Muslim View on Jesus Christ/Ibn Battuta

Wolfe Tone

I was recently reading a lengthy article on Ibn Battuta(basically a historic Muslim cleric Michael Palin) and when he visited Palestine his account is much like a pilgrims guide, for example:

"I visited Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus(on him be peace)"

He went on to visit places like the Mount of Olives etc... And a church were Mary was said to have been buried. (at least thats how I interpreted "The Holy Virgin")

This got me thinking, what place if any, does Jesus have in the Muslim religion?

What is the average Muslim posters attitude towards Jesus?

(I did a quick search and the thread I found can only be described as a trainwreck)

irishconvert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I was recently reading a lengthy article on Ibn Battuta(basically a historic Muslim cleric Michael Palin) and when he visited Palestine his account is much like a pilgrims guide, for example:

"I visited Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus(on him be peace)"

He went on to visit places like the Mount of Olives etc... And a church were Mary was said to have been buried. (at least thats how I interpreted "The Holy Virgin")

This got me thinking, what place if any, does Jesus have in the Muslim religion?

What is the average Muslim posters attitude towards Jesus?

(I did a quick search and the thread I found can only be described as a trainwreck)

Jesus (or Isa as we call him) is very important to Muslims. He is as important as any of the other prophets (Moses, Abraham and Muhammed, peace be upon them all). We also believe in Mary, and the virgin birth of Jesus. The key difference is we don't believe Jesus is God, a son of God, or any part of God. He was simply a messenger from God.

From the Qur'an (3:45-46):

When the angels said “O Maryam! Allah gives you the good news with a Word from Him that you will be given a son: his name will be Messiah, Isa (Jesus Christ) the son of Maryam. He will be noble in this world and the Hereafter; and he will be from those who are very close to Allah. [45] He will speak to the people in the cradle and in his old age and he will be among the righteous."[46]

Wolfe Tone

Excellent stuff, thank you. What about the death of Jesus, and the resurrection that Christians believed happened?

irishconvert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Excellent stuff, thank you. What about the death of Jesus, and the resurrection that Christians believed happened?

Your welcome :-)

We don't believe he died on the cross. Someone else was crucified in his place. We do believe that he will come again at the end of time.

Wolfe Tone

Ah, I see, fascinating. So what do Muslims believe happened to Jesus/Isa after 33AD?

irishconvert

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ah, I see, fascinating. So what do Muslims believe happened to Jesus/Isa after 33AD?

I'm not sure actually, let me get back to you on that.

hivizman

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ah, I see, fascinating. So what do Muslims believe happened to Jesus/Isa after 33AD?

The general view is based on a passage in Surat an-Nisaa'. Verses 4:157-158 read (in the Yusuf Ali translation): "That they [i.e., the Jews] said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." The usual interpretation of this is that Jesus was raised up to heaven rather than dying on the cross.

Surat Al-'Imran (3:55) provides a slightly different angle on this (Yusuf Ali translation): "Behold! Allah said: 'O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute'."

This verse is difficult to interpret because the Arabic word that Yusuf Ali translates as "will take thee", mutawaffika, comes from the same root as yatawaffākum, which appears in Surat an-Nahl (16:70), and all translators interpret this as meaning "will take you in death". Does this mean that Jesus was raised up after death (though not death by crucifixion), or that he was raised up while still alive?

Members of the Ahmadiyya sect believe that Jesus travelled to the East after the crucifixion (they believe that Jesus was actually crucified but was taken down alive from the cross, and recovered in the tomb), that he lived a long life and died in Kashmir, where he was buried. They do not recognise Jesus as the Messiah who will return for a second time.

hivizman

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I was recently reading a lengthy article on Ibn Battuta(basically a historic Muslim cleric Michael Palin)

Going off-topic here - moderator's privilege, I hope.

Ibn Battuta is a fascinating figure, and it's worth reading his book of voyages more fully. The full version in translation runs to several volumes, but there are some good selected editions available - I read some time ago The Travels of Ibn Battutah edited by Tim Mackintosh-Smith (Picador, 2003), who has made a speciality of following in the footsteps of Ibn Battuta. He has a book coming out in August 2010 called Landfalls: On the Edge of Islam with Ibn Battutah. If I get the chance to read this, I'll review it in the books thread.

Wolfe Tone

hivizman wrote: »

Surat Al-'Imran (3:55) provides a slightly different angle on this (Yusuf Ali translation): "Behold! Allah said: 'O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute'."

Could you elaborate on that? I presume that means Christians?

Would Muslims agree with the account of Jesus' life up to his death? Miracles etc? To be honest I am ignorant to the role miracles have in Islam.

Lets see if I have this:
Was of a Virgin birth,
Jesus was a prophet just as important as any other,
Will return at the end of time,
Probably ascended although whether he was dead or alive is another matter.
Was not crucified.


And just a word of thanks for all the replies guys, appreciate it.

Going off-topic here - moderator's privilege, I hope.

Ibn Battuta is a fascinating figure, and it's worth reading his book of voyages more fully. The full version in translation runs to several volumes, but there are some good selected editions available - I read some time ago The Travels of Ibn Battutah edited by Tim Mackintosh-Smith (Picador, 2003), who has made a speciality of following in the footsteps of Ibn Battuta. He has a book coming out in August 2010 called Landfalls: On the Edge of Islam with Ibn Battutah. If I get the chance to read this, I'll review it in the books thread.

Indeed he seems fascinating. The article/essay I read was one from an old national Geographic magazine which I found in school. In it the author retraces much of the journey and contrasts present day circumstances with what Ibn described. Really interesting.
I will have to check the library and see what is on offer, although I would say something can probably be found on "project gutenburg"

hivizman

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that? I presume that means Christians?

You were referring to the words in Surat Al-'Imran (3:55) "I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith". Muslims believe that the true teaching of Jesus became distorted in the years and centuries after his time on earth. Muslims also believe that all the prophets came with basically the same message (submit to God, worship God alone without partners, do good and avoid evil). So those who followed the true message of Jesus would not be among those who reject islam (with a small "i") - the verse uses for the latter the Arabic word "kafarū", which has the same root as "kuffar", those who reject Allah.

Does the group of those who follow Jesus equate to all Christians? Classical interpreters such as Ibn Kathir deny this - they suggest that orthodox Christian belief, including the Trinity, is a deviation from the original message of Jesus. Some modern interpreters are more "liberal", for example, Muhammad Asad, in his translation of the Qur'an, states that this verse "refers to all who revere Jesus (i.e., the Christians, who believe him to be the 'Son of God', and the Muslims, who regard him as a prophet)."

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would Muslims agree with the account of Jesus' life up to his death? Miracles etc? To be honest I am ignorant to the role miracles have in Islam.

Lets see if I have this:
Was of a Virgin birth,
Jesus was a prophet just as important as any other,
Will return at the end of time,
Probably ascended although whether he was dead or alive is another matter.
Was not crucified.

Muslims accept that Jesus was able to perform miracles, but only through the permission of Allah. Thus, in Surat Al-'Imran (3:49), Jesus is quoted as saying: "And I shall heal the blind and the leper, and bring the dead back to life by God's leave" (Asad translation). Miracles are associated with all prophets - in the case of Muhammad, his "miracle" is the Qur'an itself.

As to the ranking of prophets, Muhammad would be regarded as the most important, since he is considered to be the "seal" of the prophets, the last and final messenger of Allah. Jesus is second only to Muhammad, and some Muslims refer to Chapter 14 of John's Gospel as evidence that Jesus foresaw or promised that another prophet greater than he would follow him.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

And just a word of thanks for all the replies guys, appreciate it.

You are welcome. If you want to read more, there's a book by Tarif Khalidi The Muslim Jesus, which summarises the Qur'anic and Hadith teachings on Jesus and also includes several hundred stories about Jesus collected from several centuries of Islamic texts. You can read a review of this book here. The Wikipedia article Jesus in Islam is also good.

hivizman

The "Muslim lifestyle magazine" EMEL has a feature in its August 2010 issue on a new film Journey to Mecca. Here's a taster. This is based on the life and journeys of Ibn Battuta, and apparently involves some of the most sophisticated filming of the hajj ever seen. The film has been made for giant IMAX screens so may not be easy to get to see, but perhaps there will be a standard version in due course.

Here's the trailer for the film, with the dulcet tones of Sir Ben Kingsley as narrator (he seems to have the market for commentaries for this sort of film well and truly sewn up!).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9zee0ka-2Q

Fuhrer

Did Jesus claim to be the son of god in the Islamic texts?


And did he have his 12 apostles also?

hivizman

Fuhrer wrote: »

Did Jesus claim to be the son of god in the Islamic texts?

The Qur'an specifically denies this in several places (e.g. Surat an-Nisa 4:171). The most relevant verse for your query is Surat al-Mai'dah 5:72 (in the Asad translation): "Indeed, the truth deny they who say, 'Behold, God is the Christ, son of Mary' - seeing that the Christ [himself] said 'O children of Israel! Worship God [alone], who is my Sustainer as well as your Sustainer'. Behold, whoever ascribes divinity to any being beside God, unto him will God deny paradise, and his goal shall be the fire; and such evildoers will have none to succour them!" Later in this Surah, verse 75, begins: "The Christ, son of Mary, was but a messenger: all [other] messengers had passed away before him." Later still in this Surah, verses 116-118, Jesus is quoted as specifically denying his divinity.

Surat al-Ikhlas (112:3) states of Allah: "He begets not, neither is He begotten" - the idea that Allah would have a son is considered inconsistent with the central Islamic concept of tawhid, or the unity and oneness of God.

Fuhrer wrote: »

And did he have his 12 apostles also?

The Qur'an refers (Surat ahl-'Imran 3:52; Surat al-Mai'dah 5:111) to "the white-garbed ones" (al-hawariyyun), the consensus translation of which is "the disciples" (Arberry translates this as "the Apostles"). The passage from Surat al-Maidah (5:111-114) reads, in Asad's translation:

And [remember the time] when I [i.e., Allah] inspired the white-garbed ones: "Believe in Me and in My Messenger [i.e. Jesus]!" They answered: "We believe; and bear Thou witness that we have surrendered ourselves [unto Thee]." [And] lo, the white-garbed ones said: "O Jesus, son of Mary! Could thy Sustainer send down for us a repast from heaven?" [Jesus] answered: "Be conscious of God, if you are [truly] believers. Said they: "We desire to partake thereof, so that our hearts might be set fully at rest, and that we might know that thou hast spoken the truth to us, and that we might be of those who bear witness thereto!" Said Jesus, the son of Mary: "O God, our Sustainer! Send down upon us a repast from heaven; it shall be an ever-recurring feast for us - for the first and the last of us - and a sign from Thee. And provide us our sustenance, for Thou art the best of providers!"

Asad suggests that this passage echoes "Give us each day our daily bread" from the Lord's Prayer. The notion of a repast or meal may also suggest the Communion meal.

crosstrainer1

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I was recently reading a lengthy article on Ibn Battuta(basically a historic Muslim cleric Michael Palin) and when he visited Palestine his account is much like a pilgrims guide, for example:

"I visited Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus(on him be peace)"

He went on to visit places like the Mount of Olives etc... And a church were Mary was said to have been buried. (at least thats how I interpreted "The Holy Virgin")

This got me thinking, what place if any, does Jesus have in the Muslim religion?

What is the average Muslim posters attitude towards Jesus?

(I did a quick search and the thread I found can only be described as a trainwreck)

if jesus is so important in islam why side with mohammad

wes

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

if jesus is so important in islam why side with mohammad

As far as Muslims are concerned Jesus pbuh and Muhammad pbuh are on the same side.

deise go deo

Dose islamic teaching have anything to say on the gift of toungs that came down upon the deciples after Jesus death or his apperances to the deciples or the saul/paul conversion on the road to demascus?

Soul Winner

How does the Koran know about Jesus? And on what basis can it be considered a reliable source for what it claims about Jesus? On what authority is the Koran based? Can we really trust it? If so, how and why?

demonspawn

Soul Winner wrote: »

How does the Koran know about Jesus? And on what basis can it be considered a reliable source for what it claims about Jesus? On what authority is the Koran based? Can we really trust it? If so, how and why?

Well, the Qur'an was written about 600 years after the death of Jesus. It's probably more accurate than the New Testament in the description of events as the Bible has been so adulterated over the years for various political reasons.

The reason I will not convert to Islam is because I believe the currently accepted Qur'an is not the complete word of God as revealed to Muhammad and compiled by Caliph Abu Bakr.

Hafsa, Muhammad's widow and Umar's daughter, was entrusted with that Quran text after the second Caliph Umar passed away. When Uthman, the third Caliph, started noticing differences in the dialect of the Qur’an, he requested Hafsa to allow him to use the Qur’an text in her possession to be set as the standard dialect, the Quraish dialect aka Fus'ha (Modern Standard Arabic). Before returning that Qur'an text to Hafsa, Uthman immediately made several copies of Abu Bakar's Qur’anic compilation and ordered all other texts to be burned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an

I believe parts of the original text were changed and all other copies ordered to be burned by Uthman. Why else would he order all other copies to be burned if he did not alter the text of the revelations?

I apologize if this causes any offense but it is what I believe. I think the true text does still exist but is kept from us for political reasons. I believe the original text of the New Testament also exists but is kept for the same reasons.

af_thefragile

Soul Winner wrote: »

How does the Koran know about Jesus? And on what basis can it be considered a reliable source for what it claims about Jesus? On what authority is the Koran based? Can we really trust it? If so, how and why?

Short answer, because it's the word of god.

Long answer, you have to study and understand the whole theology to come to a conclusion on what is right and wrong yourself. The proof of the text is considered to lie within the text. The way it is worded, the language it is written in, it's structure and what it says about certain natural and scientific phenomenon. It's hard to understand any of this if you haven't studied the book properly. Even then it depends on how you approach it. You can either accept it or reject it.

There's no simple answer to your question (well apart from it's word of god). A lot of it lies in the believe in it. The Quran starts by saying "this is a book in which there is no doubt and therein lies great guidance for the believer". So if you believe in it, you'll be guided by it and able to see the proof in it that the book is true. If you don't believe in it, you won't be able to see the truth in it.

Your question itself can be treated as a proof towards the divinity of the book. Muhammad was an illiterate man who had little knowledge of any religious texts. Yet he was able to recite a complete book scripted in the most fluent and graceful of language full of classical stories from the abrahamic tradition with great accuracy. There isn't any way he could have come up with it by himself.

And that's the best answer one can give to your rather trivial question.

Soul Winner

demonspawn wrote: »

Well, the Qur'an was written about 600 years after the death of Jesus. It's probably more accurate than the New Testament in the description of events as the Bible has been so adulterated over the years for various political reasons.

Not true. The New Testament documents were circulated very very early in Church history, this is attested to in the fact that the oldest extant manuscripts match up nearly completely with each other even though they have been in the possession of Churches which have been diametrically apposed to each other on particular doctrinal issues from very far back into their history. For instance you will find the same things said in manuscripts which are held by the Greek Orthodox Church as you will in manuscripts held in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church. If they wanted to corrupt them early on then they would do it in such a way as to make the manuscripts say things that would support their interpretation of the original text. We don't get this though, which lends credence to the authenticity of the manuscripts. Where later texts tend to differ mostly is due in most part to fit a particular interpretation.

E.G

The King James translation renders Romans 8 verse 1 as follows:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1

But the oldest extant manuscripts omit the phrase "...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Now why does this matter? It matters because at the time the King James was translated the prevailing view was that in order to enter heaven one must walk worthy of one's calling, i.e. behave one's self in a particular way in order to curry favor with God. But the oldest manuscripts do not support this. They simply state: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Period. You are saved by faith and not by works. That's New Testament theology. The Kings James translators weren't going to allow this so they added the phrase: "...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." That is an example of a latter day addition to the text in order to make it support a particular view, the view in this case is legalism, but like I said you do not see this in the oldest manuscripts.

The biggest difference however between what we read today and what the oldest manuscripts actual say has to do with a weakness in translation and not because of any deliberate attempt to distort the original texts, except in cases like the aforementioned example given above.

So if we have really old manuscripts saying the same things, which are located in varying geographical locations separated by hundreds of miles from the earliest time, and also held in the possession of churches which differ greatly on certain doctrinal issues, then we can be fairly sure that they are authentic translations of the originals, because there is little or no time for anyone to get in there to distort the texts, because most of what the Churches differ on are issues which came about centuries after these texts where already established as holy writ. So if all the churches changed the texts held in their possession just to suit their post-council-creedal-doctrinal positions then we would have a variety of really old texts saying completely different things. We don't have this though.

This is also attested to today in the fact that different Christian denominations will fight over what a particular text means rather than what the text actually says. If their forefathers wanted to corrupt the text early on to suit a particular doctrinal position then they would have it actual say what they wanted it to say instead of centuries later having people fight over what it means. You see where I'm coming from? Most Churches today believe that we must walk worthy once we are called into the faith of Christ Jesus but even most of the English translations today will not add the phrase "...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.", to Romans 8 verse 1, why? Because it simply is not supported by the oldest manuscripts. This is how we arrive at determining in the best way possible the authenticity of any ancient text, they need corroboration with other manuscripts in order to be established as more trust worthy than not.

So when another source comes along centuries later and describes events differently to the much older manuscripts, then one would have to approach such a source with suspicion because it is based on the testimony of just one person with no corroborating witnesses or documents to lend credence to its authenticity. If multiple ancient manuscripts agree on what they describe in the execution narrative of Jesus and then centuries later just one source comes along and gives a different slant on the story, then on what basis should we throw out all the older accounts? The reasons usually given i.e. the original texts were corrupted, are very very flimsy indeed and lack any evidence to support them, and to which we can actually supply counter evidence to reject such reasons.

demonspawn wrote: »

The reason I will not convert to Islam is because I believe the currently accepted Qur'an is not the complete word of God as revealed to Muhammad and compiled by Caliph Abu Bakr.

That's the problem with having only one original documented text. You've got one text from one person. This is rife with dangers because you have only got the words of one man and no corroborating text either Islamic or secular to lend support for its authenticity.

demonspawn wrote: »

I believe parts of the original text were changed and all other copies ordered to be burned by Uthman. Why else would he order all other copies to be burned if he did not alter the text of the revelations?

Exactly, which again goes to support what I'm saying. Having multiple copies of the originals circulated in various places early on prevents any one person from getting at all the documents and destroying them so that he can then come along and make up whatever he likes in the text to make it say what he wants it to say. This didn't happen with the New Testament texts, which gives the oldest extant manuscripts more credibility. I admit, that that doesn't prove that what the events these New Testament manuscripts report are actual true, but if we are not to trust them on the basis of the unlikeliness of the events they describe then likewise we should shouldn't trust any other ancient so called holy text and that includes the Koran.

demonspawn wrote: »

I apologize if this causes any offense but it is what I believe. I think the true text does still exist but is kept from us for political reasons. I believe the original text of the New Testament also exists but is kept for the same reasons.

You didn't cause any offense at all, and I apologies if I'm causing and offense either, that is not my intention. But even if the original text is being held by "whomever" and it was revealed today, how are we supposed to know that it is the original or not? And even if it actually was somehow proven to be the original text, that doesn't mean that it automatically nullifies what the more ancient New Testament manuscripts say about Jesus. How can it? Even if it was given by means of an angelic force, it is still just the testimony of one man and very hard to trust because of the lack of any corroborating account of the same events.

Both religions claim to be God inspired and both Islam and Christianity have malevolent and benevolent angelic forces in their respective theologies, which means that either Christianity is demoniacally inspired or Islam is. Of course they could both be demoniacally inspired, i.e they could both be false, but they most certainly cannot both be true. If one is true then the other is false. So if these forces do exits then who knows from what source either of these religions gets its inspiration? God couldn't have inspired both of them. So what one choses to trust must derive from how best to trust one's sources.

Imagine that there was a nuclear war tomorrow and all that was left of society were four newspaper clippings of the events that happened on September 11 2001 (and some people of course), each of which give varying accounts of the story, but which agree on the most important facts. And these people kept these clippings in high security vaults for centuries to come, making copies of them periodically and circulating them so that people can know what happened on that day. Then 600 yeas later another newspaper decides to print the story afresh but giving a very different account of the facts that all the other four agree on, and the reason they gave in order to trust them was that they claimed to have found yet another old newspaper clipping which describes things differently to the other four.

Even if that was true, you wouldn't say that it has more authenticity than the original clippings because unlike the original clippings it has no corroborating evidence to back it's side of the story up. You could even be sure of its authenticity as an old clipping but because you have differing accounts of the same events then logic says that you go with the story presented by the first four, because the events they are describing were done by different news papers at the time, i.e by different reporters who were close to the events they describe in time and who describe them from different perspective and yet agreeing on aspects of the story that the later texts describes differently. Again that agreement doesn't prove that the event happened but you can be more secure in its authenticity than you can in the case of the later text. That's why I would regard the older New Testament manuscripts which relate to the execution of Jesus as being more authentic than that of the Koran. This is not a bias, I would do the same thing if the tables were turned, just like what you are doing in the case of Uthman, its just better approach than taking on face value alone the account of just one witness and one piece of evidence.

demonspawn

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not true. The New Testament documents were circulated very very early in Church history, this is attested to in the fact that the oldest extant manuscripts match up nearly completely with each other even though they have been in the possession of Churches which have been diametrically apposed to each other on particular doctrinal issues from very far back into their history. For instance you will find the same things said in manuscripts which are held by the Greek Orthodox Church as you will in manuscripts held in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church. If they wanted to corrupt them early on then they would do it in such a way as to make the manuscripts say things that would support their interpretation of the original text. We don't get this though, which lends credence to the authenticity of the manuscripts. Where later texts tend to differ mostly is due in most part to fit a particular interpretation.

The New Testament as we know it today does not resemble the Bible when it was first compiled. It's been changed so many times throughout history that we can't really believe much of it.

The first time the Bible was compiled, a small group of men with very long beards picked out the gospels they liked and left out the ones they didn't. Why aren't the prophesies of Enoch in the Bible? Because the men with beards decided they were too controversial. Where's the Gospel of Mary? Surely if anyone had known who Jesus really was it would be Mary Magdalene. So why leave her out of the New Testament completely?

No, you see the politicians have used the Bible as a tool for centuries, constantly changing it to suit their needs. The King James Bible is a perfect example of this. Perhaps if it contained all the scriptures then we could know all sides and make up our own minds, but the politicians and priests wouldn't like that.

The original Qur'an might have been changed slightly when the originals were ordered to be burnt, but it has remained completely intact since that time. Not once has it been altered or abridged like the Bible.

Soul Winner

demonspawn wrote: »

The New Testament as we know it today does not resemble the Bible when it was first compiled. It's been changed so many times throughout history that we can't really believe much of it.

The first time the Bible was compiled, a small group of men with very long beards picked out the gospels they liked and left out the ones they didn't. Why aren't the prophesies of Enoch in the Bible? Because the men with beards decided they were too controversial. Where's the Gospel of Mary? Surely if anyone had known who Jesus really was it would be Mary Magdalene. So why leave her out of the New Testament completely?

No, you see the politicians have used the Bible as a tool for centuries, constantly changing it to suit their needs. The King James Bible is a perfect example of this. Perhaps if it contained all the scriptures then we could know all sides and make up our own minds, but the politicians and priests wouldn't like that.

The original Qur'an might have been changed slightly when the originals were ordered to be burnt, but it has remained completely intact since that time. Not once has it been altered or abridged like the Bible.

Hey, I agree, there are books that are not in the Bible that probably should be and maybe some that are that shouldn't be, but be that as it may, that does not mean that what's in the Bible now is not the Word of God. That's like saying that if I found a half a copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet on the street tomorrow that what's written therein are not the words of Shakespeare.

If you can give us an example of how - what we have now as a Bible - was deliberately changed to say something that you know for absolute sure the original didn't say and provide evidence for same, then we can talk about something, but failing that I don't see why we should trust in conjecture and innuendo. Talk is cheap, you need to provide evidence to backup what you're saying, you can't just come along and say things like little bearded men conspired to deprive us of truths that they deemed too dangerous to be known by the common folk. We need better arguments than that if we are to throw out the Bible.

Sure, politicians, priests and lunatics have abused the Bible for centuries in order to gain power and wealth but that is not an indictment on the Bible itself, is it?

Now I've given a fairly OK defense on why we can trust the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts in my last post, now you must come back with better arguments than what you've thus far come up with. May I suggest staying away from the Da Vinci Code type books and read the works of reputable experts on the subject instead?

I suggest having a flick through Simon Greenleaf's 'Testimony of the Evangelists' and 'FF Bruce's' - 'The New Testament documents: Are they reliable?' just for starters.

af_thefragile

Its not what the OP asked for but seeing the direction the thread has taken, I feel compelled to post this amazing lecture about how the Quran was compiled and it should clear many misconceptions about this topic and the authenticity of the Quran.

If the moderators don't like this, they can object/remove it to prevent the thread from drifting off topic and it'ld be nice if a new thread could be started on this topic.
Its good to have a discussion that could clear certain misconceptions about Islam as long as they remain peaceful and civil and don't turn into personal abuse.

Here's it by Sk. Hamza Yusuf who is a very highly educated scholar in Islamic theology, about how the Quran was compiled.
I recommend it to be watched by anyone interested in this topic and have doubts on the authenticity of the Quran:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2963640488220666019#

andrew cross

constanine the great ruler of rome converted to christ it was he who decided what went into the bible the four gospels so the gospels of peter thomas philip mary etc were burned then the church in rome changed the gospels to suit them for power and money

Cavehill Red

Speaking as an atheist who has studied a fair bit of theology, it seems to me that the primary difference between the NT and the Koran is the fact that the apocrypha of the NT is extant and examinable, whereas the 'Satanic' verses of the Koran are not.
From the perspective of an historian or a comparative theologian, it is possible to examine the NT in ways the Koran cannot be scrutinised because of this.
The various apocryphal gospels not only shed light on early Christian thinking, but also (because of their omission from the authorised NT today) on the thinking of the church which suppressed them.
The lack of available comparable variants of the Koran does not facilitate such scrutiny.
And has been said, it also heightens the likelihood that the current accepted version is not exactly that which was originally written or circulated.

Wolfe Tone

I dont mind at all the direction the thread has taken. Maybe if we could focus on crossover of Muslim/Christian teachings?