(Continued from page 379)
Islam not as evil as you depicted it!
You write: I think you should be more open minded to the possibility that Islam is not as evil as you depicted it. Why don't you sincerely read it in its entirety and then make a fair assessment even if you ultimately disagree? I only say this because ignorance is not bliss. The Jews reject Christ. Is it at all possible that the Christians are now rejecting something they should embrace.
TCE: to answer you point by point:
As we wrote earlier, we can understand why you want to detach the historical facts from the written word (of the Qur'an) since these facts (which can never be overturned in all of eternity) have amply proven that Islam is the most evil and murderous religion in all of history;
We have read the Qur'an in its entirety so that we can make a fair assessment of its errors, just as we have read many works of other religions (check the rest of our site) and also found them to be wanting;
As we wrote earlier, 'Clearly, you either fail to read carefully, or fail to understand what you have read' and should therefore take your own advice instead of repeating your earlier errors by repeating the same questions (e.g. regarding 'The Trinity');
The fact that many Jews reject Christ does not alter the fact that you are also rejecting the Biblical Jesus and the Biblical record that Muhammad appealed to in many verses before realising that his Qur'an was rejected by 'the people of the book.' And you should also recognise that the Qur'anic Jesus cannot save you;
While there is ample reason for rejecting the origin and the accuracy of the Qur'an, Muslims have no reason to claim that the Bible we read today is not identical to the one inspired by God (see our pages on the accuracy of the Bible compared with the Qur'an) yet we hear the repeated claim that the Bible has been 'corrupted.' The claim is even made that this 'corruption' occurred before Islam! If either claim were true it would raise the obvious question: 'Why did the prophet of Islam ask the 'people of the Book', the Christians and the Jews, to observe the Torah and the Injil (the Old and New Testaments), asking them to view them as a reference and as valid books?
Sura 5:68 reads: "O people of the book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord. It is the revelation that cometh to thee from the Lord."The Bible exposes Muhammad!
According to Sura 10:94, Allah also told Muhammad that, if he had doubts about anything being revealed to him, he should ask the people of the Book:
"If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord: therefore do not doubt, nor shall you deny the revelations of God, for then you shall be lost."
Therefore to claim that the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians have been altered in any way and claim that this is what the Qur'an itself teaches is to believe a lie! To believe that, as the 'Final Revelation' to man, the Qur'an has abrogated both the Old and New Testaments and that this is also taught in the Qur'an is another lie. The Qur'an itself teaches no such doctrines. Muslims have failed to provide one single Bible from the face of the earth to prove this supposed corruption, and not one example of historical or archaeological evidence has been discovered to disprove the Bible. But it is easy to see why Muslims had to make such a claim and also try and teach that Muhammad had attributes which are never described in the Qur'an - because they recognised that the Bible utterly refutes any attempt to replace it with this bogus 'revelation' and Christ is utterly superior in every way to the false prophet, Muhammad, who is also irreversibly exposed by the True Word of God!
To further examine the implied belief that, as 'Final Revelation,' the Qur'an has abrogated both the Old and New Testaments and that this also is taught in the Qur'an we refer you to The Koran by Sir William Muir (SPCK, London). This writer gives the Arabic text and English translation of every Sura in the Qur'an which refers to the Scriptures and also to abrogation and you learn from this that:
1. The Koran declares that God Himself gave these Scriptures to the prophets and to Jesus:
(a) 'We did give the Book Taurat (the Law) to Moses' (Sura 32:23; cf. 2:50, 11:20, 21:27, 25:37; 37:117; 40:56). The Pentateuch is clearly intended.
(b) 'To David we gave the Zabur' (Psalms); (17:57; cf. 4:152).
(c) 'We gave Him (Jesus) the Injil' (Evangel); (5:50; cf. 19:31; 57:27).
(d) That 'He sent down the Taurat and the Injil for the guidance of mankind' (3:2).
2. The Scriptures are invariably spoken of in terms of high praise. Thus the Taurat is said to be:
(a) 'the Book of God' (5:48; cf. 2:95; 3:22).
(b) 'the Word of God' (2:70).
(c) 'Al Furquan', i.e. the Illumination (21:49; 2:50), a title of distinction also given to the Koran.
(d) 'The perspicuous' (or enlightening Book, 3:181). In his commentary, Jalaludin says that the Taurat and the Injil are meant here.
(e) 'A light and a guidance to men... complete to him who acts aright' (6:91, 155).
3. Other pages refer to the inspiration, authority, and proper use of the Scriptures in possession of 'the people of the Book'. Thus:
(a) 'Verily we have inspired thee (Muhammad) as we inspired Noah and the prophets after him' (4:161; cf. 21:7; 42:1; 3:44.)
(b) 'They (the Jews) have inherited the Book (7:168; cf. 42:13).
(c) 'They already have the Taurat in which is God's judgment' (5:47; 3:75).
(d) Jews and Christians are said to be diligent readers of their Scriptures (2:115; 10:93; cf. 3:109).
(e) Those of the Jews who hold fast by the Book will be rewarded (7:169), so too, if they (the Jews and Christians) observe the Taurat and Injil (5:70).
(f) The Jews and Christians are required not only to accept the Koran, but to believe in and observe the Taurat and the Injil as well. 'Ye have no ground to stand on until ye observe the Taurat and Injil' (5:72; cf. 4:135). Muhammad himself is bidden to believe in the Scriptures, and declares his unqualified faith in them: 'Say (O Muhammad), "In whatsoever Books God hath sent down do I believe"' (42:14; 29:45; 3:78); cf. especially, 'Ye (Muhammad and his people) believe in the Book, the whole of it.' Also, 'If thou art in doubt about that which we have sent down to thee, inquire of those who read the Scriptures before thee' (10:94).
(h) The Jews who rejected the Injil (Gospel) are most severely condemned for saying, 'We believe in a part, and we reject a part' (4:149).
Finally, it is stated that the Koran verifies and attests the previous Scriptures. 'He hath sent down to thee the Book (Koran) in truth, confirming what was before it... the Taurat and the Injil' (3:2; 10:38; 45:15,19; 6:92; 2:38,83,91,95; 4:50) and is 'their safeguard' (5:52), which the commentator Baidawi explains to mean:
'A keeper over the whole of the sacred Books, such as shall preserve them from change, and witness to their truth and authority.'
Suras 18:25; 10:65; 6:34,115, say that the word of God cannot be altered, or changed.
That Muhammad should make so many such references to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, shows clearly that he did not regard these Scriptures as either having been in any way corrupted, or abrogated, by the Qur'an, for to 'verify', attest', 'confirm', completely excludes both corruption and abrogation.
It is obvious, therefore, in order for Muhammad to be consistent with himself in his view of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, that he did not regard the Scriptures as either corrupted in his day, or as abrogated by the Qur'an, so that he could not possibly have accused either the Jews or the Christians of altering the text of the Scriptures in opposing his claims.
Thus the testimony of Muhammad himself shows us how we are to interpret his words in Sura 91:39-40:
O children of Israel! remember my favour wherewith I shewed favour upon you, and be true to your covenant with me: I will be true to my covenant with you: therefore, revere me, and believe in what I have sent down to you confirming your Scriptures … And clothe not the truth with falsehood, and hide not the truth when ye know it.
And later in the same Sura (v70):
Yet a part of them believe the word of God, and then, after they had understood it, perverted it, and knew that they did so.
Since Muhammad could not possibly have charged the Jews with corrupting the Scriptures themselves because he appealed to them as bearing witness to himself, his accusation could, at the most, only mean they perverted them by false interpretations in denying that Deuteronomy 18:15,18 had any reference to him. This argument has been thoroughly refuted earlier! Muhammad brought no charges whatever against the Christians of in any way corrupting their Scriptures to present a different Christ from that which the Qur'an presents to us. This also suggests that he thought he was writing about the same Christ, whereas he presented a very different and very blasphemous record altogether!
Muslims try to justify their rejection of the Scriptures' witnesses to Christ as false by saying that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments have been altered since the time when Muhammad declared repeatedly that the Qur'an was sent to 'attest', 'verify', and 'confirm' them. By this means they also account for the many great differences in narrative and historical details, as well as doctrines from the Qur'an, so that the Qur'an does in no way 'attest', 'verify', or 'confirm' them. This reveals complete ignorance of the fact that a comparison of present day Scriptures with the great Biblical Manuscripts and versions still extant, and dating from long before the time of Muhammad, proves conclusively that present day Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments are the same as those in use in the time of Muhammad.
The evidences here are conclusive, overwhelming, and crucial. If Muslims could bring evidence to prove that their charge is true, that the present day Old and New Testament Scriptures in their doctrines of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and salvation are completely different from Scriptures in Muhammad's day, and that they unmistakably predicted the Muhammad of the Qur'an (which it was necessary they should do to establish the truth of Muhammad's claims for the Qur'an concerning them) then the foundation of both the Jewish and Christian religions will have been completely destroyed. But if the evidence proves beyond all question or possibility of doubt that the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments are doctrinally the same today as they were in Muhammad's day, then this evidence totally destroys the foundations of Islam, the Qur'an, by proving it to be wholly false.
So we know that Muhammad could not possibly have said that the Qur'an abrogates the Scriptures after claiming repeatedly that it was sent to confirm them, abrogation being the exact opposite to confirmation, verification, attestation. Muslims are so desperately anxious to get rid of the testimony of the Scriptures to Christ that they fail to realize that in believing the references in the Qur'an to abrogation relate to the Scriptures, they make Muhammad guilty of more glaring contradictions!
Famous missionary Dr. Karl Gottlieb Pfander (1803-65) debated with many renowned Islamic scholars and, in his book Mîzân-ul-Haqq ("The Balance of Truth"; cf. his other important books: Miftâh-ul-Asrâr, "Key of Mysteries" and Tarîq-ul-Hyât, "Way of Salvation"), quoted Al-Baidawi (aka Baizawi) regarding the abrogation of the previous Scriptures:
'Baizawi (Vol. i, p. 383) in his comments on Surah ix. (At Taubah), ver. 29, explains the words, "who profess not the Religion of the Truth," by saying, "which abrogates the rest of the religions, and annuls them," and he speaks of "their original religion, which is abrogated as to faith and conduct". Again, in the book … chapter 36, occurs the following passage: "Every prophet who was in the days of Moses and after him was upon the highroad of Moses and his religious law and obedient to his book, until the time of Jesus. And every prophet who was in the days of Jesus and after Him was upon the highroad of Jesus and His religious law, and obedient to His book, until the time of our prophet Muhammad. And the religious law of Muhammad shall not be abrogated until the day of the Resurrection." Here it is distinctly implied that Jesus' law abrogated that of Moses, and that Muhammad's law abrogated that of Jesus. And Akhund Mulla Muhammad Taqqi yi Kashani, in his Persian work … finished in A.H. 1285, says (p. 66): "For the People of Islam knowledge has been acquired that now Muhammad is Prophet, and his religion abrogates the religion of the previous prophets." This view is accepted by almost all the ignorant and by many of the learned in Muslim lands.'
[see (Pfander, Mîzân-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, p. 56; bold and red and blue emphasis ours)
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Pfander/Mizan/p056.htm for full text including references]
So the clear implication is that the Law of Moses was abrogated by the Law of Jesus, and the Law of Jesus abrogated by the Law of Muhammad; this is not only illogical, but not even what the Qur'an claims! Akund Mulla Muhammad wrote:
'For the people of Islam knowledge has now been acquired that now Muhammad is prophet, and his religion abrogates the religion of all previous prophets.'
This view is not only without support in the Qur'an, but also is without support in any of the traditions current among either the main Muslim sects of the Sunnis or the Shi'ites and it has been noted (ref. Pfander) that the verb 'nasakha', with the sense of 'to abrogate', occurs only twice in the Qur'an (Sura 2:100 and 22:51), and in neither of these instances is it used with reference to any part of the Old or New Testaments. On the contrary, it is used of the abrogation of certain verses of the Qur'an itself, of which, one Muslim ('Ulama) commentator states about 225 verses have been abrogated. Sura 2:100 reads:
'Whatever we abrogate of a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we bring a better than it, or its like. Dost thou not know that God is mighty over everything?'
Note, the excuse for the 'Satanic Verses' but also the implied excuse concerning the verses of the Qur'an which were lost when those followers of Muhammad who had memorised passages that only they knew died in battle and 'Allah' had to come up with an excuse for the supposed loss of his words! Clearly, the reference to abrogation is to verses in the Qur'an only! Pfander notes:
It is true that Baizawi (Vol. i, p. 78) tells us that several different readings of the verse occur, e.g. "Whatsoever We cause thee to forget of a verse, or We abrogate it", &c.: but in none is the sense changed at all. The reference is to the abrogation of certain Qur'anic verses, and to them only. A good illustration of the meaning is given in Baizawi's (Vol. i, pp. 636, 637) commentary on Surah xxii. (Al Hajj), ver. 51, where he tells us the story of how God abrogated in Surah liii. (An Najm), vers. 19, 20, the words, "These are the exalted Swans, and verily their intercession is to be hoped for," which Satan had beguiled Muhammad into uttering in regard to Al Lat, Manat, and Al Uzza', three Arabian goddesses. The same tale is told by Yahya' and Jalalu'ddin in their commentaries on Surah xxii. (Al Hajj), ver. 51, and by Ibn Ishaq in Ibn Hisham's Siratu'r Rasul (vol. i, pp. 127 sqq.). Tabari and the Mawahibu'l Luduniyyah also narrate the tale. There can therefore be no doubt as to what is referred to by the words (see web-site reference) in this latter verse.
Although the fancy that the descent of the Zabur abrogated the Torah, and that the Injil in like manner abrogated the Zabur, is entirely devoid of foundation in the Qur'an and Traditions … yet it is so widely held and so often asserted publicly among Muslims that it may be worth while to quote a book of some authority among them to confute it. Shaikh Haji Rahmatu'llah of Dehli, in his Izharu'l Haqq … published in A.H. 1284, Vol. i, pp. 11 and 12, says that the statement that the Torah was abrogated by the Zabur and the Zabur by the appearance of the Injil "is a falsehood of which there is no trace in the Qur'an or in the Commentaries; nay, there is no trace of it in any authoritative book belonging to the People of Islam. And in our opinion the Zabur does not abrogate the Torah, nor is it abrogated by the Injil. David was subject to the religious law of Moses, and the Zabur was (a collection of) prayers." This writer asserts that only the ignorant and the common people among Muslims hold the erroneous idea which he is confuting.
It is true that such an idle fancy can have arisen and can continue to exist only through want of knowledge of the Qur'an in the first place, and of the Old Testament and the New in the second. For if anyone carefully and prayerfully studies the Bible, when he comes to understand its teaching he will clearly perceive that the doctrines of the Old Testament and of the New are in harmony with one another. By this we mean that their teaching is given in a definite order of instruction, and in this is gradually unfolded to men the knowledge of God's Eternal Purpose.'
[see (Pfander, Mîzân-ul-Haqq - The Balance of Truth, p. 57-8; bold and red and blue emphasis ours)
and http://www.muhammadanism.org/Pfander/Mizan/p058.htm for full text including references]
So the two grounds on which some Muslims seek to justify their rejection of the Scripture testimony to Christ and His salvation, are false suppositions. The evidence is irrefutable that the present day Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments are the same doctrinally as those which Muhammad asserts the Qur'an was sent to 'confirm, verify, attest'. To confirm means the Qur'an can never have abrogated these Scriptures!
(Continued on page 381)