ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (11/30/90)
Thank you very much for your replies regarding the Torah and its relation
to the Koran. To keep from typing the same letter over and over, I have
written the following form letter, which I will alter slightly for each
individual response.
>From what I now understand, Islam teaches that the Torah was altered
some time between the death of Christ and the birth of Mohammed. This
answer leaves me with more questions than I had before. Anyone who
wishes to answer them is quite welcome.
1) How does Islam explain the manuscripts dating back to over 1,000
years before the birth of Christ which say the same thing that the
Old Testament says today?
2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the
Koran also not been altered?
3) Since the Bible (which includes the Torah) was obviously in existence
at the time of Mohammed, is it not possible that people altered the
Bible, changed its style similar to that in the book of Psalms, and
made it into the Koran?
Thanks,
Elizabethta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (11/30/90)
Elizabeth Talllant writes: >From what I now understand, Islam teaches that the Torah was altered >some time between the death of Christ and the birth of Mohammed. This >answer leaves me with more questions than I had before. Anyone who >wishes to answer them is quite welcome. > >1) How does Islam explain the manuscripts dating back to over 1,000 > years before the birth of Christ which say the same thing that the > Old Testament says today? As you wrote in the first paragraph quoted above, the Islamic belief is that the Torah [i.e. the book revealed to Moses by God] has been altered. The Islamic belief is not that necessarily all of the book has been lost, as you question implies. We don't know if that's the case or not, though we can speculate about it. [As a side comment, your question also implies that we have historical evidence that the ancient manuscripts of the Five Books of Moses were written down by Moses! Such historical evidence does not exist.] >2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the > Koran also not been altered? Because there is extensive and detailed historical information about the development of the Quran. The consensus **even** among the major Western scholars of Islam is that the Quran that we have today is what was declared by Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) to be the word of God. >3) Since the Bible (which includes the Torah) was obviously in existence > at the time of Mohammed, is it not possible that people altered the > Bible, changed its style similar to that in the book of Psalms, and > made it into the Koran? This isn't possible because we know how the Quran came into being. >Thanks, Sure. >Elizabeth Behnam Sadeghi
news@larry.rice.edu (News) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov29.180023.9842@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: |> |> 2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the |> Koran also not been altered? I just want to give a few notes on this part. First of all, Allah promises in the Quran that the Quran will not be altered until the day of judgement. So, this is one of the miracles of the Quran. A few years ago, there was a group of people(not muslim) altered the Quran, printed it, and star ted to distribute to the Muslims in order to deviate the Muslims from the true Quran. However, with Alla h's permission, just a few days after that, the conspiracy was known to all the people and those books were des troyed. This is just one of the miracles of the Quran. There are a lot more. I give you two examples: i. the stages of baby in the mother's womb: Al-Quran has described vividly th is process 14 centuries ago, and just proved by the scienties a few decades ago. Every single stage is very exact. The technology of 14 centuries ago would not allow people to describe this process. Let's gl orify Allah: The Quran is truely the Creator's word. ii. Quran predicted that the Roman will defeat the Persian, and it happened a few years after that. And they are a lot more miracles in the Quran when it describes the unive rse, the sea, the mountain, human beings, the sky, the earth, the birds, etc. It is really God's word. The Quran is not a joke. All the verses are full of wisdom and guidance. If you want to talk to Allah, perform s olat(prayer), and if you want Allah to talk to you, read the Quran. Abu Anas
khan@remus.rutgers.edu (Farrukh Shah Khan) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov29.180023.9842@nntp-server.caltech.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) asks: > 2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the > Koran also not been altered? > > Elizabeth Quran has only one Arabic version and that is included in most reliable translations. Bible (and Torah) have been translated many times into many other languages and from those other languages into many other languages and ... The point is (if you understand the translation process and its problems) that new interpretations for many concepts changed from one translation to other. There are so many Christians who do not trust King James version and many other. This observation itself answers your question. -- Live long and prosper. Farrukh Shah Khan. khan@remus.rutgers.edu "MEN MUST CHANGE BEFORE THE KINGDOMS" (Jesus) "Peace is as much an art to learn as war" Sen. Matsunaga (Hawaii)
SX43@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (12/05/90)
Salaam,
BS> Elizabeth Talllant writes:
BS>
BS> >From what I now understand, Islam teaches that the Torah was altered
BS> >some time between the death of Christ and the birth of Mohammed. This
I don't know who told you that. As far as I know there is no statement
in the Quran that the Torah was changed *after* Christ (PBUH). In fact
why would a new Messenger be necessary if the previous Message was
completely intact ?
BS> [As a side comment, your question also implies that we have historical
BS> evidence that the ancient manuscripts of the Five Books of Moses were
BS> written down by Moses! Such historical evidence does not exist.]
In fact, doesn't the text of the Bible supposedly written by Moses (PBUH)
actually contain an account of how he was buried ??! (Seriously.) This
would prove he didn't write that part, at least.
BS>
BS> >2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the
BS> > Koran also not been altered?
Apart from the fact that it *hasn't* been altered (we still have the
very first copies, in museums, and literally not a dot has changed..)
there is the standing Guarantee from Allah, within the Quran, that
He will personally see to it that it remains safe from corruption. This
is not the case with any previous scripture; nor does history show them
to have remained safe from the tampering hands of men.
BS> >3) Since the Bible (which includes the Torah) was obviously in existence
BS> > at the time of Mohammed, is it not possible that people altered the
BS> > Bible, changed its style similar to that in the book of Psalms, and
BS> > made it into the Koran?
Behnam has made the point that we know how the Qur'an came into being..
let me give another angle. The Bible contains and presumably at the
time also contained many errors of logic and consistency. The Quran
does not (standing challenge of 15 centuries : find any inconsistency
or 'crookedness' in it).
It doesn't make sense that whoever 'converted' the current scripture
into the Quran managed to weed out all the scientific and logical
flaws in the Bible in the process. One trivial example... in Genesis
the account of Creation says that the vegetation appeared on earth
*before* the sun was created. In the Qur'an, this apparently
innoccuous error is not present --why ? It only makes a difference to
us, here in the twentieth century, who know of these things. To the
scribes and scholars of those days, creation was a story found in books
like the Bible; why should *every* *single* factual error of this sort
in the Bible have been smoothly corrected in the production of the
Qur'an. In the words of Buccaille, the Qur'an remains to date a
challenge to human explanation.
Trying to be helpful,
Fazal.goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec3.154747.19238@wpi.WPI.EDU> khan@remus.rutgers.edu (Farrukh Shah Khan) writes: >> 2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the >> Koran also not been altered? > > Quran has only one Arabic version and that is included in most > reliable translations. Bible (and Torah) have been translated many > times into many other languages and from those other languages into > many other languages and ... The point is (if you understand the > translation process and its problems) that new interpretations for > many concepts changed from one translation to other. There are so > many Christians who do not trust King James version and many other. > This observation itself answers your question. Regarding translations: Everyone who reads a sacred text is, in a sense, at least a commentator, if not a translator. The difference between interpretation and trans- lation per se is that a translation is a transferral into another lang- uage of what a given scholar believes the original text says. But what if the person purporting to read the original text is not a scholar? He or she probably understands the text imperfectly, and re- lies heavily on the judgment of scholars as to what a given text means and how it is to be applied. In Christian tradition, the remedy to this problem has been to place the traditional understanding of the text in translation, and to make it readily available to the masses in this manner. Jews and Arabs tend to stick with the original, Arabs even more so than Jews. I see no evidence to support the grandiose claims of Christians, Jews, or Arabs that theirs is the better method. Arrogance, arrogance, ar- rogance is all I see. Regarding the "alteration" of the Torah: Don't Muslims believe that the Quran was essentially dictated by God to Muhammed, pronounced by him, and then written down by his followers, who essentially memorized everything he said? And is it not also ar- gued that this text has been completely stable since its first writing? This assertion seems very interesting to me. Right at about this same time, Jews stabilized the text of the Torah and the Prophets, and gave it cantillations. I wonder whether their efforts were inspired by the efforts of Muslims. Or were both inspired by the previously existing methods of Greek scholars attempting to preserve the classic works of the great philosophers (which both Arabs and Jews read and understood)? Anyway, I have to admit to being a cynic in the sense that the Muslim story on God -> Muhammed -> Followers -> Quran transmission seems just too perfect to be believed. I'd like to see some historical documen- tation on this, since recently several books have been published docu- menting the reverse process. Evidently, after the dawn of the Islamic era, there was a suppression of "incorrect" Quranic copies and tradi- tions. Now "incorrect" is a highly relative term. We could say that the Jews likewise had variant Tora traditions, but that these were ul- timately (and justly) suppressed in favor of the Masoretic Text (the standard text we all use now). If there are any Jews online here, maybe they can confirm whether this view is actually taken by conservative Rabbis. The point is that the difference between "suppression of er- ror" and "fundamental uncertainty about the original text" is all in the mind of the beholder. Anyway, what I am saying is that historical events are highly uncertain, and it is more a matter of ideology what happened a thousand years ago than it is of documentable proof. I admit that I am highly ignorant of what happened just yesterday. I have trouble sometimes remembering what I ate for breakfast. What happened 200 years ago is entirely un- known to me except through propaganda distributed by various interested parties, or through scholars who (with their own prejudices and hidden agendas) pretend to know what really happened. Is someone going to tell me that they really know what happened over a thousand years ago? Some Christian, please tell me why the gospel stories about Jesus' resurrection are all so different (you Muslims, go read the 4 gospels some time). Jews, how about telling me why pre-Masoretic Bible manuscripts do not agree? Muslims, how about proving to me that your notions of how the Quran was written and preserved is not ancient religious propaganda? The fact is that none of these questions can be answered without an ir- rational element of faith. Personally, I don't mind that this element is present. But I think that everyone should admit that it is. It is only through this admission that I, personally, manage to hang on to a religious faith. I may be a fool, but it seems logical to me that God's existence should not be provable, but should be, in part, a matter of whether we are fundamentally willing to believe in things like respon- sability for our actions, in altruism, and in a greater good beyond this seemingly unjust world. -Richard
zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) (12/05/90)
Farrukh = khan@remus.rutgers.edu (Farrukh Shah Khan) Elizabeth = ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) Elizabeth> 2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then Elizabeth> why has the Koran also not been altered? Farrukh> Quran has only one Arabic version and that is included in most Farrukh> reliable translations. Bible (and Torah) have been translated many Farrukh> times into many other languages and from those other languages into If that is the problem, then the simple solution is to go directly to the original Hebrew. There is only *one* Hebrew version, which is the same (bar a few insignificant spelling variations) all over the world, and has been in use since well before Mohammed. To claim that this text was deliberately changed in order to contradict the claims of Islam would imply that the people who did the forgery were prophets. -- Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au `...And the way to do something about it is to do something about it.' - Joan Kirner (29/11/90)
ABBASI@ecs.umass.edu (12/06/90)
In article <1990Dec5.083213.2625@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: > In article <1990Dec3.154747.19238@wpi.WPI.EDU> > khan@remus.rutgers.edu (Farrukh Shah Khan) writes: > >>> 2) If Islam teaches that the Torah has been altered, then why has the >>> Koran also not been altered? >> >> Quran has only one Arabic version and that is included in most >> reliable translations. Bible (and Torah) have been translated many >> times into many other languages and from those other languages into >> many other languages and ... The point is (if you understand the >> translation process and its problems) that new interpretations for >> many concepts changed from one translation to other. There are so >> many Christians who do not trust King James version and many other. >> This observation itself answers your question. > > Regarding translations: > > Everyone who reads a sacred text is, in a sense, at least a commentator, > if not a translator. The difference between interpretation and trans- > lation per se is that a translation is a transferral into another lang- > uage of what a given scholar believes the original text says. > > But what if the person purporting to read the original text is not a > scholar? He or she probably understands the text imperfectly, and re- > lies heavily on the judgment of scholars as to what a given text means > and how it is to be applied. In Christian tradition, the remedy to > this problem has been to place the traditional understanding of the > text in translation, and to make it readily available to the masses > in this manner. Jews and Arabs tend to stick with the original, Arabs > even more so than Jews. > > I see no evidence to support the grandiose claims of Christians, Jews, > or Arabs that theirs is the better method. Arrogance, arrogance, ar- > rogance is all I see. > > Regarding the "alteration" of the Torah: > > Don't Muslims believe that the Quran was essentially dictated by God > to Muhammed, pronounced by him, and then written down by his followers, > who essentially memorized everything he said? And is it not also ar- > gued that this text has been completely stable since its first writing? > > This assertion seems very interesting to me. Right at about this same > time, Jews stabilized the text of the Torah and the Prophets, and gave > it cantillations. I wonder whether their efforts were inspired by the > efforts of Muslims. Or were both inspired by the previously existing > methods of Greek scholars attempting to preserve the classic works of > the great philosophers (which both Arabs and Jews read and understood)? > > Anyway, I have to admit to being a cynic in the sense that the Muslim > story on God -> Muhammed -> Followers -> Quran transmission seems just > too perfect to be believed. I'd like to see some historical documen- > tation on this, since recently several books have been published docu- > menting the reverse process. Evidently, after the dawn of the Islamic > era, there was a suppression of "incorrect" Quranic copies and tradi- > tions. Now "incorrect" is a highly relative term. We could say that > the Jews likewise had variant Tora traditions, but that these were ul- > timately (and justly) suppressed in favor of the Masoretic Text (the > standard text we all use now). If there are any Jews online here, maybe > they can confirm whether this view is actually taken by conservative > Rabbis. The point is that the difference between "suppression of er- > ror" and "fundamental uncertainty about the original text" is all in > the mind of the beholder. > > Anyway, what I am saying is that historical events are highly uncertain, > and it is more a matter of ideology what happened a thousand years ago > than it is of documentable proof. I admit that I am highly ignorant of > what happened just yesterday. I have trouble sometimes remembering > what I ate for breakfast. What happened 200 years ago is entirely un- > known to me except through propaganda distributed by various interested > parties, or through scholars who (with their own prejudices and hidden > agendas) pretend to know what really happened. Is someone going to tell > me that they really know what happened over a thousand years ago? Some > Christian, please tell me why the gospel stories about Jesus' resurrection > are all so different (you Muslims, go read the 4 gospels some time). Jews, > how about telling me why pre-Masoretic Bible manuscripts do not agree? > Muslims, how about proving to me that your notions of how the Quran was > written and preserved is not ancient religious propaganda? > > The fact is that none of these questions can be answered without an ir- > rational element of faith. Personally, I don't mind that this element > is present. But I think that everyone should admit that it is. It is > only through this admission that I, personally, manage to hang on to a > religious faith. I may be a fool, but it seems logical to me that God's > existence should not be provable, but should be, in part, a matter of > whether we are fundamentally willing to believe in things like respon- > sability for our actions, in altruism, and in a greater good beyond this > seemingly unjust world. > > -Richard I am a muslim student,(whatever i write is my own belief and i also have proof of it from the Qur'an), Answering your first question, The Qura'an has it's own religious importance and cannot be changed by assumption,s. It was reveiled to prophet Mohammed (p.b.u.h) during the month of ramadan(sacred for fasting), who then passed it o n to other people when preaching, along with this it was compiled dot to dot as revealed. If you are in the erraneous beleive that it was written by a human (ALLAH forbid), then i can't do much to assist you. However, even in the ancient days many disbeliever,s tried to prove the Qura'an to be incorrect. They were asked to write the arabic(contained in The Quran) of the same prose and grammatical orientation. There effort was yet a failure, an illogical argument. The Quran is THE most true book: It describes all the technological development's that are being proven by man at present day. Isn't that enough to satisfy you? It also mentions the destruction that man would create, and eventually be edged on the eve of The Day Of Judgement(mentioned as dooms day in biblical language). The Middle east crisis has stuned the world, people have realized that there is a possibility of a nuclear war in the Gulf. I think that's logical enough. It also mentions the corruption that man would get involved in by his own deeds. He will be given warnings to abstain from it. The HIV virus that is found in AIDs is a clear warning to tha dangers that sex has brought to mankind. What applies here is "prevention is better than avoidance". I think this should clarify your approach towards the purity, image, and sanctity of our Holy book QURAN. (P.S/:by "disbelievers" i am reffering to members of other religious groups, particularly jews who were dominant at that time)
bes@tybalt.caltech.edu (12/06/90)
goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: [some deleted] >Anyway, I have to admit to being a cynic in the sense that the Muslim >story on God -> Muhammed -> Followers -> Quran transmission seems just >too perfect to be believed. I'd like to see some historical documen- >tation on this, since recently several books have been published docu- >menting the reverse process. Evidently, after the dawn of the Islamic >era, there was a suppression of "incorrect" Quranic copies and tradi- >tions. Now "incorrect" is a highly relative term. We could say that >the Jews likewise had variant Tora traditions, but that these were ul- >timately (and justly) suppressed in favor of the Masoretic Text (the >standard text we all use now). If there are any Jews online here, maybe >they can confirm whether this view is actually taken by conservative >Rabbis. The point is that the difference between "suppression of er- >ror" and "fundamental uncertainty about the original text" is all in >the mind of the beholder. I think you would agree that there can be no historical documentation on the God --> Muhammad link in the chain. We accept Muhammad's --peace be upon him-- claim the Quran is from God not based on direct scientific evidence but based on intuition, logic, and/or faith or circumstantial evidence. The Muhammad --> Quran is another matter. There is ample historical documentation about the development of the Quran. You mention "a suppression of 'incorrect' Quranic copies." I think what you are referring is the following. First, you may know that at the time of the Prophet and the first Caliphs, the Arabic script was initially written down without vowels. Second, we need to remember that in regions that were far away from the Prophet's home, the Arabic dialect was different (different pronounciations). Now we can see a problem arising when copies of the Quran are sent to regions with different dialects than the true dialect of the Prophet's home. This would lead to the alteration of the words. So what was done by the companions of the Prophet Muhammad was to get rid of the wrong pronouciations and make a copy of the Quran (with vowels) based on the pronounciation of the Prophet himself. This indeed guranteed that the word of God would not change. ----- Note: in your discussion you also include traditions. The fact is that the development of traditions is not as well documented as the Quran. There is also some disagreement among Moslems about the extent to which specific ahadith (traditions) can be considerered authentic. Behnam Sadeghi
blais@emx.utexas.edu (Donald Blais) (12/09/90)
In article <1990Dec6.014559.6623@nntp-server.caltech.edu> bes@tybalt.caltech.edu writes: >goer@midway.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes: >>Anyway, I have to admit to being a cynic in the sense that the Muslim >>story on God -> Muhammed -> Followers -> Quran transmission seems just >>too perfect to be believed. > >I think you would agree that there can be no historical documentation >on the God --> Muhammad link in the chain. > >The Muhammad --> Quran is another matter. There is ample >historical documentation about the development of the Quran. Behnam Sadeghi has provided a thoughtful reply [see his posting]. Additional detail along this line of criticism can be found in... Bell, Richard, 1876- [Bell's] Introduction to the Qur'an Edinburgh: 1970, 1963, 1958, c1953 L of Congress: BP130.B4 Dewey Decimal: 297.12 B413 -- Donald E. Blais Internet: blais@emx.utexas.edu Computation Center BITNET: blais@utxvms University of Texas UUCP: uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!blais Austin, TX 78712 Phone: +1-512-471-3241