PDA

View Full Version : Differences between The Qur'an, The Tanakh and The Bible



Ansar Al-'Adl
03-14-2005, 02:09 AM
:sl:
Insh'Allah, we can examine the differences pertaining to the narratives and stories in the different scriptures.

:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
SpaceFalcon2001
03-14-2005, 02:18 AM
Similarities between the bible and the Quran
Reply

Sephiroth
03-14-2005, 07:35 AM
Well, that took the wind out of this conversation. All the answers in one place: gotta love the internet.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-14-2005, 04:43 PM
Lol...wikipedia.

SpaceFalcon, the site you gave me http://www.chabad.org/library/archiv....asp?AID=63255 , does it have a search feature?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
SpaceFalcon2001
03-14-2005, 09:40 PM
I do not think so (not for specifically bible searching anyway).

For that I usually search at http://bible.cc/ so I can find something, then I can see all the christian versions (plus the mock Jewish version, the 1917 JPS), and then go to it manually at the Chabad site (it's a little more trouble, but you get a correct translation and valid commentary).
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-14-2005, 09:43 PM
Okay, that's what I'll do then.
Reply

mule
03-14-2005, 09:43 PM
SpaceFalcon2001,

Why don't you like the mock Jewish version, the 1917 JPS? Who translated it?

mule
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-14-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by mule
Why don't you like the mock Jewish version, the 1917 JPS? Who translated it?
As is written in the introduction to the better translation, the NJPS 1985:
The Jewish Publication Society's The holy scriptures... made extensive use of [the] King James [version].
...
After WWII... the idea of a completely new translation took hold... would rely on the traditional Hebrew text avoiding emendations.

And so on and so forth. The 1917 JPS was essencially a KJV knock off.

The BEST Jewish translations are the Koren Tanach, and the Artscroll Tanach. Neither of those are availible online unfortunatly. Judaica press is a close second to those two, and the 1985 JPS is a last resort third.

Various other acceptable Jewish translations exist, but those are the big well known ones.

Jewish translations were long unnessicary, as the average religious Jew knew hebrew well enough to read it on his own. Translations only arose during times of secularization (the Aramaic Targums, 1917 JPS and on) or when they were forced under a certain government to translate due to suspicion (the Septuagint).
Reply

Sephiroth
03-15-2005, 10:53 PM
I love my Artscroll Stone Tanakh, but for my New Testament needs, I use the New International Version Bible or the Revised Standard Edition as a secondary source, but NIV has the best footnotes and concordance IMHO.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-16-2005, 12:10 AM
Ok, let's discuss Avraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.

The Torah (and NT) say that Avraham took Isaac on the mountain, as well as the Oral Traditions of Judaism and Christianity.

The Qu'ran, IIRC, says that Avraham took his son on the mountain, but does not identify which son. Islamic Tradition identifies the son as Ishmael.

Which passages in the Qu'ran record this narrative?

What is the oldest record of Muslims believing that Ishmael was the one taken to the mountain, rather than Isaac?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-16-2005, 12:48 AM
The Qur'an always uses the phrase Guhlam Haleem (gentle son) for Isma'il and Ghulam Aleem (knowledgable son) for Ishaaq.

The passage from the Qur'an on the sacrifice reads:
So We gave him tidings of a gentle son. And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast. Then, when they had both surrendered (to Allah), and he had flung him down upon his face. We called unto him: O Abraham: Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good. Lo! that verily was a clear test. Then We ransomed him with a tremendous victim. And We left for him among the later folk (the salutation): Peace be unto Abraham! Thus do We reward the good. Lo! he is one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him tidings of the birth of Isaac, a Prophet of the righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac. And of their seed are some who do good, and some who plainly wrong themselves.) (As-Saffat 61: 101-113)

So two things indicate it was Isma'il:
-'gentle son'
-Birth of Ishaaq is mentioned after the sacrifice and the brith of the other son is mentioned before, thus it must be Isma'il

Here is also what scholars say on the issue:
Also, in his Mustadrak, Al-Hakim quotes Mu`awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan as saying: “We were with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when a Bedouin came to him and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! I left behind me a barren and drought-stricken country. My property has vanished and my children are at loss. Bestow on me some of your favors, o son of the two human male sacrifices Az-Zabihayn (Isma`il and `Abdullah).’ The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) smiled and did not rebuke him or deny the description.”

The majority of Muslim scholars are of the view that Az-Zabih was Isma`il. They backed their view with following evidence:

1. When Ibrahim (peace and blessings be upon him) was saved from the fire, he migrated from Iraq to the Levant and said: (Lo! I am going unto my Lord Who will guide me.) (As-Saffat 61: 99)

When he grew old, he implored Allah for a son and thus Almighty Allah gave him glad tidings of a gentle son. The mother of that son was his Egyptian wife Hajar. When jealousy crept to the heart of his first wife Sarah, Allah commanded him to take Hajar and her son to Makkah. There he was subject to a test whereby Almighty Allah commanded him to slaughter his only son; Isma`il . As for Is-haq, he was born many years later and Ibrahim had been given glad tidings of his birth after the incident of sacrifice. It goes without saying that the subject of true test should be the first and the only son who then occupied a center place in his father’s heart, not the second one.

2. Ibrahim experienced a series of tests most of which relate to Hajar and her son who were placed in a remote barren valley. Ibrahim left them to Allah’s care and went back to the Levant. Frequent visits were not sufficient to stop Ibrahim’s genuine fear for his wife and her baby. The situation was compounded by the vision Ibrahim had that he was slaughtering his dear son, which means that he would definitely be filled of worry about the would-be state of Hajar. Would he leave her alone in the deserted valley? The details of the incident clearly shows that it was Isma`il who was to be sacrificed.

It is reported that when Ibrahim took his son to slaughter him, Satan encountered him many times trying to divert him from his task. Ibrahim cast him many times with pebbles. This is actually what Muslim pilgrims do in their Hajj when they cast the pebbles (Al-Jamarat).

3. When Ibrahim was given glad tidings with the coming of Is-haq, he was also informed that Is-haq would grow, marry and have a child named Ya`qub (Jacob). Allah says: (We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.) (Hud 11: 71) Is it logic for Ibrahim to attempt to slaughter his son after being given glad tidings that the son would grow up and have children? How come they claim that it was Is-haq that was to be slaughtered? This is ridiculous, for if it was Is-haq to be slaughtered, who would then beget Ya`qub, to bring to reality the glad tiding given to Ibrahim before?

In giving him glad tidings about the birth of Isma`il, Ibrahim was told that Isma`il would be “gentle and persevering” while in case of Is-haq, he was described as being “learned”. Isma`il’s description perfectly matches the unquestioning obedience he gave his father.

4. The People of the Book say: “Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his sole son.” At that time, Ibrahim had no other sons except Isma`il, for in their Sacred Books it is stated that Ibrahim was given Isma`il when he was 86 years of age while he was given Is-haq when he was 99 years of age.

5- The great scholars among the pious ancestors (may Allah be pleased with them) say that Az-Zabih was Isma`il. `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz is reported as having called a Jew who had embraced Islam, interrogating him on the issue. The Jew replied that it was Isma`il who was to be sacrificed. Also, Al-Asma` asked Abu `Amr ibn Al-`Ala’ about Az-Zabih and he said: “Where is your mind? Is-haq never came to Makkah. It was Isma`il who was in Makkah and built the House (The Sacred Mosque) with his father.
Sheikh Zoubir Bouchikhi, Imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston’s Southeast Mosque, adds:

The truth about this matter can be found in History. The Jews themselves do not deny the fact that the first son of Ibrahim was Isma`il, and History tells us that Ibrahim was tried by Allah to sacrifice his son next to the Ka`bah, and history tells us the Is-haq has never been next to the Ka`bah in Makkah, he was born in Palestine, and Isma`il was raised in Makkah.

The trial came to Ibrahim in Makkah (or at that time it was just the Ka`bah), so there is no reason for the Jews who always distort the truth to claim that it was Is-haq who was going to be sacrificed and not Isma`il.
All the above-mentioned facts indicate that it was Isma`il who was about to be slaughtered by his father, Ibrahim, and all these facts also support the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that reads: “I am the son of Az-Zabihayn (the two who were to be sacrificed).”
:w:
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-20-2005, 09:17 PM
I have a story about Musa and Khidr:

Peace everyone!

Okay, I'll show you the story of Prophet Moses and the Green One from the Quran. I thought it was also present in some of the Jewish scriptures. I think you will like it.

The Children of Israel asked Prophet Moses who was the most knowledgeable person. Prophet Moses knew that he was the messenger of Allah swt and recieved the religious law, so in terms of religious obligations, he replied that it was himself. This wasn't an arrogant answer, it was a fact like saying, "As far as I know its me".

So Allah asked Moses to travel with Yusha bin Nun to seek out a person who had recieved knowledge that Moses had not recieved. This was Al-Khidr.

18:60. And (remember) when Mûsa (Moses) said to his boy-servant: "I will not give up (travelling) until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travelling."


61. But when they reached the junction of the two seas, they forgot their fish, and it took its way through the sea as in a tunnel.


62. So when they had passed further on (beyond that fixed place), Mûsa (Moses) said to his boy-servant: "Bring us our morning meal; truly, we have suffered much fatigue in this, our journey."


63. He said:"Do you remember when we betook ourselves to the rock? I indeed forgot the fish, none but Shaitân (Satan) made me forget to remember it. It took its course into the sea in a strange (way)!"


64. [Mûsa (Moses)] said: "That is what we have been seeking." So they went back retracing their footsteps.


65. Then they found one of Our slaves, unto whom We had bestowed mercy from Us, and whom We had taught knowledge from Us.


66. Mûsa (Moses) said to him (Khidr) "May I follow you so that you teach me something of that knowledge (guidance and true path) which you have been taught (by Allâh)?"


67. He (Khidr) said: "Verily! You will not be able to have patience with me!


68. "And how can you have patience about a thing which you know not?"


69. Mûsa (Moses) said: "If Allâh will, you will find me patient, and I will not disobey you in aught."


70. He (Khidr) said: "Then, if you follow me, ask me not about anything till I myself mention it to you."


71. So they both proceeded, till, when they embarked the ship, he (Khidr) scuttled it. Mûsa (Moses) said: "Have you scuttled it in order to drown its people? Verily, you have committed a thing "Imra" (a Munkar - evil, bad, dreadful thing)."


72. He (Khidr) said: "Did I not tell you, that you would not be able to have patience with me?"


73. [Mûsa (Moses)] said: "Call me not to account for what I forgot, and be not hard upon me for my affair (with you)."


74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Mûsa (Moses) said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing "Nukra" (a great Munkar - prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!"


75. (Khidr) said: "Did I not tell you that you can have no patience with me?"


76. [Mûsa (Moses)] said: "If I ask you anything after this, keep me not in your company, you have received an excuse from me."


77. Then they both proceeded, till, when they came to the people of a town, they asked them for food, but they refused to entertain them. Then they found therein a wall about to collapse and he (Khidr) set it up straight. [Mûsa (Moses)] said: If you had wished, surely, you could have taken wages for it!"


78. (Khidr) said: "This is the parting between me and you, I will tell you the interpretation of (those) things over which you were unable to hold patience.


79. "As for the ship, it belonged to Masâkîn (poor people) working in the sea. So I wished to make a defective damage in it, as there was a king after them who seized every ship by force.


80. "And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.


81. "So we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in righteousness and near to mercy.


82. "And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the town; and there was under it a treasure belonging to them; and their father was a righteous man, and your Lord intended that they should attain their age of full strength and take out their treasure as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of those (things) over which you could not hold patience."
:w:
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-21-2005, 06:53 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
So two things indicate it was Isma'il:
-'gentle son'
What other passages show that "gentle son" refers to Ishmael?

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
-Birth of Ishaaq is mentioned after the sacrifice and the brith of the other son is mentioned before, thus it must be Isma'il
IMO, whether or not Isaac and the gentle sons are different is a matter of interperetation - but that's not my area of expertise.

Is the Qu'ran always in exact order? (I.e. going in sequence, never referring to something before what was just talked about?)
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-21-2005, 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
What other passages show that "gentle son" refers to Ishmael?
I should have also mentioned that it means gentle/persevering.

Gentle son....
37:101 So We gave him the good news of a gentle boy.

Knowledgeable son...
15:53 They said: "Fear not! We give thee glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge."

51:28 (When they did not eat), He conceived a fear of them. They said, "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge.


I can't think of any other verses at the moment.

But if you look at the passage I quoted, you will see that Isaac's birth is mentioned immediately after this event. And you can also look at the multiple reasons I quoted for you in the article.

IMO, whether or not Isaac and the gentle sons are different is a matter of interperetation - but that's not my area of expertise.
You are correct that it is not explicit, but what does that tell us? I think muslims and jews and christians are so caught up fighting over the details that they forget the moral of sacrifice depicted in the story.

Is the Qu'ran always in exact order? (I.e. going in sequence, never referring to something before what was just talked about?)
As long as it is the same story, same people, yes.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-28-2005, 02:38 AM
Is there a story of the rich man 'Qarun' in the Tanakh?
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-28-2005, 03:14 AM
I think I might know of a story that goes with "Qarun". But it might not be him.

Could you give a URL to a summary of this character and the stories associated with him?
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-28-2005, 03:22 AM
I don't know if he was rich, but a search revealed Qarun to be equivilent to Korah the levite, son of Isachar and the cousin of Moses and Aaron. He is remembered for the rebellious action together with Dathan and Abiram against Moses.
Reply

Sinner
03-28-2005, 03:31 PM
I don't know about the Quran, but from the little there is in the Old Testament about Ishmael, it is unlikely that he could be called "a gentle son." Sarah saw Ishmael as a real threat to Isaac, and an Angel had warned her that Ishmael would grow as a man of violence.

Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Gen 21:8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.
Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-28-2005, 03:32 PM
Yes, I think Korah is the equivalent.

Here's Qarun's story:

Qasas 28

76. Qarun was doubtless, of the people of Moses; but he acted insolently towards them: such were the treasures We had bestowed on him that their very keys would have been a burden to a body of strong men, behold, his people said to him: "Exult not, for Allah loveth not those who exult (in riches).

77. "But seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter, nor forget thy portion in this world: but do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief."

78. He said: "This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge which I have." Did he not know that Allah had destroyed, before him, (whole) generations,- which were superior to him in strength and greater in the amount (of riches) they had collected? but the wicked are not called (immediately) to account for their sins.

79. So he went forth among his people in the (pride of his wordly) glitter. Said those whose aim is the Life of this World: "Oh! that we had the like of what Qarun has got! for he is truly a lord of mighty good fortune!"

80. But those who had been granted (true) knowledge said: "Alas for you! The reward of Allah (in the Hereafter) is best for those who believe and work righteousness: but this none shall attain, save those who steadfastly persevere (in good)."

81. Then We caused the earth to swallow up him and his house; and he had not (the least little) party to help him against Allah, nor could he defend himself.

82. And those who had envied his position the day before began to say on the morrow: "Ah! it is indeed Allah Who enlarges the provision or restricts it, to any of His servants He pleases! had it not been that Allah was gracious to us, He could have caused the earth to swallow us up! Ah! those who reject Allah will assuredly never prosper."

83. That Home of the Hereafter We shall give to those who intend not high- handedness or mischief on earth: and the end is (best) for the righteous.

84. If any does good, the reward to him is better than his deed; but if any does evil, the doers of evil are only punished (to the extent) of their deeds.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-28-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Sinner
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Yes, obviously this contradicts the Qur'anic account. I would not accept this as true about Prophet Isma'il.


But even in the Bible, does it not mention the sacrifice of Abraham's only son?
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-28-2005, 10:27 PM
obviously this contradicts the Qur'anic account
Howso? Seems like a fair comparison to what has happened.

I think Korah is the equivalent
That's what my hunch was before you posted the story. That's the closest one I know of right now as well.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-29-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
But even in the Bible, does it not mention the sacrifice of Abraham's only son?
Actually no, it calls Isaac Abraham's "only one", not son.
22:2 And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
"your son" He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.” Now why did He not disclose this to him at the beginning? In order not to confuse him suddenly, lest his mind become distracted and bewildered, and also to endear the commandment to him and to reward him for each and every expression. — [from Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7]
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-29-2005, 02:44 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
Howso? Seems like a fair comparison to what has happened.
because an elite Prophet of God cannot be described as a 'wild man'.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-29-2005, 03:17 AM
What do you guys think of this article:

Ishmael or Isaac?



By Ali Ataie

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?’ But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jeremiah 8:8).

Who was the real covenant child of Abraham? Obviously, the Jews and Christians stand united in their support for Isaac, the second-born of Abraham and forefather of the Children of Israel. Most Muslims, however, believe him to be Ishmael, the first-born of Abraham and forefather of the Arabs. If modern-day Trinitarian Christians whose ancestors worshipped trees and rocks can get away with being counted among the spiritual progeny of Abraham simply because Jesus descended from Isaac, then we as Muslim monotheists (believers in the oneness of God) can certainly present our case for Muhammad, a DIRECT DESCENDANT of the first-born son of Abraham (upon whom be peace).

NOTE: The intention of this article is not to discredit or insult the Holy Prophet Isaac (upon whom be peace) or any of his righteous progeny. According to Islamic law (shari’a), insulting a Prophet of God is calumny (kufr) and tantamount to a capital offense.

The Qur’an states: “And We bestowed on him (Abraham) Isaac and, as an additional gift, a grandson Jacob, and We made righteous men of every one of them. And We made them leaders, guiding men by Our Command, and We sent them inspiration to do good deeds, to establish regular prayers, and to practice regular charity; and they constantly served Us and Us only” (Qur’an 21:72-73).

Let’s attempt to ascertain the true identity of this covenant son by closely examining the book of Genesis in the Jewish Torah.

We are told in Genesis 22:2: “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” At no time during the lifetime of Isaac (upon whom be peace) was he ever the “only son” of Abraham. Did “God” forget about Ishmael, Isaac’s brother who was fourteen years his senior?

Christians will retort that God only intended the son Abraham “loved,” the implication being that Abraham hated Ishmael. Although we can never believe such nonsense, what does the Law say about this?

In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we read: “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day of bequeaths his possessions to his sons, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unloved, the true firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.”

Therefore, it matters not whether Abraham loved Ishmael, he IS the first-born. It was none other than the evil pen of a scribe who changed the name “Ishmael” to “Isaac” in Genesis 22:2. Truly Allah has told us: “Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places…” (Qur’an 4:46).

“But Ishmael was the illegitimate son of a bondswoman!” the Christian will shout. Tell him to consider the following passage: “Then Sarah, Abram’s wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his WIFE, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan. So Hagar bore Abram a SON; and Abram named his SON, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram” (Genesis 16:3, 15-16).

According to the Bible, Ishmael is Abraham’s son through his wife Hagar.

Now listen to what Abraham has to say about the mother of Isaac, Sarah: “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife” (Genesis 20:11-12).

Once again we have a breach of the book of Deuteronomy: “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen!” (Deuteronomy 27:22).

If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, the latter would have had him stoned to death. So how can the son of Abraham’s sister be legitimate? He can’t!

Genesis 15 reveals to us two vital stipulations in the covenant between God and the chosen child of Abraham. It reads: “Then He (God) brought him (Abraham) outside and said, ‘Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.’ And he said to him, (1) ‘So shall your descendants be.’ On the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying, (2) ‘To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates’” (Genesis 15:5, 18.).

The vast majority of land between the two great rivers constitutes the Arabian desert and peninsula. This region was never conquered by the Children of Israel, but immediately upon the emergence of Muhammad and the Muslims. It was only with the appearance of the Messenger of the Covenant Muhammad (Malachi 3) that all idolatry was rooted out of these lands promised to the covenant progeny of Abraham. Jewish history demonstrates the obvious ineptness of the Children of Jacob to abolish the heathen worship of statues in Palestine and even in their very Temple!

Karen Armstrong, author of the popular book A History of God remarks: “We have seen that it took the ancient Israelites some 700 years to break with their old religious allegiances and accept monotheism, but Muhammad managed to help the Arabs achieve this difficult transition in a mere 23 years” (page 146).

At this point it is worth giving an overall breakdown of the family of Abraham the Patriarch, the true in faith (Hanifah). Abraham’s first son and covenant child was Ishmael, whom he bore through Hagar. Next, Sarah conceived a son called Isaac. Abraham took a third wife, Keturah, and had six sons with her.

Ishmael’s first born, Nebajoth, had a brother named Kedar (Genesis 25:13) and his progeny are called the Kedarites or Ishmaelites. Ishmael’s two daughters Basemath and Mahalath wed Esau, who is Edom. The Lexicon Strongs’ Concordance gives Esau the title, “the progenitor of the Arab peoples” and this to a son of Isaac! These become known as the Edomites.

From Jacob, Isaac’s other son, twelve luminaries appear with names such as Ruben, Levi, Judah, Joseph, and Benjamin. The descendants of Jacob, and not Jacob or Isaac, are dubbed the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il). Abraham’s first born of Keturah, Midian, is described by the Strongs’ Concordance as, “progenitor of Midians or Arabians.”

Therefore these Arabs are called the Midianites. A descendant of Midian named Jethro (Shu’ayb in the Qur’an) gave his daughter Zipporah permission to marry a Levite and fugitive of Egypt named Moses. Therefore, it can be observed that the vast majority of the progeny of Abraham were and are in fact Arabs “as numerous as the stars” who intermarried and accepted the sons and daughters of Jacob as righteous servants of the Almighty.

The Sign of God’s covenant was circumcision. In Genesis 17:9, 11 God tells Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations…and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.”

In verse 26 we are told: “That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son Ishmael.” So far we have been told that:

1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son.

2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife.

3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars.

4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.

5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years.

6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant.

7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins.

NONE of the above have anything to do with Isaac!

Christians will no doubt point to verse 19 where God tells Abraham, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.”

Why has God changed his mind? He continues: “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation” (verse 20).

In other words: “Don’t worry about Ishmael, I’ll throw him a bone or two!” The most obvious piece of Jewish scribal deception, however, occurs in Genesis 21:

“Now Abraham was one hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him…So the child grew up and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing (playing with Isaac, REB version).
Therefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondswoman with her son; for the son of this bondswoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac’…So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent her away (he set the child on her shoulder, REB version).

Then she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water in the skin was used up, and she placed the boy under one of the shrubs. Then she went and sat down across from him at a distance of about a bowshot; for she said to herself, ‘Let me not see the death of the boy.’ So she sat opposite him, and lifted her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad (God heard the child crying, REB version).

Then the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said to her, ‘What ails you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad and hold him with your hand (in your hand), for I will make him a great nation.’ Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. And she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.” – Genesis 21:5-19.
It is very clear from the text that we are given the profile of an infant here and not that of a seventeen-year old man. In Jewish custom, a child (Isaac) is weaned after three years. This would have made Ishmael seventeen (Remember that Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born and 100 when Isaac was born, Gen. 16:16, 21:5). Can you imagine a grown man sitting on Hagar’s shoulder, CRYING beneath a shrub for water, and then being LIFTED UP and FED by his mother? It is very interesting to note that although Ishmael is referenced in no less than eleven places in this passage, he is never addressed by name.

It seems as if the chronologies of these events have been deliberately manipulated in order to give the reader the impression that Ishmael was banished due to a conflict between him and Isaac. In actuality, the nameless infant would not know his younger sibling until many years later. According to Islam, Ishmael and his mother were never banished at all. Abraham was told by God to leave them in the wilderness as a sign of his faith that God would fulfill His covenant under any circumstances. This was where Ishmael grew up and continued his father's work.

According to Genesis 16:10-11, God called him “Ishmael” because He heard Hagar crying after she ran away from Sarah. This concocted story serves as a clever way for the rabbinical scribes to explain the meaning of Ishmael’s name, meaning “God heard,” while also making the point that Hagar and her son are inferior to Sarah. It is possible, however, that the child was not named until after Genesis 21:5-19 was written and “God heard” (verse 17) the infant child Ishmael crying while he and his mother settled in Baca, “the weeping valley” (Psalm 84:6; Qur’an 3:96), and not Beersheba as the Bible states. Another possibility is that God named him Ishmael because He had heard the prayer of Abraham for a son to continue his legacy. Why exactly Ishmael’s name is not mentioned in Genesis 21:5-19 remains a mystery.

We are also told in Genesis 25:9 that in the spirit of brotherhood, both sons of Abraham buried their father. From this we can also conclude that the story given in Genesis 16:10 in which God tells Hagar that she must “submit herself under Sarah’s hand,” and Ishmael is called a “wild ass of a man,” are undoubtedly forgeries penned by the Jewish rabbis and scribes in order to discredit the God-given rights of Ishmael, the ancestor of Muhammad -- The Messenger of God (salallau ‘alayhi wa sallam).

Source:
http://www.voiceforislam.com/2005/03...-or-isaac.html
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-29-2005, 03:40 AM
Some notes:
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
1) Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son.
But Ishmael is not the son who's decendants would be given the Covernant
"But my covenant I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set time next year." Genesis 17:21
2) Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife.
Sarah is Abraham's first and head wife, Hagar was a handmaid of Sarah before she was Abraham's second wife.
"Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife." (Genesis 16:3)
3) The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars.
As written, the covenant was established through Isaac.
4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.
I.e. Israel, through Jacob.
5) Ishmael was Abraham’s only son and seed for fourteen years.
That doesn't mean much when HaShem did not seek to establish his covenant through Ishmael, but he was also made into a great nation.
6) Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant.
A symbol of the acceptance of the covenant, not the covenant itself.
7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins.
However, The commandment of circumcision is "He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you" (Genesis 17:13). Isaac was circumcised at the proper time, and it was Isaac whom the Lord chose to establish his covenant through, who was circumcised when is irrelevent, it is a symbol of acceptance, not of who gets the covenant.
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-29-2005, 06:43 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
because an elite Prophet of God cannot be described as a 'wild man'.
1) Why not?

2) You guys believe that Ishmael was a prophet?
Reply

yoshiyahu
03-29-2005, 06:47 AM
I didn't read the whole article for one reason - when I began reading it, I noticed it was using Laws that were not yet given to say that something had to be a certain way. But how can they be required to obey laws not yet fully given to them? Ya'kov/Jacob married 2 sisters, which is against Torah law, an example that those laws were not completely required of them.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-31-2005, 01:09 AM
Bereishhit 21:13 But also the son of the handmaid I will make into a nation, because he is your seed.

18. Rise, pick up the lad and grasp your hand upon him, for I shall make him into a great nation.


And from before:
1) Genesis 12:2-3 speaks of God's promise to Abraham and his descendants before any child was born to him.


2) Genesis 17:4 reiterates God's promise after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac.


3) In Genesis, ch. 21. Isaac is specifically blessed but Ishmael was also specifically blessed and promised by God to become "a great nation" especially in Genesis 21:13, 18.


4) According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother (being a "free" woman such as Sarah, Isaac's mother, or a "Bondwoman" such as Hagar, Ishmael's mother). This is only consistent with the moral and humanitarian principles of all revealed faiths.


5) The full legitimacy of Ishmael as Abraham's son and "seed" and the full legitimacy of his mother, Hagar, as Abraham's wife are clearly stated in Genesis 21:13 and 16:3. After Jesus, the last Israelite messenger and prophet, it was time that God's promise to bless Ishmael and his descendants be fulfilled. Less than 600years after Jesus, came the last messenger of God, Muhammad, from the progeny of Abraham through Ishmael. God's blessing of both of the main branches of Abraham's family tree was now fullfilled. But are there additional corroborating evidence that the Bible did in fact foretell the advent of prophet Muhammad?
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-31-2005, 01:40 AM
You can't use Deut. 21, as it had not yet been given.

No one is saying anythng to contradict that Ishmael's children would be made into a great nation. However, HaShem himself said to Abraham that it was through Isaac that the bearer of his covenant would be kept. They would both be great nations, but only through Isaac would the covenant be delievered and kept. Very obviously, Muhammed had his Quran, which is not the covenant as it was established through Isaac.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-31-2005, 02:16 AM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
You can't use Deut. 21, as it had not yet been given.
okay, but the principles in the law would certainly remain constant wouldn't they? Good and righteousness is timeless.

"God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Bamidbar19:23)

No one is saying anythng to contradict that Ishmael's children would be made into a great nation. However, HaShem himself said to Abraham that it was through Isaac that the bearer of his covenant would be kept.
Before I go any further, i'd like to know what you take the 'covenant' to mean?

:w:
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-31-2005, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
okay, but the principles in the law would certainly remain constant wouldn't they? Good and righteousness is timeless.
However, the covenant, as I clarify below, is not referring to one that is universal, but one that only applies to Jews. Did noah eat Pork? Probbly. Could abraham eat Pork? also Probbably. The commandment against it had yet to be given to him and his people, thus how could he keep something that did not yet apply to him? Those commandments were news to the Jews when they were revealed, otherwise there would have been no reason to restate them.
Before I go any further, i'd like to know what you take the 'covenant' to mean?
In this context, specifically the Jewish laws as recieved on Sinai.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-31-2005, 03:23 AM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
A symbol of the acceptance of the covenant, not the covenant itself.
How can you say that when it says so clearly in the verse:
In Genesis 17:9, 11 God tells Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations…and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.”

It IS a sign of God's covenant. Just like the earth is a sign of God's existence meaning:
presence of earth=presence of God
Likewise,
Presence of circumcision=Presence of God's covenant

In this context, specifically the Jewish laws as recieved on Sinai.
And how do we deduce that?
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
03-31-2005, 04:00 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
...It IS a sign of God's covenant.
But it still isn't the covenant itself.
Just like the earth is a sign of God's existence meaning:
presence of earth=presence of God
But you wouldn't say that the earth IS God, now would you?
And how do we deduce that?
Ah, I was confused by your quotes from before.
The covenant of circumcision was ment.

Gen 17
10. This is My covenant, which you shall observe between Me and between you and between your seed after you, that every male among you be circumcised.
between Me and you those living now.
and between your seed who are destined to be born.



19. And God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.

My covenant The covenant of circumcision shall be given over [only] to the seed of Isaac.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-31-2005, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
But it still isn't the covenant itself.
But you wouldn't say that the earth IS God, now would you?
No, I agree circumcision does not =covenant, and earth does not = God.

BUT! As I said before...

Presence of earth= presence of God

Likewise!

Presence of cirucmcision= Presence of covenant

It becomes undeniable at this point then, that the covenant was also with Isma'il.

Btw,
Concerning your first post in response to the article, someone wrote a response to it and wanted me to give it to you....

Ali (a non-Arab who is living proof that the covenant child was Ishmael) said..

First off let me say that the present day Torah has admittedly gone through horrendous revisions and editing over the centuries. This is a fact that Jews and Christians would like to keep hidden from the general masses but your scholars spill all the beans. The oldest manuscript before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (by an Ishmaelite) dated to the 9th century CE. --- 2,400 years removed from Moses! And even with the Qumran documents there is a gap of at least 1300 years. Jer. 8:8 admits to scribal forgery in the Torah as well. The book of Esdras (outside the canon) teaches us that the Torah ceased to exist when the Jews returned from Babylon, and the Prophet Ezra had to "re-write" what he knew from memory.

Secondly, there are statements in the Torah that could only have come from the ignorant mind of mind. For example, a bat is a bird, insects have four legs, the night, day, plants, herbs, and grass were created BEFORE the sun and the moon! -- Which is impossible. Land animals were created before sea animals. And the belief in the existence of "unicorns" and "fire-breathing serpents." - No such creatures have ever existed.

Third, I think you've missed the point of the article. It DOES say the covenant child will be Isaac (Gen. 17:3), (I have also mentioned this) but if GOD made this statement He has totally FAILED in fulfilling his side of the deal! The seed of Isaac compared to Ishmael is a drop in a bucket, therefore, not numerous as the stars. The land between the two rivers constitutes mainly of the Arabian peninsula (not just the tiny strip of land called Israel), a region NEVER conquered by the Israelites. If Hagar was Abraham's second wife, as you say, it still does not matter...her son is the first-born and all rights are his (Deut. 21:15-17). Sarah is Abraham's half-sister and therefore cannot be a legitimate wife anyway. Please explain to me why is Gen 21 Ishmael is described as an infant and not as a 17 year-old man? My Jewish friend, Abraham was 86 years old and he cried unto El Shaddai for a son and "God Heard" him -- Ishmael. You said that it was irrelevant who was circumcised when, but then you say Isaac was circumcised "at the proper time." Yes he was circumcised at eight days old, so he could imitate his older brother Ishmael! -- who was circumcised with his father as soon as the command came from Adonai Elohim. Jesus and John the Baptist were also circumcised at eight days old, but you believe these two great men of God to be imposters!

In Isaiah 42, the "servant" of God mentioned is called "a COVENANT of the people, a light for the Gentiles." He is then described as someone who's law will convert the islanders (the largest Muslim country is Indonesia), the Gentiles (almost ALL Muslims are non-Jews), and the tribes of KEDAR (the Arabs).-- Almost ALL Arabs are Muslims. For all intents and purposes, Judaism stopped functioning as a religion when the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. But Islam was grown into a global phenomenon winning victory after victory in the hearts of men. It's more than obvious who the real covenant son is!

The Jewish scribes out of "jealousy and arrogance" says the Qur'an stole the birthright of Ishmael as God's covenant child and gave it to Isaac (They did it to Esau as well). However, history, geography, scripture, and reality all tell us that Ishmael was truly his covenant child and unless Jews realize this they cannot re-enter into God's good graces. Why do you think God's wrath has descended upon the Jewish people from time to time? The OLD and NEW Testaments as well as the Qur'an ALL tell us that it is because they have forsaken God's commandments and rejected His messengers.

Your greatest test is to accept an Ishmaelite Prophet as God's Chosen One. Please do not continue to fail the test.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-01-2005, 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
It becomes undeniable at this point then, that the covenant was also with Isma'il.
You might be able to aruge that Ishmaelites may circumcise themselves, signifying they accept the covenant that was placed on Abraham and therefore circumcize themselves, but that by itself does not signify further revelation.

I have little to say to such an article wishing to spread his own version of events. The fact is that God said his final covenant was specifically with Isaac. When God delivered the Torah and it's laws to the Jewish people, the children of Ishmael (and Esau) would not have accepted it. This remains true today. The kind of person you have quoted from has to believe that the Jews can't be in God's "good graces", not that that matters in any way shape or form, as it invalidates his own belief that Jews were chosen by God. God gave his covenant to the Jews on Mt. Sinai, and said it was theirs for eternity. And we maintain it today. Simply because a new nation that is foreign to Jews tells us that a new way has arisen does not make it acceptable to us.

There are things in the torah that defy understanding, but there are other things that simply do not matter as you are using modern application to rewrite history.

Why is the child of Hagar described in a way that some call infantile? She pushed him in the bushes because she thought he would die, she picked him up because God commanded her to. Would god ask something that could not be fulfilled? Abraham lived well past 100 years old, today we would think of this as some weak person who could barely walk, when Abraham was more than able to do the actions of a 30 year old. It does not say he was feable in his old age, and in fact was extremely healthy!

Isaac was not circumcised at 8 days to imitate a brother that was unknown, but because that was as God commanded. Besides, the act of circumcision is not an empowering act that gives one super human abilities to become prophets of God, or we would all be prophets. Each false prophet that has arisen after Malachi, after the end of the time of prophecy, has gone directly against God's already existing commandments. There is no reason to listen to them. Jesus came and made people to think he was God, Muhammed brought the Quran telling a story that was contradictory to all that happend. Do not approach a nation and tell them that you know their real history when they have lived it.

As for Deuteronomy, remind him that such does not apply to Abraham. You can't apply a law that had yet to exist to a previous event, nor can you apply it against the word of God. God simply did not choose Ishmael to recieve His Torah.

As well as Isaiah 42,

6. I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations.

and I formed you Heb. וְאֶצָּרְ. When I formed you (כְּשֶׁיְצַרְתִּי) , this was My thought, that you return My people to My covenant and to enlighten them.
for a light to nations Every tribe is called a nation by itself, as the matter is stated (Gen. 35:11): “A nation and a congregation of nations.”
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-01-2005, 05:33 AM
I will simply say that Ishmael had one covenant and Isaac had a different covenant. Both became great & influential nations. Isaac's covenant eventually developed into what is now known as the Torah.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-02-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
You might be able to aruge that Ishmaelites may circumcise themselves, signifying they accept the covenant that was placed on Abraham and therefore circumcize themselves, but that by itself does not signify further revelation.
Originally Posted by Yoshiyahu
I will simply say that Ishmael had one covenant and Isaac had a different covenant. Both became great & influential nations. Isaac's covenant eventually developed into what is now known as the Torah.
Okay, well at least we agree on this so far. I'll just comment a little on some points SF2K raised.

When God delivered the Torah and it's laws to the Jewish people, the children of Ishmael (and Esau) would not have accepted it.
Could you clarify what you are saying here?

The kind of person you have quoted from has to believe that the Jews can't be in God's "good graces", not that that matters in any way shape or form, as it invalidates his own belief that Jews were chosen by God.
Well the belief is that God favuors/chooses those people who are righteous, but as soon as they leave the true path, they are no longer favoured by God.

Let's turn to the Torah and see how it describes the attitude of the Jews:

Devarim 9:5-13
Not because of your righteousness or because of the honesty of your heart, do you come to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and in order to establish the matter that the Lord swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. You shall know that, not because of your righteousness, the Lord, your God, gives you this land to possess it; for you are a stiffnecked people.

Remember do not forget, how you angered the Lord, your God, in the desert; from the day that you went out of the land of Egypt, until you came to this place, you have been rebelling against the Lord.
At Horeb, you angered the Lord, and the Lord was incensed with you to destroy you.

When I ascended the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water; and the Lord gave me two stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of God, and on them was [inscribed] according to all the words that the Lord spoke with you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.

And the Lord said to me, "Arise, descend quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought out of Egypt have become corrupt; they have quickly deviated from the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten image."
And the Lord spoke to me [further], saying, "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people.


This is repeated throughout the Torah....

Moses told his people:
Devarim 31:29. For I know that after my death, you will surely become corrupted, and deviate from the way which I had commanded you. Consequently, the evil will befall you at the end of days, because you did evil in the eyes of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.

And the Qur'an says:
5:78 Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress.

And the Qur'an asks:
2:75 Do you covet then that they would believe for you whereas surely a section of them has been hearing the Word of Allah, and then perverting it after they have understood it, while they know?

And Islam was not the first to accuse the Children of Israel of perverting their Sacred Texts. The charge dates back to Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah:
Yirmiyahu 23:36 You pervert the words of the living God, the Lord of Hosts, our God

And I don't think any knowledgeable Rabbi today would claim that the Tanakh has been perfectly preserved, in its original purity. I think looking at Yechezkiel 23 and similar chapters shows something that cannot be attributed to God.

God gave his covenant to the Jews on Mt. Sinai, and said it was theirs for eternity. And we maintain it today. Simply because a new nation that is foreign to Jews tells us that a new way has arisen does not make it acceptable to us.
This is indeed the argument of the Jews, which the Qur'an has responded to:
2:90-91 How bad is that for which they have sold their ownselves, that they should disbelieve in that which Allâh has revealed (the Qur'ân), grudging that Allâh should reveal of His Grace unto whom He will of His slaves. So they have drawn on themselves wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers, there is disgracing torment.

And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?"


So the Qur'anic response to your argument is twofold. The Qur'an says that one should believe in the Qur'an, first, because it is the true message in itself, supported by independent evidence; and secondly, because it confims and corroborates and supplements the Torah, and does not detract from it.

And indeed this was the prayer of Abraham from the beginning for Prophet Isma'il:

2:127-129. And (remember) when Abraham and (his son) Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House (the Ka'bah at Makkah), (saying), "Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us. Verily! You are the All-Hearer, the All-Knower."


"Our Lord! And make us submissive unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive unto You, and show us our rites, and accept our repentance. Truly, You are the One Who accepts repentance, the Most Merciful.

"Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur'ân) and wisdom, and sanctify them. Verily! You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."


And this is identical to what has been prophesized in the Torah:
Devarim 18:18 I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

And the Qur'an continues with a simple question:
2:130-131. And who turns away from the religion of Abraham (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism) except him who befools himself? Truly, We chose him in this world and verily, in the Hereafter he will be among the righteous.

When his Lord said to him, "Submit (i.e. be a Muslim)!" He said, "I have submitted myself (as a Muslim) to the Lord of the Universe."



I'll get to the rest of your post later, insha'Allah.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-03-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Could you clarify what you are saying here?
That the decendants of Esau (and Esau himself) did not care about his father's inheiritance. It didn't mean anything to him and he threw it away for some beans.
It was written in a midrash how other nations had been offered the laws of the torah (and rejected it for various reasons):
The medrash, as told in the Yalkut Shimoni, tells how first Hashem went to Edom and offered them the Torah. They asked, "What is written in it?" Hashem replied, "Do not murder". Edom declines because "our very substance is murder because our father, Eisav, was a murderer". Next, Hashem approaches Ammon and Moav. When they asked, "What is written in it?" Hashem replies "You may not commit adultery". They too reject the Torah, because, "our very substance is adultery because our father, Lot, was sexually immoral".
In this way, each nation declined, until Hashem approached the Jews: "All that the Lord has spoken we shall do!" (Ex 19.8)
Well the belief is that God favuors/chooses those people who are righteous, but as soon as they leave the true path, they are no longer favoured by God.
I will sum up your post here: The Jews have not always followed the law perfectly. Yes. The nation of Jews have never been one to lie about their past in that we have not always perfectly follows the laws of God. This is exactly correct. We do not always merit the blessings of God.
But glance to the torah. What happens on Mt. Sinai? God speaks to all of Israel (Ex. 20), they all hear him and know his existance. Moses ascends on the mountain to retrieve an inscription for 40 days, and what happens? The people of Israel (the men only) go right back to worshipping idols (Ex 33), a golden calf! Needless to say, this makes God pretty angry. They've have 1000% acceptable proof that he exists, and they still build an idol, they go to worship another God! Barely a month after having known Him!

But here's the thing: Does God then turn his back on them forever?
Amazingly, No! God is as stubborn as we are! He has made His choice! He punishes us for our mistakes, but He does not reject us for them. He accepts us in spite of them, and continues to give us the law a second time! (Ex 34)

It is the same reason we reject the christian notion of eternal hell, because it is based on the idea that one who sins is forever condemned, when this is clearly not the case.

With Judaism, it is human nature not to follow the laws that are places upon us, this is why keeping the law is important, because we actually must make an effort in following them!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 03:22 AM
:sl:
I never claimed that God turns His back on anyone.

The point I'm making is very simple. God's chosen people are those who obey His commandements, not any particular nation. As long as the Jews obeyed God's commandments, they were the chosen people.

But as you and I have both agreed, unfortunately humanity is often inclined to evil, and the message of Prophet Moses was rejected by a large group, and many changed their scriptures. We can no longer say that it is 100% the word of God.

But SpaceFalcon, you are 100% correct, God does not abandon anyone, nor does he blame them for sins of their ancestors. Humanity, the Jews included, was given a final chance with the final messenger before the world would come to an end - Prophet Muhammad pbuh.

Would the Jews accept him if he came from amongst the Jews? Interesting question.

But the whole point is made clear in this verse:
2:90-91 How bad is that for which they have sold their ownselves, that they should disbelieve in that which Allâh has revealed (the Qur'ân), grudging that Allâh should reveal of His Grace unto whom He will of His slaves. So they have drawn on themselves wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers, there is disgracing torment.

And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?"


This is a chance for all the nations of humanity. All those who fought their prophets, who indulged in idolatry, who broke their commandments. This is a chance for humanity to retrun to their Eternal Loving Lord.

This is a blessing. This is a mercy for humanity.

21:107 We sent thee not,(O Muhammad), but as a Mercy for all creation.

This is our chance, our choice. The final messenger for the Lord has come. He has indeed confirmed what was revealed to the previous Prophets and has revived the light and truth on earth. He is not sent to any specific nation, he is for humanity and all the nations of the world. He was selected as a human being. He is God's chosen Messenger to complete prophethood in the world.


So I suppose my question to you, SpaceFalcon, is the following:

Does God offer His law to different nations and choose nations for His favour? Or does God offer the law to all humanity and choose those who accept it for His favour?

49:13 O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

Don't look at Islam as a different religion. Look at Islam as the continuation of the path of God, from Abraham, Moses, Jesus and finally Muhammad.
May God's peace and blessings be upon them, and all of God's Prophets.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-03-2005, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The point I'm making is very simple. God's chosen people are those who obey His commandements, not any particular nation.
It was specified by God that His commandments were between Him and the Jews. Whether they obeyed them did not change the fact that those commandments were for them. It is not universal because there is no need for it to be.
But as you and I have both agreed, unfortunately humanity is often inclined to evil, and the message of Prophet Moses was rejected by a large group, and many changed their scriptures. We can no longer say that it is 100% the word of God.
Please tell me then, when was it changed? We have a few copies from times long before Jesus, and they are no different than today. The Jews never rejected the commandments of God. They failed to follow them from time to time, but that did not change what they had been given. There have always been a group among the Jews who kept the law, even when many of the others did not properly follow it, they kept the way of God for Jews.

Does the Quran change for you because you believe the Shi'ites fail to follow it?
Would the Jews accept him if he came from amongst the Jews? Interesting question.
Did we accept Jesus? He was also beyond the time of prophecy (Malachi was the last). He came to replace the law, and as God commanded us, we knew that was wrong.
Does God offer His law to different nations and choose nations for His favour? Or does God offer the law to all humanity and choose those who accept it for His favour?
Who has favor does not depend on who follows the law, indeed you can think of the laws of Moses as being an inhibitor to gaining favor, because there are more places for one to deviate from the law, where a non-Jew need only follow the 7 laws of the noahide to gain favor.

God gave the Torah to the Jews, it was given exclusivly to them, as He Himself said: "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought you to Me." He brought us out of Egypt, made us something from nothing to give us our law. Anyone can join us in our efforts, but that is an unneeded change, because non-Jews already have their own easy way to the favor of God.
Don't look at Islam as a different religion.
It is a different religion that demands a belief in a different prophet that no Jew can accept, and a different way of life that is not with the way the God gave us. By all means continue on as a Muslim, but your way is not the way of the Jews, and will never be. We cannot reject what God gave us.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 04:15 AM
Please tell me then, when was it changed? We have a few copies from times long before Jesus, and they are no different than today.
Well, I wasn't planning on entering a discussion on textual integrity in this thread, but I'll just ask you very simply:
Open up the Tanakh to Yechezkiel 23. Did God really reveal that chapter? Can any moral human being really attribute such literature to God??


Did we accept Jesus? He was also beyond the time of prophecy (Malachi was the last). He came to replace the law, and as God commanded us, we knew that was wrong.
That's not true at all.
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

2:40. O Children of Israel! Remember My Favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill (your obligations to) My Covenant (with you) so that I fulfill (My Obligations to) your covenant (with Me), and fear none but Me.


41. And believe in what I have sent down (this Qur'ân), confirming that which is with you, and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and buy not with My Verses a small price (i.e. getting a small gain by selling My Verses), and fear Me and Me Alone.


2:87. And indeed, We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and supported him with Rûh-ul-Qudus (Gabriel). Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant? Some, you disbelieved and some, you killed.

It is a different religion
2:132. And this (submission to Allâh, Islâm) was enjoined by Abraham upon his sons and by Jacob (Israel), (saying), "O my sons! Allâh has chosen for you the (true) religion, then die not except in the Faith of Islâm (as Muslims - Islâmic Monotheism)."

that demands a belief in a different prophet that no Jew can accept
2:91. And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers

2:136. Say (O Muslims), "We believe in Allâh and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and to Al-Asbât [the twelve sons of Jacob], and that which has been given to Moses and Jesus, and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islâm)

2:146. Those to whom We gave the Scripture (Jews and Christians) recognise him as they recongise their sons. But verily, a party of them conceal the truth while they know it - [i.e. the qualities of Muhammad which are written in the Torah and the Injeel (Gospel)].

147. (This is) the truth from your Lord. So be you not one of those who doubt


We cannot reject what God gave us.
Evidently, that is not what the Qur'an is asking you to do.

He was also beyond the time of prophecy (Malachi was the last).
Let's discuss this. Why don't you show me the evidence about an end in Prophecy.

:w:
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-03-2005, 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Open up the Tanakh to Yechezkiel 23. Did God really reveal that chapter? Can any moral human being really attribute such literature to God??
Although it is inspired by God, only the Torah (which is the written law), and the Oral law (comparable to Sunnah being the way of Muhammed in the Quran, Talmud is the way of the Torah) were given directly to Moses. The rest of the Tanakh came later.
That's not true at all.
Officially, he didn't come to replace the law, but even according to the christian scriptures he commanded acts that contradict the law, and belief in Jesus (both as God, saviour, messiah, and prophet) has led to deviance from the law.
Let's discuss this. Why don't you show me the evidence about an end in Prophecy.
Well, according to christians, the time of prophecy continues until armageddon. According to Muslims (I think) prophecy ends with Muhammed.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 11a, Yoma 9b, Sotah 48b, Tosefta Sotah 13:4, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:11) records a formal decision made by the Sanhedrin that the office of prophet was formally closed with Malachi.

This coincided with the destruction of the First Temple, which had housed the ark which God in the Torah said He would speak to the prophet through. Although the Temple was rebuilt, the Second Temple did not contain the ark (as it has been hidden somewhere in Israel, although some say it is being kept by God, who will return it to Moshaich). Hence, prophecy ended with Malachi, who was the last prophet to have lived while the First Temple stood.

The Torah source is Exodus 25:22: "I will commune with you there [through the Tabernacle/Temple], speaking to you from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony. [In this manner] I will give you instructions for the Israelites."

The Quran only says this concerning the Ark: Their prophet said to them, "The sign of his kingship is that the Ark of the Covenant will be restored to you, bringing assurances from your Lord, and relics left by the people of Moses and the people of Aaron. It will be carried by the angels. This should be a convincing sign for you, if you are really believers." 002:248

I think you've asked me before and I apologize on my lateness.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 05:47 AM
Thanks for the post, SF2K.
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
Although it is inspired by God, only the Torah (which is the written law), and the Oral law (comparable to Sunnah being the way of Muhammed in the Quran, Talmud is the way of the Torah) were given directly to Moses. The rest of the Tanakh came later.
So Tanakha was inspired by God, so therefore you still believe that God inspired Yechezkiel 23?
And trust me, its there in the Torah too. Read Bereishhit 19:30-36. There are several other examples as well.

According to Muslims (I think) prophecy ends with Muhammed.
That's correct.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 11a, Yoma 9b, Sotah 48b, Tosefta Sotah 13:4, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:11) records a formal decision made by the Sanhedrin that the office of prophet was formally closed with Malachi.
Who are the Sanhedrin?

This coincided with the destruction of the First Temple, which had housed the ark which God in the Torah said He would speak to the prophet through.
How does that work? Could you tell me more about the ark?

The Torah source is Exodus 25:22: "I will commune with you there [through the Tabernacle/Temple], speaking to you from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony. [In this manner] I will give you instructions for the Israelites."
Does that negate revelation in any other way? :confused:

Thanks.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-03-2005, 06:08 AM
Yirmeyahu 23 is about adulterers & idolatorous people, as many of the verses specifically identify:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16020
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-03-2005, 06:21 AM
What is wrong about Ezekiel 23? Be more specific, please.

About the (temporary) ceasing of prophecy-

Hosea 3:4,5

For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-03-2005, 06:22 AM
Who are the Sanhedrin?
The Sanhedrin is the equivalent of a supreme court in Judaism. It is the highest court, and decisions made by it are binding upon all Jews. It has not been in existence for 1500 years, however the conditions are such that it could be potentially reinstated in the near furture.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-03-2005, 06:26 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?"[/b][/i]
There is one big problem with this argument. No human on the face of the earth in the time period the Qu'ran was given had killed any prophet. Prior to that, there had been no prophets for centuries. This verse contradicts the idea of not holding a person responsible for the sins of his fathers.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-03-2005, 06:27 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
So Tanakha was inspired by God, so therefore you still believe that God inspired Yechezkiel 23?
And trust me, its there in the Torah too. Read Bereishhit 19:30-36. There are several other examples as well.
I'm afraid I don't see your point Al-'Adl? These speak of things that happend. The Tanakh is history. The Torah is the law, but it is also history. Would you say a book that describes trangressions against God ungodly? Does a history book become false when it includes things that are neither plesant, nor something one should strive to do?
Who are the Sanhedrin?
They were the panel of 71 Judges who begun their appointment in the book of Judges (previously, since Judges could only be someone who had recieved smicha "ordination", Moses and Joshua had been the effective Judges of Torah law). Consider them the Jewish supreme court for Torah law, and each one had to be ordained in a direct line from Moses.
http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/sanhedrin.htm
These Judges are mandated by God in Deut. 16:18, but Sanhedrin usually refers to the highest court.
How does that work? Could you tell me more about the ark?
Besides direct revelation for prophets, the ark was a powerful artifact. Wherever it went, it brought the favor of God with it. It housed the original ten commandments, the second ten commandments, a pot of mana, Aaron's staff, and the first torah. It killed a few people who touched it directly (who were not ordained) and allowed the Israelites to win battles.

The philistines stole it once and it brought many plauges on them.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Does that negate revelation in any other way? :confused:
As prophecy is the only way the will of God can be recieved, except through the Law, I do not know how revelation would otherwise be recieved.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-03-2005, 06:30 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The point I'm making is very simple. God's chosen people are those who obey His commandements, not any particular nation. As long as the Jews obeyed God's commandments, they were the chosen people.
I partly agree with you. Jews will always be chosen in the sense that the covenant of the Torah is eternal - both the Torah and the Prophets state this very clearly. However, it does not mean that one will be favored - you must adhere to the terms of your covenant to be favored.

We can no longer say that it is 100% the word of God.
Are you aware that many make that accusation of the Qu'ran?

Would the Jews accept him if he came from amongst the Jews? Interesting question.
If the prophet did not add or detract from the Torah, and was able to verify that he/she was truly a prophet, then certainly.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 06:51 AM
Thanks for your posts guys. For now I'll just respond to one of yoshiyahu's points.
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
There is one big problem with this argument. No human on the face of the earth in the time period the Qu'ran was given had killed any prophet. Prior to that, there had been no prophets for centuries. This verse contradicts the idea of not holding a person responsible for the sins of his fathers.
That's a good question. This verse is certainly not holding the Jews responsible for the sins of their ancestors but it makes a few points:

The current jews claimed to be following and believing in Prophets whom their ancestors rejected or killed. In this way they were repeating the pattern of rejecting their current Prophet, and allowing their descendents to profess belief in the previous prophet when the next prophet would come. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the final prophet and this pattern of rejecting coud not continue.
Judaism professes the distinction of the Children of Israel as a nation, therefore it is not illogical for the Qur'an to question them about their nation. If the Jews had really been following the truth and the message given to them, they should have followed the Prophets sent to them. But they were really just using this as an excuse.

Let's take a look at another example:
2:65 And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday).
Here Allah is reminding them of something that was comitted only by a portion of them. But it is something to reflect on for those who think that God selects nations, and not individuals. The reality is, if you profess yourself as a chosen nation then in a way, are you not accepting responsibilty of the actions of the nation? If you want to look at the broad picture, then you cannot be selective in what you look at.

2:52. Then after that We forgave you so that you might be grateful.

Thanks again for the informative posts. I'll be reading.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 06:54 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
Are you aware that many make that accusation of the Qu'ran?
Yes I am aware that many (mostly missionaries) try to make this argument, but I am forunate enough to have study the subject in some depth, and therefore can recognize the falsity of their charges.

There is a good book (which i keep recommending :) ) by M. M. Al-Azami on the compilation of the Qur'an as well as the Old Testament and New Testament. He relies completely on textual proof and it is the definitive response to all charges on the subject.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 06:55 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
If the prophet did not add or detract from the Torah, and was able to verify that he/she was truly a prophet, then certainly.
Now I'm confused. :confused: I thought the age of prophecy had ended?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-03-2005, 06:56 AM
What if a non-Jew does not add or detract from the Torah and is able to verify that he was truly a prophet?
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-03-2005, 06:58 AM
He was refering to identifying prophets within that time. That is the law that is written in the Torah.

Some commentative rules: Bad prophecies do not have to come true because God may have changed his mind, but Good events prophesized must come true as only those who merited them would recieve them.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-04-2005, 03:27 AM
The current jews claimed to be following and believing in Prophets whom their ancestors rejected or killed. In this way they were repeating the pattern of rejecting their current Prophet, and allowing their descendents to profess belief in the previous prophet when the next prophet would come. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh was the final prophet and this pattern of rejecting coud not continue.
How is this different than any other nation or people? Every nation and people has its wicked.
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-04-2005, 03:28 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Yes I am aware that many (mostly missionaries) try to make this argument, but I am forunate enough to have study the subject in some depth, and therefore can recognize the falsity of their charges.

There is a good book (which i keep recommending :) ) by M. M. Al-Azami on the compilation of the Qur'an as well as the Old Testament and New Testament. He relies completely on textual proof and it is the definitive response to all charges on the subject.
Ansar, you realize I can basically say the same for the Torah?
Reply

yoshiyahu
04-04-2005, 03:30 AM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
He was refering to identifying prophets within that time. That is the law that is written in the Torah.

Some commentative rules: Bad prophecies do not have to come true because God may have changed his mind, but Good events prophesized must come true as only those who merited them would recieve them.
Correct. Also, the ceasing of prophecy is temporary. Elijah the Prophet will return at the appointed time, restore prophecy, and sometime thereafter the Messiah will come.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-04-2005, 03:36 AM
Originally Posted by yoshiyahu
How is this different than any other nation or people?
It isn't. Any nation that meets those criteria also applies.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-04-2005, 03:37 AM
Originally Posted by SpaceFalcon2001
Some commentative rules: Bad prophecies do not have to come true because God may have changed his mind, but Good events prophesized must come true as only those who merited them would recieve them.
:omg: !!


Gotta go. I'll post on that later.
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-05-2005, 12:56 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
:omg: !!
Is that surprising Al-'Adl? That one can do something that would rouse the anger of God, but could repent to appease him?
Yonah 3:9-10
9. Whoever knows shall repent, and God will relent, and He will return from His burning wrath, and we will not perish.


10. And God saw their deeds, that they had repented of their evil way, and the Lord relented concerning the evil that He had spoken to do to them, and He did not do it.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-05-2005, 01:14 AM
That doesn't really answer the problem SF2K.

Allow me to explain.

-God is perfect
-God knows everything
-God knows the future
-To say that God changed His mind implies an error in His past judgement or lack of foresight.


God does not change His mind when He forgives seomeone. He knew who would repent and who would not. That doesn't change His displeasure with you before you repent.

It's like a teacher giving their students a test. The teacher knows which students will do well and which won't (obviously God's knowledge is much more certain than a teacher's but its the same concept).

:w:
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-05-2005, 01:41 AM
I believe I may have put it in a way you misunderstood, but this is expected.
To continue with your teacher example, think of it this way:

You are going to fail class, the teacher offers you the oppertunity to make up a bad test, allowing you to pass, if you study for it.

You now have a choice, you can study and make up the test, or you can fail.

The teacher knows if you are the kind of student who will make it up or not, but they offer it anyway.

God gives you the choice. He says "such and such will befall you unless you repent", the repentance is completely up to you. An issue that Judaism accepts is the fact that we have free will, because we are not puppets on strings. Omniscientiance tells us that God will know whether we will repent or not (the threat of punishment being the nessicairy incentive for us), but it is anthropomorphisized as if he has reacted to us (the same way that saying the Hand of God does not mean an actual Hand of human imagination).

Exodus 32:14 The Lord [then] reconsidered the evil He had said He would do to His people.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
04-07-2005, 09:55 PM
:sl:
Okay, let me address some of the points I didn't get before, due to lack of time.

First I have a general question about a comment on the Torah I read. Is it true that the written Torah is really a commentary on the Oral Torah given to Prophet Moses? I was under the impression that Prophet Moses was given the Torah actually recorded on tablets.
I'd appreciate any clarification on this subject.

Moving on,
I asked for evidence that Prophecy had ceased at the time of Prophet Muhammad pbuh and Prophet Jesus pbuh, and the evidence presented was:

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 11a, Yoma 9b, Sotah 48b, Tosefta Sotah 13:4, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8:11) records a formal decision made by the Sanhedrin that the office of prophet was formally closed with Malachi.
They were the panel of 71 Judges who begun their appointment in the book of Judges (previously, since Judges could only be someone who had recieved smicha "ordination", Moses and Joshua had been the effective Judges of Torah law). Consider them the Jewish supreme court for Torah law, and each one had to be ordained in a direct line from Moses.
http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/sanhedrin.htm
These Judges are mandated by God in Deut. 16:18, but Sanhedrin usually refers to the highest court.
Devarim 16:18 You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment.

I can understand the appointment of Judges in any society, and its part of Islamic law as well, but I don't see where God gives the authority to the judges to determine when Prophecy pauses and for how long etc. If you examine the Rashi commentary, he only refers to the affairs of the society as the function of the Judges.

So if you could clarify how these Judges came up with this decision, it would be greatly appreciated.

Also I had trouble finding the references from the Talmud you provided. The format is very different from other scriptures, so if you could help me out in how to freferences from the Talmud, that would be greatly appreciated.

And Yoshiyahu also mentioned:
Hosea 3:4,5
Hoshea 3:4-5 For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor teraphim.

Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.


And Rashi commentary reads:
having neither king nor prince nor sacrifice in the Temple in Judah.
nor pillar The pillar of Baal in Samaria of the kings of Israel.
nor ephod of the Urim and Tummim, which discloses to them hidden things.
teraphim They are images constructed, having in mind a particular hour established, at which time they speak of their own accord and tell of hidden things. So does Jonathan translate: and there shall be no ephod or oracle.

Yoshiyahu, I'm a little confused as to how this relates to a period with no Prophets. Even if it did, how do we know that this isn't the period between Prophet Jesus and Prophet Muhammad saws?

Moreover, SpaceFalcon has made an interesting point on Judaic theology:
Some commentative rules: Bad prophecies do not have to come true because God may have changed his mind, but Good events prophesized must come true as only those who merited them would recieve them.
So according to this, even if we found the ceasing of Prophets written anywhere in the Torah (which I have yet to see), God could have changed His mind and sent another Messenger!

So we already accpet that the covenant of God was for both Israel and Ishmael, and we have accepted that the Jews as a nation cannot claim perfect adherence to the Law througout history, just like any other nation cannot.
And we have seen that islam does not claim to be a new religion, but simply a continuation of the message of the previous Prophets.

I found the information on the Ark very interesting, but I'm still not sure how that demonstrates that Prophets cannot recieve revelation from God without it.


:W:
Reply

SpaceFalcon2001
04-08-2005, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
First I have a general question about a comment on the Torah I read. Is it true that the written Torah is really a commentary on the Oral Torah given to Prophet Moses? I was under the impression that Prophet Moses was given the Torah actually recorded on tablets.
Haha, no no. The torah was always a scroll, and the commandments in Ex. 20 and Ex. 34 were inscribed on Tablets.

Also, the Oral law is the way conveyed to Moses as to how we should keep the 613 commandments.

The most obvious example is "...you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you..." (Deuteronomy 12:21). As rashi wrote:
you may slaughter… as I have commanded you We learn [from here] that there is a commandment regarding slaughtering, how one must slaughter. [Since this commandment is not written in the Torah we deduce that] these are the laws of ritual slaughtering given orally to Moses on [Mount] Sinai. — [Sifrei ; Chul. 28a]
I can understand the appointment of Judges in any society, and its part of Islamic law as well, but I don't see where God gives the authority to the judges to determine when Prophecy pauses and for how long etc.
They are the main authorities by order of God. They have the divine right of supreme interpretation of the law's implementation. They make formal decisions based on Torah and Oral law (Much like Rabbis, except they had the right to impose additional things such as a death sentance for murder, where a Rabbi does not have that authority).

I do not have those tractates (as the talmud is 73 seperate books, it's a bit expensive to purchase), so I cannot quote the exact conversation at this time.
Also I had trouble finding the references from the Talmud you provided. The format is very different from other scriptures, so if you could help me out in how to freferences from the Talmud, that would be greatly appreciated.
If you can find a copy of the talmud, then I reccomend you consult with a Rabbi. The talmud is, by nature, difficult to follow. The pages offered should reveal their conclusions, although the argument may extend back several pages, with intermittent arguments.
So according to this, even if we found the ceasing of Prophets written anywhere in the Torah (which I have yet to see), God could have changed His mind and sent another Messenger!
According to the opinon of Rambam a prophet who claims a good thing will happen must happen. However, the ending of the prophets was not prophisized, it was an event that occured as a reaction to the loss of the communication tool (the Ark), see quote below.
I found the information on the Ark very interesting, but I'm still not sure how that demonstrates that Prophets cannot recieve revelation from God without it.
Exodus 25:22: "I will commune with you there [through the Tabernacle/Temple], speaking to you from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubs that are on the Ark of Testimony. [In this manner] I will give you instructions for the Israelites."
The sanhedrin interpreted this to refer to the fact that God would communicate to Israel through the Ark. Thus Rashi said:
I will arrange My meetings with you there When I arrange a meeting for you to speak with you, [it is at] that place that I will arrange for the meeting where I will come to speak to you.

The sanhedrin declared that God specifically restricted his consultation with Israel to the holy of holies through the ark, and when the Ark was removed [by God] then the ability for prophets to speak with God was also removed.
Reply

Andaraawus
10-25-2006, 06:57 PM
I was just reading Space Falcons signature

سلام
الله اكبر
لا إله إلا الله
أمّة إسرائيل حيّه
هذا أرضي و بلدي

"peace.. Allah is the greatest, there is no G-d but Allah, the nation of Israel is ___? (i dont know what the word حيّه means) then he says "this is my earth and my ____? (land i think) can somebody correct me because i am curious
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-24-2018, 03:25 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:33 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 09-09-2006, 11:12 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!