Below is the opening statement by Elisha Kai
In our debate between me and Nasr on the Qur?anic view on the Injeel I would like to begin with the Qur?anic testimony to the integrity of the Gospel, namely that the Gospel that the Christians possessed, read and followed prior to and within the era of Muhammed?s time.
This will already debunk the idea of many contemporary Muslims of our time that the Gospel was corrupted prior to the arrival of Muhammed, whether by Nicea or somewhere else.
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 Torah (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) (Sura 3:3)
In fact here the Qur?an refers to the Bible (the Greek for Book) or kitab in Arabic
Sura 3: 3 confirms that Allah sent down the Qur?an to confirm what went before it.
Some Muslims presume that the passage suggests that the Qur?an corrects the mistake of e.g. the Gospels; if that being the case however, the Qur?an needs to clarily which mistakes and confirm that these mistakes are existing in the corrupted Bible; the Qur?an never makes this suggestion.
Furthermore Sura 10: 94 debunks any notion of Bible corruption
?If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU? (Sura 10:94).
If Sura 3: 3 suggested that the Gospels were so corrupt that they needed correction, why is Muhammed commanded to consult those who read the Gospel in his time?
In other words, why is Muhammed to consult a corrupted book, why does he doubt the Qur?an
It seems that the opposite is true; that in the same way as the Qur?an in Sura 3: 3 does not imply correction of the previous Books but confirmation of the earlier books, in the same the Gospels are supposed to confirm the Qur?an.
The next verse sheds further light on the matter:
Hast thou not turned thy thought to those who have been given a PORTION OF THE BOOK? They are invited to the Book of Allah, to settle their dispute, but a party of them turn back and decline (Sura 3:23)
What Portion of what Book?
Sura 3: 23 seems to imply that the Bible (including the Gospels) and the Qur?an are one Book; the previous Books being a portion of the Book, while the Qur?an consists of the other portion.
This should already be enough to confirm that the Gospel was not corrupted in Muhammed?s time or prior according to the Qur?an.
Yet the Qur?an describes the integrity and of the Qur?an more explicitly
...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM (Sura 7:156-157)
Sura 7 makes it explicitly clear, that within Muhammed?s era the Gospel is with the Christians
There is not word about corruption here
No suggestion that this Gospel is slightly different from the original
As we have already established as a fact, Muhammed is to consult this Gospel:
?If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU? (Sura 10:94).
Furthermore, Christians are encouraged to follow their own Gospel:
?Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord? (Sura 5:68-71)
If the Gospel was corrupted
If the Gospel is distinguished from the original Gospel
Why are Christians not told to reject this Gospel and turn to the Qur?an; instead Christians are asked to confirm it
Why are Christians asked to follow a corrupted Gospel? And if as some Muslims have suggested that Allah shows respect for holy Books, we need to ask why God the Almighty needs to respect corruption, particularly if the corruption effects his own word.
Lets continue:
Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: ? We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one?. (29:46)
Sura 29: 46 is rather explicit
The Muslim is not even permitted to debate Christians on this matter, hence even this debate on this thread actually violates what the Qur?an has established as a rule of faith.
The Muslim is not to debate the Bible he is not even to suggest that the Bible contains errors!
He is simply to proclaim that he believes in his own book, the Qur?an and the Bible, which includes the Gospel
No word about corruption here
Furthermore it debunks the idea that the Gospels were corrupted prior and within Muhammed?s lifetime
There is a set of things the Muslim has to believe in just like Muhammed did:
The Messenger believeth In what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith, each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, HIS BOOKS, and His messenger. ?WE MAKE NOT DISTINCTION (they say) between one and another of his messengers.? And they say: ?We hear, and we obey: (we seek) Thy forgivness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys? (Sura 2:285)
And
Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. S. 42:15
Muhammed believed in the Books, every Muslim is therefore to believe in the Books, which includes the Gospels
The Qur?an also contains a warning:
O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray (Sura 4:136)
Denying the books as they were possessed, read and followed in Muhammed?s time suggets that the Muslim has gone astray from the true path!!!
Hence the true path of Islam includes the belief in the Bible as preserved and pure!
Furthermore, in Sura 15: 9 the Qur?an refers to the zhikra; which Allah will protect from corruption:
"We have, without doubt sent down THE MESSAGE (Zhikra); And We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (Sura 15: 9)
This passage does refer to the Qur?an
However the Qur?an also refers the previous Revelations as zhikra
"And before thee We sent none but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realise this not, ask of those who possess THE MESSAGE (Zhikri)." (16: 43)
"Before thee, also, the messengers We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: if ye know this not, ask of those who possess THE MESSAGE (Zhikri)." (Sura 21: 7)
Interestingly in Sura 15: 9 he continues by referring to the previous revelations:
We verily sent messengers before thee among the factions of men of old (Sura 15: 10)
Lets then look at what Gospel means.
In the Qur?an it is ussually referred to as singular, while Christians often refer to a multiple number of Gospels
How do we solve this paradox?
Is it as some Muslims object by stating that the since Qur?an refers to the Gospel or Injeel in singular form, while the Gospels in the Bible are plural, this is not the same thing?
The problem can easily be solved when we consider the way early Christians referred to the Gospel
Here is what Clement the disicple of Peter the Apostle writes in the first century:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God (1 Clement 42: 1).
Furthermore, Clement stated that people knew the Gospel:
They know the Gospel but also they follow the Law in the sense that they live godly lives (Epistle to the Corinthians, I. p.159)
Irenaeus (the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John the apostle) elaborates more on this; he refers to the Gospel which consists of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John:
WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.3309 For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed ?perfect knowledge,? as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia (Ireneaus, Against Heresies, Book three; Chapter 1.1).
In 3: 3 he writes:
He says: ?The word?gave us the gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit?.
(Against Heretics, 3:3).
Ignatius also a disciple of the apostle of Peter confirms the plurality of the Gospels:
Philadelphians 8.2 he refers to some people who refuse to believe anything written in the archives (possibly the OT), even if it is affirmed in Gospels (Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8.2).
So far the disciples of the actual apostles have confirmed what the Gospels themselves confirm that the Gospel as writing or as a book consists of a plural number, according to Ireneaus the four Gospels?Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
According to Papias of whom we don?t have the entire manuscripts, there are references to at least two of the one we possess in the Canon?Matthew and Mark
Furthermore, the Gospels and the church fathers have confirmed that the Gospels were conveyed to us not by Jesus but by the Apostles! And that was the way it was intended even by Jesus himself.
In other words, the Gospels are not merely revelations, they are accounts of the eyewitnesses to the sayings and deeds of Jesus:
This is further elaborated on by Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr (150 AD) writes:
100: 4
For [Christ] called one of His disciples-previously known by the name of Simon-Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son
Furthermore in 106: 3
before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles?And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder?Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
Justin Martyr simply refers to the Gospels as the memoirs of the apostles, in other words what they remembered and conveyed to us.
He does refer to the memoirs of Peter, which according to Papias and Ireneaus was the Gospel of Mark.
Hence we are looking at the Gospel consisting of a multiple number of written Gospels
Interestingly Bukhari also refers to the plurality of the Gospels:
Bukhari also clarifies this:
Narrated 'Aisha:
... Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the GOSPELS in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111)
And:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the GOSPELS in Arabic ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)
Interestingly Waraqa the cousin of Khadija used to read from the Gospels in plural
Following within the same line of the early Christians Bukhari also describes the Gospels as the Gospel:
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from THE GOSPEL in Hebrew as much AS ALLAH WISHED HIM TO WRITE ... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3; see also Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)
The Gospels were already available in Arabia at Muhammed?s time (unless of course these refer to Gnostic gospels)
But if not, are these the Gospels, Allah commanded Muhammed to consult?
Lets conclude this:
The Qur?an does not make an error by referring to the Gospel as singular
However, the Qur?an is in error to state that Jesus received an actual book from Allah
Jesus spoke the words of God, what was revealed from above (John 5), yet he considered these as his own words (Matthew 5)
Yet nothing in the Gospels or in history suggests that Jesus received a book and conveyed a book; the only reference to books and writings relates to the apostles who compiled and collected the accounts into books, according to their own memory (inspired by the Spirit the Gospels state) and the oral form they and the Christian community had memorized it in; the apostles then conveyed this account in individual way that it related to various individual communities.
Fourth point I want to make: WHAT IS THE GOSPEL WRITING? This is important to consider when we view the Gospel in the light of the Qur?an.
First and most, the Gospel writing is not the kind of revelation the Qur?an or the Muslim wants us to believe; the Gospel writing or the Injeel is the personal eye-witness account of the Apostles and the assessment of that testimony (for an historical assessment of the Gospel writing read the Gospel of Luke)
In other words the responsibility of the Gospel account was given to the Apostles:
The apostles are chosen since they have been along since the beginning and have empirically experienced and observed the account, both events and teaching:
?When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning? (John 15: 26-27)
Because the apostles possess the empirical experience and calling to sustain and propagate the account, their account becomes the foundation for all its insight and information:
?Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught? (Luke 1: 1-4).
The account will include Jesus? teaching:
??and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you?? (Matthew 28: 20).
It will include the events and narrative:
?He told them, ?This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things?? (Luke 24: 45-47).
Furthermore the responsibility of the account will be aided and secured by the inspiration and help of the Holy Spirit:
?All this I have spoke while still with you. But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you? (John 14: 25)
?On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you? (Matthew 10: 18-20)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1: 8.).
The disciples will receive further Revelation:
?I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come? (John 16: 12-13)
This debunks the Muslim claim that we are to base our belief on the book of Jesus, rather than the apostles. In fact the New Testament and external sources confirm that such a gospel never existed.
Furthermore, Jesus does not require the future generations to read his book or even listen to his words, but rather listen to the Apostles who are eyewitnesses and have been entrusted with the account. This seems to be the view of the early Christians, e.g Clement of Rome the disciple of Peter the apostle of Jesus:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God (1 Clement 42: 1). So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order (1 Clement 42: 2). Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come (1 Clement 42: 3). So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe (1 Clement 42: 4)
.
Here Clement refers to an appointed order; from God to Jesus, from Jesus to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the church.
If the Muslim intends to prove his case:
1) he needs to present evidence contrary to these sources;
2) he needs to prove from the disciples of the apostles, that a Gospel existed which was given to Jesus, of which the Apostles had no responsibility;
3) he also needs to present evidences from the Apostolic circle and their associates from which the teachings of the present New Testament is rejected or at least contradictory.
That is basically the full summary of the history of the Gospels
How about passages that indicate corruption in the Gospels
Some Muslims have suggested that the Qur?an in facts confirms the corruption of the Christian writings:
"Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS. Therefore woe be unto those who write Scripture with their hands and then say, `This is from Allah,' that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." (Sura 2: 78-9)
However, the context of this passage relates to the Jews and has therefore no significance of this debate as we are focusing on the Gospel, not the Torah.
However, even if the passage related to the Gospel two problems emerge:
1. The proposition of the text would completely contradict history and history would in fact debunk the proposition of this passage
2. The passage would contradict all other passages in the Qur?an that consider the integrity of the Gospel
But then again the passage does not even indicate the corruption so often emphatically emphasised by Muslims; three points need to be considered:
1. The reference is not to a global corruption but a local
2. The corrupters are unlettered and do not even know Scripture, they guess?obviously if they do not know Scripture, how can they corrupt it
3. They do not corrupt Scripture, they in fact fabricate Scripture; Scripture is still intact and exists
Another reference to the corruption of the Gospels has been suggested by Nadir Ahmed, in his debate with Sam Shamoun; Nadir suggested that the refernce to conjecture in Sura 4: 157 implies that the Gospels have been corrupted:
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/debates.htmlThat they say in boast ?We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the apostle of Allah?; but they killed him not nor crucified him, but so it was made 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 unto himself, and Allah is exalted in power, Wise (Sura 4: 157-159).
However, the passage says nothing about Scripture; the Qur?an does presume that the Christians were teaching stuff that contradicts the Qur?an?but never that such ideas consisted with or belonged to the Scripture of the Christians.
I guess that?s me for this time
So far I have assessed and analyzed the Qur'anic view of the Gospel and compared its view to the Gospel within the light of history and the Gospels themselves.
Be blessed
Elisha Kai
