If Bible distorted, why muslims quote passages which ‘refer’ to Muhamad?
June 23, 2009 8:14pm CST
If Bible distorted, why you quote Biblical passages which ‘refer’ to prophet Muhammad? According to muslims, Bible is a distortes book. Quran is the book that has never been distorted. Isaiah 42: 4 says ' He will not fail nor be discouraged, till he has established justice in the earth; .’ Deuteronomy 18:18 "I will raise for them a Prophet like you (Moses) from among their brethren and will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them, all that I command him". John 14: 15-16. It says: "14-If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16- And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another "comforter" (Helper in other versions), that he may abide with you forever". According to Islam, these are Biblical passages which are supposed to refer to Prophet Muhammad. But how can they rely on these passages if it is true that bible is distorted?
24 Jun 09
That is an obvious question which baffles me too! Not only the Bible, they also assert confidently that Muhammad was predicted in the Vedas too. And on the other hand they say the Vedas are distorted too. And I haven't seen too many Muslims respecting the Vedas as a 'word of God'. And if indeed the two were distorted, isn't there at least a slight possibility that the passages which they refer are incorrect too? Still, even if we assume that indeed the two were distorted, why didn't God send the original form of the very first book/s? Why did He/She/It have to change its contents to such a great level? The moral of the story is that all religions are man-made. Another striking moral is that the use of passages is a part of proselytization tactic of Islam.
26 Jun 09
If you read a book called Satyartha Prakash([I]lit.[/I]Light of The true Meaning)- a book[written in Hindi for popular consumption] wherein Maharshi Dayananda Saraswati[MDS] has given a sampling of the Vedic Passages, and compared them to other religions. As an advocate of the return to the Original Scripture = The Vedas esp. The Samhitas- He has criticized all religions in the backdrop of the Vedic Religion as understood and interpreted by him. He hasn't spared the cults[for want of a better English word] within the popular SD(Hinduism). He has quoted a very short Upanishad called the [B]Allopanishad[/B], where the essentials of Islam in terms of their most important "Mantras" - well that is how a Vedic Scripture would look at another religion's book. Similarly there is a Yeeshu-Upanishad too (where the essentials of Christianity are stated)- again quoted in this book called the Satyarth Prakash.Islam as also Christianity, has been so severely criticized in this book that, had the swamiji been alive today he would have had a Fatwa declared by the Mullahs/Ayatollahs against his head. The strange thing is that none of the Acharyas[Masters] who preceded MDS, have even mentioned the existence of these Upanishads. Now, those very statements could be interpreted by Muslims as, "Look, The Vedas have mentioned about the coming of Jesus(PBUH) and Muhammad(PBUH)!" It simply does not occur to them why these could not have been some apocrypha concocted by some interested parties(read: Muslim monarchs and or the Colonial Masters) in their heyday just to gain the acceptance of or perhaps mislead the orthodox Hindus? That is why Shankaracharya does not count anything more than about 16 Upanishads as validly traceable to The Vedas. The later Acharyas liberally quote from Upanishads which describe Manifest Divinity ( a term according RK ashram's translation of the word: Saguna Brahman = Brahman-with-Attributes as against the Nirguna Brahman = Attributeless Brahman that Shankara held as the true import of The Vedas. IOW Shankara went by the established standard that an Upanishad must essentially [B] be a part of the Samhita of a well-known rendition of a Veda.[/B]For example, The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad is part of the Shukla Yajur-Veda or the Taittiriya Upanishad as part of the Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishna Yajur Veda. Further, the definition of a Scripture is meaningful for a believer only. It doesn't make any sense for someone who either has no belief in that particular religion, or for that matter any religion at all! Within SD people understand that: The Vedas are written in a different kind of Sanskrit with a Grammar that is not the same as applicable for Classical Sanskrit; thus any interpretation based on a lexicon of the Classical Version of Sanskrit or the correspondig grammar will give strange/crazy meanings to the Vedic Mantras! If you want to have look at one such please read one such quote which [B]fizanali[/B] produced as a translation of a YV Mantra. One orthodox opinion within SD even holds that Vedas mustn't be interpreted and must be taken as is. They are supposed to give their "results" in spite of and independent of one's understanding of their meaning. Whether it was Sayana, Mahidhara or Uvvata or the several other commentators- they have only managed to give "a part meaning" that is, "as what appealed to them!" Like for instance, Sayana-Acharya gave a [I]yajnika[/I] view point as that was according to him the purpose of the Veda. Now, one may question the inclination of the Acharya but one cannot question the scholarship or the well-equipped-for-the-task qualifications of the Acharya, as tulips trader has done!For there is no shade of doubt that they had long years of practice in their Area of expertise, which they bring to their interpretations. Now, you have the translations and hence interpretations of the New Generation of scholars like Sri Aurobindo, Kapali Shastri, R.L.Kashyap - who wrote in English except Kapali Shastri, who had a commendable Sanskrit scholarship- these give a scholarly "modern" looking interpretation of The Vedas, the Samhita parts especially. IMPO while these are quite interesting as sincere efforts, they still do not qulaify as the Final Word. For that matter, MDS gives a meaning in terms of Brahmopasana [Worship of God] and social structure and law descriptions for the main portion of the Vedas.He and his followers called The Arya Samajis propose a dualistic view to be permeating the Vedas! MDS is severely critical of Shankaracharya while admitting that the Acharya was of a scintillating intellect. For his own part the Sanskrit scolarship of MDS is beyond doubt. In sum, I would like to say that The Vedas are the least studied, much less understood Scriptures of SD or Vedic Religion(VR).[B]The Vedas have many more encoded and encrypted, knowledge-nuggets/details than has even been conceived.[/B] Simply taking any stand is like the parable of Five Blind Men who went to see an Elephant. I would humbly say (I am just one of the many) I have just embarked on such a study and am already overwhelmed/baffled by the few flashes of insights that I keep getting every now and then(by His Grace). It has only taught me one thing: Almost everyone who has attempted to imterpret THE VEDAS has contributed his mite but must admit that he has just scratched the surface! One last thing: The Vedas mean nothing in translation. I mean to say, Translating The Veda is only satisfying one's itch at recognition of scholarship. Nothing More. Coming to the point in question, I am not aware of any predictive passages in THe Vedas for the concept of Prophesy as a recognition of Divine Inspiration is foreign to The Vedas. So, all statements about the predictions of the coming of future prophets of SD's own or other religions are figments of imagination. Of course [B]the Puranas[/B] do a bit of Prophesying, of the coming times, end of the world, end of times or Universe(s).These are not at all the subject matter of The Vedas[esp. Samhitas/Brahmanas] or even when you take in the Shrutis. The antiquity of all but a few of the Puranas is in doubt.
• United States
24 Jun 09
Well, that does seem a bit of a contradiction in and of itself! Howver I do know that the muslim texts do refer to Jesus Christ they viewed him as a prophet and not the Son of God. I also understand that Christ has been mentioned in other texts as a great prophet as well. So I guess the same argument could be made of Christianity as well. I however just view it as proof that a man named Jesus did in fact live and was a great teacher. Islam teaches peace but also tells its adherents to kill the infidel. Which to me doesn't seem very peaceful at all! Because according to that you kill anyone who doesn't believe the way you do! Maybe I will have to read more into islam! Not that I am going to convert but I find information is the greatest ally in anything.