Comments by "" (@chrisatspeakerscorner) on "Chris At Speakers Corner"
channel.
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
"1. It refers to the original scripture which was revealed (not inspired) to the Prophets (Not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John-They were not prophets)."
No, it refers to the Torah and Injeel they have with them - as the Quran clearly says in the verses I gave in the video. Historically this would have been Matthew, Mark, Luke and John along with the same 5 books of the Torah we have today. Prove to me otherwise.
My point about Q5:43 is that in it's historical context Rabbinic Jews would have understood the "judgement/command of Allah" to be the 613 Mitzvot. Muhammad could have explained this wasn't correct or had been corrupted textually around the whole world - but seemingly decided not to and instead allowed the Jews to judge according to the Torah (which they did).
The Torah as a preserved scripture seems evident in Islam - we have the story of Muhammad telling the Jews to judge by the Torah (as you mentioned), 2 verses down we have the Quran paraphrasing Exodus 21:24, we have Sira material of Muhammad accepting a judgement from a Jew to the Banu Qurayza that was called "the judgement of Allah" that scholars like Dr.Yasir Qadhi and Sheikh Martin Lings have pointed out is the same judgement in Deuteronomy 20:12-14. We have the context for Q2:85 in tafsir writings to be Jewish tribes (Aws and Khazraj) at the time of Muhammad being accused by Allah for not following all of their Torah and only parts of it. Bit of an odd thing to say if the Torah they had was universally corrupted (Hence being impossible for them to follow all of the Torah).
"However, neither Allah, nor Muhammad PBUH confirmed that the scripture which Jews claimed as Torah is authentic and preserved. So here Allah is referring to Torah which Jews claimed they had at that time."
Yes he did - plain and simple, the Quran is full of verses claiming the Quran confirms what is "with them". Meaning the Torah/Injeel at the least. There's verses that mention how the Jews/Christians will be punished for not following the law contained within the Torah/Injeel (Q5:47, 5:44, 5:68).
"There is a hadith where it is advised not to accept nor reject the past scriptures. Rather, say that Muslims believe in the scripture that was revealed (to prophets), not the inspired word of God, which was written later by the unknown men."
No, this is false. The hadith you're referring to tells Muslims not to take the Torah/Injeel at face value from the Christians/Jews who were orally narrating the scripture to them. This was because the Arabs didn't know Hebrew etc and couldn't validate if what they were being told from the Christians/Jews was correct (i.e actually found in scripture - like the verse of stoning).
"But when Allah refers to the Torah, which Jews had in their hands, then Allah will not mention that these scriptures were revealed or sent down but emphasize that the source of such Torah and scripture are the Jews themselves (in their hands)."
Did you watch the video? Go read Q 2 : 91.
Your alternative take on history has 0 evidence to back it up - all the evidence is in favor of the Islamic Dilemma being correct - according to Islam, Muhammad affirmed an inspired, preserved, authoritative singular Injeel/Torah that contradicted his own teachings.
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"They changed their own Scriptures and claimed that this is sent down from Allah. Refer to 2.75 to 2.79, which you have not referred to in your video."
I referenced this in my previous video on the opinion of early Muslim scholars of the Injeel/Torah - the verse (Q2:79) doesn't say the scriptures were universally corrupted across all of the Jewish diaspora and Christendom, in multiple different languages with complete universal agreement between all major Jewish and Christian denominations. You need this to be the case for your theory to work. Please give evidence of how this is even possible. Pre 11th century Muslim scholars like Muqatil Ibn Sulayman, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Qutaybar, Al-Yaqubi never advocated for this theory, instead they adopted Tahrif al-Mana and localized Jewish groups writing their own texts (Q2:79).
"When the Quran clearly segregates between the Scripture revealed to propehets versus the scriptures jews claimed to have in their hands. Both are not the same, and the Quran clearly mentioned the corruption made by the men in their Scriptures, which you have not mentioned in your video."
The Quran clearly affirms the Torah/Injeel around at the time of Muhammad multiple times - as I've shown. The Quran also mentions localised accounts of mostly Jews making their own alterations to copies of the Torah.
A plain simple reading would be that the Torah/Injeel are preserved at the time of Muhammad (since he references them as legitimate forms of Allah's judgment and is even better explained in Tafsir) and that some groups of Jews alterered their Torah either in interpretation of the meaning (Tahrif al-Mana) or in localised copies they had in their possession.
Nowhere is universal corruption of the Torah/Injeel mentioned.
Show me a verse that explicitly says the Torah/Injeel have been universally corrupted worldwide and the Quran only confirms a part of the scriptures.
(Keep in mind Q2.85 actually holds Jewish groups accountable for literally only following part of the full law of the Torah at the time of Muhammad - which assumes they must be able to and hence have a preserved Torah).
Your act/truth distinction doesn't help your argument and to be frank I'm not sure how it even would help your argument.
"Regarding 5.43, one has to take the context which is mentioned in the Quran and Hadith. The judgement here refers to a specific case which is mentioned in the Hadith as well in the Tasfir. In your video you quoted about 613 commandments and claimed that this is mentioned in the tafsir, but when you open the tafsir, nothing is mentioned about the historical context you have mentioned, rather it talks about the specific judgement which Jews want to take from Muhammad PBUH."
No, my point is that the historical context (this Quran verse is describing a historical event, yes?) would of been to Rabbinic Jews who had a developed understanding the law of Moses. I didn't claim the Mitzvot is found in Tafsir - I'm saying in the historical context this would have been the understanding of the Jews Muhammad was engaging with. Muhammad questions the motives of the Jews by their refusal to follow the law(s) in the Torah. He didn't single out the verse of stoning as the only true part of the Torah (remember the Quran says his description is also found etc) - but rather assumes the Torah has been preserved and is still authoritative, which is why he commands the Jews to follow that ruling.
"Regarding Exodus 21.24 the Quran corrected the verse mentioned in the Bible."
No, this is begging the question. As a Muslim you can't allow for another more simple and straight forward explination of the variations between the Quran and prior scriptures. My answer is that the Quran is simply in error. Your answer is much more conveluted as it required you to add additional eisegesis into the Quran when the Quran has clearly told us that it confirms the Torah/Injeel, not to change it.
"Regarding the Hadith part about Muslims neither accept nor reject the past scriptures. You claimed that it is not true. However, you have not mentioned the reasons why it is not true. You have just paraphrased the hadith."
The hadith is this (one variation of it, found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4485);
The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136)
Notice it's not telling Muslims not to accept or reject the past scriptures themselves - as you wrote in a past comment when you said "There is a hadith where it is advised not to accept nor reject the past scriptures."
Instead - it mentions accepting or denying what the Christians/Jews themselves say about the scriptures. Which is very different from not accepting what the scriptures themselves contain.
"Also note that there is no such thing like inspired word of God, which Christians claim that their Bible is. Here again the claim of inspired word of God is made by Christians (Allah's creation) not by Allah or His prophets. Be clear with such distinction, else you won't be able to understand the Quran."
Again, begging the question. You assume this from an Islamic paradigm that holds the Quran to be without error, hence any claims made must be true which is circular (as the truthfullness of the Islamic paradigm is the very thing in question) - a better more neutral methodology would be to evaluate what people from the Hijaz thought the Injeel/Torah was at the time of Muhammad and base our evidences on that.
If you do that though - you'd be forced to accept all the recorded Christians Muhammad interacted with (or his companions and family) were Nicene creed believing Triniarians with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John they collectivly called "the Gospel". You'd also have to accept early Muslim scholars agreed with that too.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Any interpretation of any Muslim scholar (old, current or future) if it contradicts with the core Islamic teachings, then such interpretation is not taken as part of the faith."
The doctrine of universal textual falsification of prior scriptures wasn't part of early Islam - that's my point. We only find it explicitly taken onboard by the majority of Islamic scholars from the 11th century (5th century AH). It's a later developed doctrine that seems to originate with Ibn Hazm.
Sahih Bukhari 7363 - like everything else, doesn't argue for universal corruption of the Torah/Injeel - but casts doubt on the Christians/Jews who are telling Muslims about those scriptures. Hence why the content starts with "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything...". Any alterations to the copies of the Torah/Injeel they have are localised to those making the changes. No Jew or Christian can edit the Torah/Injeel universally - that's an absurdity. You may as well say I have the power to alter the Quran universally because I can make altered copies of it.
"If you think that Muhammad PBUH has assumed the preservation of Torah and its authority, then why not bring a solid evidence for it. It is you who is claiming that Muhammad PBUH has assumed that the Torah at his time is true and preserved, so now the onus is on you to prove it. Mere assumptions is not an evidence."
I don't assume, I accept what is written in the Quran. How the Quran tells us the Torah and Injeel are from Allah (Q3:3). How the Quran confirms the Torah/Injeel that was written at the time of Muhammad (Q7:157, Q2:91). How Muhammad instructed the Jews to judge by the verse of stoning in the Torah (Q5:43) they had in their hands (and so were stoned to death). How Q2:85 warns Jews not to judge by only a part of the Torah. How the Torah is described as "guidance and light" (Q5:44) and how I'm told to hold to the laws in the Injeel/Torah and if I don't I'll be judged accordingly as one of the disbelievers (Q5:47, 5:68).
That's inspiration (Q3:3, Q2:89, Q10:94) preservation (Q7:157, Q5:43, Q5:44, Q2:91, Q2:41) and authority (Q5:47, Q5;68, Q10:94).
"Regarding the inspired word of God, when Islam is fundamentally based upon Quran and Hadiths, then why the Muslims leave these sources and opt for other sources which is not from Allah? This is not how faith works."
You mean like history? If you want to stay away from historical sources to add context to the Quran then that's fine - but you are being explicitly ahistorical regarding your faith. I'd say this would render Islam a faith not based in history but found only in fideism. Christianity on the other hand has God and His actions firmly found in history through his Son.
"Regarding the last part (forced to believe), when Allah and Muhammad PBUH never validated the books (Mark, Matthew, Luke and John) as "Gospel or Injil","
Given you had just made an argument against using external historical sources to determin the context in the Quran - how can you then say they never validated the Injeel as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? The Christians Muhammad would of known would of largly been from the Oriental Othordox Church (Aksum, Yemen, Eqypt etc) that would of thought the term Gospel would mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In fact, we don't have any evidence form the Islamic tradition of alternative Christian groups that aren't using Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - show me some evidence.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3