Re: There is no doubt in it

> Not exactly, sura 3 (Alif-Lam-Mim), verse 3 says, "nazzala 'alayka l-
> kitâba bi-l-haqqi musaddiqan li-mâ bayna yadayhi wa-anzala l-tawrata
> wa-l-injîla"
>
> "He sent down to thee the Book with the truth, confirming what went
> before it, namely He sent down (first) the Thora and (then) the
> Gospel."
>
> > according to you kitaab=bible.why is it "musadiqalima bayna yadayhi" ?
>
> There obviously is no problem with it. The Gospel confirms the Old
> Testament.
>
> The initial verses of sura 3 most probably are a relic of a text
> reflecting a Christian argument with a Jewish person or circle.
>
> Exactly according to the orthodox Islamic idea - that the Koran was
> sent down to some (fictitious?) Mohammed - with "al-kitâb", "the book"
> verse 3 cannot have the Koran in mind. According to this theory a book
> "Koran" still was not in existence, when this verse allegedly was
> "revealed" to Mohammed.
>
> > shouldn't it be "musadiqalima mim badi"?
>
> No, the Jesus and the Gospel appeared after the Old Testament.
>
> Kind regards,
> Christoph Heger



> Not exactly, sura 3 (Alif-Lam-Mim), verse 3 says, "nazzala 'alayka l-
> kitâba bi-l-haqqi musaddiqan li-mâ bayna yadayhi wa-anzala l-tawrata
> wa-l-injîla"


if the word "kitab" is the bible then why is the bible CONFIRMING the
torah and the injeel? now do you get it?

if the "kitab" is the torah then why doesn't the verse say the torah
is CONFIRMING the injeel? what we have is "kitab" confirming the torah
and injeel.now go ask puin to produce a manuscript that sez,
"musadiqalima mim badi".

heger , you might like to know that ppl over at
this forum,

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=242120&page=4

are using similar arguments like yours. :)