Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

Hugo ,you added nothing new in ur last post....

believe it or not ,I won't reference a writer unless his material is unique and creative,written by none but him....

and believe it or not, me and many others won't accept any interpreatation away from the literal .... unless there is a strong support to do otherwise...

listen to such advice :
"It must be remembered that a deviation from the literal sense is not justified unless the Scriptures themselves prescribe such a course." Bible Difficulties, by Apologist W. Arndt, p. 133

if you gonna repeat the last two points again ,sorry to tell you , your posts would be skipped immediately.....

I have the impression that , according to your posts till now, you are establishing yourself as one debater who would instead of concentrating on the core of the arguments, would resort to other issues etc...
hope you prove me that such impression is wrong ...

format_quote Originally Posted by thetruth2009

Assalam aleykoum,

What I understand in the Quran, Adam and EVE where not in the paradise promise to all human.

Assalam aleykoum.

yes ,that is an understanding ,that is why I said it was a controversy......
but I mentioned some reasons to support the other understanding , including the use of the difinite article before (paradise) and the Hadith authentic, moreover

[020:118] `It is decreed for thee that thou shalt not hunger therein nor shalt thou be naked `And that thou shalt not thirst therein, nor shall thou be exposed to the sun.'

the verse strengthen more the idea that Adam wasn't naked before the sin, also he wasn't exposed to sun ever....

it is notmal for the heavenly paradise to be without sun as described in another Quranic verse to be all time shades ......

that is why I accept such understanding as stronger ,makes much sense ....

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

Believe it or not ,I won't reference a writer unless his material is unique and creative,written by none but him....

You may do as you think best but it is not in any way regarded as a good scholarship since anyone reading your post is entitled to think it is entirely your own work. The reason one references is to lend support to what you have said. It is not a modern idea and one might point out to you that Islamic scholars are meticulous in this respect - have you never heard of Isnads?

How you can know a writer's material is unique and creative I cannot tell but usually we assess a writer by the meticulousness in which they provide footnotes, reference's and pointers to other reading and in this way we can pick out what is new and interesting in what they have said.

I don't know if you are at or going to University but these days every piece of written work is checked for any kind of copying and if it is discovered to have been done without attribution the consequences may be serious. In fact the usual principle used is that if as little as 6 words are copied they must be referenced and if 10 more more words are copied without attribution then it is declared as plagiarism. If it is common knowledge or obvious then one does not need to reference but you must know the difference

offtopic, waste of space has been skipped!

Ismael And Isaac:
(part 1 of 2)

What is the hardest test would ever be?

Is it when the almighty requests from his beloved prophet all his wealth?
Or may be to give his life for the almighty and kill himself?
may be sacrifycing the second of his two children?
Is it the test that the one being tested would guess in advance its result?
Or the one which the one is being taken by surprise, not sure what will be the almighty’s reaction?

In the case of Abraham ,logic (even without the textual support) would tell that the Divine test in order to be the hardest should be

1-Choosing the most precious thing in Man’s life ,which in the case of Abraham has to be the long awaited son,which I think his birth was the happiest day in all Abraham’s life , he is Abraham’s first born ,It won't greatly aflect Abraham if he would lose Hagar,Sarah,his wealth,himself, but not such long awaited most precious gift …..

2-Abraham should have known nothing to get him guess what kind of divine reaction during the issue, neither getting any clue that the child will be saved…


The bible fells short considering such crucial points:
1-Instead of choosing the proper material(Ismael) for such divine test ,would rather put Isaac instead, while common sense would suggest that such divine test should have been made before the birth of Isaac …
What is the rationale that God would postpone such test till Abraham get another child……

Which is more proper,harder?:
God to Abraham:
1- Abraham go and sacrifice your only ,long awaited son whom you had at your old age .
2- Abraham go sacrifice one of your sons, the second not the first born.



To get the matter worse, According to the bible ,Abraham had clues that he is not gonna lose his child…
Eg; Abraham had been assured by God that “Your seed will be called through Isaac” (Gen. 21:12)
Abraham was promised before the test that Isaac will have a seed and nation…… a clue for Abraham to guess the matter,making the test less hard..
Before he went to the location of the sacrifice he said Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you."
A hint that Abraham guessed Isaac won’t be sacrifieced and would trun back with him !.....
In sum the bible fails to provide a satisfactory picture of a divine test as it should have been,unlike the Quran and its picture which seems more convincing….


What is the meaning and significance to such test?

till P.2

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

offtopic, waste of space has been skipped!

Ah, it doesn't take very long even for those who have been on the forum for a brief while to spot B.S I guess!

The Quran and the child of the sacrifice:

The issue shouldn't be a point of contention for muslims, as it's not the point of the story(more later in this point)...

however for curiosity let's give the irrefutable clue of the sacrifice as being Ismael:

just let's read a Quranic passage that have the answer:

Holy Quran
[37:83] Among his followers was Abraham.
[37:84] He came to his Lord wholeheartedly.
[37:85] He said to his father and his people, "What are you worshipping?
[37:86] "Is it these fabricated gods, instead of GOD, that you want?
[37:87] "What do you think of the Lord of the universe?"
[37:88] He looked carefully at the stars.
[37:89] Then he gave up and said, "I am tired of this!"
[37:90] They turned away from him.
[37:91] He then turned on their idols, saying, "Would you like to eat?
[37:92] "Why do you not speak?"
[37:93] He then destroyed them.
[37:94] They went to him in a great rage.
[37:95] He said, "How can you worship what you carve?
[37:96] "When GOD has created you, and everything you make!"
[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.
[037:102] 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.
[37:103] They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to sacrifice him).
[37:104] We called him: "O Abraham.
[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.
[37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.
[37:108] And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
[37:109] Peace be upon Abraham.
[37:110] We thus reward the righteous.
[37:111] He is one of our believing servants.
[37:112] Then we gave him the good news about the birth of Isaac, to be one of the righteous prophets.
[37:113] We blessed him and Isaac. Among their descendants, some are righteous, and some are wicked transgressors.


Not only the passage, suggests two distinct good news but makes the good news of the child mentioned in verse 101 specific for Ismael even if it doesn’t mention his name…
Read the context again :

[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.

According to the context :

Abraham was saved from the pagan fire and abandoned those pagan people, he moved to begin new life,prayed for God to have righteous seed, and was given un-named son that was described as a forbearing son.
Now we should pause and think….. if this un-named child is the same child who will be mentioned in verse 112 (Isaac) then we suggest that Isaac was born before Ismael ,hence suggesting that the Quran would contradict the bible ,claiming Isaac to be older than Ismael !!
But why not?!

[014:039] "Praise be to God, Who hath granted unto me in old age Isma'il and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of Prayer!
Note, (1)Ismael (2) Isaac

[002:133] Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

(1)Abraham (2)Ismael (3)Isaac

So for those who suggests the two good news as mere a repetition to the same issue then I invite them to explain how could Isaac be the first son to Abraham !!!

Till Part.3

peace

sob7an Allah, how many 'Muslim impersonators' do we have on board.. believe me drawing parallels between the Quran and the bible or alleging that the Jesus worshipers are monotheists will not generate the sort of awe and wonderment you perceive with hordes going back to embrace the dark ages of Christianity.. it only serves to expose you faster may I suggest you find another way about your evangelizing?

all the best

The Biblical story of Abraham covers about 7 or 8 chapters of Genesis. The story is simply told and began when Abraham heard God's call when he was living in Ur (near Basra in Iraq). Ur was at the time the centre of the Chaldean civilization but Abraham left it to wander in the Land of Israel which at that time was largely populated by nomads. So it was a great act of faith to give up being part of a glittering civilization and follow God. One might add that there is almost nothing inn the Genesis account that allows us to date these events with certainty but there seems general agreement that they occurred some 4,500 years ago.

Genesis 15 (NIV) 2. But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3. And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir." 4. Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 6. Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. 7. He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."

After about 10 years with no sign of offspring Sarah Abraham wife urged him to take her slave Hagar who she later treated very badly.

15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

The story more or less jumps 10 years so we read

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

This I think makes it clear that Isaac is the son of the promise though not first born. Later we have the sad story of Sarah viciously driving out Hagar and Ishmael and although Abraham it seems would have intervened, God held him back but promised a heritage for Ishmael. Ishmael then more or less disappears from the narrative and the story continues with Isaac and then the rest of Genesis, some 25 chapters, is taken up with the story of Jacob.

One might argue that the text has been redacted but if so it would have had to happen about a 1,000 years before Islam began since we have manuscripts going back a very long way. I don't doubt that they were edited much like any book, it has to be assembled but I cannot see why anyone would alter this story to favour Isaac over Ishmael and to me it has all the hall marks or truth.

The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author.
This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.)

1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3)

2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1)

3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4)

4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2)

So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac.

Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas):

1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4)

2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10)

3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20)

4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13)

4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)


From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible:

1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12)
2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12)
3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.)
4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9)
5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10)

Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest.

Ishmael a wild donkey of a man?

This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "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.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it.
Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10).
As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was!

Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’

The Bible says of Ishmael: “…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.” (Genesis 16:12)

In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God.
But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence.
One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots?
So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions?

Ishmael is considered illegitimite?

This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite?
Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was.

The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused!

The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.
With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused:

The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27)

Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.

Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused.

Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions:

A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15)
B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20)
C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18)

Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

Hagar was an Egyptian princess and a daughter of the pharaoh:

The Rabbis present Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaiden, as an Egyptian princess whom Pharaoh king of Egypt gave to Sarah as a gift. She grew up in the home of Abraham and Sarah, and converted. Sarah initially had to persuade Hagar to marry Abraham (to compensate for her own barrenness), but Hagar quickly became accustomed to her new status, taking advantage of it in order to vex Sarah and disparage her in the eyes of others. The midrash tells that Abraham grew close to Hagar and ceased viewing her as a handmaiden. He heeded his wife as regards Hagar, but he also took care not to harm the latter. Sarah, in contrast, treated her handmaiden harshly and abused her in various ways, causing her to flee to the wilderness


http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/...sh-and-aggadah

According to both Midrash and the Koran, Hagar had been an Egyptian princess, and
Sarai was a Babylonian princess. They were then both slaves in foreign lands, forced to
have relations with other men

http://www.shaarzahav.org/sites/defa...h5768_Dorf.pdf


Hagar, the maid, had been given to her ten years earlier while they were in Egypt (Gen. 12). While the Bible says nothing of Hagar's pedigree, the book of Jasher tells us that she was the daughter of Pharaoh himself. Pharaoh gave his daughter to Sarai as restitution for taking her into his harem.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o...cfm?LogID=1941

thus one wonders once again why your bible is so inconsistent with other recorded history? And which parts of it should we deem credible and which a farce?

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

Just like to point out the 67% of the post is copied from 3 websites the most prominent being multicom.ba

actually it is 70% from the Quran.. you should work on your statistics as well!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

but not all in the same place is it, and what was copied in it entirety is from the place I stated. People may copy all thy want but in fairness they should tell us where it comes from and we can then judge as to its quality - do you see it differently, that anything goes?

No, I don't think it matters any, especially with your tendencies to exaggerate as I have demonstrated above with your faulty stats and frankly that is very telling about the 'quality' that you present!

all the best

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

]The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers.

This claim can be substantiated, you know who this rabbi is? If this is the scholarly way Islamic belief is structured with innuendo then it is of little worth.

4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)

This is not totally correct, Gen 15:4 was addressed to Abraham and may refer to both sons.

From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite.

What is worrying here is that in the post there is not a single reference to an Islamic source and for all we know the writer is just inventing his propositions. Clearly the Bible account is of much greater antiquity and pre-dates any Islamic account by at least a 1,000 years in terms of manuscript evidence. What is also worrying here is that we have an author who claims wholesale Biblical corruption and yet uses the same Bible to supposedly prove his points. For example he quotes Jeremiah to show that the Bible itself admits corruption but to do that we have to assume that Jeremiah itself is NOT corrupted so we have a circular and valueless argument.

No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim.

Not sure what point you are making as what evangelical claim is neither here nor there. Does for example, the Bible claim this? One might say here in a similar argument that the view that the Qu'ran is written by God is preposterous since no material evidence to that supposed fact is possible

It is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled maliciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character.

Of course its is possible but is it credible and there is not a shred of evidence. One might also point out what possible motive would anyone have for corrupting the text in this way which lets face it shows Abraham as weak and vacillating and Sarah as vindictive. If it did occur why is there no sign of this corruption, surely a bit of it would have survived but there is nothing.

No non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham.

This is just nonsense and there are numerous cases of non-Jews in the linages - look at Rahab and Ruth for instance

As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.)

I cannot quite see this argument and in any case it overstates the case, it is true they were brother and sister by different parents but the Bible does not hide any of this does it

The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure.

Or of course he is simply telling the truth - I ask you again what possible motive can there be to vilify ones own prophets and ancestry if it is not the truth - it does not make sense

It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was

What EVIDENCE, so far all that has been offered is Biblical texts and opinion. Some of the argument here are crazy:

How can a verses about Ishmael be proof positive that the Bible is the Word of God. He then wanders into a rose tinted view of Muslim history again without a single clear reference to anything and how it links to the Biblical narrative I have no idea. Then we have an argument about a claim that Ishmael is illegitimate though the Bible record is plain, does the Bible say Ishmael is illegitimate - this author it seems does not know. The Bible is clear, Isaac was the son of the promise and the covenant would see its fulfilment trough his lineage and that is indeed what happened and of that there is no doubt. The idea that Ishmael and Isaac have been confused is silly since we have all of Jews History to look back on.

.. the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.

But what is the source of these Islamic teaching and lets face it the whole arguments is based on wholes sale corruption but without a single bit of evidence to support it.

The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27). Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.

Not sure what this is saying unless it muddles up Abraham's age with Isaac's.

Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abraham's ONLY son?

Ishmael had been banished by this time and we don't know the time line here because the Bible just say "sometime later.." so its seem correct to say 'only son'

Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions: A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15). B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20) and C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18). Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

This is a weak argument, we are told the 'boy' is put under a bush, shrub (not all shrubs are tiny) so nothing startling there. Later we are told she supported him with her hand so again nothing to draw any conclusions about his age and there seem nothing even remotely strange about calling a 14 year old a 'lad'. So this posting is nothing but conjecture based on a biased view and wanting to see only what one wants to prop up an Islamic position and as I have said repeatedly, not a single Islamic source has been cited.

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

what was copied in it entirety is from the place I stated.

you are really,poor

that is my comment in the verses which wasn't copied from any site..

I challenge you to prove that my comments on the verses was a copy and paste quotation

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

According to the context :

Abraham was saved from the pagan fire and abandoned those pagan people, he moved to begin new life,prayed for God to have righteous seed, and was given un-named son that was described as a forbearing son.
Now we should pause and think….. if this un-named child is the same child who will be mentioned in verse 112 (Isaac) then we suggest that Isaac was born before Ismael ,hence suggesting that the Quran would contradict the bible ,claiming Isaac to be older than Ismael !!
But why not?!

[014:039] "Praise be to God, Who hath granted unto me in old age Isma'il and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of Prayer!
Note, (1)Ismael (2) Isaac

[002:133] Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

(1)Abraham (2)Ismael (3)Isaac

So for those who suggests the two good news as mere a repetition to the same issue then I invite them to explain how could Isaac be the first son to Abraham !!!

format_quote Originally Posted by Hugo

This claim can be substantiated, you know who this rabbi is? If this is the scholarly way Islamic belief is structured with innuendo then it is of little worth.
This is not totally correct, Gen 15:4 was addressed to Abraham and may refer to both sons.

The claim can be substantiated and has been, we are merely working with biblical content of contradiction, we haven't gone into historical worth!

What is worrying here is that in the post there is not a single reference to an Islamic source and for all we know the writer is just inventing his propositions. Clearly the Bible account is of much greater antiquity and pre-dates any Islamic account by at least a 1,000 years in terms of manuscript evidence.

Age of manuscript doesn't denote accuracy of manuscript. It is in fact christian scholars and not Muslim ones that contend that your 'original' bible if such a thing has ever been is now lost. The content that we have to work with is filled with contradiction. Other sources whether religious or historical have more weightiness than forgeries of old!

What is also worrying here is that we have an author who claims wholesale Biblical corruption and yet uses the same Bible to supposedly prove his points. For example he quotes Jeremiah to show that the Bible itself admits corruption but to do that we have to assume that Jeremiah itself is NOT corrupted so we have a circular and valueless argument.

That is in fact the whole point, bringing an argument from Islamic text is sure to be met with your usual barrage of protest.. what better source than the bible itself, corrupt and exposes itself as erroneous at the same time!

Not sure what point you are making as what evangelical claim is neither here nor there. Does for example, the Bible claim this?

I don't understand the grammar of the above!

One might say here in a similar argument that the view that the Qu'ran is written by God is preposterous since no material evidence to that supposed fact is possible Of course its is possible but is it credible and there is not a shred of evidence.

One might say indeed, but can you prove it? the evidence for Quranic material is well established against other literature, against itself and against independent historical sources. Not the case with the bible, not in agreement with itself, not in agreement with common sense, and not in agreement with history. If you'd like to start a thread on the corruption of the bible vs. the Quran pls do so on a separate thread in keeping with the integrity of this, there is more to the term evidence than your protests and mere hearsay!

One might also point out what possible motive would anyone have for corrupting the text in this way which lets face it shows Abraham as weak and vacillating and Sarah as vindictive. If it did occur why is there no sign of this corruption, surely a bit of it would have survived but there is nothing. This is just nonsense and there are numerous cases of non-Jews in the linages - look at Rahab and Ruth for instance

Most of us remember Ishmael in Genesis by the comment, he shall be “a wild-ass of a man” and some consider him to be somehow illegitimate.

Let us clear up these misconceptions. For sources we’ll use The Stone Edition Chumash The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with A Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings by Mesorah Publishing as well as the Artscroll Tanach Series Bereishsis/ Genesis A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz with Overviews by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and a Foreword by HaGoan HaRav Mordechai Gifter, published by Mesorah Publication Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Chumash or Bereishsis/ Genesis respectively.

From the Chumash we read 16:3, So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maidservant – after 10 years of Abram’s dwelling in the Land of Canaan – and gave her to Abram her husband, to him as a wife. He consorted with Hagar and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was lowered in her esteem.

16 The Birth of Ishmael. Despite their spiritual riches and Godly assurances, Abraham and Sarah were still heartbroken at their barrenness, for without heirs they would not be able to continue the mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind. Recognizing that it was she who was infertile, Sarah suggested that Abraham marry her maidservant Hagar, and, if a son were born, Sarah would raise him, so that he would be considered her adopted child.

Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh. After seeing the miracles that were brought on Sarah’s behalf when she was abducted and taken to his palace, he gave her to Hagar, saying, “Better that she be a servant in their house, than a princess in someone else’s.” So it was that Hagar, an Egyptian princess, became Abraham’s wife and bore him Ishmael.

In the notes to verse 4 – Her mistress was lowered. Hagar brazenly boasted to the ladies, “Since so many years have passed without Sarai having children, she cannot be as righteous as she seems. But I conceived immediately!” (Rashi). Now that Hagar had assured Abraham’s posterity, she no longer felt subservient to Sarah (Radak).

A few notes about Sarah and Hagar from verses 6 – 8:
Verse 6 “your maidservant is in your hand; do to her as you see fit.” To me she is a wife; and I have no right to treat her unkindly. But to you she is a servant; if she mistreats you, do what you feel is right. (Radak; Haamek Davar). Sarah’s intent was not malicious, but to force Hagar to cease from her insulting demeanor. But instead of acknowledging Sarah’s superior position, Hagar fled (Arbarbanel; Sforno).

Rabbi Aryeh Levin noted that it is congruous to believe that a woman as righteous as Sarah would persecute another human being out of personal pique. Rather, Sarah treated Hagar as she always had, but in the light of Hagar’s newly inflated self-image, she took it as persecution.

We’ll leave the issue of Hagar for the moment except to pause to list the prophecies about Ishmael AT THIS TIME:

V10 And an Angel of Hashem said to her, “I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.”
V 11 And an Angel of Hashem said to her, “Behold, you will conceive, and give birth to a son; his name shall be Ishmael, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild-ass of a man; his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell.”
The prophecy in verse 10 sounds VERY familiar to ones about Abraham’s’ descendants, while verse 11 gives us our other prophecy. We will return to Hagar later, Insha’ Allah.


Let us return to matter relating to Israel’s uncle Ishmael. In chapter 17, Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God:
v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…] to be honest, I totally missed the hijra comment the first time I read this because I wasn’t a Muslim and I didn’t know what they meant by hegira! But we do have one prophecy that at least according to the Jews, puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy!


I got lazy and copied this from the Jewish Publication Society, the first half of Genesis chapter 25:

1 And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.

2 And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah

3 And Jokshan begot Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.

4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, a hundred threescore and fifteen years

8 And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

9 And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;

10 the field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth; there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son; and Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi.

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bore unto Abraham.

13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

14 and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa;

15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedem;

16 these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations

17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered unto his people.

18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Asshur: over against all his brethren he did settle.

Let’s begin with the part dealing with Ishmael first. We see in verse 9 that both Isaac and Ishmael buried their Abraham, what does this tell us? Well, for one, we can confirm that there was NEVER a time during Abraham’s life when Isaac was Abraham’s firstborn, NOR was there EVER a time during Abraham’s life when Isaac was to Abraham “your son, your only son”. Those terms could ONLY be used to describe Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son. But we are not here to speculate who changed THAT story!

In Bereishsis/ Genesis, the notes for verse 17. Ishmael’s age is given because it assists in calculations with respect to [dating the various events which occurred during the life of] Jacob (Rashi [Yevamos 64a]) [and this is footnoted, which reads in part: 1 Rashi goes on to explain that we calculate from Ishmael’s age at his death that Jacob attended the Academy of Eber for fourteen years from the time he left his fathers’ house to the time he arrived at Laban’s house (as explained in Megillah 17a); to which we have the sub footnote: [Briefly, according to the data cited in Megillah 17a, when Jacob stood before Pharaoh he should have been 116 years old, yet Jacob himself gave his age as 130(Gen. 47:9). The discrepancy is explained by the fact that he spent fourteen years in the Academy of Eber after leaving his fathers’ house.]
According to Ramban [to this verse but cited in v12] Ishmael’s age is noted here because he repented and the age of the righteous is generally stated. Rashbam holds that it is recorded as a mark of honor for Abraham. Since the torah had mentioned Abraham’s age at Ishmael’s birth, and Ishmael’s age when he underwent circumcision. It now concludes by mentioning his lifespan. Further on we read Rashi comments that…is only mentioned in the case of righteous people [such as Ishmael, since he repented…]…
According to R’ Bachya it [the phrase “and was gathered unto his people”] is based the use in our verse of both expired and died – which refer to the death only of the righteous – and the Sages said that Ishmael repented of his evil ways.

So whatever ill will the Jews may harbor against Ishmael [that they say he had “evil” ways], he is cleared of any error and claimed by JEWISH Sages to be “of the righteous!” note the similarity in regards to Abraham in verse 8 And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. Compared to of Ishmael in verse 17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered unto his people.

Also, consider that we saw in the notes to Genesis 16 “that Abraham and Sarah were still heartbroken at their barrenness, for without heirs they would not be able to continue the mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind. Recognizing that it was she who was infertile, Sarah suggested that Abraham marry her maidservant Hagar, and, if a son were born, Sarah would raise him, so that he would be considered her adopted child.” This tells us that it was the intent of Abraham and Sarah to raise Ishmael “so that he would be considered her adopted child!” it stands within reason but our case doesn’t rely solely on it, that in their job of “parenting” Ishmael [up until the birth of Isaac] that they would have sent him to the “Academy of Eber in Jerusalem” for proper training in the “mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind.” So from Ishmael's beginning and again at the end of his life we can put him in the category of the “sons” of Eber, and thus an Hebrew.


We will take another look at Hagar, just in case any see her as a reason to disqualify Ishmael as one of the “righteous.” Let’s look again at 25:1, And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.
The notes say that there is a Hebrew word in the phrase which means “again” which would literally mean: And Abraham again took a wife, which is interpreted by the Sages to intimate the Abraham remarried to before: Hagar.

Keturah is Hagar, who received this name because her deeds were as beautiful as incense [ketores]; also because she remained chaste…from the time she had separated from Abraham (Midrash; Rashi).
In 21:14 Rashi comments that Hagar reverted to the idolatry of her father’s house. How then does he now call her action “beautiful as incense?” – Rather, when she was expelled from Abraham’s household she felt forsaken even by his God and she intended to revert to her idolatrous ways. But when the miracle occurred at the well, she repented (Gur Aryeh).

The Zohar similarly comments that although she had relapsed into her ancestral idolatry, she later repented and changed her name, after which Abraham sent for and married her. From this we see that a change of name males atonement for guilt, for she made this change of name symbolic of her change of behavior.
[Immediately following this there is a note discussing some Hebrew phraseology which…denotes that Keturah was righteous and fit for Abraham.]

Although Hagar/Keturah was a first generation Egyptian and hence forbidden in marriage [see Deut.32: 9], nevertheless, since his first marriage to her was with God’s sanction, she remained permissible to him for remarriage as well. Furthermore, the Midrash [Bereishis Rabbah 60:4] specifically states that Abraham married Keturah/Hagar by Divine Command (Tur).
Targum Yonasan renders the verse: and Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah; she is Hagar who had been bound to him…from the beginning.

So we here additionally that if there were any ill feelings on the part of the Jews for Hagar, regardless of whether or not she is Keturah, the Jewish sources claim that not only was Hagar “permissible” for Abraham, but they actually speak quite highly of her considering the circumstances. Based on that I would reject any effort to disqualify Ishmael as a “son of Eber” based upon anything said about him or his mother, Hagar.

The actual words of Dueteronomy require some "discussion" in order to explain some of the phrases which seem out of place, but that might actually help us with identifying that "prophet." THAT is the next step, Insha' Allah.

I cannot quite see this argument and in any case it overstates the case, it is true they were brother and sister by different parents but the Bible does not hide any of this does it Or of course he is simply telling the truth - I ask you again what possible motive can there be to vilify ones own prophets and ancestry if it is not the truth - it does not make senseWhat EVIDENCE, so far all that has been offered is Biblical texts and opinion. Some of the argument here are crazy:

Is a brother and sister by one different parent in your mind in concert with God's law, or a father sleeping with his daughters after being sent to warn an entire tribe of impending doom for exact similar crimes? as to what motive there is, well that is something you should direct at your elders. It is very simple in my book. Your scribes or forefathers see a perceived fault, for instant an entire population annihilated for homosexuality and then there is no one left for surely if the father didn't father his own grandchildren who would be left to tell the stories of sin?.. of course concocting and equally absurd story as to what happened is the only logical conclusion. Your bible is in fact replete with errors that I have no reservation whatsoever in posting one wonders how you perceive truth from two contradicting stories? Do you yield to whims or simply call the questioner crazy?

,

not a single Islamic source has been cited.

And if a 'single Islamic source is cited' would you then not find it biased? I think using your bible is the best proof at its own corruption and tampering!

all the best