Conversion from Islam.
HemenE
If Islam is inherited then I should be muslim. Although I did practice
it somehow for few months, but I don't like the Islamic ideas of Hell
and Heaven.
I'm studying Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. They're different. Also
they don't believe in Hades (Hell) or Gehenna (In Greek).
Can someone tell me if I'm allowed to choose and also if I would go to
Hell on doing this? Thanks in advanced.
If I change from Islam, will I certainly go to Hell? Any thought would
be appreciated (With reference to Quran, please if possible).
Best,
Hemen...
Julien ÉLIE
> Can someone tell me if I'm allowed to choose and also if I would go to
> Hell on doing this? Thanks in advanced.
I am also wondering that, but on another point of view: I am a Christian
and I wonder whether Islam is the religion which should be followed.
I wonder whether I can find salvation being a Christian (and of course
without mistrusting what the Bible says).
Do you have any information on that? I do not find precise references
to Quran which say that Christians (and Jews) are *all* bad and will
be punished by God.
So I believe I can go on being a Christian, cannot I?
> If I change from Islam, will I certainly go to Hell? Any thought would
> be appreciated (With reference to Quran, please if possible).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
And especially the hadith "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion,
kill him." (Bukharî)
Other references are:
III:90 Indeed those who disbelieve after they have believed and
increase in disbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted.
These are those who are astray.
V:47 Therefore, let the people of Gospel judge in accordance with that
which Allah has sent in it. Those who do not judge according to that
which Allah has sent down are the evildoers.
XLVII:25 As for those who turn back in their footsteps after the guidance
of Allah has become clear to them, it was satan who tempted them,
and Allah has respited them.
XVI:106 Whosoever disbelieves in Allah after believing except he who is
forced while his heart remains in his belief but he who opens his
chest for disbelief, shall receive the Anger of Allah and for such
awaits a mighty punishment.
However, as often as not, it is not clear whether it applies to real
Christians (since believing in Allah == believing in God).
Regards,
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Summum ius, summa iniuria. » (Cicero)
John Fraser
"HemenE" <heme...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f11bc265-b892-43ea...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Dears,
>
> If Islam is inherited then I should be muslim. Although I did practice
> it somehow for few months, but I don't like the Islamic ideas of Hell
> and Heaven.
And what would that be?
> I'm studying Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. They're different. Also
> they don't believe in Hades (Hell) or Gehenna (In Greek).
Their founder, Charles Russell, was paranoid about the subject.
> Can someone tell me if I'm allowed to choose and also if I would go to
> Hell on doing this? Thanks in advanced.
> If I change from Islam, will I certainly go to Hell? Any thought would
> be appreciated (With reference to Quran, please if possible).
>
> Best,
> Hemen...
If you leave Islam, muslims will naturally declare you're going to Hell.
Please read Romans 3:23, 10:9,10. About the only valid comment regarding
Hell is that it's a place where people go who are cut off from God. And, it
seems those who work against the Holy Spirit will also be placed there and
with a harsher sentence.
Cheers,
John
Altway
"HemenE" <heme...@googlemail.com> wrote
Comment:-
Strange question.
You have already told us that you do not like the ideas of heaven and hell
and that you are studying the Jehovah Witness version of the Bible
but presumably have not studied the Quran.
You must seek knowledge and make up your own mind.
God will judge you according to your faith and deeds.
"Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or
Christians or Sabaeans, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and acts
aright, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for
them, nor shall they grieve." Quran 2:62
The Quran is a guidance as to what is expected of you. But read at least
Quran 2:2-18
Behaviour when it is not mechanical due to impulse, habit or obsession
is governed by purpose and, therefore, by pleasure and pain
where pleasure generally indicates what is beneficial to the individual
and pain indicates what is harmful. As such they act as
incentives towards a goal and repulsion from the opposite, the anti-goal.
As all our knowledge is relative, we do not know one without its opposite,
the good without the evil and so on.
Most certainly there is happiness as well as misery in the world
and people certainly obtain satisfaction when they do something right
and suffer when they make mistakes.
It matters not at all whether you like or dislike, believe or disbelieve in
these opposites
Heaven and Hell have the same function but are concerned with the
one's spiritual nature rather than the physical - i.e. with consciousness,
conscience and will
with that which makes us human.
Strictly speaking Heaven is the opposite of earth and these refer to the
spiritual and the physical.
The opposite of Hell is Paradise and that is the goal.
Salvation which is the aim of many religions refers to be saved from Hell.
Paradise refers to the good and hell to the evil. One is constructive and
the other destructive.
One goal leads to development and the other to degeneration
Paradise is understood as nearness to God and Hell as being far from God.
There are different degrees of paradise and hell.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Julien ÉLIE" <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote
> I am also wondering that, but on another point of view: I am a Christian
and I wonder whether Islam is the religion which should be followed.
I wonder whether I can find salvation being a Christian (and of course
without mistrusting what the Bible says).
> Do you have any information on that? I do not find precise references
to Quran which say that Christians (and Jews) are *all* bad and will
be punished by God.
> So I believe I can go on being a Christian, cannot I?
Comment:-
"Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or
Christians or Sabaeans, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and acts
aright, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for
them, nor shall they grieve." Quran 2:62
"They are not all alike. Of the people of the Book there is an upright
community, reciting the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling
prostrate (in Surrender).
They believe in Allah, and in the last day, and bid intelligent (or right)
conduct, and forbid what is stupid (or wrong), and vie with one another in
good works; these are among the righteous." 3:113-114
It is necessary to understand that Islam came because certain
misunderstandings and corruptions had been introduced into the past
dispensations of Religion including Christianity (not necessarily only in
the written scriptures). Islam came to both confirm and rectify.
It is not, therefore, a question of simply continuing to follow these
misunderstandings, but of purifying the religion.
It is also necessary to understand that as God judges and punishes or
rewards according to the faith and deeds of people then there are many
degrees of paradise and hell. A person can be at any position on the
Straight Way. It is not merely a question of salvation from the worst areas
of hell. It is a question of striving towards the higher parts of paradise,
towards nearness to God. It is question of development and growth.
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, And enlightened it with what is wrong
and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies
it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 91:7-10
"But O, you soul in peace and fulfilment! Return unto your Lord, well
pleased and well pleasing unto Him! Enter you amongst My servants, Enter
you My Garden (Paradise)!" 89:27-30
Hamid S. Aziz
Muhafidh
The Jehovah's Witnesses (unless they've changed in the past four
decades with telling me) believe that if you leave them, you will go
to hell (i.e., be destroyed upon death rather than living an eternal
life). It is interesting that Julien, you cited Bukhārī to suggest
that Islām might believe that apostates should be put to death. Of
course, if you follow the path of Bukhārī instead of that of the
Qur'ān, perhaps that conclusion is valid. The same would be true of,
for example, 17th-century Christian Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay
Colony. Islām has also gone through its puritanical phase, and in fact
today's so-called "radical Islām" is nothing but precisely that.
To correct the record, the Qur'ān doesn't say that only some "special"
Christians hold the status, along with Jews and Muslims, of being
favored by God. It simply says that "Christians" do (2:62). Note that
"on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Those who wish to
add to the Scripture by suggesting what God "really meant" by that
should just sit down and write their own special scripture, if that's
their motivation. Whether I like it or not, the Qur'ān says that
Christians are cool. I may wish to make it say something else, and I
may weave a lot of clever rhetoric around this desire of mine, but I
can't change what the Qur'ān really says. I must accept it, and then
strive (jihād) to rise to the level of wisdom necessary for me to
understand it (taqwā). That is all.
Denying yourself the honest opportunity to search, even if it leads
elsewhere, traps you in fear, completely contrary to the Will of God.
The Qur'ān tells you to strive (jihād), "with might and
main" (according to Yūsuf Alī's curious translation), i.e., with your
property and your soul <bi-amwālikum wa-'anfusikum> (9:41 and 61:11
use the <-kum> suffix). Strive for what? "In the Path of God" <fī
sabīli-llāhi>. Jihād is defined in the Qur'ān as a category of
intensive, virtuous action involving one's property and oneself.
Jihād, properly understood, leads to taqwā, abidance in God's Will.
As a side note, since I know this will come up, jihād has nothing to
do with fighting. Some form of the triliteral root <j-h-d>,
"striving," occurs in 36 verses in the Qur'ān, and some form of the
triliteral root <q-t-l>, "fighting," occurs in 122 verses. How many
verses contain both? Zero. One can fight in the path of God <fī sabīli-
llāhi>, but that doesn't make it jihād (cf. 9:19, according to which
giving water to pilgrims in Makkah and maintaining the Masjid al-Harām
fall short of jihād, even though they are by definition "in the path
of God").
Lastly, to clarify an oft-misunderstood term in the Qur'ān,
"disbeliever" (sometimes "unbeliever") does not simply mean "one who
does not believe." It is the term "kāfir," and in fact it means "one
who rails against the faithful." Look closely at verse 4:84. The "fury
of the Unbelievers" (Yūsuf Alī again), <ba'sa~lladhīna kafarū> does
not refer to happenstance, that perhaps a group of disbelievers
happens to be angry. No, this is their normal character. Why must the
Prophet "rouse the Believers," and why is he "held responsible only
for [him]self"? What's so freaky about the dis/unbelievers? In fact,
the kāfirūna by their very nature are the opponents of the believers,
and they seek to intimidate, injure, and kill the believers in order
to shut them down. This is why the simple fact of "going out" in the
path of God is so dangerous to the believers, and why such a point is
made in the Qur'ān about those who are afraid to do so. Thus, in verse
3:90 (which Julien, you quoted), "those who actively oppose faith,"
<alladhīna kafarū>, after first declaring their belief, and then just
become more violent after that, are not exactly among the friends of
the believers. But now the verse makes sense.
Verse 5:47, which you (Julien) quoted, does not say <kāfirūna>, so it
is not equating those who "fail to judge by" their own Scripture with
"those who actively oppose faith." Instead, the word is <fāsiqūna>.
Nor does verse 47:25, which you also quoted, use the term <kāfirūna>.
Notice that what's described therein does not apply to "those who
actively oppose faith," the correct definition of <kāfirūna>.
The last verse you (Julien) quoted was 16:106. Here we have <kafara>
again (the verb form). In the light of a correct understanding of this
word as referring to "those who actively oppose faith," suddenly the
verse becomes meaningful. Previously, it looked like it meant that
those who disbelieve under compulsion after first believing are an
exception. But under what conditions does such a thing happen? Does
one actually disbelieve merely under compulsion? It doesn't make
sense. One may undertake wrong action under compulsion, but not
disbelieve. So of course Yūsuf Alī has to alter his translation of
<kafara> as "utter Unbelief," i.e., "speak blasphemy." This is the
only way to make sense out of that passage if one believes that a
<kāfir> is simply someone who doesn't believe in your religion.
Instead, the exception in that verse refers to those who are swept up
into the ranks of "those who actively oppose faith" and are compelled
for a time to carry on with them. The next verse is another good
example of a passage that suddenly makes sense with the correct
understanding: "God will not guide those who reject Faith" (16:107).
It actually means "God will not guide those who actively oppose
faith." Now, that makes perfect sense.
Hemen, you must choose your path. Don't worry that it leads you away
from something that you once thought to be the truth. Trust that if it
is the truth, you'll come back, but if you don't come back, that is
God's Will, for you were a striver (jihād again), and sincere, honest
striving will not lead you astray, no matter what the eventuality
looks like. Trust God as you seek HIm out. He will not let you down.
Jihād is characterized by courage in the face of those who find fault
with and try to undermine the faith. For the searcher, free of the
shackles of a community that might wish to keep him from undermining
its legitimacy by appearing to abandon it, jihād is characterized by
courage in the face of those who find fault with and try to undermine
one's quest for God.
Salām - Muhāfidh
Julien ÉLIE
>> I am also wondering that, but on another point of view: I am a Christian
>> and I wonder whether Islam is the religion which should be followed.
>> I wonder whether I can find salvation being a Christian (and of course
>> without mistrusting what the Bible says).
>
> "Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or Christians or Sabaeans, whoever believes in Allah and the
> Last Day and acts aright, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." Quran
> 2:62
Thanks for the reference.
> It is necessary to understand that Islam came because certain misunderstandings and corruptions had been introduced into the past
> dispensations of Religion including Christianity (not necessarily only in the written scriptures). Islam came to both confirm and
> rectify.
> It is not, therefore, a question of simply continuing to follow these misunderstandings, but of purifying the religion.
All right. But how can I find out what should be purified in Christianity?
Are all the misunderstandings explained in the Qu'ran? (like Trinity which
should not be trusted, crucifixion, redemption [because of the original sin],
etc.) However, these facts appear in the written scriptures; so does it mean
they were badly written or wrongly compiled by the Church?
How is it possible to find out which are the introduced misunderstandings
and corruptions in the Bible?
> It is also necessary to understand that as God judges and punishes or rewards according to the faith and deeds of people then
> there are many degrees of paradise and hell. A person can be at any position on the Straight Way. It is not merely a question of
> salvation from the worst areas of hell. It is a question of striving towards the higher parts of paradise, towards nearness to
> God. It is question of development and growth.
I agree.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Je n'aime pas être chez moi. À tel point que lorsque je vais chez quelqu'un
et qu'il me dit : « Vous êtes ici chez vous », je rentre chez moi ! » (Raymond Devos)
Hajj Abujamal
Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> How is it possible to find out which are the introduced
> misunderstandings and corruptions in the Bible?
That's a very good question.
You could read "Muhammad in the Bible" by the former Catholic
bishop Benjamin Kalduni, who studied at the Vatican's Propaganda Fide
College, was ordained as a priest, and later accepted Islam because of
what he had found in Biblical Scripture, taking the name 'Abdul-Ahad
Dawud. You can read his book at http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm
and it will tell you a lot about the history of Christianity after Jesus.
However, it will not tell you the origins of Christianity. For
that, you have to read the Old Testament. I would suggest starting at
Jeremiah 8:8, which is a clear and unequivocal statement that the
Scripture had been altered by the scribes of Levi, long before Jesus
came. Following that up, you can read in the Qur'an that the Children
of Israel did three specific things: they "changed words from their
places," they "twisted their tongues with the Book," and they "hid it
behind their backs." There is no other statement that I have found
that describes so explicitly what changes the scribes made, and none
of this identifies the specific changes that were made.
For that, you have to know the history of Islam from the time of
Abraham to the end of the caliphate of 'Umar radi ALLAHU anhu, which
is when the Biblical prophecies about Islam and Muhammad sallallahu
'alaihi wa sallam were finally fulfilled, and then go back into the
Old Testament and find those prophecies.
What you will find, in general outline, is that God promised
Abraham a heir who would deliver to all humanity the means of
salvation; that then Ishmael was born; that when Ishmael became a
teenager, God made His Covenant with Abraham and Ishmael that was
sealed with circumcision; that then Isaac was born; that Isaac was
also given a Covenant, a separate Covenant, that was fulfilled at
Sinai with Moses and the Children of Israel; that Israel was given the
history of Islam and Muhammad ~ in advance ~ so that they could tell
the nations of the gentiles about it when their Messiah came; and that
when Jesus did come, the leaders of Temple Israel refused his call and
abandoned their Covenant with God.
Along the way, you'll find the evidences of that in Scripture, and
the alterations made by the Levitical scribes will stand out, or at
least some of them will in English, because they're inconsistent with
the revelations of Scripture and with the history of the entire family
of Abraham. To find more of them it's necessary to study the original
Hebrew ~ or rather the Hebrew re-write of the Scripture that was
produced after the Babylonian Captivity, the original having been lost
along with the Hebrew language during the Captivity. Still, the
inconsistencies and contradictions are much more visible in Hebrew.
Muslims generally have not done this. The only people who have
done it are those who, before accepting Islam, used to read Scripture,
like 'Abdul-Ahad Dawud. This is why most muslims are unaware of the
true legacy of the Children of Israel, which Jesus secured by sending
out disciples to deliver the Good News to the nations of the gentiles.
All most muslims know is the history of Temple Israel, who rejected
their Messiah and set out to deceive the nations about the legacy of
Abraham for all humanity.
You can also find some general information that may provide you
with some context for your studies at http://www.muslimamerica.net/ in
the four articles highlighted in the boxes at the top of the Welcome page.
Finally, you can find the actual origins of what is today called
Pauline Christianity by using Google to find the on-line movie
"Zeitgeist" which is also available at zeitgeistmovie.com as a DVD.
All of the prophets, and all of the Scriptures of every faith that
has a Scripture, point to Islam being sent down and established among
the Arabs, and later, after it had been lost, being sent down and
established again among all humanity. Of these, the Biblical
Scriptures are the most detailed and comprehensive. You'll find the
history of early Islam in the Bible, told to the Children of Israel in
advance, in explicit and unambiguous detail.
The proof is that Jewish tribes were waiting in Madinah for the
Messenger when he arrived. They knew where to go, when, and who to
look for. They had been taunting the Arabs of Madinah with their
foreknowledge for nearly a century.
A warning, however:
Today's Jews and Christians appear to know very little, if
anything, about what their ancestors did with Scripture, and are not
to be blamed for it.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Julien ÉLIE
> You can read his book at http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm
> and it will tell you a lot about the history of Christianity after Jesus.
All right. Thanks for the pointer. I will have a look at it
(there is lots of texts there to read!).
And also to the other website http://www.muslimamerica.net/ you mentioned.
> However, it will not tell you the origins of Christianity. For
> that, you have to read the Old Testament. I would suggest starting at
> Jeremiah 8:8, which is a clear and unequivocal statement that the
> Scripture had been altered by the scribes of Levi, long before Jesus
> came.
No, it is not an alteration of « Scripture » but of « Law ». That is
very different!
8 How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?
He only blames Jews for not following the Laws they were given by God.
Rabbinical laws were thus altered in their society when decrees were
not accurately written by scribes.
> Following that up, you can read in the Qur'an that the Children
> of Israel did three specific things: they "changed words from their
> places," they "twisted their tongues with the Book," and they "hid it
> behind their backs."
Sure but they changed the decrees taken for their State, and not the Torah.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« -- Dis, je crois avoir entendu parler gothique par là !
-- Tu as des visions, Pamplemus ! » (Astérix)
Zev
news:4768E441...@muslimamerica.net...
> You could read "Muhammad in the Bible" by the former Catholic
> bishop Benjamin Kalduni, who studied at the Vatican's Propaganda Fide
> College, was ordained as a priest, and later accepted Islam because of
> what he had found in Biblical Scripture, taking the name 'Abdul-Ahad
> Dawud. You can read his book at http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm
> and it will tell you a lot about the history of Christianity after Jesus.
Would you recommend to someone who wanted to study the Quran
to learn from a Muslim apostate
who reads the Quran only to make fun of it,
or to make comments which he knows will find favor
in the ears of his new audience?
> However, it will not tell you the origins of Christianity. For
> that, you have to read the Old Testament. I would suggest starting at
> Jeremiah 8:8, which is a clear and unequivocal statement that the
> Scripture had been altered by the scribes of Levi, long before Jesus
> came. Following that up, you can read in the Qur'an that the Children
> of Israel did three specific things: they "changed words from their
> places," they "twisted their tongues with the Book," and they "hid it
> behind their backs." There is no other statement that I have found
> that describes so explicitly what changes the scribes made, and none
> of this identifies the specific changes that were made.
A pagan Arab asks Muhammad,
"If monotheism is the correct way,
why shouldn't we convert to Christianity or Judaism?
An Arab Christian or Jew could ask a similar question
about remaining what he was.
Muhammad couldn't say these religions were totally wrong
so the Quranic statement quoted above is predictable.
It's what anyone could say in a similar situation.
Why is it said that prophets were sent to rectify
the corruptions to the Torah by the Israelites
but no one can come up with
a single example of a prophet who said:
"this or that, claimed to be the words of prophet so and so,
is not true, don't believe it".
Even Jesus is not claimed to have said such a thing
although it would have helped his cause by
encouraging distrust in the Pharisees.
A 'lying scribe' would put this in, not take it out.
The sycophant 'prophets' who surrounded the king,
telling him and the people what they wanted to hear,
argued the following:
1) God would never allow *His* city (Jerusalem)
to fall to the pagan Babylonians.
2) In contrast to the 10 lost tribes which had disappeared
over 100 years before,
the people of Judea and Benjamin had not sunk to total idol worship
and held the Torah in high regard,
even if they didn't always obey its laws.
If they were to go into exile, the Torah and with it the traditions
and lessons of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.
along with whatever God was planning to build through Israel,
would all be lost.
Their message was that God *couldn't* let it happen,
and Jeremiah said that it *would* happen.
More than once, Jeremiah was almost killed for
"harming the morale of the people in time of crisis".
Jeremiah 8:8 refers to the scribes who worked with
the 'false prophets' who were cooperating with the King,
and 'published' their lies.
The 'prophets', of course, didn't spend their time
fumbling with paper, ink, and quills,
they had scribes for that.
Does it really make sense to you that Jeremiah
would refer to malicious manipulation of the Bible
with no more than a few words at the end
of a sentence in the middle of a chapter?
Proper understanding of Jeremiah 8:8 is trivial.
Jeremiah is telling them that it is not true
that they can depend on their 'Torah'.
This is obvious to anyone who reads
the entire book of Jeremiah,
instead of just selected verses.
There is no hint of
'falsifications made to the books by Israel's scribes'.
Julien ÉLIE
First of all, thanks for your long and detailed answer!
> The Qur'ān tells you to strive (jihād), "with might and main".
[...]
> Strive for what? "In the Path of God" <fī
> sabīli-llāhi>. Jihād is defined in the Qur'ān as a category of
> intensive, virtuous action involving one's property and oneself.
> Jihād, properly understood, leads to taqwā, abidance in God's Will.
I totally agree with you. It is indeed what believers ought to do.
> Lastly, to clarify an oft-misunderstood term in the Qur'ān,
> "disbeliever" (sometimes "unbeliever") does not simply mean "one who
> does not believe." It is the term "kāfir," and in fact it means "one
> who rails against the faithful."
Yes, I agree but I do not know how to say it in English!
In French Qur'ān translations (or at least in good translations!),
"kāfir" is "dénégateur" (one who denies the obvious signs) and it
is different from "mécréant" (one who wrongly believes) and
"incrédule"/"infidčle" (one who does not believe).
> One may undertake wrong action under compulsion, but not
> disbelieve. So of course Yūsuf Alī has to alter his translation of
> <kafara> as "utter Unbelief," i.e., "speak blasphemy." This is the
> only way to make sense out of that passage if one believes that a
> <kāfir> is simply someone who doesn't believe in your religion.
Oh, yes, you are absolutely right.
I have also checked the French translation I use and the verb "renier"
(perhaps "disown" in English, with the sens of despicably rejecting
something) is specified.
Well, I will have to find a better English translation for my
references. Is the one of Yūsuf Alī good?
> Hemen, you must choose your path. Don't worry that it leads you away
> from something that you once thought to be the truth. Trust that if it
> is the truth, you'll come back, but if you don't come back, that is
> God's Will, for you were a striver (jihād again), and sincere, honest
> striving will not lead you astray, no matter what the eventuality
> looks like. Trust God as you seek Him out. He will not let you down.
>
> Jihād is characterized by courage in the face of those who find fault
> with and try to undermine the faith. For the searcher, free of the
> shackles of a community that might wish to keep him from undermining
> its legitimacy by appearing to abandon it, jihād is characterized by
> courage in the face of those who find fault with and try to undermine
> one's quest for God.
What a pretty conclusion! Thanks. That is so true!
Regards,
--
Julien ÉLIE
« -- Dis, je crois avoir entendu parler gothique par lą !
Altway
"Julien ÉLIE" <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote
> Hi Altway,
>> It is necessary to understand that Islam came because certain
>> misunderstandings and corruptions had been introduced into the past
>> dispensations of Religion including Christianity (not necessarily only in
>> the written scriptures). Islam came to both confirm and rectify. It is
>> not, therefore, a question of simply continuing to follow these
>> misunderstandings, but of purifying the religion.
> All right. But how can I find out what should be purified in
> Christianity?
Are all the misunderstandings explained in the Qu'ran? (like Trinity which
should not be trusted, crucifixion, redemption [because of the original
sin],
etc.) However, these facts appear in the written scriptures; so does it
mean
they were badly written or wrongly compiled by the Church?
> How is it possible to find out which are the introduced misunderstandings
and corruptions in the Bible?
Comment:-
You read the Quran and read the NT and OT and compare them.
Also compare the NT with what the Churches teach just as I did.
The Quran confirms some of the teachings of the past and rectifies others.
You will find many articles on this subject on the Internet.
I have posted a discussion with a Christian a weak or so ago.
You could read the article "A Christian-Muslim Discussion" which is still on
Google
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_thread/thread/1858c0527f4f1004?hl=en#09b55c8f48867761
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Would you recommend to someone who wanted to study the Quran
to learn from a Muslim apostate
who reads the Quran only to make fun of it,
or to make comments which he knows will find favor
in the ears of his new audience?
Comment:-
An itelligent person would read the article to determine whether
it had good valid arguments rather than false ones and
would dismiss those which simply make fun based on prejudices.
It is of course obvious that a person who finds someting false will
abandon it and that he will support what he finds to be true.
It is then a question of whether he has sufficient knowledge
about either of these systems and has sufficiently processed the
information to discover what is self-consistent and comprehensive.
Hamid S. Aziz
hajj abujamal
Zev wrote:
> Would you recommend to someone who wanted to study the Quran to
> learn from a Muslim apostate who reads the Quran only to make fun of
> it, or to make comments which he knows will find favor in the ears
> of his new audience?
ALLAH directs us to seek knowledge of the Scriptures from those
who read them before embracing Islam. 'Abdul-Ahad Dawud is such a
person. Your attempt to equate ALLAH's explicit instructions to a
fantasy you imagine to be analogous simply does not apply.
> Why is it said that prophets were sent to rectify the corruptions to
> the Torah by the Israelites but no one can come up with a single
> example of a prophet who said: "this or that, claimed to be the
> words of prophet so and so, is not true, don't believe it".
The scribes of Levi, the tribe charged with responsibility for
custody and preservation of the Scripture and the testimony of the
prophets, used the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet without vowel
markings, diacritical marks showing, for example, the doubling of
consonants, or punctuation of any kind. What they wrote and copied
was an unbroken string of Hebrew consonants that an unlearned person ~
even one able to read Hebrew ~ could not even separate into the
discrete words of a sentence or paragraph. One example is the Hebrew
word for "religion of peace," which is written "SLM." The Hebrew word
for "ladder" is also written "SLM." The difference between the two
words is in the way they are pronounced ~ the first is pronounced
"silm" and the second is pronounced "sullam."
To pronounce the SLM word "silm" as "sullam" changes the meaning
of the verse. This is referred to in the Qur'an as "they twist their
tongues with The Book." Such deliberate distortions of Hebrew
Scripture gave rise to the notion of Scripture containing "secrets"
that only the "initiated" (i.e., e.g., the scribes of Levi) could
know. Some distortions gave rise to a false tradition that Jesus
denounced. He did not "denounce" specific testimonies given by the
prophets, because those testimonies were true ~ what he did was
denounce the lies that were concocted, by misrepresenting what they
said, on the basis of those words.
> Even Jesus is not claimed to have said such a thing although it
> would have helped his cause by encouraging distrust in the
> Pharisees.
"The scribes and the pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All,
therefore, whatsoever they bid you to do, that do; but as they do, do
not; for they say, and do not."
It was the scribes, not the pharisees, who falsified Scripture in
an attempt to make of Israel something that Israel would never be.
> Jeremiah 8:8 refers to the scribes who worked with
> the 'false prophets' who were cooperating with the King,
> and 'published' their lies.
Those "false prophets" were quoting Scripture that did not refer
to Israel, but to another people entirely, asserting that the
prophecies about that other people were instead about Israel. That
was what Jeremiah said: "The lying pens of the scribes have changed it
into the lie." He was not referring to some people who were not the
scribes of Levi, there were no other scribes who could falsify the
Scripture.
> Does it really make sense to you that Jeremiah
> would refer to malicious manipulation of the Bible
> with no more than a few words at the end
> of a sentence in the middle of a chapter?
"Why do you say 'We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us?'
Surely the lying pens of the scribes has changed it into the lie."
He didn't need to say any more, they knew exactly what he was
talking about.
> There is no hint of 'falsifications made
> to the books by Israel's scribes'.
No "hint" at all ~ a flat, unequivocal statement that they had
"changed it into the lie." Prophets didn't give "hints" ~ they gave
Signs that pointed very clearly and unambiguously to the things they
were announcing in advance, and their words were plain and clear,
without any need for elaboration or "interpretation."
Jeremiah said that the scribes of Levi had falsified the Scripture
by changing it into the lie. Those false prophets, who claimed for
Israel what was never Israel's, delivered "prophecies" that did not
come true, so their testimonies were not preserved, they are not
called prophets, and they are not represented as prophets in the
Scriptures. Jeremiah's prophecies came true, so his testimony was
preserved, including his testimony that the scribes of Levi had
falsified Scripture.
That's what they did, by changing words from their places,
twisting their tongues with The Book, and hiding it behind their
backs. Scripture itself ~ as preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic ~ is the
evidence of that. Denial doesn't change it at all.
Imran Razi
>
> Well, I will have to find a better English translation for my
> references. Is the one of Yūsuf Alī good?
Decent. Read it with the Muhammad Asad translation
Good luck, and try to keep an open mind.
Imran Razi
zev...@gmail.com
news:88CdnZHbbP2kOfba...@bt.com...
Hamid, I did read the articles in this site,
( http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm),
but because its errors are subtle,
I wouldn't recommend it to someone
who doesn't know Hebrew and the Bible
well enough to see them for what they are.
That's why your comment here is inadequate.
Many of Mr. Dawud's readers won't have the knowledge
required to prevent them from being led astray by his half-truths.
He would have been more honest
if he would have made statements like:
"Christians/Jews explain this verse this way ------,
but that doesn't make sense because of ------,
therefore we Muslims explain it this way -----".
I'll give you a few examples.
He mentions the 'rights' of the firstborn
forgetting that the many exceptions,
each with an obvious or explicit reason,
prove that this 'right' wasn't taken for granted,
at least not by the Biblical Patriarchs.
He says that there is something wrong with the extant Bible
if it says that the Patriarchs didn't behave
according to Moses' law, given centuries later,
even though the Bible gives no indication that
the Patriarchs knew or were required to obey, that law.
He says the "Shiloh" of Genesis 49:10 cannot refer to Jesus,
"For Jesus is a descendant of Judah through Mary",
as if he had never read a Biblical genealogy
containing only names of male ancestors.
We may not like it,
but the Bible doesn't consider maternity
when deciding on tribal afiliation.
He translates, anachronistically, Hebrew "shalom" into "Islam".
This is a game anyone can play.
Micah 3:5
Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets
Who lead my people astray;
When they have something to bite with their teeth,
They cry, "Islam",
But against him who puts nothing in their mouths
They declare holy war.
(translation of New American Standard Bible,
with one word changed)
I presume your atitude is:
"Why not learn Islam, it can't hurt".
For an atheist or pagan, I would agree that Islam
is a definite improvement and no doubt God's purpose
in having Muhammad promulgate it as part
of his keeping his promise to Abraham
concerning Ishmael that he will be a great nation,
but what will a converted Jew say on the Last Day,
when he is asked why he didn't observe the Sabbath,
or why he ate regular, leavened, bread
during the holiday of Passover, or failed in the
observance of the many other commandments
which occur in Judaism and not in Islam?
Can he say that he didn't bother reading
the Law as given through Moses
but rather a book written for others,
in a foriegn language, by a non-Jew?
zev...@gmail.com
news:476BA5F5...@muslimamerica.net...
> > Would you recommend to someone who wanted to study the Quran to
> > learn from a Muslim apostate who reads the Quran only to make fun of
> > it, or to make comments which he knows will find favor in the ears
> > of his new audience?
>
> ALLAH directs us to seek knowledge of the Scriptures from those
> who read them before embracing Islam. 'Abdul-Ahad Dawud is such a
> person. Your attempt to equate ALLAH's explicit instructions to a
> fantasy you imagine to be analogous simply does not apply.
Perhaps, but can you answer the question anyway?
Why does it make sense to study the Bible
with someone who left Christianity,
and it doesn't make sense to study the Quran
with someone who left Islam?
(assuming this is, in fact, your opinion)
> ......He did not "denounce" specific testimonies given by the
> prophets, because those testimonies were true ~ what he did was
> denounce the lies that were concocted, by misrepresenting what they
> said, on the basis of those words.
Your translation: "lying pen of the scribes".
Doesn't sound like: "misrepresenting what they said...".
It sounds like somebody wrote down a lie.
The only questions which remain are:
who he was, what was the lie, and why did he do it.
> Jeremiah said that the scribes of Levi had falsified the Scripture
> by changing it into the lie. Those false prophets, who claimed for
> Israel what was never Israel's, delivered "prophecies" that did not
> come true, so their testimonies were not preserved, they are not
> called prophets, and they are not represented as prophets in the
> Scriptures. Jeremiah's prophecies came true, so his testimony was
> preserved, including his testimony that the scribes of Levi had
> falsified Scripture.
>
> That's what they did, by changing words from their places,
> twisting their tongues with The Book, and hiding it behind their
> backs. Scripture itself ~ as preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic ~ is the
> evidence of that. Denial doesn't change it at all.
The way I take Jeremiah 8:8 fits well,
in the context of the book of Jeremiah.
It matches Ezekiel and the idea can be found
in other places in the Bible,
for instance in I Samuel 4, where the Hebrews
try to maneuver God into a position where he *must*
save them in order to save the holy ark.
In the end he saved the ark *without* saving them.
Your way of taking it is forced onto an unwilling verse.
It becomes an issue which no Jewish prophet
ever takes up, before or after Jeremiah.
If it were true, Jeremiah wouldn't have left it at that.
Somewhere, somehow, you would find in scripture something like
a denunciation of the lies that were
concocted by misrepresenting what they
said, on the basis of the words of some specific prophet.
(You may notice that here I am paraphrasing your own comment.
I did this deliberately to demonstrate to you that
however much you twist and turn,
you won't get out of the bind you're in.
My interpretation makes sense, yours doesn't.)
For years, you've been saying, referring to Jeremiah 8:8,
"I translate it differently ~ the word at the end, translated by
the Soncino as "a lie," has the definite article in the original
Hebrew:
"How can you say 'We are wise and the Way of the Lord is with us'?
Surely the lying pen of the scribes has changed it to The Lie."
Not only the Soncino.
I have checked 10 different English translations of this verse,
not including the Soncino itself,
none translate this phrase as "The Lie".
But why do you think that a definite article here
supports your interpretation?
The word "change" does not occur in this verse.
You use it only to confuse your readers,
and to force the verse to conform to the interpretation
you have wrongly assigned to it.
Hajj Abujamal
zev...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why does it make sense to study the Bible with someone who left
> Christianity, and it doesn't make sense to study the Quran with
> someone who left Islam?
As a general proposition, it does not make sense to study the
Bible with someone who left Christianity. The exception to this is
the case of someone who followed the Bible to Islam, which is where it
leads. This indicates that the individual (who followed the Bible to
Islam) is actually conversant with what Scripture says, and has seen
through the falsifications of the rabbis and priests.
Moderators please note: This is about ISLAM IN THE BIBLE, it is
not off-topic.
> Your translation: "lying pen of the scribes" doesn't sound like
> "misrepresenting what they said ...". It sounds like somebody
> wrote down a lie.
"Misrepresenting what they said" is the same as "twist their
tongues with The Book" ~ mispronunciation yielding falsification.
"Changing words from their places" is falsification by copying a
portion of Scripture into another context, making it appear that it
refers to the Children of Israel when it actually refers to others.
> The only questions which remain are:
> who he was, what was the lie, and why did he do it.
"The Lie" is that the universal salvation promised by God in
Abraham comes in Israel. It does not, did not, and will not, and
Scripture does not say that it does.
> Somewhere, somehow, you would find in scripture something like
> a denunciation of the lies that were concocted by misrepresenting
> what they said, on the basis of the words of some specific prophet.
Isaiah: "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men,
that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because you have said
'We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at
agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall
not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under
falsehood have we hid ourselves.'"
Ezekiel: "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying 'O son of
Adam, prophesy upon the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to
those who prophesy of their own accord, "Hear the word of the Lord.
Thus says the Sovereign Lord: 'Woe to those fatuous prophets who
follow their own frame of mind and have not seen anything. Your
prophets, O Israel, are like foxes in the ruins: You have not gone up
to the gaps, and you have not built a wall for the house of Israel to
stand in battle in the day of the Lord. They interpret falsely with
sham divination the statements of the Lord's revelation ~ and the Lord
has not sent them ~ while they await establishment of the Word. And
have you not considered false visions while you uttered false
divinations of the sayings of the Lord's revelations, and I have not
spoken? For that, thus said the Sovereign Lord: Because you have
spoken them falsely, and judged them a lie, then for that I am against
you, says the Sovereign Lord. Then My hand will be against the
prophets who expound the deception and those who approve The Lie. ..."
(to the end of Chapter 13).
> For years, you've been saying, referring to Jeremiah 8:8,
> "I translate it differently ~ the word at the end, translated by
> the Soncino as "a lie," has the definite article in the original
> Hebrew: "How can you say 'We are wise and the Way of the Lord is
> with us'? Surely the lying pen of the scribes has changed it to
> The Lie."
> Not only the Soncino. I have checked 10 different English
> translations of this verse, not including the Soncino itself,
> none translate this phrase as "The Lie".
Check the Hebrew and then ask yourself why the translators omit
the definite article.
> But why do you think that a definite article here supports your
> interpretation?
Because it refers to the specific lie that "the universal
salvation promised to all humanity through Abraham comes in Israel,"
when it does not come in Israel. Israel's role was to deliver the
Good News that it was coming next, where, among whom, and how to
recognize it. Jesus fulfilled that ~ Pauline Christianity does not.
> The word "change" does not occur in this verse.
Change, alter, falsify, forge ~ take your pick. The Hebrew
indicts "the lying pens of the scribes" for altering Scripture,
there's no way around that. They weren't forging recipes for
Christmas cookies, they were copying ~ and falsifying ~ Scripture and
the testimonies of the prophets.
You're really fighting a losing battle when you argue that
Scripture has been preserved with textual integrity. Too many rabbis
and Jewish scholars have enumerated instances where it is obvious that
the texts have been falsified, and not only for dynastic purposes or
to draw new property boundaries for the real estate allocated to the
tribes. The demonstrable fact of history is that the scribes did not
faithfully copy the texts, but altered them between recensions.
What I do that differs from that expert criticism is identify the
political aim of certain falsifications and show the Scriptural
evidences of what the corrupt of Temple Israel can no longer hide,
since the Hebrew Scriptures have become publicly available since the
time of the Messiah Jesus. Scripture indicts "ye scornful men, that
rule this people which is in Jerusalem" ~ no one credibly contests
that, not the rabbis, not the priests, not anyone. Scripture also
details the indictments ~ which are for crimes against humanity, not
merely for rebelling against their prophets.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:f11bc265-b892-43ea...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ....
> If Islam is inherited then I should be muslim. Although I did practice
> it somehow for few months, but I don't like the Islamic ideas of Hell
> and Heaven. I'm studying Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. They're
> different. ...
<snip> ...
Comment :-
As an observation, under the 'inheritance' and 'salvation' objects, there is
the third Catholic idea of 'limbo', that is the place between heaven and
hell reserved for the souls of children who die before they have been
baptised. Limbo has been part of Catholic teaching since the 13th century.
To quote Pope Pius X on this issue ; "Children who die without being
baptised go to limbo, where they don't enjoy God, but don't suffer either,
because whilst carrying the original sin... they don't deserve paradise but
neither do they deserve hell or purgatory." This third Christian idea is
completely alien to both Islam and Judaism. I'm not sure about the Jehovah's
Witnesses.
Muslims believe that all children go straight to heaven without passing any
test.
--
Peace
--
You cannot teach a person who is not anxious to learn and you cannot explain
to one who is not trying to make things clear to themselves. [Anon]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Hajj Abujamal
Zev wrote:
> The claim here is that an honest Jew or Christian
> cannot avoid following Muhammad,
> because his own scripture tells him to.
That's right.
> This is a bold statement, and the Quranic author
> goes out on a limb here because if a
> knowledgeable Christian or Jew says sincerely:
> "There is no verse in the Torah which seems
> to be a reference to Muhammad",
> the statement is untrue!
> This is what I myself say,
> and I haven't yet seen a sensible Muslim retort.
You are completely free to deny what Scripture says. However, the
"Quranic author" creates limbs, while you are free to go out on that one.
So what do you say about Isaiah 21:13-17 ~ "... The burden upon
Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye caravans of
Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him
that was thirsty; they met with their bread him who fled. For they
fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and
from the grievousness of war. For thus has the Lord said unto me:
'Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the
glory of Kedar shall fail; and the residue of the number of archers,
the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished; for the
Lord God of Israel has spoken it.'"
Here is Isaiah describing the Hijrah and the Battle of Badr in
utterly unmistakable and unambiguous terms. It happened exactly as
Isaiah describes. How can any "honest" Bible reader deny that?
> Why are we arguing about this?
We're not. I am informing other readers, and you are denying that
Muhammad is mentioned in Scripture. There's no "argument" here, only
information and denial.
> What's "Universal Salvation"?
The means by which we can save ourselves from the dangerous
aspects of our own human nature, distributed to all humankind rather
than just to one small family among the descendants of Abraham.
[snipped comparisons of translations into contemporary English
directly from Semitic texts with translations into medieval English
from Latin translated from Greek translated from Aramaic.]
Scripture is so much clearer in its original languages. It's not
even worth discussing it with someone who can only read the King James
and other "Christian" English versions, and for that reason can't
possibly know what it says.
Those who want to stay deceived have a lot of help doing that.
Zev
news:477148C8...@muslimamerica.net...
> zev wrote:
> As a general proposition, it does not make sense to study the
> Bible with someone who left Christianity. The exception to this is
> the case of someone who followed the Bible to Islam, which is where it
> leads. This indicates that the individual (who followed the Bible to
> Islam) is actually conversant with what Scripture says, and has seen
> through the falsifications of the rabbis and priests.
This sounds like Quran 7:157.
Quran 7:157 (PICKTHAL):
"Those who follow the messenger,
the Prophet who can neither read nor write,
whom they will find described in the Torah
and the Gospel (which are) with them.".
The claim here is that an honest Jew or Christian
cannot avoid following Muhammad,
because his own scripture tells him to.
This is a bold statement, and the Quranic author
goes out on a limb here because if a
knowledgeable Christian or Jew says sincerely:
"There is no verse in the Torah which seems
to be a reference to Muhammad",
the statement is untrue!
This is what I myself say,
and I haven't yet seen a sensible Muslim retort.
But if you are unconcerned by the fact that
your mentor reads the Bible only to make fun of it,
or that he makes comments which he knows will find favor
in the ears of his new audience,
and you call time so spent, "learning", enjoy your studies,
but don't expect to grow intellectually or spiritually,
from hearing what you already 'know',
and refusing to accept the fact that
those who know the book best
may be just those who don't treat it as putty in their hands.
> "Misrepresenting what they said" is the same as "twist their
> tongues with The Book" ~ mispronunciation yielding falsification.
Why does Jeremiah say "lying pen"?
Why doesn't he just say "liars"?
"Lying pen of the scribes" sounds like somebody wrote down a lie.
Why are we arguing about this?
Isn't it because I asked why it is said that prophets
were sent to rectify the corruptions to the Torah by the Israelites
but no one can come up with a single example of a prophet who said:
"this or that, claimed to be the words of prophet so and so,
is not true, don't believe it"?
To get around this problem,
you say it was just "mispronunciation yielding falsification".
But that doesn't seem to be Jeremiah's complaint either.
If unwritten vowels are mispronounced,
that's not the fault of a 'lying' scribe.
The definite article on which you place
so much importance is itself
no more than a "pronunciation" here.
If someone didn't want "The Lie" to get out,
it could easily have been "mispronounced"
into a schwa, and disappeared.
The fact that it didn't happen
is an additional argument against you.
> "Changing words from their places" is falsification by copying a
> portion of Scripture into another context, making it appear that it
> refers to the Children of Israel when it actually refers to others.
Or the opposite, or whatever.
But that's not what Jeremiah or any other prophet
in the Bible complains about.
> "The Lie" is that the universal salvation promised by God in
> Abraham comes in Israel. It does not, did not, and will not, and
> Scripture does not say that it does.
Right!
But where's the lie?
What's "Universal Salvation"?
> > Somewhere, somehow, you would find in scripture something like
> > a denunciation of the lies that were concocted by misrepresenting
> > what they said, on the basis of the words of some specific prophet.
>
> Isaiah: "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men,
> that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because you have said
> 'We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at
> agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall
> not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under
> falsehood have we hid ourselves.'"
There is no hint here that these "scornful men"
have made changes in the accepted Bible of the time.
Isaiah seems to be complaining about the people
Ezekiel and Jeremiah complain about,
but I haven't looked into this
because you don't say what chapter it is.
> Ezekiel: "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying 'O son of
> Adam, prophesy upon the prophets of Israel who prophesy, and say to
> those who prophesy of their own accord, "Hear the word of the Lord.
> Thus says the Sovereign Lord: 'Woe to those fatuous prophets who
> follow their own frame of mind and have not seen anything. Your
> prophets, O Israel, are like foxes in the ruins: You have not gone up
> to the gaps, and you have not built a wall for the house of Israel to
> stand in battle in the day of the Lord. They interpret falsely with
> sham divination the statements of the Lord's revelation ~ and the Lord
> has not sent them ~ while they await establishment of the Word. And
> have you not considered false visions while you uttered false
> divinations of the sayings of the Lord's revelations, and I have not
> spoken? For that, thus said the Sovereign Lord: Because you have
> spoken them falsely, and judged them a lie, then for that I am against
> you, says the Sovereign Lord. Then My hand will be against the
> prophets who expound the deception and those who approve The Lie. ..."
> (to the end of Chapter 13).
It is always perplexing to see an argument against me,
proving my own point.
Where do you see in these quotes the smallest hint of
a denunciation of lies that have entered the Bible,
that were concocted by misrepresenting what prophets said?
It is not enough to parse the Bible
for keywords like "lie" or "false".
It is necessary to read what you have found,
to try to understand it.
Remember I told that my explanation
of Jeremiah 8:8 fits well with Ezekiel?
I was thinking of Ezekiel 13,
the very chapter you have brought here.
You could have read the last few verses of Ezekiel 12 also.
The lie that Jeremiah and Ezekiel are railing against
is the lie that Jerusalem is safe.
The lie was told by sycophant 'prophets'
who told people what they wanted to hear.
Jerusalem was captured, those 'prophets' were punished,
their names are unknown and they
and their writings have disappeared from history.
It's the only way to understand the text,
and it makes sense in the context.
You would have us believe that the most important thing
God could tell his prophets
as a Babylonian army stood at the gates of Jerusalem,
was something like, "you know what I told you
about a non-Jewish prophet coming
a thousand years from now, it's important,
because the whole world is waiting for you Jews
to make the announcement, don't hide it or lie about it".
Your explanation doesn't fit the text,
and it doesn't make sense in the context.
Knowing how unpopular Jews
who told the truth, have always been,
your explanation seems wryly absurd.
I would guess you know this yourself
and that's why you embellish the translation,
to advance your agenda, against all odds.
Your quote is Ezekiel 13:1-9.
Verse 6, your version:
They interpret falsely with
sham divination the statements of the Lord's revelation ~ and the Lord
has not sent them ~ while they await establishment of the Word.
Verse 6, New American Standard Bible:
"They see falsehood and lying divination who are saying,
`The Lord declares,' when the Lord has not sent them;
yet they hope for the fulfillment of their word.
Verse 7, your version
And have you not considered false visions
while you uttered false divinations of the sayings
of the Lord's revelations, and I have not spoken?
Verse 7, New American Standard Bible:
"Did you not see a false vision
and speak a lying divination when you said,
`The Lord declares,' but it is not I who have spoken?""'
Verse 8, your version
For that, thus said the Sovereign Lord:
Because you have spoken them falsely,
and judged them a lie, then for that I am against you,
says the Sovereign Lord
Verse 8, New American Standard Bible:
Therefore, thus says the Lord God,
"Because you have spoken falsehood and seen a lie,
therefore behold, I am against you,"
declares the Lord God.
Verse 9, your version
Then My hand will be against the prophets
who expound the deception and those who approve The Lie. ..."
Verse 9, New American Standard Bible:
"So My hand will be against the prophets
who see false visions and utter lying divinations.
They will have no place in the council of My people,
nor will they be written down
in the register of the house of Israel,
nor will they enter the land of Israel,
that you may know that I am the Lord God."
Why didn't you give us the rest of verse 9?
Because it shows that these 'prophets' and their lies will be
forgotten?
Why didn't you continue with the next verse, for an even 10?
Because it shows exactly what the lie was?
Verse 10, New American Standard Bible:
"It is definitely because they have misled My people by
saying, `Peace!' when there is no peace.
And when anyone builds a wall,
behold, they plaster it over with whitewash;
See what I mean?
You select verses, avoiding those which embarrass you,
and change the translation of those you do bring.
>>> For years, you've been saying, referring to Jeremiah 8:8,
>>> "I translate it differently ~ the word at the end, translated by
>>> the Soncino as "a lie," has the definite article in the original
>>> Hebrew: "How can you say 'We are wise and the Way of the Lord is
>>> with us'? Surely the lying pen of the scribes has changed it to
>>> The Lie."
> > Not only the Soncino. I have checked 10 different English
> > translations of this verse, not including the Soncino itself,
> > none translate this phrase as "The Lie".
> Check the Hebrew and then ask yourself why the translators omit
> the definite article.
Not important enough to put myself out.
The question here is what lie is Jeremiah referring to.
That's why I asked why you think that a definite article here
supports your interpretation.
Your retort "Because it refers to the specific lie..."
is no answer because I didn't say that Jeremiah
was complaining about some nebulous, indefinable "lying".
I discussed this issue at length in my previous post,
explaining just what that lie was.
You ignored it, and snipped the whole argument,
prefering to nitpick at various points which I raised.
But I'm still wondering where
you saw this hard-to-find translation,
and why you compared yours to the Soncino,
rather than one of the more popular
and better known Christian translations,
making the impression that a Jewish translation
was perhaps part of a continuing,
multigenerational conspiracy to hide the truth.
But the whole issue is absurd and just shows
how little you really have, to prove your point.
I wonder how you would translate "La France"
from French, or "Das Kapital" from German.
How would you say "The Lie"
in Latin, Russian, or Aramaic?
> > But why do you think that a definite article here supports your
> > interpretation?
> Because it refers to the specific lie that "the universal
> salvation promised to all humanity through Abraham comes in Israel,"
> when it does not come in Israel. Israel's role was to deliver the
> Good News that it was coming next, where, among whom, and how to
> recognize it. Jesus fulfilled that ~ Pauline Christianity does not.
> > The word "change" does not occur in this verse.
> Change, alter, falsify, forge ~ take your pick. The Hebrew
> indicts "the lying pens of the scribes" for altering Scripture,
> there's no way around that. They weren't forging recipes for
> Christmas cookies, they were copying ~ and falsifying ~ Scripture and
> the testimonies of the prophets.
"Change, alter, falsify, forge",
none of them appear in this verse,
I'm not arguing about synonyms.
There's no hint in Jeremiah about altering Scripture.
If that's what he meant,
why didn't he (and Ezekiel) say so?
The lie was that Jerusalem would not fall.
That is indeed not Christmas cookies, that's survival.
Here again, you embellish the translation,
to advance your agenda, against all odds,
and you're twice culpable,
because you attempt to turn an honest book
into a lie in order to make a dishonest book appear truthful.
> You're really fighting a losing battle when you argue that
> Scripture has been preserved with textual integrity. Too many rabbis
> and Jewish scholars have enumerated instances where it is obvious that
> the texts have been falsified, and not only for dynastic purposes or
> to draw new property boundaries for the real estate allocated to the
> tribes. The demonstrable fact of history is that the scribes did not
> faithfully copy the texts, but altered them between recensions.
You're interested in scholarly criticism of scripture?
Try this:
http://www.inthenameofallah.org/
Tell me what you learned from it,
I'll tell you what I learn from atheists and Reform Rabbis ;-)
Altway
it had good valid arguments rather than false ones and
would dismiss those which simply make fun based on prejudices.
It is of course obvious that a person who finds someting false will
abandon it and that he will support what he finds to be true.
It is then a question of whether he has sufficient knowledge
about either of these systems and has sufficiently processed the
information to discover what is self-consistent and comprehensive.
> Hamid, I did read the articles in this site,
( http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm),
but because its errors are subtle,
I wouldn't recommend it to someone
who doesn't know Hebrew and the Bible
well enough to see them for what they are.
That's why your comment here is inadequate.
Many of Mr. Dawud's readers won't have the knowledge
required to prevent them from being led astray by his half-truths.
He would have been more honest
if he would have made statements like:
"Christians/Jews explain this verse this way ------,
but that doesn't make sense because of ------,
therefore we Muslims explain it this way -----".
Comment:-
I too have read the articles you mention
I take your point.
I do see that different interpretations are possible.
But it does not invalidate what I said.
The convert we are speaking about was not ignorant of Christianity
or Islam having been a Bishop in the Church.
Certainly his interpretaions as any other can be interpreted in many
ways according to perception, motive and effort
and there are endless arguments about everything because of selection
of facts and giving them different weights
The question is does a particular interpretation fit intoa self-consistent
systemof thought or not and how comprehensive that system is.
Some of his arguments do seem weak to me but that may be because I
do not have the same amount of scholarship in the subject a he appears to
have.
It is sufficient reson for him to covert to Islam.
People abandon or convert to various religions on the strength of much less
justification.
> I'll give you a few examples.
> He mentions the 'rights' of the firstborn
forgetting that the many exceptions,
each with an obvious or explicit reason,
prove that this 'right' wasn't taken for granted,
at least not by the Biblical Patriarchs.
etc..etc..
Comment:-
The examles you give I could argue about all of them
but I do not think that it would be worth the effort
becausepeople tend to have their own preferred
position with which they identify and which they will defend
to the end.
> I presume your atitude is:
"Why not learn Islam, it can't hurt".
For an atheist or pagan, I would agree that Islam
is a definite improvement and no doubt God's purpose
in having Muhammad promulgate it as part
of his keeping his promise to Abraham
concerning Ishmael that he will be a great nation,
but what will a converted Jew say on the Last Day,
when he is asked why he didn't observe the Sabbath,
or why he ate regular, leavened, bread
during the holiday of Passover, or failed in the
observance of the many other commandments
which occur in Judaism and not in Islam?
> Can he say that he didn't bother reading
the Law as given through Moses
but rather a book written for others,
in a foriegn language, by a non-Jew?
Comment:-
I have read the Old Testament aswell as the New Testament
(and also Hindu and Buddhist Scriptures)
I see that there were aseries of Prohets sentbecaue the Hebrews
kept departing from the Divine Way. I noticealso
that this Way, though it is described by certain strict rules, these are
modified from time totime as the state and needs of the people varied over
time.
This is like adapting the medicine according to the malady.
I conclude that the Way is notto be defined by the strict rules but by
the atttitudes and psychological conditions they are designed to create.
This is like learning mathematics for example. One learns to add certain
figures by rote
until one grasps the notion of addition. This enables one to add any other
numbers together.
Later one learnsto manipulate numbers in many other ways.
That is, the particular is only an example of a more general principle.
Religion vary in particulars but have the same general princple.
There is also an evolution over time such that new dispensations of religion
must
replacethe older ones not only because each religion has been corruptedby
adulteration
and erosion and tiredness, but also because it has completed its task of
bringing mankind
to a certain stage andthe new dispensation has to produce the next stage of
human evolution.
A spiritual impulse is like a pebble thrown into a pond. The riples move
outwards
in space and time bringing transformatio, but weaken as they spread.
The energy introduced raises the level of the whole pond.
It is my conviction ased on my studies that the evolutioary transforming
force in
Islam isfar from exhausted. It is just that Muslims have gone to sleep and
perhaps
others will discover and utilise and actualise its potentialities.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zev
> That's right.
I read the entire chapter 21.
I found no mention of Muhammad
or anyone who seems to be like Muhammad.
Verse 21:16 seems to preclude the possibility that this
is an account of a battle which occurred
over a thousand years later,
but let's assume you're right about this.
The narration of these battles, totally ignoring Muhammad,
is a more telling testimony of how the Bible
relates to Muhammad, than an entire book about him would be.
Can an honest Bible reader deny this?
>> Why are we arguing about this?
> We're not. I am informing other readers, and you are denying that
> Muhammad is mentioned in Scripture. There's no "argument" here, only
> information and denial.
My rhetorical question here "Why are we arguing about this?",
had nothing to do with Muhammad in Scripture,
but rather the lie of Jeremiah 8:8.
It seems incredible that this question was misunderstood.
Here it is again, in context:
begin quote
Why does Jeremiah say "lying pen"?
Why doesn't he just say "liars"?
"Lying pen of the scribes" sounds like somebody wrote down a lie.
Why are we arguing about this?
Isn't it because I asked why it is said that prophets
were sent to rectify the corruptions to the Torah by the Israelites
but no one can come up with a single example of a prophet who said:
"this or that, claimed to be the words of prophet so and so,
is not true, don't believe it"?....
end quote
I don't know what led you to make this comment here,
but since you made it, I'll respond to it.
Because I believe that nothing happens which
is not hinted to, in the Torah, I wouldn't be disturbed or surprised
if I found something in the Bible which seemed
to be a reference to Muhammad.
But after many discussions with those who believe
that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible, including yourself,
I believe, tentatively, that he isn't.
I am far more confidant about the untruthfulness
of the Quranic claim (7:157) that an honest Jew or Christian
cannot avoid following Muhammad,
because his own scripture tells him to.
Your scripture says something about me
and many others, which appears to be untrue.
Your flippant retort above makes the impression
that you don't understand the gravity of your situation.
>> What's "Universal Salvation"?
> The means by which we can save ourselves from the dangerous
> aspects of our own human nature, distributed to all humankind rather
> than just to one small family among the descendants of Abraham.
This "Jihad" is the task of every descendant of Adam.
It is the "raison d'etre' of our being here,
and the 'sine qua non' of our own humanity,
for better or for worse.
The concept of "Universal Salvation" is not found in the OT,
except perhaps in some sort of anachronistic interpretation
that would have been scoffed at by its authors.
The statement that *this* is the lie of Jeremiah 8:8 invites derision.
> [snipped comparisons of translations into contemporary English
> directly from Semitic texts with translations into medieval English
> from Latin translated from Greek translated from Aramaic.]
I'm disappointed but not surprised.
When I offered you an alternative explanation of Jeremiah 8:8,
saying mine was better than yours,
instead of showing me why I was wrong,
you chose to snip the whole thing,
and quoted verses from Ezekiel 13.
When I complain about gross mistranslations
and point to verses which make a mockery
of your interpretation of the chapter
(which you carefully left out of the quoted section),
again, you just snip out the whole thing.
If you believe your translation was made "directly from Semitic
texts",
and is better than the one I used to compare to yours,
why don't you defend your translation,
show me where the one I used is wrong?
> Scripture is so much clearer in its original languages. It's not
> even worth discussing it with someone who can only read the King James
> and other "Christian" English versions, and for that reason can't
> possibly know what it says.
It is true that anyone who presents himself
as a Bible scholar, who has no access
to the relevant source material, is a charlatan.
But you should realize the limitations
of such generalizations.
You *can* gain something from translations,
but it's important that it hasn't been manipulated
by someone with an agenda,
someone who reads Bible but thinks Quran.
Julien ÉLIE
> That's what they did, by changing words from their places,
> twisting their tongues with The Book, and hiding it behind their
> backs. Scripture itself ~ as preserved in Hebrew and Aramaic ~ is the
> evidence of that. Denial doesn't change it at all.
But didn't the same thing happen to the Qur'an?
It is very unsure that it was compiled around the year 650 (`Uthmân).
It is more probable in 700, with `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwân, and lots
of alterations of any kind could have been done during all that time.
Well, God knows better regarding that and I think that arguing
regarding the accuracy of Its words is useless.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Le cercle est le plus long chemin d'un point au même point. »
(Tom Stoppard, _Every Good Boy Deserves Favour_)
Julien ÉLIE
Thanks a lot for your suggestion.
I bought three weeks ago _The Message of The Qur'ān_ by Muhammad Asad.
His translation is indeed marvellous. And so do his commentaries.
I also bought a French translation of the _Sahīh al-Bukhārī_ and
an abridged version of the tafsīr of ibn Kathīr in order to better
understand islam. It is very interesting and I have a lot of work
to do in order to read, understand and meditate on all these books!
Thanks again.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ne pas monter bien haut, peut-źtre, mais tout seul ! » (Edmond Rostand)
Zev
> But it does not invalidate what I said.
> The convert we are speaking about was not ignorant of Christianity
> or Islam having been a Bishop in the Church.
He no doubt knew the NT better than he knew the OT.
This is frequently true for Christians.
In general this may not be a problem,
but it means that their criticism
of the OT tends to be superficial.
But the point of my comment was only that
Mr. Dawud could have mentioned to his readers
the explanations which Christians/Jews offer
for the verses he brings up
and leave it to the reader
to decide, perhaps, that the Islamic way makes more sense.
> There is also an evolution over time such that new dispensations of
> religion must
> replacethe older ones not only because each religion has been corruptedby
> adulteration
> and erosion and tiredness, but also because it has completed its task of
> bringing mankind
> to a certain stage andthe new dispensation has to produce the next stage
> of human evolution.
I understood that Muslims believe that "Islam" is unchanging,
from the earlist prophets until Muhammed.
Here you mention the "evolution over time" of religions.
Can you discuss this further?
Hajj Abujamal
Zev wrote:
> Altway wrote:
>> ['Abdul-Ahad Dawud] was not ignorant of Christianity
>> or Islam having been a Bishop in the Church.
> He no doubt knew the NT better than he knew the OT.
He no doubt knew both in their original languages, in depth, as
his book shows. Had you read it, you would know that.
'Abdul-Ahad Dawud's "Muhammad in the Bible" is now located at
http://www.muslimamerica.net/ad/ so that you can read it yourself, and
at least have some personal knowledge of what you're talking about.
> Mr. Dawud could have mentioned to his readers the explanations which
> Christians/Jews offer for the verses he brings up and leave it to
> the reader to decide, perhaps, that the Islamic way makes more
> sense.
He provides the Pauline English translation (translated from
Latin, which was translated from Greek, which was translated from
Aramaic, which was translated from Hebrew), and then provides a direct
translation from the Hebrew (or Aramaic or, for the "New Testament,"
the Greek).
For a history of the translations, from Hebrew to Aramaic and then
to Greek, you can read the first few chapters of Douglas Reed's "The
Controversy of Zion," a comprehensive history of apostate zion, which
is located at http://www.muslimamerica.net/cz/ ~ it is quite clear
that much of the Hebrew was lost during the Babylonian Captivity, and
when the scribes later translated what they learned from their
grandfathers from the Aramaic into Greek, they redacted more. Reed's
book provides references to rabbinical and other writings that give
this history.
'Abdul-Ahad Dawud's translations are from the earliest original
languages he was able to find at the Vatican. There is good reason to
believe that the original Hebrew scrolls are in Aksum, in Africa, but
he did not have access to them.
The words are self-explanatory in his translation, as they are in
the Semitic languages; for the Greek "New Testament," the text has so
far required over two thousand years to fail to rationally explain
(hence Pauline Christianity is a "mystery religion"), and there have
been many attempts. He does not list the ever-changing attempts; nor,
in the face of the direct translation and evidence of the Hebrew or
Aramaic grammar (or Greek, in the case of the New Testament), is there
any need to discuss these inexplicable mistranslations.
>> There is also an evolution over time such that new dispensations of
>> religion must replace the older ones not only because each religion
>> has been corrupted by adulteration and erosion and tiredness, but
>> also because it has completed its task of bringing mankind to a
>> certain stage and the new dispensation has to produce the next
>> stage of human evolution.
> I understood that Muslims believe that "Islam" is unchanging, from
> the earliest prophets until Muhammed. Here you mention the
> "evolution over time" of religions. Can you discuss this further?
Unfortunately, Altway's words are not particularly well chosen.
See http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm ~ "Fawariq: The
Distinctive Character of Tradition" ~ for a "further discussion" of
"progressive revelation," which might be better understood as "planned
social evolution" rather than as "evolution" per se. We humans have
not "evolved" since Adam in the sense that Altway postulates. In
short ...
All the prophets and messengers came with The Book. They
understood it in the language of their people, which means that prior
to its revelation in Arabic, portions of it were inaccessible to them
in a communicable form. All of the prophets and messengers were given
the same practices, customs, or habits that we practice today as
muslims ~ but their people were given only a subset of those
practices. (For example, you will see "ultra-orthodox" Jews making
salat in exactly the same way that muslims do, in Hebrew or Aramaic,
and a careful reading of the "New Testament" discloses that Jesus
'alaihi as-salaam did so, as well ~ but three times a day, not five,
and in Aramaic.) Muhammad sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam completed the
revelation, as the Qur'an explicitly states: "This day have We
completed your religion and have written on you al-Islam." There is
no comparable statement in any previous revelation, every other
religion foretells a final, perfected, eternal, and universal revelation.
See Fawariq for a more comprehensive discussion of this. In all,
there were seven periods, inaugurated by seven messengers, initiated
by seven "kalimas" that muslims repeat today.
'Abdul-Ahad Dawud's book is unimpeachable scholarship.
Imran Razi
I'm very glad you're enjoying it and are able to benefit from it,
inshaallah.
Let me further suggest a good seerah (biography of the Prophet Muhammad
(alayhi salaam) as the next step, even before the hadith. It's the
best way of understanding the Sunnah (example of the Prophet), the
second source of Islam (along with the Quran).
The hadith were compiled for different purpose(s). Ibn Kathir is good
(assuming the translation is good), but it presumes a lot of background
knowledge.
For the seerah in English, I like Tariq Ramadan's recent "In the
Footsteps of the Prophet" for the beginning student. If you like M.
Asad you'll like Tariq Ramadan, though they are a bit different.
Probably the best seerah in English is Muhammad Haykal's "The Life of
Muhammad," but it is written for a university-level audience and is
fairly detailed. The old seerah/translation by Alfred Guillaume is not
very good.
Best of luck and good reading! Feel free to ask any questions you may
have here.
Sincerely,
Imran Razi
P.S. Sorry my keyboard doesn't have accented characters for French.
Julien ÉLIE
> Let me further suggest a good seerah (biography of the Prophet Muhammad
> (alayhi salaam) as the next step, even before the hadith.
All right.
> For the seerah in English, I like Tariq Ramadan's recent "In the
> Footsteps of the Prophet" for the beginning student. If you like M.
> Asad you'll like Tariq Ramadan, though they are a bit different.
I even see that Tariq Ramadan's wife is French and that he has
a great knowledge of French literature.
Well, "In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad"
(2007/02) is in English while I see that he also wrote "Muhammad, Vie du
Prophète. Enseignements spirituels et contemporains" (2006/09) in French.
I do not know whether they speak about the same things. I should perhaps
have a look in a bookshop instead of ordering them on Amazon.
> Probably the best seerah in English is Muhammad Haykal's "The Life of
> Muhammad," but it is written for a university-level audience and is
> fairly detailed.
Thanks a lot for the reference you gave me.
> Best of luck and good reading! Feel free to ask any questions you may
> have here.
That is very kind of you. Surely I will :)
> P.S. Sorry my keyboard doesn't have accented characters for French.
No problem.
Have a nice week-end,
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Tempora si fuerint nubila, solus eris. » (Ovide)
Saqib Virk
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f0fec9c-8e52-4203...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Here you mention the "evolution over time" of religions.
> Can you discuss this further?
SV
At the advent of Islam there were many other religions the world over. What
need was there for another religion or was the division between religions
itself reason for the coming of one to unite them all? The various religions
before Islam addressed their message to one group or nationality and not the
whole world. Confucianism regarded China as God's own kingdom, Hinduism
regards India as God's favored land. Zoroastrianism and Judaism also were
national religions. Jesus preached that he had come only for the lost sheep
of the house of Israel even though Christians took his message to the world
after his time.
Either we must hold that there are several gods, or, if God is one, we must
have these conflicting religions replaced by one Teaching. The God of
Israel, the God of the Hindus, the God of China and the God of Iran are not
different. Nor is the God of Arabia, of Afghanistan and of Europe different.
Nor is the God of the Mongols and the God of the Semites different. God is
one, even as the law to which the world is subject is one law, and the
system which links one part of it to another is one system.
Islam teaches that every nation or peoples was sent a messenger from God so
that none would be without guidance. Though the fundamental message was
always the same it was addressed to the needs of the particular people and
time. It should be obvious that eventually, as the human race began to
advance, a universal teaching, covering all the different situations of man
would be required. Then in the desert of Arabia, God sent His final Message
to mankind through the Holy Prophet of Islam. It speaks of God to Whom all
manner of praise is due, Who sends His sustenance to all peoples and all
countries, and in an equitable measure. He is
not partial to any country or any people.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I understood that Muslims believe that "Islam" is unchanging,
from the earlist prophets until Muhammed.
Here you mention the "evolution over time" of religions.
Can you discuss this further?
Comment:-
I will give you a fairly comprehensive answer but you might not read it with
concentration
but flit over it.
The Message is the same but its understanding expands.
(1) The Message is that man should worship only Allah (God, the One and
Absolute, the Self-existing)
That is the definition of Religion:-
"Religion with Allah is the Surrender. those who formerly received the
scriptures differed only after knowledge came to them, through transgression
among themselves... and if they argue with thee, say: I have surrendered my
purpose to Allah, and so have those who follow me. And say unto those who
have received the scriptures and those who read not: Have ye, too,
surrendered? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided; and if
they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message." 3:19-20
"Surely pure religion is for Allah only, and those who chose protecting
friends besides Him say: We worship them only that they might bring us near
unto Allah. Lo, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they
differ. Allah guides not him who is a liar, an ingrate.. Lo, I am commanded
to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him only." 39:3,11
"And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger proclaiming: Serve
Allah and shun false Idols. Then some of them there were whom Allah guided
and some of them there were upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in
the land and see the nature of the consequences for the deniers. " 16:36
"And when Allah made His covenant with the Prophets, He said: Behold that
which I have given you of the scriptures and knowledge. And afterwards there
will come unto you a Messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall
believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take
up My burden in this matter? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye
witness, and I will be a witness with you." 3:81
"Mankind were one community, and Allah sent unto them Prophets as bearers of
good tidings (gospels) and as Warners, and revealed therewith Scriptures
with Truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they
differ. And only those unto whom it was given differed concerning it, after
clear proofs had come unto them through hatred of one another." 2:213
"And lo, this religion is one religion, and I am your Lord, so keep your
duty unto Me. But they, mankind have broken their religion into sects, each
rejoicing in its tenets. So leave them in their error till a time." 23:52-54
"And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger proclaiming: Serve
Allah and shun false Idols. Then some of them there were whom Allah guided
and some of them there were upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in
the land and see the nature of the consequences for the deniers. " 16:36
"Lo, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Sabaeans and Christians -
whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right - there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." 5:69
(2) Religion is about functioning according to one's essential God-made
nature. Though religions are brought through Prophets and Messengers of God
this is because human beings have "Fallen" and do not function according to
their inherent nature
"So set thy purpose for Religion as a man upright by nature - the nature
framed by Allah in which He hath created man. There is no changing the laws
of Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not."
30:30
"He hath named you Muslims in old times and in this scripture, that the
messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against
mankind..." 22:78
(3) There are several dispensations of religion and each has its own
formulation, discipline and sets of actions according to times place and
people.
"And we never sent a messenger save with the language (or language system or
formulation) of his folk, that he might make the message clear for them."
14:4
"Unto each nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so
let them not dispute with thee about the matter, but summon thou unto thy
Lord." 22:67
"Say, O people of the scriptures, ye have naught of guidance till ye observe
the Torah and the Gospels and that which was revealed unto you from your
Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain
to increase the rebelliousness and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not
for the disbelieving folk. Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last day and
does right, there shall no fear come upon them nor shall they grieve."
5:68-69
(4) Religion comes in doses each successive one confirming, rectifying and
building on the previous, progressing towards perfection.
"Such of our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring
in its place one better or the like thereof." 2:106
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour
unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam." 5:3
"And when Allah made His covenant with the Prophets, He said: Behold that
which I have given you of the scriptures and knowledge. And afterwards there
will come unto you a Messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall
believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take
up My burden in this matter? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye
witness, and I will be a witness with you." 3:81
According to a reliable Hadith the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said
that Religion is like a House built gradually with bricks. He, Muhammad,
laid the last brick and completed the house.
(5) Muslims are not worshippers of Muhammad - they do not, or should not
just cling to the last brick but the whole house.
"He (Allah) hath ordained for you that religion which He commended unto
Noah, and that which He inspired in thee (Muhammad), and that which We
commended unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying : Establish the religion
and be not divided therein....unto this then, summon (O Muhammad). And be
thou upright as thou art commanded and follow not their lusts, but say: I
believe in whatever scriptures Allah hath sent down, and I am commanded to
be just among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. Unto us our works and
unto you your works. No argument between us and you. Allah will bring us
together, and unto Him is the journeying." 42:13,15
"Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and
that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob and
the Tribes and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the
Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of
them, and unto Him have we Surrendered." 2:136 See also 3:84
"Lo, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers, and seek to make
distinctions between Allah and His Messengers and say: We believe in some
and disbelieve in others, and seek to chose a way in between, such are
disbelievers in Truth; and for disbelievers We have prepared a shameful
doom." 4:151
Hamid S. Aziz
Robert
Abujamal refers to the "Pauline English translation [of the NT
presumably] (translated from Latin, which was translated from Greek,
which was translated from Aramaic, which was translated from
Hebrew)..." He implies that the original Gospel is obscured by a
succession of four translations. This is pure fiction, as is his
implication that the text of the NT is "Pauline" : the Gospels,
Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles and revelations are independent of
Paul.
The best present-day translations of the Bible - the Revised Standard
Version for instance - are based upon a rigorous analysis of the
earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments. He should
bear in mind that no one knows the original Koran; no critical edition
of the Koran - one which reconstructs the original by comparing the
variant readings of early manuscripts - exists. The reason for this is
that such a critical project would expose the Muslim myth of the
miraculous perfect transmission of the Koran.
Abujamal should also bear in mind that one verse in five of the Koran
is unintelligible. This obscurity was air-brushed out of existence by
medieval Muslim scholars who imposed a conventional meaning on the
incomprehensible verses contrary to Arabic lexicon and Arabic grammar.
Unfortunately even Western translators have followed the medieval
readings and thus produced the illusion in readers that the Koran is
uniformly intelligible.
Zev
news:c8adnQta44A2njza...@giganews.com...
> Then in the desert of Arabia, God sent His final Message to mankind
> through the Holy Prophet of Islam. It speaks of God to Whom all manner of
> praise is due, Who sends His sustenance to all peoples and all countries,
> and in an equitable measure. He is
> not partial to any country or any people.
Although the mission of the descendants
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is unique
and is the outcome of promises which
God made to those Patriarchs,
God is indeed not partial to any country or any people.
The seven Noahide commandments
apply equally to everyone, without exception.
Your claim that in Islam,
God treats all peoples and all countries equitably,
in apparent contrast to Jewish beliefs,
is based on an Islamic misunderstanding of Judaism.
imra...@yahoo.com
> I even see that Tariq Ramadan's wife is French and that he has
> a great knowledge of French literature.
>
> Well, "In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad"
> (2007/02) is in English while I see that he also wrote "Muhammad, Vie du
> I do not know whether they speak about the same things. I should perhaps
> have a look in a bookshop instead of ordering them on Amazon.
I should have mentioned to you that Tariq Ramadan is French/Swiss, and
that his primary language is French. Sorry, it just slipped my mind in
the few minutes I was typing my previous post. In fact, I believe he is
something of a public intellectual in France, particularly on anything
involving Islam and Muslims. He has a website: www.tariqramadan.org
that has articles in both French and English. He also has a doctorate in
philosophy from a French university (Sorbonne?), and wrote his
dissertation on Nietzsche. I've met him a few times (I also have a
doctorate in philosophy) and found him to be a very nice and engaging
figure. I encourage you to visit his website if you're interested.
Peace,
Imran
Saqib Virk
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:7de2d3ad-ffed-4024...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The best present-day translations of the Bible - the Revised Standard
> Version for instance - are based upon a rigorous analysis of the
> earliest surviving manuscripts and manuscript fragments.
Every Bible version we read today is the result of extensive cutting and
pasting from various manuscripts. There is no definitive reference and there
are many, many cases where a verse or passage is found in one ancient
manuscript but missing from others. Mark 16:8-20 is one of the primary
examples. The passage is not found in the most ancient manuscripts but is
found in less ancient manuscripts. On top of such problems we know that many
books of scripture were not included in the Bible when the Christians sat
down to decide which books to include and which to reject.
> He should
> bear in mind that no one knows the original Koran;
Everyone who opens up a copy of the Quran reads the original. The Quran has
been in continuous and daily use from the time of Muhammad to the present.
> Abujamal should also bear in mind that one verse in five of the Koran
> is unintelligible.
Only one in five? No, we should bear in mind that Robert fails to understand
much more than one fifth of the Quran. His lack of comprehension causes
outbursts such as the above. Sadly, it appears his extreme prejudice and
bias against anything Islam will forever preclude him from understanding
anything at all.
> Unfortunately even Western translators have followed the medieval
> readings and thus produced the illusion in readers that the Koran is
> uniformly intelligible.
Robert is completely ignorant of Arabic and yet he believes he is in a
position to make such pronouncements. Shame, I say.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zev
>> Altway wrote:
>>> ['Abdul-Ahad Dawud] was not ignorant of Christianity
>>> or Islam having been a Bishop in the Church.
>> He no doubt knew the NT better than he knew the OT.
> He no doubt knew both in their original languages, in depth, as
> his book shows. Had you read it, you would know that.
> 'Abdul-Ahad Dawud's "Muhammad in the Bible" is now located at
> http://www.muslimamerica.net/ad/ so that you can read it yourself, and
> at least have some personal knowledge of what you're talking about.
The link which appeared in Altway's post was:
http://muhammad.net/biblelp/index.htm,
I read the articles which I found there.
The list of articles seems to be exactly
the same so I believe I do indeed
"have some personal knowledge"
of what I'm talking about.
There may be some things I missed, or forgot.
If Mr. Dawud knew the OT in depth
he could have explained to his readers why
he mentions the 'rights' of the firstborn
while forgetting the many exceptions,
each with an obvious or explicit reason,
proving that this 'right' wasn't taken for granted,
at least not by the Biblical Patriarchs.
He says that there is something wrong with the extant Bible
if it says that the Patriarchs didn't behave
according to Moses' law, given centuries later,
even though the Bible gives no indication that
the Patriarchs knew, or were required to obey, that law.
He says the "Shiloh" of Genesis 49:10 cannot refer to Jesus,
"For Jesus is a descendant of Judah through Mary",
as if he had never read a Biblical genealogy
containing only names of male ancestors.
Feminists may not like it,
but the Bible does not consider maternity
when deciding on tribal affiliation.
He translates, anachronistically, Hebrew "shalom" into "Islam".
This is a game anyone can play.
Micah 3:5
Thus says the Lord concerning the prophets
Who lead my people astray;
When they have something to bite with their teeth,
They cry, "Islam",
But against him who puts nothing in their mouths
They declare holy war.
(translation of New American Standard Bible,
with one word changed)
> He provides the Pauline English translation (translated from
> Latin, which was translated from Greek, which was translated from
> Aramaic, which was translated from Hebrew), and then provides a direct
> translation from the Hebrew (or Aramaic or, for the "New Testament,"
> the Greek).
He provides no answers to the questions I asked.
But what do you mean by "Pauline English translation..." compared to
"direct translation from the Hebrew" (apparently of the OT)?
Is there a "Pauline English translation" of the OT???
> For a history of the translations, from Hebrew to Aramaic and then
> to Greek, you can read the first few chapters of Douglas Reed's "The
> Controversy of Zion," a comprehensive history of apostate zion, which
> is located at http://www.muslimamerica.net/cz/ ~ it is quite clear
> that much of the Hebrew was lost during the Babylonian Captivity, and
> when the scribes later translated what they learned from their
> grandfathers from the Aramaic into Greek, they redacted more. Reed's
> book provides references to rabbinical and other writings that give
> this history.
I don't know why you mention this "history of the translations".
It was not under discussion in the post you responded to,
but if you've brought this up, then:
If you know that "it is quite clear that
much of the Hebrew was lost during the Babylonian Captivity",
I'm very interested in knowing how you (or Mr. Reed) know that.
How do you know that Greek translations of the Bible
(I presume you're referring to the Septuagint)
were made from Aramaic and not directly from the Hebrew?
This kind of analysis can be made,
but it involves speculation *and* scholarship,
so peer review is important here.
The Septuagint translators may have referred
to extant translations here and there,
so Aramaic influence wouldn't easily prove
that the original Hebrew wasn't available to them.
Please don't send me a link to an entire book,
wondering if *this* is what you're referring to,
or perhaps *that*.
One of the chapters in "The Controversy of Zion"
discusses "the protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Today the non-Jewish source of this work is well known.
He claims that at the very least
the Protocols expresses the plans and purposes of the Jewish people,
ignoring, or perhaps not knowing, the fact that
the "Jewish people" do not act
according to a unified plan, of any kind.
This chapter says more about Mr. Reed
than it does about the subject
this book is supposed to be about,
and by discrediting him, discredits the entire book.
Do the words of CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad,
told to a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998,
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to
become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in
America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.",
express a sinister plan, acted upon by most American Muslims?
This statement is well documented.
It did happen.
> 'Abdul-Ahad Dawud's translations are from the earliest original
> languages he was able to find at the Vatican. There is good reason to
> believe that the original Hebrew scrolls are in Aksum, in Africa, but
> he did not have access to them.
> The words are self-explanatory in his translation, as they are in
> the Semitic languages; for the Greek "New Testament," the text has so
> far required over two thousand years to fail to rationally explain
> (hence Pauline Christianity is a "mystery religion"), and there have
> been many attempts. He does not list the ever-changing attempts; nor,
> in the face of the direct translation and evidence of the Hebrew or
> Aramaic grammar (or Greek, in the case of the New Testament), is there
> any need to discuss these inexplicable mistranslations.
Concrete examples would help a lot here.
Saying there is no "need to discuss these inexplicable
mistranslations",.
without a hint of what they are, is no more than obfuscation.
>>> There is also an evolution over time such that new dispensations of
>>> religion must replace the older ones not only because each religion
>>> has been corrupted by adulteration and erosion and tiredness, but
>>> also because it has completed its task of bringing mankind to a
>>> certain stage and the new dispensation has to produce the next
>>> stage of human evolution.
>> I understood that Muslims believe that "Islam" is unchanging, from
>> the earliest prophets until Muhammed. Here you mention the
>> "evolution over time" of religions. Can you discuss this further?
> Unfortunately, Altway's words are not particularly well chosen.
> See http://www.muslimamerica.net/mp/fawariq.htm ~ "Fawariq: The
> Distinctive Character of Tradition" ~ for a "further discussion" of
> "progressive revelation," which might be better understood as "planned
> social evolution" rather than as "evolution" per se. We humans have
> not "evolved" since Adam in the sense that Altway postulates. In
> short ...
Physically, humans have certainly not changed significantly,
but the way we live, the things we believe in,
are constantly changing.
Haven't democracy, leisure, computers and communication
brought with them challenges to those who would be righteous,
which didn't exist centuries ago?
I have developed a theory using Douglas Reed's
method of analysis (but obviously not his beliefs).
God made a promise to Abraham that Ishmael's
descendants would become a great nation.
2500 years later he had still not fulfilled his promise.
One of the reasons for the delay was that he didn't want
the fulfilling of a promise to Abraham
to result in the expansion of paganism.
Muhammad, like many others of his time,
had lost faith in Paganism,
but he didn't like Christianity or Judaism
because of their foreign 'flavor'.
He wanted something an Arabian could take pride in as his own.
Muhammad talked to someone, got some ideas.
Talked to someone else, got some more ideas.
Over time, he developed them into something new.
We know that in Muhammad's time,
the first good prospects for conversion to Islam
were among those who were already monotheists,
and that many of these did accept Islam,
in one way or another.
Also, these are the monotheisms which pagan Arabs
had already recognized, even if they hadn't accepted them.
Staying on the beaten path would make it easier
for them to accept Islam.
But Judaism and Christianity are more than just monotheism.
So what to do?
Well, put into the new religion much of the important beliefs
of their religion without having so much
that it becomes just a branch of those religions.
Even today, Muslims say they honor
the Jewish and Christian prophets even more
than they (Christians & Jews) do.
This is just the idea I'm getting at.
Also, early monotheistic converts brought with them
many ideas and customs from their previous religion,
just as they brought with them skewed qiblas
as their churches and synagogues became mosques.
This was the time for the fulfillment of the ancient promise!
I can even accept that at critical junctures,
he had divine inspiration to help him get over hurdles.
He was charismatic, intelligent, motivated,
and sometimes rightly guided, but he was not a prophet.
The Quran contains many words of wisdom,
but it is not an angelic dictation of God's words.
Why isn't Muhammad hinted to, in the Bible, in a way in which
learned Christians and Jews would catch?
Well, praise wouldn't be warranted because of his faults,
and since God was using him as a tool
in fulfilling his promise to the Abraham,
he couldn't be insulted either.
So he was just left out, or perhaps hinted to
only in unconvincing ways.
Anyone who accepts the truth of the Quran
couldn't possibly accept the above,
and if my theory is correct, then the Quran is not true,
or at least not *all* true!
It is the same with Mr. Reed's understanding of the Bible.
Neither of us can prove his theory.
The difference is that I admit my theory
is based on no more than plausibility,
based on my beliefs, and Mr. Reed doesn't.
There is little significance in this for Muslims,
the "Five Pillars" are certainly not sinful,
they do help bring "believers" closer to God.
However, it is of critical importance to Jews
What will a converted Jew say on the "Last Day",
when he is asked why he didn't observe the Sabbath,
or why he ate regular, leavened, bread
during the holiday of Passover,
or failed in the observance of the many other commandments
which occur in Judaism and not in Islam?
Can he say that he didn't bother reading
the Law as given through Moses
but rather a book written for others, by a non-Jew?
BTW, most of the Biblical prophesies concerning
a return of the children of Israel to the land of Israel
were also made about 2500 years before
the apparent beginning of their fulfillment.
Could it be more than coincidence?
--
"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God"
(Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33, with variations).
Robert
It is true that some books of the Old Testament have been edited, but
this does not mean that their religious value and significance is
invalidated. As always with Muslims you are implicitly requiring the
Bible to be analogous with the Koran: there was once an Original Bible
and that has been corrupted by scribes and editors - that's how you
cannot help thinking. But the Old Testament is the product of
religious TRADITION. If you therefore reject the OT you must also
reject the Hadith and the Shariah, which is based on Hadith.
What you say about the New Testament is false and misleading. The
"many, many" variants in the manuscripts of the NT are trifling
scribal errors which have no bearing on the reading of the original.
These copyists' errors arose because of the circumstances of
Christians in the first three centuries of our era: Christianity was
an illegal religion and professional copyists could not be used -
copies had to be made secretly by amateurs. The contrast with Judaism
is instructive: Judaism was legal and so the Rabbis had a corp of
devoted professional copyists (the Massoretes) who were able to
produce copy's of the OT of astonishing accuracy. As regards the
Koran, we are NOT ALLOWED to know the variant readings in the early
copies - this knowledge would destroy the myth of its miraculous
perfect transmisssion. Even so Western scholars have compiled
extensive lists of variant readings, but Muslims, as usual simply deny
the undeniable.
You mention the added 'conclusion' to Mark's gospel. This is found in
ancient versions, and was clearly written in ancient times to complete
Mark. So what? - we are clearly dealing with very ancient Christian
traditions - stop thinking in Koranic terms of a Divine Original that
has been contaminated. The number of short passages not found in all
ancient manuscripts is exceedingly small; the question with regard to
them is how ancient are they and what authority do they have. But the
upshot of Western textual criticism of the NT is that the text can be
determined with more than 99% accuracy, and at no point do the
variants have any bearing on Christian teaching. Textual criticism of
the Koran has not begun: it is regarded as blasphemy - punishable by
death.
It is a Muslim propaganda lie that there were books of Scripture which
were excluded from the Canon; no Western scholar of standing holds
this. The books that were excluded from the Canon were pseudo-
Christian Gnostic works which anyone can see are works of religious
fantasy and grossly heretical. There was no doubt before the Canon was
explicitly formalized which books were authoritative; this is proved
by reference to them by the early theologians - the Council formalized
what was already agreed.
You merely assert that the Koran is identical with that known to
Muhammad. Since you are not in a position of authority to testify with
regard to this issue, you assertion is worthless.
To my report that one verse in five of the Koran is incomprehensible
you merely respond with distracting derisory rhetoric; in other words
you go into denial.
Not knowing Arabic does not disqualify me from giving my conclusions;
these are based upon a reading of works by leading Western authorities
who DO know Arabic.
Robert
Abujamal implies that the reliability and intelligibility of our
English Biblical texts is undermined by a process of repeated
translation which he alleges. This allegation is quite untrue: our
English Biblical text is not the upshot of mutliple translation.
He would do well to remember that the Koran is a collection, in random
order, of utterances made in specific historical circumstances; an
account of these circumstances is not given in the Koran, but a
knowledge of them is necessary to an understanding of the verses. As
they stand the verses are impenetrable and obscure. Hadith grew up in
order to explain them, and these were transmitted orally, being set
down in writing between 150 and 300 years after the death of Muhammad.
The Koran is thus dependent on unverifiable, very lengthy oral
traditions.
The earliest New Testament document dates from 19 years after the
crucifixion and is not dependent on oral tradition, neither is it
dependent for its sense on a knowledge of specific circumstances of
authorship.
Zev
> "Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> I understood that Muslims believe that "Islam" is unchanging,
> from the earlist prophets until Muhammed.
> Here you mention the "evolution over time" of religions.
> Can you discuss this further?
> Comment:-
> I will give you a fairly comprehensive answer but you might not read it
> with concentration
> but flit over it.
< body of detailed response snipped for brevity>
Hamid, thanks for your thoughtful response.
It isn't often that Usenet subscribers see posts
as well organised as this one is.
I assume, as an outsider, that many Muslims
could accept it as a definitive statement on the subject.
But because I am an outsider,
I have a worldview which is different from yours
and I would like to share some comments with you on your post.
1) Once we accept the idea of religion being divine *and* flexible
it becomes difficult to accept the idea of a prophet
with a quality of "last prophet".
It seems to contradict the idea that religions change
as the human environment changes.
You certainly won't claim that seventh century Arabia
represents some "final stage" in human cultural development!
2) Your post implies that members of other religions
should leave their old religions and become Muslim
(Quran 7:157 also implies this).
But what happens when a Jew hears this and looks into his Bible
and sees commandments like Sabbath and Passover
mentioned again and again, all over the Bible, OT and NT,
frequently described as an "eternal sign"?
Passover, as Jews understand and celebrate it,
has no place in a universal religion,
and doesn't exist in Islam.
The idea of commemorating God's resting
after the work of creation, is unacceptable in Islam.
A Jew wonders how he can obey
commandments like these in an Islamic environment,
or abandon them and not find himself guilty.
I've asked questions like these several times
and the responses (and non-responses) I get
give me the impression that Muslims think
this is not their problem.
In my opinion, this is not true.
Islam presents itself as a universal religion.
Muslims say that everyone should accept Islam.
If a Jew asks questions like this and Islam has no answer,
where does that leave Islam?
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> 1) Once we accept the idea of religion being divine *and* flexible
> it becomes difficult to accept the idea of a prophet
with a quality of "last prophet".
It seems to contradict the idea that religions change
as the human environment changes.
You certainly won't claim that seventh century Arabia
represents some "final stage" in human cultural development!
Comment:-
When there is a series of Prophets, then each of them is the last one until
the next arrives.
If it is a developing series that leads towards a goal, then when that goal
is reached it comes to a stop.
Human beings grow from a fertilised egg through several stages until they
become adults
then stop growing. While they are growing they need guidance from parents
and teachers.
However, thereafter, they become independent and have to apply what they
learnt to develop further.
They cannot do so without this indepenence.
Humanity has reached a stage where the guidance is complete and man has been
left to his own devices.
However, there is a time for reckoning when the consequences become
manifest.
> 2) Your post implies that members of other religions
should leave their old religions and become Muslim
(Quran 7:157 also implies this).
But what happens when a Jew hears this and looks into his Bible
and sees commandments like Sabbath and Passover
mentioned again and again, all over the Bible, OT and NT,
frequently described as an "eternal sign"?
Comment:-
The Quran tells us:-
"It is He who has sent down to you the Scripture with truth, confirming
what was revealed before it, and has revealed the Torah and the Gospel
before this for the guidance of mankind, and has revealed the Discrimination
(Criterion)." 3:3
"And if they had been steadfast in the Torah and the Gospel, and what has
been sent down to them from their Lord, they would surely have nourishment
from above them and below them. Amongst them are a people who are moderate,
but many of them are of evil conduct." 5:66
"Say: O people of the Book! You have no ground to stand on till you stand
fast by the Torah and the Gospel, and what is revealed to you from your
Lord." But what has been revealed to you from your Lord will of a surety
increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief. Vex not thyself then for a
people who disbelieve." 5:68
"Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans, and the
Christians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and does what is
right, they shall not fear, nor shall they grieve." 5:68
It is a question of studying and interpreting and practicing their
scriptures correctly. The Quran cofirms the past scriptures but rectifies
the misunderstandings. The Prophet Muhammad always judged people by the
religion they followed.
"Unto every nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so
let them not then dispute about the matter, but summon you unto your Lord;
verily, you (Muhammad) indeed follow right guidance." 22:67
"And unto you (Muhammad) have We revealed the Book in truth, verifying what
was before it, and preserving it. Judge then between them by what Allah has
revealed, and follow not their lusts (prejudices, fantasies), turning away
from what is given to you of the truth. For each of you have We appointed a
Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one
nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore,
vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will
then inform you concerning that wherein you dispute." 5:48
> Passover, as Jews understand and celebrate it,
has no place in a universal religion,
and doesn't exist in Islam.
The idea of commemorating God's resting
after the work of creation, is unacceptable in Islam.
A Jew wonders how he can obey
commandments like these in an Islamic environment,
or abandon them and not find himself guilty.
Comment:-
Each dispensation of religion is formulated differently and has its own set
of practices.
This is determined by the needs of he time, place and people.
They are specifics like different medicines, but the general principle
underlying them is the same.
Thequestion to be answered is: What is the purpose of the Passover ritual?
And what is the significance of supposing that God rested on the 7th Day of
Creation. From the Islamic point of view creation was completed on the 6th
Day but God then mounted the Throne - i.e. He administered and maintained
the Universe.
In the case of Christianity they have the concept of "sons of God" which is
defined in their scriptures as those who are led by the Word or Spirit by
God. But because Christians misunderstand and take the phrase literally,
Islam has changed it to "Servants of God".
Islam is the Universal Religion because it accepts all the Messengers or
Prophets and Scriptures. It confirms past religions as presented by their
founders and rectifies the misunderstandings that have later occurred in
them. Though it is the Universal Religion it also has a Specific application
that is different from the others. But it is not difficult to see that the
Specific Version also contains the Universal as the above quotations show
and the Universal obviously contains the Specific.
As I indicated before, the Universal Islam is compared to a housebuilt of
many bricks, but Specific Islam consists of the last brick that completes
the house.
Hamid S. Aziz
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Your previous answer implies that members of other religions should
leave their old religions and become Muslim. Quran 7:157 also implies
this. But what happens when a Jew hears this and looks into his Bible
and sees commandments like Sabbath and Passover mentioned again and
again, all over the Bible, OT and NT, frequently described as an
"eternal sign"?
Comment:-
As to the Quranic verse you referred to, we read:-
"Those who follow the Messenger - the unlettered Prophet - whom they
find mentioned in their own Law and Gospel. (See Deuteronomy 18:15, 18
and John 14:16) bidding them what is just (reasonable) and forbidding
them what is wrong (evil, unreasonable, stupid); and making lawful for
them what is good (pure), and making unlawful evil (impure) things. He
releases them from their heavy burdens and yokes which were upon them.
So it is those who believe in him and honour and help him and follow
the Light which has been sent down with him - it is they who are the
successful (or shall prosper)."
"Say: O you people! Verily, I am the Messenger of Allah unto you all,
of Him whose is the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no
God but He! He gives life and death. So believe in Allah and His
Messenger, the unlettered (or not learned, unsophisticated) prophet, -
who believes in Allah and in His Words - then follow him that per
chance (or possibly) you may be guided."
"Amongst the people of Moses is a section who guide with truth, and
thereby act justly." 7:157-159
What the verses are pointing out is that Muhammad (saw) is like the
other Prophets instructing what is spiritually good and forbidding
what is evil, that he is a Universal Messenger. He should be
recognised as such and the instructions he brings should be obeyed. It
also affirms that some of the difficulties that were imposed on people
in the past have been lifted. This can be regarded as referring to the
numerous rituals and rules as well as obscure, complex and hard to
understand doctrines, requirements of asceticism and monasticism, and
burdens of guilt feelings. This dispensation of Islam has simplified
and demythologised religion to a large extent.
"Allah will not require of the soul beyond its capacity. It shall have
what it has earned, and it shall owe what it deserves. "Our Lord,
condemn us not, if we forget or miss the mark; Our Lord, load us not
with a burden as Thou hast loaded those before us. Our Lord, impose
not on us what we have not strength to bear, but forgive us, absolve
us, and have mercy on us. Thou art our Sovereign, then give us victory
against the faithless!" 2:286
"And strive in the cause of Allah, with the effort which is His due.
He has chosen you, and has not laid upon you any hardship (or
hindrance) in religion - the faith of your father Abraham. He has
named you Muslims of old and in this (Scripture), that the Messenger
may be a witness against you, and that you may be witnesses against
mankind." 22:78
"Allah desires for you what is easy, and desires not for you what is
difficult. "2:185
"Allah does not lay on any soul a burden beyond that which He has
granted it; Allah brings about after difficulty, ease." 65:7
"And their word was only to say: Lord, forgive us our sins and wasted
efforts; and make firm our footing, and help us against the faithless
folk!" 3:147
"But whoever desires the Hereafter, and strives for it with the
necessary effort, for such, their striving shall find favour." 17:19
What Islam requires is not that which is difficult but that which is
more effective. However:-
"And that man shall have nothing but what he strives for, and that his
striving shall be seen. Then shall he be rewarded for it with the
fullest reward; and that your Lord is the final goal." 53:39-43
As I indicated before, the Universal Islam is compared to a
house built of many bricks, but Specific Islam consists of the last
brick that also completes the house. In this sense conversion to
Specific Islam is conversion to Universal Islam. Its formulations and
practices tend to be more comprehensively effective.
You asked about the Specifics about each religion:-
The question to be answered is: What is the purpose of the Passover
ritual? Is it not symbolising salvation, the release of the spirit
from bondage? And what is the significance of supposing that God
rested on the 7th Day of Creation? Is it not that people should devote
themselves to the service of God. From the Islamic point of view
creation was completed on the 6th Day but God then mounted the Throne
- i.e. He devoted Himself to the administration and maintenance the
Universe. Muslims are required to set aside time five times a day to
prayer.
In the case of Christianity they have the concept of "sons of God"
which is defined in their scriptures as those who are led by the Word
or Spirit by God. But because Christians misunderstand and take the
phrase literally, Islam has changed it to "Servants of God". They have
baptism and Muslims have ablutions,; they have the sacrament of the
bread and wine which is meant to symbolically take in Christ, the Word
of God, while Muslims take in the Quran, also the Word of God.
Thus Islam incorporates the same things.
Indeed even polytheism is incorporated in that the many separate gods
become the attributes of Allah. Polytheists such as Hindus understand that
there is one supreme God and the various gods are really aspects of the One.
Budhhists who also have many gods but the teachings of Buddha appear to have
none
at all and yet Buddha is reported to have said:-
"There is, O Bhikkhus, an Unborn, a Not-become, a Not-made, a
Not-compounded. If there were not, O Bhikkhus, this Unborn, Not-become,
Not-made, Not-compounded, there could not be any escape from what is born,
become, made and compounded."
It is not difficult to see that this Not-made, Not compounded etc is the
same as Allah.
Nirvana is escape from limtations by surrender to this.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zev
I noticed that there was another post of yours, apparently posted
earlier.
I didn't see it before, as I wrote this, and this post
relates only to the second, "Additional reply".
"Altway" <alt...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:s8udncKrL6Pw_EDa...@bt.com...
> "Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Your previous answer implies that members of other religions should
> leave their old religions and become Muslim. Quran 7:157 also implies
> this. But what happens when a Jew hears this and looks into his Bible
> and sees commandments like Sabbath and Passover mentioned again and
> again, all over the Bible, OT and NT, frequently described as an
> "eternal sign"?
> As to the Quranic verse you referred to, we read:-
> "Those who follow the Messenger - the unlettered Prophet - whom they
> find mentioned in their own Law and Gospel. (See Deuteronomy 18:15, 18
> and John 14:16) bidding them what is just (reasonable) and forbidding
> them what is wrong (evil, unreasonable, stupid); and making lawful for
> them what is good (pure), and making unlawful evil (impure) things. He
> releases them from their heavy burdens and yokes which were upon them.
> So it is those who believe in him and honour and help him and follow
> the Light which has been sent down with him - it is they who are the
> successful (or shall prosper)."
Deuteronomy 18 has been discussed on SRI many times.
I have shown why I believe it isn't a reference
to one special prophet, with a unique mission.
No one has yet told me why my arguments are unconvincing.
I'd be happy to repeat them, if anyone is interested,
but it will start, on my side, with little more than
cut-and-pastes from those posts.
I have already asked, in this thread:
Why isn't Muhammad hinted to, in the Bible, in a way in which
learned Christians and Jews would catch?
Muslims seem to have no answer.
> "Say: O you people! Verily, I am the Messenger of Allah unto you all,
> of Him whose is the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no
> God but He! He gives life and death. So believe in Allah and His
> Messenger, the unlettered (or not learned, unsophisticated) prophet, -
> who believes in Allah and in His Words - then follow him that per
> chance (or possibly) you may be guided."
> "Amongst the people of Moses is a section who guide with truth, and
> thereby act justly." 7:157-159
> What the verses are pointing out is that Muhammad (saw) is like the
> other Prophets instructing what is spiritually good and forbidding
> what is evil, that he is a Universal Messenger. He should be
> recognised as such and the instructions he brings should be obeyed. It
> also affirms that some of the difficulties that were imposed on people
> in the past have been lifted. This can be regarded as referring to the
> numerous rituals and rules as well as obscure, complex and hard to
> understand doctrines, requirements of asceticism and monasticism, and
> burdens of guilt feelings. This dispensation of Islam has simplified
> and demythologised religion to a large extent.
The last Mishnah of Makoth, chapter 3, Mishnah 16
(In the Talmud it's page 23b near the top of the page)
says that God wanted to merit Israel,
therefore he gave them many commandments.
You won't find religious Jews who appear to be unhappy with this.
These "obscure" commandments were never given to non-Jews.
Far from "lifting" difficulties, Islam has added its own
in the form of Sharia, which is frequently
surprisingly similar to Jewish Halachah.
Your comment that Muhammad is a "Universal Messenger",
and should be recognized as such, is difficult.
Moses received the Torah and transmitted it
to every one of the ancient Hebrews alive at the time,
no one was left out,
and even so Korah argued with him.
How does one expect Jews,
hearing of a "Universal Messenger" in a far off land,
speaking and writing (through others)
a language unknown to them,
to abandon the faith of their fathers and
the commandments they had grown up with?
Interestingly enough, even in Islam
this concept is difficult because of the
expectation that a prophet would be from
the people to whom he was sent,
speak their language,
understand their mentality, etc...
The only way you can get around this is to say
that this rule applied to everyone else, but not to Muhammad,
even though you say that Deuteronomy 18,
which seems to make these requirements in the first place,
refers to Muhammad!
If someone says to you "I am a prophet, follow me",
your first reaction would probably be something like,
"come back tomorrow, I'm busy now".
But if that person could show you
that he had powers or knowledge
that ordinary people don't have,
you would begin to listen to him.
But you would accept him hesitatingly,
still suspecting that perhaps his
powers or knowledge weren't divine after all.
The Torah says such a prophet must be obeyed,
but he can not make permanent religious changes.
So what about Moses?
Moses is different because every Israelite who was there at Mount
Sinai
saw that God had spoken to Moses.
There could no longer be any hesitation.
The Law of Moses is permanent.
No other prophet has the same closeness to God
and no other prophet could do the same thing.
Therefore all other prophets could only:
1) warn people about commandments which for some reason
they were not fulfilling properly,
2) make one time instructions, for their own time only.
In practice, the "Specific Islam" of today
consists only of that "last brick".
Muslims take little interest in previous scripture,
saying that whatever is worthwhile can be found in the Quran.
> You asked about the Specifics about each religion:-
> The question to be answered is: What is the purpose of the Passover
> ritual? Is it not symbolising salvation, the release of the spirit
> from bondage? And what is the significance of supposing that God
> rested on the 7th Day of Creation? Is it not that people should devote
> themselves to the service of God. From the Islamic point of view
> creation was completed on the 6th Day but God then mounted the Throne
> - i.e. He devoted Himself to the administration and maintenance the
> Universe. Muslims are required to set aside time five times a day to
> prayer.
The Torah mentions 3 items in the Passover ritual:
1) the sacrifice
2) unleavened bread
3) bitter herbs
In my humble opinion, they symbolize the following:
1) Salvation here means going from "slave of man" to "slave of God".
I see this in the great detail in which the laws of the sacrifice are
given.
The "numerous rituals and rules" which you mentioned, start in Egypt,
even before the Exodus itself.
They are to become the essence of Halachah,
and what it means to be Jewish.
2) God's management of the world.
I see this in:
A) Moses' failure, after which he asks God why He sent him,
as he had only made things worse.
Anyone who was there and saw this could not believe
that Moses could succeed on his own, and,
B) in the most critical moment of the Exodus,
the Israelites, far from rebelling or fighting for their freedom,
were actually kicked out of Egypt,
and had trouble preparing food for the way,
even though they had been told beforehand
what was going to happen and when.
3) The Bitter Herbs are a reminder
of what slavery in Ancient Egypt was like.
Regarding the "Islamic point of view" concerning the Sabbath,
I don't think it's substantially differently from the Jewish.
The Jewish observance of it serves as a frequent reminder
of the creation of the universe by God.
> In the case of Christianity they have the concept of "sons of God"
> which is defined in their scriptures as those who are led by the Word
> or Spirit by God. But because Christians misunderstand and take the
> phrase literally, Islam has changed it to "Servants of God". They have
> baptism and Muslims have ablutions,; they have the sacrament of the
> bread and wine which is meant to symbolically take in Christ, the Word
> of God, while Muslims take in the Quran, also the Word of God.
> Thus Islam incorporates the same things.
> Indeed even polytheism is incorporated in that the many separate gods
> become the attributes of Allah. Polytheists such as Hindus understand that
> there is one supreme God and the various gods are really aspects of the
> One.
> Budhhists who also have many gods but the teachings of Buddha appear to
> have none
> at all and yet Buddha is reported to have said:-
> "There is, O Bhikkhus, an Unborn, a Not-become, a Not-made, a
> Not-compounded. If there were not, O Bhikkhus, this Unborn, Not-become,
> Not-made, Not-compounded, there could not be any escape from what is born,
> become, made and compounded."
> It is not difficult to see that this Not-made, Not compounded etc is the
> same as Allah.
> Nirvana is escape from limtations by surrender to this.
To sum up, I had asked about two things.
1) the combination of two contrasting beliefs,
that religions tend to evolve and that religion
stopped evolving 1400 years ago
2) that everyone, including all those who are at present
non-Muslim monotheists,
should become Muslim, abandoning their own traditions.
I am not convinced that Islam has real answers to these questions.
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Deuteronomy 18 has been discussed on SRI many times.
I have shown why I believe it isn't a reference
to one special prophet, with a unique mission.
No one has yet told me why my arguments are unconvincing.
I'd be happy to repeat them, if anyone is interested,
but it will start, on my side, with little more than
cut-and-pastes from those posts.
Comment:-
It may well be that the verse refers to Prophets in general.
In that case it also fits Jesus andMuhammad.
> I have already asked, in this thread:
Why isn't Muhammad hinted to, in the Bible, in a way in which
learned Christians and Jews would catch?
Muslims seem to have no answer.
Comment:-
The fact is that many Jews and Christians did think that their scriptures
pointed to Muhammad (saw) and converted to Islam.
But if the predicted person were to be named then a great many
people could be so named.
Indeed, even without this a number of people have arisen from time
to time claiming to be Jesus returned.
> The last Mishnah of Makoth, chapter 3, Mishnah 16
(In the Talmud it's page 23b near the top of the page)
says that God wanted to merit Israel,
therefore he gave them many commandments.
You won't find religious Jews who appear to be unhappy with this.
These "obscure" commandments were never given to non-Jews.
Far from "lifting" difficulties, Islam has added its own
in the form of Sharia, which is frequently
surprisingly similar to Jewish Halachah.
Comment:-
Not all the practices of Muslims derive from the Shariah
There are local conventions derived from the communities among whom
muslims settled.
The Shariah contains some rules but also guidelines that are not compulsory.
There are things that are obligatory, recommended, permissable, disapproved,
forbidden
"O you who believe! Forbid not the good things which Allah has made lawful
for you, nor transgress (or commit excess); verily, Allah loves not the
transgressors." 5:87
"O you who believe! Ask not questions about things which if they are shown
to you would trouble you...5:101
"Therefore, keep your duty to Allah as much as you can, and hear and obey
and spend, it is better for your souls; and whoever is saved from the
greediness of his soul, these it is that are the successful." 64:16
"If you avoid great sins from which you are forbidden, We will remit (or
expel) your lesser offences (or all evil in you) and make you enter a noble
gate." 4:31
> Your comment that Muhammad is a "Universal Messenger",
and should be recognized as such, is difficult.
Moses received the Torah and transmitted it
to every one of the ancient Hebrews alive at the time,
no one was left out,
and even so Korah argued with him.
How does one expect Jews,
hearing of a "Universal Messenger" in a far off land,
speaking and writing (through others)
a language unknown to them,
to abandon the faith of their fathers and
the commandments they had grown up with?
Comment:-
Those who understand their scripture can did follow Muhammad (saw).
As for others:-
"Say, O people of the scriptures, ye have naught of guidance till ye observe
the Torah and the Gospels and that which was revealed unto you from your
Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain
to increase the rebelliousness and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not
for the disbelieving folk. Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last day and
does right, there shall no fear come upon them nor shall they grieve."
5:68-69
"Lo, those who believe, and those who are Jews and Sabaeans and Christians -
whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does right - there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve." 5:69
Each person has to study the teaching and determine for himself if it is
a true and good one.
> So what about Moses? Moses is different because every Israelite who was
there at Mount Sinai saw that God had spoken to Moses.
There could no longer be any hesitation.
The Law of Moses is permanent.
Comment:-
The Jews were not there when God spoke to Moses (saw).
Modern Jews were certainly not there.
The modern Jews have to study their scriptures.
But the same applies to Muslims except that many of those who
were with Muhammad (saw) were present when he had revelations.
The present Muslims have to study the Quran and understand it
and follow that.
> No other prophet has the same closeness to God
> In practice, the "Specific Islam" of today
consists only of that "last brick".
Muslims take little interest in previous scripture,
saying that whatever is worthwhile can be found in the Quran.
Comment:-
Yes, the Quran contains whatever is needed by Muslims
but understanding it requires the aid of Sunna and the commentaries
of scholars who have studied widely. To carry out the instructions
in the Quran requires the study of nature, history, psychology
and self-examination. The Quran points to all these.
Comment:-
At a more universal level the ritual symbolises
liberation of the soul from worldly conditioning or slavery to the flesh and
sensuality.
That requires the sacrifice of the latter, unadulterated nutrition and
overcoming
some difficulties and reluctances..
> Regarding the "Islamic point of view" concerning the Sabbath,
I don't think it's substantially differently from the Jewish.
The Jewish observance of it serves as a frequent reminder
of the creation of the universe by God.
Comment:-
The Islamic one does not involve the idea that God needed to rest on the
7th day. But that He mounted the "throne" to administer the Universe.
That is, weare living in the 7th Age of Creation.
> To sum up, I had asked about two things.
1) the combination of two contrasting beliefs,
that religions tend to evolve and that religion
stopped evolving 1400 years ago
2) that everyone, including all those who are at present
non-Muslim monotheists,
should become Muslim, abandoning their own traditions.
Comment:-
Revealed Religion as brought by the Prophets is meant to facilitate
Human Spiritual Evolution. This has not stopped.
As human beings evolve their understanding of Religion will also evolve.
But the essence of Religion remains the same. It is Universal.
That is God is Eternal and so is the goal.
There is nothing difficult about understanding this.
Zev
> "Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> It may well be that the verse refers to Prophets in general.
> In that case it also fits Jesus andMuhammad.
It's difficult to read verses 14 and 15
and not come away with the feeling that a prophet that fits
is one whose primary mission concerns the Children of Israel.
It's difficult to understand "your brothers"
as 'your Israelite brothers" for dozens of prophets
and then as "your Ishmaelite brothers".
At any rate, if there's nothing there that seems
to point to Muhammad specifically, then Deuteronomy 18
cannot be used to verify Quran 7:157
in an uncircular argument.
> The fact is that many Jews and Christians did think that their scriptures
> pointed to Muhammad (saw) and converted to Islam.
Maybe.
Maybe some Moslims thought Quran 7:157
was wrong and converted to Christianity ;-)
But you need to show me some of those "pointers",
and ask me why learned Christians and Jews *don't* catch it.
If I don't have a good answer, you win.
(I'm referring to the OT here, I don't know the NT well enough,
nor do I take it seriously enough,
to make the same commitment on it)
If this is difficult on SRI, my email address is valid,
I invite anyone to use it.
You have a certain advantage over me because
you can be wrong a hundred times without losing,
until you admit that you have no more attempts to make.
If I'm wrong just once, you need look no further, I've lost.
(needless to say, we will be interested only in "pointers"
which show Muhammad in a positive light,
according to the implications of Quran 7:157)
> But if the predicted person were to be named then a great many
> people could be so named.
> Indeed, even without this a number of people have arisen from time
> to time claiming to be Jesus returned.
Doesn't that justify demands made on anyone
who makes such claims?
Isn't this precisely the reason such people
are accepted hesitatingly, if at all?
> Those who understand their scripture can did follow Muhammad (saw).
We all enjoy accepting converts and parading them around,
as proof that we are right.
If we want to discuss scripture, we should discuss scripture,
shouldn't we?
>> So what about Moses? Moses is different because every Israelite who was
>> there at Mount Sinai saw that God had spoken to Moses.
>> There could no longer be any hesitation.
>> The Law of Moses is permanent.
> The Jews were not there when God spoke to Moses (saw).
See Exodus 20:18-22
> Modern Jews were certainly not there.
Jews who were there accepted Moses' law
as permanent because of what they saw.
That law is passed down from generation to generation,
as permanent, because of its acceptance
as such by the generation of Moses.
Those who say it never happened,
don't accept it hesitatingly,
they reject it altogether.
> The modern Jews have to study their scriptures.
> But the same applies to Muslims except that many of those who
> were with Muhammad (saw) were present when he had revelations.
See Numbers 12:6-8 and Deuteronomy 34:10-12.
Regardless of our respective opinions of Muhammad,
your comparison doesn't make sense.
> The present Muslims have to study the Quran and understand it
> and follow that.
>> In practice, the "Specific Islam" of today
>> consists only of that "last brick".
>> Muslims take little interest in previous scripture,
>> saying that whatever is worthwhile can be found in the Quran.
> Yes, the Quran contains whatever is needed by Muslims
> but understanding it requires the aid of Sunna and the commentaries
> of scholars who have studied widely. To carry out the instructions
> in the Quran requires the study of nature, history, psychology
> and self-examination. The Quran points to all these.
To me this sounds like:
1) Previous scripture is not part of the Muslims heritage but,
2) They do indeed need it, but,
3) They get it through others.
Why do they depend on others?
> At a more universal level the ritual symbolises
> liberation of the soul from worldly conditioning or slavery to the flesh
> and sensuality.
> That requires the sacrifice of the latter, unadulterated nutrition and
> overcoming some difficulties and reluctances..
Anyone who wants to can learn from the Jewish experience.
That's part of the meaning of being the "chosen people".
but in my opinion, Passover is what I said it is.
>> Regarding the "Islamic point of view" concerning the Sabbath,
>> I don't think it's substantially differently from the Jewish.
>> The Jewish observance of it serves as a frequent reminder
>> of the creation of the universe by God.
> The Islamic one does not involve the idea that God needed to rest on the
> 7th day. But that He mounted the "throne" to administer the Universe.
> That is, weare living in the 7th Age of Creation.
I hope you don't believe that Jews and Christians
think that God became fatigued after several days
of hard work and therefore rested.
>> To sum up, I had asked about two things.
>> 1) the combination of two contrasting beliefs,
>> that religions tend to evolve and that religion
>> stopped evolving 1400 years ago
>> 2) that everyone, including all those who are at present
>> non-Muslim monotheists,
>> should become Muslim, abandoning their own traditions.
> Revealed Religion as brought by the Prophets is meant to facilitate
> Human Spiritual Evolution. This has not stopped.
> As human beings evolve their understanding of Religion will also evolve.
> But the essence of Religion remains the same. It is Universal.
> That is God is Eternal and so is the goal.
> There is nothing difficult about understanding this.
Is Muhammad's mission fixing errors which had crept
into previous scripture over the generations,
or is it creating a new religion, based on the monotheisms
which Arabs of his time had known about,
but with a different point of view?
Quran 5:69 makes the impression that a faithful Jew
is doing no wrong by remaining Jewish even though
he is thereby rejecting Quran 7:157.
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> It may well be that the verse refers to Prophets in general.
In that case it also fits Jesus andMuhammad.
> It's difficult to read verses 14 and 15
and not come away with the feeling that a prophet that fits
is one whose primary mission concerns the Children of Israel.
Comment:-
I do not think that God was concerned only with the Children of
Israel. Abraham certainly was not an Israelite
He was concerned with Mankind to whom the Israelites were to be
as priests.
> It's difficult to understand "your brothers"
as 'your Israelite brothers" for dozens of prophets
and then as "your Ishmaelite brothers".
Comment:-
The brothers of Israelites are Ishmaelites.
> Maybe some Moslims thought Quran 7:157
was wrong and converted to Christianity ;-)
> But you need to show me some of those "pointers",
and ask me why learned Christians and Jews *don't* catch it.
If I don't have a good answer, you win.
(I'm referring to the OT here, I don't know the NT well enough,
nor do I take it seriously enough,
to make the same commitment on it)
If this is difficult on SRI, my email address is valid,
I invite anyone to use it.
Comment:-
People do have different opinions according to their various interests,
priorities
and the efforts they make to gather knowledge, understand and assimilate it.
It is not possible to convince a person of anything if he does not wish to
know or understand
and has some kind of obstruction owing to self-interest or presuppositions,
mental conditioning,
some entrenched system with which the new ideas will clash.
The ability to understand something also depends on the nature and
comprehensiveness
of the context of information that a person has into which the new idea will
fit.
I can only give you the information. It is you who will have to make
the necessary effort to understand or not as you will.
You have to look at things in a greater more comprehensive context.
Religion is Universal Phenomenon, not confined to Jews.
There is progression of Religion as human development takes place and each
dispensation of religion facilitates the next stage in human development.
There is emphasis in Hebrewism on God's Justice, on hope and ritual.
Though admitting the validity of Hebrewism,
the emphasis in Christianity is on God's Compassion, on love and motives.
Islam admits the validity of Hebrewism and Christianity, but adds a third
dimension
by its emphasis on Truth, on faith and knowledge and awareness.
This has produced the modern age.
But though truth, objectivity, has been established in the sciences that now
dominate
human affairs, it has not yet been established in the realm of social
morality,
- in the culture and politics and economics.
and not in human personal and inter-personal behaviour. This has yet to come
>> But if the predicted person were to be named then a great many
people could be so named.
Indeed, even without this a number of people have arisen from time
to time claiming to be Jesus returned.
> Doesn't that justify demands made on anyone
who makes such claims?
Isn't this precisely the reason such people
are accepted hesitatingly, if at all?
Comment:-
You can verify the fact that Muhammad (saw) based his life on what he taught
and
received by inspiration and that he made no personal wealth from it.
You can verify that he was a leader who was much loved and trusted
and that he combined within himself Prophet, General, Businessman,
Statesman,
Orator, Reformer, Judge, Saint, Emancipator of Women and slaves.
We have had other great Prophets, Statemen, Generals and so on but never
someone who excelled in all these roles.
Nor has any other religion spread so rapidly demonstating the need for it.
>> Yes, the Quran contains whatever is needed by Muslims
but understanding it requires the aid of Sunna and the commentaries
of scholars who have studied widely. To carry out the instructions
in the Quran requires the study of nature, history, psychology
and self-examination. The Quran points to all these.
> To me this sounds like:
1) Previous scripture is not part of the Muslims heritage but,
2) They do indeed need it, but,
3) They get it through others.
Why do they depend on others?
Comment:-
We do not depend on others except in so far as all knowledge is
acquired cumulatively from the efforts of many generations of humanity.
But each person must make his own efforts to gather knowledge and understand
it.
>> The Islamic one does not involve the idea that God needed to rest on the
7th day. But that He mounted the "throne" to administer the Universe.
That is, weare living in the 7th Age of Creation.
> I hope you don't believe that Jews and Christians
think that God became fatigued after several days
of hard work and therefore rested.
Comment:-
I am not concerned with what Jews and Christians believe about this
but only with the fact that I have stated.
> Is Muhammad's mission fixing errors which had crept
into previous scripture over the generations,
or is it creating a new religion, based on the monotheisms
which Arabs of his time had known about,
but with a different point of view?
Comment:-
I have repeatedly stated that according to Islam there is only one
Universal religion that requires submission to the Creator,
But because the religion comes to be misinterpreted as conditions change
and becomes eroded and degenerates, then from time to time
and in different places Prophets and Messengers are sent to renew religion,
and cause spiritual regeneration. But the message must be reformulated
and adapted for the people of that time and place.
Why is this difficult to understand?
> Quran 5:69 makes the impression that a faithful Jew
is doing no wrong by remaining Jewish even though
he is thereby rejecting Quran 7:157.
Comment:-
It is question of understanding.
For the Jews to go back to their genuine scripture they will have to
remove the misinterpretations and corruptions in their practices that have
occurred.
It does not matter whether or not they accepted Muhammad (saw)
(though once they returned to an understanding of their scriptures they
would recognise him as a genuine Prophet like Moses.)
The significance of Muhammad is only as a Messenger of God, i.e. the
fact that he brought the Message, the Word of God. That is what counts.
And that Message is also in the Torah as brought by Moses.
There is no contradiction between the two.
But a reading of the Quran will show that the Quran is more comprehensive.
It is not concerned only with the community but with individual spiritual
development
and the environment also.
Hamid S. Aziz
Saqib Virk
>
> Is Muhammad's mission fixing errors which had crept
> into previous scripture over the generations,
> or is it creating a new religion, based on the monotheisms
> which Arabs of his time had known about,
> but with a different point of view?
There was a time in the history of man when he was only confined to the area
where he lived, where he was born and grew up and there was very little
knowledge, if any, which he shared with men of other areas and other
religions. As a
result, in previous periods of history, man is found living in isolated
'islands' of nations, clans and tribes and the religions which were revealed
at these times defined responsibility in terms limited to people within
relatively small areas and not in terms of the world as a whole. So, no
universal idea could have been born at this stage of history. If it had been
mentioned in the religious books of the time, it would have been outside the
boundaries or understanding of those people.
Islam includes the universal teachings found in every religion and brings
them to perfection. What the followers of the previous prophets did not
"have the strength to bear" was revealed in the Quran. For example the
religion of Judaism
emphasizes revenge or punishment. The Israelites had little room to deviate
from the teaching of an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. But on the
other hand Jesus taught almost the exact opposite with the emphasis on
forgiveness.
The people of Moses had been oppressed for hundreds of years. If at that
time God had placed equal emphasis upon forgiveness and revenge, the people
who had become weak and had lost their dignity (due to the long period of
oppression) and who could not rise to the challenges of responding to the
enemy with strength, such people would always seek refuge in the teaching of
forgiveness -- in the name of forgiveness, in fact. But it would be
cowardice which they would be seeking. So, when revenge was emphasized it
was not that the God of those people was a very revengeful God, so very
different from the God of Christianity -- it was one and the same God who
knew human nature better than anyone else.
At the time of Jesus the long history of revenge had hardened the hearts of
the Jewish people to the state of stone and that is how the Holy Quran
mentions it when referring to them:
"And remember the time when Moses prayed for water for his
people and WE said, 'Strike the rock with thy rod;' And
there gushed forth from it twelve springs, so that each
tribe knew their drinking place. And they were told, 'Eat
and drink of what God has provided, and commit not
iniquity in the earth, creating disorder.'" [Quran 2:60]
"Then your hearts became hardened after that, till they were
like stones or harder still; for of stones there are some
out of which gush forth streams, and of them there are some
out of which flows water when they cleave asunder. And
indeed of them are some that humble themselves for the fear
of God. And God is not unmindful of what you do."
[Quran 2:74]
At this time the teachings of Jesus were appropriate and he came to perform
a miracle similar to the one Moses had performed in his day; Moses had
struck stone and from it came the elixir of life and now Jesus would in
essence repeat
the same miracle and from among the Jews could be born people who would
emphasize forgiveness and let go of revenge. A teaching so different from
the previous ones, perfectly matched the needs of the time and is an example
of the
distinctive features of any religion.
These teachings were limited to certain nations and periods of time but
eventually man advanced to a stage when contact between peoples increased
and means of communication improved. A universal teaching covering all the
situations of mankind would become necessary and most religions have spoken
of a 'golden age' and a universal religion. Muslims believe that religion is
Islam, which contains the fundamental beliefs of every true religion, such
as a the belief in the one and only God, the pure dedication to Him and Him
alone, worship of Him and spending in the cause of God and believing in the
hereafter, and so on.
For example, in the time of Moses the Jews were commanded to enter the land
God was giving over to them but they refused this direct commandment to
fight. (and were punished with wandering the desert for 40 years) In the
time of Jesus the Jews were under Roman power in that very same land. At
that time the Jews rejected Jesus in large part because he would not lead
them into battle against their oppressors. Notice the difference in the Jews
during the two periods and the behavior of the Prophet in each time.
Judaism: Eye for an eye; the emphasis is definitely on punishment. The
Israelites are told many times, 'do not pity' when referring to the
criminal.
Christianity: Turn the other cheek; the emphasis is on forgiveness.
Islam: "Remember that the recompense of an injury is an injury the like
thereof; but whoso forgives and thereby brings about an improvement, his
reward is with God. Surely, HE loves not the wrongdoers." [Quran 42:40]
A complete teaching that can not be faulted in any way.
It is interesting to note that neither Judaism nor Christianity consider
themselves religion perfected. According to the Torah another prophet would
come who would speak in the name of God and people would be required to
follow him. According to the NT, Jesus stated that his followers did not
have the strength to bear everything that needed to be taught. Only Islam
declares itself the perfection of religion.
"This day have I perfected your religion for you and
completed MY favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam
as religion." [Quran 5:3]
The teachings of Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha and other
Prophets, peace be upon them, brought to different parts of the world are
like tributaries of a mighty river; they are all good and wholesome but flow
into one to demonstrate the Oneness of God and promote the purpose for which
man has been created.
Also, concerning Deuteronomy 18, which I believe was discussed in this
thread, I have something to add which I did not see mentioned:
"And thou (Muhammad) wast not on the western side (of the
Mount) when We committed the matter to Moses, nor wast thou
among the witnesses;
But We brought forth generations, (after Moses) and life
became prolonged for them. And thou wast not a dweller in
Midian, reciting Our Signs unto them, but it is we who send
Messengers.
And thou was not on the side of the Mount(with Moses) when
We called; but (We have sent thee) as a mercy from thy Lord,
that thou mayst warn a people to whom no Warner had come
before thee, that they may reflect." [Quran 28:44-46]
I believe this passage of the Quran refers to Deuteronomy 18:18 and states
that Moses was given a prophecy about Muhammad. That Muhammad could not have
forced this prophecy on Moses. The prophecy of Moses refers to another
Prophet who would be like Moses. The Quran implies that generations of
prophets came after Moses but none of them claimed to be "that" prophet
until the Quran was revealed and it was made known that Muhammad fulfilled
the prophecy.
"Verily, We have sent a Messenger to you, who is a witness over you even as
we sent a Messenger to Pharaoh." [Quran 73:15]
"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto
thee(Moses), and will put My word in his mouth and he shall speak onto them
all that I command." Deuteronomy 18:18
The Quran, as far as my understanding goes, is clear on the matter, stating;
A prophecy was revealed to Moses, while he was on Mount Sinai, about the
advent of Muhammad. With that in mind, if we look to the Bible then it
should be clear that prophecy is found recorded there, specifically, in
Deuteronomy 18.
Saqib Virk
Zev
Comment:-
> The brothers of Israelites are Ishmaelites.
Is it true for Deuteronomy 17:15,
just 20 verses before this one?
Is it true for Deuteronomy 18:2, this very chapter?
Does the Bible ever use the expression used here
in a way which seems to refer to Ishmaelites?
> I can only give you the information. It is you who will have to make
> the necessary effort to understand or not as you will.
You talk with confidence, but here you're setting up
an excuse for failure, even before trying.
Instead, you could take Deuteronomy 18 for instance,
and explain why you believe my arguments are wrong.
I've posted them many times, on SRI and ARI.
I'll post them again if you wish.
Your hesitation makes me wonder why you assume
the author of Deuteronomy could have expected believing Jews,
those who had read Deuteronomy 18 and took it seriously,
to abandon their Commandments, Rabbis, and Sacred literature
(of which the Bible is only a small part)
on the assumption that Deuteronomy 18 (or other sections)
might contain a reference to Muhammad.
>>> The Islamic one does not involve the idea that God needed to rest on the
> 7th day. But that He mounted the "throne" to administer the Universe.
> That is, weare living in the 7th Age of Creation.
>> I hope you don't believe that Jews and Christians
> think that God became fatigued after several days
> of hard work and therefore rested.
Comment:-
> I am not concerned with what Jews and Christians believe about this
> but only with the fact that I have stated.
I'm sorry you express yourself in this petulant way.
It doesn't make sense in the context of a discussion
of the development of religion,
and it's not the kind of remark one expects to see in
a discussion between people who respect each other.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm interested
in your opinions and beliefs.
That's why I'm taking part in this thread.
It forces me think more deeply about long held beliefs.
A remark like this encourages the reader
to assume you prefer willful ignorance.
> I have repeatedly stated that according to Islam there is only one
> Universal religion that requires submission to the Creator,
> But because the religion comes to be misinterpreted as conditions change
> and becomes eroded and degenerates, then from time to time
> and in different places Prophets and Messengers are sent to renew
> religion,
> and cause spiritual regeneration. But the message must be reformulated
> and adapted for the people of that time and place.
> Why is this difficult to understand?
The difficulty, for me, is the combination of the above
with the idea of a prophet with a quality of "Seal of the Prophets".
>> Quran 5:69 makes the impression that a faithful Jew
> is doing no wrong by remaining Jewish even though
> he is thereby rejecting Quran 7:157.
Comment:-
> It is question of understanding.
> For the Jews to go back to their genuine scripture they will have to
> remove the misinterpretations and corruptions in their practices that have
> occurred.
A Quranic expectation of a return to some hypothetical,
no-longer-extant "genuine scripture" doesn't make sense.
The two verses (5:69 and 7:157)
do seem to contradict each other.
Zev
> "Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:89c6c885-c6db-4032...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> At the time of Jesus the long history of revenge had hardened the hearts
> of the Jewish people to the state of stone and that is how the Holy Quran
> mentions it when referring to them:
Ezekiel uses the expression "heart of stone", in Ezekiel 11:19-21
......And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh
and give them a heart of flesh,
that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances
and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
But as for those whose hearts go after their detestable things
and abominations, I will bring their conduct down on their heads,
declares the Lord God.
You'll find the same idea in Ezekiel 36:26-28.
A Jew with a "heart of stone" is one who is weak
in performing God's commandments.
Your misuse of this expression is symbolic
of your misunderstanding of Judaism
and of God's requirements of the people to whom
He gave those commandments.
Moses did not teach, and no Jew believes in
(unless he has been influenced by Christians);
Trinity, Incarnation, Immaculate Conception,
Vicarious Atonement and Transubstantiation.
Jesus is quoted as saying that he did not come to change the Law,
but the religion of all of his followers is recognizably not Jewish.
He is said to be a fatherless descendant of King David!
He is referred to as 'savior' in a personal sense,
an idea which is foreign to the OT.
He and/or his apostles ridiculed Pharisee rabbis and admired
unlearned (and hardly Jewish) Samaritans.
Of course Jesus was rejected.
Jesus sealed his fate by his disrespect for the Law.
The "heart of stone" Jews were those who accepted him.
> And thou was not on the side of the Mount(with Moses) when
> We called; but (We have sent thee) as a mercy from thy Lord,
> that thou mayst warn a people to whom no Warner had come
> before thee, that they may reflect." [Quran 28:44-46]
> I believe this passage of the Quran refers to Deuteronomy 18:18 and states
> that Moses was given a prophecy about Muhammad. That Muhammad could not
> have forced this prophecy on Moses. The prophecy of Moses refers to
> another Prophet who would be like Moses. The Quran implies that
> generations of prophets came after Moses but none of them claimed to be
> "that" prophet until the Quran was revealed and it was made known that
> Muhammad fulfilled the prophecy.
It is indeed likely that there are verses in the Quran
which refer to Deuteronomy 18.
But the challenge is to prove the reverse,
that Deuteronomy 18 refers to Muhammad.
I've been practically imploring Hamid ("Altway")
to "sink his teeth" into this issue, so far, without success.
Deuteronomy 18 has been discussed on SRI many times.
I have shown why I believe it isn't a reference
to one special prophet, with a unique mission.
No one has yet told me why my arguments are unconvincing.
I'd be happy to repeat them, if anyone is interested,
but it will start, on my side, with little more than
cut-and-pastes from those posts.
If this is difficult on SRI, my email address is valid,
I invite anyone to use it.
I had asked how the idea of a "Seal of the Prophets"
goes together with a history of developing religion.
Your analysis is interesting, but it doesn't explain how,
1400 years ago, the world was ready for a final prophet.
I suggest an alternative analysis.
Well, put into the new religion some of their important beliefs
without having so much that it becomes just a branch
of those religions.
Even today, Muslims say they honor
the Jewish and Christian prophets even more
than they (Christians & Jews) do.
This is just the idea I'm getting at.
Also, early monotheistic converts brought with them
many ideas and customs from their previous religion,
just as they brought with them skewed qiblas
as their churches and synagogues became mosques.
This was the time for the fulfillment of the ancient promise!
I can even accept that at critical junctures,
he had divine inspiration to help him get over hurdles.
He was charismatic, intelligent, motivated,
and sometimes rightly guided, but he was not a prophet.
The Quran contains many words of wisdom,
but it is not an angelic dictation of God's words.
Why isn't Muhammad hinted to, in the Bible, in a way in which
learned Christians and Jews would catch?
Well, praise wouldn't be warranted because of his faults,
and since God was using him as a tool
in fulfilling his promise to Abraham,
he couldn't be insulted either.
So he was just left out, or perhaps hinted to
only in unconvincing ways.
Anyone who accepts the truth of the Quran
couldn't possibly accept the above,
and if my theory is correct, then the Quran is not true,
or at least not *all* true!
There is little significance in this for Muslims,
the "Five Pillars" are certainly not sinful,
they do help bring "believers" closer to God.
However, it is of critical importance to Jews.
Altway
"Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> The brothers of Israelites are Ishmaelites.
Does the Bible ever use the expression used here
in a way which seems to refer to Ishmaelites?
Comment:-
Deuteronomy 18:1 states that the Levites shall have no inheritance with
Israel. Deuteronomy 18:2 states that therefore they shall have no
inheritance
among their brothers.
Not the Israelites nor their brothers.
>> I can only give you the information. It is you who will have to make
the necessary effort to understand or not as you will.
> You talk with confidence, but here you're setting up
an excuse for failure, even before trying.
Comment:-
As the Quran says: It the guidance of God that produces understanding.
Even the Prophets could not convince everyone.
Hamid S. Aziz
Zev
> "Zev" <zev_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> The brothers of Israelites are Ishmaelites.
>> Is it true for Deuteronomy 18:2, this very chapter?
>> Does the Bible ever use the expression used here
>> in a way which seems to refer to Ishmaelites?
> Deuteronomy 18:1 states that the Levites shall have no inheritance with
> Israel. Deuteronomy 18:2 states that therefore they shall have no
> inheritance among their brothers.
> Not the Israelites nor their brothers.
You refer to the following verses:
Deuteronomy 18:1-2
"The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi,
shall have no portion nor inheritance with Israel,
they shall eat the offerings of God made by fire, and his inheritance.
And they shall have no inheritance among their brothers.
God is their inheritance, as he has spoken unto them."
"Among their brothers" refers to newly conquered land
outside of Canaan/Israel on the other side of the Jordan,
occupied by the brothers of the Levites,
the tribes of Gad, Reuben and Manasseh.
Numbers 32:33
"So Moses gave to them, to the sons of Gad
and to the sons of Reuben
and to the half-tribe of Joseph's son Manasseh,
the kingdom of Sihon, king of the Amorites
and the kingdom of Og, the king of Bashan,
the land with its cities with their territories,
the cities of the surrounding land.".
Hajj abujamal
This post by Saqib Virq should be reprised; I have added some
[comment in brackets] to show why.
"Robert" wrote ...
> It is true that some books of the Old Testament have been
> edited, but this does not mean that their religious value
> and significance is invalidated.
[This is a rare confession by SRI's resident Crusader.]
The Torah was apparently lost after the Israelites rebelled against
God and suffered His wrath. They had plotted and schemed against the
Prophet Solomon. After his time their kingdom was split into two
parts and eventually destroyed with the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar.
According to the Bible (2 Kings 24,25) Nebuchadnezzar conquered
Jerusalem and set fire to all their dwellings.
"He set fire to the temple of the LORD, the royal palace and all the
houses of Jerusalem. Every important building he burned down. The
whole Babylonian army, under the commander of the imperial guard,
broke down the walls around Jerusalem. Nebuzaradan the commander of
the guard carried into exile the people who remained in the city,
along with the rest of the populace and those who had gone over to the
king of Babylon." (2 Kings 25:9-11)
The scrolls were completely destroyed and at the time of Ezra, about
450 years before Jesus, there was no reliable Torah in existence and
Ezra wrote down the books again.
[The Hebrew language was also lost in Babylon ~ speaking a word of
Hebrew or possessing a scrap of Hebrew writing was punishable by death.]
"... for THY LAW IS BURNT, therefore no man knoweth the things that
are done of thee, or the works that shall begin ... send the Holy
Ghost into me, and I shall write all that hath been done in the world
since the beginning, which were written in thy law ... " (2 Esdras 14)
"In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books." (2 Esdras 4:42-44)
Some versions state they wrote 94 books. We also see they used
different "characters which they did not know."
"And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns
they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know."
(2 Esdras 14:42)
Ezra re-wrote the Jewish scriptures using an apparently new script
after the Jews returned from the exile.
[Hebrew was "resurrected" using the common grammar most of the
common vocabulary of the other Semitic tongues, Aramaic, Amharic and
Arabic.]
In the Talmud we read:
"It was forgotten but Ezra restored it" (Suk 20a. Jewish Enc. Vol 5, p322)
"Ezra re-established the text of the Pentateuch, introducing therein
the Assyrian or square characters" (Sanh 21b. Jewish Enc. Vol 5, p322)
The Jews who returned from the exile were not in possession of the
Torah or did not know it after several generations. It was up to Ezra
to re-establish the Torah and I believe he is considered the father of
Judaism and sometimes even called the "second Moses." At the time of
Ezra, about 450 years before Jesus, there was no reliable Torah in
existence and Ezra wrote down the books again. He wrote 204 books and
was himself unsure about some of the words of the text. For example,
Adam Clark, a well known commentator of the Bible states under I
Chronicles 7:6 that here Ezra mistakenly writes names of grandsons
instead of sons and that to try to reconcile such contradictions is
useless.
As I stated above the Torah was apparently lost after the Israelites
rebelled against God and suffered His wrath. The Quran speaks of two
periods during which the Children of Israel would "do great mischief
in the land".
"And WE had clearly conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Book:
'You will surely do great mischief in the land twice, and you will
surely become excessively overbearing.' So when the time of the
fulfillment of the first of the two warnings came, WE sent against you
some servants of OURS, possessed of great might in war, and they
penetrated into your houses and it was a warning that was bound to be
fulfilled." (Quran 17:4-8)
The first refers to the time when some of them rebelled against
Solomon and the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar who "penetrated into" their
houses. The second period of mischief ... well, since you are a
Christian I assume you know all about it.
The Ebonite's believed Moses passed down the Law orally. They
believed false interpretations crept into it, especially after
Nebuchadnezzar burnt all the scrolls. They believed that Jesus did
not come to change the Law and when it appeared that he did it was
only to correct what should not have been there. The Ebonite's were
around at the same time as Jesus and apparently they did not approve
of St. Paul and they were later declared heretics. Funny that Jewish
Christians who had lived with and in some cases were relatives of
Jesus were declared heretics by those who never knew Jesus at all.
The Ebonite's had a different version of the Torah. One of the
differences was the deletion of many of the stories that show the
previous prophets as immoral and when questioned about it they said
Jesus revealed it to them. One particular story they stated should
not be in the Torah is that of Noah's drunken escapades. Most Muslims
would also object to that particular story.
The Samaritans too claim that problems crept into the Torah after the
exile. As I understand it, the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans in
the present day is different than that used by the Jews. We have both
the Ebonite's and Samaritan claims that errors were introduced into
the Bible at the time of Ezra. Why would they have made these claims,
particularly the Ebonite's?
Jewish scholars have also expressed doubt about Ezra's memory. I will
not comment on that but we only have to check a few verses of the
Bible to realize there is a definite problem:
"Ahazi'ah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem ..." (2 Kings 8:26) vs. "Ahazi'ah was
forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in
Jerusalem ..." (2 Chronicles 22:2)
The problems of incorrect reporting of relations or incorrect ages or
numbers are obvious but there are other much greater problems with the
Bible as well.
Compare the account of Solomon as found in 1 Kings versus the account
found in 2 Chronicles. The account in 1 Kings of the Bible has
Solomon turning away from God and taking idols to worship and he comes
across as a weak minded fool. However in 2 Chronicles there are no
accusations of idol worship or turning away from God. Harper's Bible
Commentary states:
"Solomon thus dies, in the presentation of Chronicles, as the king who
has not only built the Temple but who remained faithful throughout his
life and whose life has accordingly witnessed that God-given
prosperity that regularly attends such faithfulness." (pg. 360)
So why the difference between the two accounts found in the Bible? We
need only turn to the Quran to discover the answer:
"And they pursue the course which was pursued by the rebellious men
against the Kingdom of Solomon. And Solomon did not disbelieve; but
it was the rebellious ones who disbelieved. They taught people
falsehood and deception ..." (Quran 2:102)
The verse speaks of the people of Muhammad's time who are compared to
the some of the Jews of Solomon's time. They rebelled against Solomon
and as such they split into two kingdoms and as I have stated above,
this led to their eventual downfall with the arrival of
Nebuchadnezzar. The two different stories about the life of Solomon
as found in the Bible exist because there existed a party among the
Jews who opposed him. The truth of the matter is found in the Quran
where Solomon is cleared of all wrong doing.
[This "party among the Jews" had contrived a falsified "Good News"
saying that "universal salvation" would come in Israel, not among the
descendants of Ishmael, and conflating the Messiah of Israel with the
Messenger of the Covenant to keep the entire legacy of Abraham in
Israel, dispossessing Ishmael of the Promised Land and all of humanity
of the means of saving ourselves from the dangers of human nature, the
"and in thee (Abraham) will all the families of the earth be blessed"
Promise.
[This party of Talmudic zionists, from the tribes of Judah and
Levi, was deposed by Solomon of Judah's authority to adjudicate the
Law (the Sanhedrin) and of Levi's custody of the Ark of the Covenant
and the Torah scrolls, for their abandonment of the Promise they made
at Sinai (to announce the Good News to the nations when their Messiah
came). They refined their scheme in Babylon during the Captivity, and
were returned by Grand Master Cyrus of The Lodge, who ruled Persia,
with money, Persian armies, and slave labor to build the Second Temple.
[They were the scribes and pharisees of Jesus' time, and after
Jesus left, spread the falsified "Good News" to Europe through Saul of
Tarsus, known as Paul, by means of a new "mystery religion" based on
Nimrod's "man-god" religion in Babylon.
[They rule "Israel" in Palestine today, and virtually occupy the
American governments at all levels by controlling Pauline Christian
zionists and others by their respective ambitions, and through zionist
"advisers" to Administration officials and zionist Congressmen.]
These are but examples or evidence that shows us the Torah has indeed
suffered in the hands of rebellious Jews.
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,' when
actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
(Jeremiah 8:8)
[More accurately: "How do you say 'We are wise and the Law of the
Lord is with us'? Surely the lying pens of the scribes have turned it
into The Lie."
["The Lie" is that salvation comes in Israel. It is the basis of
Pauline Christianity.]
Peace,
Saqib Virk