₦airaland Forum

^^^
if I didn't believe, I wouldn't behave.

cleanvessel: John 10:30
I and my Father are ONE (the same Being, inseparable).

john 14:20- you will see as Jesus is in the Father, the disciples are in him and he in them. does that makes them deities too?

you guys give the devil way too much power

justaqad: most muslims label me a hypocrite because i speak the truth...

and most of the muslims you know don't speak the truth?

oops!

[quote author=Lord_Reed]The original OP was not dealing with a comparison of the treatment of women in both religions. If you want to discuss that open a new thread.[/quote]you should have thought of that before you decided to derail the thread.

the OP wasn't about segregation/separation within Islam either. nairaland is not an Islamic site.

word of advice Reed, if you're going to criticize Islam, use your head not your heart.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Sorry please make your point clear. Islam
has segregation fundamental to it
evidenced by the separation of the sexes
and other acts. This is my point, very
clear right? Now make your own just as
clear.[/quote]yes, there's a separation of the sexes in Islam,
yes, the rule is to be observed strictly in certain cases,

no, it's not because one sex is considered inferior,
no, we do not believe in segregation along other lines like, racial, class etc.

now my question, again: is it any worse than the degradation of women inherent in/
fundamental to christianity?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]I really don't get what you are driving at. We are talking about the segregation inherent in islam which you are not denying yet you are making defenses. What really is your point?[/quote]I think you get it very well but tell me this, is it any worse than the degradation of women inherent in/ fundamental to christianity?

Logicboy03: Na threat be that?

Just saying hello

how I go jus threaten you?

hello right back

Logicboy03: Wassap F00028?

hey Logic, stay outta trouble

[quote author=Lord_Reed]You are the one who mentioned that segregation was done because of the differing nature of men and women. It simply points out that muslims are use to segregating things of differing nature. You don't need to accede or deny this it is obvious. I once had a pet dog that ran around the house, one day a muslim came in and the dog frolicked around his legs, he was so uptight about it and said it was against the dictates of islam to have a dog that close. Segregation is fundamental to islam, the effects are all around us even on Nairaland.[/quote]wise man once said, nothing leads us to blunder quicker than illogical comparisons.
you really think Islam's dictates to keep animals away from humans is akin to gender separation in the mosques? seriously?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Was shariah law in effect when this country gained independence?[/quote]so?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Why is the extant criminal code insufficient for muslims? Why not push for criminal code reform if you are so displeased with it?[/quote]you know very well (at least you should) that would be an exercise in futility. if Muslims push for criminal code reform to incorporate the shariah you would never accept it.

that is when you start screaming Nigeria is a secular country. something that's conveniently forgotten at other times.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]You are the one who mentioned that segregation was done because of the differing nature of men and women. It simply points out that muslims are use to segregating things of differing nature. You don't need to accede or deny this it is obvious. I once had a pet dog that ran around the house, one day a muslim came in and the dog frolicked around his legs, he was so uptight about it and said it was against the dictates of islam to have a dog that close. Segregation is fundamental to islam, the effects are all around us even on Nairaland.[/quote]wise man once said, nothing leads us to blunder quicker than illogical comparisons.
you really think Islam's dictates to keep animals away from humans is akin to gender separation in the mosques? seriously?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Was shariah law in effect when this country gained independence?[/quote]so?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Why is the extant criminal code insufficient for muslims? Why not push for criminal code reform if you are so displeased with it?[/quote]you know very well (at least you should) that would be an exercise in futility. if Muslims push for criminal code reform to incorporate the shariah you would never accept it.

that is when you start screaming Nigeria is a secular country. something that's conveniently forgotten at other times.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]So in other words all differing natures should be separated?..[/quote]in YOUR words.
I frankly dont see how anyone can reasonably infer that from my post.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Now you want to re-write history to say islam pre-dates christianity.[/quote]again, we were talking about 'this country'

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Take a look at the implementation of sharia law in this country[/quote]I get the feeling you are not really talking to me. you are posting for the benefit of people who'll only read your posts hence all this deliberate misrepresentation

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Why is there a Muslim section in the first place? Why the need for segregation? As far as I am concerned muslims are very comfortable with segregation having practiced it extensively in their mosques, they are quite comfortable with it.[/quote]practicing s little women's lib there Reed?
the gender separation at the mosque that you keep going on about is only a recognition of different natures of men and women.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Take a look at the implementation of sharia law in this country. Why the need to establish a separate set of laws for muslims? Muslims thrive on segregation so there really is no argument.[/quote]there's only no argument if your mind is closed.
the have always had their shariah. they have been muslims for over a thousand years (that's hundreds of years before you got your christianity and your secularism). and they want it FOR THEMSELVES.

[quote author=Lord_Reed]Does Islam not encourage the segregation of the sexes? What can be more fundamental than that?[/quote]is the Muslim section men only?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]...Segregation is a fundamental part of Islam[/quote]how do you figure that?

Melchisedech!
no father, no mother, no beginning or end to his life -Heb. 7:3

frosbel: Jesus Christ is not Almighty GOD.

Jesus Christ is the Son of Almighty GOD.

meaning what?

[quote author=me' n 'me]very true! The question is what does the bible REALLY teach?[/quote]not the "bible". what does Jesus Christ REALLY teach?

it was a very simple question.

F00028: @plappville
then roman catholic bible has 73 books while that of protestants has only 66 books. did the catholics corrupt the bible by adding or have the protestants by subtracting ?

but you just went into a rant about the Qur'an.

here let me put it this way:
if tomorrow someone says, "dear plappville, am convinced and am putting down the Qur'an. give me the uncorrupted word of God"
which bible are you going to give him/her?

@plappville
then roman catholic bible has 73 books while that of protestants has only 66 books. did the catholics corrupt the bible by adding or have the protestants by subtracting ?

plappville: Now it hurts you so much that you now have to put the fault on translation? Did you care looking at other translations in Jeremiah 8:8 before jubilating

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
" 'How can you say that you are wise and
that you have the LORD's teachings? The
scribes have used their pens to turn
these teachings into lies.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"'How can you say, "We are wise
because we have the word of the LORD,"
when your teachers have twisted it by
writing lies?

New American Standard Bible(©1995)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the
law of the LORD is with us'? But behold,
the lying pen of the scribes Has made it
into a lie.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
(©2009)
"How can you claim, 'We are wise; the
law of the LORD is with us? In fact, the
lying pen of scribes has produced
falsehood.

International Standard Version(©2012)
How can you say, 'We're wise, and the
Law of the LORD is with us,' when, in
fact, the deceitful pen of the scribe has
made it into something that deceives.

plappville: You mistook Jeremiah 8:8 out of context not minding the consiquencses, JEREMIAH himself made it plain what he meant.
In Jeremiah 26: 4-6 we are told that the Law still exists and should be followed...

the problem is still there: if he says lies have been written into the law and then he says follow the law.

plappville: According to your Quran, God didn’t need to restore the Torah since it wasn’t corrupted and was already perfect...

God didn't need to restore the Torah period! His last revelation supersedes it

plappville: ...In the following narration, Ibn Abbas mentioned some verses that were left out in the readings of the Quran:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.' But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106)" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it." (2.106) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number

that's because they've been abrogated. God's words at the end if the same hadith you quoted settles it regardless of how Ubai feels.

plappville: These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran which were no longer essential since even the abrogated verses were included within the text.

not all

plappville: This next source states that there isn’t a single Muslim that could say for certain that they have the entire kuran preserved since there wasn’t anyone that could definitely tell what the entire kuran consisted of:

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said:[size=16pt] "Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.’”[/size] (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 524).

here's what sam shaoun didn't tell you:

Not only are the meanings people of his club try to superimpose on this
narration totally wrong, this translation is
also misleading. We shall first clarify the real
meanings of this narration and then give its
rightful translation supported with due
reasoning.
2- The true meanings of the narration
To every ardent student of the Qur’anic
sciences it is known that there were many
verses first revealed as part of the Qur’an and
later abrogated. We have discussed the
essence of the idea of abrogation earlier.
Al-Suyuti brings this narration in the section of
his work is titled as; “Section forty-seven: About
the Abrogating and the Abrogated.” [1]
Likewise it is in the section about abrogation in
another work of al-Suyuti. [2]
In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from
which al-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first
narration in the chapter titled; “[About] what all
was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation
and is not put in the Masahif.” [3]
Most important is the narration quoted by Hafiz
Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) which compliments and
fixes the meaning of the report we are
discussing. Ibn Hajr writes;
ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺮﺝ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻳﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻗﺮﺃﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﺁﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﻓﻊ
Ibn al-Dhurays has narrated a report of Ibn
Umar that he used to dislike the person
who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But
(the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has
been abrogated.’ [4]
This report seals the fact that Ibn Umar’s
statement simply refers to what was abrogated
from the Qur’an.
.
Abu Bakr ibn Tayyib Al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in
his amazing work al-Intisar li’l-Qur’an (In
Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another
narration on the similar lines and then explains
the two together. He writes;
ﻭﻧﺤﻮُ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔِ ﻋﺒﺪُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦُ ﻋﺒﺎﺱِ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻤﻌﻪ
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺟﻞ : "ﻳﺎ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺬﺭ ﺇﻧﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺟﻤﻌﺖ
ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ، ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ : ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚَ ﻟﻌﻠﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻘﻂَ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ
ﻓﻤﺎ ﻭُﺟﺪ ﺑﻌﺪ ."
And similar is the report of Abdullah bin
‘Abbas from Ubay, that he heard a man
said to him; ‘O Abu al-Munzar verily I have
gathered (i.e. memorized) the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ubay) said to him, ‘He does not
know (what the whole of it was) because so
much of the Qur’an was abrogated and it
was not found afterwards.’ [5]
And then explaining it he writes;
“And it is not possible for anyone to claim
that he has learnt (all) what was revealed
as Qur’an- the abrogating part of it and the
abrogated. And their words ‘it was not found
afterwards’ (underscore) that we do not find
in our day one who has memorized all that
was abrogated and whose recitation was
given up. And this is something which was
bound to happen.” [6]
3. Nothing has been lost of what the
Prophet left of the Qur’an
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin
Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas.
Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the
Prophet leave anything (besides the
Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave
anything except what is between the two
bindings (of the Qur'an)." Then we visited
Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him
(the same question). He replied, "The
Prophet did not leave except what is
between the bindings (of the Qur'an)." [7]
This hadith is categorical evidence that nothing
was lost of the Qur’an because all that the Holy
Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him- left for his people is what was put
between the two bindings.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr writes;
“And this chapter is made to refute those
who assume that a lot from the Qur’an was
lost with the death of those who knew
it.” [8]
Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) also makes exactly the
same point. [9]
Shahabuddin al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.)
comment helps understand the entire issue;
“Verily they (i.e. people of sunnah) have
agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an
as is continuously reported like we today
find between the two bindings. Yes during
the time of (Abu Bakr) al-Sidiq the part
which was not reported continuously and
was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out
of the official Mushaf) … and to this relates
that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of you should
say that he has taken the whole of the
Qur’an; how could he know what all of it
was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by!
Let him say instead: ‘I have taken of the
Qur’an that which became apparent.” [10]
The above mentioned narration of Sahih
Bukhari is very significant. One of the two who
said “The Prophet left nothing except what is
between the two bindings” was Ibn Abbas and
in the narration quoted by Al-Baqilani we find
him reporting and listening to the comment of
his teacher Ubayy bin Ka’b which is same as
that of Ibn Umar. Connecting the dots we make
out that he understood Ubay did not mean to
say that some part of the Qur’an that the
Prophet had left for the Ummah might have
been missed and could not be found anymore
by the person claiming to have memorized the
whole of it. It rather shows that Ibn Abbas fully
knew that what Ubay referred to was
something exclusive to what the Prophet had
left for the Ummah as eternal guidance (i.e. it
was the abrogated part). And we have already
seen that the narration of Ibn ‘Umar quoted by
Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays
makes the same point very plainly.
Another significant observation about Bukhari’s
narration is that the two who testified for the
Qur’anic preservation are Ibn ‘Abbas, the
cousin of ‘Ali bin Talib, and Muhammad bin Al-
Hanafiyya, the son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib- may
Allah be pleased with them all. Their testimony
is quite sufficient to lay to rest any amount of
rant by some extreme Shiites who make
speculative allegations of Qur’an being
tampered to remove verses in favor of ‘Ali, may
Allah be pleased with him. Had this been the
case these two close relatives of ‘Ali would have
not failed to make a mention of it.
4- Two objections/queries answered
Having explained the narration let us now turn
to two possible questions/queries.
4.1 Why Ibn Umar referred the abrogated
verses as Qur’an?
Before finding the answer to this question let
us have another look at the narration of Ibn al-
Dhurays;
“Ibn Umar used to dislike the person who
said, ‘I have recited the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But
(the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has
been abrogated.”
Very much like our explanation to the narration
we are discussing, this report shows that Ibn
‘Umar referred to the abrogated verses as
Qur’an. With the clarity in its last words this
narration takes away all the rhetoric power of
the question and reduces it to a mere query
having no ability whatsoever to cast doubts on
the validity of the explanation offered.
Coming back; Dr. Sa’d bin ‘Abdullah al-
Humayyid commenting to this narration in his
research on Sunan Sa’id bin Mansur says;
“And it appears from the words of Ibn
‘Umar that in his opinion even the
abrogated verses could also be called
Qur’an after their being abrogated or (they
could be so called) by the way what they
once were.” [11]
This is understandable given the fact that
Qur’an is nothing but the word of Allah and
abrogated verses though no more required to
be learnt or followed were nevertheless revered
due to their divine origin. In this regard there
is, however, one important difference between
Ibn ‘Umar and the people of later generation
like us. As there is no authority of continuous
(mutawatir) reports, we cannot be as certain as
him about some abrogated-in-recitation words’
once being a part of the Qur’an. We may
however refer to them as such for academic
purposes on the basis of lesser proofs. But for
Ibn ‘Umar this was not the condition as he
must have listened to some verses from the
Prophet in person for which he later learnt that
they were abrogated. Therefore, he for himself
was too particular about the words that
emanated from the Almighty as part of the
Qur’an though abrogated afterwards.
Further, it also has an indication of an attitude
of extreme care on such matters that involves
goodness on one part because this can in a way
lead to self-glorification. One might see it akin
to the following hadith;
Narrated Abu Bakrah: The Prophet (may peace
be upon him) said: “One of you should not
say: I fasted the whole of Ramadan, and I
prayed during the night in the whole of
Ramadan. I do not know whether he
disliked the self-praise; or he (the narrator)
said: ‘He must have slept a little and taken
rest’.” [12]
We can see that even though it is natural that
one who would fast as such for the whole
month of Ramadan, will break the fasts at night
and will also sleep besides standing in late-night
prayers, yet an out of the way step is taken in
instructing not to make such a claim. The fact
that narration of Ibn ‘Umar is in essence similar
to this and involves the idea of claim as well; it
can help us appreciate the real message in the
words of Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with
him.
4.2 Was “much” of the Qur’an abrogated?
We know the actual text involves the words
“qur’an kathir” therefore one may tend to
translate it as “much of the Qur’an” with stress
on “much.” In fact Sam Shamoun does that
and asks “what kind of revelation is this that
MUCH (not some) of it consists of verses that
have been abrogated?” This may appear to be a
very strong point but actually speaks of the lack
of proper understanding of the
language, something that Sam has been guilty
of in all his papers.
The Arabic word “kathir” does not mean
“much” in the comparative sense. In the
comparative sense it can even be used to mean
less than what it is compared to as shown
below. Same is the case with abrogation that
we are discussing. The abrogated part of the
Qur'an was definitely less than what remains.
A simple proof for this assertion is the narration
in which Sa’d bin Waqqas asked the Prophet-
may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him- about the share of his wealth that he
might give away in charity while he feared to
die. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas himself narrated his
dialogue with the Holy Prophet –may Allah
bless him- on the subject;
ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﻳَﺎ ﺭَﺳُﻮﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ، ﺃُﻭﺻِﻲ ﺑِﻤَﺎﻟِﻲ ﻛُﻠِّﻪِ؟ ﻗَﺎﻝَ : »ﻻَ « ،
ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﻓَﺎﻟﺸَّﻄْﺮُ، ﻗَﺎﻝَ : » ﻻَ « ، ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﺍﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ، ﻗَﺎﻝَ :
ﻓَﺎﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ، ﻭَﺍﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ ﻛَﺜِﻴﺮٌ
“I said; ‘Should I give two-thirds of my
property in charity?' He said, 'No.' I asked,
'Half?' He said, 'No.' then he added, 'One-
third, and even one-third is much ( wal-
thuluthu kathir ).” [13]
The translator of Sahih Muslim puts the same
as;
“He (the Holy Prophet) said: (Yes), one-
third, and one-third is quite substantial
( wal-thuluthu kathir ).” [14]
Certainly one-third is not “much” in the
comparative sense of being more than the rest
and no person of reason can ever claim that.
Just like two thousand years of theological
hammering has failed to find logic for “one in
three and three in one,” likewise no amount of
effort can ever show that “one-third” is “much”
in the comparative sense.
Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him-
only aimed to highlight the fact that verses of
the Qur'an were abrogated and no one should
say that they have memorized the whole of the
Qur'an (including those verses) as it rests in the
guarded tables with Allah. The Qur'an that we
have between the two covers today, the Qur'an
given to us by the messenger of God, collected
by Abu Bakr and Uthman, is the Qur'an that
Allah revealed and decreed to remain as the
guiding message for humanity till the Day of
Judgment, without any addition, subtraction or
alteration.
5- Summary and Conclusion
Ibn Umar- may Allah be pleased with him- only
referred to the abrogated part of the Qur’an
and his comment in no way suggests of even a
single letter of the Qur’an being lost.
Ibn ‘Umar’s other narration quoted by Ibn Hajr
on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays plainly
establishes this meaning.
Abu ‘Ubayd and Al-Suyuti have both placed the
narration in the sections about abrogated
verses which shows they also understood it
likewise. Comments of Al-Baqilani and Al-Alusi
also support the same.
The word “kathir” does not mean “much” in the
comparative sense.
The rightful translation of the meanings of this
narration is;
ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻦ ﺃﺣﺪﻛﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ
ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻪ؟ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻫﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ،
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﻘﻞ : ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of you should
say that he has taken the whole of the
Qur’an; how could he know what all of it
was (before some of it being abrogated)!
Substantial part of the Qur’an has passed
him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say
instead: ‘I have taken of the Qur’an that
which (remained and) became apparent
(after abrogation).”

@Plappville
Zawadi makes a valid point: Jeremiah says they corrupted the law with their "pen" not with their mouths e.g by false interpretations, false readings,etc

and he's right, if it was just a question of misinterpretation or false reading why not simply go to the pure text and ignore the scribes?

however Jeremiah 8:7. tells you they don't know and Jeremiah 8:8 tells you why i.e the "lying pen" of the scribes has altered the text?

and please note by bringing up other portions of the bible that command following the same law Jeremiah has declared corrupt actually does not resolve the issue rather it complicates it for you.

for the question arises: " why would God let one prophet command observance of a law that another prophet has declared corrupted?"


ps: I have not forgotten your post about the Qur'an. I will reply it.

@plappville, now you please read this with an open mind:


It is very clear from the text that the scribes have corrupted the Law (first 5 books of the Old Testament). How did they corrupt it? With their mouths by giving false interpretations? No! They did so with their "pens". Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something

Following are some arguments that Christians put forward to try to show that the verse does not say that the Law has not been corrupted.

The "lying pens of the scribes" means that
the scribes wrote misinterpretations of the Law and not actually altered the text of the Law

If scribes wrote misinterpretations of the
Law then why would people go and read
them? Notice that in verse 7 is says that
they don't know the requirements of the
Law. If they wanted to know the requirements of the Law, why go and read what the scribes have written when they could easily go to the supposedly uncorrupted text of the Law when it was available. Everything is there.

Notice how the verse says that they don't
have the Law. If the Law was truly there
in an uncorrupted form then that means
that they had it.

Some Christians tend to argue that "not
having the Law" means that they don'
truly abide by it. However, verse 7 states
that they don't know the requirements
because the lying pen of the scribes have
handled the Law falsely (verse 8 ). People
should have easily went to see what is
written in the Law to know the
requirements of God and not listen to the
scribes. But they couldn't because the
scribes corrupted the Law and therefore
people could not have known the true
requirements because they would not
have been able to distinguish between the
corrupted and uncorrupted verses of the
Law.

Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still
commanded them to follow the Law. How
could this be if the Law has been
corrupted?

This does not necessarily have to be
referring to the Law of Moses. It's
possible it could be referring to the
revelations that God had sent down to
Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36
In Nehemiah, chapter 8 we find that Ezra
reads the Law to the people of Israel for a
whole week, day after day. For example in
verses 8, 13-14, and 18. This is in about
430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's
temple address which took place in 609 or
608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king
Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1). In Malachi
4:4, God tells the people to follow the
Law.
This is irrelevant because Christians are
assuming that these books of Nehemiah
and Malachi are truly from God. Maybe
they were following the same corrupted
Law that Christians are following today.
This proves nothing.

Daniel Chapter 9 shows that Daniel read
from the Book of Jeremiah and also
believed in an uncorrupt Torah. This
shows that Daniel did not understand
Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the
Law was corrupted

First of all the only evidence of what
verses that Daniel read from the Book of
Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10
where God predicts that Israel would be
taken into captivity to Babylon for 70
years. This does not prove that he read
the whole book of Jeremiah.
Even if there was proof that he read the
whole book of Jeremiah that does not
mean anything. Daniel could have easily
misunderstood the passage just like how
Christians are today. Maybe he twisted
around its true meaning just like how
Christians do today because he they don't
want to admit that their scripture is
corrupted.

God could have restored the Torah just
like how he did with Jeremiah's own
revelations in Jeremiah 36:1-7, 20-32,
27-32

Irrelevant, because Jeremiah 8:8 does not
say that God restored the Law. Yes he
could have done it. God could do
anything. But the verse didn't say that.
Jesus gave authority to the Law in the
Gospels
How do you know that Jesus even read
Jeremiah 8:8? How do you know that
Jesus truly gave authority to the Law?
Because your Gospel says so? How do you
know that the Gospel writers truly quoted
Jesus' true words? This will get into a
discussion of the authority of the Gospels
so lets not go there. However, you cannot
use the Bible to prove the Bible has not
been corrupted. This is just circular
reasoning.

Even your own Quran says that Jesus
came to confirm the Law

The Gospel was given to Prophet Jesus to
confirm what remained intact from the
Torah; and the Glorious Quran was given
to Prophet Mohamed (saws) to confirm
what remained intact from the Gospel
and The Law!

Is God not able to preserve the Torah?

He is able to but just because he allowed
it to become corrupted does not
undermine His power. It could have been
God's divine plan for it to have been
corrupted because the Law was probably
only meant to be followed for a particular
point in time unlike the Holy Quran which
is the final revelation of God and has
remained intact and preserved and is
meant to be followed for all time since it
has been revealed.

Conclusion
Jeremiah 8:8 is explicitly clear when it
states that the Law has been corrupted.
We are not even sure if Jeremiah is really
the true author of this book. We don't
have any evidence to confirm if he wrote
the whole book. So even if Christians try
to come up and show verses from the
book of Jeremiah that give authority to
the Law then that would just simply be
contradicting Jeremiah 8:8. Maybe others
added to the book to try and cover it up.
Only God knows best. Maybe Christians
might criticize me for saying that
Jeremiah is not reliable yet I use Jeremiah
8:8 to prove that the Bible is corrupt. Well
either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the
Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a
corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so
your Bible is still corrupted! However, do
not expect a subjective Christian to
believe the implications of Jeremiah 8:8,
they would simply dismiss it. However,
use it for those truth seeking and
objective Christians.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm

plappville: You know that Jeremiah is of the OLD prophets. So which scripture did He says is corrupt?

The answer to your question is in your next question.

dear plappville, are you trying to get to the truth or are you just trying to trip me?

plappville: Did Daniel, Christ read from the Book of Jeremiah and also believed in an uncorrupt Torah?. Or are you saying God couldn't reveal this to Daniel?

or again are you saying that Daniel did not understand Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the Law was corrupted??

“…the only evidence of what verses that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10 where God predicts that Israel would be taken into captivity to Babylon for 70 years.”

plappville: Is God not capable of preserving the Torah? If man tempered with it, were there no ways to reveal it or correct it?

of course HE can but the fact that HE didn’t should tell you something!

the Torah was not to be eternal. it was for a specific people for a specific period of time. it expired with the coming of God’s final revelation, the Quran.

plappville: If you claim the scriptures are corrupt, why then do you still take words from this corrupt book

it's because I am talking to you. if I was talking to an atheist I wouldn’t try to prove anything to him/her with the bible, would I?

the fact of the matter is Jermiah 8:8 is clear that the pens of the scribes have corrupted the scriptures. by bring other verses of the bible to show the scriptures are not corrupt, all you are doing is bring up another contradiction in the bible.

if jermiah 8:8 is true, then the bible is corrupt. if jeremiah 8:8 is an interpolation and it’s in your bible, then the bible is still corrupt. you really can’t win with Jeremiah 8:8.

plappville: and also, can you tell us what the entire Quran consisted of?

the Quran is Almighty God’s final revelation to mankind. it containing guidance to the whole of mankind for every facet of his existence. revealed 1400 years ago, containing truths about this world that only its Creator would know. things that only now mankind is beginning to see for himself.

you see that's your problem: you are dishonest.
and of course english isn't my mother tongue but I know enough of it to always tell.

alexis: You are yet to tell us where the original Bible is since the one we have is corrupt.

when/ where have I ever made mention of any "original bible"?
Jeremiah says you scriptures are corrupt! ask him where it is.

alexis: You are yet to tell us HOW god informed Mohammed about the Torah and Zabur. You said it was revealed but later said god INFORMED Mohammed.

when/where did I first say the Torah and/or the Zabur were revealed" to the Prophet Muhammad?

stop putting words in my mouth. I know you can't help it, but at least make the effort

alexis: The question "How" is asking about the medium. You said god informed him. How did he do it? How did the information get to him? What medium did god use to inform him?

Did he read it or was it revealed?

We know god informed him, you have made that clear - HOW? Through revelation or ...............

that's a nice switch

I said it before, I'll say it again:

[size=16pt]sigh... nl xtians are all alike. methods may differ: self righteous indignation, putting words in people's mouths, false accusations, false claims, fabrications, etc but once I see y'all congregating and patting each other on the back, I know y'all been stumped! [/size]

proo212: I said on this board in the past 2 weeks or so, if you are patient enough they will dig a hole and trap themselves.

you say a lot of things that dont make sense. just stick to cheerleading plappville...no offense.

re read your post:

alexis: You said God saw it fit to inform your prophet [size=22pt] about [/size] the Torah and Zabur.

alexis: I then asked you:
alexis: How did this God [size=22pt] inform [/size] the prophet [size=19pt] of [/size] the Torah and Zabur? History said the prophet was unlearned and an illiterate and couldn't read. How did he come about them?

you asked how he "informed" him "of" (get it?!?!)
then I said: "same way he revealed to him the Quran"

I have said, "The Torah
was given to Moses, the Zabur was
given to David (peace be upon them).
God sees it fit to inform him of the
contents. "

If you still dont get it then

alexis: Either you are playing stupi.d or playing pretend.

alexis: Are these not your words?

alexis: How did this God inform the prophet of the Torah and Zabur? History said the prophet was unlearned and an illiterate and couldn't read. How did he come about them?

F00028 - same way he revealed to him the Quran

Weren't those your words F00028?

F00028: the Prophet didn't get them. The Torah was given to Moses, the Zabur was given to David (peace be upon them). God sees it fit to inform him of the contents.

you should get someone to translate that for you

peace.