Can the Bible be Used to Interpret the Qur'an? W/ Sh. Sohaib Saeed

[@MBiernat0711]

People treat the Tafsir as the authority for the Quran interpretation- and this is harmful to Islamic scholarship. The work of Tafsir is only a (semi) educated guess, and not any better from any educated guesses or theories of today’s scholars. People treat tafsir writers as if they had more authority- they really don’t. It is all guesswork as good as any

[@Kuuzie1]

Many Muslims ain't familiar with the critical scholarship of western education Christians, and Jews are much used too. Centuries old exegesis, patristics in Christianity, Judaism are nearly all rolled back.😅

[@LeanOnPlants]

Quick question, when you refer to the study of previous scripture to help with Quranic interpretation, you mention biblical stories; here are you referring to the Old Testament or the New Testament. Also, when the Quran speaks of Injeel, is this in reference to the New Testament we have today? Or is this speaking about an unknown text revealed to Jesus? Sincere thanks

[@DiffQ_Bro]

Injil means the Gospels. Direct transliteration from the Greek euangelion.

[@noahrue470]

Al-Injīl may refer to the Diatessaron.

[@joep_kastanjer]

Injil comes from 1) the knowledge Muhammad had of the existence of a Christian Gospel, and 2) Muhammad's belief that every prophet said and did the same as himself, hence the Gospel or Injil must have been Islamic in Islamic thinking.

[@JesusisaMuslim]

The Bible has no chain. The Torah is 1000 after Moses and those gospels which Christians have wrw 4th century in Greek manuscripts written by unknown writers.

[@Stardust475]

Oops then you have a huge problem, as the Quran confirms it. And earlier complete Bibles before the 6thC/ 7thC

[@Kuuzie1]

U need to find out what the western scholarship saying about Quran and hadith transmission history. It will be hard to explain things to you in few sentences.😂 hadiths were compiled about 200 years after Mohammed. How can you trust oral stories after 200 years?

[@JesusisaMuslim]

@@Kuuzie1 During an interview with Angelika Neuwirth, the distinguished Professor of Qur’anic studies, she argued that the Qur’an has never been successfully challenged by anyone, past or present: "No one has succeeded, this is right… I really think that the Qur’an has even brought Western researchers embarrassment, who were not able to clarify how suddenly in an environment where there were not any appreciable written text, appeared the Qur’an with its richness of ideas and its magnificent wordings."

[@JesusisaMuslim]

@@Kuuzie1 How can you trust 4th century greek gospels? We Muslims have chains for hadith going back to Prophet Muhammad. Christianity is collapsing. My channel debunks Christianity and that pagan trinity

[@declansceltic198]

@@JesusisaMuslimDoes the Quran support your behaviour of arguing with Christians? Are you being a faithful Muslim right now?

[@MBiernat0711]

Is there any evidence that the word for “confirm” used to have any connotations of “correcting” or “improving” - or does the speaker not know his ass from the hole in the ground? That is a big claim - not to be farted out carelessly :)

[@MBiernat0711]

@@PraetorAkin so it is not exclusive to the Quran. It is like saying “the Torah is the criterion to distinguish what is true and false in the Torah.” It makes no difference. It would be an example of circular thinking:) Now -/ if the Quran was EXCLUSIVELY the “criterion” - that would be all together different, and we could suppose that the Quran is something entirely different and the tool for the distinction (between what is right and what is wrong). But it isn’t ……

[@MBiernat0711]

@@PraetorAkin another observation: when we realize that the Quran does not truly reject Jesus’ death and resurrection, but that the “seeming death” is only the death of the body but not of the spirit of the Messiah (which, such belief - does exist amount the various groups of the 7th century Christianity) - and that Jesus was the “messiah-martyr” who died for the cause of Allah (but not really, because the martyrs don’t really die but SEEM to die, according to the Quran) THEN we can simply say that the “Quran confirms the Injeel” - because except for the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus - there are no explicit contradiction. The implicit contradiction is that within the Quran, the actual teachings of the actual Jesus are excluded (love of God and forgiveness to enemy, even in the face of death)…. So the Quran implicitly contradicts the Gospel by omitting Jesus’ teachings but does not explicitly say contrary to the Gospel. … it could be that the writers of the Quran were not focused on the actual teachings of Jesus and they disregarded them as secondary, and not important. They focused on the obscure “Jesus coming with the sword to punish the sinners” parts of the Gospel which are not the main message Instead, Jesus and his apostles are portrayed as the “helpers” - or the apostles are the “helpers” of Jesus - helpers in the CAUSE OF ALLAH, which, in the Quran - is the war for peace, an ongoing battle for the goal of the Kingdom of God. It is only after the later Islam forgot the meaning of the Quran- then - the “contradiction” appeared, with all the Islamic Ulama nonsense how the “Bible was corrupted” and the notions that “Quran came to correct the Bible/Injeel” - and that drives me nuts when I hear it from people with advanced degrees in the Quranic studies - because they repeat the nonsense for HUNDREDS of years, despite what the Quran actually says

[@Megaritz]

This is a weirdly mean-spirited comment about Sohaib Saeed, a scholar who has studied this topic for many years. I would go out on a limb and say he DOES know his ass from the hole in the ground.

[@MBiernat0711]

@@Megaritz the comment is mean -spirited, you are right. Also, “years of education” do not shield a person from saying something stupid, occasionally. Like in this instance :) I’m not proud of myself for being mean spirited - yet, it doesn’t mean I’m not right: unless the speaker can show that the word for “confirm” means “correct” or “improve” - he, indeed - can not distinguish …. You know what from what ;)

[@MBiernat0711]

@@Megaritz now - Megaritz - the quranic word for “confirm” - “musadik” - means “affirm”, “verify”, “confirm”, “corroborate” and “validate”. In short - according to the Quran - the Quran is the witness and confirmation of the authenticity of the Bible. To say that the Quran “improves” or “corrects” the Bible is to say the OPPOSITE of what the Quran actually says about the Bible. The 1400 years of moronic Islamic scholars - do not make their words true. Only people who believe them without questioning them - are naive. Don’t be naive. Think on your own. What good is education if it teaches you nonsense?

[@MBiernat0711]

Daaaa ….of course “Allah Al Rahman arrahim is a form of trinity …. The Eternal Allah creator - the spirit through which Allah creates and the manifestation of this spirit in the world (“Muhammad, rasul Allah that must be obeyed alongside Allah). Just think about it: in order for Allah to remain eternal and “unique” from the created world - Allah must remain as distant from the creation. Yet at the same time - paradoxically- Allah is “the closest” the the creation via the spirit. Even thou- overall - Quran is a crude and heavily edited work of religious literature- with the references to trinity diminished - we can still find the traces. These are the lost contexts that the Tafsir writers were not aware anymore - also the connection between the early Islam and Christianity was lost by the 9th and 10th centuries. (And knowing “Muhammad” as a title similar to “Messiah,” and not a name).

[@0786AHA]

Hogwash. Sorry. God is not Trinity or form of Trinity. Surah Ikhlas was revealed to precisely shoot down Trinity thoughts.

[@bilosan97]

Obeying the rasool is not done ALONGSIDE God you genious. The term Allah and the Messenger is to obey the message of the messenger thus obeying Allah. It is not 2 seperate concepts: [Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying GOD. As for those who turn away, we did not send you as their guardian. (4:8)]

[@elicalexander6174]

Abassids Quran I think to reach out gnostic manikeansm , the trinity Jesus ( Jesus patibilis ) is very very manikean .. The remnant of Judaic aspect in Quran is very strong for abassids to erase it .. if you think how similiar abassids ottomans Muhammad with Jesus .. even prophet of Islam wanna be Jesus of nazareth

[@elicalexander6174]

If you want to think Jesus for the teology point of view . Jesus is clearly rassol . Remember three fold office of Jesus , Rasool , priest , king ..

[@MBiernat0711]

@@0786AHA oh, absolutely not! Sura 112 is a PROVE that Allah is a trinity: the word it uses to express the “unity” - samad- comes from a Semitic root meaning “joined” or “bound”. So Allah is “one bound and joined within self”. What is bound? The “Allah proper” which is the FIRST of three (not the “third of three”), and that part of Allah does not create in this world nor does it come into this world all together (because it is beyond this world), Then the second of three is arrahman - the Ruh of spirit or word of Allah that actively creates in this world) And then the Messiah/ Issa-Muhammad the light of this world, for whom and through whom this world was created (modeled on similar idea from Christianity). When we understand this, ALL the Quran will make sense. All of it. The disjointed references jumping from the second person to third person - the seemingly stupid sayings (like Mariam sister of Aaron or mother of Jesus as part of the trinity) - all of those will make perfect sense when we know what they mean in the context of Jesus born of the Holy Spirit, Jesus the High Priest. This is because early Islam is a form of gnostic Christianity