IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - -
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


-

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 July 2009 at 1:57am

Originally posted by Natassia Natassia wrote:

Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

 I would say that is not only inaccruate but a complete misunderstanding of what the hadith are and a sophmoric approach to the NT.

 

1) Unfortunately I am having to over simplify the science of hadith which I am no scholar of. But the foundation of hadith is "isnaad". A scholar once said (the teacher of Imam Al Bukhari in fact if my memory is correct) that "The isnaad is from the deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished." This system has given us "confidence" in the information.

 

2) The NT accounts have no isnaad. In fact, there was no methodology in figuring out who said what, what was fact, what was fiction, the reliability of those who told stories, nor was there any method for transmitting the info orally or written. With this in mind, you have four accounts that began as oral accounts that developed from different areas (regions) with differing authers who wished to put accross their point of view which also developed in different time periods. To say that all four accounts are really four perspectives like four different witnesses to an event is complete rubbish. These stories were influenced by their time periods, their geographical location, and the point of view their tellers and later their copiests wanted to convey. Furthermore, the "proto-orthodox" (the group whose theological ideologies modern christians inherited their knowledge from) had no solid method for discerning which accounts were true and which were false. Keep in mind that there were many different accounts floating around in differing regoins. They simply chose based upon their theological views.

 

3) As the stories in the NT devleoped, it is obvious to see that Christology also grew with a higher Christology as time developed. These are not four witnesses to the same event, these are four unique stories with unique perspectives. I believe the writers intentions have been lost in the need of Christians to force harmonizations onto them which does nothing but create a fifth gospel.

 

 

I am not saying that nothing accurate exists, I am saying that historical accuracy was not on the minds of those who formed your cannon (which is why the christian creeds do not force one to declare that the NT is the inspired word of God), and that we have no way of actually knowing what is truth and what is theological truth (the two are not necessarily the same things)

 

 

1) And isnads have been forged before. Besides, Bukhari did not compile and write down his collection until about 200 years after the actual events in question. The hadith were passed along orally by devoted followers of Muhammad. The gospels were passed along orally by devoted followers of Jesus and written down within the 1st century AD. The epistles were first written down...never orally passed along.

 

 

 

You are making my point. It is because of the strength of the methodology of the Science of Hadith and the isnaad that we know what is reliable and what is not reliable. The system gives us "confidence". In fact, our hadith that are classified as forged have greater confidence than the gospels, simply because we know with certainty that they are forged. Knowing something with confidence is better than knowing something without confidence. Not that forged hadith are better than the gospel (that was not implied).

 

Bukhari did not invent hadith compilation. The transmission of hadith already had lines of reliable "isnaad". Keep in mind that the oral tradition of Islam is an entirely diferent paradigm than that of the christian tradition, and to treat the two as equal would be a fallacy. The theory of later compilation and questionable reliability was disproven with the research of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah who took early collections of hadith in written format from a tabiin named Hammam ibn Munabbih (the written collection is dated to the tabi'in), a desciple of Abu Hurayrah, the Companion of the Prophet (saw).

 

His work is published and titled "An Introduction to the Conservation of Hadith. In the Light of the Sahifah of Hammam Ibn Munabbih". This masterful work showed with evidence that the transmission of hadith was solid and these lines of transmission had reliable isnaad before Bukhari began his famous work. In other words, Imam Al Bukhari simply built his compilation and methodology based on what already existed. I have the book in my collection and I welcome anyone to read it. Orientalists still teach their outdated views. Then again, nothing will persuade the determined skeptic. Imam Shafi'i, Malik, Imam Ahmed, Imam abu Hanifah lived before Imam Al Bukhari and their work was judged in light of the early collection and there are no descrepencies.

 

 

Various stories were told over and over without any checks and balances in the first century. Archeological finds of early writings show that it was not yoru four gospels that were wide spread and agreed upon within the many early Christian communities. What they find are "other" accounts that the group you inherited your theology from did not like. Not because they had special knowledge to what Jesus actually thought, but because the other stories did not agree with their ideology. That is a fact.

 

To say that something is written in the first century means it is correct is a non sequitur. Without some guidline in place, people can say whatever they like, and you would not know the better. In other words, you cannot say with any confidence that it is reliable or not. You, nor do I, actually know.

 

Quote The gospels were passed along orally by devoted followers of Jesus and written down within the 1st century AD. The epistles were first written down...never orally passed along.

 

 

 

Actually, the gospels were amongst many other accounts orally passed along, not necessarily the actual accounts that are traceable to Jesus. “Followers” of Jesus does not necessarily mean people who actually knew Jesus. The epistles are just letters, so why would they be passed orally? And being that they were letters does not mean that the author actually knew Jesus. In fact, half of Paul’s letters are in dispute, and acts was written nearly 30 years after the Pauline letters, and is problematic with its account of Paul when compared to the letters that are attributed to Paul. Furthermore,  the letters are simply Paul selling his brand of theology, and they are not an account of the life of Jesus or a reliable source of what Jesus thought and said. In fact, the letters do not add any credence what so ever to the accuracy of the gospels. Whether or not the epistles were part of an oral tradition is really irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Quote

2) Actually, it is likely that the writers of the gospels relied on a shared primary source for many of Christ's "sayings". The same source was likely relied upon for the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and probably even the Didache. Just as the hadith, sirah, and Quran itself could easily have been influenced by the biases of Muslims, so the gospels could easily have been influenced by the biases of Christians. But that's okay.

 

 

 

Actually, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That the gospels had a primary source is a non-sequitur. In other words, ok, lets say it is true, “so what”? It does not allow for any more confidence in the accounts. Now lets closely look at the claim which is really an over generalization. Some of the gospels share a common source for the sayings of Jesus, not all of the gospels. This “source” has no more quality control in place as the narratives that use them. No one knows who transmitted, where it came from, or the reliability of the narrators.

 

Next you are trying to force your asserted conclusion onto the religious texts of Islam, as if they (the Christian tradition) are an analogue to one another. The methodology in place to criticise the hadith does not allow for much wiggle room as far as “personal biases” to feed the narratives. Unless all the Muslims got together to agree on a bias, but then it would not be a bias but a consensus. I do not find this generalization to play a role in the transmission of accepted hadith given the critical methods employed by scholars.  The sirah do not influence the hadith and is a different discipline all together. It is accepted and known that the critical methods of hadith are not used for sirah due to the nature of hadith and the role it plays in the sunnah. As far as the Quran is concerned, the very people who knew the prophet (saw) were able to nip in divergence from reliable from the beginning. You will have to show what a personal bias has altered the Quran.

 

 

Quote

 That's how you find out the true BELIEFS of the earliest followers...because that's what really matters. The epistles of Paul are actually the EARLIEST Christian theological writings that we have (like Romans and Galatians). They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years. You want to understand Islam--read the Quran. You want to understand Christianity--read the epistles of Paul--the ones even the most liberal of scholars agree were written by him.

 

That is how you and those of your faith are forced to find out the “true beliefs”, simply because your traditions were transmitted orally and written without any method of criticism. The problem with simply relying on what is the earliest to define the true belief is that your assertion assumes that Paul wrote all of the letters you have in your NT, and you assumed that Paul was an authority for Jesus, and you assume that Paul was “the authority” and accepted as such in the late second temple period. If you assert these assumptions then your conclusion falls far from anything factual. Matthew, written later than Paul, obviously does not see eye to eye with Paul. This is “obvious”, and only an ideologically driven person would attempt to create another absurd “harmonization” explanation. Even accepting the Pauline letters approved by “liberal scholars” does not prove that they are an authority to Jesus. You are simply reading a view by one man whose letters were chosen by the group you have inherited your views from, and not necessarily the views of Jesus. If you want to understand Islam, learn from a reliable source which includes the study of the Quran.

 

 

 

Quote

 3) You can argue that with the gospels as well as with the Gnostic and apocryphal writings. You can't argue that with the epistles. There is no need to force harmonizations on the gospels unless you believe they are all the verbatim words of God. None of the authors of the gospels claimed to have been recording the verbatim words of God. So, it is likely a conservative, fundamental (and probably Protestant) doctrine to believe the scriptures are 100% God's spoken word. This is not something supported by the scriptures themselves.

 

 

I can argue that the epistles are not proof of the reliability of what Jesus said, taught, and believed, and I can further argue that the epistles did not have any critical rules in place to insure accurate transmission of the writings. Which is why half of the letters attributed to him are in question.

 

 

 

Quote

4) The authors of the gospels were not historians. They weren't concerned with presenting a history text book for readers 2000 years in the future. Their goal was to combat the gnostic heresies going around as well as to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ. The theology of the gospel is the same throughout the gospels and epistles, regardless of contradictions between the details of events: "Repent and believe in the salvation given by God though the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth."

 

Actually, the authors of the gospels are unknown, and their reliability is questionable, and no real claim of confidence can be made with them. The group who chose these four gospels were one group amongst other groups all battling for theological dominance. They also played high and loose with “scripture” in their theological battles with their rival groups, as they were so fond of accusing their rivals. Your group won, but not by having the truth or some authentic truth to Jesus, all of the groups were simply arguing from conjecture.   

 

A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
Nur_Ilahi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 January 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1031
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nur_Ilahi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 July 2009 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by Natassia Natassia wrote:

 
The Bible has never claimed to be the "word of God." 
 
The word of God is the word of God.  Humans can try to write it down as best they understand it, but according to the scriptures compiled in the Bible, the Word of God is eternal and was incarnated in the flesh 2000 years ago. (See John 1:1-18).
 
Muslims believe the word of God came to earth in the form of a book.
Christians believe the word of God came to earth in the form of a man.
 
The Bible is actually more equivalent to the Hadith, not the Quran.


Hi Natassia,

Apologize for missing this.  You stated The Bible has never claimed to be the “word of God”. There lies the contradiction among the many branches of Christianity. When something is True, there is no refute, no contradictions. Truth is Truth. Period!

The Scriptures that were sent by God Almighty or Muslims prefer to call Him Allah Subhanahuwataala - are messages from God Himself written in the human language for easier understanding of mankind.  In the original cases of Taurah (Torah), Zabur (Psalms) and Injil (Gospel/Bible) they were written in the language of the Prophets and the people of that time for that period only. However, corrupted priests took matters in their own hands and change the originals to their own likings. The originals were never ever found.

Alhamdulillah! In the case of the Quran, it was written in the beautiful language of Arabic not only for people of that time, but also for the future. Because it was written for the whole of mankind. And Allah Our Creator had guaranteed the authenticity of this Holy Scripture in the Quran Himself. If there were no guarantee from Allah, I believe, even the Quran will receive the same fate as its predecessors.
 
The Word of God should be Eternal, that is why The Quran is still intact until now. It is difficult for me to understand or to accept that the word of God is incarnated in the flesh because the flesh - as Christians believed it - had long been destroyed in the grave. Therefore the eternal part is a inconsistency.

A word of God should be eternal. No man ever seems to live eternally. That include Jesus. Even the sight of Jesus dying on the cross did not befit the eternity of God.

The Bible is actually more equivalent to the Hadith, not the Quran. -


In that case you should have a string of isnaads or the bearer of these messages. However none could be found.



Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.
Back to Top
Natassia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Natassia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 7:01am
Originally posted by believer believer wrote:

Natassias - "They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years."

Have you noticed though that Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.

1 Corinthians 15

 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

I think perhaps you should figure out what the GOSPEL itself is. The gospel was spread via word-of-mouth. Paul's letters were written to churches who had already heard and accepted the gospel. His letters predate the written gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And care to explain what "the Scriptures" exactly are in those verses you've quoted? The Bible didn't exist yet. The four gospels hadn't been written yet. The Tanakh/Old Testament canon had not been firmly established yet.

I prefer not to ASSUME things.

Back to Top
believer View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 08 January 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1397
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote believer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 July 2009 at 5:53am

Natassias - "They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years."

Have you noticed though that Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.

1 Corinthians 15

 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Back to Top
Natassia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 16 July 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 177
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Natassia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 July 2009 at 7:44pm
Originally posted by Andalus Andalus wrote:

 I would say that is not only inaccruate but a complete misunderstanding of what the hadith are and a sophmoric approach to the NT.
 
1) Unfortunately I am having to over simplify the science of hadith which I am no scholar of. But the foundation of hadith is "isnaad". A scholar once said (the teacher of Imam Al Bukhari in fact if my memory is correct) that "The isnaad is from the deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished." This system has given us "confidence" in the information.
 
2) The NT accounts have no isnaad. In fact, there was no methodology in figuring out who said what, what was fact, what was fiction, the reliability of those who told stories, nor was there any method for transmitting the info orally or written. With this in mind, you have four accounts that began as oral accounts that developed from different areas (regions) with differing authers who wished to put accross their point of view which also developed in different time periods. To say that all four accounts are really four perspectives like four different witnesses to an event is complete rubbish. These stories were influenced by their time periods, their geographical location, and the point of view their tellers and later their copiests wanted to convey. Furthermore, the "proto-orthodox" (the group whose theological ideologies modern christians inherited their knowledge from) had no solid method for discerning which accounts were true and which were false. Keep in mind that there were many different accounts floating around in differing regoins. They simply chose based upon their theological views.
 
3) As the stories in the NT devleoped, it is obvious to see that Christology also grew with a higher Christology as time developed. These are not four witnesses to the same event, these are four unique stories with unique perspectives. I believe the writers intentions have been lost in the need of Christians to force harmonizations onto them which does nothing but create a fifth gospel.
 
 
I am not saying that nothing accurate exists, I am saying that historical accuracy was not on the minds of those who formed your cannon (which is why the christian creeds do not force one to declare that the NT is the inspired word of God), and that we have no way of actually knowing what is truth and what is theological truth (the two are not necessarily the same things)
 
 
1) And isnads have been forged before. Besides, Bukhari did not compile and write down his collection until about 200 years after the actual events in question. The hadith were passed along orally by devoted followers of Muhammad. The gospels were passed along orally by devoted followers of Jesus and written down within the 1st century AD. The epistles were first written down...never orally passed along.
 
2) Actually, it is likely that the writers of the gospels relied on a shared primary source for many of Christ's "sayings". The same source was likely relied upon for the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and probably even the Didache. Just as the hadith, sirah, and Quran itself could easily have been influenced by the biases of Muslims, so the gospels could easily have been influenced by the biases of Christians. But that's okay. That's how you find out the true BELIEFS of the earliest followers...because that's what really matters. The epistles of Paul are actually the EARLIEST Christian theological writings that we have (like Romans and Galatians). They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years. You want to understand Islam--read the Quran. You want to understand Christianity--read the epistles of Paul--the ones even the most liberal of scholars agree were written by him.
 
3) You can argue that with the gospels as well as with the Gnostic and apocryphal writings. You can't argue that with the epistles. There is no need to force harmonizations on the gospels unless you believe they are all the verbatim words of God. None of the authors of the gospels claimed to have been recording the verbatim words of God. So, it is likely a conservative, fundamental (and probably Protestant) doctrine to believe the scriptures are 100% God's spoken word. This is not something supported by the scriptures themselves.
 
4) The authors of the gospels were not historians. They weren't concerned with presenting a history text book for readers 2000 years in the future. Their goal was to combat the gnostic heresies going around as well as to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ. The theology of the gospel is the same throughout the gospels and epistles, regardless of contradictions between the details of events: "Repent and believe in the salvation given by God though the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth."
Back to Top
Andalus View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group


Joined: 12 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andalus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 July 2009 at 12:34am
Originally posted by Natassia Natassia wrote:

Originally posted by martha martha wrote:

Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah Akhe Abdullah wrote:

[QUOTE=Natassia]
Muslims believe the word of God came to earth in the form of a book.
Not necessarily,

2:117- To Him is due The primal orgin Of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter,He saith to it: "Be",And it is.see there's the Word of Allah. I would'nt compare the Bible to Hadith,You see Hadith was reported by The companions (May Allah be pleased with them.)of Prophet Muhammed(SAW)who actually knew him.
 
You could argue though that the New Testament is also  Hadith?...as it was written by companions of Jesus who actually knew him. Any ideas?
 
I would say the New Testament is more like the Hadith.  The Hadith have Quran verses, but they also explain the context of them from the point-of-view of the narrators.  Sometimes you have one story being told by three different people, and so the hadiths somewhat differ in details.  However, it doesn't necessarily mean the event didn't happen.
 
 
I would say that is not only inaccruate but a complete misunderstanding of what the hadith are and a sophmoric approach to the NT.
 
1) Unfortunately I am having to over simplify the science of hadith which I am no scholar of. But the foundation of hadith is "isnaad". A scholar once said (the teacher of Imam Al Bukhari in fact if my memory is correct) that "The isnaad is from the deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished." This system has given us "confidence" in the information.
 
2) The NT accounts have no isnaad. In fact, there was no methodology in figuring out who said what, what was fact, what was fiction, the reliability of those who told stories, nor was there any method for transmitting the info orally or written. With this in mind, you have four accounts that began as oral accounts that developed from different areas (regions) with differing authers who wished to put accross their point of view which also developed in different time periods. To say that all four accounts are really four perspectives like four different witnesses to an event is complete rubbish. These stories were influenced by their time periods, their geographical location, and the point of view their tellers and later their copiests wanted to convey. Furthermore, the "proto-orthodox" (the group whose theological ideologies modern christians inherited their knowledge from) had no solid method for discerning which accounts were true and which were false. Keep in mind that there were many different accounts floating around in differing regoins. They simply chose based upon their theological views.
 
3) As the stories in the NT devleoped, it is obvious to see that Christology also grew with a higher Christology as time developed. These are not four witnesses to the same event, these are four unique stories with unique perspectives. I believe the writers intentions have been lost in the need of Christians to force harmonizations onto them which does nothing but create a fifth gospel.
 
 
I am not saying that nothing accurate exists, I am saying that historical accuracy was not on the minds of those who formed your cannon (which is why the christian creeds do not force one to declare that the NT is the inspired word of God), and that we have no way of actually knowing what is truth and what is theological truth (the two are not necessarily the same things)
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/
Back to Top
Akhe Abdullah View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 November 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1252
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhe Abdullah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 July 2009 at 2:40pm
Salams, Martha.ALHamduillah!La moshkelah(no problem!)May Allah Bless you.
Back to Top
martha View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 October 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1140
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote martha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 July 2009 at 12:03pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah Akhe Abdullah wrote:

Originally posted by martha martha wrote:

Does that mean 'yes'?  [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley5.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Confused" />
Laa(No)Na'am(Yes)Arabic through English translations.
 
 
THankyou brotherSmile
 
 
 
 
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.