NationStates Jolt Archive

Many Muslims I have met say that the reason that Muhammad was sent his prophecy is that the Bible was corrupted by men. But the Koran doesnt seem to say that. We see here that it says that the Gospel, Pslams and Torah were sent to man by God

"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87)

"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (Sura 4:163)

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law [of Moses] and the Gospel [of Jesus] before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion [of judgment between right and wrong]," (Sura 3:3).

So it would apper that it says that the Bible is also God's word according to the Koran. Yet it also says that God's word is incorruptable.

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (Sura 6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (Sura6:115).

"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (Sura 10:64)

So if the Bible is also God's word and God's word cannot be corrupted, why do so many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted by men?

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?

(a note, we are discussing Islam here. These threads often descend into "You think thats a bad contradiction, look at X in the Bible". If you want to look at X contradiction in the Bible, then please make your own thread about it)

Many Muslims I have met say that the reason that Muhammad was sent his prophecy is that the Bible was corrupted by men. But the Koran doesnt seem to say that. We see here that it says that the Gospel, Pslams and Torah were sent to man by God



So it would apper that it says that the Bible is also God's word according to the Koran. Yet it also says that God's word is incorruptable.



So if the Bible is also God's word and God's word cannot be corrupted, why do so many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted by men?

(a note, we are discussing Islam here. These threads often descend into "You think thats a bad contradiction, look at X in the Bible". If you want to look at X contradiction in the Bible, then please make your own thread about it)

If we are discussing Islam why does the main source of contention seem to be corruption of God's word? You state that God's world cannot be be corrupted; yet, it seems to me that much of what Christ talks about in the Bible is the corruption of God's word: such as the moneylenders in the temple, the use and misuse of the sabbath as in the oxen in the well etc.

Many Muslims I have met say that the reason that Muhammad was sent his prophecy is that the Bible was corrupted by men. But the Koran doesnt seem to say that. We see here that it says that the Gospel, Pslams and Torah were sent to man by God



So it would apper that it says that the Bible is also God's word according to the Koran. Yet it also says that God's word is incorruptable.



So if the Bible is also God's word and God's word cannot be corrupted, why do so many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted by men?

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?

(a note, we are discussing Islam here. These threads often descend into "You think thats a bad contradiction, look at X in the Bible". If you want to look at X contradiction in the Bible, then please make your own thread about it)Maybe because they look at the rather weird process of how the Bible was assembled? All the disputes and arguments?

Maybe because they look at the rather weird process of how the Bible was assembled? All the disputes and arguments?

Thats not the point. The Koran says clearly that God's word could not be corrupted and that the Bible is God's word also. So it wouldnt matter what men do, edit, asseble it diffrently etc, if God says it can't be done by men, then it cant be done by men. So why do Muslims claim it has been?

Thats not the point. The Koran says clearly that God's word could not be corrupted and that the Bible is God's word also. So it wouldnt matter what men do, edit, asseble it diffrently etc, if God says it can't be done by men, then it cant be done by men. So why do Muslims claim it has been?


I think perhaps you are adding your understanding to God's intent here. We God says that none can change His word (None can change His words), I believe this in meant to be a command or law forbidding the changing of His word. Not the meaning that you seem to put on it, that it is impossible to change His word

Thats not the point. The Koran says clearly that God's word could not be corrupted and that the Bible is God's word also.
I'm not a theologian, but I reckon that "can't change" in this case means more like "you can't modify it, because it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth" rather than some sort of lightning striking you if you try and put pen to paper.

Many Muslims I have met say that the reason that Muhammad was sent his prophecy is that the Bible was corrupted by men. But the Koran doesnt seem to say that. We see here that it says that the Gospel, Pslams and Torah were sent to man by God



So it would apper that it says that the Bible is also God's word according to the Koran. Yet it also says that God's word is incorruptable.



So if the Bible is also God's word and God's word cannot be corrupted, why do so many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted by men?

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?

(a note, we are discussing Islam here. These threads often descend into "You think thats a bad contradiction, look at X in the Bible". If you want to look at X contradiction in the Bible, then please make your own thread about it)

I am not sure about the manuscripts question. I will have to do a little research about that. I will try to back to you later tonight.

Thats not the point. The Koran says clearly that God's word could not be corrupted and that the Bible is God's word also. So it wouldnt matter what men do, edit, asseble it diffrently etc, if God says it can't be done by men, then it cant be done by men. So why do Muslims claim it has been?Because they fail to see that the Qur'an is just another book and not the ultimately "true" word of any god.

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?

Simple power play and politics.

I think perhaps you are adding your understanding to God's intent here. We God says that none can change His word (None can change His words), I believe this in meant to be a command or law forbidding the changing of His word. Not the meaning that you seem to put on it, that it is impossible to change His word

Hmm, lets look at it in more detail

"there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah"

That suggests more that no one is able to. If it was no one is allowed to, wouldnt it say "none must alter the words" or something more direct to that effect. "None that can" means that no one has the ability to, not that no one should. The same thing is here again

"None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all"

'None can' which implies ability to. I'm not a native arabic speeker, so perhaps someone that is could clarify this more.

why is it always the Muslims with you for fecks sake get over it its Christmas eve and your debating the Koran because you think that somehow Islam is some sort of big bad boogie man out to eat you

And seeing as how you nicely decided to ignore all other religions in this one you must accept that they are just the same and thus thread over now lets get on with whatever we did before we had to debate Muslims…Y2K I do believe

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?Most likely for the same reason many texts didn't make it into the Bible: because they offered an alternative perspective that could compromise the ideological homogeneity.

why is it always the Muslims with you for fecks sake get over it its Christmas eve and your debating the Koran because you think that somehow Islam is some sort of big bad boogie man out to eat you

And seeing as how you nicely decided to ignore all other religions in this one you must accept that they are just the same and thus thread over now lets get on with whatever we did before we had to debate Muslims…Y2K I do believe

Hmm, great. So when an Athiest decides to point out an intelectual flaw in the Bible, thats fair and clever. But when a Christian decides to point out an intelctual flaw in the Koran, that is thinking "Islam is some sort of big bad boogie man". Do I sense a double standard.

Hmm, great. So when an Athiest decides to point out an intelectual flaw in the Bible, thats fair and clever. But when a Christian decides to point out an intelctual flaw in the Koran, that is thinking "Islam is some sort of big bad boogie man". Do I sense a double standard.It's somehow ironic that a Christian would try to point out any "intellectual flaw" in anything else but in the basics of Christianity.

It's somehow ironic that a Christian would try to point out any "intellectual flaw" in anything else but in the basics of Christianity.

Its irrelvevent. If you want to discuss my post conduct or intelectual flaws you see in Christianity, take it to another thread, but this is about a flaw in Islam

Most likely for the same reason many texts didn't make it into the Bible: because they offered an alternative perspective that could compromise the ideological homogeneity.

This is a little diffrent.

In the case of the Bibles rejected gospels they are in the minority compared to the whole. In the case of the Koran, ALL of the other copies except one was destroyed. Thats basicly as if Matthew, Mark and Luke were wiped out and only John was allowed to be a gospel.

This is a little diffrent.

In the case of the Bibles rejected gospels they are in the minority compared to the whole. In the case of the Koran, ALL of the other copies except one was destroyed. Thats basicly as if Matthew, Mark and Luke were wiped out and only John was allowed to be a gospel.

You mean like the Gnostic gospels (which aren't allowed in the Western Church)?

Hmm, lets look at it in more detail

"there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah"

That suggests more that no one is able to. If it was no one is allowed to, wouldnt it say "none must alter the words" or something more direct to that effect. "None that can" means that no one has the ability to, not that no one should. The same thing is here again

"None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all"

'None can' which implies ability to. I'm not a native arabic speeker, so perhaps someone that is could clarify this more.

I don't think the problem here is your lack of knowledge in Arabic. How is it possible for the word in question to have the meaning that you give to them. When it is plain and obvious that if someone wishes to change the obvious meaning of the meaning of the Koran they can do that. Just as there are about 16k different Christian sects that have different ideas about the meaning of the Bible.

Oh, and by the way I am not Muslim and I am not Christian. I believe in the divine mission of Christ, Muhammed, Moses, Budhha and other Messengers of God.

In the case of the Bibles rejected gospels they are in the minority compared to the whole.
But the principle is the same. They wanted to have one unified line they could present to their sheep.

And besides, have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#List_of_non-canonical_.28.22apocryphal.22.29_Gospels

Its irrelvevent. If you want to discuss my post conduct or intelectual flaws you see in Christianity, take it to another thread, but this is about a flaw in IslamPfffft. The flaw in Islam is the very same as in Christianity and Judaism: the idiotic assumption that their respective "holy book" is flawless and the "word of god". Just like other holy books the Qur'an was written by various people with various ideas. There is really no point in weighing one word against another.

I don't think the problem here is your lack of knowledge in Arabic. How is it possible for the word in question to have the meaning that you give to them. When it is plain and obvious that if someone wishes to change the obvious meaning of the meaning of the Koran they can do that. Just as there are about 16k different Christian sects that have different ideas about the meaning of the Bible.


Depends upon what you mean.

Obviously I can copy the Koran into my word processor and fiddle around with it etc and make it say diffrent things. But whether or not that can be accepted as the word of God is another matter.

It is plain and obvious that it can be changed, so the fact that the Koran says it can't, in your mind would seem to make it even more questionable.

It cant have the message "No one is allowed to" else it would say that. It doenst. It says that no one has the ability to.

This is a little diffrent.
In the case of the Bibles rejected gospels they are in the minority compared to the whole. In the case of the Koran, ALL of the other copies except one was destroyed. Thats basicly as if Matthew, Mark and Luke were wiped out and only John was allowed to be a gospel.Maybe if those texts had not been wide-spread already they would have done just that.

Pfffft. The flaw in Islam is the very same as in Christianity and Judaism: the idiotic assumption that their respective "holy book" is flawless and the "word of god". Just like other holy books the Qur'an was written by various people with various ideas. There is really no point in weighing one word against another.

This isnt a comparison thread. This is a thread looking at one claimed word of God, and what it says. There seems to be a contradiction and we are analysing that. If you want to make a comparison between this flaw and another flaw, do it somewhere else. This isnt what this thread is about.

Many Muslims I have met say that the reason that Muhammad was sent his prophecy is that the Bible was corrupted by men. But the Koran doesnt seem to say that. We see here that it says that the Gospel, Pslams and Torah were sent to man by God



So it would apper that it says that the Bible is also God's word according to the Koran. Yet it also says that God's word is incorruptable.



So if the Bible is also God's word and God's word cannot be corrupted, why do so many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted by men?

EDIT: And just to add a further question, shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why?

(a note, we are discussing Islam here. These threads often descend into "You think thats a bad contradiction, look at X in the Bible". If you want to look at X contradiction in the Bible, then please make your own thread about it)

here is the answer. The intent in his actions was to keep the Koran pure and protected from men changing it. Sorry I gtg for now.

Uthman is perhaps best known for forming the committee which compiled the basic text of the Qur'an as it exists today. Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur'an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if everyone did not have access to the original text of Qur'an. Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee compiled the text. Uthman had it copied and sent copies to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that variant versions of the Qur'an be destroyed, and only the original version used.

But whether or not that can be accepted as the word of God is another matter.
Exactly. If you change it, it's no longer the word of god. There is only one word of god, and it's not open to rewriting.

That's what the passage is saying, and it's not all that surprising either.

Hmm, great. So when an Athiest decides to point out an intelectual flaw in the Bible, thats fair and clever. But when a Christian decides to point out an intelctual flaw in the Koran, that is thinking "Islam is some sort of big bad boogie man". Do I sense a double standard.

go ahead find the newest thread that debated Christian scripture please go ahead and don’t worry I for one don’t find atheists whining clever

This isnt a comparison thread. This is a thread looking at one claimed word of God, and what it says. There seems to be a contradiction and we are analysing that. If you want to make a comparison between this flaw and another flaw, do it somewhere else. This isnt what this thread is about.There is only a contradiction because you perceive the contradicting statements as true, as well as the assumption that there should be no contradictions.

There is only a contradiction because you perceive the contradicting statements as true, as well as the assumption that there should be no contradictions.

Assumption?

Think about it. If this is a holy book that is supposed to be perfect in every way then it stands to reason that there would be no contradictions. Unless you can demonstrate how it could be the word of God and still be contradictive.

Assumption?

Think about it. If this is a holy book that is supposed to be perfect in every way then it stands to reason that there would be no contradictions. Unless you can demonstrate how it could be the word of God and still be contradictive.

The other answer is that you are seeing contradictions that don't exist because you have decided that the Quran is not a book from God, that Muhammed is not from God and that all Muslims are misguided.

Thats not the point. The Koran says clearly that God's word could not be corrupted and that the Bible is God's word also. So it wouldnt matter what men do, edit, asseble it diffrently etc, if God says it can't be done by men, then it cant be done by men. So why do Muslims claim it has been?

I think the Q'uran says that god's word shouldn't be corrupted, not that it is literally impossible.

Assumption?

Think about it. If this is a holy book that is supposed to be perfect in every way then it stands to reason that there would be no contradictions. Unless you can demonstrate how it could be the word of God and still be contradictive.Holy books are not issues of reason. On the one side the Qur'an is meant to be a continuation of the Bible, on the other side it is meant to ascertain the differences. On the one side Yeshua is the greatest prophet prior to Muhammad, on the other he is not the son or even incarnation of Allah/Eloah. The simplest way to explain this difference is to accept the Bible (NT) as the Word of God that had been tampered with by its authors.

I think the Q'uran says that god's word shouldn't be corrupted, not that it is literally impossible.


It is clear to me that the OPer has asked a question that he wanted answered only in one way and will not accept any other answer.

The other answer is that you are seeing contradictions that don't exist because you have decided that the Quran is not a book from God, that Muhammed is not from God and that all Muslims are misguided.

Remind me to bring it up the next time someone posts that "150 contradicitions in the Bible" stuff.

It clearly says "None can change His words" meaning ability. When it says that you shouldnt do something it says "You shall not" as it does in the ten commandments (which I believe are also part of the Quran, as it says part of Moses's law)

Holy books are not issues of reason. On the one side the Qur'an is meant to be a continuation of the Bible, on the other side it is meant to ascertain the differences. On the one side Yeshua is the greatest prophet prior to Muhammad, on the other he is not the son or even incarnation of Allah/Eloah.

True, Muhammed, tries to clear up a misunderstanding in Christianity about the person and divinity of Christ. "There is no God but God and Muhammed is His Prophet.

It is clear to me that the OPer has asked a question that he wanted answered only in one way and will not accept any other answer.

No, I'm debating it the way I see it. The arguemnet "it means should not, not can not" is flawed in that it clearly says "none can change" etc. So repeating that argument is not going to change my mind because it isnt to my intelectual satisfaction. If I can see an answer that is, then I will listen. One that makes sense EG the context of the verses is not universal. If that is the case then I would want proof of that fact etc. I'm not some narrow minded biggot just because I dont accept one argument. It clearly says "none can corrupt" etc, so to suggest it means none should do it is flawed. If there is another answer I'm open to hearing it, but that one isnt one I'm prepared to accept as it doesnt make sense given what is written

Remind me to bring it up the next time someone posts that "150 contradicitions in the Bible" stuff.

It clearly says "None can change His words" meaning ability. When it says that you shouldnt do something it says "You shall not" as it does in the ten commandments (which I believe are also part of the Quran, as it says part of Moses's law)

You insist that your interpetation of these words is the correct interpetation. I think you are unreasonable because you have an agenda and decided what the correct answer was before you posted the question.

It is clear to me that the OPer has asked a question that he wanted answered only in one way and will not accept any other answer.

eh, well after Mohammed died his followers started to collect his recitations into a book, which became Al-Q'uran(the recitations). The requirements for an alleged saying to be compiled were rather stringent, I believe you had to have four people who had known Muhammed and had distinctly remember him saying the recitation you are trying to compile. Also, traditionally it is forbidden to translate the Q'uran.

These two facts seem to suggest that hell yes Muslims believe the word of god can be corrupted.

No, I'm debating it the way I see it. The arguemnet "it means should not, not can not" is flawed in that it clearly says "none can change" etc. So repeating that argument is not going to change my mind because it isnt to my intelectual satisfaction. If I can see an answer that is, then I will listen. One that makes sense EG the context of the verses is not universal. If that is the case then I would want proof of that fact etc. I'm not some narrow minded biggot just because I dont accept one argument. It clearly says "none can corrupt" etc, so to suggest it means none should do it is flawed. If there is another answer I'm open to hearing it, but that one isnt one I'm prepared to accept as it doesnt make sense given what is written

Your interpetation of the words is physically, intectually and psychologically impossible. How can the "can not" be enforced? It is impossible.

eh, well after Mohammed died his followers started to collect his recitations into a book, which became Al-Q'uran(the recitations). The requirements for an alleged saying to be compiled were rather stringent, I believe you had to have four people who had known Muhammed and had distinctly remember him saying the recitation you are trying to compile. Also, traditionally it is forbidden to translate the Q'uran.

These two facts seem to suggest that hell yes Muslims believe the word of god can be corrupted.

This is correct making the Quran less corrupted than say a Holy Book like the Bible.