Conversation with David Wood (Does the Qur'an Confirm the Bible?)

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem, (With the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

As salamu 'alikum wr wb,  (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you)

Conversation with David Wood (Does the Qur'an Confirm the Bible?)

Though David Wood has declined to debate Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi on the topic above he nonetheless agreed to engage me on the subject via e-mail.

I will be posting in parts (Allah-willing)  I was added by Yusuf Ismail (a prominent debater in South Africa) to an e-mail list.

I saw that the conversation seemed to focus on the topic above.  I simply wanted to weigh in on the discussion.

Jonathan Dupree (thegrandverbalizer19)
to David, buxson, jk01, ismaillaw, b_k, nabeel,  jle2, icra, jokeen107, sam_shmn40,  sulaimane, jsmith jan,  willfc, wildcat5653

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Well happy to know I am apart of a mailing list now (even though I do not know if I was formally invited to the party).

I think what I see in this particular e-mail exchange is people talking past one another. For me I don't think it makes allot of sense to talk about 'original manuscripts' from either side.

1) It makes perfect sense that Muhammed (saw) could have been inspired 600 years after Jesus and be told about events that happened 1000 years prior to his time about Pharoah and Moses and what have you. After all this is a belief in revelation/inspiration.

2) It makes perfect sense that Matthew, John or whom ever could have been inspired 40-100 years after Jesus and be told about events that happened 40-100 years prior to their respective time about Jesus and his disciples. After all this is a belief in revelation/inspiration.

When we talk about 'original manuscripts' in the case of the Qur'an it is more of a moot point because we believe that the Qur'an was a verbal rather than a written inspiration.

In fact a very good point the Christian could make is: did Zaid ibn Thabit or any of the companions claim inspiration from God? Were the companions merely chosen by the Prophet Muhammed pen the revelation down?

So we could talk about the most ancient documents of the Qur'an that we have called mushaf and we could talk about the most ancient documents of the New Testament manuscripts.

It seems that the big challenge for both sides in presentation and in conviction would be the following.

1) What would necessitate belief that either of the writings are inspired or divine?
a) We could take a presuppositional view. Which is they are because they say they are or because I believe they are.
b) We take an evidentialist approach which is to give evidence and argumentation from with in the respective text that would argue for them to be divine or inspired writings.

Does the fact that there are variants in either the New Testament tradition or the Quranic text necessitate that either is not the word(s) of God.

For example if Allah says that he would guard it (the Qur'an from corruption) what would that mean? (Does it mean the oral recitation?) (Does it mean the written collection and promulgation?)

Does the New Testament say it can't have variants? Is there are a rule or a law in the Qur'an or the New Testament/Old Testament stating that there cannot be variants?

Is there evidence of variants with in the Qur'an or New Testament manuscripts/documents that have theological implications?

The Christians often make a huge issue about Uthman burning Qur'anic manuscripts; yet they seem reluctant to talk about the fact that the Qur'an was preserved by memory and promulgated through memory.  This is a proven and viable system that is shown to work to this very day.

For example Christians have yet to my sanctification given a very good reason why we don't find significant or earth shattering variants among the oral tradition in Islam.

Why would God or wouldn't God want a system of both oral and written promulgation? What are the merits or demerits of each?

Marcion is said to be a person who collated the first New Testament into one canon. Where are his writings today? Where they burned or destroyed? Who did it and why?

Now I admit my biases as a Muslim for sure. But I would be interested to see how Yusuf Ismal, David Wood and others on here look at these issues.  Of course it could take some time to formulate responses or not.

My sincere apologies for any intrusion in the dialogue. May the God of Abraham guide us to what is loved by him.

Sincerely,
GV19.

David Wood wood_apologetics@hotmail.com
to buxson, jk01, ismaillaw, b_k, nabeel, jle2, icra,  jokeen107, sam_shmn40,  sulaimane, me,  jsmith, jan, willfc, wildcat5653

Buxson,

You've missed the point entirely. You're asking me about the Gospel of Jesus. But Muslims are the ones who have a problem here, not Christians. Let's go over this again. 

(1) According to the Qur'an, the Gospel is a book.

(2) According to the Qur'an, the Gospel was revealed by Allah.

(3) According to the Qur'an, revelation from Allah cannot be corrupted.

(4) According to the Qur'an, Christians have the Gospel.

(5) According to the Qur'an, Christians must judge by the Gospel.

So the Qur'an teaches that Christians have a book, revealed by God that cannot be corrupted. Here's the strange thing. I agree with the Qur'an that I have a book, revealed by God that cannot be corrupted. But you don't! You contradict the Qur'an! Whenever Muslims tell me that the Gospel has been corrupted, they're telling me that the Qur'an is wrong (because it says that God's word cannot be changed). Whenever Muslims tell me that I don't have the Gospel, they're telling me that the Qur'an is wrong (because it says that Christians have the Gospel and that we must judge by the Gospel).

Let me ask you, then, where is this book, trusted by Christians, revealed by God, that cannot be corrupted, and that I am commanded to judge by? If you can't show me this "Gospel," I can only conclude that Islam is false, and that Muhammad was a false prophet.

For even more evidence along these lines, see the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ALL_43xgco

Jonathan Dupree
to David

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

David I think a few things are in order.

If you are going to give us five points: (according) to the Qur'an.  I guess I would like to see which places (according) to the Qur'an you have in mind. Seems like you may have a very good case; possibly one that would stick. 

However, if points 1) 3) or 4) are misunderstandings on your behalf and not the Muslims it looks like the dialog is still on....

Most interested to see your reference.

David Wood wood_apologetics@hotmail.com
to me

I already gave references in a previous post. You challenge (1). Are you saying that the Gospel isn't a book? Why then are we called the "People of the Book"??? You challenge (3). But I gave two verses which say that the word of Allah cannot be changed (and, in context, the Qur'an is referring to revelation). You challenge (4). But I also gave verses which command Christians to judge by the Gospel and claim that we can examine the Gospel. Are you saying that the Qur'an is telling us to judge by and examine a book that we don't even have? What sense does that make???

---

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:11:14 +0800

Jonathan Dupree
to davfoster, Fadel, Shabir, rassool1, David, sulaimane,  wildcat5653,  willfc, b_k, buxson, jokeen107, jk01, jsmith,  yahyasnow, sam_shmn40, Yusuf

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

1) I am saying the Gospel is not a book. I am surprised that you do not know the definition of 'Ahl Kitab' in the classical sense.  As you know the Ahl Kitab according to Imam Malik (raheemullah) consist of the  Christians the Jews and the Zoroastrians.

As the Zoroastrians and Jews do not hold to any of the New Testament documents to be revelation it's hard to fathom them referencing a common 'book'.

You might want to brush up on this argument David if that is what you are seeking to present 'Ahl Kitab' =Jews and Christians reading a common book, Kitab=Gospel.

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:16 AM, David Wood <wood_apologetics@hotmail.com> wrote:

I already gave references in a previous post. You challenge (1). Are you saying that the Gospel isn't a book? Why then are we called the "People of the Book"??? You challenge (3). But I gave two verses which say that the word of Allah cannot be changed (and, in context, the Qur'an is referring to revelation). You challenge (4). But I also gave verses which command Christians to judge by the Gospel and claim that we can examine the Gospel. Are you saying that the Qur'an is telling us to judge by and examine a book that we don't even have? What sense does that make???