The Article is located at: http://www../Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/trustworthy2.htm

 

He Wrote:

 

      Is the Injeel less or more trustworthy than the Quran?

Part 2 of 3

Farooq Ibrahim

 

The purpose of writing this second of a three-part response is to share with my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters the discoveries I made regarding the trustworthiness of the Injeel as compared to that of the Quran while I was contending with my faith in the 1980’s. During that time I was seeking to find the truth in defense of the Quran, and to prove the Injeel corrupted. At that point in time, I restricted my study to the following three topics regarding the Quran and the Injeel.

·  First, to understand what the Quran and the Injeel teach about what God says about communicating and protecting his message.

·  Second, to investigate the history of how the early Quran and Injeel were compiled into the books that became the authoritative collection of God’s message from Mohammad and Isa.

·  Third, to review what scholars say about the transmission of the Quran and Injeel manuscripts over the years, since their authoritative compilation.

In my previous response featured in the first part of this study I concluded that Allah guaranteed the protection of all his messages—the Quran as well as the messages to prior prophets. Thus, God’s protection of his message was not unique to the Quran. What I discovered was that no human can change the words of God. In addition, nowhere did I find any strong sense from the Quran that the Jewish or Christian scriptures had been corrupted, but only the charge that the Jews and Christians were hiding part of the truth that was in their scriptures. Thus, based on the ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a passage or verse) from the Quran and Injeel I reached a place of understanding that God’s words are protected from change. For more details on this, please refer to part one. Next on my list was to investigate how the Quran and Injeel were compiled into authoritative manuscripts to reflect what Mohammad and Isa had taught to be from God.

 

 

 

My Response:

   For those of you who haven't read Part I, I reccomend that you read it, to understand what we are discussing here.

 

 

He Wrote:

   What process did the Quran go through to become an authoritative collection of God’s message?

I was taught different stories of how the Quran was compiled. The two most popular explanations were that Mohammad had compiled the Quran into a book before his death and the other that Khalifa Abu Bakr had compiled it from men who had written it down and memorized it. Regardless, I was taught that the Quran of today is exactly the same as that which was given to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel. To that end, I started looking at the authoritative Islamic sources – primarily the Sahih (authentic) Hadith (sayings and deeds of Mohammad) compiled by Bukhari to understand this history.

As I studied the history of the compilation of the text of the Quran, I was very surprised to learn that the Quran as we have it today went through many stages of evolution before becoming standardized. For example I discovered that there was seven different ways to recite the Quran. One could recite and memorize the Quran differently and it was still acceptable as the word of Allah. Note from the Sahih Bukhari Hadith:

Volume 3, Book 41, Number 601: Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah's Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me." The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah s Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way." He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, "It was revealed in this way. The Quran has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easier for you."

Hence from the very onset of the Quran, I discovered that there were different ways to recite it. For this reason, there was no one-way to memorize the Quran but seven. That meant that different Muslims could memorize the Quran in seven different ways, not one. At once, this provided a problem that I had not even considered, if Mohammad had allowed seven ways to recite the Quran, then there should be seven versions of the Quran, not one! I had not been taught of seven, but only of one Quran. Were there truly seven, all of them equally authoritative? As I pressed on in my study, I discovered other Sahih Hadith that substantiated and elaborated on this idea that the Quran may be recited in seven different ways. For example Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 442; V6, B61, N513; V6, B61, N514; V9, B3, N640 among others.

As I investigated further, the Sahih Hadith confirmed that Mohammad had not compiled the text of the Quran into a single collection, but it was first done under Khalifa Abu Bakr’s reign. Apparently, it was at this time that the qurra, those who had memorized the Quran, were being killed in the Battle of Yamama. Khalifa Abu Bakr ordered a collection of the Quran to be made at the insistence of Umar (the second Khalifa). This collection stayed with Khalifa Abu Bakr, then after his death with Khalifa Umar and then it was passed on to Khalifa Umar’s daughter Hafsa, who also was one of Mohammad’s widows. This is explained clearly in the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 509: Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Quran (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Quran be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Quran and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Quran. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Quran and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty... (till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Quran remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.

As I studied the above Sahih Hadith and others similar to it, I noted some important points. First, Umar was concerned that since a lot of the Quran was not written down, if the Qurra died, much of the Quran would be lost. Second, this was a monumental task given to Zaid as even Mohammad himself had not done this, and Zaid expresses this as a concern. Third, there was much work to get this collection of the Quran compiled as some ayat were only with one person and no one else to verify or substantiate it. There are others Sahih Hadith that say much the same. The frankness of Zaid troubled me. Was it such a monumental task and was he the right person to do it? I began searching and discovered that Mohammad had recommended others and not Zaid to teach the Quran. From the Sahih Hadith:

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 521: Narrated Masriq:
'Abdullah bin 'Amr mentioned 'Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Take (learn) the Quran from four: 'Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b.’"

I was very concerned that none of the four people that Mohammad had recommended to teach the Quran were given the task for this compilation or confirmation; but one of Mohammad’s scribes – Zaid bin Thabit. He too had concerns that this job was too big. But yet neither Khalifa Abu Bakr nor Umar at that time chose to have his work validated by any of them. I continued in my investigation rather perplexed that this process of the compilation was a lot more involved than what I had been taught. Sadly, I discovered the history of compilation did not end here. As the community of Muslims grew and spread out, it became even harder to maintain the integrity of the Quranic text as there was no single authoritative text, but different teachers had their own copy. These challenges in the Quran resulted in many disagreements in the Muslim communities, and as a result, Khalifa Uthman was asked to do something about it. Note that at this point, the manuscript of the Quran that was compiled by Zaid was not in circulation, but kept with Hafsa. Also note what Khalifa Uthman did as described in the following Sahih Hadith of Bukhari.

Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510: Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Quran so that we may compile the Quranic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Quran, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Quran was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Quranic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Reviewing the above and other similar Sahih Hadith, I noted different collections of the Quran were in circulation. These were partly the collection of the teachers that Mohammad had recommended as discussed in the earlier Hadith, such as Ka’b. Again, I was troubled with the following key points. First, there was much disagreement among the Muslims as to what was in the Quran. Hence, because of the differences among them, Khalifa Uthman ordered Hafsa’s manuscript to be copied and distributed and be made the official Quran. Second, if there was a disagreement among the scribes who copied it as to how to recite it, he ordered that it should be written in the Quraish dialect. I was distressed to learn that Khalifa Uthman ordered the changing of the words of the Quran to the Quraish dialect. Was this change part of the seven variations possible? I found no mention of it in the Sahih Hadith. Last, I was shocked that Khalifa Uthman ordered the destruction of all other Qurans – whether whole copies or in fragments. This was very troubling. I wondered why? It had to be that the copies of the other Qurans then in circulation were different enough for the Khalifa to order such a severe consequence for them. Note the point Al-Yaman makes to Uthman, save the nation because they differ about the Quran. Now Khalifa Uthman ordered the Hafsa copy, which was not even validated by the best of teachers to become the official Quran.

As I started to investigate what might some of the differences be, I found for example the missing Bismillah at the start of Surah 9, the missing stoning verse regarding adultery, and other cancelled, withdrawn, abrogated or forgotten ayat. I have discussed some of these in my study on abrogation. I discovered that even though the order was given to destroy the other copies, some parts of those copies have survived, possibly because Muslims had memorized other variations of the Quran. For example, from Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s Quran translation and study notes I found another Qiraat (recitation of the Quran), from Ka’b who Mohammad had recommended as one of the four best to teach the Quran, had additional words for the Surah 33:6. I was taught not a single dot was changed, and here was a whole phrase that is missing as noted with ** below in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s Study Note 3674.

The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves,** and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah). Surah 33:6

** Note 3674 : … In some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Ka’b, occur also the words "and he is a father to them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on with the words "and his wives are their mothers". …

This was not good news to me. No Muslim teacher had even hinted to this fact that the final manuscript of the Quran that was ordered by Khalifa Uthman to be put in circulation had such a history of challenges, changes and destruction.

Sadly, I reached a place of understanding regarding the compilation of the Quran that

·  Mohammad had not compiled the Quranic material into a single Quran Manuscript. He recommended four teachers to teach the Quranic material. He also confirmed that the Quran could be recited in seven different ways.

·  Khalifa Abu Bakr ordered Zaid bin Thabit, one of the scribes, who was not one of the four teachers Mohammad had recommended, to compile the Quranic material into one single manuscript, when the qurra started to die in battle.

·  Within a few years, different versions of the Quran were in circulation, causing problems among the Muslim community. Khalifa Uthman ordered the distribution of modified copies of the Zaid bin Thabit version of the Quran that was with Khalifa Umar’s daughter, Hafsa. He also ordered the destruction of all other Qurans that were compiled by others.

Some Muslims have a problem with these conclusions as they believe this is not what happened. However, the authoritative record we have in Islamic history is from the Sahih Hadith, the Sirat (biography) of Mohammad and from the Tafsir (commentary) of the Quran. There is no other historical Islamic source that can speak with authority on this topic. From all of these sources, the testimony that comes across is the same as I have discussed using the Sahih Hadith of Bukhari as my primary source. This is far from the perfect authoritative compilation of the Quran I was taught we had directly from Mohammad.

 

 

 

My Response:

     Firstly, Farooq Ibrahim needs to understand that reciting the Quran in a different way, doesn't make it another version. Prophet Muhammad (S) makes it clear in the hadith, that you should recite it in the way thats easiest to you. The reciting of the Holy Qur'an is what we call Qiraat. Dr M.S.M Saffiulah says:

Qirâ'ât Or 'Variant' Readings?

We would first like to define what is the actual meaning of Qirâ'a which is frequently translated as 'variant reading'. The Hans-Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic defines Qirâ'a as:

Qirâ'a pl. -ât recitation, recital (especially of the Koran); reading (also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization of the Koranic text.^[1]

It is quite clear that the Qirâ'a is not a 'variant' reading or text. The Muslims in history have never considered different Qirâ'ât as different 'versions' of the Qur'an. Furthermore, neither it is defined as 'variant' text as some Orientalists and Christian missionaries have done so. Keeping this in mind let us now go further with what is written in the article.

(Source: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/green.html#Argument , Bold emphasis ours )

The Prophet Muhammad (S), during his lifetime, used to recite the Quran once with Jibreel every Ramadan, and twice in the last Ramadan before his death. Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) also taught Prophet Muhammad (S) the seven Qiraat:

During the life of the Prophet (saas) (570-632 CE)

·  The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.

·  Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

·  The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

·  Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

·  Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

(Source: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html )

 

Regards to what Zaid Ibn Thabit's concern, I will quote from a great article by Brother MENJ and Abdur Rafay Ahmad regarding this issue:

"The words of Zaid may raise some confusion: How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done? This doen't mean that the Qur'an was not written in the Prophet's time, but it means that that the Qur'anic was scattered and not collected into one volume. The Prophet (pbuh) didn't leave the complete Qur'an in a single volume for all the Ummah, because most of his companions had memorized it and some had their own copies. So Abu Bakr (ra) feared that the Qur'an could have been lost, and that's why he ordered for a copy to be prepared."

(Source: https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quran_textual-reply.html#3a )

Now Farooq Ibrahim questions regarding if Zaid Ibn Thabit was qualified, to compile the Holy Qur'an into one single text, yet he ignores the fact that Zaid Ibn Thabit himself memorized the Holy Qur'an by heart:

"Umar feared that the number of those people would rapidly decrease as a result of battles the Muslim state might have to fight. Abu Bakr approved the proposition and entrusted the task to Zaid ibn Thabit, who was not merely a scribe entrusted by the Prophet to write down the Qur'anic revelations but he was also a young man who had learned all [of Qur'an] by heart and witnessed the Prophet's final recitation of the Qur'an"

(Source: http://www.islamicity.com/dialogue/Q108.HTM , Bold Emphasis ours)

The memorization of the Qur'an was not only encouraged in those times, but it was widespread among the Muslims in the early generations, and even now, Muslims who we call "Qaris" know the whole Quran by heart.

Now, we come to the juice of the article, the reason for Uthman to make one official Quranic text. Below, we find the answer, as to why Uthman made the decision:

"7. The expansion of Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula brought about a new crisis which first became evident during the reign of Uthman. Hudhaifah ibn al-Yaman complained that factions in the army were disputing over various Quranic passages and urged him to put an end to it. Unity was being undermined. "The Syrians contended with the Iraaqis, the former following the reading of Ubayy ibn Kab, the latter that of Ibn Masud, each party accusing the other of disbelief." [Ibn Hajr in Fath]

8. The people of Hims, for example, boasted that their way of reciting adopted from al-Miqdad was superior to that of the Basrites, who had learnt from Abu Musa, whose written compilation they acclaimed as "the heart of hearts." [Ibn ul-Athir]

9. Uthman consulted the companions with him who all approved the idea of uniting the community by means of a single text as an excellent idea. [Ibn Hajr in Fath] "

(Source: http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=38 )

 

I am now going to post Farooq Ibrahim's comments on the source he listed:

" Reviewing the above and other similar Sahih Hadith, I noted different collections of the Quran were in circulation. These were partly the collection of the teachers that Mohammad had recommended as discussed in the earlier Hadith, such as Ka’b. Again, I was troubled with the following key points. First, there was much disagreement among the Muslims as to what was in the Quran. Hence, because of the differences among them, Khalifa Uthman ordered Hafsa’s manuscript to be copied and distributed and be made the official Quran. Second, if there was a disagreement among the scribes who copied it as to how to recite it, he ordered that it should be written in the Quraish dialect. I was distressed to learn that Khalifa Uthman ordered the changing of the words of the Quran to the Quraish dialect. Was this change part of the seven variations possible? I found no mention of it in the Sahih Hadith. Last, I was shocked that Khalifa Uthman ordered the destruction of all other Qurans – whether whole copies or in fragments. This was very troubling. I wondered why? It had to be that the copies of the other Qurans then in circulation were different enough for the Khalifa to order such a severe consequence for them. Note the point Al-Yaman makes to Uthman, save the nation because they differ about the Quran. Now Khalifa Uthman ordered the Hafsa copy, which was not even validated by the best of teachers to become the official Quran. "

Firstly, the companions of the Prophet, didn't have a problem with what Uthman did, infact, it is recorded that the Companions of the Prophet praised what Uthman did:

" j) Zaid is reported to have said, "I saw the companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, "By Allah, Uthman has done well! By Allah, Uthman has done well!" [Nisaburi] "

(Source: http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=38 )

As for the second point, the Holy Qur'an was written in the Quraishi dialect, so there is no problem if Uthman told them to write it in the Quraishi dialect. And lastly, Farooq Ibrahim makes a comment about Hafsa's copy (which was the copy given to Abu Bakr, then handed to Umar Ibn Al Khattab, and ultimately Hafsa). He says it "was not even validated by the best of teachers to become the official Quran". The text that Hafsa possessed, initially went through a process first, to see if it was indeed true, here is a brief summary:

"The compilers in this committee, in examining written material submitted to them, insisted on very stringent criteria as a safeguard against any errors.

1. The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted. ^[26]

2. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question. ^[27]"

(Source: http://ireland.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Sabeel/sabeel3.htm )

 

The Committee headed by Zaid Ibn Thabit, consisted of Companions of the Prophet, which included memorizers of the Quran. Common sense, shows that if there would have been ANY problem with the text, the memorizers of the Quran, which consisted of thousands, would have noted this. So we can soundly reach the conclusion that this compiled text, was infact correct.

 

Now, concerning the "missing Bismillah", Abdullah Yusuf Ali answers this in his commentary on the Holy Qur'an:

" This is the only Sura to which the usual formula of Bismillah is not prefixed. It was among the last of the Suras revealed, and though the Apostle had directed that it should follow Sura VIII, it was not clear whether it was to form a separate Sura or only a part of Sura VIII. It is now treated as a separate Sura, but the Bismillah is not prefixed to it, as there is no warrant for supposing that the Apostle used the Bismillah before it in his recitation of the Quran."

(Source: The Qur'an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 436 "Introductino to Sura IX)

As for the "missing" verse on adultery, I reccomend you visit the following links:

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/stoning_to_death_is_not_shariah.htm

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=1856&CATE=1

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545902

 

And as for abrogation, scholars are in disagreement regarding this issue, for more information please read :

 http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503548174

 

Now regarding Ubay Ibn Ka'b, and his Qiraat, here is what the following Islamic website says:

"VARIANT READINGS IN THE QURAN

A number of Hadith mention that several of Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) companions wrote down their own collections of the revelations.

("Itqan I" by Suyuti, p.62)

The most well known among them are:

Ibn Masud

He claimed to have learned some seventy Surahs directly from the prophet. Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) told other people to learn the Quran from him and three others. (Bukhari, 6, No. 521)

However, Surah 1, 113 and 114 were missing in his collection. (Fihrist, I, pages 53-57)

Ubay bin Kab

The prophet's secretary in Medina. He is one of the other three mentioned above whom the prophet recommended as a teacher of the Quran. His collection contained two additional Surahs and an otherwise unknown verse. ("Itqan I" by Suyuti, p.65; "Masahif" by Ibn Abi Dawud, pages 180-181, also "Geschichte des Quran's" by Noeldeke, pages 33-38)

His text was widely used in Syria before the appearance of Uthman's text.

Abu Musa

His collection was used by the people of Basra. It was identical with the material of Ubai bin Kab.

These different collections of the Quran contained also many variant readings. More than 1700 are attributed to Ibn Masud alone. ("Materials for the history of the text of the Quran" by A. Jeffry,1937)

Muhammad Hamidullah divides them into four classes in the introduction to his French translation of the Quran (p.XXXIII):

A) Variants caused by a copy mistake.

They can be detected easily by comparing with other manuscripts.

B) Variant readings caused by accidentally adopting marginal notes into the text of the Quran.

C) Variations caused by Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) permission to recite the revelations in different dialects.

D) Variations caused by the fact that the Quran was copied without vowel marks and without dots to distinguish between different letters that were written in the same way. (Only 15 different forms of letters present 28 letters)

Most of the variant readings have very little significance with regard to the meaning of the text. Only a few present some problems, such as:

Surah 5, Maida, verse 63

19 alternate readings have been identified, some of which change the actual meaning of the verse. 14 changes were caused by changing the vowel combinations. In the remaining 5 cases one or two consonants were added.

(Ibid, by A. Jeffery, pages 39, 129, 198, 216, 237)

Surah 33, Alizab, verse 6

"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers..."

"...In some Qiraats, like that of Ubai ibn Kab, occur also the word " and he is a father to them..."

("The Holy Quran" by A. Yusuf Ali, 1975, note 3674)

Only reports in the Hadith about these variants have survived. But none of them changes any doctrine of the Quran in the slightest way."

(Source: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~asians4c/m04.htm )

In my opinion, I think that Ubai Ibn Kab added his own personal note, but that is just my opinion, however, from what I have studied, Ubai Bin Kab's Qiraat was disfavoured;

" "The ‘seven readings’ were standardised in the second/eighth century. Ibn Mujahid, a ninth-century Muslim scholar, wrote a book entitled The Seven Readings, in which he selected seven of the prevailing modes of recitation as the best transmitted and most reliable. Others were subsequently disfavoured and even opposed, among them the readings of ibn Mas’ud and ‘Ubay bin Ka’b." (Ulum, p.119)

(Source: http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm )

So, Farooq Ibrahim's argument has been met, and we tried our best to answer his arguments regarding the Quran, now let us continue with his article.

 

 

 

He Wrote:

What process did the Injeel go through to become an authoritative collection of God’s message?

Next, I started to look at the compilation process of the Injeel. Here I reflected on what I understood were two major issues with the Injeel as I was taught by a number of Muslim teachers. First, that the different church councils had created the Injeel hundreds of years later, and in the process had destroyed or ignored the true teachings of Isa. Second, the Injeel has been corrupted by mixing of God’s words with man’s and is more like the Hadith, but without the proper Isnad or chain of reference of those who conveyed the teaching. As proof that the Injeel was corrupted, I was told that even some Christian scholars do not believe much of the Injeel. To that end, I started investigating how true these claims were.

Unlike the Quran which is separated into 114 Surahs, I discovered that the Injeel consists of four major segments: the gospels, historical writings, letters and prophecy. In total there are 27 books, none of them written by Isa. Their authorship rests with his apostles and their close associates. This initially was a big problem for me, but after studying how the Quran was compiled under the supervision of the Khalifa, I was open to the apostles doing the writing or teaching what Isa taught and close associates doing the writing. That would be similar to the way the Quran was put to text. I also discovered that of the 27 books of the Injeel, the 4 gospel books, book of Acts, and 15 letters of Peter, John and Paul were widely used and quoted by the early Christian leaders before 70 AD, within 30 years after Isa’s ascension, while eye witness to these events were still alive. These 20 books were all considered God inspired scripture by the Christian community as the apostles did many miracles similar to those of Isa, thereby validating their claim of being divinely inspired. There was much discussion of the remaining 7 books which were the letters 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, James, Hebrews and Revelation. The concerns surrounding these 7 books were mostly centered on doubts about the apostolic authorship of these books. There were concerns that perhaps these books had been written not by the apostles or their close associates, but by others who were not considered authoritative sources.

As I started to investigate the history of the collection of the Injeel, I did confirm that Isa did not finalize the Injeel, but the contents were by Isa’s apostles and those closely associated with them. Christian history accounts claim that God inspired Isa’s disciples to teach and write Isa’s words which are God’s words. This claim is supported in the Injeel where Isa says that God would remind his disciples of all the things he (Isa) had taught them while he was with them.

"… and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me." John 14:24

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." John 14:26

A few years after Isa’s ascension into Heaven, the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke were in circulation while eyewitnesses were still alive. These were being used along with the letters. Luke, a companion of the apostles describes his compilation.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4

Later, John the apostle wrote in the Gospel that bears his name regarding what Isa claimed above.

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. John 21:24

Historical work done by many Christian and non-Christian scholars show that many of the letters of Paul were written earlier than the four Gospel accounts. Paul was considered an apostle and was accepted by other apostles of Isa as being divinely sanctioned to teach the message of Isa. These letters were written soon after Isa had ascended and they documented Isa’s teaching. My understanding from Muslim teachers was that Paul’s teaching was different than Isa’s and that the letters had been compiled in the second century. Concerning Paul, I discovered that he subjected himself to the authority of the other apostles and was validated by Peter and others that he was teaching the same message. He also did many supernatural miracles in Isa’s name to validate this claim. Regarding the claim by some that the compilation was done after the first century does not have support because if that were the case, then critical events such as the death of the apostle James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD would have been recorded in the book of Acts, which documents the teaching and work of these apostles. For example, we know from the early history in Medina that Muslims were martyred in the battle of Uhud. As that was during the time of the revelation of the Quran, it describes this event, but does not document the later battles, such as Yamama because these wars were fought after the Quran was revealed.

As I further studied the process the Christian community used to compile the Injeel, I discovered that it was not a specific event such as what Khalifa Abu Bakr and later Khalifa Uthman had done, but it was a gradual process done by the Christian community over time. The Injeel was not set by a single Christian leader or council, rather, the books in it were chosen because there was general acceptance that these books were written by the apostles. The main criterion used was that the writings had to be written by one of the apostles of Isa, or a close associate of the apostles or an eyewitness under supervision of an apostle. The Christian community that witnessed the early events such as Isa’s teaching, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc validated the writings in the Injeel. Unlike in the case of the compilation of the Quran, where the Khalifas authorized the compilation of the Quran, the early Christian community did not have such a ruler to enforce such a compilation. Therefore during the first three centuries, the Injeel survived because the Christians treated it as the word of God and held it in reverence as such, even though during this time the Jewish and Roman authorities were persecuting the Christians.

Finally, in the fourth century, Constantine, who was a Roman leader, became a Christian. He initiated a number of councils, including the council at Nicea. At these councils the central question regarding the Injeel was "what did Isa and the apostles teach?" After studying and discussing the gospel books and letters, the leaders at Nicea agreed to what was already in use. They did not select books based on their preconceived ideas or theological position, but based on what was considered the word of God and used as such through the previous three centuries. I also realized that unlike the Quran where ayat were with different people, here whole books were selected, not partial material from them. For example, the Christians for the past three centuries had only used the four Gospels because the apostles wrote and gave them to the Christians in the first century as the word of God. These were taken and a single Gospel was not created from the four. As I investigated the historical record, I found no evidence for the destruction or doctrinal modification of Gospels by Christians at Nicea or any of the other councils. There was no way to change these as by this time the Injeel was translated from Greek into many other languages including Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Gothic and Ethiopic. In addition, not only were there the copies of the Injeel in many different languages, but many Christian leaders had written and quoted from the Injeel during the first, second and third centuries making it impossible to change the Injeel.

Looking further into the writings of the Christian leaders, I discovered that they would quote from Injeel, but not from other writings that were not considered the word of God as Isa had taught. One of the prominent church leaders, Ignatius of Antioch, refers to the Gospels of Matthew and John possibly as early as 37 years after Isa’s crucifixion. During this time, another Christian leader by the name of Polycarp, who personally knew the apostle John and other eyewitnesses to Isa’s teaching, refers to different Injeel sections some forty times from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Another Christian leader, Papias, who also knew the apostle John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote the Gospels that bear their name. There are other writings such as these that validate that there were no issues with the four Gospels being part of the Injeel as God-inspired scripture. These four Gospels were accepted as the word of God because they were known to be from the apostles. Other writings about Isa’s life and teaching, such as Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Peter, had not been accepted by the Christian community as the word of God. These did not make it into the Injeel because there was no clear witness or evidence that they were written by the apostles whose names they bear. As I investigated what was done to these other Gospel books that are not part of the Injeel, I noted that there were no orders given by the Christian leaders to destroy them. They were simply not used.

As a result of this historical study, I reached a place of understanding regarding the compilation of the Injeel as follows:

·  God-inspired apostles wrote accounts of Isa’s life and message. The writings that were accepted as scripture were those that the early Christian community accepted as valid testimony attributable to eyewitnesses of Isa’s life and teachings.

·  Christian leadership in the fourth century neither selected nor edited any of the inspired writings. The Injeel was compiled from what was commonly considered scripture and accepted as such by the early Christian community.

·  The Injeel survived the first three centuries in spite of Jewish and Roman authorities persecuting Christians.

Regarding the charge by some Muslims that the Injeel was the creation of Paul and Church councils and not Isa’s teaching, history has shown otherwise. It is true that human beings will never agree unanimously on anything, not even the Injeel. Some Christian scholars do not believe everything in the Injeel is part of the life and teachings of Isa. Sadly, I know that even in the Muslim community there has been concern that ayat from the Quran were removed that identified Khalifa Ali as the first rightful Khalifa, among other items. However, the historical fact remains that the compilation of the Injeel had been fixed, not by councils, but by the witness of the early Christian community who were eyewitness to Isa and his apostles’ teachings. The Christian leaders did not create the Injeel, but rather came to recognize, accept and confirm what was actively taught and preached by the apostles as the word of God.

Concerning the charge that the Injeel is more like the Hadith but weaker since it does not have the Isnad, I came to a very different opinion. In my understanding, the Injeel was more like the Quran, which also does not have any Isnad. The reason that there is no Isnad for the Quran is that it was compiled only a few years after the death Mohammad, and eyewitnesses were present to validate what was in the Quran. However, the Isnad was needed for the Hadith, which were compiled over 150 years after the eyewitnesses had died. Similarly, based on historical data and the fragments of the Injeel from the first century that still exist till today, I was able to accept the same for the Injeel as for the Quran, that there is no need for the Isnad as there were eye witnesses when these were written down.

There are some Christian scholars who believe some of the Injeel is not attributable to Isa. I discovered that for the majority of them the primary reason for this thinking is a lack of belief in the supernatural in general and therefore distrust the accounts of the miraculous events of Isa’s life. For example, that Isa came from a virgin mother is discounted as legend. Isa healing the sick or giving life to the dead is considered legend too. But I believe that God is capable of this and that acts of the supernatural validate the person being from God. In addition, the Quran also makes similar claims for Isa. Therefore, I was able to accept that it was not that the scholars had a problem with the historical witness, but that they had a pre-supposition that would not allow for supernatural miracles.

 

 

 

My Response:

      Now that we are done with the Holy Qur'an, we now go to the Gospels. First let us start with the Gospel of Matthew:

1) Authorship of Matthew (Who wrote it?):

 The NIV theologans answer this question of ours:

" Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. "

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p.1463)

 

2) Date of Gospel:

  "Some have argued on the basis of its Jewish characteristics that Matthew's Gospel was written in the early church period, possibly the early part of A.D 50, when the church was largely Jewish and the gospel was preached to the Jews only (Ac 11:19). However, those who have concluded that both Matthew and Luke drew extensively from Mark's Gospel date it later - after the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation for a persiod of time. See essay on chart, p.1461. Accordingly, some feel that Matthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s. Others, who assume that Mark was written between 65 and 70, place Matthew in the 70s or even later. However, there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about either view"

(Source: Ibid, p.1463)

And,

 " It is impossible to know the exact date when the Gospel of Matthew was written. Some contemporary writers date it as early as A.D. 60, some as late as A.D. 95"

(Source: Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 1092)

Now we go to the Gospel of Mark:

1) Authorship:

  " Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark (" John, also called Mark," Ac 12:12,25; 15:37).

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1522)

And,

 " The title "according to Mark" was added to this Gospel by scribes who produced the earliest copies of the Gospel. According to the early church tradition Mark recorded and arranged "memories" of Peter, thereby producing a Gospel based on apostolic witness. Although Mark was a common Roman name, the Gospel writer is probably John Mark. Mark became an important assistant for both Paul and Peter, preaching the good news to Gentilles and preserving the gospel message for latter Christians. See Mark, John. "

(Source: Homan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 1077)

 

2) Date of Gospel:

    " Some, who told that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source, have suggested that Mark may have been composed in the 50s or early 60s. Others have felt that the content of the Gospel and statements made about Mark by the early church fathers indicate that the book was written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, See essay and chart, p.1461)"

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1522)

And,

   " Date

The text of the Gospel itself furnishes us with no clear information as to the time that it was written. It is generally agreed among scholars to be the first gospel written. Comments attributed to Jesus in Mark 13:1-2 (the "little Apocalypse", see below) have been seen as a reference to the destruction of the Temple. This would mean that either Mark recorded Jesus prophesying that the temple would be destroyed, or that the work was written after it happened in AD 70. Most scholars contrast these comments with the more specific ones in Luke and Matthew, and would be hesitant to assign a date later than AD 70-73, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked. Nevertheless, a great majority of moderate and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between AD 60 and 70, although there are vocal minority groups which argue for earlier or later dates.

Two papyrologists, Fr. Jose O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have proposed that lettering on a postage stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark 6:52-53; thus they assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to AD 68. Almost all other papyrologists, however, consider this identification of the fragmentary text, and its supposition that early Christians lived at Qumran, to be dubious. "

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Date )

3) Mark 16:9-20:

 "  ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. "

(Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20&version=31 )

 We see a dangerous forgery in Mark 16:9-20. Firstly, the reliable early manuscripts dont even have this verse, showing that it was later inserted, and secondly, it says the ones who believe will speak in new tongues, and pick up snakes with their hands, and drink deadly poison.

 

Now the Gospel of Luke

1) Authorship:

   " The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke".

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1564)

It seems that Luke was most likely the author of this Gospel.

 

2) Date of Gospel:

   "  The two most commonly suggested periods for dating the Gospel of Luke are: 1) A.D. 59-63, and 2) the 70s or the 80s (see essay and chart, p.1461)"

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1564)

A more deatiled discussion is the one we find in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

"  The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in his second year of house imprisonment in Rome. Scholars generallyi agree that Paul reached Rome A.D. 60. This makes the book of Acts, written at earliest around A.D. 61 or 62 with the Gospel written shortly before. Luke 19:41-44, and 21:20-24 records Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. This cataclysmic event in ancient in ancient Judaism occured in A.D. 70 at the hands of the Romans. It hardly seemes likely that Luke would have failed to record this significant event. Assigning a date to the Gospel later then A.D. 70 would ignore this considerations. Many scholars, however, continue to favor a date about A.D. 80.

  A second historical consideration pushes the dating even earler. Many scholars feel Paul was released from the Roman imprisonment he was experiencing as Acts concludes. The apostle was later imprisoned again and martryed under the Neronian persecution that broke out in A.D. 64. Paul was enjoying considerable personal liberty and oppurtinities to preach the gospel ( Acts 28:30-31) even thuogh a prisoner. The optimism of the end of the book of Acts suggests that Neronian persecution is a future event. One can hardly imagine that Paul's release would find no mentino in the Acts narrative had it already occured.

 It seems best, then, to date the writing of Luke somewhere between A.D. 61 and 63. Those who argue that this does not allow Luke time to review Mark's Gospel (assuming it was written first) fail to take into account the tight web of association between those in involved in Paul's ministry. "

(Source: Homan Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 1057)

And, finally, we go to the Gospel of John , the Gospel according to the NIV theologans, that is different from the other three gospels:

1) Authorship:

 " The Author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23 [ see note there]; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24)."

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1623)

Well, we seem to have assurance that this gospel was written by John,

" Early Christian tradition indicates this Gospel was written by John, the disciple and son of Zebedee. The Gospel claims to have been written by the beloved disciple, and unnamed figure so designated only in this Gospel (21:20-24). John, son of Zebedee, is almost certainly the beloved disciple and author of this Gospel, but some doubts remain since John is not mentioned by name."

(Source: Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, p. 934, bold emphasis ours)

I guess not...

2) Date of Gospel:

    " In general two views of the dating of thsi Gospel have been advocated:

1. The traditional views places it towards the end of the first century, C. A.D. 85 or later (see introduction to 1 John:Date).

2. More recently, some interpreters have suggested an earlier date, perhaps as early as the 50s and no later then 70."

(Source: NIV Study Bible, p. 1621)

According to scholars, John omits events and references that are extremely important in the other three Synoptic Gospels. But we have a problem with the Gospels, and the problem is the assumption of Gospel authors, copying from other Gospel authors, below, the NIV theologans will give 2 assumptions:

Assumption A: Matthew and Luke used Mark as major source

Assumption B:  Matthew and Luke didn't use Mark as a major source,

Assumption A:

 Matthew and Luke used Mark as a major source

   View No.1 Mark written in the 50s or early 50s A.D.

(1) Matthew written in late 50s or 60s.

(2) Luke written 59-63

   View No.2 Mark written 65-70

(1) Matthew writen in the 70s or later

(2) Luke written in the 70s or later

 

Assumption B:

 

 Matthew and Luke did not use Mark as a source

 View No.1 Mark could have been written anytime between 50 and 70

 View No.2 Mark written 65-70

(1) Matthew written in the 50s (see introductino to Matthew: Date, and Place of Writing)[

(2) Luke written 59-63 (see introduction to Luke: Date and Place of Writing).

(Source: NIV Study Bible,p.1460)

We also find some chronological contradictions in the Bible, here is one example in Matthew 21:12-19 and Mark 11:13-15;

Jesus at the Temple

12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'^[a] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'^[b]"

14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'^[c]?"

17And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

The Fig Tree Withers

18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

(Matthew 21:12-19)

This passage contradicts:

13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,

(Mark 11:13-15)

So did Jesus curse the Fig tree first, then enter the temple, or enter the temple, then curse the fig tree. The NT also makes scientific blunders, here is one example:

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

( Luke 4:5-9)

What is important to note here is the devil taking Jesus up on a high mountain, and showing him all the kingdoms of the world. This can only be possible, if the earth is flat.

Now, according to the Qur'an, the Christians forgot the covenant:

[005:014] From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will God show them what it is they have done.

Allah SWT also tells us that, if you believe in that Jesus was crucified, then your a blasphemer:

[004:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) know ledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

So according to the Holy Qur'an, the fake gospels we have now, are full of doubts, and are conjecture. So this alone shows, that the Christian scriptures (specifically the NT) has been tampered. As we showed above, the Gospels contradict each other, and they have scientific blunders. The Holy Qur'an, also says, that if anyone says Jesus was crucified, they have no knowledge, so that also outrules the gospels we have now, as being the Word of God. The authorship, of these gospels, is unknown. The exact date, of these gospels, are also unknown. And as shown above, there is a theory of plagariazation, that is being discussed. The Muslim will always say the gospels today have been corrupted, because this is what our Holy Book tells us. Farooq Ibrahim, mentions several times about the Council of Nicea. For a discussion on the Council of Nicea, I reccomend the following links:

http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm

http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html#Nicea

 

Now, read what Farooq Ibrahim later states:

" As a result of this historical study, I reached a place of understanding regarding the compilation of the Injeel as follows:

·  God-inspired apostles wrote accounts of Isa’s life and message. The writings that were accepted as scripture were those that the early Christian community accepted as valid testimony attributable to eyewitnesses of Isa’s life and teachings.

·  Christian leadership in the fourth century neither selected nor edited any of the inspired writings. The Injeel was compiled from what was commonly considered scripture and accepted as such by the early Christian community.

   The Injeel survived the first three centuries in spite of Jewish and Roman authorities persecuting Christians. "

1) It is obvious from the Muslim perspective, that God didn't inspire the apostles who wrote thouse accounts of Isa's life, because they speak about a crucifixion of Jesus. Allah SWT says people who believe in this crucifixion hoax, have no knowledge.

2) The writings which we possess today, are highly doubtful. They contradict each other, and, the authors are unknown. Here is yet 2 more contradictions:

How many women came to the sepulcher?

  1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance

   (John 20:1)

This contradicts:

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

   (Matthew 28:1)

So, did only Mary Magdalene to the tomb, or did the "other" Mary go with her?

Another contradiction:

Who purchased the Potter's field?

 18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

  (Acts 1:18)

This contradicts:

 5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

  (Matthew 27:5)

So did Judas use the money he got for his wickedness to buy a field, or did he throw the money into the temple and leave?

3) The ORIGINAL Injeel,was the one given to Isa (A) (see Sura 57:27), but the Christians forgot a major part of the message of Allah Almighty (Sura 5:14).

As shown above, the gospels contradict each other, and the authors are unknown, and there is a major problem with the gospels, regarding plagarization. Any Muslim who believes the Gospels we have today are true, are wrong, since Allah Almighty tells us, that the people who believe in Isa (A) crucifixion, have no certain knowledge. Let us proceed with Farooq Ibrahim's article now...

 

 

 

He Wrote:

     Conclusion

In conclusion, for many Muslims, the Quran is the literal word of Allah and has been perfectly preserved through the ages. Like my other Muslim brothers and sisters I had started with the belief that the Quran was the word of Allah and that it has been perfectly compiled but that the Injeel was written by Church Councils and was corrupted. Muslims make these claims not based on history as I have investigated and discovered, but purely as a statement of faith. I too made such claims and held such beliefs in my early life while a Muslim, but when I began to study the history and try to defend that position, I was forced to come to a very different conclusion. In summary, I came to a place of understanding the following key points regarding the compilation of the Quran and Injeel:

·  This authoritative text of the Quran was not compiled by Mohammad, but made such by the order of Khalifa Abu Bakr and subsequently by the order of Khalifa Uthman.

·  Khalifa Uthman ordered the destruction of all competing Quran manuscripts; even from those that Mohammad had recommended were the best teachers of the Quran.

·  The historical evidence shows that there were many challenges involved in finalizing what we have today as the authoritative Quran. The evidence also shows that the compilation of the authoritative Quran was a process that took place during the Khalifas’ reign.

·  The Injeel was not written by Isa, but by his apostles and their close associates based on Isa’s teachings.

·  Of the 27 books of the Injeel, 20 were accepted within the first century to be inspired, however the other 7 were not until much later as there was doubt if these 7 were written or taught by the apostles.

·  The books that make up the Injeel were not put into a standard compilation until the councils did this in the fourth century. However, historical evidence is clear that the Christian community who bore witness to the teachings of Isa and apostles used these writings as God inspired scripture during the life of the apostles in the first century.

At this point I was satisfied that I had unjustly denied myself a serious study of the Injeel due to fear that it was not the teachings of Isa, but of Paul and Church Councils. During this time my position on the Quran and Injeel reversed. The compilation of the Quran was more questionable as it had evolved, first into the Hafsa manuscript and later to the Khalifa Uthman manuscript, while the other Quran manuscripts that were in use were destroyed. I was now more troubled about the authoritativeness of the Quran and questioned its trustworthiness more than that of the Injeel. I continued to seek God’s guidance, this time setting the Quran aside and spending more time in the Injeel, focusing on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to see what God had inspired before the advent of Islam.

 

 

 

My Response:

     Thus we have ended Part 2, continue on to Part 3.