less work for me to quote different things for you.  Albeit, I am learning and memorizing a lot

more than if you didn't force me to get it myself.  :)

 

With care and respect,

Brian Lucero

 

 

 

 

 

Subject:

        Re: contradiction

   Date:

        Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:52:20 +0000

   From:

        "Michael Schmidt" <mkschmidt30@hotmail.com>

     To:

        brian@lucerofamily.com

 

 

 

 

Brian,

  Well I wanted to pass this by quickly, but I got a bit sloppy.  It is

obvious I will need to study this issue a bit further in order to either

convince you of my point, or to rethink my own position.  It may take a

while, so if you don't here from me, don't worry, I'm working diligently.

 

Mike