What was in Injil before it was changed according to Islam?

Question

This is a follow-up questions for this one and a similar (though not the same) to this one. Supposing the Injil/New Testament was changed, what was in it originally? I know there are some hints in Quran for this, and I'm interrested in other islamic sources (Hadith or prominent Muslim scholars) too, if they address this topic.

EDIT: I'm also interrested in what is in Bible and wasn't in Injil according to Islam. Some issues are well known (whether Jesus was God or just a prophet, crucifixion etc.), but I have few more subquestions, especially concerning morale. According to Quran and other Islamic sources, is it possible to assess whether these parts were (or could be) in Injil or not?

a) all food is clean:

Mark 7:14-23

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.” After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

b) connected - importance of love and purity of heart:

Matthew 5:21-22a

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.

There are similar passages for other sins next to this one, ending with this:

Matthew 5:43-48

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Answer 1

Yes, both the Hadith and the Quran say that their were Christian Bibles(Injil) at the Prophet's time and the Quran confirms "That which was in their hands(biYadaihi)". These were physical scrolls/books being read in the Churches. In all likelihood they are the Syriac Peshita. It was canonized by the 4th Cen. and was in Arabia by the 6th. Every biblical name in the Quran is a Syriac translation, as well as a few words.

Is there a hadith about what he said about the Injil which is in the hands of Christians? There are quite a few and they range in opinion. It appears that different companions(or sub-nararators) inserted their own opinion on the Bible into the hadith. For example: -Omar bought the Taurat to Muhammad, he got red-faced and stayed quiet in the Mosque. -The Prophet put his hand on the Bible and said "I will follow thee."(Abu Dawud) -Abu Hurairah quotes Torah verses left and right.

As you can see, they are conflicting opinions. It is very hard to figure out Muhammad's opinion on the Bible from the Ahadith. The Quran never says the Bible is corrupted, only that the people "misplace" or misinterpret the verses.

Even if the Gospels we have today are uncorrupted(but they are), we can make arguments against every single one of them. Unitarian Christians and Jews have been doing this for centuries.

For Example: John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Gog...

Now we can take this with a Trinitarian presupposition and say ...the word Was God. Or we can take this the Unitarian way: ...God was the Word. The Greek definite Article HO does NOT appear before Theos, so both can be Equally argued for. Similarly, other verses can be explained this way.