pondering Judaism and Islam... :)
- Thread starter Annelise
- Start date
- Replies 74
- Views 14K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Oh, okay 
I do read the Jewish scriptures rather than the 'Old Testament', though the only big difference is the language, the order of the books, and the fact that the New Testament isn't attached.
I have a Hebrew-English Bible which I try to read most of the time; the English is the JPS version, but a translation can never be totally faithful. So I compare the English to the Hebrew (which I'm starting to be able to read), and to other translations (both Jewish and other) quite a lot.
I'm getting a bit distracted here, I probably won't post again for a few days. Hope you all have a wonderful week in the meantime, and that things are well with you at the moment.
I do read the Jewish scriptures rather than the 'Old Testament', though the only big difference is the language, the order of the books, and the fact that the New Testament isn't attached.I have a Hebrew-English Bible which I try to read most of the time; the English is the JPS version, but a translation can never be totally faithful. So I compare the English to the Hebrew (which I'm starting to be able to read), and to other translations (both Jewish and other) quite a lot.
I'm getting a bit distracted here, I probably won't post again for a few days. Hope you all have a wonderful week in the meantime, and that things are well with you at the moment.
just a quick recommendation, it is the Best English language Chumash, bar none:
http://www.artscroll.com/Products/STOH.html
http://www.artscroll.com/Products/STOH.html
glo
IB Legend
- Messages
- 8,472
- Reaction score
- 1,785
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Christianity
How close "shalom aleichem" is to "salaam alaikum".
I wonder, is the meaning exactly the same or are there differences?
(I know I said I would contribute to this thread, but that's what happens when I start pondering ... ;D)
P.S. I forgot to mention that the biggest difference between the Old Testament and the Tanach would be the different communities in which it is pointed to as a revelation from God. But it's fair to say I grew up as a Christian so I know the Hebrew scriptures mostly from that context, and that is where I've held a relationship with God for most of my life.
Glo... I'd love to hear your thoughts on anything, whether here or in a message :thankyou:
See you all.
Glo... I'd love to hear your thoughts on anything, whether here or in a message :thankyou:
See you all.
if you check the link, you will find a treasure trove. i have upwards of 50 of their texts, and they way they do the annotations is awesome. they Hebrew is also included, if you can read it.
Perseveranze
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 232
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
The thing is, forget Muslims, even most Non-Muslims (referring to the Academia of Islamic studies) wouldn't accept it - and that's because of evidence. Whilst there's evidence for alteration for the Bible, there is no evidence for alteration for the Qur'an (rather there's evidence against it).
The following are quotations from Orientalist Academia;
- Dr Frederic Kenyon says: “Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these contradictions, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies (of ancient manuscripts from which the bible has been collected). No one can say that those additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference.” [Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and The Ancient Manuscripts]
- It is in the preface of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1978, that thirty-two Christian scholars “of the highest eminence,” backed by fifty Christian denominations, wrote of the authorized version, also known as the King James Version, that : “The King James Version have grave defects, so many and so serious as to call for revision.”
- Peake’s Commentary of the Bible notes: “It is well known that the primitive Christian gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing, it continued to be the subject of verbal variation, involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors.” [Peake’s commentary on the Bible]
- Encyclopedia Britannica highlights: “Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament, with the exception of the four great epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy and interpolations (inserted verses) are asserted even in these.” [Encyclopedia Britannica, 12th Edition, Vol .3, p643]
- Dr. Bart Ehrman mentions: “In any event, none of the original manuscripts of the books of the bible now survive. What do survive are copies made over the course of the centuries, or more accurately, copies of the copies of the copies, some 5366 of them in the Greek language alone, that date from the second century down to the sixteenth. Strikingly with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are exact. No one knows how many different, or variant readings, occur among the surviving witnesses, but they must number in the hundreds of thousands.” [Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture]
- Ehrman states further that: “Nonetheless, there are some kind of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight.” [Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture]
- Peake’s Commentary on the Bible: “It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mark. They are not found in the oldest manuscript, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Matthew and Luke. A 10th century Armenian Manuscript ascribes the passage to Ariston, the Presbyter mentioned by Papias (Ap. Eus. HE III, xxxix, 15).” [Peake’s commentary on the Bible]
- Kenyon et al note that: “Indeed an Armenian translation of St. Mark has quite recently been discovered, in which the last twelve verses of St. Mark are ascribed to Ariston, who is otherwise known as one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers; and it is quite possible that this tradition is correct.” [Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts]
- Bruce M Metzger & Michael D Coogan state: “The Protestant canon took shape by rejecting a number of books and parts of books that had for centuries been part of the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate, and had gained wide acceptance within the Roman Catholic church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, at the Council of Trent (1546) the Catholic church accepted, as deuterocanonical, Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees. These books, together with those in the Jewish canon and the New Testament, constitute the total of seventy three books accepted by the Roman Catholic church.” [Bruce M Metzger & Michael D Coogan (Ed.), Oxford Companion To The Bible, 1993, Oxford University Press, Oxford & New York, pp. 79 (Under 'Bible')]
- Under Canon of the New Testament the Catholic Encyclopedia says “The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.” [The Catholic Encyclopedia Online Edition.]
This is why the Qur'an says;
فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَٰذَا مِنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَّهُم مِّمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
“Woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say “This is from God” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their own hands have written and Woe to them for what they earn.” [Qur'an 2:79]
Commenting on this verse Ibn Kathir, the Qur'anic exegete cites Az-Zuhri who said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, “O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young, Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands.”
With the Qur'an however, every Muslim and the majority of Orientilists are united in admitting the Qur'ans unchanged verses;
Thus, if the Qur'an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur'an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption. - Andrew Rippin (Ed.), Approaches Of The History of Interpretation Of The Qur'an, 1988, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 34.
The recension of 'Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, - we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of 'Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but one Koran has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text. - The famous Christian missionary from University of Oxford, Sir Willium Muir in the book The Life Of Mohammad.
"Few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". - Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest of the Historical Muhammad." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.
And this is why the Qur'an says;
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ
Verily, It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).- [Qur'an 15:9]
So just to conclude, if someone did try to claim the Qur'an was changed/corrupted, then they would have a mountain to get past and have to provide evidence against the already strong/established evidence which shows the preservation of the Qur'an.
Last edited:
Abz2000
Abz Iz Back!!!
- Messages
- 5,358
- Reaction score
- 589
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Welcome to the forum analese, mashaAllah, brother qatada is doing well and taking the time to give detailed answers, I'm just gonna add a little bit about a very important part of the covenant which you mentioned in your first q:
يٰبَنى إِسرٰءيلَ اذكُروا نِعمَتِىَ الَّتى أَنعَمتُ عَلَيكُم وَأَوفوا بِعَهدى أوفِ بِعَهدِكُم وَإِيّٰىَ فَارهَبونِ
O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me
وَءامِنوا بِما أَنزَلتُ مُصَدِّقًا لِما مَعَكُم وَلا تَكونوا أَوَّلَ كافِرٍ بِهِ ۖ وَلا تَشتَروا بِـٔايٰتى ثَمَنًا قَليلًا وَإِيّٰىَ فَاتَّقونِ
And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.
Quran 2:40-41
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 KJV)
The previous bible verse came with the laws, and the children of Israel accepted unanimously,
Names and places are something which the Quran tells us the cheats among them changed, but the Prophet mentioned is often very exlclusive from the other prophets (pbut) who came after Moses pbuh, all of whom (including Jesus pbuh) followed the laws revealed to Moses pbuh and brought no new law,
Yet we are told in Isaiah (who came after Moses) that there would be a new law:
Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people. (Isaiah 51:4 KJV)
It is true that many Christians claim that this specific Prophet was Christ, but we can see from their own text that the people were still awaiting that Prophet, and he was NOT Christ pbuh:
(bear in mind that the Levites were entrusted with study of the law and were the most learned in scripture).
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ho art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (John 1:19-21 KJV)
يٰبَنى إِسرٰءيلَ اذكُروا نِعمَتِىَ الَّتى أَنعَمتُ عَلَيكُم وَأَوفوا بِعَهدى أوفِ بِعَهدِكُم وَإِيّٰىَ فَارهَبونِ
O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me
وَءامِنوا بِما أَنزَلتُ مُصَدِّقًا لِما مَعَكُم وَلا تَكونوا أَوَّلَ كافِرٍ بِهِ ۖ وَلا تَشتَروا بِـٔايٰتى ثَمَنًا قَليلًا وَإِيّٰىَ فَاتَّقونِ
And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.
Quran 2:40-41
The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 KJV)
The previous bible verse came with the laws, and the children of Israel accepted unanimously,
Names and places are something which the Quran tells us the cheats among them changed, but the Prophet mentioned is often very exlclusive from the other prophets (pbut) who came after Moses pbuh, all of whom (including Jesus pbuh) followed the laws revealed to Moses pbuh and brought no new law,
Yet we are told in Isaiah (who came after Moses) that there would be a new law:
Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people. (Isaiah 51:4 KJV)
It is true that many Christians claim that this specific Prophet was Christ, but we can see from their own text that the people were still awaiting that Prophet, and he was NOT Christ pbuh:
(bear in mind that the Levites were entrusted with study of the law and were the most learned in scripture).
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, ho art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. (John 1:19-21 KJV)
Last edited:
Muhaba
فصبرٌ جم
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 440
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
I tried to post this reply the other day but wasn't able to:
This is a really interesting thread and i hope will provide some insight into Jewish religion/thinking.
I don't know much about Judiasm except that they neither believed in Jesus nor in Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as Prophets/messengers of God although they had been waiting for Prophets that had been prophesized by their messengers. Even at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Jews in Madina (Yathrib) had been waiting for the birth of a Prophet about whom they spoke. This was one reason the idolator tribes of Yathrib so readiy believed in Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when they learned he was a Prophet. They had heard from their Jewish neighbors about him! For you to understand what information the Jews had about Prophet Muhammad (SAW), you should look into the history of the Jews living in Yathrib. What information did they have from their books/traditions which made them realize that a Prophet was to be born in their time? What information did they have which helped them recognize that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a true Prophet of God? (The Quran tells the Jews [of that time or of all times] that they know that Prophet Muhammad is a Messenger of God. Allah says in Chapter 2, verse 146:
Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it].
So those Jews recognized that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a messenger of Allah. They recognized him just as one recognizes one's own children!
You wrote:
what are those promises/instructions which keep Jews from accepting Islam? what was the covenant? If you post these it might mke it easier to understand your questiona and provide an answer.
This is a really interesting thread and i hope will provide some insight into Jewish religion/thinking.
I don't know much about Judiasm except that they neither believed in Jesus nor in Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as Prophets/messengers of God although they had been waiting for Prophets that had been prophesized by their messengers. Even at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the Jews in Madina (Yathrib) had been waiting for the birth of a Prophet about whom they spoke. This was one reason the idolator tribes of Yathrib so readiy believed in Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when they learned he was a Prophet. They had heard from their Jewish neighbors about him! For you to understand what information the Jews had about Prophet Muhammad (SAW), you should look into the history of the Jews living in Yathrib. What information did they have from their books/traditions which made them realize that a Prophet was to be born in their time? What information did they have which helped them recognize that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a true Prophet of God? (The Quran tells the Jews [of that time or of all times] that they know that Prophet Muhammad is a Messenger of God. Allah says in Chapter 2, verse 146:
Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons. But indeed, a party of them conceal the truth while they know [it].
So those Jews recognized that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was a messenger of Allah. They recognized him just as one recognizes one's own children!
You wrote:
what are those promises/instructions which keep Jews from accepting Islam? what was the covenant? If you post these it might mke it easier to understand your questiona and provide an answer.
Insaanah
★ Islam is THE way ★
- Messages
- 4,547
- Reaction score
- 1,918
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Greetings Annelise, and welcome to the forum.
Forgive me if I've missed this amongst the posts, but what are your current beliefs about Jesus (peace be upon him)?
The Jews rejected him, and the Christians went to the other extreme of deifying him. As Muslims, we believe in him, love him, honour him and respect him as he was, neither rejected, nor deified, one of the noblest human beings to walk the face of the earth, and one of mightiest messengers of God, sent by God to the Children of Israel. For a Christian to go from one end of the spectrum to the other, seems strange. For you to go in the middle though, to the balanced position, doesn't.
Forgive me if I've missed this amongst the posts, but what are your current beliefs about Jesus (peace be upon him)?
The Jews rejected him, and the Christians went to the other extreme of deifying him. As Muslims, we believe in him, love him, honour him and respect him as he was, neither rejected, nor deified, one of the noblest human beings to walk the face of the earth, and one of mightiest messengers of God, sent by God to the Children of Israel. For a Christian to go from one end of the spectrum to the other, seems strange. For you to go in the middle though, to the balanced position, doesn't.
Last edited:
So many messages to reply to... I'll try and keep it short for each of them. Thanks to everyone for writing! Qatada, I still owe you a close reading of all your posts from the start, and I look forward to replying to them with more depth. WRITER, I'm also going to need to look into the thoughts you had about the Jews in Medina. What are the historical sources or texts for what you said? Please forgive me for answering the other posts in the meantime, because I don't need to sit and read as much for those conversations as for these two.
YusufNoor, regarding the passage you posted, I do believe it's true that the Israelites were often stubborn and disobedient. It's important to realise, though, that the prophets were part of a righteous group who preserved the Jewish understanding of God and of His Law throughout history, so that people like Nehemiah could know what it was and so that his generation could turn to it wholeheartedly. God gave some really beautiful blessings to the generation who were rebuilding the Temple around that time, especially in the book of Haggai. Zechariah is the same, though its message is more complex (it's a long book), and the description of how God made one nation holy so that the whole world could come to know Him in close relationship is really amazing in that book. I don't know what else you were trying to point out from that passage, but let me know where you want to go from those thoughts of how I read it. God deserves our wholehearted obedience, so He always wanted the majority of Israel to turn back to the commandments. With that I definitely agree. I don't believe that the testimony of who He is ever left them, though.
The one thing I really wanted to ask in my first post was how a Jew in the Middle Ages could accept Muhammad on the basis of the Jewish commandments, if they were actually no longer in possession of those commandments in an accurate form. Does that make sense?
Perseveranze, I think you make a really important point about checking each claim on the basis of its own evidence. I didn't say that the Qur'an was changed, though. I just suggested for the purpose of analogy (and I hope it wasn't disrespectful) that if someone claimed that Muhammad himself had added to the visions- that the first things he taught were partly from God, and partly from himself- you wouldn't accept that claim without lots of reasons to do so. But this is how the Jews would have felt when they were told that the Judiams they followed was kind of true but actually corrupted. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been corrupted, but if it was... then the Jews had no way left of testing Muhammad according to the actual Torah. So why ask them to do so? I don't understand it, and I know you must have some well thought-through perspectives about it, that's why I ask.
Abz2000, it's hard for me to reply to you unless I know how much of the Jewish scriptures you think are accurate. You quoted Deuteronomy and Isaiah as proofs, but do you actually believe those books are from God and uncorrupted? Otherwise it's hard to know how to answer your thoughts.
Insaanah, I really liked your post, I've never thought of it that way before. As someone who has always believed in a God who did not make Himself incarnate as a man, it might be hard to comprehend what it means for a Christian to believe in Jesus. But I was taught that he wasn't just a man. The affection I had for 'Jesus' was not actually affection for a historical person in his own right, but actually a love for God, flawed as my understanding of Him was. So I actually have never had a relationship with the person Jesus, it all belonged to God. If I met Jesus I would have love for him as for any other human, and if he really was a righteous and God-fearing person then I would respect him, but it would have no relationship to the worship that belongs only to God and that I once thought belonged to Jesus as well. It doesn't. It's not his and I never intended it towards a created being. That's why I don't see it as natural or right to meet in the middle, so to speak For me, my belief in any of the prophets actually comes from the testimony of the Jewish tradition about them, and they don't accept Jesus as a prophet. If I accepted Islam as the community in which God has made His revelation clear and preserved it, then of course I would see Jesus as a prophet. But I can't see how a Jew could guard the Torah (as they currently have it) and still accept either Christianity or Islam, so I don't know how either of those religions could be true. One of my Christian friends keeps telling me things about Jesus' miracles and nobility that are very similar to what people here are telling me about Muhammad, but those things aren't the way in which the Jews were supposed to test a claim of revelation... as far as I know. So I do believe that Christianity and Islam have a lot of kernels of truth in them, and that people in those faiths have a real experience with God, but I'm listening to Judaism for their understanding of what it means that we should submit to our creator and know Him as He reveals His blessing to us. What do you think?
YusufNoor, regarding the passage you posted, I do believe it's true that the Israelites were often stubborn and disobedient. It's important to realise, though, that the prophets were part of a righteous group who preserved the Jewish understanding of God and of His Law throughout history, so that people like Nehemiah could know what it was and so that his generation could turn to it wholeheartedly. God gave some really beautiful blessings to the generation who were rebuilding the Temple around that time, especially in the book of Haggai. Zechariah is the same, though its message is more complex (it's a long book), and the description of how God made one nation holy so that the whole world could come to know Him in close relationship is really amazing in that book. I don't know what else you were trying to point out from that passage, but let me know where you want to go from those thoughts of how I read it. God deserves our wholehearted obedience, so He always wanted the majority of Israel to turn back to the commandments. With that I definitely agree. I don't believe that the testimony of who He is ever left them, though.
The one thing I really wanted to ask in my first post was how a Jew in the Middle Ages could accept Muhammad on the basis of the Jewish commandments, if they were actually no longer in possession of those commandments in an accurate form. Does that make sense?
Perseveranze, I think you make a really important point about checking each claim on the basis of its own evidence. I didn't say that the Qur'an was changed, though. I just suggested for the purpose of analogy (and I hope it wasn't disrespectful) that if someone claimed that Muhammad himself had added to the visions- that the first things he taught were partly from God, and partly from himself- you wouldn't accept that claim without lots of reasons to do so. But this is how the Jews would have felt when they were told that the Judiams they followed was kind of true but actually corrupted. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been corrupted, but if it was... then the Jews had no way left of testing Muhammad according to the actual Torah. So why ask them to do so? I don't understand it, and I know you must have some well thought-through perspectives about it, that's why I ask.
Abz2000, it's hard for me to reply to you unless I know how much of the Jewish scriptures you think are accurate. You quoted Deuteronomy and Isaiah as proofs, but do you actually believe those books are from God and uncorrupted? Otherwise it's hard to know how to answer your thoughts.
Insaanah, I really liked your post, I've never thought of it that way before. As someone who has always believed in a God who did not make Himself incarnate as a man, it might be hard to comprehend what it means for a Christian to believe in Jesus. But I was taught that he wasn't just a man. The affection I had for 'Jesus' was not actually affection for a historical person in his own right, but actually a love for God, flawed as my understanding of Him was. So I actually have never had a relationship with the person Jesus, it all belonged to God. If I met Jesus I would have love for him as for any other human, and if he really was a righteous and God-fearing person then I would respect him, but it would have no relationship to the worship that belongs only to God and that I once thought belonged to Jesus as well. It doesn't. It's not his and I never intended it towards a created being. That's why I don't see it as natural or right to meet in the middle, so to speak
For me, my belief in any of the prophets actually comes from the testimony of the Jewish tradition about them, and they don't accept Jesus as a prophet. If I accepted Islam as the community in which God has made His revelation clear and preserved it, then of course I would see Jesus as a prophet. But I can't see how a Jew could guard the Torah (as they currently have it) and still accept either Christianity or Islam, so I don't know how either of those religions could be true. One of my Christian friends keeps telling me things about Jesus' miracles and nobility that are very similar to what people here are telling me about Muhammad, but those things aren't the way in which the Jews were supposed to test a claim of revelation... as far as I know. So I do believe that Christianity and Islam have a lot of kernels of truth in them, and that people in those faiths have a real experience with God, but I'm listening to Judaism for their understanding of what it means that we should submit to our creator and know Him as He reveals His blessing to us. What do you think?P.S. If anyone can really hear and understand the question I'm trying to ask... whether or not you agree with it... could you help me out and put my question in your own words, with better clarity and depth than my own?
Independent
IB Expert
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Other
Forgive me if I get this wrong - but is your question this:
Muslims state that the coming of Jesus and Muhammad are foretold by the Torah/Bible. However, they also say that the Torah/Bible are corrupted and not reliable as texts.
So your dilemma is a logical one: how can a corrupted text ever be used to corroborate Jesus or Muhammad as genuine prophets one way or the other? Once you no longer believe the text is reliable, then nothing can be trusted and you can't cherrypick.
And with regard specifically to those who do trust in the Torah (ie Jews), and who don't believe it is corrupted, you are asking how they can ever accept Jesus/Muhammad as prophets, seeing as they don't fit the criteria as laid down in the Torah? Again, a logical dilemma.
- Qatada -
Spread this Avatar!
- Messages
- 11,349
- Reaction score
- 2,692
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Muslims have two views on the issue of the Jewish texts:
1 - That their text has been distorted.
2 - Their context has been distorted and many aspects of it has been forgotten.
Either way, we believe there are remnants of the texts remaining within Jewish scripture which do mention Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon him) either directly or indirectly. We also believe it has been a strong efforts of many Israelites to discredit Jesus and Muhammad, Jesus because he was a staunch opponent of the corruption of the Rabbis during his era, and of Muhammad (peace be upon him) because he is non-jewish, and also a staunch opponent of the corruption of the Rabbis.
Through the histories of both Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) - we see many Israelites attempting to assasinate them but were -according to the Quran- unsuccessful. But they had killed many Prophets prior to that (John the Baptist, Zakariah his father, etc) for similar reasons. Their own scripture is a proof against them since God has already described them as a hard headed nation, and a people who rebelled and earned God's wrath even during their best generation (the generation of Moses).
As mentioned above, it is for the laypeople amongst the Jews/Israelites to study and question their texts. Why do they believe in Moses? Is it simply because their forefathers claimed to follow this way? Why don't they find the truth for themselves?
Why not look at who Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) were? Jesus is also an Israelite, so its not too difficult for Jews to even try to research into him.
Furthermore, many Indians forefathers' were Hindus, does that mean that Indians can only be Hindus because their forefathers were? No, it means they have to be truth seekers themselves instead of blind following the elders. This is exactly what Jesus was extremely against, he hated that the Israelites blindly followed their elders, even when their elders were doing wrong.
Every generation has to be a truthseeker for their own good and benefit. You cannot shift the blame onto another on the Day of Judgment when you will meet God. Every person will be payed back for their own bad or good actions, and none will be wronged.
Independent... that's exactly it. Thanks for your clarity and for reading so carefully there! I feel that until this question is answered, there's no way to have a conversation between the two faith systems, whether I would convey what Jews believe their covenant with God is compelling them to do, or whether Muslims would take texts from the Tanach as proof for the Qur'an's message.
Qatada, I think you're totally correct that people need to question the faith that was passed down to them, and question why they believe in their own texts. Those are issues that we really need to grapple with, and they're hard questions. But when you said that parts of the Jewish scriptures are corrupted and parts retain glimpses of the real Torah or real revelations from God... that poses a separate question. Since the Jewish ability to test any new prophets is based on their obedience to the commandments that they have, then how can they use parts of their scriptures to affirm a prophet while deciding in the meantime that other parts are false? How can they sift what is corrupted from what is true, on the basis of the faith they have? I feel that the only way for a Jew to take on Islam is to first reject the authenticity current day Judaism and the present version of the Torah... but if they do that, then they are not really listening to any part of the previous revelation (which still exists somewhere among those verses) at all. They're listening to a whole new testimony, in the mouth of the followers of Islam, and then dividing up the Jewish scriptures based on that.
شَادِنُ , that's a really kind welcome... thanks. I think it shows your own sincerity: even in a few words you spoke of faith in God as something that deserves a lot of honesty and humility, which turns out to be a really precious part of our offering to Him. It's a blessing to share that with you, and I pray that we will be able to keep standing in the purity of His light and truth, in only devotion to Him, even more.
Qatada, I think you're totally correct that people need to question the faith that was passed down to them, and question why they believe in their own texts. Those are issues that we really need to grapple with, and they're hard questions. But when you said that parts of the Jewish scriptures are corrupted and parts retain glimpses of the real Torah or real revelations from God... that poses a separate question. Since the Jewish ability to test any new prophets is based on their obedience to the commandments that they have, then how can they use parts of their scriptures to affirm a prophet while deciding in the meantime that other parts are false? How can they sift what is corrupted from what is true, on the basis of the faith they have? I feel that the only way for a Jew to take on Islam is to first reject the authenticity current day Judaism and the present version of the Torah... but if they do that, then they are not really listening to any part of the previous revelation (which still exists somewhere among those verses) at all. They're listening to a whole new testimony, in the mouth of the followers of Islam, and then dividing up the Jewish scriptures based on that.
شَادِنُ , that's a really kind welcome... thanks. I think it shows your own sincerity: even in a few words you spoke of faith in God as something that deserves a lot of honesty and humility, which turns out to be a really precious part of our offering to Him. It's a blessing to share that with you, and I pray that we will be able to keep standing in the purity of His light and truth, in only devotion to Him, even more.
Oh, and here's something that is incredibly important. Independent, you called it a logical dilemma... but in a Jewish person's relationship with God this is better understood as a moral dilemma. The logic doesn't only matter because they don't want to be fooled. It matters because it relates to a commandment that they believe (and Islam affirms, in some ways) is from God.