"Quran" and "New Testament"

[snakelegs]

actually, i was thinking of the way the people (the jews) themselves are portrayed - they are a whiney, stubborn bunch.
i don't think the followers of islam are portrayed like this, are they? (i know that nobody in the qur'an is portrayed as totally without sin or incapable of making mistakes).
keep in mind, i am only talking about tanach - i have never read the NT

 

[YusufNoor]

sounds interesting. i'm not about to buy it though because if i did, it would just sit there waiting for me to read it and i already have a small crowd of stuff waiting to be read and some have been waiting a long time already!
why - do the commentaries portray the jews more flatteringly than the torah itself?

A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu

Peace snakelegs:

why - do the commentaries portray the jews more flatteringly than the torah itself?

oh no! they take selected writings from the most brilliant scholars and bits and pieces of midrash and do their best to explain and expand upon the lessons contained in the Torah and also explain apparent inconsistencies in the text. the Jewish Sages are in a field of their own, we're talking near genius.

stop by a big bookstore and browse through one if you have the opportunity. seriously, the first time i read it, it blew my mind and changed my life! midrash is a collection of info either deduced from Scripture or contained in Jewish lore.[there's one chart in particular where they drew a timeline of the Prophets, according to the info contained in the Torah/Tanakh. pretty much turns the Torah and the Prophets into a VERY possible reality. i really enjoyed, because i had already figured it out, the fact that Methusulah was alive until 7 days before the flood. after all, Noah had to have a teacher! and Shem and Eber("Hebrew" is actually Eber-u!!) were alive in Salem(of Jeru -fame ) at the time that Abraham entered the Promised!!]

i'm not saying that you'll agree with everything in it, but once you read stuff by RASHI and RAMBAN, you'll never look at OT stuff the same way again.

and the ArtScroll series expands on a lot more of the Jewish OT writings. there's a 2 volume Genesis with about 1800 pages!

way cool!

 

[Malaikah]

actually, i was thinking of the way the people (the jews) themselves are portrayed - they are a whiney, stubborn bunch.
i don't think the followers of islam are portrayed like this, are they? (i know that nobody in the qur'an is portrayed as totally without sin or incapable of making mistakes).
keep in mind, i am only talking about tanach - i have never read the NT

No, because the Muslims weren't a 'whiney, stubborn bunch.'. The Jews are portrayed that way though in the Quran, and in all fairness, how else do you expect previously oppressed and weak people to act?

The early Muslims weren't like the Jews in terms of their situation. But that doesn't mean they didn't have shortcomings of their own.

 

[lavikor201]

The Qur'an and the Islamic sources do the same.

Again, to this day we Muslims recite the verses of the Qur'an in which Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is criticized. To this day we read hadiths in which we learn that the Prophet (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) made mistakes and forgot. However, when it comes to delivering the message and the revelation, they made no mistakes. If they mistakes when it came to delivering the message (and told us wrong things), why would we believe in them at all?

Why do Christians believe in the New Testament when you say its corrupted?

No, because the Muslims weren't a 'whiney, stubborn bunch.'. The Jews are portrayed that way though in the Quran, and in all fairness, how else do you expect previously oppressed and weak people to act?

The early Muslims weren't like the Jews in terms of their situation. But that doesn't mean they didn't have shortcomings of their own.

I don't thimnk you understand that even after the exodus. If the "corrupters" wanted to get rid of stuff, or replace it why not remove about them being a "stiff knecked people". The corruption theory makes no sense, and no one even dares to give us a date of when it happend. Mohammad came 800 years after the whole world was publishing the Bible in Greek, so does that mean G-d sent Mohammad 800 years after it was corrupted? What was he waiting for? Is anyone from that tim period going to heaven?

 

[snakelegs]

my point was only that a people do not usually portray themselves in such unflattering terms as the jews are described in the tanach, which i think is the best argument for it (tanach) being true.
personally, i have no position on it.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Why do Christians believe in the New Testament when you say its corrupted?

I don't see what that has got to do with the point I was making.

The Prophets don't make a mistake when it comes to delivering the message, that is the point. If God tells His Prophet to convey something to the people, the Prophet will do so and he will not make a mistake and misinform his followers.
That has nothing to do with the following generations corrupting his message. He didn't corrupt it himself.

The corruption theory makes no sense, and no one even dares to give us a date of when it happend. Mohammad came 800 years after the whole world was publishing the Bible in Greek, so does that mean G-d sent Mohammad 800 years after it was corrupted? What was he waiting for? Is anyone from that tim period going to heaven?

Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was sent about 600 years after Jesus ('alayhi salam). So during this 800 year period a Messenger was sent. And in the time between the Prophet Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) there were different groups claiming to be followers of Jesus, even those that rejected the Trinity and believed that Jesus was only a Prophet. So these people, the true Monotheist followers of Jesus will go to heaven.

The people that live during times like the time period between the Prophet Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) during a time when the message has generally been corrupted are called the people of the Barzakh and there is a special ruling when it comes to them.

 

[ManchesterFolk]

there were different groups claiming to be followers of Jesus, even those that rejected the Trinity and believed that Jesus was only a Prophet.

Really? I would love to hear more about these groups. Do you have any records of them from that time period?

 

[Muslim Knight]

Really? I would love to hear more about these groups. Do you have any records of them from that time period?

Unitarians & followers of Arius persecuted as heretics by Roman Catholics. Nearly annihilated for rejecting the Trinity fabrications of Paul.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

Really? I would love to hear more about these groups. Do you have any records of them from that time period?

The Trinity was accepted as dogma at the council in Nicaea, before that there were people that believed in Jesus ('alayhi salam) as a Prophet and rejected the Trinity etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The council was held about 300 years before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). So during this 800 year period that Lavikor was talking about, 2 Prophets were sent and there were groups that stood for Monotheism for hundreds of years, so there were people that could go to Paradise during this time period. There's a relevant story about one of the Prophet's (sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) Companions, a former Christian who found Islam after years of travelling the Christian world and studying under priests/monks:

http://www.understand-islam.net/Books/SalmanthePersian.pdf

 

[abdulhakim55]

Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?