Muslims And Protestants?

[rkwright]

I was posting some questions over at MM, mostly just to learn about the Muslim belief on Jesus. I found a few interesting points I wanted to bounce off PM - to get your opinion and possibly educate some here.

1 - Sura 3:3 states that Allah revealed the Gospel of Jesus. This was interesting to me, and the thought almost looks similar to the Mormons. God came and revealed Himself through Jesus but the message was lost.

2 - This came to my attention very quickly - either the Bible is right about Jesus, or the Qu'ran. They're mutually exclusive on this matter. I figured lets test the strength of the validity of the Qu'ran. I'm still waiting on more responses at MM but it seems that the Muslims may have the same problem our Protestant brothers have. Whats the authority behind the Qu'ran? This being the case, it might be possible that all the arguments against protestant's version of the Bible work equally well.

For starters, does anyone know if the Qu'ran tells us how many verses or books there should be in it?

[Apotheoun]

I doubt that trying to compare Islam to Protestantism will be successful, since a Muslim would probably piously respond by simply saying that the Quran was "assembled" during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, one of the Rashidun, and so it has been protected - at least in some way - against error. If anything Islam resembles Mormonism (or really it should be said the other way around), and so the best way to argue against it is by denying the idea that Mohammad was a true prophet.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1260539216' post='2018326']
I doubt that trying to compare Islam to Protestantism will be successful, since a Muslim would probably piously respond by simply saying that the Quran was "assembled" during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, one of the Rashidun, and so it has been protected - at least in some way - against error. If anything Islam resembles Mormonism (or really it should be said the other way around), and so the best way to argue against it is by denying the idea that Mohammad was a true prophet.
[/quote]

Well its not a direct comparison, but do you see how the arguments work against both the same way? You have to put your faith into the "Church" as being divinely protected from error in order to get an assembled Bible\Qu'ran\Whatever that is divinely protected from error.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1260540167' post='2018336']
Well its not a direct comparison, but do you see how the arguments work against both the same way? You have to put your faith into the "Church" as being divinely protected from error in order to get an assembled Bible\Qu'ran\Whatever that is divinely protected from error.
[/quote]
That argument will only work with a person who accepts the Bible as truly authoritative. Besides, a Muslim could simply respond by saying that he is putting his faith in the "Church" (understood as the Muslim community - the Ummah).

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1260540443' post='2018338']
That argument will only work with a person who accepts the Bible as truly authoritative. Besides, a Muslim could simply respond by saying that he is putting his faith in the "Church" (understood as the Muslim community - the Ummah).
[/quote]

And does the Ummah claim to be free from error?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1260541594' post='2018348']
And does the Ummah claim to be free from error?
[/quote]
I suppose a Muslim could be argue that it is "free from error" - especially the first generation of Muslims and the Rashidun.

P.S. - One of the new Muslim posters made passing reference to something along these lines in a different thread, but I do not remember which one off the top of my head, if I find the post I will link to it.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Pomak]

This is rather funny.

For legitimacy. If falls under two categories(rationally speaking).

1. Did it actually happen.
This is where the mass transmitted chains of narration come into it.
2. Is it Divine
This obviously is a human judgment.

And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Pomak

[rkwright]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1260542788' post='2018353']
This is rather funny.

Was for legitimacy. If falls under two categories(rationally speaking).

1. Did it actually happen.
This is where the mass transmitted chains of narration come into it.
2. Is it Divine
This obviously is a human judgment.

And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.
[/quote]

If only prophets are infallible how can the Qu'ran - a book not a prophet - be deemed to be the correct word of God?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1260542788' post='2018353']
And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.
[/quote]
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would say about the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility that protects the Magisterium from error.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1260543141' post='2018358']
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would say about the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility that protects the Magisterium from error.
[/quote]

But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.

Islam is built upon a man - we have to trust that the man was infallible in his words.

Edit:

Look at what is being said here. If we take the Church at Her word, then the Catholic Church has legitimacy because it was founded by God Himself in the person of Jesus.

If we take Islam at its word - it was founded by a prophet, a man. We have to assume that a) he was a prophet and b) prophets are infallible when they deliver the word of God and c) the prophet is actually delivering the word of God. Islam must necessarily look outside of its faith to establish itself.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1260543353' post='2018362']
But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.
[/quote]
But a Muslim will make the same type of claim. Many of done it in discussions I have had over the years.

[Pomak]

[quote name='rkwright' date='12 December 2009 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1260543135' post='2018357']
If only prophets are infallible how can the Qu'ran - a book not a prophet - be deemed to be the correct word of God?
[/quote]
Err because it was revealed by a prophet and then recorded down without changing it. One of the things about the Quran is that the book form is not the norm. The original way to safeguard and keep the revelation was by memorizing it. And every ramadan the people in Medinah would recite it and if anyone had a faulty memory or wrong recitation he would be corrected.

[quote]
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would sayabout the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility thatprotects the Magisterium from error.[/quote]

Quite possibly. And its quite obvious that faith plays a major part in accepting this claim or rejecting it.

[quote]
But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.

Islam is built upon a man - we have to trust that the man was infallible in his words.[/quote]

See above.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1260543829' post='2018367']
Err because it was revealed by a prophet and then recorded down without changing it. One of the things about the Quran is that the book form is not the norm. The original way to safeguard and keep the revelation was by memorizing it. And every ramadan the people in Medinah would recite it and if anyone had a faulty memory or wrong recitation he would be corrected.
[/quote]

And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1260543509' post='2018364']
But a Muslim will make the same type of claim. Many of done it in discussions I have had over the years.
[/quote]

The difference I see is reflected in the edited post above.

A Catholic puts his faith in God in the person of Jesus. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God established the Church.

A Muslim must first put his faith in a man, the prophet. A muslim must first believe that the man is indeed a prophet, and that prophets are free from error when relaying the word of God, and that this prophet is indeed relaying the word of God. A Catholic deals only with one belief - Is Jesus God? Because if He is, then we know that the words he speaks are true and infallible.

The difference is who do you put your faith in - a man or the God-man.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rkwright

[rayz]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1260538662' post='2018320']
I was posting some questions over at MM, mostly just to learn about the Muslim belief on Jesus. I found a few interesting points I wanted to bounce off PM - to get your opinion and possibly educate some here.

1 - Sura 3:3 states that Allah revealed the Gospel of Jesus. This was interesting to me, and the thought almost looks similar to the Mormons. God came and revealed Himself through Jesus but the message was lost.
[/quote]

sura 3:3
[quote]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 sentdown the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).[/quote]


[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1260538662' post='2018320']
2 - This came to my attention very quickly - either the Bible is right about Jesus, or the Qu'ran. They're mutually exclusive on this matter.
[/quote]
Not really. Bible have mixed statements regarding divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him). Depends on how you read them. If you are Unitarian you'll read the same bible verses and conclude some thing different compared to a trinitarian. A muslim would read those biblical verses and say those were the original ones and other verses which attribute divinity to Jesus (pbuh) are later amendments.

Try: (KJV www.biblegateway.com)
John 5:30
John 14:28
Mathew 12:28
Acts 2:22

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1260544318' post='2018372']
The difference I see is reflected in the edited post above.

A Catholic puts his faith in God in the person of Jesus. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God established the Church.

A Muslim must first put his faith in a man, the prophet. A muslim must first believe that the man is indeed a prophet, and that prophets are free from error when relaying the word of God, and that this prophet is indeed relaying the word of God. A Catholic deals only with one belief - Is Jesus God? Because if He is, then we know that the words he speaks are true and infallible.

The difference is who do you put your faith in - a man or the God-man.
[/quote]
I think that you are simplifying things, and so even though I agree with your position, i.e., that a Christian puts his faith in Christ (the God-man), which is a firm foundation. I do not think that a Muslim would say - and I base what I am saying here on the discussions I have had with Muslims over the years - that he is founding his faith on Mohammad as a man. The response that I normally have been given is something along the lines of: I believe in allah, and because I believe in allah I believe in his prophet. The individual will usually go on to speak about the i'jaz al-Qur'an (the inimitable Quran), which is the miracle that confirms Mohammad's prophetic office; and I would compare this "miracle" - loosely of course - to what a Mormon calls the "burning in the belly" when a man read the Book of Mormon, which - at least according to Mormons - confirms to the man the inspired nature of Joseph Smith's utterances.

My main point here is simple: Any Christian approach to Muslims will have to focus on debunking Mohammad's status as a prophet, and this will be difficult because - like Mormons - Muslims believe that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, and so they will tend to discount any of the differences between the New Testament and the Quran in favor of the latter over the former.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Jaime]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1260544062' post='2018368']
And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?
[/quote]

People make the same argument about the bible.

[rayz]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1260544062' post='2018368']
And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?
[/quote]

1. We can find un-brocken chain of narrators for each verse in Quran. The chain goes all the way back to the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

2. A Muslims will never call a translation of the original arabic Quran, a Quran. We call that "translation of interpretation of meaning of Quran". We'd call it "translation of Quran" only for brevity, but it is always understood that the Quran is Quran only in the original arabic form. There is only one version of Arabic quran. You can pick a copy in USA, China or India - the Quran is the same. Pretty amazing a book remains unchanged after 1400 years, don't you think? We muslims attribute this to the promise of God, when He says He will protect the Quran.

The fact that quran every where is the same is another indication that it has not being changed. Not only the text of the Quran is un changed, but the way we recite it also is preserved throughout the ages. The people who study the subject branch of reciting quran also have an unbrocken chain of narration linking us to the prophet Muhammed pbuh.

3. Same way people back then knew Moses (pbuh) or Abraham (pbuh) were prophets. Look (learn, study, think) at the message. Look at the miracles.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rayz' date='11 December 2009 - 08:25 AM' timestamp='1260545141' post='2018378']
Not really. Bible have mixed statements regarding divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him). Depends on how you read them. If you are Unitarian you'll read the same bible verses and conclude some thing different compared to a trinitarian. A muslim would read those biblical verses and say those were the original ones and other verses which attribute divinity to Jesus (pbuh) are later amendments.

Try: (KJV www.biblegateway.com)
John 5:30
John 14:28
Mathew 12:28
Acts 2:22
[/quote]
These texts are only problematic if one posits the idea that the Bible stands alone as the sole source of a Christian's knowledge as to the nature of Christ, which is a proposition that was rejected by the Church Fathers. The Bible is just a book, albeit an inspired book, but like any written text is must be interpreted, and it is the dominical tradition of the Church (See Luke 24:44-49, Acts 8:30-31, and 2 Peter 1:20-21), which Christ gave to the Apostles, that empowers a man to read the scriptures rightly.

So - for example - the comments in John's Gospel about the Father being "greater" than the Son are understood in relation to two things: (1) the eternal [i]hypostatic[/i] generation of the Son from the Father, and (2) the incarnation of the Son. In the case of the first point the Son is "less" than the Father [i]hypostatically[/i], but only in the sense that the Son receives His [i]hypostasis[/i] eternally from the Father, who alone is the sole eternal cause ([i]aitia[/i]) within the Godhead. While the second point above, concerns the Son's being "less" than the Father after the assumption of human nature by the eternal Word from the Theotokos.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1260545694' post='2018382']
I think that you are simplifying things, and so even though I agree with your position, i.e., that a Christian puts his faith in Christ (the God-man), which is a firm foundation. I do not think that a Muslim would - and I base what I am saying here on the discussions I have had with Muslims over the years - say that he is founding his faith on Mohammad as a man. The response that I normally been given is something along the lines of: I believe in allah, and because I believe in allah I believe in his prophet. They will usually go on to speak about the i'jaz al-Qur'an (the inimitable Quran), which is the miracle that confirms Mohammad's prophetic office; and I would compare this "miracle" - loosely of course - to what a Mormon calls the "burning in the belly" when a man read the Book of Mormon, which - at least according to Mormons - confirms to the man the inspired nature of Joseph Smith's utterances.

My main point here is simple: Any Christian approach to Muslims will have to focus on debunking Mohammad's status as a prophet, and this will be difficult because - like Mormons - Muslims believe that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, and so they will tend to discount any of the differences between the New Testament and the Quran in favor of the latter over the former.
[/quote]

I understand that the Muslim will say no I put my faith in Allah, but it doesn't actually seem that way.

Let me pitch it this way.

Suppose you live in 30 A.D. Jesus approaches you and says "I am the Son of God". You say "Amen - I believe". Jesus says "No one comes to the Father except through the Son". This statement is true because the person saying it is God Himself - it has to be true. If you put your faith in Jesus then necessarily what Jesus says is true.

Now, suppose you live in 620 A.D. (am I right on the dates here? I think so...) A man named Mohammed says "God is speaking to me" - You say "ok I believe". Then Mohammed says "God says X". You ask "How do I know you're not lying?" Mohammed says "Prophets don't lie" You: "Are you a Prophet" Mohammed: "Yes" You: "How do I know that?" Mohammed "God told me so" You: "How do I know that God told you that?" Mohammed "Because I said so" You: "And you're not God are you? You're just a man?" Mohammed "Correct." You: "Ok we'll I believe you (a man) are speaking the truth. And because I believe in you (a man) then I also believe that what you're saying is true. And if I believe in you, then I believe in what God is telling you."

I hope I'm making the difference clear. It points out that a Muslim must first put his total faith into Mohammed on at least 4 grounds. 1) He was really speaking to God 2) He was a prophet 3) Prophets are infallible 4) The correct words of God and not Mohammed's personal thoughts were recorded. Only if you put your faith in all of this, only then do you even get to God.