/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

>>18588

No takers??

I'd genuinely like to know the answer to this.

>>18644

You've asked about 20 different questions, peppered with statements that give those questions pre-conceived answers.

If you have an actual direct question, ask it. Otherwise it just sounds like you're debating yourself.

>>18646

>You've asked about 20 different questions

What are you talking about?? OP is my first and only question, here (besides to ask in the second post if anyone would field it).

If you mean that my OP has multiple questions, then technically yes, it does - but they are very obviously related questions which anticipate the obvious possibilities.

There's just ONE question, in essence:

How do you guys respond to the fact that the Koran points to the Bible as authenticating it, when in fact the Bible disagrees with it on so many issues?

I really don't know why that wasn't failry clear in my first post.

>>18647

>How do you guys respond to the fact that the Koran points to the Bible as authenticating it, when in fact the Bible disagrees with it on so many issues?

See, that's not really a question.

"Why do you like chocolate when it's clearly inferior to vanilla?" That's the kind of question you're asking. It's pointed and biased and, ergo, isn't really a question.

However, I think the answer you may be looking for is that the BIble(s) we have today are not the same things they had back in the 600s. The Gospel that Muhammad(pbuh) knew is not the same that we know today. Qur'an serves to clarify much of it in that capacity. The addition of Paul's work, for example, to the New Testament would have been rightfully rejected. There is also the problem of alterations to Torah to serve political ends and the addition of several "prophets" based on legal disputes and political aspirations.

In reality, with Qur'an we no longer need ANY version of the Bible - old or new testaments - because Qur'an is the final and immutable word of the Creator.

Does that help?

>>18648

My sincere apologies if it sounded biased; it certainly shouldn't sound biased. And as for your ice cream analogy: how can you possibly compare my question with a matter of personal preference? It's a fact that the Qur'an says no one can alter/corrupt Allah's word, is it not? And it's a fact that the Qur'an claims the Bible is Allah's word, is it not? (with apologies for those two questions; i don't know how many am i limited to, or if these qualify).

>>18649

>However, I think the answer you may be looking for is that the BIble(s) we have today are not the same things they had back in the 600s.

Ok, I see. If I might ask a rather obvious, predictable follow-up:

Can you show me some examples of the original? After all, at some point in recorded history, someone must have at least made reference to it, or quoted it somewhere.

>In reality, with Qur'an we no longer need ANY version of the Bible - old or new testaments - because Qur'an is the final and immutable word of the Creator.

But respectfully, that makes no sense at all, since it is the Qur'an that still says the Bible can be used to verify it (the Qur'an).

Also, you seem to be saying that Allah's word was corrupted/changed - and the Qur'an says such a thing is impossible.

Am i misunderstanding something, here?

>>18650

>Can you show me some examples of the original?

The are probably no existing copies left.

>But respectfully, that makes no sense at all, since it is the Qur'an that still says the Bible can be used to verify it (the Qur'an).

Yes, but that doesn't apply anymore.

Like asking the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to pray for us, we can't anymore since he has passed away. We can't refer to the gospel since it's physical copy is gone. But it lives on in the Qu'ran.

>Also, you seem to be saying that Allah's word was corrupted/changed - and the Qur'an says such a thing is impossible.

>Am i misunderstanding something, here?

Yes, you have a bad translation. His kalam can also be understood as His order or promise. And nobody changed the words, they were simply forgotten with time. And they added bits here and there for their understanding. The earlier scriptures did not have eternal preservation and it depended on humans to keep it. But with the last prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and the final revelation of Allah (جَلَّ جَلَالَهُ) the Qu'ran had to be preserved independent of human beings.

>>18650

I suppose it should also be noted that Allah's word has never been corrupted. Qur'an reminds us that the books written concerning Jesus's teachings, for example, were written decades after his life. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never actually met Jesus, they merely retold stories they heard passed down. A sort of bronze age game of telephone.

Over the years things become corrupted, altered, rewritten. Names added or removed. As far as we know, there are no original copies left; but there very well might have been 1400 years ago - at least to the point of allowing people to make reference.

Of course modern Bibles do not mention Qur'an or the advent of Muhammad(pbuh) because Christianity has become a business. You can't sell people on Christian salvation if your books remind them that the final Prophet is yet to come. So, you get together with your shareholders and strike out a few verses here and there and add some of your own for good measure. Every time we find an ancient copy of anything in the New Testament, we find how much has been altered. We've found New Testament passages where Jesus speaks of his wife. We've found ancient passages of the Bible that change the number of the Beast from 666 to 616.

Yet every ancient copy of Qur'an is exactly the same as any you can purchase on Amazon. It has remained the unchanged, immutable word of God. I'm not sure how else to answer you.

>>18651

>The are probably no existing copies left.

Perhaps i wasn't clear enough. i was asking for examples of references to the original, non-corrupted Old or New Testaments. Surely there must exist some examples of these, where the author refers to quotations from Scripture that have clearly been changed since then, in such a manner as to make the Bible contradict the Qu'ran. And if "made to disappear" is not the ultimate example of corrupting Allah's word, then what is??

And what about the opposite? i remember reading Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy as a child, and it was absolutely replete with quotes from the Bible - and all of them were the same as the Bible we have today. Boethius lived in the late 5th - early 6th centuries, about a hundred years before Muhammad - so he would have been referring to the Bible as it existed at the time of Muhammad. Why is it that he quotes the same Bible we have today?

>Yes, but that doesn't apply anymore.

What later verse abrogates those? My understanding of Islam is that when something gets abrogated, there is a verse specifically abrogating it. Doesn't it say something about never making a verse go away without Allah giving us an even better one, or something like that?

>Like asking the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to pray for us, we can't anymore since he has passed away.

i think it's fair to say that if something is manifestly obvious or a logical necessity, then it wouldn't require any further explanation or abrogation - but this isn't such a case. In any case, it's a moot point, since you imply here:

> We can't refer to the gospel since it's physical copy is gone. But it lives on in the Qu'ran.

That the Bible is corrupted - which returns us to the original point. i guess you might be saying, "it wasn't corrupted, it was disappeared," but then that is the ultimate form of corruption or changing Allah's word, is it not?

>His kalam can also be understood as His order or promise. And nobody changed the words, they were simply forgotten with time.

But this argument doesn't stand up to what the Qu'ran says here, in Surah 6:114, 115:

>[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

>And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

So it's clear that by Allah's "word," we are to understand it as a "book" - and, more specifically, the Bible? ("those to whom we previously gave the Scripture").

It seems to me, just from reading the Qu'ran (which is from Allah, Who is the clearest communicator), that Allah's word cannot be corrupted or changed, and that the Bible is explicitly stated to be the word of Allah.

i want to be very clear, here: my purpose in asking is because it strikes me as a very obvious - and very fatal - problem for Islam and the Qu'ran, and yet i cannot fathom that such a great number of people continue to follow the Islamic faith when such an insoluble contradiction exists, and that contradiction renders the entire faith to be bogus by its own standard. i figure that there must be some explanation for this - unless, perhaps, Muslims think so little of Allah's prior revelation, the Bible, that they don't even think about it??? (And, respectfully, when it is said that "with Qur'an we no longer need ANY version of the Bible - old or new testaments," it leads me to believe that this is, indeed, the case)

>>18649

>However, I think the answer you may be looking for is that the BIble(s) we have today are not the same things they had back in the 600s.

Also, with regards to this, how would you respond to the fact that Boethius (and everyone else from the time period) was quoting from the very same Bible that exists today, as i mentioned here:

>>18661

i am starting to get the feeling that the way Muslims tend to resolve this issue is to believe things like what is quoted above. i feel it is very important that i inform you that this is not the case; any time you see the Bible quoted in the 7th (or 6th, or 5th, or 4th, etc.) century, it is the same as it is today. That is why i am asking for some examples from the time period or earlier of people quoting an obviously different version of the Bible than what we have today.

If you decide to remain Muslim, then great - but you wouldn't want to sound foolish when engaging in your dawa (did i use the term correctly?) with Christians (or anyone else who is familiar with the Bible, and the Qu'ran's claim that it, too, is the word of Allah).

>>18662

>it strikes me as a very obvious - and very fatal - problem for Islam

It isn't. Islam isn't a magic button. It takes study. You're not the first to contemplate this question nor will you be the last. Fortunately we have many scholars to whom we can look for the answer.

>>18663

>you wouldn't want to sound foolish when engaging in your dawa (did i use the term correctly?) with Christians

Except that's not the purpose of this board. We're not here to defend ourselves or our religion. It also seems my original suspicion - that your questions are pointed and biased - was correct. You were never actually seeking answers.

The biggest problem you're having is that the Bible is NOT the word of God, so there is no reason to worry about it at all.

>>18664

>You're not the first to contemplate this question nor will you be the last.

OF COURSE not! i never claimed to be the first person to have thought up this earth-shaking modern theological discovery.

>Fortunately we have many scholars to whom we can look for the answer.

And that is precisely why i came to you guys for the answer; i figured you guys would know what Islamic scholars say about this, or if you had some opinions of your own on how to reconcile this contradiction.

>Except that's not the purpose of this board.

But i didn't say that was the purpose of this board. What i meant to say was what i said: if, in a discussion of your faith, you claim that the Bible used to say things that it doesn't say now, you're going to sound foolish, and i really mean it when i say i don't want that to happen. i have tremendous appreciation for interfaith Muslim/Christian dialog and debate (i'm a big fan of Shabir Ally, for example), and i think BOTH sides need to be well-acquainted with the facts and evidences involved with that discussion.

>It also seems my original suspicion - that your questions are pointed and biased - was correct. You were never actually seeking answers.

You could not be more wrong, my brother in humanity. As i said above, when something this obvious and apparently fatal to a belief system arises, i assume that there must be some sort of argument, evidence, or rationale that i am missing, else there would not still be a billion plus people who still count themselves as adherents to that belief system. To give a rough analogy, when someone starts speaking dismissively of, say, accupuncture, i remind them (and genuinely hold to the belief that) there is a huge number of people all throughout the world who use it, and are as strong in their belief of its efficacy as the critic is of its uselessness. No one has the ability to see into the hearts of others, so all i can tell you is i am absolutely sincere in my quest for an answer to this. i didn't come here to try to convince you that Islam is wrong, as i know how worldviews work and i know that they don't often change in so facile a manner.

>>18664

i forgot to mention that last part, but when you say:

>The biggest problem you're having is that the Bible is NOT the word of God, so there is no reason to worry about it at all.

aren't you really denying the truth of the Qu'ran, or, more accurately stated, claiming that the Qu'ran is lying? The Qu'ran states that the Bible is the word of Allah. Read the verses i quoted above - Surah 6:114-115

>[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

>And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

>What later verse abrogates those? My understanding of Islam is that when something gets abrogated, there is a verse specifically abrogating it. Doesn't it say something about never making a verse go away without Allah giving us an even better one, or something like that?

Not all muslims believe in abrogation.

>but then that is the ultimate form of corruption or changing Allah's word, is it not?

no

>>18662

You don't have enough knowledge.

>>18671

>earth-shaking modern theological discovery

troll detected, go back to acts 17 apologetics

>>18672

The Bible is not referred to in Quran. Your book of fiction is not what those ayah refer to.

>>18671

You've been answered and are now just sparging out trying to get the last word. If you don't like the answer, too bad. We aren't here to appease you. If you think this is a fatal flaw, then don't be Muslim.

What you sound like now is a 12 year old who thinks he discovered some deep philosophy and can't understand why nobody is listening to him.

>>18675

part of the drawback of communication via typing is that the words lack intonation - but nevertheless - PLEASE don't tell me that you didn't recognize the sarcastic tone in what i said. i was basically reinforcing what the brother had said - that what i am asking here is not a new question.

>>18674

>Not all muslims believe in abrogation.

Ahh, thank you for informing me of that. All of those Muslims i heard speak or write on the subject seemed to believe in it, and so i took it as a belief common to all Muslims.

>no

How is making something to disappear entirely not a form of corruption? But, that aside, we have a book today that (i would assume) any Muslims would agree is at least roughly based on the Bible - so, still, it's corrupted, no?

>You don't have enough knowledge.

Well, of course! Why do you think i'm here asking the question???

>>18677

>You've been answered and are now just sparging out trying to get the last word. If you don't like the answer, too bad.

Again, respectfully, i haven't been given an answer - at least, not one that explains why the Qu'ran says that the Bible is Allah's revelation (which the Qu'ran says cannot be changed) and it can be used to verify the Qu'ran, and yet the two books contradict each other. And again, i am sure that there must be an answer to this apparent dilemma, or else there wouldn't be a billion plus adherents to Islam on the planet today.

> If you think this is a fatal flaw, then don't be Muslim.

Please read what i said above about worldviews, and how they generally aren't something that lends themselves to quick changes. i didn't have any intention of converting to Islam, and i am as honest about that as i am my sincerity in believing there's an answer to this so-called "Islamic Dilemma," and in my search for an answer.

>>18676

>The Bible is not referred to in Quran. Your book of fiction is not what those ayah refer to.

The insult aside (and i have not insulted Islam or the Qu'ran or Muhammad; it would be nice if we can all be civil), it certainly appears that the Qu'ran is speaking of it at least in Surah 6:114-115. Please go re-read those verses. Maybe you can tell me what those verses are speaking of, if not the Bible.

>>18679

No, you haven't been given an answer to your satisfaction. Not the same thing. No answer will satisfy you because you already think you have the answer.

>>18680

You are asking questions that require years of study and education. You're asking calculus questions without knowing how to add. Study the fundamentals before you try to understand deep philosophy.

>>18681

>No, you haven't been given an answer to your satisfaction.

But my satisfaction has nothing to do with anything, here. The Bible and Qu'ran disagree on so many very important things about the nature of God/Allah, and the Qu'ran claims they are both of divine origin, and that the the former can be used to verify the latter. Whatever the answer to the dilemma is, it will be a matter of logic and reason, and not personal tastes, mine or anyone else's.

>No answer will satisfy you because you already think you have the answer.

It should be pretty clear to anyone reading this that i don't have the answer, and am still looking for it, because i am sure that there must be some sort of answer that satisfies all the facts.

>>18683

>You are asking questions that require years of study and education.

In order to discover them? Yes. But in order to simply relate them? That could be done in just a few sentences; it is just a matter of using human language.

>>18684

You have been answered. You just don't understand the answer and, ergo, believe you have not been answered. Every Muslim here gets it, but you do not.

>>18685

>You have been answered. You just don't understand the answer and, ergo, believe you have not been answered. Every Muslim here gets it, but you do not.

Humor me, then, and provide the answer one more time. Perhaps someone said it above, and i just did not understand it.

>>18686

I answered you >>18649

>>18686

I also suspect you'll get an answer more to your liking on >>>/rel/. It is a comparative religious studies board whereas we are a Muslim board.

>>18687

The reason that i don't count this:

>However, I think the answer you may be looking for is that the BIble(s) we have today are not the same things they had back in the 600s. The Gospel that Muhammad(pbuh) knew is not the same that we know today.

as an actual answer to the dilemma would be that this means that Allah's prior message to Mankind has been corrupted. This is why i said that i have not yet seen an answer to the so-called "Islamic Dilemma." This answer doesn't satisfy not me, but the actual criteria set forth by the Qu'ran.

So i stand by my prior assertion that i haven't yet heard an answer (and, again, i am still fairly confident that one must exist, somewhere, or else there wouldn't still be so many Muslims on the planet today).

>>18688

This might be a good idea to try, and i thank you for it. i am relatively new to 8chan, so i didn't know there was a comparative theology board. Still seems to me to make more sense to go right to the Muslims, themselves.

>>18689

We've tried to maintain a status on this board that if someone has a question, we'll try to answer it; but if our answer isn't good enough, then we stop. We're not here to defend our religion. This is primarily a board for Muslims to congregate and speak to each other about our experiences and thoughts on matters concerning Islam and the Muslim world.

I do hope to see you on /rel/, however. It is an enjoyable board for the most part.

>>18687

Also, another reason i don't count that as a real answer is because it's demonstrably false that the Bible of the 600's was different than it is today, as i mentioned here

>>18661

when talking about Boethius' frequent quoting of the Bible in exactly that time frame, and it didn't differ from what we have today.

Ditto everywhere else the Bible was quoted throughout history

(Though as i mentioned before, i am very open to seeing evidence that it was changed in the form of historical writings that quote an obviously different, "original" Bible. There have got to be examples of that, if the Bible was changed at some point).

Also - and i ask this because it strikes me as odd that you believe this is the case - if some time between the point of Muhammad's death and now, someone altered the Qu'ran, do you think it would be possible that Muslims might have not noticed it? Do you think it's possible to change an actual holy book, and have people not say, "hey, wait a minute, chapter x used to read thusly, and now it is different!"

>>18691

>Do you think it's possible to change an actual holy book, and have people not say, "hey, wait a minute, chapter x used to read thusly, and now it is different!"

Yes, it is very possible. If you use your holy book to control the masses, then you can change whatever you want. For example, what happened to Jesus's wife? We have ancient findings where Jesus speaks of his wife, but modern Bibles claim he was never married and people believe that.

There are two huge differences:

1] Christians went through a period of history with a nearly 100% illiteracy rate. The only people who could read or write were the priests/monks, so they could put anything they wanted into the holy book and nobody would really know the difference.

2] Unlike the Bible, Qur'an states explicitly that there is to be no compulsion in religion. It states that Allah guides who He wills and it isn't up to us. This is different than Christianity which commands its followers to convert everyone they see.

We have no vested interest in converting others. If Allah guides them to us, great! If not, then so be it. Because of this, we have a much stronger pull to preserve our holy book and our history so that it cannot be altered or abridged. Yes, Qur'an can be translated, but the original is still there for the world to see because we have preserved it rather than focusing on how our neighbors were praying.

>>18707

I was gonna respond to this thread but I got overwhelmed with walls of texts lol. it's gonna take a while for me to read them

>>18692

>Yes, it is very possible. If you use your holy book to control the masses, then you can change whatever you want.

Ahhhh, i get your reasoning.

But that would require a very large conspiracy, which would not only involve all the clergy of a particular denomination (let's say, Catholic, since we are talking about a time period when Catholicism was far, far larger than other denoms, and persecuted them), but it would also have to involve every single other denomination that was vehemently opposed to Catholicism, were persecuted by them, and had absolutely no reason to join them in their effort to change the Bible. It sounds… extremely far fetched, if not totally impossible.

But the question isn't even if it was possible, but did it happen? If it happened, then obviously we would have evidence of it happening, in the form of very many references in other literature to Bible verses that didn't exist or had content contrary to what we have today.

Just as a comical side note: Can you imagine the Jews - who were nothing if not fastidious in attention to detail in the preservation of their scriptures - going along with this ostensibly Catholic plan to change the Bible? There's no way you'd seriously - and honestly - entertain this notion.

> For example, what happened to Jesus's wife? We have ancient findings where Jesus speaks of his wife, but modern Bibles claim he was never married and people believe that.

With all due respect, this is a bit ridiculous. Not only do Christian Bible scholars reject these other "gospels," but secular scholars do, as well. i don't understand why Muslims attempt to give things like the "gospel of Barnabas" credibility (it was written in Italian in the 16th century, lol). This would be like Muslims accepting the testimony of a "companion of the prophet" who lived in Iowa in the 1950s and giving it the same authority as the most reliable Hadiths. It's ridiculous.

As for the two reasons you list, there's no need to even address them, since, as i said above, the issue is the evidence for the Bible having been changed (besides that, i kind of feel like i am being baited with that second point, to be honest). Again, i would be very interested in seeing references to Bible verses from the time period which would demonstrate that the Bible has been changed. This should be a very easy matter to confirm, if it were so. We have more ancient manuscripts of the Bible than any other historical work. SURELY we would be able to see some confirmation that it was changed!

>>18692

also, even if we believe that this rather impossible switcheroo took place, we are still back to someone corrupting Allah's word - and do, the dilemma remains

OK…

So i am looking around online for a Muslim scholar who has an answer to the so-called "Islamic Dilemma." i first did a search for Shabir Ally + Islamic Dilemma (since i am a big fan of Ally; he is a very learned man and very experienced with the Islam vs. Christianity debate), but could not find any relevant material. This genuinely surprised me.

i looked on youtube with simply the terms "Islamic dilemma," but it appears that all of the results i got were of Christians speaking about it. i got maybe 7 pages in to the results until i started seeing Muslim speakers, but those were completely unrelated results.

My next question is, is there a different term that Muslims would use for this issue? i am still pretty sure - though, maybe not as sure as i was before - that Muslims have an answer to this supposed dilemma.

What should i be searching for? Is there a web site for Muslim apologists that is likely to have the answer?

>>18713

>Not only do Christian Bible scholars reject these other "gospels," but secular scholars do, as well.

Well, of course they do. If they accepted them, then it would prove that the Bible has been changed. Their entire livelihood and career depends on them saying, "Oh no no no … those aren't real."

Again, I point out to you 666 vs 616. It has been changed.

>>18714

And, again, the Bible as you know it is not Allah's word. We're just going to keep going around and around in the same circle.

>>18717

> it appears that all of the results i got were of Christians speaking about it.

That's because it's a common argument that Christians use in an attempt to discredit Islam and to try to convert Muslims to Christianity. They think it's a magic off button.

>is there a different term that Muslims would use for this issue?

Nope. It's not something Muslims see as a problem.

>>18718

>And, again, the Bible as you know it is not Allah's word. We're just going to keep going around and around in the same circle.

OK, then what is the scripture, book, etc. that the Qu'ran references??? It seems to me Muhammad is talking about Moses, the Law of the Jews, and the Gospels… so that would mean the Bible, no? Or, are the key words here "as you know it"? If so, then where is the original? If it isn't the Bible that we have today, then where is the original? And how is making an entire book of God's words disappear from the planet not some form of changing/corruption/etc.?

i do not see why this discussion should be circular; i am being very sincere in my desire to understand what it is that Muslims believe, and the question is pretty straightforward.

>Well, of course they do. If they accepted them, then it would prove that the Bible has been changed. Their entire livelihood and career depends on them saying, "Oh no no no … those aren't real."

Why would secular scholars care a whit if it disproved the Bible? Most of them dedicate their entire lives to doing just that! i'm guessing you are a Muslim who actually came from the Middle East. Arabs and other Middle Eastern Muslims tend to think that every single Westerner is "Christian," because they come from places where atheism is (thankfully) very, very unpopular, and by far the dominant religion is Islam, so basically everyone is Muslim - and so, when they think of Westerners, they (wrongly) apply this same sort of thinking, and consider every Westerner "Christian." This is far, far from the case - most especially in academia, where the vast majority of professors are atheists/secular humanists.

In any case, would you, as a good Muslim, put any stock in a "gospel" that claims not only that Jesus was married, but that His supposed wife was CO-SAVIOR??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11225598/Lost-gospel-claims-Jesus-and-Mary-were-married-and-had-children.html

yeah… i didn't think so.

>Again, I point out to you 666 vs 616. It has been changed.

Without getting into the whole 666 vs 616 thing, this is just not at all something that remotely qualifies as being germane to the issue. It's not like it's a matter of "God gave His Only Begotten Son" vs. "God doesn't have a son, and besides that, He would need a wife to have a son." It just doesn't impact the Bible's harmony (or lack thereof) with the Qu'ran.

>>18722

>Nope. It's not something Muslims see as a problem

huh???

But that's tantamount to saying that "Muslims don't see it as a problem that the Qu'ran is false." After all, the Qu'ran actually says itself that it (the Qu'ran) is continued revelation from the same God Who gave us the Bible, and claims that it can be verified by the Bible.

There's literally no logical way that this would be seen as a non-issue, to anyone who believes the Qu'ran and what it says.

>>18725

Again, you seem to think it's some kind of magic off switch. Qur'an is not a continued revelation, it is the complete revelation.

This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion. Qur'an, 5:3

It is the same as has been said: you're asking for calculus answers without knowing how to add. You're not going to understand it, but that doesn't make it wrong. To Muslims it is a non-issue. You're the one making a big deal of it because you don't understand it.

The Bible in not the same as al injil

الإنجيل

surah ala 3imraan

ayah thalatha

specifically check the word muSaddiqqnn

people that research and critique al quran from english translations and make their judgements from that are not properly studying…

folks need 2 start with some quranic vocabulary lessons inshallah