Can I follow the Old Testament in Islam?

[Born_Believer]

You're all going in circles. This man obviously believes he can follow both the Old Testament and the Quran, yet he claims to read the Quran every night and doesn't understand how contradictory it sounds. He also claims to want to follow the teachings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH without the corruption of "modern Islam", whatever that is, yet still wants to believe in the Torah which has been clearly refuted by the Prophet PBUH himself.

Seriously, none of you should be wasting your time on here.

 

[talibilm]

@fschmidt

What is the Greek Influence of Islam ?

What is Modern Islam ?

Kindly explain with PROOF since i want to know how accurate is your conception

I had replied here on Jewish religion to some one pointing many facts in the thread below. Kindly go through all links especially ''Did Yahweh replace the Word Allah ? Whats your view ?

​

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?480238-Jewish-Religion&

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?480214-Reasons-to-believe-in-the-corruption-of-the-Torah&

​

@fschmidt

Hope you don't miss out my post.

 

[fschmidt]

What is the Greek Influence of Islam ?

I discussed some of this here:

https://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134343332-islam-defeated-plato.html#post2939274

But beyond this, Islam fell into the philosophy trap and never recovered. Philosophy threatens common sense, and one has to know how to respond to retain common sense.

What is Modern Islam ?

I am just learning the details now as I attend my local Islamic Center. But the result of Modern Islam is no science, bad government, and a poor standard of living. But this is still better than Western liberalism which produces immorality and eventually complete destruction.

Kindly explain with PROOF since i want to know how accurate is your conception

Statements about the real world cannot be proven. Only God knows for sure, which is why people should retain skepticism.

I had replied here on Jewish religion to some one pointing many facts in the thread below. Kindly go through all links especially ''Did Yahweh replace the Word Allah ? Whats your view ?

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?480238-Jewish-Religion&

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?480214-Reasons-to-believe-in-the-corruption-of-the-Torah&

I read some of this. The Hebrew name for God is YHVH whose pronunciation is unclear, but I say "Yehovah" (yu-ho-vah) based on my reading of the Hebrew. I see no reason to believe that the name was Allah.

You said that the Talmud is based on Psalms. This means that you have never read the Talmud. I suggest you look at it for yourself:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

 

[fschmidt]

The global monetary system is controlled by whom? Which banking families from which faith group? Judaism.

The Old Testament said that the Israelites were not to charge interest to each other, but could charge interest to outsiders. So the issue here is really who are the Israelites, not the charging of interest. And I would say that any group that respects God qualifies as at least somewhat "Israelite" and shouldn't be charged interest. As far I am concerned, the West today doesn't respect God, so the bankers are doing the world a favor by bankrupting the West. When the West was more Christian, it was much less dependent on debt. The West will soon lose its ability to invade other countries as it becomes poorer and less functional. And I believe that this is God's will, that the West declines and falls.

The corruptions in the OT are not just to do with debt slavery, but also how the "Lying pen of the scribes" (see Jeremiah 8 and other references too) changed the laws over time, amongst other things - Moses himself prophesied this, pbuh.

I know that Muslims consider the Quran perfect (as many religions do their own scripture), but my view is that anything touched by people is imperfect, and so one must be skeptical of everything. I don't expect perfection, I just look for the best that I can find, and the Old Testament qualifies there.

Let's not forget, fschmidt, that the Children of Israel hardly ever had anything good to say about their prophets and messengers. Did the prophets and messengers not get slandered? absued? exiled? killed? Of course they did.

This is the reality of all human nature. If Muhammad was reborn today, I have no doubt that modern Muslims would call him a heretic. Same for Jesus and Christians. It is human nature to hate the truth.

Khazar Judaism is based on the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism doesn't look to it.

I have never heard of Khazar Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is based on the Talmud. Just ask your local orthodox rabbi.

A very interesting comment. If I may, I'd like to ask you why. Personally, Herodotus' histories are the most realistic books I've read on human nature.

Herodotus wrote the ultimate soap operas, dramatized with many irrelevant details. (At least that is how I remember it.) The Old Testament is drier and more on point, even while describing true historical drama. There are moral lessons to be drawn from virtually everything found in the Old Testament.

Torah is the oral law of Moses, and the etymology of the word is related to the Hebrew word Yareh which means to "hit the mark", the target being, the truth about God and how one relates to HIM. It's the same with any holy book, they all claim the same. But they are all not the same.

Yes, and this supports my point of Torah meaning teaching (of truth), not meaning law. Of course all holy books claim to be true. The difference is in the means for following God's will? For the Old Testament, it is teaching (and understanding). For the New Testament, it is faith. For the Quran, it is submission.

 

[talibilm]

I discussed some of this here:

https://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134343332-islam-defeated-plato.html#post2939274

But beyond this, Islam fell into the philosophy trap and never recovered. Philosophy threatens common sense, and one has to know how to respond to retain common sense.


I am just learning the details now as I attend my local Islamic Center. But the result of Modern Islam is no science, bad government, and a poor standard of living. But this is still better than Western liberalism which produces immorality and eventually complete destruction.


Statements about the real world cannot be proven. Only God knows for sure, which is why people should retain skepticism.

I am giving a general answer to the points you raised about so called Modern Islam . Islam is untill for the day of Judgement so there if you want to the genuine Islam its only ONE and that's the way of Prophet :saws: & companions & the maximum two generations as seen from this hadith which are more than 10 from almost all of the different collectors of hadiths that speaks of the geneunity and importance of this text and matter.

Bukhari :: Book 3 :: Volume 48 :: Hadith 819

Narrated Zahdam bin Mudrab:
I heard Imran bin Husain saying, "The Prophet said, 'The best people are those living in my generation then those coming after them, and then those coming after (the second generation)." Imran said "I do not know whether the Prophet mentioned two or three generations after your present generation. The Prophet added, 'There will be some people after you, who will be dishonest and will not be trustworthy and will give witness (evidences) without being asked to give witness, and will vow but will not fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

and this hadith from Caliph Ali :ra: who is titled the best judge of the ummah had explain How Islam is not based on conscience though Science is a blessing and Mercy of Allah through humans mind to ease the Humans life as per the need of their times and may also be proved the correctness of Islam to a level.

'' Narrated / Authority Of: Ali ibn Abu Talib
If the religion were based on opinion, it would be more important to wipe the under part of the shoe than the upper but I have seen the Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wiping over the upper part of his shoes.

I read some of this. The Hebrew name for God is YHVH whose pronunciation is unclear, but I say "Yehovah" (yu-ho-vah) based on my reading of the Hebrew. I see no reason to believe that the name was Allah.

Allah is still used by the copts both Jews & Christians as was used by Prophet Abraham from the Kaaba comes from and Elah is Aramaic ( mix of Hebrew & arabic ) proves it too. So we see many 'Abdullah' names in Medina even before arrival of Islam because jews were living there who used Allah

You said that the Talmud is based on Psalms. This means that you have never read the Talmud. I suggest you look at it for yourself:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

I will renew my memory later from your link but I ve did comparative religion studies ( not to the level of Dr Zakir Naik ) but in my early teens ( 3 decades ago) and all the Image I still perceive is that, the OT is Torah, The Injeel is NT, Psalms and Talmud were from the distorted versions of Zaboor . Psalms were alloted the hymns part and added to the OT the practical points were distorted and transfered to Talmud . So Psalms were rather inserted in the OT which came about 600 years (approx) after Moses (pbuh) No wonder Allah said the Truth the Jews distorted books of Allah and also killed prophets ie John the baptist - Prophet Yahya was killed and they killed another Prophet some of them proudly proclaimed about Jesus the Messiah but were fooled .

 

[Scimitar]

The Old Testament said that the Israelites were not to charge interest to each other, but could charge interest to outsiders. So the issue here is really who are the Israelites, not the charging of interest. And I would say that any group that respects God qualifies as at least somewhat "Israelite" and shouldn't be charged interest. As far I am concerned, the West today doesn't respect God, so the bankers are doing the world a favor by bankrupting the West. When the West was more Christian, it was much less dependent on debt. The West will soon lose its ability to invade other countries as it becomes poorer and less functional. And I believe that this is God's will, that the West declines and falls.

Then, the Jews made God, racist. And you are claiming God is racist.

One cannot be a Jew unless one has the Jewish DNA. Jews cannot charge each other interest. But they can charge the "Goyim (non Jews) - even if they believe in God because "they are not Jews".

Bro, you fell into this one all by your self.

You're justifying racism via debt slavery and attributing this to God - I hope you realize this.

I know that Muslims consider the Quran perfect (as many religions do their own scripture), but my view is that anything touched by people is imperfect, and so one must be skeptical of everything. I don't expect perfection, I just look for the best that I can find, and the Old Testament qualifies there.

An empty claim without any comparatives between the scriptures.

This is the reality of all human nature. If Muhammad was reborn today, I have no doubt that modern Muslims would call him a heretic. Same for Jesus and Christians. It is human nature to hate the truth.

Well, Muslims and Christians are both awaiting Jesus pbuh return. And I agree with you, Christians in my opinion, will be the ones who have the biggest issues regarding Jesus pbuh.

Muslims on the other hand, will have no problem recognising him.

Jews on the other hand? will be doing facepalms on the behalf of their ancestors.

I have never heard of Khazar Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is based on the Talmud. Just ask your local orthodox rabbi.

Looks like your Rabbi, needs to take lessons from the rabbi I know. Can't believe you've not researched the Khazar con.

Herodotus wrote the ultimate soap operas, dramatized with many irrelevant details. (At least that is how I remember it.) The Old Testament is drier and more on point, even while describing true historical drama. There are moral lessons to be drawn from virtually everything found in the Old Testament.

yet his 'soap operas' resulted in archaeologists matching their finds to his histories, resulting in the title "father of history", a step up from the Jew inspired "Father of Lies" - which was a derogatory title given to Herodotus by the Jews... and so I do not find it all that surprising that you'd think he was writing "soap operas" lol.

You and about 13million people in the world would hold the same view, namely world Jewry. That's it.

The rest of the world, does not cling to bias, we prefer to let God reveal truths, over "time" - and Herodotus' histories, have more than proved themselves in this modern age of historical sciences - which is why we do not cling to ancient ideas such as "father of lies" when the modern age has proven that claim not only untrue, but heralds Herodotus as the "father of history" due to the Historical Sciences, such as archaeology, anthropology and an whole host of other ology's lending his narratives credence.

Yes, and this supports my point of Torah meaning teaching (of truth), not meaning law. Of course all holy books claim to be true. The difference is in the means for following God's will? For the Old Testament, it is teaching (and understanding). For the New Testament, it is faith. For the Quran, it is submission.

Being a unilingual speaker, you cannot appreciate the rooting system of semitic languages - Law = Truth. They are not separated. Strictly speaking, Torah means LAW, in the way of TRUTH.

Scimi

 

[talibilm]

Yeah there is a great straight forward point here '' Jews also made God into a racist '' ^o) Naudhubillah . +1 for @Scimitar

what else they did not make to disprove Islam ??

 

[Scimitar]

Assalaam alaikum bro Talibilm,

I'm not gonna get into what they did, and willy wave here, as it's not really conducive to this thread. The premise here is "can I follow the Torah as a Muslim?"

The short answer is no. Even the scholars approach with caution, simply because the Old Testament (Torah) is heavily nuanced and written by many authors and scribes, each particular to a period of in history.

The Torah, was collated over a period of a thousand plus years. From Moses pbuh time frame right up to the time when Jesus pbuh entered Jerusalem at the age of 30 odd.

And he had major issues with the rabbi's taking the Law (torah) and misapplying it to line their own pockets, and worse.

The issue here is not the corruptions in the scripture itself, as the scripture of the OT has suffered way less than the NT bible has... however, the issues with the OT are to do with "interpretation of law" among other things. This being the main card.

So, can we as Muslims look at the Torah for ideas about monotheism and practice of deen? No, they have their customs which suit them - we have ours which suit us.

After saying all that, I actually do read the OT, but only for comparative studies in eschatology, and the Qur'an and the ahadeeth take precedence over anything extra-curricular.

Had I done this the other way round? I'd be joining freemasons lol.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

For the record:

The Torah is the Written Law Moses received on Mount Sinai and the five books of Moses pbuh.

The Talmud - is the oral tradition which came much later, and is akin to the ahadeeth in Islam.

Schmidt, you confuse the two because you do not know how they apply to each other.

The Talmud does for the Torah, what the Ahadeeth do for the Qur'an - they explain matters in greater details.

These are human works, not divinely revealed, but dinvinely ordained. There is a difference.

The difference being, the ordained works were left to men. Whereas the divine works are revelation. Not explanation. Savvy?

I am surprised you did not know this fschmidt.

Claiming that Jews follow the Talmud and not the Torah, is highly presumptious of you and totally innacurate.

The Jews cannot follow the Talmud unless they read the Torah first. The Torah is the LAW, the Talmud explains the LAW.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

Then, the Jews made God, racist. And you are claiming God is racist.

One cannot be a Jew unless one has the Jewish DNA. Jews cannot charge each other interest. But they can charge the "Goyim (non Jews) - even if they believe in God because "they are not Jews".

Bro, you fell into this one all by your self.

You're justifying racism via debt slavery and attributing this to God - I hope you realize this.

I said Israelites, not Jews. Israelites weren't a race, they were simply the people/nation who followed God. You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

yet his [Herodotus's] 'soap operas' resulted in archaeologists matching their finds to his histories, resulting in the title "father of history", a step up from the Jew inspired "Father of Lies" - which was a derogatory title given to Herodotus by the Jews... and so I do not find it all that surprising that you'd think he was writing "soap operas" lol.

I am sure Herodotus is valuable to archaeologists, and I had no idea of the jewish opinion of him. My opinion is based simply on reading him, and I find him to be a horrible writer. Thucydides is much better and more deserving of the title "father of history".

Being a unilingual speaker, you cannot appreciate the rooting system of semitic languages - Law = Truth. They are not separated. Strictly speaking, Torah means LAW, in the way of TRUTH.

I speak English and Spanish and I can read some Hebrew. Here is part of 2 Kings 17:34 that contains several related words:

וְאֵינָ֣ם עֹשִׂ֗ים כְּחֻקֹּתָם֙ וּכְמִשְׁפָּטָ֔ם וְכַתֹּורָ֣ה וְכַמִּצְוָ֗ה

As usual, תּוֹרָ֣ה is mistranslated as "law" and חֻקֹּתָם֙ is translated as "statutes". But this is absurd because a statute is a law and in fact חֹק means law. There are many places in the Old Testament where torah is used where it makes no sense translated as "law". As for TRUTH, that is a whole other subject.

 

[Scimitar]

Hi Schmidt, good to read you again.

I said Israelites, not Jews. Israelites weren't a race, they were simply the people/nation who followed God. You clearly didn't read what I wrote.

True, well i mean "israelites" - not Jews, who would also include the "unclean races of the north" namely the Khazar. Thank you.

I am sure Herodotus is valuable to archaeologists, and I had no idea of the jewish opinion of him. My opinion is based simply on reading him, and I find him to be a horrible writer. Thucydides is much better and more deserving of the title "father of history".

I've read a little of Thucydides, and I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but he is also dubbed a "father of scientific history" because of his vigilance in collating evidence and scrutinising it. He was also quite dilligent in attributing acts in history to "cause and effect" without factoring in the beliefs of the people he wrote about - quite scientific in that way. He was also dubbed the father of political realism.

Thucidided wrote about the Peloponnesian wars. Whereas Herodotus wrote not only about the Greco-Persian wars, but also fables and myths extant at the time of his writing, and related these ton the various governances abounding in the known world at the time and he also factored in geographical and ethnographical information. In this way, he was ble to collate histories from a very large geographial expanse and thus, the title of Father of History, in the more generally accepted sense, it more suited to him. He was a traveller, someone who didn't just stay in his locality and write, but go out into the world to find alternative accounts of the histories he was attempting to pen. He would pen both sides and leave it to the reader to decide what he or she believed.

Archaeologists love him. They often go out into the world to find items of interest based on his histories. Thucidided doesn't get a consideration in this way.

The differences between Thucidides and Herodotus are many. Both are dubbed "fathers of history", but Herodotus carries that claim more soundly as Thucydides was categorised as "father of scientific history".

speak English and Spanish and I can read some Hebrew. Here is part of 2 Kings 17:34 that contains several related words:

וְאֵינָ֣ם עֹשִׂ֗ים כְּחֻקֹּתָם֙ וּכְמִשְׁפָּטָ֔ם וְכַתֹּורָ֣ה וְכַמִּצְוָ֗ה

As usual, תּוֹרָ֣ה is mistranslated as "law" and חֻקֹּתָם֙ is translated as "statutes". But this is absurd because a statute is a law and in fact חֹק means law. There are many places in the Old Testament where torah is used where it makes no sense translated as "law". As for TRUTH, that is a whole other subject.

The ten commandments, and the first five books are the LAW... that which is added after this, are narratives from other prophets and messengers as recorded by scribes which do not actually fit into the context of "LAW" but rather, "history".

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

Archaeologists love him [Herodotus]. They often go out into the world to find items of interest based on his histories.

Thank God that I am not an archaeologist, so I don't have to finish Herodotus.

The ten commandments, and the first five books are the LAW... that which is added after this, are narratives from other prophets and messengers as recorded by scribes which do not actually fit into the context of "LAW" but rather, "history".

No, the first five books are the TEACHING. That which is added after this are narratives from other prophets and messengers as recorded by scribes. These narratives illustrate the TEACHING using history.

Anyway, we don't have to agree. You have the Quran to guide you regardless of how you interpret the Old Testament. In my case, I accept that I can't follow the Old Testament in Islam, which means that I will never be Muslim. But I still attend my local mosque every Friday night for shabbat.

 

[Scimitar]

Thank God that I am not an archaeologist, so I don't have to finish Herodotus.


No, the first five books are the TEACHING. That which is added after this are narratives from other prophets and messengers as recorded by scribes. These narratives illustrate the TEACHING using history.

Anyway, we don't have to agree. You have the Quran to guide you regardless of how you interpret the Old Testament. In my case, I accept that I can't follow the Old Testament in Islam, which means that I will never be Muslim. But I still attend my local mosque every Friday night for shabbat.

Ya know bro, to be a Muslim, it's all about theology, and the theology of the Hebrews is the same as the theology of the Muslims. One God. No Partners, Not anthropomorhic, unimaginable - sent prophets an messengers to mankind, created all creation including that which we cannot see such as Jinn and Angels... etc... it's not HARD bro.

Anyway, on a side note, Thucydides never commented on the belief systems of the peoples he studied - I find it strange that you would prefer him over Herodotus, given that you are leaning towards monotheism and not scientology.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

Ya know bro, to be a Muslim, it's all about theology, and the theology of the Hebrews is the same as the theology of the Muslims. One God. No Partners, Not anthropomorhic, unimaginable - sent prophets an messengers to mankind, created all creation including that which we cannot see such as Jinn and Angels... etc... it's not HARD bro.

That's what I thought at first, which is why I asked the question of this thread. But I was told NO pretty clearly.

Anyway, on a side note, Thucydides never commented on the belief systems of the peoples he studied - I find it strange that you would prefer him over Herodotus, given that you are leaning towards monotheism and not scientology.

I guess I like Thucydides mostly for his style. He also seems to appreciate the importance of morality. On the philosophical side, I love Aristophanes. Yes he is a crude polytheist, but he really understands the importance of religion. The Greek polytheism was at least fairly abstract, no idols, and their gods collectively represented some of the same ideals that are God's will. So this is still far better than the later secularism of Plato's time which is morally bankrupt much like modern Western culture.

 

[Scimitar]

That's what I thought at first, which is why I asked the question of this thread. But I was told NO pretty clearly.

Let's leave that for God to judge

I guess I like Thucydides mostly for his style. He also seems to appreciate the importance of morality.

That he does, way better than Herodotus did. But I would also think, playing the morality card for an historian of his timeframe would have been a very pragmatic thing to do, So in that way, not surprising - but I do agree, he does the whole morality thing, pretty well. As is to be expected.

On the philosophical side, I love Aristophanes. Yes he is a crude polytheist, but he really understands the importance of religion.

Admittedly, I haven't really read much of him, mainly in quotes from web.

The Greek polytheism was at least fairly abstract, no idols, and their gods collectively represented some of the same ideals that are God's will.

The Greek gods, were quite abstract, but still, they were anthropomorphic, which is still idolatry according to the Abrahamic traditions.

So this is still far better than the later secularism of Plato's time which is morally bankrupt much like modern Western culture.

Can't really argue with the whole Plato's time being more morally fortified than today when compared to modern western values which seem to prefer vice over virtue. However, Morality being in better shape in Greece of Plato's time - I'm not sure that can be attributed towards the age of philosophy fruiting in ancient Greece.

There is however, eschatology, which can help to bridge the gap between studies, if knowing what our time is in relation to the proverbial end is what interests you. But I'd approach it comparatively.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

Admittedly, I haven't really read much of him [Aristophanes], mainly in quotes from web.

I highly recommend reading his short play "Clouds".

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00H9M61H8/

I consider this the best reactionary writing ever written.

Can't really argue with the whole Plato's time being more morally fortified than today when compared to modern western values which seem to prefer vice over virtue. However, Morality being in better shape in Greece of Plato's time - I'm not sure that can be attributed towards the age of philosophy fruiting in ancient Greece

This isn't what I said. I said that Plato's time was basically the same as ours, equally immoral. The main difference was that the Athenians were vastly more intelligent than Americans are. But all cultures go through the same cycle of rising with morality and then decaying with immorality.

 

[Scimitar]

Ah fair play, we are in agreement in principle I think. Thanks for the recommendation Schmidt, I'll deffo check this one out

Scimi

 

[Karl]

There is a way around this...just create another sect of Islam or Judaism where by you go by the Torah and Quran. Of course this would be heresy, but hey, that seems to be the modern way. You could go to a mosque on Friday and synagogue on Saturday. You could bring peace to Israel or Palestine and call it Palesrael or Israeltine...prolly be a war over the name for a thousand years but it could work maybe.

 

[Shamnadanu]

There is a way around this...just create another sect of Islam or Judaism where by you go by the Torah and Quran. Of course this would be heresy, but hey, that seems to be the modern way. You could go to a mosque on Friday and synagogue on Saturday. You could bring peace to Israel or Palestine and call it Palesrael or Israeltine...prolly be a war over the name for a thousand years but it could work maybe.

Allah is the creator sustainer ...Allah knows everything and every heart.The way you gather peace is by doing ibadah...Allah created sufferings so people gather close to Allah...
"This world is Prison for Musliks and Paradise for disbelievers"

 

[fschmidt]

There is a way around this...just create another sect of Islam or Judaism where by you go by the Torah and Quran. Of course this would be heresy, but hey, that seems to be the modern way. You could go to a mosque on Friday and synagogue on Saturday. You could bring peace to Israel or Palestine and call it Palesrael or Israeltine...prolly be a war over the name for a thousand years but it could work maybe.

I want to give this a serious response. Another sect of Judaism sure won't work, I can't even post to a jewish form without being banned. (And I am ethnically jewish.) Another sect of Islam is not going thrill members of mainstream Islam, and I have enough enemies.

To my original question "Can I follow the Old Testament in Islam?" the answer is no. But what about to the question: Can one follow the Old Testament AND Islam? In other words, follow both without associating the Old Testament with Islam. Why would anyone do this? Because while Islam may help with the afterlife or on the day of judgement, Islam currently is doing a fairly poor job at delivering immediate value in this life. (Islam did deliver in this area at the beginning, but something changed, and now it fails.) The Old Testament is focused on this life, not the afterlife. By studying the Old Testament, I have greatly improved my life here on earth. The Old Testament teaches one to accept reality and respond appropriately (not passively). It teaches how to organize strong communities that can work together to beat the world.

Most people don't know this, but the reason the Christianity conquered the world is because it began following the Old Testament. In particular, the English Puritans took the Old Testament very seriously and began following the principles of the Old Testament. The result was the British Empire. But things change, and over time Western Christianity changed and stopped following the Old Testament, and this is when the West began to go into decline. Of course I agree with Islam that Christian beliefs are misguided. But the point is that the Old Testament is a guide for how to succeed in this world, and anyone follows it, regardless of their beliefs, will succeed in this world.

I challenge any Muslim to find a conflict between the Old Testament and the Quran in required behavior (not in fact). There isn't any. This means that there is no conflict in following both at the same time. Follow the Quran for the afterlife, and follow the Old Testament to succeed in this life. Why not?