From: khushro@niagara.eecs.umich.edu (Khushro Shahookar)
Subject: Questions about Quran
Originator: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan -Moderator)
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:30:15 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


I have some questions regarding the Quran based on Dr. H. Siddiqui's
article, and other articles. I was unable to reach Dr. Siddiqui by email, so
I would appreciate it if Dr. Siddiqui or some other kind soul answered them.

H. Siddiqui:
> Muslims don't believe in original sin, so they don't agree that someone
> has to die for it. The whole idea of original sin is illogical and bet-
> rays common sense. Why should someone be punished for the sin of other?
> Moreover, in our understanding while Adam and his wife, Hawa (Eve) did
> break the commandment of Allah as a result of their *forgetfulness*,
> they later repented, and Allah forgave them. Indeed, our Lord (Allah) is
> Rahman and Raheem. 

If the Muslims don't believe in original sin, then I would like to know in a
little more detail what is the Quran's view of the incident of Adam.
In particular, have we inherited the mortality and the
condemned state of living outside heaven as a result of his original sin?
or was Adam a mortal like us before his original sin?

Also, if Allah forgave them, then why did he not take them back into heaven?
This proves that they were not forgiven. Allah is not so unjust that He
would "forgive" someone and still keep on punishing him. According to the
Quran, what is the connection between Adam's original sin and the human race
living outside heaven? What was the reason for only 2 humans to ever live in
heaven, and the others to live outside? Why is it not possible that Adam's
sin is the reason for this?

H. Siddiqui:
> MY RESPONSE to this is that it is agreed upon by most Biblical scholars
> that all the New Testament books are of pseudopigraphic origin,including
> the gospels, the epistles of John, Peter and James. The author of John's
> gospel or his epistles is not the same John, the disciple of Jesus. 
> Of course, you are not going to find the "Theou" in the so-called Ancient
> Manuscripts (which don't date older than the middle of the 4th century)
... and many other paragraphs where you doubt the authenticity of the Bible.

Then how do you interpret the Quran's verses which say that the Taurat and
Injeel were given by Allah, that Allah's word cannot be changed, and that
these books are available today in the original form to be looked up?

41:43. Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the 
apostles before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of 
forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution.

6:34. And certainly apostles before you were rejected, but they
were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help
came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah,
and certainly there has come to you some information about the
messengers.

This clearly states that although the previous apostles were rejected, still
there was no one who changed the words of Allah. ie the books are not
corrupted, only the number of followers is limited. There is nothing in this
verse that suggests that the "no change" guarantee is limited to the Quran;
in fact, the entire verse is about previous scriptures and previous
prophets. 

2:41. And believe in what I have revealed, verifying that which is 
with you, and be not the first to deny it, neither take a mean 
price in exchange for My communications; and Me, Me alone should 
you fear.

May I ask what book Allah is referring to when He says "verifying that
which is 
with you"? If the Bible has been corrupted / altered / was never written by
Jesus's disciples, then where is this other book which according to Allah's
own words is supposed to be "with us"? 

5:43. And how do they make you a judge and they have the
Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after
that, and these are not the believers.

Once again the Quran says that they "have" the Taurat, note the tense. 

I had asked about this on the net before, but it seems no one has a
satisfactory answer. The best explanation that I received is the following,
which is obviously unsatisfactory in the light of 2:41 and 5:43

nabeel@sce.carleton.ca:
>   As you yourself quoted from Koran above, God revealed Torat, Injil and
> Koran. Our interpretation of revelation is that God passed those books
> (through some angel, Gabriel) to those prophets. Now who says that God passed
> John's Gospel to anybody? Or Luke's Gospel? Or Nichola's (?) Gospel (which
> was found early this century in excavations)? And probably many other Gospels
> we do not know about? The answer is no one. We Muslims do not thing that
> Torat and Injil related in Koran is the Bible. You probably know that the
> Gospels are narrations and interpretations of the Desciples of what they
> lived with Jesus...

Then I ask where is this other "Taurat" and "Injeel" narated by Gabriel,
which the Quran says is supposed to be "with us"? In fact, Islam quotes the
prophesies for Muhammad in the Taurat and Injeel as proof for itself. How
can we recognize the validity of this proof if the real Taurat and Injeel
are lost, and no one even knows what they said?

H. Siddiqui:
>  And we do believe that any christian who truly searches
> the truth and believes in the content of the Gospel, will be naturally
> inclined to become a Muslim. (Let me caution you that we do not know
> how authentic the Gospel is, whether or not, it was a true rendition of
> the original Gospel in Greek. We, Muslims, simply do not have anything
> to do with the Latin version.) Some christian theologians biasedly do
> hint that it might have been a Muslim gospel, written by Fra Marino,
> who might have been a Muslim. There are no end to such imaginations and
> theories in the minds of christian theologians and missionaries.
> I read a number of these writings by missionaries, and simply laugh at
> their childish accusations and fumblings.

If so, how do you resolve the
contradictions between Barnabas and the Quran. If someone has read the
Gospel of Barnabas, can he please quote from it to settle these points:

Sox, David. The Gospel of Barnabas. 1984:
3>      Barnabas is at variance with the Koran on a number of important
and minor
3> points.  First,  it states that Mary experienced the birth of Jesus without
3> pain, which contradicts the Koran.  The  Raggs think this passage may
3> constitute  'a trace of apocryphal gospel', but indicate that the birth
3> without pain was also 'an accepted tradition of Latin medieval
Christianity'. 
3> A variety of Gnostic-style parables,  miracles and stories are
included in the
3> gospel, yet certain well-known accounts which have clear Gnostic literary
3> parallels, such as those of Jesus speaking from the cradle, the
appearance of
3> a miraculous spring for mother and child in the desert and the infant Jesus'
3> creation of birds from clay, are not to be found there.
3>  
3>      Not only does Jesus foretell the coming of Muhammad in Barnabas,
but the
3> Prophet is the promised Messiah.  It does not occur to the writer that the
3> appellation 'Christ' is the Greek word  for 'Messiah' , and he seems equally
3> unaware that in the Koran Jesus is 'al Masih'  (Messiah).  (The Arabic and
3> first Urdu translations of Barnabas tried to hide the contradiction
by writing
3> Masiya instead of al Masih!)  The Gospel role of John the Baptist as Jesus'
3> forerunner is eliminated in Barnabas, and that position is given to Jesus. 
3> Neither John nor his father, Zechariah,  who are both mentioned
several times
3> in the Koran, ever appears in Barnabas.
3>  
3>      The gospel makes Muhammad to be the Messiah in no uncertain terms, and
3> the Raggs ask if he also is accorded the title of Paraclete, as Sale had
3> suggested.  'Paraclete' is the Gospel of  John's epithet for the Holy Spirit
3> and has been traditionally translated 'comforter'.  The Latin Vulgate
3> translation is 'advocate', which is preferred by many modern commentators. 
3> Scholars have noted the affinity of a Koranic reference to the Paraclete of 
3> St. John's  Gospel, which has:
3> 'But when your Advocate has come, whom I will send you from the
Father ... he
3> will bear witness to me'  (John 15.26).  Sura 61.6 of the Koran
presents Jesus
3> as saying to the 'Israelites':  'I am sent forth to you by Allah to confirm
3> the Torah already revealed and to give news of an apostle that will
come after
3> me whose name is Ahmad.'  That last word has usually been interpreted
as being
3> another name for Muhammad.
3>  
3>      In Barnabas, the proclamation that Jesus is 'giving news of an apostle'
3> who will follow him is not veiled.  The name Muhammad is repeatedly
used, but
3> whether a precise identification between the Christian Paraclete and
Muhammad
3> is presented in Barnabas, the Raggs say, 'No more ... and no less than does
3> the Qoran itself'.  


H. Siddiqui:
> My reply for all the above questions can be summed up in a few sentences -
> God guides whomever He likes to be guided. 

Also  
Quran 16:108. These are they on whose hearts and their hearing and 
 their eyes Allah has set a seal, and these are the heedless 
 ones.

How is that fair and just? What is the fault of those who Allah chose not to
guide? Why should they go to hell? How can they even try to heed if Allah
himself set a seal on their hearts, their hearing and their eyes? In many
other verses the Quran says that Allah guides whoever He pleases. How do
these verses not conflict with our free will?

H. Siddiqui:
> Most Muslims did not know about the existence of this (Gospel of Barnabas)
> version until in 1907 L. and L. Raggs, missionary christians who also
> mastered in Dante's writings, translated the Latin version into English.
> When the translated copies started selling fast, and fearing that it
> may lead to some English-speaking christians to change faith and become
> Muslims, thus defeating the very purpose for which the Raggs initially
> translated the Latin version, all the copies were removed from market
> and not a single copy in English was to be found anymore. However, two
> copies ended up in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C and British
> Museum. The access to the translated copy in Britain was restricted away
> from Muslims. One English Muslim was able to make a photo-copy of the
> Ragg's translation two decades ago, since then the book has been reprin-
> ted by a few publishers, notably, Kazi Publications in Chicago and Ame-
> rican Trust Publications in USA. 

This is not a question about the Quran, but I wanted to verify the
truthfulness of Dr. Siddiqui's claims, when he says "and not a single copy
in English was to be found anymore." I checked 2 libraries at random - the
University of Michigan and the University of California, and both of them
have 1907 editions. I presume other libraries have it too.
----------------------------------------
Non-Siddiqui Articles:

There was an article posted on polygamy, which quoted the following 2 verses
of the Quran that seemed to be contradictory. Can someone explain what these
verses mean and how they relate to each other?

4:3. And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards
orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and
three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice
(between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands
possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the
right course.

4:129. And you have it not in your power to do justice between
wives, even though you may wish (it), but be not disinclined (from
one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in
suspense; and if you effect a reconciliation and guard (against
evil), then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

4:3 says that "if you fear that you will not do justice
(between them), then (marry) only one" otherwise marry up to 4
whereas 4:129 seems to say that you will definitely not be able to do
justice between them but marry them anyway, as long as you don't totally
disregard one of them.
Further 4:3 says that if you cannot do justice between them, then
marry only one "or what your right hands possess". What does this mean? 

A.R.Khan:
> I have copied above the translation as given in Sahih Bukhari. Now,
> if you Brothers consult pages 45-47 in Volume 9 of Sahih Bukhari
> as Translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Hadiths 57-59, it is
> clearly mentioned that the punishment of apostacy is death, NOT
> AFTER THREE  TIMES APOSTACY as I earlier mentioned, although I
> clearly remember I read somewhere. One Brother raised
> the question : Do we have to wait for three times? The point
> is if one goes out of Islam he IS OUT OF ISLAM with the difference
> that a KAFIR who turns back from Islam is more harmful
> than an OUTSIDER KAFIR because turning back may affect the faith 
> of others. 

My question is what about those who were born in a Muslim family and were
made to follow Islam since before they even understood Islam fully?
Does 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion" not apply to them? 
Do they not have the right to study various religions and choose one for
themselves at some time during their lives? 

Thank you for your assistance
-KHUSHRO