Response to the argument based on verse 146 of Surat Al-Baqarah that the Bible has not been distorted
The doubt says:
“Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. And indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it.” (146)
Al-Baqarah 146
This verse is strong evidence that the Book existed at the time of the Prophet of Islam… 600 years after the message of the Gospel… and it is evidence that the Gospel had origins at this time.
The question is:
Does the Prophet of Islam mean the Gospel revealed to Christ Jesus, son of Mary, which is the expression used by the Qur’an, or the four Gospels that we have in our hands, or the Holy Bible as a whole, which we use now… And does he mean the Torah revealed to Moses, as the Qur’an expresses it, or the Old Testament that we have in our hands?
The Muslim tries to differentiate between the expression (the Torah revealed to Moses and the Gospel revealed to Jesus) and the books that we have in our hands, claiming that these revealed books are the books The original. The question is, if these books are the original ones and not the ones we have, then they must have origins in the sixth century AD based on this verse… How could they have existed in the sixth century with the Christians and Jews of the Arabian Peninsula and then completely disappeared after that? Scientifically it is impossible for them to disappear and they must have origins from manuscripts.
But the reality says that there is no book called the Gospel revealed to Jesus, but the Christians have the Holy Bible, so this book is what the Qur’an means by the expression (We gave them the Book)
and if the Qur’an means the Gospel that is in our hands, then based on this verse the Gospel is correct and not distorted… since there are people of the Book who knew it completely at the time of the message of the Prophet of Islam. So we must bring the manuscripts that were in the sixth century and compare them with the ones we have… and we will discover that they are identical… and therefore we must acknowledge the truth of the Gospel that is in our hands without distortion… because if we say that the Gospel was distorted, the question is when? If the answer is before the revelation of the Qur’an, then we make the Qur’an a liar, and this is something that no Muslim would accept.
Kufrcleaner response
regarding this doubt, the writer jumped once from the verse to the conclusion without explaining to his readers how he reached this conclusion that Muslims in the East, West, North and South have been unaware of for 14 centuries!
The least the writer should do is explain to his readers how he reached his conclusion, isn’t that right?
The strange thing is that after he put forward the rational premise devoid of evidence - which is the existence of the correct, undistorted books in the hands of the People of the Book - he began to narrate his case, detail it, establish it and establish it, as if explaining how he reached his premise was a foregone conclusion!
I did not understand the Christian writer’s reasoning for his case until near the end of the article when he said: “If the Qur’an means the Gospel that is in our hands, then based on this verse the Gospel is correct and undistorted… since there are those among the People of the Book who knew it completely at the time of the message of the Prophet of Islam.” Here I realized what he had misunderstood and the source of the misunderstanding became clear, praise be to God.
In response, we say after praising God Almighty and sending peace upon His chosen servants:
The pronoun in His statement (they know Him) does not refer to the Book, but rather to the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace); in Tafsir al-Jalalain, p. 26:
{Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him} meaning Muhammad {as they know their own sons} by his description in their books. Ibn Salam said: (I knew him when I saw him as I know my own son, and my knowledge of Muhammad is stronger).
In Al-Kashshaf by Al-Zamakhshari, Vol. 1, p. 187:
{They know him} they know the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with a clear knowledge that distinguishes him from others by a specific, specific description {as they know their own sons} their sons are not confused with the sons of others. On the authority of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he asked Abdullah ibn Salam about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said: I know him better than I know my own son. He said: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet. As for my son, perhaps his mother betrayed him, so Umar kissed his head. It is permissible to omit it even if it was not previously mentioned because the speech indicates it and it is not confusing to the listener. Such an omission is an emphasis and indicates that it is well-known and a known name without being explicit. It was said: The pronoun refers to the name or the Qur’an or the change of the Qiblah.
In the Tafsir of Al-Nasafi, Vol. 1, p. 90:
{They know him} meaning Muhammad, peace be upon him, or the Qur’an or the change of the Qiblah. The first is more apparent because of His saying {as they know their sons}. Abdullah bin Salam said: I know him better than I know my son. Omar said to him: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet. As for my son, perhaps his mother betrayed him. Omar kissed his head.
In the Tafsir of Al-Baydawi, Vol. 1, p. 236:
{They know him} the pronoun refers to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, even if it was not previously mentioned because the speech indicates it. It was said about knowledge, or the Qur’an, or the transformation {as they know their sons} testifies to the first: that is, they know Him by His descriptions as they know their sons, they do not confuse them with others. On the authority of Omar, may God be pleased with him, that he asked Abdullah bin Salam, may God be pleased with him, about the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he said: I know him better than I know my son. He said: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet, but as for my son, perhaps his mother has betrayed him.
Based on this evidence, the issue on which the Christian writer built his case is erased; what the People of the Book know as their sons is the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and not the books in the hands of the People of the Book.
Did our case end here?
No!
Let us assume, for the sake of argument - I say for the sake of argument - that the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the Holy Qur’an testified to the authenticity of the Holy Book and the lack of distortion. Here the question arises: Which Holy Book did they testify to??
Is it the Holy Book of the Coptic Orthodox Church?
Or the Greek Orthodox Church?
Or Roman Catholicism?
Or Syriac?
Or Ethiopian?
Or maybe it is the Bible of the Protestant Church?
And every church has a Bible!
Okay, let us return to the author of the article once again, and this time to discuss his objection to the People of the Book knowing the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, as they know their own sons. The response - simply - is the testimony of a great Israeli rabbi, a contemporary of the Messenger, in the position of Abdullah bin Salam, who was attested to by the Jews of Medina as having knowledge, and even leadership in knowledge. Likewise, the thousands of Christians from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq entered Islam at the hands of the Muslim conquerors, and this was only because they found this to be a fulfillment of the prophecies they learned from their book (despite the distortion of many places in it). Read, if you wish, their books in which they detailed and explained these prophecies, starting with (Religion and State) by Ibn Rabban al-Tabari and ending with the book (Muhammad in the Holy Book) by Abdul Ahad Daoud (formerly Benjamin Chaldean). Among the contemporaries who know him as they know their children are Muhammad Zaki al-Najjar, author of the book (The Shining Lighthouses in the Dark Darkness of the World), who was an Egyptian bishop in Tahta, and Dr. Ibrahim Khalil Muhammad, author of the book (Muhammad in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an), who was an Egyptian priest who converted to Islam with his four sons in the middle of the twentieth century, and Wassef Suleiman al-Ra’i, author of the book (I Was a Christian), and others.
These are the ones to whom God gave the book and who know it as they know their children, and they are not among the obstinate like the writer of this article. We hope that he will be guided.
Al-Baqarah 146
This verse is strong evidence that the Book existed at the time of the Prophet of Islam… 600 years after the message of the Gospel… and it is evidence that the Gospel had origins at this time.
The question is:
Does the Prophet of Islam mean the Gospel revealed to Christ Jesus, son of Mary, which is the expression used by the Qur’an, or the four Gospels that we have in our hands, or the Holy Bible as a whole, which we use now… And does he mean the Torah revealed to Moses, as the Qur’an expresses it, or the Old Testament that we have in our hands?
The Muslim tries to differentiate between the expression (the Torah revealed to Moses and the Gospel revealed to Jesus) and the books that we have in our hands, claiming that these revealed books are the books The original. The question is, if these books are the original ones and not the ones we have, then they must have origins in the sixth century AD based on this verse… How could they have existed in the sixth century with the Christians and Jews of the Arabian Peninsula and then completely disappeared after that? Scientifically it is impossible for them to disappear and they must have origins from manuscripts.
But the reality says that there is no book called the Gospel revealed to Jesus, but the Christians have the Holy Bible, so this book is what the Qur’an means by the expression (We gave them the Book)
and if the Qur’an means the Gospel that is in our hands, then based on this verse the Gospel is correct and not distorted… since there are people of the Book who knew it completely at the time of the message of the Prophet of Islam. So we must bring the manuscripts that were in the sixth century and compare them with the ones we have… and we will discover that they are identical… and therefore we must acknowledge the truth of the Gospel that is in our hands without distortion… because if we say that the Gospel was distorted, the question is when? If the answer is before the revelation of the Qur’an, then we make the Qur’an a liar, and this is something that no Muslim would accept.
Kufrcleaner response
regarding this doubt, the writer jumped once from the verse to the conclusion without explaining to his readers how he reached this conclusion that Muslims in the East, West, North and South have been unaware of for 14 centuries!
The least the writer should do is explain to his readers how he reached his conclusion, isn’t that right?
The strange thing is that after he put forward the rational premise devoid of evidence - which is the existence of the correct, undistorted books in the hands of the People of the Book - he began to narrate his case, detail it, establish it and establish it, as if explaining how he reached his premise was a foregone conclusion!
I did not understand the Christian writer’s reasoning for his case until near the end of the article when he said: “If the Qur’an means the Gospel that is in our hands, then based on this verse the Gospel is correct and undistorted… since there are those among the People of the Book who knew it completely at the time of the message of the Prophet of Islam.” Here I realized what he had misunderstood and the source of the misunderstanding became clear, praise be to God.
In response, we say after praising God Almighty and sending peace upon His chosen servants:
The pronoun in His statement (they know Him) does not refer to the Book, but rather to the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace); in Tafsir al-Jalalain, p. 26:
{Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him} meaning Muhammad {as they know their own sons} by his description in their books. Ibn Salam said: (I knew him when I saw him as I know my own son, and my knowledge of Muhammad is stronger).
In Al-Kashshaf by Al-Zamakhshari, Vol. 1, p. 187:
{They know him} they know the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, with a clear knowledge that distinguishes him from others by a specific, specific description {as they know their own sons} their sons are not confused with the sons of others. On the authority of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that he asked Abdullah ibn Salam about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he said: I know him better than I know my own son. He said: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet. As for my son, perhaps his mother betrayed him, so Umar kissed his head. It is permissible to omit it even if it was not previously mentioned because the speech indicates it and it is not confusing to the listener. Such an omission is an emphasis and indicates that it is well-known and a known name without being explicit. It was said: The pronoun refers to the name or the Qur’an or the change of the Qiblah.
In the Tafsir of Al-Nasafi, Vol. 1, p. 90:
{They know him} meaning Muhammad, peace be upon him, or the Qur’an or the change of the Qiblah. The first is more apparent because of His saying {as they know their sons}. Abdullah bin Salam said: I know him better than I know my son. Omar said to him: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet. As for my son, perhaps his mother betrayed him. Omar kissed his head.
In the Tafsir of Al-Baydawi, Vol. 1, p. 236:
{They know him} the pronoun refers to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, even if it was not previously mentioned because the speech indicates it. It was said about knowledge, or the Qur’an, or the transformation {as they know their sons} testifies to the first: that is, they know Him by His descriptions as they know their sons, they do not confuse them with others. On the authority of Omar, may God be pleased with him, that he asked Abdullah bin Salam, may God be pleased with him, about the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he said: I know him better than I know my son. He said: Why? He said: Because I do not doubt that Muhammad is a prophet, but as for my son, perhaps his mother has betrayed him.
Based on this evidence, the issue on which the Christian writer built his case is erased; what the People of the Book know as their sons is the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and not the books in the hands of the People of the Book.
Did our case end here?
No!
Let us assume, for the sake of argument - I say for the sake of argument - that the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the Holy Qur’an testified to the authenticity of the Holy Book and the lack of distortion. Here the question arises: Which Holy Book did they testify to??
Is it the Holy Book of the Coptic Orthodox Church?
Or the Greek Orthodox Church?
Or Roman Catholicism?
Or Syriac?
Or Ethiopian?
Or maybe it is the Bible of the Protestant Church?
And every church has a Bible!
Okay, let us return to the author of the article once again, and this time to discuss his objection to the People of the Book knowing the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, as they know their own sons. The response - simply - is the testimony of a great Israeli rabbi, a contemporary of the Messenger, in the position of Abdullah bin Salam, who was attested to by the Jews of Medina as having knowledge, and even leadership in knowledge. Likewise, the thousands of Christians from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq entered Islam at the hands of the Muslim conquerors, and this was only because they found this to be a fulfillment of the prophecies they learned from their book (despite the distortion of many places in it). Read, if you wish, their books in which they detailed and explained these prophecies, starting with (Religion and State) by Ibn Rabban al-Tabari and ending with the book (Muhammad in the Holy Book) by Abdul Ahad Daoud (formerly Benjamin Chaldean). Among the contemporaries who know him as they know their children are Muhammad Zaki al-Najjar, author of the book (The Shining Lighthouses in the Dark Darkness of the World), who was an Egyptian bishop in Tahta, and Dr. Ibrahim Khalil Muhammad, author of the book (Muhammad in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an), who was an Egyptian priest who converted to Islam with his four sons in the middle of the twentieth century, and Wassef Suleiman al-Ra’i, author of the book (I Was a Christian), and others.
These are the ones to whom God gave the book and who know it as they know their children, and they are not among the obstinate like the writer of this article. We hope that he will be guided.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment