Muslims And Protestants?

[rkwright]

I was posting some questions over at MM, mostly just to learn about the Muslim belief on Jesus. I found a few interesting points I wanted to bounce off PM - to get your opinion and possibly educate some here.

1 - Sura 3:3 states that Allah revealed the Gospel of Jesus. This was interesting to me, and the thought almost looks similar to the Mormons. God came and revealed Himself through Jesus but the message was lost.

2 - This came to my attention very quickly - either the Bible is right about Jesus, or the Qu'ran. They're mutually exclusive on this matter. I figured lets test the strength of the validity of the Qu'ran. I'm still waiting on more responses at MM but it seems that the Muslims may have the same problem our Protestant brothers have. Whats the authority behind the Qu'ran? This being the case, it might be possible that all the arguments against protestant's version of the Bible work equally well.

For starters, does anyone know if the Qu'ran tells us how many verses or books there should be in it?

[Apotheoun]

I doubt that trying to compare Islam to Protestantism will be successful, since a Muslim would probably piously respond by simply saying that the Quran was "assembled" during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, one of the Rashidun, and so it has been protected - at least in some way - against error. If anything Islam resembles Mormonism (or really it should be said the other way around), and so the best way to argue against it is by denying the idea that Mohammad was a true prophet.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1260539216' post='2018326']
I doubt that trying to compare Islam to Protestantism will be successful, since a Muslim would probably piously respond by simply saying that the Quran was "assembled" during the reign of Uthman ibn Affan, one of the Rashidun, and so it has been protected - at least in some way - against error. If anything Islam resembles Mormonism (or really it should be said the other way around), and so the best way to argue against it is by denying the idea that Mohammad was a true prophet.
[/quote]

Well its not a direct comparison, but do you see how the arguments work against both the same way? You have to put your faith into the "Church" as being divinely protected from error in order to get an assembled Bible\Qu'ran\Whatever that is divinely protected from error.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1260540167' post='2018336']
Well its not a direct comparison, but do you see how the arguments work against both the same way? You have to put your faith into the "Church" as being divinely protected from error in order to get an assembled Bible\Qu'ran\Whatever that is divinely protected from error.
[/quote]
That argument will only work with a person who accepts the Bible as truly authoritative. Besides, a Muslim could simply respond by saying that he is putting his faith in the "Church" (understood as the Muslim community - the Ummah).

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1260540443' post='2018338']
That argument will only work with a person who accepts the Bible as truly authoritative. Besides, a Muslim could simply respond by saying that he is putting his faith in the "Church" (understood as the Muslim community - the Ummah).
[/quote]

And does the Ummah claim to be free from error?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1260541594' post='2018348']
And does the Ummah claim to be free from error?
[/quote]
I suppose a Muslim could be argue that it is "free from error" - especially the first generation of Muslims and the Rashidun.

P.S. - One of the new Muslim posters made passing reference to something along these lines in a different thread, but I do not remember which one off the top of my head, if I find the post I will link to it.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Pomak]

This is rather funny.

For legitimacy. If falls under two categories(rationally speaking).

1. Did it actually happen.
This is where the mass transmitted chains of narration come into it.
2. Is it Divine
This obviously is a human judgment.

And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Pomak

[rkwright]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1260542788' post='2018353']
This is rather funny.

Was for legitimacy. If falls under two categories(rationally speaking).

1. Did it actually happen.
This is where the mass transmitted chains of narration come into it.
2. Is it Divine
This obviously is a human judgment.

And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.
[/quote]

If only prophets are infallible how can the Qu'ran - a book not a prophet - be deemed to be the correct word of God?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1260542788' post='2018353']
And no, no one except prophets are infallible. The thing that guarantees the infallibility of the creed is
A. God- He has promised to protect his deen
B. The human system used to document the revelation and life of the prophet saws.
[/quote]
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would say about the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility that protects the Magisterium from error.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1260543141' post='2018358']
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would say about the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility that protects the Magisterium from error.
[/quote]

But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.

Islam is built upon a man - we have to trust that the man was infallible in his words.

Edit:

Look at what is being said here. If we take the Church at Her word, then the Catholic Church has legitimacy because it was founded by God Himself in the person of Jesus.

If we take Islam at its word - it was founded by a prophet, a man. We have to assume that a) he was a prophet and b) prophets are infallible when they deliver the word of God and c) the prophet is actually delivering the word of God. Islam must necessarily look outside of its faith to establish itself.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 07:55 AM' timestamp='1260543353' post='2018362']
But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.
[/quote]
But a Muslim will make the same type of claim. Many of done it in discussions I have had over the years.

[Pomak]

[quote name='rkwright' date='12 December 2009 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1260543135' post='2018357']
If only prophets are infallible how can the Qu'ran - a book not a prophet - be deemed to be the correct word of God?
[/quote]
Err because it was revealed by a prophet and then recorded down without changing it. One of the things about the Quran is that the book form is not the norm. The original way to safeguard and keep the revelation was by memorizing it. And every ramadan the people in Medinah would recite it and if anyone had a faulty memory or wrong recitation he would be corrected.

[quote]
This really is saying basically the same thing a Catholic would sayabout the Magisterium of the Church. It is God's infallibility thatprotects the Magisterium from error.[/quote]

Quite possibly. And its quite obvious that faith plays a major part in accepting this claim or rejecting it.

[quote]
But the difference is key - God himself established the Catholic Church and thats what ensures the Magisterium's infallibility.

Islam is built upon a man - we have to trust that the man was infallible in his words.[/quote]

See above.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1260543829' post='2018367']
Err because it was revealed by a prophet and then recorded down without changing it. One of the things about the Quran is that the book form is not the norm. The original way to safeguard and keep the revelation was by memorizing it. And every ramadan the people in Medinah would recite it and if anyone had a faulty memory or wrong recitation he would be corrected.
[/quote]

And how do you know it was recorded without anyone changing it? There have been translation errors in the Quran - this is historical fact.

How do we know the prophet was actually a prophet?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1260543509' post='2018364']
But a Muslim will make the same type of claim. Many of done it in discussions I have had over the years.
[/quote]

The difference I see is reflected in the edited post above.

A Catholic puts his faith in God in the person of Jesus. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God established the Church.

A Muslim must first put his faith in a man, the prophet. A muslim must first believe that the man is indeed a prophet, and that prophets are free from error when relaying the word of God, and that this prophet is indeed relaying the word of God. A Catholic deals only with one belief - Is Jesus God? Because if He is, then we know that the words he speaks are true and infallible.

The difference is who do you put your faith in - a man or the God-man.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rkwright

[rayz]

[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1260538662' post='2018320']
I was posting some questions over at MM, mostly just to learn about the Muslim belief on Jesus. I found a few interesting points I wanted to bounce off PM - to get your opinion and possibly educate some here.

1 - Sura 3:3 states that Allah revealed the Gospel of Jesus. This was interesting to me, and the thought almost looks similar to the Mormons. God came and revealed Himself through Jesus but the message was lost.
[/quote]

sura 3:3
[quote]It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses)and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sentdown the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).[/quote]


[quote name='rkwright' date='11 December 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1260538662' post='2018320']
2 - This came to my attention very quickly - either the Bible is right about Jesus, or the Qu'ran. They're mutually exclusive on this matter.
[/quote]
Not really. Bible have mixed statements regarding divinity of Jesus (peace be upon him). Depends on how you read them. If you are Unitarian you'll read the same bible verses and conclude some thing different compared to a trinitarian. A muslim would read those biblical verses and say those were the original ones and other verses which attribute divinity to Jesus (pbuh) are later amendments.

Try: (KJV www.biblegateway.com)
John 5:30
John 14:28
Mathew 12:28
Acts 2:22