The Conference unfolds to the balanced mind. Its soul is the honor of the search, the equanimity of judgment and the breath of beauty. Beauty is an intricate state of balance weighed by the scales of the Lord. The essence of beauty is balance, like the equipoise of sight, the restitutions of love and the harmony in the Divine word. I sit unfolding on the pages of the Conference uncovering the power of beauty to restore the imbalance of the mind. It is love, which I nurture in myself for it guards the scales. But if love has the power to guard the scales, bigotry is the ugliness colonizing the feeble soul. Bigotry is an infection of fear or hate, pillaging through the immunities of the heart. Bigotry is the quintessential disruption of the magnanimity of the mind. It was the bigotry of colonialism that once intruded upon our existence and ravished our lives. It severed us from our Conference, and persuaded us that our heritage is but a lie. The disease of colonialism had infected our hearts, our minds, our limbs and our sight. We saw our history as a corruption and aberration to be apologetically denied. Infected with bigotry, in our imbalance, we idealized the beginning of our history, and the rest — we demonized. Whether it is the bigotry of fear or hate, the bigotry of the colonizer or colonized, the bigotry of friend or foe, the same ugliness corrupts the scales of the Lord. A new piece of bigotry by Daniel Pipes, and the intrusion disrupts you. It is not that the bigotry is novel or original, but the very fact that you take time to respond is an annoying chore. What can one say to bigotry that could possibly help it restore the imbalance in its soul? What can one say to those who project their ugliness unto existence, and come to believe that history is like a painted whore – it exists for their pleasure, for their whims, and exists to service their political goals.
Pipes’ new revelation about Islam and Muslims is that their history is quite possibly a lie. Misery loves misery, and so Pipes teams up with Ibn Warraq, a pitiful figure inviting Muslims to liberate themselves from their religion and their Lord. Earlier on, Ibn Warraq fascinated us with his ranting about why he is not a Muslim. Of course, his title came from Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not a Christian, but while Russell wrote philosophy, what Ibn Warraq wrote is an inanity, and an utter intellectual bore. This time the man with the funny name collected a bunch of articles and published them under the title The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. One of the two introductions to the book is written by a fellow with the pathetic pseudo-name Ibn Rawandi. Perhaps, our contemporary authors are alluding to friendship between the historical Ibn Rawandi and al-Warraq, both from the third Islamic century. The Manicheism and heresy of the historical figures is debated, but compared to the originals, our modern authors are unfortunate mutations and intellectual trolls. Perhaps, our two authors could not imagine that a Muslim writer could be named anything except the “Ibn” or “Abu” of something, and thought the pseudo-names sounded really cool. Perhaps, our authors simply sought to hide behind their bigotry, and sought to create with their pseudo-names their own mysterious lore. Pseudo-names betray the lack of conviction and cowardliness of their adopters. At any case, the issue is not the facetious name holders; the issue is our ostentatious long-time friend Daniel Pipes. Pipes, like his jovial friends, contends that Arabic sources on Islam are inherently unreliable, and so what we think we know about Islam is not what we should know. Pipes claims that Arabic sources were written a century and a half after the Prophet’s death. Furthermore, non-Muslim sources dramatically contradict the standard Muslim biography of the Prophet Muhammad, and when a Muslim and a non-Muslim speak, of course, we all know who we should believe. Pipes applauds the efforts of revisionist historians such as John Wansbrough, Yehuda Nevo, Judith Koren and Patricia Crone. According to Pipes, historical revisionism challenges the idea that Muhammad preached in Mecca, that Arabic was the language of early Arabia, that Arabic was the language of early Muslims, that there was ever such a thing as early Muslims, that the Prophet was born in 570 or, for that matter, Muhammad existed at all. The Quran was not the product of the Prophet or even Arabia, but is nothing more than liturgical material stolen from the Judeo-Christian tradition, stitched together at a late point. Islamic history, as found in Muslim sources, is no more than a pious lie, a salvation history, by a rootless people, a soul-less people trying to invent a unique identity of their own. Discharging the White Man’s Burden, Pipes, may God bless his merciful soul, advises Muslims that revisionism is a school that they can no longer afford to ignore. According to Pipes, revisionism is a toothache, and those poor pious Muslims, immersed in their delusions and superstition, think that the toothache will disappear on its own. But Pipes, like my kind mother who taught me oral hygiene and the importance of a daily shower, teaches Muslims that toothaches don’t just go away. Toothaches, you silly willy-nilly Muslims need doctors, need rationalists, need Pipes because, darn it, they just don’t go away on their own! Thank God for Pipes, who like his colonial predecessors, guides us to the truth of history, the falsity of our piety and the fact that the objectivism of science is the cure for our superstitious souls. Without the cant of our masters how could we have ever figured out what to do with toothaches, headaches or any other ache or sore? Revisionism, like all forms of incipient or established bigotry, rests on several peculiar assumptions. Assumption number one is that Muslims invariably lie. Perhaps the genetic pool of Muslims is the culprit or perhaps it is that Muslims are prone to conspiratorial delusions, and can hardly distinguish fiction from fact. According to Pipes and his revisionists, Muslims have no qualms about inventing, lying or cheating as long as it serves their salvation goals. The second assumption follows from the first. A non-Muslim source is inherently more reliable because non-Muslims have a notion of historical objectivism. Therefore, if, for instance, a hundred Muslim sources say one thing and one Syriac source says another, it is an open and shut case. The Syriac source is inherently more reliable because those pesky Muslims cannot help but lie. The third assumption is no less interesting. Muslim history is “salvation history” written by the self-serving unreliable faithful. Muslims are biased who are persistent in their search for their ever-allusive identity. Non-Muslims, on the other hand, are fair-minded even if non-Muslims have their own set of interests because, after all, non-Muslims have no need for salvation; their Lord has already salvaged their blessed souls. So the methodology of revisionism is simple: ignore what Muslims say about themselves or others, and believe what non-Muslims say about themselves or Muslims. The fourth assumption of revisionism is the one least confessed, but is unmistakable in methodology and conclusion. Muslims are a barbaric people; whatever good they might have produced, they must have conveniently borrowed from Judaism, Christianity or some other more civilized source. Whatever barbarism Muslims might have produced, that, naturally, comes from the depth of their hearts and souls, but whatever beauty they may have possessed they simply stole. But revisionists will say, “No, you misguided emotional Muslim friend. You simply don’t realize that Islamic history was composed in the context of intense partisan quarrels. Knowing how emotional Muslims can be, Muslims simply wrote their history to affirm their beliefs.” But if there was no Prophet or Quran or even history, what was the cause of the partisan quarrels? Well, perhaps nothing more than the well-known Arab hunger for money and wealth, or the Arab inability to transcend their ethnic divisions and pedantic tribal lusts. The fact that Syriac or Jewish sources had their own partisan interests and biases is immaterial, of course, because non-Muslims invariably speak the truth. Furthermore, the fact that a Greek source might be reporting on rumors or on corrupted transmissions received from Muslims themselves does not at all impeach their reliability. We can never forget; Muslims lie and non-Muslims speak the truth. Of course, Pipes, and his funny named friends, conveniently ignore that accounts of the Prophet’s life were written in the first century after his death. While they love to claim the authoritativeness of papyri and coinage to their side, they never explain what coinage or papyri they are talking about. Are papyri or coinage reliable sources regardless of the source? Even more, they ignore papyri written in the first century documenting traditions about the Prophet, and Umayyad and Abbasid coinage supporting Muslim historical accounts. They also ignore papyri documented by Sezgin and others demonstrating the existence of the Quran in the first century of Islam in its current form. Furthermore, they ignore that the Quran does not reflect the historical context of the second or third Islamic centuries, but shows an overwhelming pre-occupation with the affairs of Quraysh, Mecca, Medina, the hypocrites and the Prophet. According to the revisionists, in the time of the Abbasids, Muslims fabricated the Quran in the second and third centuries. But apparently they did not find a better way to reflect their historical context than to talk about Quraysh or Mecca, concepts which the revisionists believe were invented and which, if one accepts the revisionist logic, no one understood or cared about. Not only that, but even more, those lying cheating Muslims instead of relying on their own poetry or mythology, they could not find something better than the Judeo-Christian liturgy. In short, such are the sad affairs of Muslims, they lie and eventually believe their own lies. But Pipes, and his friends, will surely say, “Muslims don’t have a history, and so history Muslims cannot understand. You poor ahistorical Muslim here you go again with your emotions getting out of hand. Don’t you realize that historical revisionism assaulted Christianity and Judaism as well? Don’t you realize that both religions survived, but profoundly changed, as Islam surely will?” “Well, of course I thank you for assuring me that Islam will survive. But revisionism in the case of non-Muslim history is a critical skepticism as to institutional and official histories, but in the case of Islam it is outright bigotry. What school of historical revisionism has ever claimed that all Jewish, Christian, British or French sources cannot be believed? What school of revisionism has branded an entire people as compulsive liars?” The truth is that revisionists dealing with Islamic history are ideologues without the critical integrity of scholars. We can take one example of Pipes methodology and ponder his style. Pipes claims that an unspecified inscription and a Greek account leads Lawrence Conrad to fix the Prophet’s birth at 522 not 570. Apparently, Pipes did not bother reading Conrad’s study. Conrad heavily relies on debates in Muslim sources concerning the dating of the Year of the Elephant. He also relies on debates in Muslim sources regarding whether the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant or on an earlier date. Conrad analyzes the claim that the Prophet received revelation at the age forty, and simply points out that the age forty was considered a literary topoi for maturity in Arabic and non-Arabic literature. Therefore, the argument that the Prophet was forty when he started his mission could possibly be a symbolic usage signifying that the Prophet had reached an age of maturity. Significantly, Conrad does not reach a conclusion about the date of the Prophet’s birth. Rather, he argues that Beeston’s and Kister’s conclusion that the Year of the Elephant was in 522, is supported by strong evidence. He then, appropriately, emphasizes the complexity of establishing the Prophet’s date of birth. This is a far cry from Pipes’ misrepresentation of Conrad. But Conrad is a scholar, and Pipes is an ideologue. Many of Pipes’ delusions are fed by the infamous book Hagarism. Yet, very few people in the scholarly community take that book seriously. Even later works by the authors of Hagarism demonstrate a greater degree of fair mindedness and scholarly integrity. If Hagarism was written in a fit of indulgent fantasy, the same cannot be said about works that followed in its footsteps. Much of the work of revisionism was spearheaded by scholars with a regrettable political agenda. Like vulgar forms of Orientalism, revisionists sought to de-legitimate and deconstruct the tradition of their perceived enemies. The bigotry of the Israeli scholars Koren and Nevo is evident. They contend that any Arabic source must be corroborated by a non-Arabic source, and if the two sources conflict, as a matter of course, the non-Arab is to be believed. Wellhausen and Wansbrough were biblical scholars, and their circumspect methodology with Jewish and biblical studies contrasts sharply with their speculative fancies with Islamic history. The truth is that the fanaticism of revisionism in doubting Islamic history is the opposite side of the coin of the fanaticism of pietistic sanctifications of Islamic history. Each is an imbalance, each is extreme and each is ugly. But the distinguishing feature of revisionism is its bigotry. Imagine if European history was written only by reliance on Muslim sources. Imagine if the Jewish history of the Second Temple was written only by reliance on Roman sources. Imagine if Christian history was written only by reliance on Jewish sources. Imagine if the history of the American Revolution was written only by reliance on British sources. Imagine if Israeli history was written only through the eyes of Palestinians. But it is impossible to write these histories in this fashion because no respectable historian would claim the inherent inaccuracy of all European, American, Jewish, Christian and Israeli sources. What would Pipes think of revisionist historians who claim that the Exodus of Jews from Egypt is a myth, and that the First or Second Temple never existed because Jews never lived in Palestine at any point in their history? The truth is that the bigotry of revisionists is like the anti-Semitism of Holocaust-deniers who write the history of Jews by relying on the sources of their German enemies. No, revisionism is not a toothache; it is an insolent attempt to deny a people their very identity, it is the ugliness of Colonialism, and the imbalance of fear and insecurity. Revisionism is the heartache of simple bigotry.
HeiGou said on 22 September 2006:
Khaled Abou El-Fadl:”No, revisionism is not a toothache; it is an insolent attempt to deny a people their very identity, it is the ugliness of Colonialism, and the imbalance of fear and insecurity. Revisionism is the heartache of simple bigotry.”
Of course the irony is that Islam is revisionism too. It too is an attempt to deny Jews and Christians their identity. It is an attempt to deny that Moses was a Jew, Jesus a Christian, and claim those peoples’ history as Muslim history. It is a vaster and more offensive appropriation of other peoples’ history than the Revisionists. And even more ironic is the accusation that Revisionists claim Muslim always lie, because that is what Muslims claim about Jews and Christians. If 100 Christians and/or Jews say one thing and 1 Muslim says another, it is the Muslim that is right of course. Take, for instance, the Crucifixtion. I suggest we all stop using words like “insolent” and agree to settle academic disputes in a civilised manner - through debate without insults and threats. But the bigots who are fearful and insecure are unlikely to agree are they?
Nafees said on 25 September 2006:
HeiGou,
How not nice to see you here. Had enough of spreading your hate elsewhere? not able to actually deal with any of the substantive points in the article?
This is that the same bigot, who suggested on the Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ forums:
(pardon his language) “…a new policy of f****ing muslims over”
so much for settling disputes in “a civilised manner”!
Him and his ilk have let hate of others consume their entire being, in order to divert rather than confront their own inherent malfeasance.
As Khaled put so well.. “What can one say to those who project their ugliness unto existence..”
Nafees
tariq said on 1 October 2006:
excellent article. i have read this article somewhere before, cant remember where
this article is the first im seeing on bismika Allahuma that does not have a single source citation!
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:
islam is revisionism???
quite strange. the holy qur’an does not deny the terms ‘christian’ (nasrani) or ‘jews’ (yahudi) to the respective ‘nations’ (ummah) of prophets moses and jesus, peace be upon them both and to all the messengers of Allah. but it also says that these two were totally submissive to the will of God. do the christians and jews deny this themselves? of course they have complaints regarding the term ‘muslim’, but that is what the term simply means.
well, we don’t deny what christians or jews say… as long as they have the evidence to back it up. take for example the crucifixion… the Qur’an says that it would seem that prophet jesus would die… and, voila! we read in the bible that the evangelists thought that jesus died! where is the contradiction, or denial?
the point here is that none of the claimed ‘eyewitness’ evangelists were never really eyewitnesses at all, and neither will that be proven. this is not just according to the muslims (though muslims have been insisting about it even before the advent of modern biblical criticism), but according to christian scholars themselves. now, regarding islamic sources, whatever objections you may or revisionists may have, the fact is that islam developed a method to verify the authenticity of sources early in its history. quite unlike judaism and christianity.
so, if 1 jew says that the prophet moses ordered the massacre of populations, the murder of babies, and the rape of virgin women, i would believe that jew, as long as he has the evidence to back it up. i would believe even just 1 christian that jesus taught that he was God or Son of God, if he could produce an unbroken chain of transmission through reliable eyewitnesses that jesus said something to that effect. but no, they can’t. however, much of the practices and rites of islam could be traced back to the prophet through mass-transmitted (mutawatir) reports. in the final analysis, even from a hostile perspective, muslims are on much firmer ground regarding their religion than christians and jews are.
HeiGou said on 2 October 2006:
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:”islam is revisionism??? quite strange. the holy qur’an does not deny the terms ‘christian’ (nasrani) or ‘jews’ (yahudi) to the respective ‘nations’ (ummah) of prophets moses and jesus, peace be upon them both and to all the messengers of Allah. but it also says that these two were totally submissive to the will of God. do the christians and jews deny this themselves? of course they have complaints regarding the term ‘muslim’, but that is what the term simply means.”
Yes. So Islam is not a total rejection of the truth of Judaism or Christianity, it simply claims that all the important Jews and Christians were Muslims. It is Revisionism by definition. Jews and Christians flatly deny that Moses, Abraham, Jesus et al were Muslims. It is what the word means but it is not simply what the word means - when Muslims claim these people were Muslims, they are denying that they were Jews or Christians.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:”well, we don’t deny what christians or jews say… as long as they have the evidence to back it up. take for example the crucifixion… the Qur’an says that it would seem that prophet jesus would die… and, voila! we read in the bible that the evangelists thought that jesus died! where is the contradiction, or denial?”
Well you do deny what they have to say even if they have evidence for it because, after all, the Bible also goes on to say that Jesus died but was resurrected. I assume you deny that.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:the point here is that none of the claimed ‘eyewitness’ evangelists were never really eyewitnesses at all, and neither will that be proven.”
As opposed to Muhammed who never went to Egypt or Palestine much less met Moses or Lot or any of the other people mentioned in the Quran? Nor is there any evidence that the people who wrote the Bible were not eyewitnesses.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:”this is not just according to the muslims (though muslims have been insisting about it even before the advent of modern biblical criticism), but according to christian scholars themselves.”
Find a Christian scholar who believes anything Muslims do. Just one. You should not confuse modern scholarship with a defence of Islam.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:now, regarding islamic sources, whatever objections you may or revisionists may have, the fact is that islam developed a method to verify the authenticity of sources early in its history. quite unlike judaism and christianity.”
Well no it does not. You are wrong on both counts. The method to verify the authenticity of the aHadith is restricted to the aHadith. Not the Quran. It was not developed early, but some 200 years after the death of Muhammed. It is also highly flawed as Western scholars have proven. Second, of course Jews and Christians have developed methods to do so. They tend to believe God protects the Text.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:”so, if 1 jew says that the prophet moses ordered the massacre of populations, the murder of babies, and the rape of virgin women, i would believe that jew, as long as he has the evidence to back it up.”
I suspect you would be inclined to believe that anyway because it makes Jews look bad. Tell me if you believe that Moses did such a thing.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:i would believe even just 1 christian that jesus taught that he was God or Son of God, if he could produce an unbroken chain of transmission through reliable eyewitnesses that jesus said something to that effect. but no, they can’t.”
They don’t need to. Don’t judge Christian teachings by Muslim standards. Isnads are irrelevant to Judaism or Christianity.
aian jaafar said on 2 October 2006:however, much of the practices and rites of islam could be traced back to the prophet through mass-transmitted (mutawatir) reports. in the final analysis, even from a hostile perspective, muslims are on much firmer ground regarding their religion than christians and jews are. ”
Back to Muhammed. But no further. There is precisely no evidence whatsoever of any Islamic practice before Muhammed. It is exactly what you would expect if, for example, Muhammed made it all up and then claimed it was “really” what the Jews were talking about. Muslims are not because they are so dependent on the Quran and the aHadith. The aHadith fall before any objective and sensible analysis. Material is lacking for the study of the Quran, but Western scholars, as the article points out, have problem with that too. Without either or both, Islam is nothing. Christianity depends on a different source - the Resurrection of Christ and His presence in the world today. Nothing you say about the Bible can change that and so Christians will remain unbothered.
DoctorMaybe said on 4 October 2006:
Not really. I’ve met and heard of quite a few christians who believe in Muhammad(pbuh). There is also a Jew who believes in Muhammad(pbuh) but prefers following Moses(pbuh) since he was stronger according to him.
How about the hanafiyyah? Karen Armstrong writes in her book “The History of God” that a fifth century Palestinian historian Sozomenos recorded an instance where some Jews and Christians left their faiths to puruse the religion of Abraham. In my opinion, Allah sent Muhammad(pbuh) with the religion of Abraham. Muhammad(pbuh) didnt make anything up, no matter how much you hate it.
As for the Quran, tell me do all Western scholars agree that it ws written 200 years after Muhammad(pbuh)? You make it sound as though only your OPINIONS hold ground, no one elses. Get a life you moron!
DoctorMaybe said on 4 October 2006:
As for a Christian scholar, how about hans kung?
tariq said on 4 October 2006:
“There is precisely no evidence whatsoever of any Islamic practice before Muhammed.”
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed….(Matthew 16:39)”
how do u fell to ur face and pray without the islamic way of sijdah?
HeiGou said on 5 October 2006:
DoctorMaybe said on 4 October 2006:”Not really. I’ve met and heard of quite a few christians who believe in Muhammad(pbuh). There is also a Jew who believes in Muhammad(pbuh) but prefers following Moses(pbuh) since he was stronger according to him.”
I have never met one. By definition they are Muslims. Sure they are not just being polite? No doubt there are some Jews who are Muslims. They have a website. But they are, of course, Muslims.
DoctorMaybe said on 4 October 2006:”How about the hanafiyyah? Karen Armstrong writes in her book “The History of God” that a fifth century Palestinian historian Sozomenos recorded an instance where some Jews and Christians left their faiths to puruse the religion of Abraham. In my opinion, Allah sent Muhammad(pbuh) with the religion of Abraham. Muhammad(pbuh) didnt make anything up, no matter how much you hate it.”
No doubt there have always been Jews and Christians who have become Muslims just as there are Muslims who have become Christians and perhaps even Jews. I am not concerned with your opinion as such. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.
DoctorMaybe said on 4 October 2006:”As for the Quran, tell me do all Western scholars agree that it ws written 200 years after Muhammad(pbuh)? You make it sound as though only your OPINIONS hold ground, no one elses. Get a life you moron!”
I made no comment on when the Quran was written, but no, there is no consensus as yet. That 200 years referred to the aHadith but I can see how that might have been confusing.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:
HeiGou said on 2 October 2006: “Yes. So Islam is not a total rejection of the truth of Judaism or Christianity, it simply claims that all the important Jews and Christians were Muslims. It is Revisionism by definition. Jews and Christians flatly deny that Moses, Abraham, Jesus et al were Muslims. It is what the word means but it is not simply what the word means - when Muslims claim these people were Muslims, they are denying that they were Jews or Christians.”
Well, if they deny that these prophets are submissive to God, then they deny what their religion preaches. So now you’re saying that Moses is a Jew- even though he does not belong
to the tribe of judah. of course the word “jew” has many connotations and many beliefs corollary to the application of the word. if what you mean by jew is someone from the children of israel who took a special covenant with God on mount sinai- how does the Qur’an deny that? we are simply denying practices, beliefs,or even scriptures which cannot be traced back to Moses, to Jesus, or to any prophet,for that matter.
hei gou said regarding the crucifixion: “Well you do deny what they have to say even if they have evidence for it because, after all, the Bible also goes on to say that Jesus died but was resurrected. I assume you deny that.”
well, where is the evidence you were talking about? this is connected to a point i was making about the evangelists not being eyewitnesses. again, the qur’an claims that they thought that jesus died. and that is precisely what i read in the bible, someone claiming to witness the crucifixion from afar, and thinking that jesus died! of course, “john” claimed to be near the cross, but this is where modern criticism of the authenticity of his gospel comes in.
hei gou said: ” As opposed to Muhammed who never went to Egypt or Palestine much less met Moses or Lot or any of the other people mentioned in the Quran? Nor is there any evidence that the people who wrote the Bible were not eyewitnesses.”
more on the Beloved Prophet later. but then, hei gou is arguing from silence. since there isn’t any evidence that they were not eyewitnesses, then they were eyewitnesses! luke himself admitted that he is not an eyewitness. how about the others? here is where the doubt regarding the bible comes in.
hei gou said: “Find a Christian scholar who believes anything Muslims do. Just one. You should not confuse modern scholarship with a defence of Islam.”
i am not confusing the two. i just mentioned that some of the findings of modern scholarship tend to confirm the early criticisms of muslims regarding the bible. but it definitely disproves the beliefs of bible inerrantists.
hei gou said (regarding the method of verifying authenticity of islamic sources): “Well no it does not. You are wrong on both counts. The method to verify the authenticity of the aHadith is restricted to the aHadith. Not the Quran. It was not developed early, but some 200 years after the death of Muhammed. It is also highly flawed as Western scholars have proven. Second, of course Jews and Christians have developed methods to do so. They tend to believe God protects the Text.”
this website, and also islamic awareness.org has already tackled this. i confess that i am not an expert regarding this. but you have admitted that a “highly-flawed” method was developed 200 yrs after the Prophet’s death. so, something was developed to gauge the authenticity of texts then. could you tell me what the jews and christians developed regarding the authenticity of their sources, besides claiming that God protects the text? we muslims also claim that regarding the Qur’an. you could start by telling us what standards the christians and jews used to determine the books of the biblical canon(s).
hei gou said (regarding prophet moses’ alleged orders to slay infants and sucklings,and rape virgin women): “I suspect you would be inclined to believe that anyway because it makes Jews look bad. Tell me if you believe that Moses did such a thing.”
no, i don’t believe the prophet moses,peace be upon him, ordered those acts, there is no evidence that he really did, except for the old testament, which is unreliable on some parts. i am not just inclined to believe that is in the bible just because it makes jews look bad. are you a mind-reader now? by the way, since you admit that this makes jews look bad, then it also makes christians look bad, to think that Yahweh ordered such acts, even if they are allegedly already abrogated by the blood of Christ. the real question is, do you believe that he really ordered those acts?
hei gou said (regarding ‘isnads’): “They don’t need to. Don’t judge Christian teachings by Muslim standards. Isnads are irrelevant to Judaism or Christianity.”
isnads are irrelevant because judaism and christianity simply does not have a method to disclose the source of the information they believe in. it’s not a question of whether they need to or not. the truth is they won’t and they can’t. this is precisely what i am trying to tell you. whatever flaws the science of isnad allegedly has, we muslims have developed something to determine what the Prophet said, or did not say. Christians and jews, on the other hand, aren’t even agreed on which bible to read, what to say of what the prophets moses and jesus really said! well, at least muslims have “muslim standards”. that is, we believe whatever the Prophet Muhammad says, and that is what we are trying to determine using the “muslim standard” of isnad. if the Prophet tells us that something is part of the Qur’an, then we include it in the Qur’an. then we determine an unbroken chain of transmission through reliable narrators if he really said something or did smoething like that. care to tell us about jewish and christian standards? for example, could you tell us why the book of esther was included in the canon(s)?
it is actually very easy to shut muslims up when we talk about the bible. just prove that moses or jesus REALLY said what you’re claiming they said. but we can’t confirm, can we? it’s because you don’t have an isnad, and that is a deficiency on the part of judaism and christianity, not islam. but you’re talking as if you’re proud that your religion does not have the means to verify what these holy men really said, did, or taught.
hei gou said (regarding my statement that much of the islamic rites can be traced back to the prophet muhammad through mass-transmitted reports): Back to Muhammed. But no further. There is precisely no evidence whatsoever of any Islamic practice before Muhammed. It is exactly what you would expect if, for example, Muhammed made it all up and then claimed it was “really” what the Jews were talking about. Muslims are not because they are so dependent on the Quran and the aHadith. The aHadith fall before any objective and sensible analysis. Material is lacking for the study of the Quran, but Western scholars, as the article points out, have problem with that too. Without either or both, Islam is nothing. Christianity depends on a different source - the Resurrection of Christ and His presence in the world today. Nothing you say about the Bible can change that and so Christians will remain unbothered
is there any evidence of “Christian” practices before Prophet Jesus? but there is evidence of “islamic” (generic islam) beliefs before “Islam” with the capital “I”. belief in God, His angels, books, prophets, and the day of Judgment. there is the hajj, which is, contrary to being a pagan rite, is a continuation of a much earlier abrahamic rite. regarding the statement that the Beloved Prophet could have invented his teachings, well that’s a different topic. but we have shown you a clear standard of how we judge what to believe in. you haven’t provided an example of how even one book of the New Testament got in the canon, and how such a standard could have been compatible with the standard regarding the other books of the bible. thus, “the Resurrection of Christ and His presence in the world today” would be irrelevant, and there is reason for christians to be bothered. how did you arrive on such a statement? isn’t it because of what the bible supposedly says?
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:
just a minor point,which i forgot to include in my post. you’re saying that jews and christians flat out deny that abraham was a muslim. so, what was he? was he a jew, or a christian then? or was he submissive to God (muslim)?
DoctorMaybe said on 5 October 2006:
HeiGou, it seems that you have not understood the claim I made about Hanafiyya.
As for the Christians, Hans Kung believes in Muhammad’s prophethood. A christian lady I communicated with several days ago believes in him as well; although she said that the scribes changed the Quran and distorted the image of Jesus.
HeiGou said on 5 October 2006:
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”Well, if they deny that these prophets are submissive to God, then they deny what their religion preaches. So now you’re saying that Moses is a Jew- even though he does not belong to the tribe of judah. of course the word “jew” has many connotations and many beliefs corollary to the application of the word. if what you mean by jew is someone from the children of israel who took a special covenant with God on mount sinai- how does the Qur’an deny that? we are simply denying practices, beliefs,or even scriptures which cannot be traced back to Moses, to Jesus, or to any prophet,for that matter.”
I do not make any comment on whether they were submissive to God. I continue to point out that only Muslims think they were Muslims. Which is not a denial of what Judaism and Christianity teaches but in fact standard orthodoxy for those two religions. Most people think Moses was a Jew. The Quran insists that he was a Muslim and hence not a Jew. Actually there is no evidence of anyone engaging in Muslim-specific practices before Muhammed. None. I expect that Jewish-specific practices have a much longer and better documented history than Islamic ones. Your view is a theological one, not a historical one.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”well, where is the evidence you were talking about? this is connected to a point i was making about the evangelists not being eyewitnesses. again, the qur’an claims that they thought that jesus died. and that is precisely what i read in the bible, someone claiming to witness the crucifixion from afar, and thinking that jesus died! of course, “john” claimed to be near the cross, but this is where modern criticism of the authenticity of his gospel comes in.”
How do you know that they were not eyewitnesses? And the Gospels are evidence of a sort. There is precisely no evidence for the Quranic view before Muhammed. Find me anyone else who thought that before Muhammed was born. The Bible also claims that He did die and rose again. You are selective in which parts of the Bible you choose to believe. Why? There is modern criticism of a lot of the Bible, but from an evidence-based point of view it tends to derive from “people don’t die and rise again” rather than “the evidence says that…”.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”i am not confusing the two. i just mentioned that some of the findings of modern scholarship tend to confirm the early criticisms of muslims regarding the bible. but it definitely disproves the beliefs of bible inerrantists.”
Actually it doesn’t. If you pick and choose carefully among the modern scholarship you can find things you like. But the modern view that says “miracles are unscientific and so don’t happen whatever the Bible says about the Resurrection” also applies to the Virgin Birth (which I assume you accept) and so on - to the miracles of Muhammed even. So your approach is inherently flawed in that you are not dealing with the entire argument but only those bits that agree with what you, I assume, have decided is true anyway.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”this website, and also islamic awareness.org has already tackled this. i confess that i am not an expert regarding this. but you have admitted that a “highly-flawed” method was developed 200 yrs after the Prophet’s death. so, something was developed to gauge the authenticity of texts then.”
The Hadith. Not the Quran. I am quite impressed with the methodology of people like Bukhari so it is a surprise to me that he seems to get so much wrong.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”could you tell me what the jews and christians developed regarding the authenticity of their sources, besides claiming that God protects the text? we muslims also claim that regarding the Qur’an. you could start by telling us what standards the christians and jews used to determine the books of the biblical canon(s).”
Do they need one? Christians, Jews and Muslims are all agreed that their texts are protected by God and need nothing else. Well Muslims have a problem because the Quran tells them so little about their religion, but more or less, all three are on the same page. I am not sure what the Jewish and Christian standard is but as God protects the text it hardly matter does it?
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”no, i don’t believe the prophet moses,peace be upon him, ordered those acts, there is no evidence that he really did, except for the old testament, which is unreliable on some parts. i am not just inclined to believe that is in the bible just because it makes jews look bad. are you a mind-reader now? by the way, since you admit that this makes jews look bad, then it also makes christians look bad, to think that Yahweh ordered such acts, even if they are allegedly already abrogated by the blood of Christ. the real question is, do you believe that he really ordered those acts?”
I find it hard to believe anyone would invent them if they were not true. The same approach as a lot of things said about Muhammed. But evidence for them does not appear strong to me. The choice though comes down to whether a very old quasi-historical Jewish text is to be believed or a more modern text written by someone unconnected to the original people involved is. That, to me, is no contest.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”isnads are irrelevant because judaism and christianity simply does not have a method to disclose the source of the information they believe in. it’s not a question of whether they need to or not. the truth is they won’t and they can’t. this is precisely what i am trying to tell you.”
Actually I have pointed out that they have - they think, like Muslims, that God protects their texts. They do not need the isnads. Muslims do - the more so because Muslims reject reason. The equivalent of the aHadith in Jewish law would be Midrash, the Mishrah and Gemarra (that is, comment on the Bible, the oral law, and commentaries on the oral law). These are not protected in any way but are to be discussed and thought about. They are not sacred. The Christian equivalent would be canon law and philosophy. Again neither of these are sacred or protected. They are all the product of reason and argument. If you reject reason you need something else like an isnad.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”whatever flaws the science of isnad allegedly has, we muslims have developed something to determine what the Prophet said, or did not say. Christians and jews, on the other hand, aren’t even agreed on which bible to read, what to say of what the prophets moses and jesus really said!”
I think you may find that Jews and Christians are fairly agreed, within their own groups, on the Bible. The Jews only have one. The Roman Catholics only have one. The Protestants tend to follow the Jewish books.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”care to tell us about jewish and christian standards? for example, could you tell us why the book of esther was included in the canon(s)?”
As far as I know there has never been an argument about Esther among Jews and Christians.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”it is actually very easy to shut muslims up when we talk about the bible. just prove that moses or jesus REALLY said what you’re claiming they said. but we can’t confirm, can we? it’s because you don’t have an isnad, and that is a deficiency on the part of judaism and christianity, not islam. but you’re talking as if you’re proud that your religion does not have the means to verify what these holy men really said, did, or taught.”
But you can’t confirm that Muhammed said what he really said either - at least when it comes to the Quran. Isnads only give you some assurance about the aHadith but you cannot compare the Bible to those, but to the Quran. It is not a deficiency because they are not needed. I think it is better for Judaism and Christianity that they have adopted a system of philosophy and logic and rational thought to approach those texts that supplement their religion. Better than the more or less total rejection of rational thought by Muslims.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”is there any evidence of “Christian” practices before Prophet Jesus?”
Well no. There wouldn’t be would there as Jesus brings in the New Convenant. The question you have to ask is whether Jesus died and remains at work in the world, especially the Christian Church, today.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”but there is evidence of “islamic” (generic islam) beliefs before “Islam” with the capital “I”. belief in God, His angels, books, prophets, and the day of Judgment. there is the hajj, which is, contrary to being a pagan rite, is a continuation of a much earlier abrahamic rite.”
You mean there are Jews who believe in God, His angels, their books, their prophets and lots of people who believe the Day of Judgement. Anything specifically Muslim about any of this? For instance, camal is hallal but not kosher. Any Jews who ate camel before Muhammed? The slightest evidence that any Jews or Christians ever practiced the hajj or thought that Abraham went near Mecca?
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”but we have shown you a clear standard of how we judge what to believe in.”
Only the aHadith. Isnads obviously do not apply to the Quran.
aian jaafar said on 5 October 2006:”just a minor point,which i forgot to include in my post. you’re saying that jews and christians flat out deny that abraham was a muslim. so, what was he? was he a jew, or a christian then? or was he submissive to God (muslim)?”
Let me draw a distinction between two uses of the word “muslim”. He may have been submissive of God (muslim) but Jews don’t think he was a Muslim - the term Muslim carries more with it than the idea of being submissive to God. The usage of muslim is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because it is too general. Jews and Christians would not take the claim he was a Muslim as rational so it is not a question of rejecting it. You would not even bother with a claim that Muhammed was a Bahai would you? I assume that Jews think he was a Jew and Christians too by and large - but in the sense of a Hebrew before the Convenant rather than a Jew (there is a subtle theological difference in the term “Jew” which is important to Jews but I suspect irrelevant here).
aian jaafar said on 6 October 2006:
here’s a good link regarding early hadiths: http://www.islamic-awareness.o.....adith.html.
take note that the sahifa is a work by Hammam bin Munabbih, a disciple of Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah, who is of course a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, praise and peace be upon him. here is another one, also from the same site: http://www.islamic-awareness.o.....khari.html.
you can check out the rest of their great site for refutations of revisionists regarding the qur’an and ahadith.
aian jaafar said on 7 October 2006:
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006:
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Where did Luke say he didn’t? It seems to me that he did not claim he did, but that is not to say that he didn’t. But there are also accounts in Mark, Matthew and John as well. Luke also clearly saw part of the events he described. You have to say that you can attack many things about the Gospels, but as eyewitness testimony goes they look good. You’re safer claiming Luke did not write them. Luke was there so how could you have an isnad anyway? If not right at Golgotha then not far away - it is not as if there is a 200 year gap of oral transmission. Christianity and Judaism are literate religions in a way that Islam is not. We are having a lot of agreement! I do not think that the apriori rejection of the supernatural is unscientific - on the contrary a good scientist should never look for or accept such explanations. If there is something he does not understand he needs to work harder to understand.”
I assume that your statement that “it is not as if there is a 200 year gap of oral transmission” is a reference to the ahadith. If it is, then i believe that you have a wrong analogy. If Luke was an eyewitness, then he is not comparable to Imam Bukhari (if you are referring to Imam Bukhari’s collection by your statement). He would be comparable to the first link in a hadith, say for example Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah. So then this raises another relevant question: how did Luke’s (or any of the books in the bible) reach us in its form today? You already know that we have our isnad. What is your method to verify then?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well that person could hardly claim to have risen from the dead unless He rose from the dead. But OK let’s leave that. What evidence indicates that they were not eyewitnesses? Even if they were unknown, as Luke is more or less, how would that affect the nature of their testimony? You ask a good question but the Christian answer would be that the text is protected by God - and also that the accounts were written down in the very early period by people who were there. The nature of Christ for Christians is that He is alive and working within His community. The text is not as important as that fact. However Christians also have something like an isnad but a short one - Luke is supposed to have written his Gospel because Paul told him to - or even that Paul dictated it. Mark, Peter’s interpreter, is supposed to have written it after hearing from Peter. Matthew and John were presumably both there. If you are not a Christian I doubt there is any certainty but a Christian would point to the promise of Christ remaining within His Church. The Church cannot go wrong.”
Here in the Philippines some persons have claimed such a thing, (other claims more outrageous than rising from the dead, such as claiming that he is God the Father) and it is safe to assume that others have claimed it,and will claim it on other places as well. Of course you have to admit that the reasoning “if someone claims to have done something, then that person really did it” is circular. If Luke is unknown, that would greatly affect the nature of his testimony. If he is unknown, how could we establish if he really was an eyewitness or not? here is another circularity- that the Text is protected by God, and the Church cannot go wrong. Again, it is not necessarily false, but that remains to be seen. You admit, as we shall see later, that this is a circularity. I must admit that there is a circularity within our claims as well. I mentioned that we believe whatever the Prophet Muhammad said, since we believe that he says only what God commanded him to say. That’s why in the absence of conclusive evidence on the part of the scriptures recognized by the “People of the Book”, we believe from a theological perspective things that he, praise and peace be upon him, said which might run counter to jewish and christian orthodoxy. but here is the muslim problem with your circularity regarding the Church: the Muslim expectation is that everything you believe in must have a basis, explicit or implicit, on some teaching of Jesus Christ. In order for this to happen, you must have a reliable record of what he really said. so, your explanation regarding the infallibility of the Christian Church will hardly satisfy a Muslim, or anyone who wishes to know what Jesus actually said. Your explanation presupposes that the Christian Church is infallible. “Trust in the christian scriptures. why? because the church says so. so what? because the scriptures say so”. So, what do I have to verify then? aside from numerous questions which this raises (which, i assume, are not relevant here), it begs the question as to what basis does the Church claim such an infallibility? if not Jesus Christ, then it does not matter to a Muslim then.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Except that it all comes down to one act - the compiling of the Uthamic version, the recall and destruction of all other versions. All you have proven is that the Caliphate was very thorough in destroying all other copies of the Quran. Even so the aHadith show that it used to contain a verse on stoning but it does not any longer and there is a persistent Shia tradition that Ali had his own Quran which, not surprisingly, Sunni hadith specifically reject. The one surviving copy proves the efficiency of the censorship but nothing much else. If those alternative copies had survived and we could judge that they said that was different, we could make sensible comments on the uniformity of the Quran but because none have, the different versions could have said anything.”
Yes, it all comes down to that act. So all we have to do is to examine if the Uthmanic version can be traced back to the Prophet then. And the link I posted shows that it can be traced back to him. The Uthmanic recension’s strength is not the fact that it is the only version available, but the fact that it can be traced back to the Prophet. It wouldn’t matter if Hadhrat Uthman was able to destroy all other opposing versions, because he still has the problem of proving his own version to the masses of the Muslims, some of which were very critical of him. So, it doesnt matter what the destroyed versions say. Even if you will be able to bring up an alternate version of the Qur’an supposedly from, say, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, it wouldn’t matter, because the level of tawwatur is necessary for each and every verse. Quite the contrary. the ‘censorship’ achieved what it purports to do: that is to prevent Muslims from differing over their scriptures, “as the christians and jews are differing over theirs” to quote a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad. To say that we need the alternative copies to make sensible comments about the Qur’an’s uniformity is fallacious. the Qur’an is not the New Testament. The difference is that there is no need for a critical text of the Qur’an, precisely because of the Uthmanic ‘censorship’ and standardization of the Qur’anic texts. I would like to emphasize that the Uthmanic version is a mutawwatir version, which, as the link posted above shows, can be traced back to the Prophet. Quite unlike the New Testament. In fact, the critical scholars of the NT are having a problem because of the sheer number of variants of the NT text.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well no, whether he made it up or not is the key issue. You have not explained to me how Umar could stand up and say that the Quran used to contain the verse on rajam but does not any more. The other problem being that the Quran just does not say much. For Muslims to know what Islam is, they need the Hadith which does not have a guarantee. Christians have the authority of the Church so they do not need it.”
Well, we have the concept of abrogation in the Qur’an. The Qur’an does not contain the verse anymore, because the Prophet Muhammad ordered for it to be removed from the Qur’an, since God abrogated the verse (but not the ruling). As to why, I don’t know, and neither is that the point here. The point is even the abrogation was done upon orders of the Prophet. And even if it wasn’t then the missing verse is not mutawwatir, so it would still have to be removed from the Qur’an. As for the Qur’an not saying much, well i find all the fundamental beliefs of my faith there. it is sufficient for me. And i find a remarkable consistency when it says that we should look to the example of the Prophet. I am in no position to dictate to God what He should include or not include in His Book. But you already said that the Hadith gives us some assurance about what the Prophet said, and now you’re saying that the Hadith does not have a guarantee.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “It would depend on how they determined their Truth. There are any number of stories of people converting in Africa and South-East Asia because Muslim Sufis performed miracles. If you see a miracle you are likely to convert no matter what the logic of the religion is. Theology is, after all, just a way of rationalising remaining within a religion. Not for joining it. All religions need a way to distinguish between real and fake revelation. Usually with soldiers. In the real world this problem is unsolveable.”
Agreed. And perhaps my ancestors were among those converted by those Muslim Sufis you were mentioning. Muslims also believe that conversion is a grace of God. However, a minor point, and one not entirely relevant. Miracles are not a reliable standard, unless it is what we Muslims call a mujizah, that is an inimitable miracle made through the hands of a Prophet of God. Anything else can be imitated by demons. so, just as there is fake revelation, there are also false miracles, made in the Name of God (or someone else), done through the hands of Satan.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “But what need? Very few religions order or justify genocide. The existence of Moses is unsupported by the evidence, apart from the Bible, and so if there never was any genocide, the Jews have not tried to commit one since, and are not intending to commit one in the future, why would they claim one occurred? It does not make sense to me.”
Perhaps the need to justify extermination of the canaanites, amalekites and others?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well that just means you are in a different bind because you have to believe Muhammed did things that were, by most standards, bad. I assume you just do what many Jews do and rationalise them. You have the luxury of denying the bad elements of other Faiths, but not your own.”
Well what I am simply saying is that in Islamic belief that God would never order a human being to purposefully kill innocent persons without justification, since He will contradict Himself regarding what He said in the Noble Qur’an. It is a Muslim standard. If you’re saying that that’s not a Jewish standard, that’s fine. As I mentioned, and as you have pointed out, I am approaching this from a theological perspective, not a historical one. What I’m saying is that you could tell us Muslims that ‘hey, you have a fantasy version of Moses’ if there is conclusive evidence that he did order those acts.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Those modern scholars that reject the Bible are one thing, but most people would accept that the Bible contains historical material of a sort. The distinction here is that the Quran was written by Arabs and for Arabs centuries after the events it claims to describe. The OT and the NT are in the same cultural tradition - they claim to be the records of their own histories, not someone else’s. That is a fundamental difference in credibility. The Bible is really sure about Abraham and Isaac.”
Again it is a theological perspective. I wouldn’t tell a christian to believe the muslim version of Joseph or other prophets unless I have proven to him that the Qur’an is a Book sent by God. But we have the leeway to make our claims from a theological perspective precisely because the historical evidence is not strong enough to fly in the face of the Qur’anic claim. Take the example you cited, that of Abraham and Isaac. Even if we are to assume that Moses is the author of the Torah we have today, he still wouldn’t be an eyewitness, right? His position would not be much different from the Prophet Muhammad’s, vis-a-vis Jesus Christ. But if someone believes in the OT’s reliability in reporting what Prophet Moses said as it is today, then he would have no problem believing what the Prophet Moses supposedly said about the Prophet Abraham, even though they are hundreds of years apart.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Except the aHadith are not divine Texts in that sense. I am not convinced they tell you in more detail - they are concerned more with Orthopraxy not Orthodoxy and so concentrate on what Muhammed did, not necessarily what he thought. Another important difference with Christian thought.”
yes, it is more detailed. just compare how much of the Gospel purportedly reports what Jesus said, and compare it with the volumes of hadith, regardless of your objections to the hadith methodology. the hadith even says how the Prophet tied his turban. And a substantial portion of the Prophet’s teachings are embodied in his acts, as he is the model for every Muslim to follow.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “The problem for Muslims is that the Quran says so little. The OT is a much more thorough book of law and the NT a much more detailed moral and theological guide. Muslims need the aHadith or they would be stuck.”
I would have to agree with the OT being a much more thorough book of law. However, from the Qur’anic and Muslim perspective, a portion of this thorough book maybe superfluous. But I disagree with the NT being a more detailed moral and theological guide. The divisions in christianity about the nature of Christ stem precisely because of the ambiguity of the NT verses. but that is a minor point.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “I am not sure that canon law and Sharia are comparable. Jewish and Islamic law are, but canon law owes more to Greece and Rome if you ask me.”
thank you for pointing out to me a new and apparently fruitful line of research regarding canon law.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “No but they are vital to understanding what they meant. If you do not know why Jesus did something it is hard to understand the purpose behind it. Again the difference between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.”
But that is the point. the Church has already endeavored to decipher the meaning behind Jesus’ words without being sure what those words really were. We’re back to square one.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “As long as they post-date Uthman. This is just a reflection of the poor documentary record and the thoroughness of the Uthmanic censorship. Besides, the extremists have such violently differing interpretations of the Quran, and supplement it with things like the opinion of the Aga Khans, that it is hard to make that claim. The words may be the same, but the Qurans are very different.”
Why is it necessary to predate Khalifa Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him? If it predates him, then we have the Prophet Muhammad already, which is much better. Well it is up to the Aga Khanis and other extremists to trace their claims back to the Prophet Muhammad, the same way we trace back the Uthmanic recension back to him.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “It is hardly begging the question. The process is well known - Christians claim the Church agreed in a series of Synods and their work is Divinely Inspired. Jesus works within the Church to this day. As the Gospel of Saint Thomas was not discovered until 1945, I don’t think there was ever any question of why it was not included. No one seems to have known about it, it does not appear in any commentaries for instance, and so it was not considered. Christians have a simple circular argument here - if it was genuine, God would have included it. As the text is Divinely protected.”
I have dealt with this above. And they were never agreed, until quite recently. Different churches have different canons, with almost the same level of authenticity to support their respective texts. Not to mention that there were some books that were previously accepted as canonical by some Christian communities, which are not accepted today. Just check the Codex Sinaiticus, and you’ll be able to find some extra books there.
The Gospel of Thomas is just an example to illustrate that besides claiming that the Church is Divinely-inspired to protect the text, the Christians have no other means to verfiy what’s in the Bible. Besides, if the Gospel was really Saint Thomas’- why not include it? The time of its discovery is not relevant. And why was it lost in the very first place?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Sorry but what term would that be? The term “Muslim”? That term is as far as I can see entirely new with Muhammed even if the concept is not - as you would not expect it to be. The term, as I have pointed out before, is irrelevant because it comes with baggage. Christians and Jews may understand the concept of being a “muslim” but there is no evidence of anyone being “Muslim” before Muhammed.”
Well, roses, if called by any other name, would smell just as sweet. The concept is not new, and that is what I think the Qur’an means when it says that Abraham is not a jew nor a christian, but a devout muslim. If some muslims claim that the prophets before Prophet Muhammad practiced all the Muslim practices that we have right now, then they’re wrong.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “I am sure if I thought about it I could think of other options - praying towards Mecca, the Kaba, non-infant circumcision, the rejection of Judaism. Any number of things really.”
Sure. But I would like to point out that whatever you might come up with, the Qur’an did not refer to that. Our concept is somewhat similar to what you said about a new covenant. Some old rules are abrogated, some new ones brought up.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well no because that “less” implies a value judgement. It certainly means that there is no evidence that they were Muslims apart from claims made by Muslims. As I said the true Revisionists are Muslims who insist that they own the Jewish and Christian narratives and they know better what they are about than Jews and Christians. It is the exact equivalent of Western scholars who claim that they know what the Quran really says and which aHadith are true, except without the scholarly justification.”
Not really. as I have pointed out repeatedly, the term muslim as regards to the previous Prophets is a Qur’anic call to jews and christians to what is presumably common between us and them. That is, the Qur’an enumerates some basic beliefs, adherence to which qualifies one as a muslim according to its terms. it matters not to us if you accept the term or not. the argument of the qur’an is regarding the beliefs of the prophets, not necessarily what they called themselves. and there is no record that any prophet called himself jew or christian, and even if they did, then that’s no problem on our part. as long as you believe in the beliefs i have enumerated in my previous posts, then you qualify as a muslim, at least before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad, in which case you would have to follow all the teachings he brought, including his abrogation of some of the old rules, and modifying, changing, or bringing up new ones. And the scholarly justification of this essentially theological ‘revisionism’ (as you call it) is precisely the weakness of certain portions of the jewish and christian scriptures, as pointed out by the modern scholars. That is why I mentioned modern scholarship. Basically the demand on our part is for each and every word of the Jewish and Christian scriptures as having come from the Prophets and holy men it was ascribed to, or a means to determine which words are really their words in the case of variants. What modern scholarship shows is that some changes occurred to the text (some of which occured under the infallible church!), and hence, not meeting the Muslim demand.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “In the strictest sense of the word Jew - and it is the subtle difference I referred to above - you have a point. But that convenant was implied before Sinai,
Gen.17
[1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
[2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
[3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
[4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
So the Jewish people existed as such, more or less, before Sinai. Hence the two meanings of Jewish for Abraham.”
I could say that this is a kind of revisionism too, and say that the claim is merely eisegetical in nature. There was no mention of “jew” in the verses you cited. On closer examination, one may even point out that these verses could well be a refutation of the jewish claim regarding an exclusive covenant between them and God, as Abram was to be the father of “many nations”. It could even be taken as a prophecy for Islam, as Arabs are a nation from “Abram”, and there is supposed to be more than one nation, and probably more than two ! but then again, you might reason out that this is jewish scripture so they aught to know better about it.
So then, it would have to be conceded that “Abram” never called himself jew, christian or muslim, at least according to the bible. But you are also willing to accept the term “muslim” (in terms of one being submissive to the will of God, which he, peace be upon him, definitely is) for him, albeit complaining about the baggage- and also saying that it is too general and irrelevant. but you’re “revising” the bible yourself when trying to fit “Abram” into the context of being a Jew, which he clearly isn’t. Using the same line of reasoning, it could be claimed that “Abram” was an Arab as well (regarding the second definition of “Jew”, which is racial). You see, the term Jew also has some “baggage” in it, which, even if accepted, will not fit Abraham. For example, he married his half-sister Sarah, an act cursed in the Torah by Moses. An interesting paradox arises then: whoever curses Abraham shall himself be cursed. Moses cursed an act committed by Abraham, in effect, cursing Abraham himself. In effect, Moses is himself accursed by cursing Abraham. The difficulty could be solved by claiming that marrying half-sisters were allowed back in Abraham’s time, but not in the Judaic Covenant (which I don’t agree to. I believe that it could be deduced from the OT that marrying half-sisters was also forbidden, or at least frowned upon, even back in Abraham’s time, but that is not the point here) Well, of course, this is irrelevant, but the point is Abraham did not practice all Jewish-specific practices, but you still insist on calling him a jew in some sense, while implying revisionism when Muslims call him ‘muslim’ in some sense.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Totally. No Resurrection, no Christianity.”
Agreed. So, can we call Abraham a Christian, then, according to the definition you agreed to? I don’t think so.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well there is still more to it than that because Khadija’s hanif cousin was a Christian who supposedly said he would become a Muslim if only he was not so old. No he probably did submit to the Will of God, but he also specifically did not become a Muslim. There is a difference between a Jew and a Christian and a Muslim in which Muhammed plays a very large role.”
Probably because Islam has not been expounded in that way back in Waraqa ibn Nawfal’s day. In a sense, hanif is equivalent to muslim, as Abraham was called a hanif and a muslim. besides, it was Waraqa who made the distinction, not the Prophet Muhammad. Also, the Prophet’s call came after Waraqa’s death, which would render him incapable of following the Prophet, and “Islam” proper. But he was definitely a follower of the generic “islam” though.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “In effect it is limited to Muhammed because Muslims have no other sources except the Quran. What do Muslims know about Joseph apart from what the Quran (and aHadith etc) tells them? Well they can’t trust Jews because they lie. So it is pretty much limited to what Muhammed brought or did.”
Well, Jews lying or not has little relevance here, except when some of them lie about the scriptures. But there is no claim on my part that they never tell the truth, or that ALL of the bible cannot be trusted. Islam in its final form is definitely limited to the Prophet Muhammad, agreed on that. But what he expounded is that there were prophets known, or unknown to us. And these Prophets taught the things necessary to become a “muslim”- belief in God, His Angels, Books, Prophets, and the Day of Judgment. anything extra could either be a corruption, intentional or unintentional, or something of little significance in comparison to these core doctrines, or a special commandment or provision for that nation. Any omission may be an omission committed by the persons who claimed to be the followers of these Prophets, or maybe the result of historical processes. And this is one of the reasons why, we Muslims believe, that the Last Prophet Muhammad was sent to the worlds.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Where did Luke say he didn’t? It seems to me that he did not claim he did, but that is not to say that he didn’t. But there are also accounts in Mark, Matthew and John as well. Luke also clearly saw part of the events he described. You have to say that you can attack many things about the Gospels, but as eyewitness testimony goes they look good. You’re safer claiming Luke did not write them. Luke was there so how could you have an isnad anyway? If not right at Golgotha then not far away - it is not as if there is a 200 year gap of oral transmission. Christianity and Judaism are literate religions in a way that Islam is not. We are having a lot of agreement! I do not think that the apriori rejection of the supernatural is unscientific - on the contrary a good scientist should never look for or accept such explanations. If there is something he does not understand he needs to work harder to understand.”
I assume that your statement that “it is not as if there is a 200 year gap of oral transmission” is a reference to the ahadith. If it is, then i believe that you have a wrong analogy. If Luke was an eyewitness, then he is not comparable to Imam Bukhari (if you are referring to Imam Bukhari’s collection by your statement). He would be comparable to the first link in a hadith, say for example Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah. So then this raises another relevant question: how did Luke’s (or any of the books in the bible) reach us in its form today? You already know that we have our isnad. What is your method to verify then?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well that person could hardly claim to have risen from the dead unless He rose from the dead. But OK let’s leave that. What evidence indicates that they were not eyewitnesses? Even if they were unknown, as Luke is more or less, how would that affect the nature of their testimony? You ask a good question but the Christian answer would be that the text is protected by God - and also that the accounts were written down in the very early period by people who were there. The nature of Christ for Christians is that He is alive and working within His community. The text is not as important as that fact. However Christians also have something like an isnad but a short one - Luke is supposed to have written his Gospel because Paul told him to - or even that Paul dictated it. Mark, Peter’s interpreter, is supposed to have written it after hearing from Peter. Matthew and John were presumably both there. If you are not a Christian I doubt there is any certainty but a Christian would point to the promise of Christ remaining within His Church. The Church cannot go wrong.”
Here in the Philippines some persons have claimed such a thing, (other claims more outrageous than rising from the dead, such as claiming that he is God the Father) and it is safe to assume that others have claimed it,and will claim it on other places as well. Of course you have to admit that the reasoning “if someone claims to have done something, then that person really did it” is circular. If Luke is unknown, that would greatly affect the nature of his testimony. If he is unknown, how could we establish if he really was an eyewitness or not? here is another circularity- that the Text is protected by God, and the Church cannot go wrong. Again, it is not necessarily false, but that remains to be seen. You admit, as we shall see later, that this is a circularity. I must admit that there is a circularity within our claims as well. I mentioned that we believe whatever the Prophet Muhammad said, since we believe that he says only what God commanded him to say. That’s why in the absence of conclusive evidence on the part of the scriptures recognized by the “People of the Book”, we believe from a theological perspective things that he, praise and peace be upon him, said which might run counter to jewish and christian orthodoxy. but here is the muslim problem with your circularity regarding the Church: the Muslim expectation is that everything you believe in must have a basis, explicit or implicit, on some teaching of Jesus Christ. In order for this to happen, you must have a reliable record of what he really said. so, your explanation regarding the infallibility of the Christian Church will hardly satisfy a Muslim, or anyone who wishes to know what Jesus actually said. Your explanation presupposes that the Christian Church is infallible. “Trust in the christian scriptures. why? because the church says so. so what? because the scriptures say so”. So, what do I have to verify then? aside from numerous questions which this raises (which, i assume, are not relevant here), it begs the question as to what basis does the Church claim such an infallibility? if not Jesus Christ, then it does not matter to a Muslim then.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Except that it all comes down to one act - the compiling of the Uthamic version, the recall and destruction of all other versions. All you have proven is that the Caliphate was very thorough in destroying all other copies of the Quran. Even so the aHadith show that it used to contain a verse on stoning but it does not any longer and there is a persistent Shia tradition that Ali had his own Quran which, not surprisingly, Sunni hadith specifically reject. The one surviving copy proves the efficiency of the censorship but nothing much else. If those alternative copies had survived and we could judge that they said that was different, we could make sensible comments on the uniformity of the Quran but because none have, the different versions could have said anything.”
Yes, it all comes down to that act. So all we have to do is to examine if the Uthmanic version can be traced back to the Prophet then. And the link I posted shows that it can be traced back to him. The Uthmanic recension’s strength is not the fact that it is the only version available, but the fact that it can be traced back to the Prophet. It wouldn’t matter if Hadhrat Uthman was able to destroy all other opposing versions, because he still has the problem of proving his own version to the masses of the Muslims, some of which were very critical of him. So, it doesnt matter what the destroyed versions say. Even if you will be able to bring up an alternate version of the Qur’an supposedly from, say, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, it wouldn’t matter, because the level of tawwatur is necessary for each and every verse. Quite the contrary. the ‘censorship’ achieved what it purports to do: that is to prevent Muslims from differing over their scriptures, “as the christians and jews are differing over theirs” to quote a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad. To say that we need the alternative copies to make sensible comments about the Qur’an’s uniformity is fallacious. the Qur’an is not the New Testament. The difference is that there is no need for a critical text of the Qur’an, precisely because of the Uthmanic ‘censorship’ and standardization of the Qur’anic texts. I would like to emphasize that the Uthmanic version is a mutawwatir version, which, as the link posted above shows, can be traced back to the Prophet. Quite unlike the New Testament. In fact, the critical scholars of the NT are having a problem because of the sheer number of variants of the NT text.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well no, whether he made it up or not is the key issue. You have not explained to me how Umar could stand up and say that the Quran used to contain the verse on rajam but does not any more. The other problem being that the Quran just does not say much. For Muslims to know what Islam is, they need the Hadith which does not have a guarantee. Christians have the authority of the Church so they do not need it.”
Well, we have the concept of abrogation in the Qur’an. The Qur’an does not contain the verse anymore, because the Prophet Muhammad ordered for it to be removed from the Qur’an, since God abrogated the verse (but not the ruling). As to why, I don’t know, and neither is that the point here. The point is even the abrogation was done upon orders of the Prophet. And even if it wasn’t then the missing verse is not mutawwatir, so it would still have to be removed from the Qur’an. As for the Qur’an not saying much, well i find all the fundamental beliefs of my faith there. it is sufficient for me. And i find a remarkable consistency when it says that we should look to the example of the Prophet. I am in no position to dictate to God what He should include or not include in His Book. But you already said that the Hadith gives us some assurance about what the Prophet said, and now you’re saying that the Hadith does not have a guarantee.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “It would depend on how they determined their Truth. There are any number of stories of people converting in Africa and South-East Asia because Muslim Sufis performed miracles. If you see a miracle you are likely to convert no matter what the logic of the religion is. Theology is, after all, just a way of rationalising remaining within a religion. Not for joining it. All religions need a way to distinguish between real and fake revelation. Usually with soldiers. In the real world this problem is unsolveable.”
Agreed. And perhaps my ancestors were among those converted by those Muslim Sufis you were mentioning. Muslims also believe that conversion is a grace of God. However, a minor point, and one not entirely relevant. Miracles are not a reliable standard, unless it is what we Muslims call a mujizah, that is an inimitable miracle made through the hands of a Prophet of God. Anything else can be imitated by demons. so, just as there is fake revelation, there are also false miracles, made in the Name of God (or someone else), done through the hands of Satan.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “But what need? Very few religions order or justify genocide. The existence of Moses is unsupported by the evidence, apart from the Bible, and so if there never was any genocide, the Jews have not tried to commit one since, and are not intending to commit one in the future, why would they claim one occurred? It does not make sense to me.”
Perhaps the need to justify extermination of the canaanites, amalekites and others?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well that just means you are in a different bind because you have to believe Muhammed did things that were, by most standards, bad. I assume you just do what many Jews do and rationalise them. You have the luxury of denying the bad elements of other Faiths, but not your own.”
Well what I am simply saying is that in Islamic belief that God would never order a human being to purposefully kill innocent persons without justification, since He will contradict Himself regarding what He said in the Noble Qur’an. It is a Muslim standard. If you’re saying that that’s not a Jewish standard, that’s fine. As I mentioned, and as you have pointed out, I am approaching this from a theological perspective, not a historical one. What I’m saying is that you could tell us Muslims that ‘hey, you have a fantasy version of Moses’ if there is conclusive evidence that he did order those acts.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Those modern scholars that reject the Bible are one thing, but most people would accept that the Bible contains historical material of a sort. The distinction here is that the Quran was written by Arabs and for Arabs centuries after the events it claims to describe. The OT and the NT are in the same cultural tradition - they claim to be the records of their own histories, not someone else’s. That is a fundamental difference in credibility. The Bible is really sure about Abraham and Isaac.”
Again it is a theological perspective. I wouldn’t tell a christian to believe the muslim version of Joseph or other prophets unless I have proven to him that the Qur’an is a Book sent by God. But we have the leeway to make our claims from a theological perspective precisely because the historical evidence is not strong enough to fly in the face of the Qur’anic claim. Take the example you cited, that of Abraham and Isaac. Even if we are to assume that Moses is the author of the Torah we have today, he still wouldn’t be an eyewitness, right? His position would not be much different from the Prophet Muhammad’s, vis-a-vis Jesus Christ. But if someone believes in the OT’s reliability in reporting what Prophet Moses said as it is today, then he would have no problem believing what the Prophet Moses supposedly said about the Prophet Abraham, even though they are hundreds of years apart.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Except the aHadith are not divine Texts in that sense. I am not convinced they tell you in more detail - they are concerned more with Orthopraxy not Orthodoxy and so concentrate on what Muhammed did, not necessarily what he thought. Another important difference with Christian thought.”
yes, it is more detailed. just compare how much of the Gospel purportedly reports what Jesus said, and compare it with the volumes of hadith, regardless of your objections to the hadith methodology. the hadith even says how the Prophet tied his turban. And a substantial portion of the Prophet’s teachings are embodied in his acts, as he is the model for every Muslim to follow.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “The problem for Muslims is that the Quran says so little. The OT is a much more thorough book of law and the NT a much more detailed moral and theological guide. Muslims need the aHadith or they would be stuck.”
I would have to agree with the OT being a much more thorough book of law. However, from the Qur’anic and Muslim perspective, a portion of this thorough book maybe superfluous. But I disagree with the NT being a more detailed moral and theological guide. The divisions in christianity about the nature of Christ stem precisely because of the ambiguity of the NT verses. but that is a minor point.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “I am not sure that canon law and Sharia are comparable. Jewish and Islamic law are, but canon law owes more to Greece and Rome if you ask me.”
thank you for pointing out to me a new and apparently fruitful line of research regarding canon law.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “No but they are vital to understanding what they meant. If you do not know why Jesus did something it is hard to understand the purpose behind it. Again the difference between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.”
But that is the point. the Church has already endeavored to decipher the meaning behind Jesus’ words without being sure what those words really were. We’re back to square one.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “As long as they post-date Uthman. This is just a reflection of the poor documentary record and the thoroughness of the Uthmanic censorship. Besides, the extremists have such violently differing interpretations of the Quran, and supplement it with things like the opinion of the Aga Khans, that it is hard to make that claim. The words may be the same, but the Qurans are very different.”
Why is it necessary to predate Khalifa Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him? If it predates him, then we have the Prophet Muhammad already, which is much better. Well it is up to the Aga Khanis and other extremists to trace their claims back to the Prophet Muhammad, the same way we trace back the Uthmanic recension back to him.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “It is hardly begging the question. The process is well known - Christians claim the Church agreed in a series of Synods and their work is Divinely Inspired. Jesus works within the Church to this day. As the Gospel of Saint Thomas was not discovered until 1945, I don’t think there was ever any question of why it was not included. No one seems to have known about it, it does not appear in any commentaries for instance, and so it was not considered. Christians have a simple circular argument here - if it was genuine, God would have included it. As the text is Divinely protected.”
I have dealt with this above. And they were never agreed, until quite recently. Different churches have different canons, with almost the same level of authenticity to support their respective texts. Not to mention that there were some books that were previously accepted as canonical by some Christian communities, which are not accepted today. Just check the Codex Sinaiticus, and you’ll be able to find some extra books there.
The Gospel of Thomas is just an example to illustrate that besides claiming that the Church is Divinely-inspired to protect the text, the Christians have no other means to verfiy what’s in the Bible. Besides, if the Gospel was really Saint Thomas’- why not include it? The time of its discovery is not relevant. And why was it lost in the very first place?
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Sorry but what term would that be? The term “Muslim”? That term is as far as I can see entirely new with Muhammed even if the concept is not - as you would not expect it to be. The term, as I have pointed out before, is irrelevant because it comes with baggage. Christians and Jews may understand the concept of being a “muslim” but there is no evidence of anyone being “Muslim” before Muhammed.”
Well, roses, if called by any other name, would smell just as sweet. The concept is not new, and that is what I think the Qur’an means when it says that Abraham is not a jew nor a christian, but a devout muslim. If some muslims claim that the prophets before Prophet Muhammad practiced all the Muslim practices that we have right now, then they’re wrong.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “I am sure if I thought about it I could think of other options - praying towards Mecca, the Kaba, non-infant circumcision, the rejection of Judaism. Any number of things really.”
Sure. But I would like to point out that whatever you might come up with, the Qur’an did not refer to that. Our concept is somewhat similar to what you said about a new covenant. Some old rules are abrogated, some new ones brought up.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well no because that “less” implies a value judgement. It certainly means that there is no evidence that they were Muslims apart from claims made by Muslims. As I said the true Revisionists are Muslims who insist that they own the Jewish and Christian narratives and they know better what they are about than Jews and Christians. It is the exact equivalent of Western scholars who claim that they know what the Quran really says and which aHadith are true, except without the scholarly justification.”
Not really. as I have pointed out repeatedly, the term muslim as regards to the previous Prophets is a Qur’anic call to jews and christians to what is presumably common between us and them. That is, the Qur’an enumerates some basic beliefs, adherence to which qualifies one as a muslim according to its terms. it matters not to us if you accept the term or not. the argument of the qur’an is regarding the beliefs of the prophets, not necessarily what they called themselves. and there is no record that any prophet called himself jew or christian, and even if they did, then that’s no problem on our part. as long as you believe in the beliefs i have enumerated in my previous posts, then you qualify as a muslim, at least before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad, in which case you would have to follow all the teachings he brought, including his abrogation of some of the old rules, and modifying, changing, or bringing up new ones. And the scholarly justification of this essentially theological ‘revisionism’ (as you call it) is precisely the weakness of certain portions of the jewish and christian scriptures, as pointed out by the modern scholars. That is why I mentioned modern scholarship. Basically the demand on our part is for each and every word of the Jewish and Christian scriptures as having come from the Prophets and holy men it was ascribed to, or a means to determine which words are really their words in the case of variants. What modern scholarship shows is that some changes occurred to the text (some of which occured under the infallible church!), and hence, not meeting the Muslim demand.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “In the strictest sense of the word Jew - and it is the subtle difference I referred to above - you have a point. But that convenant was implied before Sinai,
Gen.17
[1] And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
[2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
[3] And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
[4] As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
So the Jewish people existed as such, more or less, before Sinai. Hence the two meanings of Jewish for Abraham.”
I could say that this is a kind of revisionism too, and say that the claim is merely eisegetical in nature. There was no mention of “jew” in the verses you cited. On closer examination, one may even point out that these verses could well be a refutation of the jewish claim regarding an exclusive covenant between them and God, as Abram was to be the father of “many nations”. It could even be taken as a prophecy for Islam, as Arabs are a nation from “Abram”, and there is supposed to be more than one nation, and probably more than two ! but then again, you might reason out that this is jewish scripture so they aught to know better about it.
So then, it would have to be conceded that “Abram” never called himself jew, christian or muslim, at least according to the bible. But you are also willing to accept the term “muslim” (in terms of one being submissive to the will of God, which he, peace be upon him, definitely is) for him, albeit complaining about the baggage- and also saying that it is too general and irrelevant. but you’re “revising” the bible yourself when trying to fit “Abram” into the context of being a Jew, which he clearly isn’t. Using the same line of reasoning, it could be claimed that “Abram” was an Arab as well (regarding the second definition of “Jew”, which is racial). You see, the term Jew also has some “baggage” in it, which, even if accepted, will not fit Abraham. For example, he married his half-sister Sarah, an act cursed in the Torah by Moses. An interesting paradox arises then: whoever curses Abraham shall himself be cursed. Moses cursed an act committed by Abraham, in effect, cursing Abraham himself. In effect, Moses is himself accursed by cursing Abraham. The difficulty could be solved by claiming that marrying half-sisters were allowed back in Abraham’s time, but not in the Judaic Covenant (which I don’t agree to. I believe that it could be deduced from the OT that marrying half-sisters was also forbidden, or at least frowned upon, even back in Abraham’s time, but that is not the point here) Well, of course, this is irrelevant, but the point is Abraham did not practice all Jewish-specific practices, but you still insist on calling him a jew in some sense, while implying revisionism when Muslims call him ‘muslim’ in some sense.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Totally. No Resurrection, no Christianity.”
Agreed. So, can we call Abraham a Christian, then, according to the definition you agreed to? I don’t think so.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Well there is still more to it than that because Khadija’s hanif cousin was a Christian who supposedly said he would become a Muslim if only he was not so old. No he probably did submit to the Will of God, but he also specifically did not become a Muslim. There is a difference between a Jew and a Christian and a Muslim in which Muhammed plays a very large role.”
Probably because Islam has not been expounded in that way back in Waraqa ibn Nawfal’s day. In a sense, hanif is equivalent to muslim, as Abraham was called a hanif and a muslim. besides, it was Waraqa who made the distinction, not the Prophet Muhammad. Also, the Prophet’s call came after Waraqa’s death, which would render him incapable of following the Prophet, and “Islam” proper. But he was definitely a follower of the generic “islam” though.
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “In effect it is limited to Muhammed because Muslims have no other sources except the Quran. What do Muslims know about Joseph apart from what the Quran (and aHadith etc) tells them? Well they can’t trust Jews because they lie. So it is pretty much limited to what Muhammed brought or did.”
Well, Jews lying or not has little relevance here, except when some of them lie about the scriptures. But there is no claim on my part that they never tell the truth, or that ALL of the bible cannot be trusted. Islam in its final form is definitely limited to the Prophet Muhammad, agreed on that. But what he expounded is that there were prophets known, or unknown to us. And these Prophets taught the things necessary to become a “muslim”- belief in God, His Angels, Books, Prophets, and the Day of Judgment. anything extra could either be a corruption, intentional or unintentional, or something of little significance in comparison to these core doctrines, or a special commandment or provision for that nation. Any omission may be an omission committed by the persons who claimed to be the followers of these Prophets, or maybe the result of historical processes. And this is one of the reasons why, we Muslims believe, that the Last Prophet Muhammad was sent to the worlds.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:
to the bismika allahuma admin: as salamu alaykum wa rahmatu Allah wa barakatuhu, please discard the first version of my new post, as i was unable to edit the paragraph spacing. please show the second one i submitted, should you deem it worthy for my post to be shown on your excellent site. many thanks in advance.
HeiGou said on 10 October 2006:
HeiGou said on 7 October 2006: “Christianity and Judaism are literate religions in a way that Islam is not.”
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”I assume that your statement that “it is not as if there is a 200 year gap of oral transmission” is a reference to the ahadith. If it is, then i believe that you have a wrong analogy. If Luke was an eyewitness, then he is not comparable to Imam Bukhari (if you are referring to Imam Bukhari’s collection by your statement). He would be comparable to the first link in a hadith, say for example Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah. So then this raises another relevant question: how did Luke’s (or any of the books in the bible) reach us in its form today? You already know that we have our isnad. What is your method to verify then?”
Well I would argue it applies to the Quran as well. In fact it is at least fifty years after the death of Muhammed before there is much in the way of specifically Islamic references to much at all. But the case is stronger for Bukhari. I think I have said all along that Luke is in no way comparable to Bukkari. He would be comparable to Aisha, perhaps, or at worst someone like Abu Hurraira who did not hear or see everything but was divinely protected. There is a lonmg tradition of Biblical scholarship. The Christian Bible was set by the Church Councils - and for Christians the key part is the on-going presence of Jesus within the Church so that those Councils were, by definition, infallible and Divinely protected. Jesus lives and works in the world today, if you are a Christian, through His Church.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”Here in the Philippines some persons have claimed such a thing, (other claims more outrageous than rising from the dead, such as claiming that he is God the Father) and it is safe to assume that others have claimed it,and will claim it on other places as well.”
How is claiming that Jesus lives and works in the world today outrageous?
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”Of course you have to admit that the reasoning “if someone claims to have done something, then that person really did it” is circular.”
I would if I thought I was making that argument and I don’t think I am.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”If Luke is unknown, that would greatly affect the nature of his testimony. If he is unknown, how could we establish if he really was an eyewitness or not? here is another circularity- that the Text is protected by God, and the Church cannot go wrong. Again, it is not necessarily false, but that remains to be seen.”
Of course it would and Christians tend not to argue that Luke was not written by Luke. It is not a circular argument but a sort of reductio ad Deum. It is true because God says so. You must accept it without asking why. Which is why the Bible is like the Quran not the aHadith. Muslims have to accept that the Quran is divine, Christians have to accept that the Bible is.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”That’s why in the absence of conclusive evidence on the part of the scriptures recognized by the “People of the Book”, we believe from a theological perspective things that he, praise and peace be upon him, said which might run counter to jewish and christian orthodoxy.”
OK I think I have misunderstood what you mean by “conclusive evidence”. In which case I would simply claim you are applying a double standard. You demand a level of proof from the Bible that you do not from the Quran.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”the Muslim expectation is that everything you believe in must have a basis, explicit or implicit, on some teaching of Jesus Christ. In order for this to happen, you must have a reliable record of what he really said. so, your explanation regarding the infallibility of the Christian Church will hardly satisfy a Muslim, or anyone who wishes to know what Jesus actually said. Your explanation presupposes that the Christian Church is infallible.”
Absolutely. As I have said all along, there is a fundamental difference here: Muslims only have the text and so the text is important to them. Christians have the living God which is more important. Mind you, I don’t see how Muslims can claim to have a reliable record but that’s another argument.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”Yes, it all comes down to that act. So all we have to do is to examine if the Uthmanic version can be traced back to the Prophet then. And the link I posted shows that it can be traced back to him.”
I don’t think it does. A few of those links did not work for me but I think I have read them before. There is no surviving copy of the Uthmanic text. The Samarkand Quran is early but not Uthmanic. The Ottoman one is probably even later but still not Uthmanic. Egypt used to have a few very early texts but most of them appear to have been destroyed when the Muslim authorities realised what the Christians were saying about them. It is actually odd that until about the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan there is virtually no mention of anything Islamic at all. Tombstones do not mention the Muslim Muhammed. There are no surviving texts. Muhammed seems to be utterly ignored in fact with no effort to preserve his tomb or his effects. I do not think that you can reliable trace anything back to Muhammed.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”It wouldn’t matter if Hadhrat Uthman was able to destroy all other opposing versions, because he still has the problem of proving his own version to the masses of the Muslims, some of which were very critical of him. So, it doesnt matter what the destroyed versions say.”
Well I don’t see that. He did, as it happens, have problems getting the mass (not that there were masses at that point) of Muslims to accept his own version and indeed he was killed over moral issues. The early Muslim community is marked by division and the “winners”, not surprisingly, are the Sunnis who are basically the party of people who accept whoever holds power. So for them the fact that he won the battle to be Caliph is proof in itself he was right.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”Even if you will be able to bring up an alternate version of the Qur’an supposedly from, say, Hadhrat Abu Bakr, it wouldn’t matter, because the level of tawwatur is necessary for each and every verse.”
Except it would matter enormously because the whole process of study would be turned on its head by the extra material unless, of course, Muslims accept what they should be trying to prove - that the Quran is perfectly and unchanged. A claim that the aHadith seem to dispute.
aian jaafar said on 8 October 2006:”To say that we need the alternative copies to make sensible comments about the Qur’an’s uniformity is fallacious. the Qur’an is not the New Testament. The difference is that there is no need for a critical text of the Qur’an, precisely because of the Uthmanic ‘censorship’ and standardization of the Qur’anic texts.”
There is no need for Muslims. In fact it would utterly destroy Islam as Islam has nothing but the text. If the text is not infallible and linked back to Muhammed, Islam has nothing. So for the purposes of your religion, the one copy is fine. But to comment on what those other texts may have said is another matter. We cannot make sensible comments because we have a silence. The burnt pages may have said anything, or nothing, or anything in between. No one can say.
aian jaafar said o