The reliability of Christian and Muslim texts compared

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
343
Likes
256
#21
What’s more, no Christian would make the claim about their Bible that Muslims are now making about their Qur’an. We would never suggest that our Bible is eternal, nor uncreated, nor that it was sent down from heaven to one man (inspired by God, yes, but not ‘sent down’). We would, however, claim that the Bible was complete in its original form, and though we admit there have been changes in the Bible since the first century, we would be clear that what we have today, because of the enormous manuscript and textual trove at our disposal today, is pretty much 99.9% the same as that which was written down in the first century AD.
This is is exactly why I'm not a Jew or a Christian, you don't claim (except for fundamentalists) nor have a direct revelation in your Book (which is a library, essentially).
You record Prophets receiving revelation in past-tense without any specificity, that's the best you get. Moses' Torah is far lost to history, even according to the Bible itself, yet events like the theophany on Mount Sinai would surely give you a second thought about the concept of Revelation?
The idea of taking later person's accounts of history as authentic over that of God's direct revelation, just doesn't sit right with me.

Aside from this, the Bible also reminds me a lot of the Mahabharata.

From Christian (particularly, because Jews usually don't bother in that area) polemics against Islam and the Qur'an, I do get the sense that Christianity tends to not be a religion that takes prophets/prophethood as a serious thing. For Christianity it tends to be secondary to the compilation of texts (Bible).
I think a lot of it is to do with how Christianity does promote a very different hermeneutical worldview through these massive differences.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
343
Likes
256
#23
The bold claim is the simultaneous unfounded claims of biblical corruption and Qur’anic superiority.
The thing is that there is not even anything to corrupt. Where in the Bible is there direct revelation? none, it's all third or secondary historical summary accounts (with a few letters, poems and visions, such as Ezekiel, thrown in).

This is setting aside that the Qur'an has no mentions at all of the Bible or it's contents. You likely assume it does but adhering to the fallacy that "Tawrat = Pentateuch" and "Injeel = Four bios of Jesus' life", both of which would be absurd for the Qur'an to refer to.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
4,946
#24
)... the Qur'an has no mentions at all of the Bible or it's contents. You likely assume it does but ...
would be absurd for the Qur'an to refer to.
I agree, completely. The quran, clearly, has nothing to do with the Bible... there is no mention, even, of our God. The notion that they are related in any way is absurd.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
343
Likes
256
#25
I agree, completely. The quran, clearly, has nothing to do with the Bible... there is no mention, even, of our God. The notion that they are related in any way is absurd.
Yes and no. They correlate when it comes to particular Prophets, both overlapping a lot (but differing about the aspects of it, aside from the Qur'an being God merely referring fragmentary accounts of different Prophets as analogous transhistorical wisdom to *Muhammad, ones that nonetheless show that from God's perspective, these Prophets did not do some of the outrageous stuff the OT in particular speaks about).
"Name of God", is not really an important thing I don't feel, particularly within "Abrahamic" discourse. We all have correlation, which is the most important thing as far as recognizing that petty fighting (such as crap like Christians claiming Allah is a "moon-god" or other absurdities) is useless and is a result of Egocentrism rather than anything indicative of the actual reality of the situation between Jews, Christians and Muslims.

As a Muslim, I don't believe God has a name, language is a result of creation. Since Prophet Adam, God has been called billions of names and they weren't billions of Gods just because they were different names. I'm very much a strictly ontological person, I'm not concerned with trivialities in all honesty. When it comes to the Bible though, there is nothing comparable to what the Qur'an is in it's pages. There are correlations (for natural reasons, as the Qur'an states: God revealed through thousands of Prophets on every continent throughout all history) but nothing of similarity when it comes to the nature of the two texts (or compilation of texts, in the case of the Bible).


(* and by extension the early Meccans, then us, 1400 years later)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
6,322
#26
Digging a little deeper, it appears that the claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved is a relatively modern Islamic assertion...

This is by far my favourite:
1. why didn't Allah stop the sheep eating his (alleged) words?!
2. Breastfeeding adult instructions WEREN"T a mere rumour after all?!

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
1: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ، يَحْيَى بْنُ خَلَفٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، ‏.‏ وَعَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ لَقَدْ نَزَلَتْ آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ وَرَضَاعَةُ الْكَبِيرِ عَشْرًا وَلَقَدْ كَانَ فِي صَحِيفَةٍ تَحْتَ سَرِيرِي فَلَمَّا مَاتَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَتَشَاغَلْنَا بِمَوْتِهِ دَخَلَ دَاجِنٌ فَأَكَلَهَا ‏.‏

Grade: Hasan (Darussalam)

English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020

https://sunnah.com/urn/1262630

And as a pre-emptive strike against those who dismiss this as not being genuine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology#Ḥasan

Ḥasan (حَسَن meaning "good") is used to describe hadith whose authenticity is not as well-established as that of ṣaḥīḥ hadith, but sufficient for use as supporting evidence.

Ibn Hajar defines a hadith that is ḥasan lithatihi – "ḥasan in and of itself" – with the same definition a ṣaḥīḥ hadith except that the competence of one of its narrators is less than complete; while a hadith that is ḥasan ligharihi ("ḥasan due to external factors") is determined to be ḥasan due to corroborating factors such as numerous chains of narration. He states that it is then comparable to a ṣaḥīḥ hadith in its religious authority.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,328
Likes
5,493
#27
This is by far my favourite:
1. why didn't Allah stop the sheep eating his (alleged) words?!
2. Breastfeeding adult instructions WEREN"T a mere rumour after all?!

It was narrated that 'Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
1: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو سَلَمَةَ، يَحْيَى بْنُ خَلَفٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، عَنْ عَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، ‏.‏ وَعَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ لَقَدْ نَزَلَتْ آيَةُ الرَّجْمِ وَرَضَاعَةُ الْكَبِيرِ عَشْرًا وَلَقَدْ كَانَ فِي صَحِيفَةٍ تَحْتَ سَرِيرِي فَلَمَّا مَاتَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَتَشَاغَلْنَا بِمَوْتِهِ دَخَلَ دَاجِنٌ فَأَكَلَهَا ‏.‏

Grade: Hasan (Darussalam)

English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020

https://sunnah.com/urn/1262630

And as a pre-emptive strike against those who dismiss this as not being genuine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_terminology#Ḥasan

Ḥasan (حَسَن meaning "good") is used to describe hadith whose authenticity is not as well-established as that of ṣaḥīḥ hadith, but sufficient for use as supporting evidence.

Ibn Hajar defines a hadith that is ḥasan lithatihi – "ḥasan in and of itself" – with the same definition a ṣaḥīḥ hadith except that the competence of one of its narrators is less than complete; while a hadith that is ḥasan ligharihi ("ḥasan due to external factors") is determined to be ḥasan due to corroborating factors such as numerous chains of narration. He states that it is then comparable to a ṣaḥīḥ hadith in its religious authority.
We've said it a million times before and we will say it again "The thing about the sheep eating the final verses is FAKE". Heck you don't even need to be a Muslim to realize that.
In the final sermon, the Prophet knew that now that his work is done he will die soon. So, the sermon ended with "
". O God, have I not conveyed the message?" It was reported [to me]that the people said, "O God, yes," and the Messenger of God said, "O God, bear witness.""

There is absolutely no evidence of the sheep thing and the hadith being authentic, the narration is weak and with timeline it doesn't make sense. And you can't go with "well its categorized hasan" unless you can go ahead and prove to me its hasan.

also shhhh hear me out PAPER DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN so why does the hadith say paper specifically. The verses were always written down on rocks or animal skins.

People had memorized the Quran since the day it was starting to be revealed, there is no way there would be a verse that would go missing in written form and it would make a difference and be omitted in the final compilation.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,328
Likes
5,493
#28
Also when we say that Quran is eternal, like haich said, we mean the words and the message not just printed copies. But more important than that, Quran is eternal in literal form as long as Muslims are alive because it exists in our hearts, figuratively and literally.

You can take each and every copy of Quran and make it vanish and you'll have new copies the next day without any change from the last one because we have memorized it. You can just take the Muslims on this forum and have them locked into a room and even all of them can reproduce a massive portion because of the perfect memorization of the chapters. And when you take into account that small chapters are taught to kids in the original language i.e. classic Arabic and that most of the Muslims remember the whole thing by heart, there is no chance of error because even a kid can point out an error when he hears it.

This is how Quran has been absolutely preserved over ages, because the language it was revealed in will never die. And the whole scripture will be passed down generations to generations not in just book form but in memory. This is why if anyone even tries to change something we can quickly go "this is wrong". And this is why we don't have different "Versions" of the Quran.

And This is what we mean when we compare the conservation of the Bible versus the Quran. The original languages of the previous scriptures are dead, even if you somehow find old texts, you can't read it. You don't know what it says so you need to rely on scholars and what not. And if the said scholars are corrupt, its a lost cause. Thats how the church added or took out verses from the bible and thats how different "versions" came to exist. And if we lock you all in a place, there is only so much that can be reproduced.

Even if you argue that a certain version is 100% accurate, the very existence of multiple versions is evidence of change because obviously the versions are different from one another and the original don't exist.
Even though i personally dislike "testimonies" but one I really like is Yusuf Estes because he was a protestant priest who was preaching but he would often see the other priests or preachers lying so as he studied deep into it, he realized that the original meaning or translations of the verses and the ones being preached were worlds apart and thats how he left faith.
And I know if Quran wasn't so perfectly memorized by the people and if its language wasn't alive, it might have suffered the same fate. But it doesn't because its being kept preserved by the promise of God.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
6,322
#29
We've said it a million times before and we will say it again "The thing about the sheep eating the final verses is FAKE". Heck you don't even need to be a Muslim to realize that.....
Evidence please?
The definition of Hasan was applied to that verse by a Muslim text translator website. I assume the people involved would have top translation credentials (as expected for bible scholars)?

Another translation disagrees with you, saying it is GOOD, not inauthentic like you claim.
https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/9/1944

also shhhh hear me out PAPER DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN so why does the hadith say paper specifically. The verses were always written down on rocks or animal skins.

People had memorized the Quran since the day it was starting to be revealed, there is no way there would be a verse that would go missing in written form and it would make a difference and be omitted in the final compilation.
Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
(2015) 'Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University

I actually agree with you - if the word was parchment why not leave it as "parchment"? [do they really think people are that dumb?]

However, sheep would be capable of eating a parchment.

P.S. when I looked for that other translation I got this result instead. It is actually certified as AUTHENTIC.
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.” The Prophet ﷺ said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man? The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “I know that he is a grown man.” So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: “I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhayfah after that.” And he was present at (the battle of) Badr.
https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/9/1943


What I want to know from other Christians is if there are any mentions of breastfeeding being recommended for adults by any prophet in either the Old or New Testament. (Just curious.) ;)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#30
From the perspective of the Bible - the claims made about the Word of God..


Proverbs 30:5-6 King James Version (KJV)

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words*, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

*With respect, is this not what the Qur’an does?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
343
Likes
256
#31
Also when we say that Quran is eternal, like haich said, we mean the words and the message not just printed copies.
Actually it's related to the metaphysical concept of umm al-kitāb ("the mother book", or eternal book), of which all direct Revelations to all Prophets are drawn from. When the angel Jibreel was revealing the Holy Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad (like every Prophet Preceding him), it came from this metaphysical source. To understand it, you have to first remove the notion of "Time" out of the equation, and see from a non-linear perspective, how each Prophet's message is the same and interlocks/overlaps with the next (this is even apparent in the Bible itself).
This subject is out of the scope of the thread though, however it does show how so much archetypal symbol is shared by completely unrelated cultures throughout history. Within umm al-kitāb, we have the more well-known grouping of ahl al-kitab ("people of the book"), which is more closely associated with Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism etc.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
343
Likes
256
#32
From the perspective of the Bible - the claims made about the Word of God..


Proverbs 30:5-6 King James Version (KJV)

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words*, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

*With respect, is this not what the Qur’an does?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Proverbs is a book of wisdom literature (albeit, a great one) and 2 Timothy is a letter from Paul.......
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,328
Likes
5,493
#33
How about you give it? I'd love for you to prove this hadith is authentic. And no random people who nobody has ever heard of saying "it seems aight" ain't proof. One would think that the fact that most places consider the hadith to be fake while one place calls it sahih would be proof enough that its not a true hadith.

Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
(2015) 'Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University

I actually agree with you - if the word was parchment why not leave it as "parchment"? [do they really think people are that dumb?]

However, sheep would be capable of eating a parchment.
Except the "hadith" uses the word for paper.

P.S. when I looked for that other translation I got this result instead. It is actually certified as AUTHENTIC.
It was narrated that 'Aishah said:

“Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.” The Prophet ﷺ said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man? The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “I know that he is a grown man.” So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: “I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhayfah after that.” And he was present at (the battle of) Badr.
https://muflihun.com/ibnmajah/9/1943


What I want to know from other Christians is if there are any mentions of breastfeeding being recommended for adults by any prophet in either the Old or New Testament. (Just curious.) ;)
Last time I checked this thread was about the reliability between Christians and Muslim texts, Quran specifically because of what friend said.
We aren't talking about breastfeeding or sex in general or "prophetic stories" across the two faiths because it would be ironic considering the biblical versions of the prophetic stories include satan worship, r*pe and incest. However if it really concerns you that bad, feel free to make a new thread. Otherwise stay on topic (even though i'd love for you to stay out of it)
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
6,322
#35
Made me chuckle!
Wouldn't you assume a muslim did the translation of word "parchment" into "paper", not a non-muslim?
Your chuckling towards your own people's work handling your own texts is quite odd in fact.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,773
Likes
6,322
#36
How about you give it? I'd love for you to prove this hadith is authentic. And no random people who nobody has ever heard of saying "it seems aight" ain't proof. One would think that the fact that most places consider the hadith to be fake while one place calls it sahih would be proof enough that its not a true hadith.
No, I will not do the work for you Muslims.
It is getting comical that Muslims are asking Christians to defend your own faith for you.
Your people do the translations, explanations, commentary on your Islamic texts, and then you insist they are wrong... then you try to get us to do your defence of your faith?! No way.
Except the "hadith" uses the word for paper.
The Hadith translating the word as paper without giving explanations in footnotes is strange. Bible commentaries would do that to ensure confusion didn't result.
Last time I checked this thread was about the reliability between Christians and Muslim texts, Quran specifically because of what friend said.
I know it was a side-track at first glance. I made a comment about Red Sky's clip and the quote from a Hadith, that scholars give credit to (even though you don't).
You can't have it both ways. Either everything in Islamic texts is from your Allah or it is not.
You claim that the bible texts are corrupt UNLESS it somehow [in muslims' minds] "supports" Islam's teachings.
We aren't talking about breastfeeding or sex in general or "prophetic stories" across the two faiths because it would be ironic considering the biblical versions of the prophetic stories include satan worship, r*pe and incest. However if it really concerns you that bad, feel free to make a new thread. Otherwise stay on topic (even though i'd love for you to stay out of it)
Does the bible give these recorded evil deeds you mention the thumbs up or thumbs down?

The quotes give a glimpse into the character of Muhammad. It is most definitely relevant. It contradicts the moral code taught in the New Testament especially.

Matthew 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into topphe draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


Does Jesus sound like he would be fixated on sex, giving commandments- not mere instructions/ permissions - to MAKE a woman who is NOT her husband suck her breasts?!!!
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#37
Wouldn't you assume a muslim did the translation of word "parchment" into "paper", not a non-muslim?
Your chuckling towards your own people's work handling your own texts is quite odd in fact.
You aren't getting it. You're so hung up trying to prove this hadith is right. Manama explained it isn't accepted as it's weak. You were asked to bring your proofs, YOU believe it is right, ok post the line of narration and we can talk about it.

I was laughing at you JoChris. You are so sure that you know what you are talking about when it comes to Islam and that just shows the arrogance in your heart tbh.

So sad that you sit there googling hadith to try and trip us up. It wont work and it just makes you come across as a David Wood minion (who got absolutely destroyed in his lecture with Mohamed Hijab).

Dont take your information about Islam from a cross dressing loser!
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#38
You can't have it both ways. Either everything in Islamic texts is from your Allah or it is not.
You don't get to decide.

No one has ever said hadith are all from Allah. They are sayings and advice from the prophet pbuh and are recorded by his companions.

The only thing which 100 percent from God as it is His literal word, is the Quran. The hadith has never been claimed to be the literal word of God.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#39
If it wasn't for hadith, we'd never know how to pray. So hadith is very important but we don't sit there daily and read them. We get taught the main hadith which help us in our daily lives. It is not a form of worship to sit there and recite hadith!

The Quran is at the centre of our lives.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#40
i too meant the original bible texts - but the problem is - there is none. all of them are from people other than Jesus.

as @Infinityloop put it:
Just trying to understand then - is your primary difficulty with the Bible intrinsic to the way it is written or the fact that manuscripts with changes exist? The two are separate issues and it might be worth discussing each one in turn?