Muslims and the Bible

philologos

Seeing that Islam is an Abrahamic faith like Christianity and Judaism, what is your stance on the Old Testament, and the New Testament? Is it a previous revelation, or is it totally incorrect in the eyes of Muslims?

InFront

There's no doubt but that the Bible and the Torah have truth to them. But it would not be the Islamic teaching that their text has remained correct and unaltered; so we look to the Qur'an as the confirmation of what was truly revealed earlier and what was not.

This links makes some very clear points on the subject if you want to read it. It describes how the Qur’an safeguards the truth because preserves the teachings of all the former Books, but that it watches over these Books in the sense that it will not let their true teachings be lost. So the Qur'an confirms what is true and what is not. As Muslims we believe in Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them both) as prophets of Allah, but not everything that was later written about them.

philologos

Basically followers of Islam believe that we have altered our religious text because it doesn't comply with their belief of Jesus only being a prophet?

wes

Jakkass wrote:

Basically followers of Islam believe that we have altered our religious text because it doesn't comply with their belief of Jesus only being a prophet?

Wasn't the Bible written long after Jesus? Please, correct me if I am wrong on that.

The main issue is revelation can only come from prophets in Islam.

philologos

The Old Testament, was there a long time before Jesus. The Gospels were written 20 (50AD) or so years after his death I think (with the exception of John which was 40 years (70AD) after approx). The Bible was compiled by the church later, but it wasn't changed, books were just selected.

InFront

Jakkass wrote:

followers of Islam believe that we have altered our religious text because it doesn't comply with their belief of Jesus only being a prophet?

The Qur'an is very precise on who Jesus (pbuh) was, how he was created, how he served Allah, and how he will return; and yes, it is fair to say that the Bible is inconsistent with this. I mean really it's the same thing as saying that Christians don't believe in the Qur'an because it doesn't comply with the belief that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a son of God. It depends on the perspective you're coming from.
There are other inconsistencies too, thus we practice our respective faiths differently, it isn't limited to Jesus (pbuh). Muslims (but as far as I know Christians too?) say the Bible today is not the literal word of Allah as we believe the Qur'an is. I understand there are different editions of the bible that differ in what is included?
I guess the point is that as Muslims, yes, we accept there is truth in the bible but we look to the Qur'an for confirmation of this.

wes

Here is a very good article:

Interview with religious historian Elaine Pagels

It goes into some detail on the different Gospels etc. It was enlightening as I did not know there were that many different Gospels and that there was a wide variety in early Christianity as opposed to the version, I learned of in school.

philologos

The Bible is written by men yes, they are God inspired however.

the_new_mr

Well, the Muslim opinion of the Bible is the same as that of Christian Bible scholars and that is that the Bible is made up of:

The words of God + the words of the Bible authors + the words of the Bible translators + the words of historians.

As for the issue of alteration of the text, I think the idea is that some alteration happened unintentionally (through mistranslation for example) and some happened intentionally. God knows best.

As mentioned already, there is no doubt that the Bible still contains the words of God but there are also words in there that do not belong to God. And as mentioned already, this opinion is shared by Bible scholars themselves.

philologos

I've heard that Muslims think that the Christian heirarchy modified the Injeel (New Testament) to make it say the Son of God etc. Is this taken onboard by all Muslims or?
I'm just curious

Osman

Hi,

Personally, I haven't read it but if the Injeel does say this then it is a view held by Muslims universally. This is because it would contradict with the belief in Islam as told in the following chapter:

In the Name of Allâh, the Most
Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

1. Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)): "He is Allâh, (the) One.[]

2. "Allâh-us-Samad ( ÇáÓíÏ ÇáÐì íÕãÏ Çáíå Ýì ÇáÍÇÌÇÊ ) (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).

3. "He begets not, nor was He begotten;[]

4. "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."

Regards

philologos

thanks for answering my question

the_new_mr

Jakkass wrote:

I've heard that Muslims think that the Christian heirarchy modified the Injeel (New Testament) to make it say the Son of God etc. Is this taken onboard by all Muslims or?
I'm just curious

I know you've already had your question answered but I thought I might elaborate a little if that's cool?

I suppose it's impossible to know for sure exactly what happened. But I think that the general opinion is that after the first council of necaea, the new opinion of the status of Jesus (peace be upon him) was the main driving factor in how texts were translated or copied. Also, I think some people (non-Muslims included) put blame on Rome and the Roman ideas of religion for suggesting the idea that God cannot be One.

philologos

the_new_mr wrote:

I know you've already had your question answered but I thought I might elaborate a little if that's cool?

You're the moderator