The Qur’an and Islam

Great posts Mathloom! Thanks for doing this. There’s a lot to respond to here but I’ll just make a couple of quick comments now and come back for a more full response later.

The issue you mention about the difference between a “literal” interpretation and an understanding of the underlying meaning of a passage is interestingly very similar to issue that the Christian world deals with. When you hear people talking about a literal interpretation of the Bible all too often what they are really referring to is a passage or set of passages taken out of context and twisted to mean something very different than it means in the context of the Bible as a whole. The difference generally can be seen by seeing where a person’s heart is at. Licking fingers is just licking fingers. It has no real meaning on its own. Not wasting food, otoh, has real meaning, and it has huge implications with respect to how we are supposed to treat the people around us. And this is a very real thing in Arab culture in general, for those who don’t know. My Arab friends, both Christian and Muslim, (and this probably applies more generally to people of the Middle East including Turks, Persians, etc.), are some of the kindest and caring people I know.

I do understand that this is a very common Islamic belief, but I don’t think it comes from the Qur’an. I have not been able to find it in the Qur’an, and no one as of yet has been able to show it to me in the Qur’an. The Qur’an refers to Christians and Jews as the People of the Book. This is a very important reference, and it never says that that book had been corrupted, or that it will be corrupted at any point in the future, and God would know if it was going to be. The Qur’an says that that God will protect his message, but it doesn’t say that he will protect one and not the others, and it makes many statements confirming the validity of the others. What the Qur’an does talk about is people twisting the meaning of the Bible, and that was indeed happening at that time, as it is in many places today. As we discussed above, however, this is true of both Islam and Christianity, and Judaism as well. So the meaning was being twisted, but not the words. Muslims and Christians believe that God is capable of protecting his word, and has said that he does protect his word, and he has made no indication that any of the official versions of his books have been corrupted.

This issue, imo, is a key point of disconnect between Christians and Muslims, and I believe between the current practice of Islam and the Qur’an.

It’s a common misconception even in the Christian world that Jesus came to “cancel out” something that had existed before. He himself said this:

God sent certain messengers at certain times for certain reasons. If he had meant everything to be revealed at one time there would be only one book and perhaps one messenger. Jesus’ coming brought a focus, an awareness, to what had been overlooked, and his sacrifice established a justification for a law that had always existed, namely justification by faith.

Romans is a great summary book, btw, and I think it does a great job of clarifying a lot of these misunderstandings about Christianity. I’d be happy to do a thread on Romans if you’re interested.

I don’t think it does. I think therein refers to the Gospel. If you look back at 5:44 and 5:45 it says the Jews will be judged by the Law that was revealed to Moses. I believe this section begins by talking about a certain group of people who were in Medina at the time, but then broadens to a general discussion about Judaism, Christianity and Islam and how the fit together.

I read this as summing up the preceding half dozen or so passages. This section has just discussed Judaism and Christianity and their books, and here it talks about the Qur’an. Then it says, “To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way.” This seems to me to refer back to the three groups that have just been discussed. Then it goes on to say, “If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people.” This again seems to confirm that this section is talking about the 3 peoples that have just been discussed, Jews, Christians and Muslims, and then it goes on to explain why God hasn’t made these three people into one people.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html

I'll respond to more of your post a bit later.

 

I’m almost finished with my response to the rest of your previous post, but I just want to duck in here quickly to respond to one point, and I’ll get back to the rest of this post afterwards.

5:13 is referring specifically to Jews (5:14 refers to Christians) but more to the point it is referring to taking things out of context and changing meanings, not the corrupting of the text of the Book. Note that taking things out of context and the changing meaning was indeed taking place with many groups that called themselves Christians at the time as well, and an interesting example can be seen later in 5. (Also note that when the Qur’an makes specific references it’s often making them to specific groups that existed in Medina or Mecca at the time.)

005.075
YUSUFALI: Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
SHAKIR: The Messiah, son of Marium is but a messenger; messengers before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

At first reading this is a very odd reference, because Biblical Christians believe that Jesus and Mary ate food. So what could this be talking about? If you dig into the history books you’ll find that there was a group of heretics at time who believed that Jesus was pure spirit and that he did not eat food. The Qur’an makes reference to groups that were taking things out of context, or twisting meanings, or trying to add things, and in fact all of this did in fact happen, but it never says that the Books had been corrupted. And history bears that out as well, because we know that the books dating from the late 300s are essentially the same as the ones that exist today.

 

I’m close to finishing my other response and when I do I’ll post it, but I don’t mind us narrowing in on a few more specific points and discussing them more thoroughly, and I think you’ve picked some good ones here.

It doesn’t necessarily matter with respect to the people in question, but it does matter with respect to the Book itself. Remember also that the Qur’an refers to different groups of Christians and it treats them differently.

005.066
YUSUFALI: If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.
PICKTHAL: If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
SHAKIR: And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do

005.069
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.

So there are groups of Christians who are on the right path and follow the books, and there are others who have not stood fast and have gone astray. That was in fact the case then, and it is the case today as well. I suspect that you would agree that this is also the case for Islam, however, and I suspect that it’s the same for Judaism as well.

I’ll defer to your knowledge of Arabic, but let me point out a couple of other important details. If you look back at 5:12 you see that 5:13 is specifically talking about the Children of Israel, the Jews, and what happens to them in 5:13 is a direct result of them breaking their covenant with God. “But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them ...,” so this passages is specifically about Jews whereas 5:14 is about Christians. “From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant...” I don’t believe either verse refers to a corruption of the text, and I’ll get into more on that in a minute, but in any case 5:13 is only about Jews and it results from them breaching their covenant with God.

Now, is this talking about some Jews, or a specific group of Jews, or is it talking about all Jews? I think the passages in 5 I’ve quoted above, and earlier ones like 2:62, tell us that this relates to certain groups of Jews and not all Jews. Note that 5:66 doesn’t talk about converting to Islam. It talks about Jews and Christians being on the right path if they stand fast by their books, and there is no suggestion that the books have been compromised or will be compromised. The issue at that time, as it is today, was not that the books had been corrupted. The issue was and is that many people do not follow what they say, and that includes what they say about where one’s heart needs to be, and the Spirit one needs to live by.

I think the significance is in what this says about the nature of the problem. You’ve talked about the problem of some Muslims elevating the Hadith to a higher level of authority than they should. A very similar thing happened to Christianity, and it continues to happen. The Catholic Church for many years relied heavily on traditions that were passed down but that did not appear in the Bible. To make a long story short, while they may have originally been well intended they became over time very corrupt and contrary to what the Bible taught, and that led to the Protestant Reformation. Protestant churches haven’t been immune from this problem either, I should add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Throughout this whole time the Bible remained unaltered. The leadership of the church became extremely corrupt, and it did all kinds of things that were clearly against the teachings of the Bible, but it never tried to change the Bible to try to justify what it was doing.

As I mentioned above, if you read 5:12 and 5:13 you see that 5:13 is specifically about the Children of Israel and is a consequence of them breaking a covenant God had with them. 5:14 refers to Christians and it makes no mention of corruption of any sort. The twisting misrepresenting of words refers to deviations from the texts, not that they were written down wrong. Take the Crusades, for example. These were sanctioned by the Popes of the day, but there’s no way they could have legitimately been justified by anything in the Bible. Today we see things like hatred directed towards homosexuals by some groups, prosperity theology, and various others. This exists in Islam as well with people who take certain passages out of context to justify killing innocent people in suicide attacks, and other such corruptions of the true meaning of the Qur’an. The texts remain the same, but certain groups twist and misrepresent them for their own purposes.

As a footnote, I know of one verse in the Qur’an that refers to a false written document, 2:79.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html

That section is a little hard to get a handle on, but note that the whole section is about Jews, and it appears to relate to an isolated group of people who forged documents. It does not say that the original book is invalid in any way. Further, if the official Book had been corrupted then the rest of the Qur’an would surely be full of warnings not to trust it, but it never says that, and there are numerous references to the books being valid.

I assume the belief that the older books have been corrupted assumes that they were corrupted after the Qur’an was written, but I’ve never seen that stated anywhere. I think that’s the only way to account for all the places that say that the previous books are valid, but imo even that logic fails because the Qur'an has to be timeless. God's books do refer to specific events and contexts, but the messages have to be timeless. I don’t believe that God would tell people to trust the books from before if they were corrupt or were going to become corrupted at any point in the future. The Qur’an says that these books are God’s word, so if you believe the Qur’an I believe that you must believe that they were then and are now God’s word. The qualifier that needs to be added quickly here, however, is that many groups then and now misrepresent the Bible. The book is trustworthy, but what these groups say it says is not necessarily trustworthy. Of course there are a number of people and groups who are as trustworthy as well, as trustworthy as any fallible human can be anyway, but that was trustworthy enough in 10:94.

 

That sounds interesting, but it would be better for me if you held off on it for a little bit. This thread is eating up all my forum time at the moment.

 

The answer to this depends a bit on what you’re asking about. Yes he was a Jew, but he challenged the Jewish leaders of the day. They said he wasn’t obeying Jewish law, and he said he was and that they weren’t obeying God’s Law.

I don’t know the answer to this one off hand. I believe they were probably all Jews but I don’t think that’s stated explicitly.

I don’t think I’m following what you’re looking for, but yes Jesus would have known the Gospels when he was born as a man on earth. Jesus has always existed and he is one with God, so he would have known.

The whole of John 8 should help answer your first question as well.

With respect to Jesus knowing the Gospels, however, I think there’s another point that becomes important. Jesus is the word become flesh.

If you want to dig more into this one I’m going to have to look at some supplementary material, because there’s a lot here and I wouldn’t want to overlook some important aspects of what this means.