Toward a better Christian-Muslim understanding

[EduChris]

Redirected from this post

...lets start by discussing what our religions teach.
The basics of christianity are God is one but is 3.
Jesus died for your sins.
Believing Jesus is God is the only way to salvation.

If you could briefly explain why you are a christian and why you believe its the correct path. And i will express my opinions and we can have a civil talk...

First I would say that the basics of Christianity are:

1) God is love
2) In Jesus, God became human in order to suffer with us and for us, so that as a result of having "walked a mile in our shoes" (so to speak) God can forgive us on the basis of his direct personal experience of what it is to be human.
3) Following the teaching and example of Jesus is the best way to experience salvation and to extend it in the world.

I am a Christian, and I believe Jesus provides the best path for two reasons. First, I experience a personal relationship with Jesus, something that I am aware of at the intuitive level. Secondly, I choose the Christian story because it seems most genuine and most true-to-experience when compared to other major world religions and worldviews.

Obviously these are somewhat general statements, but I will give you a chance to respond now and to ask additional questions.

[Cathar1950]

...he produced the best arabic text in history...

Obviously you have not read much Arabic writings. It is a dull read only matched by maybe the Book of Mormon. At any rate it is merely a questionable opinion incapable of being supported. How could he produce a text if he couldn’t read or write? Other produced it.

...I dont think it has anything to do with what he understood because the Quran is not his, he was just the vessel that received the words of God through Gabriel...

So the story goes, but of course it is a questionable claim and unsupportable

...June 8, 632 CE...the perfect monotheistic religion was born...

Again perfect is in the eyes of the beholder. It was just one of many invented religions.

...if you read the Quran you would know Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and that any other after him is a deceiver...

Again, just another big unsupported claim.
But spoken like a true believers.

...[54.17], "And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand...

Then I wonder why you need others to interpret and why there are disagreements.

I would say the Quran like the Bible is a human book and I see no reason to think otherwise.

Hartshorne in Beyond Humanism wrote:

The more the rational elements of culture, that is science and critical metaphysics, advance, the less need or excuse there will be, it seems to me, for authoritative revelation as a rival or supplement to knowledge. We need inspiration as well as proof; but infallible inspiration seems a meaningless idea. Even if God dictated the Bible, it would be of no help until he taught us how to translate it into modern language and thought and life, and if we were taught to do this infallibly, we should acquire a degree of insight clearly incompatible with human limitations.
Popular Fundamentalism is either a negative evil, a callowness of culture which should be kindly assisted to cure itself; or a positive evil, an unloving and therefore unchristian dogmatism which is to be greeted, like every other form of arrogant power, with indignation and ridicule. An infallible dogma or book or church is a boast or a bludgeon, not a call to comradeship in human strength or human modesty and repentance.

[EduChris]

...merely a questionable opinion incapable of being supported...

Probably this is a good reminder that when trying to arrive at greater understanding between Christianity and Islam, it would be helpful to write something like, "Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the best Arabic text in history." This is an actual statement of fact, not an opinon, since Muslims do believe this. In contrast, the assertion that "the Qur'an is the best Arabic text in history," probably will not be accepted by non-Muslims, who will then want to respond with a denial rather than an "Okay, so that's what Muslims believe; I'm glad to have learned something new about Muslims."

If we forget to preface our faith-claims with, "Muslims believe that..." or "Christians believe that...", perhaps we as interpreters should graciously provide the preface ourselves. Otherwise, the discussion quickly degenerates into defensiveness and mutual hurt feelings and the whole point of this thread--which is to gain increased mutual understanding of one another's faith--is lost.

[Cathar1950]

...merely a questionable opinion incapable of being supported...

Probably this is a good reminder that when trying to arrive at greater understanding between Christianity and Islam, it would be helpful to write something like, "Muslims believe the Qur'an to be the best Arabic text in history." This is an actual statement of fact, not an opinon, since Muslims do believe this. In contrast, the assertion that "the Qur'an is the best Arabic text in history," probably will not be accepted by non-Muslims, who will then want to respond with a denial rather than an "Okay, so that's what Muslims believe; I'm glad to have learned something new about Muslims."

If we forget to preface our faith-claims with, "Muslims believe that..." or "Christians believe that...", perhaps we as interpreters should graciously provide the preface ourselves. Otherwise, the discussion quickly degenerates into defensiveness and mutual hurt feelings and the whole point of this thread--which is to gain increased mutual understanding of one another's faith--is lost.

Unsupported claims are still unsupported claims. Do all Muslims believe this?
If we find one Muslim that doesn't then the claim is false even if they say Muslim should believe this, or the good one believe this.

[EduChris]

...If we find one Muslim that doesn't then the claim is false...

This seems like nit-picking to the point of pedantry. I'm sure someone, somewhere in the world calls themselves a Muslim and yet will say something else. The point is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe the Qur'an to be "the best Arabic text," and the Qur'an even claims this of itself.

[Cathar1950]

...If we find one Muslim that doesn't then the claim is false...

This seems like nit-picking to the point of pedantry. I'm sure someone, somewhere in the world calls themselves a Muslim and yet will say something else. The point is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe the Qur'an to be "the best Arabic text," and the Qur'an even claims this of itself.

It is still an unsupported claim even it the Qur'an says it in big fonts.
I just didn't feel that is was right to let his claims that go unchallenged any more then I would let someone use the Bible to support a claim from the Bible.
I would go so far as say if anyone thinks there is abetter text then his claim is false even when his books says so. Now if he says the Qur'an says so we can loo9k and say sure enough it does but that doesn't make it true except to the believers and we are under no obligation to believe it or them.
.

[EduChris]

...It is still an unsupported claim even it the Qur'an says it in big fonts...I just didn't feel that is was right to let his claims that go unchallenged...

Understood, but in the interest of promoting the whole point of this thread, maybe we should graciously insert the preface, "Muslims believe that..." or "Christians believe that..." whenever needed, so that we don't get so bogged down in defensiveness and argument that we fail to achieve greater mutual understanding.

[Cathar1950]

...It is still an unsupported claim even it the Qur'an says it in big fonts...I just didn't feel that is was right to let his claims that go unchallenged...

Understood, but in the interest of promoting the whole point of this thread, maybe we should graciously insert the preface, "Muslims believe that..." or "Christians believe that..." whenever needed, so that we don't get so bogged down in defensiveness and argument that we fail to achieve greater mutual understanding.

How about some Christians and some Muslims? There may be no doubt as to what is says and there are many interpretations as once it read or heard it become human and fallible while I grant anyone the right to believe what they believe and I am justified for any doubts I might have as it relates to your claims and opinions.
I just wanted to be fair as I would do the same for any Jewish or Christian claims or opinions.
I see no reason to let Muslims off the hook when it comes to claims.
Towards a better understanding we could look at the Christian and Muslim religions as inventions and reinterpretations of Jewish religions with some of the same influences such as the Greeks and Persians along with other ancient beliefs...

[Murad]

Sorry for my late reply, i have not abandoned this conversation.
-

Cathar1950 Islam is not a 'misinterpretation' or 'interpretation' of Judaism, theres no such thing as 'old' or 'new' testament in the Quran. It is a completely different revalation from the Torah of Moses but it carries the fundamental concept of 1 God and the 10 commandments.

I just didn't feel that is was right to let his claims that go unchallenged any more then I would let someone use the Bible to support a claim from the Bible.

It has been challenged numerous times by non-muslims and by muslims themselves, just to test the authenticity of the Quran. A person understanding Arabic literature has yet to see a text with better structure and use of language techniques that is in the Arabic-Quran which was written 1400 years ago.

How could he produce a text if he couldn’t read or write? Other produced it.

The prophet Muhammad received all 6346 verses of the Quran by himself, there is no anonymous authors like there is in the bible. When he received a verse he told his companions to memorize it and he himself memorized it, and they used to check with one another untill it was written down.

Then I wonder why you need others to interpret and why there are disagreements.

Interpretation is different from understanding. There could be a particular text that states something clearly, but the reader might think it is referring to something else and thus possible disagreements could occur.

Which verses are you talking about to do with disagreements or are you indirectly asking why are there sects in Islam?

I agree that this (or perhaps several decades later) is probably the time when Islam first came into existence. Usually Muslims try to claim that Abraham was a Muslim, which is quite a stretch since Mohammad, the "birther" of the Qur'an, arrived thousands of years after Abraham.

'Muslim' means to surrender or to completely submit to Allah.
'Quran' means the recital or the reading of the words of Allah.
Do you not agree Abraham believed in 1 God?
Tell me was Abraham a Christian who believed Jesus was God?
Or was Abraham a Jew who followed Judah, Moses etc.. ?
Or was Abraham a muslim who surrendered to Allah?

Mohammad's original message was changed and distorted by later Arab rulers

That is a very popular myth among some Christians, that Muhammad himself believed Jesus was God, although this is ridiculous for reasons that could fill a book, i have to ask. Do you believe this like some other Christians do?

Do Muslims agree on which parts of the Qur'an are clear, and which parts are not clear?

The Quran is clear, but it can be interpretated by the human perspective. The prophet Muhammad is reported to have said "there will be 73 sects within Islam"
Some verses of the Quran seem vague at the first reading (example description of hell) but as the reader progresses and a few chapters later, the Quran gives greater detail. The point i wanted to make was if you read a verse or two of the Quran you will not understand and it will seem vague, therefore you must read the complete book.

I don't think that they believe they are worshipping multiple entities; instead, I think they are doing the same thing with Mohammad that some Christians do with icons and statues and jewelry. And I think God will be merciful to them.

Well if they worship Muhammad as a God, the same Muhammad who claimed to be a slave of Allah, that is a completely different religion all-together.

-----
Lets get back on the topic of Trinity, EduChris.

A majority of the Christians believe God to be a Trinity, In John (5:7 and 8) "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one."


But that is in the King James Version, authorized in 1611, and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrine of the Trinity. But now this part, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and in many other Bibles, as it was a gloss that had encroached on the Greek text.

I John 5:7 and 8 in the New American Standard Bible reads as follows: "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement"

I can understand if you dont know that this important part has been removed, but i wonder why many ministers and preachers are not aware of this.

The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible or Bible dictionaries, 'Trinity' was never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him. There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity.


History has shown that the Bible suffered changes throughout the ages. The Revised Standard Version 1952 and 1971, the New American Standard Bible and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have expunged certain verses compared with the King James Version.
Reader's Digest has reduced the Old Testament by fifty percent and condensed the New Testament by about twenty-five percent. Some years ago Christian theologians wanted to "desex" the Bible.

Does "Holy" mean that the Bible is free from error?

[EduChris]

...A person understanding Arabic literature has yet to see a text with better structure and use of language techniques that is in the Arabic-Quran which was written 1400 years ago...

What would happen if any well-known Islamic scholar were to say that, based on his best determination, other ancient Arabic texts are just as good or better than the Qur'an? Wouldn't he be subject to a fatwah and killed?

But really, this bit about "better structure and use of language techniques " is a meaningless assertion. The ancient Arabic of the Qur'an is inaccessible to the vast majority of people living today, or at any time for the past many centuries. The ancient Arabic of the Qur'an is a language whose time has come and gone.

...theres no such thing as 'old' or 'new' testament in the Quran...

Perhaps you could explain the significance of the Medina vd. Mecca passages in the Qur'an?

...Do you not agree Abraham believed in 1 God?...

Apart from the Bible, Abraham would not be known at all by anyone today. According to the Bible, Abraham believed in one God, as do Jews and Christians. By itself, the belief in one God doesn't automatically produce good behavior, since according to the Bible, even the demons believe in one God.

...That is a very popular myth among some Christians, that Muhammad himself believed Jesus was God...Do you believe this like some other Christians do?...

Obviously Christians have different theories about Mohammad, but the most generous view of Mohammad is that he may have started out with good intentions, but somewhere along the way, something went terribly wrong. Either Mohammad himself went wrong, or else the Islamic leaders after him distorted his message and destroyed the earlier documents in order to erase the paper trail and cover their tracks.

...The Quran is clear...

Perhaps, but doesn't even the Qur'an itself say that some parts are not clear?

...if you read a verse or two of the Quran you will not understand and it will seem vague, therefore you must read the complete book...

So are you saying that if one reads the entire Qur'an, there will be no parts that remain unclear?

...But that is in the King James Version, authorized in 1611, and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrine of the Trinity...

That verse was not even in the Bible when the doctrine of the Trinity was being defined, so it was never part of any evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity. That verse was accidentally inserted into some manuscripts because of a scribal error during medieval times. But fortunately, since Christians didn't destroy their "paper trail" of ancient manuscripts, the forensic science of textual criticism has been able to identify that verse as a medieval error.

...I can understand if you dont know that this important part has been removed, but i wonder why many ministers and preachers are not aware of this...

All degreed ministers and preachers know about this. Almost no one today uses the King James Version of the Bible, not just because the language is now archaic, but also because the forensic science of textual criticism has produced a much better Greek text which provides the basis for all modern-language translations.

...The Trinity is not Biblical. The word Trinity is not even in the Bible or Bible dictionaries, 'Trinity' was never taught by Jesus and was never mentioned by him. There is no basis or proof in the Bible whatsoever for the acceptance of the Trinity...

Christians already understand that Muslims feel this way. However, the doctrine is implicit in the New Testament. Christians are aware that the doctrine was misunderstood by Mohammad (or whoever authored the Qur'an) and it remains misunderstood by Muslims today.

...History has shown that the Bible suffered changes throughout the ages. The Revised Standard Version 1952 and 1971, the New American Standard Bible and the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures have expunged certain verses compared with the King James Version...

The original-language texts on which the King James Version was based are accurate enough for most purposes, but in the past 400 years the forensic science of textual criticism has produced a much more accurate Greek text.

...Reader's Digest has reduced the Old Testament by fifty percent and condensed the New Testament by about twenty-five percent. Some years ago Christian theologians wanted to "desex" the Bible...

Reader's Digest could do the same thing with the Qur'an. How would the actions of the Reader's Digest affect the authenticity or integrity of the Qur'an? Does the Reader's Digest have the ability to nullify the Qur'an?

At any rate, when it comes to deciding what scriptures are inspired by God, the only thing we can do is examine the best texts we have available to us and see which scriptures seem to present the best understanding of God, and the best material for molding people into the sort of people that enhance human flourishing. The matter of human authorship is at best only secondarily important, since the ultimate author of scripture is God. Wouldn't you agree?

[Murad]

What would happen if any well-known Islamic scholar were to say that, based on his best determination, other ancient Arabic texts are just as good or better than the Qur'an? Wouldn't he be subject to a fatwah and killed?

Maybe in the taliban infested Afghanistan.

Perhaps you could explain the significance of the Medina vd. Mecca passages in the Qur'an?

Im sorry it does not ring any bells, more detail on the specific passages?

Apart from the Bible, Abraham would not be known at all by anyone today.

That is untrue, Abraham is mentioned in clear detail in the Quran.
But the Quran is a completely different revelation from the Gospel of Jesus or the Torah of Moses. Even though Muhammad couldn't read or write, he believed in Moses and the Word of God-Jesus.
Please read:

(Quran 7:158) Say (O Muhammad SAW): "O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allâh — to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. None has the right to be worshipped but He; It is He Who gives life and causes death. So believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), the Prophet who can neither read nor write ( Muhammad) who believes in Allâh and His Words [(this Qur'ân), the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and also Allâh's Word: "Be!" - and he was Jesus son of Maryam (Mary), and follow him so that you may be guided."

According to the Bible, Abraham believed in one God, as do Jews and Christians. By itself, the belief in one God doesn't automatically produce good behavior, since according to the Bible, even the demons believe in one God.

Also according to the bible, Jesus prayed and beleived in God(clear give-away). Also in the bible God cannot be seen(you will argue that its talking about God's spirit form, but its a clear contradiction) Also in the bible God cannot be tempted yet Jesus was. Also in the Bible, Jesus denied the knowledge of the Unseen and said that only the Father knows, God in the Quran is all knowing, all aware.
Also in the bible, Jesus said "the Father is Greater than I", do you see a clear distinction between the two? Yet you still equate them in the trinity. Because if you did not equate them, Christianity would be polytheistic, so even though equating Jesus to God makes contradictions, it also solves the contradiction of 1 God, and thus the reason of the existence of the trinity.

Obviously Christians have different theories about Mohammad, but the most generous view of Mohammad is that he may have started out with good intentions, but somewhere along the way, something went terribly wrong. Either Mohammad himself went wrong, or else the Islamic leaders after him distorted his message and destroyed the earlier documents in order to erase the paper trail and cover their tracks.

The most generous view from the Christian perspective is not logical. Because if according to Christians Muhammad had a good 'intention', he would of believed that Jesus was God before he started to get revelations. Muhammad only believed in 1 God and that Moses and Jesus was his messenger.

Perhaps, but doesn't even the Qur'an itself say that some parts are not clear?

Not that i can remember, which verses are you talking about.

So are you saying that if one reads the entire Qur'an, there will be no parts that remain unclear?

I am saying if one reads the Quran as a whole he will understand everything clearly, but his perception might still alter the meanings of some verses.

That verse was not even in the Bible when the doctrine of the Trinity was being defined, so it was never part of any evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

I know when the trinity doctrine was created but the Gospel of John was used mainly as evidence for it. And thus this particular verse creates doubt in the other sections of the Gospel.

That verse was accidentally inserted into some manuscripts because of a scribal error during medieval times. But fortunately, since Christians didn't destroy their "paper trail" of ancient manuscripts, the forensic science of textual criticism has been able to identify that verse as a medieval error.

Do you have proof it was a scribal error?
The presence of numerous existing bibles that all differ from one another is not something i would agree to be 'fortunate' if i was a Christian.
Because the early copies of the Quran differed from one another e.g. alteration of words and the deduction of verses(thus making it not in context), a man came up to Uthman(3rd caliph of Islam) and told him to "Save the religion before its too late". Hearing this, Uthman obtained the complete manuscript of the Qur'an from Hafsah, one of the wives of the prophet Muhammad who had been entrusted to keep the manuscript ever since the Qur'an was comprehensively compiled by the first Caliph. He then ordered numerous scribes to copy it letter for letter and distribute it. The incomplete/false copies of the Quran were ordered to be destroyed and thus all the Qurans were at their original state, letter for letter.

However, the doctrine is implicit in the New Testament. Christians are aware that the doctrine was misunderstood by Mohammad (or whoever authored the Qur'an) and it remains misunderstood by Muslims today.

Actually i believe your wrong, most muslims know that Christians believe in 1 God, but that they divide that god into 3 entity's.
The Trinity was never misunderstood by Prophet Muhammad, the Christian God was never in the plural form, it is exactly what christians believe it to be, that God is 1 in 3 parts. That is all that the Trinity is, im sure you could try to complicate it and say Muhammad didn't understand it, but the fact is the trinity is nothing more than 1 God existing in 3 parts, and that is exactly what is said in the Quran.
No where in the Quran does it say Christians believe in 3 Gods, it says Christians divide the diviness of God into 3 parts.
So i fail to see where exactly "Christians are aware that the doctrine was misunderstood by Muhammad"

The original-language texts on which the King James Version was based are accurate enough for most purposes, but in the past 400 years the forensic science of textual criticism has produced a much more accurate.

That is the thing, 200 years later forensic science could advance and a better text can be produced which could make your current beliefs false. But still, Christians claim that Christianity is the perfect religion.

Reader's Digest could do the same thing with the Qur'an. How would the actions of the Reader's Digest affect the authenticity or integrity of the Qur'an? Does the Reader's Digest have the ability to nullify the Qur'an?

Reader's Digest could try, maybe they can come up with 1 or 2 claims but it would be very difficult for them.
The Quran was finished before the death of Prophet Muhammad, the 4 Gospels were written decades after the death of Prophet Jesus.
Unlike the bible, the Quran cannot be part true & part false(numerous gospels) and still maintain its 'holyness' like Christians claim. The Quran is either false as a whole, or true as a whole because the Quran is undivided and whole itself.

At any rate, when it comes to deciding what scriptures are inspired by God, the only thing we can do is examine the best texts we have available to us and see which scriptures seem to present the best understanding of God

The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament countless times and is also very, very vague on the attributes of God e.g. "The word was God"(John 1:1)
I have read the Bible and i dont see how you consider its description of God being more clear and more detailed than the Qurans description. But i will leave that to opinion.

I understand that you believe the Trinity is a 'holy mystery'
The Quran agree's with you that some attributes of God cannot be understood because of our human limitations:

No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things - (Quran 6:103)

___
One messege, 2 Prophets.

Jesus said: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad said: "I hereby testify there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah" -Al Bukhari

Both Jesus and Muhammad believed in 1 God, 1 Allah, 1 Hashem, 1 Jehovah.

They both prayed so that their people will have 1 purpose(the purpose of belief):

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one� (John 17:11).

They both believed Moses was the messenger of Allah.

The Prophet Muhammad said:

If a man believes in Jesus and then believes in me, he will get a double reward(from Allah) (ibid. p.435)

______

the ultimate author of scripture is God. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree with you 100%. But lets see if it is God that authored the Bible.

The Bible Declares:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (2 Samuel 22:31)
"And the words of the LORD are flawless...." (Psalm 12:6)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless...." (Psalm 18:30)
"Every word of God is flawless...." (Proverbs 30:5)

I remember earlier on you said that i have misinterpreted the Bible. So i ask you to help me interpret the following so it does not look like contradictions, as stated above the "words of God are flawless":


2 Samuel 10:18 - David slew 700 and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
1 Chronicles 19:18 - David slew 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen.

2 Chronicles 9:25 - Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
1 Kings 4:26 - Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses.

Ezra 2:5 - Arah had 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 - Arah had 652 sons.

2 Samuel 24:13 - SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE.
1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - THREE YEARS OF FAMINE.

How did Judas die?
Matthew 27:5 - Hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 - And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.

2 Samuel 6:23 - MICHAL never had a child until she died.
2 Samuel 21:8 - MICHAL had 5 sons.

2 Kings 24:8 - Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles 36:9 - Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign.

1 Kings 16:6-8 - 26th year of the reign of Asa, Baasha reigned over Israel.
2 Chronicles 16:1 - 36th year of the reign of Asa, Baasha reigned over Israel.

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
22 in 2 Kings 8:26
42 in 2 Chronicle 22:2

Who was Josiah's successor?
Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1
Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11


If you can answer these i will agree with you that God is the Ultimate Author of the current Bible. Until you do, i maintain that the Bible is corrupted from its original state and thats why God brought forth a new revelation, that is the Quran. And he promised to guard it from corruption:

"Verily, We have sent down the Qur’aan and surely, We will guard it (from corruption) "

“And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (Qur’aan) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and trustworthy in highness and a witness over the old Scriptures�[Surah (Chapter of) al-Maa'idah 5:48]