• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

Is the Gospel referred to in the Quran authentic or corrupt?


  • Total voters
    23

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel [Injil] wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah ] - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?
 

FooYang

Active Member
So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels?

Nope, you can end the thread now.
No Muslim that knows their religion will say that the Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an = the four biographies of Matt, Mark, Luke & John, they'd have to be braindead to claim that.
Christians like to presume this though.
The Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an, is a revelation given to Jesus on the same level as the Qur'an and the original Torah.
Calling it "corrupted" doesn't even count because the NT are just biographies.

Injeel NT
 

Wasp

Active Member
The Qur'an says Jesus was given the Gospel. We can agree he wasn't given the new testament.
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Nope, you can end the thread now.
No Muslim that knows their religion will say that the Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an = the four biographies of Matt, Mark, Luke & John, they'd have to be braindead to claim that.
Christians like to presume this though.
The Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an, is a revelation given to Jesus on the same level as the Qur'an and the original Torah.
Calling it "corrupted" doesn't even count because the NT are just biographies.

Injeel NT

Probably the most important point is the Quran in its entirety represents for Muslims the inerrant Word of God or that which God Revealed through Muhammad. The Quran has little biographical information unlike the Hadiths.

The Gospels by contrast while similarly containing much the the Christians believe God Revealed through Jesus, does have important biographical details such as Christ’s birth, crucifixion and resurrection. However both the Words Jesus spoke and the biographical narrative are considered the inspired Word of God, guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore the inerrant Word of God.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels?
Not all of it; the Synoptic Gospels confirm what is in the Tanakh, where it is teaching a living Gospel, that through doing good works, and being humble servants of the God Most High (El Elyon = Ala ilah), we acquire good works which we will be judged by.

What came after is what the Quran challenged, that the Pharisees John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros) corrupted the message, and taught a death Gospel, that jesus came to die for sin.

The Quran explains how they've rejected that the Curse of Moses was placed on them by Yeshua, and instead rewritten it, whilst lying to all the Gentiles.
What evidence would support your conclusion?
The text establishes all of this, and can cite all the details if needed.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel [Injil] wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah ] - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?
Since I am not a Muslim nor a Christian I will be a bit careful in being sure of this topic but in my understanding, the Islam teaching and the NT may speak of the same things, and come from the same sourse, but told in somewhat different way. In my understanding it comes down to what level of wisdom the receiever had when gaining the wisdom og God/Jesus or Allah and muhammad.
But of course i can be wrong in my understanding
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Not all of it; the Synoptic Gospels confirm what is in the Tanakh, where it is teaching a living Gospel, that through doing good works, and being humble servants of the God Most High (El Elyon = Ala ilah), we acquire good works which we will be judged by.

What came after is what the Quran challenged, that the Pharisees John, Paul and Simon the stone (petros) corrupted the message, and taught a death Gospel, that jesus came to die for sin.

The Quran explains how they've rejected that the Curse of Moses was placed on them by Yeshua, and instead rewritten it, whilst lying to all the Gentiles.

The text establishes all of this, and can cite all the details if needed.

In my opinion. :innocent:
So only the synoptic Gospels are authentic as they are consistent with the Tanakh? Most Christians would see the Gospel of John as well as the NT apostolic writings as inspired by God and entirely consistent with the Synoptics. Would you identify just one specific Teaching from each of John, Paul and Peter you believe contradicts both the Synoptics and Tanakh?
 

Wasp

Active Member
Clearly not, but was He given the Words He is alleged to have spoken in the four Gospels?
It is largely agreed that some of his words remain there. "eye for an eye....." is in the Qur'an as well.

But due to changes made therein it cannot be trusted in anything for which there is no evidence in the Qur'an or Hadith.
 

FooYang

Active Member
Probably the most important point is the Quran in its entirety represents for Muslims the inerrant Word of God or that which God Revealed through Muhammad. The Quran has little biographical information unlike the Hadiths.

Yes, the Qur'an is 'word of god' to Muhammad directly, the Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an is 'word of god' directly to Jesus. This is the Islamic position, take it or leave it but it's the Islamic position.

The synoptic "gospel" (biographies) plus John, are not revelations to Jesus, they are biographies of his life. It's quite apparent if you've read them.

However both the Words Jesus spoke and the biographical narrative are considered the inspired Word of God, guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore the inerrant Word of God.

Yes, but they're biographies, whether they're accurate or "inspired" is an entirely different matter, they're bios.
The 'red text' may have it's merits but you have to then factor in all the other biographies that weren't featured in the compilation of the NT by the early church fathers.
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Since I am not a Muslim nor a Christian I will be a bit careful in being sure of this topic but in my understanding, the Islam teaching and the NT may speak of the same things, and come from the same sourse, but told in somewhat different way. In my understanding it comes down to what level of wisdom the receiever had when gaining the wisdom og God/Jesus or Allah and muhammad.
But of course i can be wrong in my understanding

That is my understanding too, that the NT and the Quran are consistent with each and both reflect to varying degrees Revelations from God.
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It is largely agreed that some of his words remain there. "eye for an eye....." is in the Qur'an as well.

But due to changes made therein it cannot be trusted in anything for which there is no evidence in the Qur'an or Hadith.
Would you give an example of one specific part of the Gospels you believe contradicts the Quran?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel [Injil] wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah ] - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?
I went with “this poll doesn’t reflect my thinking” because although I don’t doubt that Muhammad saw the Gospels as authentic, I don’t think He had access to the critical scholarship that modern man does which exposes the scriptures as having multiple authors with conflicting theologies.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
So only the synoptic Gospels are authentic as they are consistent with the Tanakh?
Not even all the Synoptic Gospels are authentic, the words of Yeshua when correlated make a clear case of what he might have said...

The actions between all the Gospels imply what possibly took place, and between all of that we can show what Yeshua was putting forward, which then aligns with the Tanakh...

The Synoptic Gospel writers also got things blatantly wrong, as do most religious texts globally, nothing is perfect down here, and yet some think it can be.
Most Christians would see the Gospel of John as well as the NT apostolic writings as inspired by God and entirely consistent with the Synoptics.
We're down near Hell before Judgement day, and people are insane down here, the idea there are blatant contradictions on purpose between John, and the Synoptic Gospels; where it is laid out like an IQ test with a series of patterns, and a random pattern that doesn't fit at the end of it, is proof people are not logical, plus demonic for accepting the things within it.

A Christian by definition follows Paul and Simon the stone (petros), who Yeshua said would be misled by Satan, and yet people still play Simon says follow the Devil, where they don't notice the differences, which proves they're evil according to the texts globally.
Would you identify just one specific Teaching from each of John, Paul and Peter you believe contradicts both the Synoptics and Tanakh?
Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin for saying that the murdering of the prophets counted as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

All 3 accuse God of sending Yeshua to die as a sacrifice, which is Balaam teachings, God has never required sacrifice, and the idea of teaching he came to die as a sacrifice, stands directly against his teachings, and all the Law.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, the Qur'an is 'word of god' to Muhammad, the Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an is 'word of god' to Jesus. This is the Islamic position, take it or leave it but it's the Islamic position.

I agree that is the view held by Muslims.

The synoptic "gospel" (biographies) plus John, are not revelations to Jesus, they are biographies of his life. It's quite apparent if you've read them.

I’ve grown up with Christianity and was Christian prior to becoming a Baha’i. The Gospels are part of my being so of course I have read them. They are not simply biographies IMHO. First, because they contain the Teachings of Jesus and secondly because the story itself is a theological narrative rich with allegorical meanings that compliments what Jesus. However, it’s of interest to me you label them as mere biographies and on that basis diminish their status.

Yes, but they're biographies, whether they're accurate or "inspired" is an entirely different matter, they're bios.
The 'red text' may have it's merits but you have to then factor in all the other biographies that weren't featured in the compilation of the NT by the early church fathers.

Not every Christian writing composed in the first two centuries made the grade. Even early copies of the Quran needed to be destroyed as Uthman took steps to standardise the Quran.
 

FooYang

Active Member
I agree that is the view held by Muslims.

Well you've got the answer to your thread.

I’ve grown up with Christianity and was Christian prior to becoming a Baha’i. The Gospels are part of my being so of course I have read them. They are not simply biographies IMHO. First, because they contain the Teachings of Jesus and secondly because the story itself is a theological narrative rich with allegorical meanings that compliments what Jesus. However, it’s of interest to me you label them as mere biographies and on that basis diminish their status.

Sure, but that's what they are. At least you acknowledge it.

Not every Christian writing composed in the first two centuries made the grade.

Clearly there is something there on the Christian side, 'made the grade' :rolleyes: We're dealing with biographies here, not a single unified book. You can try to reconcile the four biographies together but at the end of the day you're still dealing with four biographies that were chosen out of around 40 or so.

Even early copies of the Quran needed to be destroyed as Uthman took steps to standardise the Quran.

This is not an argument, he never added or subtracted anything from it, poor comparison man. Besides, the Qur'an is one book, not four and we still have pre-Uthman manuscripts.
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I went with “this poll doesn’t reflect my thinking” because although I don’t doubt that Muhammad saw the Gospels as authentic, I don’t think He had access to the critical scholarship that modern man does which exposes the scriptures as having multiple authors with conflicting theologies.

I agree Muhammad saw the Gospels as authentic. I can’t imagine He was unaware of the Christian Bible that had been standardised at that stage. I don’t believe anyone has seen common authorship in the four Gospels. Further, modern scholars agree on the close collaboration of the Gospel authors, particularly the Synoptics. If there is a case for conflicting theologies between the Gospel writers the strongest case would be how John contradicts the Synoptics. I don’t believe they really do however. What conflicts do you see between the Gospel writers?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
I don’t believe they really do however. What conflicts do you see between the Gospel writers?
Here is a start to contradictions between the Synoptic Gospels, and John; plus here is loads more blatant contradictions...

As already doing, I'll explain the whole thing to everyone before judgement day, for the sake of seeing if anyone down here can be logical; currently nearly everyone is doomed, and it is shocking people are so lacking in discernment.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Dawnofhope

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The beginning of the Gospel of John. If we take it for granted the word is jesus.

Thanks for citing a specific example. The logos used in John 1:1, John 1:3 and John 1:14 has often been used to justify the Divinity of Jesus. Many Christians see Jesus and God as being one and the same based on Jesus being the Word (Greek- Logos). However the problem could be interpretation of the text rather than the text itself.

The word logos was also used by Philo, a Hellenised Jew and contemporary of Jesus to mean intermediary.

Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."

Philo's view of God - Wikipedia

So the way the word logos was used by Philo gives an entirely different meaning to the one presumed by many Christians.
 
Top