The story of Talut
Jochen Katz
Greetings,
the last three weeks I have been thinking a lot about one
story in the Qur'an. I would like to share my observations
and reflections and ask how you understand and explain the
differences to the Bible.
In Surat al-Baqara we find the Qur'anic version of the story of King Saul.
2:246
Hast thou not turned thy vision to the Chiefs of the Children of Israel
after (the time of) Moses? They said to a prophet (that was) among
them: "Appoint for us a king, that we May fight in the cause of Allah."
He said: "Is it not possible, if ye were commanded to fight, that that
ye will not fight?" They said: "How could we refuse to fight in the
cause of Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our
families?" But when they were commanded to fight, they turned back,
except a small band among them. But Allah Has full knowledge of those
who do wrong.
2:247
Their Prophet said to them: "Allah hath appointed Talut as king over
you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are
better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted,
with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah hath Chosen him above you,
and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah
Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. Allah careth for all, and
He knoweth all things."
2:248
And (further) their Prophet said to them: "A Sign of his authority is
that there shall come to you the Ark of the covenant, with (an
assurance) therein of security from your Lord, and the relics left by
the family of Moses and the family of Aaron, carried by angels. In this
is a symbol for you if ye indeed have faith."
2:249
When Talut set forth with the armies, he said: "Allah will test you at
the stream: if any drinks of its water, He goes not with my army: Only
those who taste not of it go with me: A mere sip out of the hand is
excused." But they all drank of it, except a few. When they crossed the
river,- He and the faithful ones with him,- they said: "This day We
cannot cope with Jalut and his forces." But those who were convinced
that they must meet Allah, said: "How oft, by Allah's will, Hath a
small force vanquished a big one? Allah is with those who steadfastly
persevere."
2:250
When they advanced to meet Jalut and his forces, they prayed: "Our
Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against
those that reject faith."
2:251
By Allah's will they routed them; and Dawud slew Jalut; and Allah gave
him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did
not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would
indeed be full of mischief: But Allah is full of bounty to all the
worlds.
2:252
These are the Signs of Allah: we rehearse them to thee in truth: verily
Thou art one of the messengers.
Ayahs 2:246-248 give an account of the appointment of Israel's first king,
and 249-251 report on preparation and result of his first battle. Muslim
translators usually write Saul, David and Goliath in their English
translations for the Arabic names Talut, Dawud and Jalut in the Qur'an. And
all commentators and encyclopedias of Islam (that I have seen) agree that
these are the correct identifications without indicating any diverging
opinion. Al-Baqarah 2:246-251 presents a story that is essentially an
exhortation to the Israelites to fight in the cause of Allah and recounting
their first battle and Allah's miraculous help to victory.
In comparison with the Bible we make the following observations:
1. The prophet is Samuel and the first king of Israel is Saul (1 Samuel
10:1,24-25). The author of the Qur'an does not name the prophet
(a/their prophet: 2:246-248) (may we ask "Why?") nor correctly state
the name of the king. The prophet remains anonymous and the king is
instead called Talut in the Qur'an (2:247,249).
2. The Israelites asked for a king because the new judges (Samuel's sons)
were evil, and they wanted a king just like other nations (1 Samuel
8:1-5). In the Bible, the Israelites left Egypt by God's command and
they were even sent away with gifts (Exodus 11:1-2; 12:35-36). During
Samuel's time, "being forced from their homes" was no issue. The Qur'an
states that the Israelites asked for a king so that they may fight in
the cause of Allah, because they had been forced from their homes!
(2:246)
3. Samuel was displeased with this proposal, and asked the LORD what to
do. And God answers: Although this request means the people's rejection
of Me as their king, Samuel should do as they say after first setting
before them the disadvantages of having a king, like heavy taxes,
drafting their sons into his army and more as detailed in 1 Samuel
8:6-22). In the Bible Samuel tries to dissuade the people from their
desire for a king. The Qur'an on the other hand presents Samuel asking
them whether they would fight for God if they were so commanded. Since
this was their original request(!), he only reinforces the wish of the
people.
4. Fighting was prescribed in the Qur'anic verses (2:244) and fighting in
Allah's cause leads to victory (2:251), but many failed to fight when
the time came and they are severely reprimanded for this by Allah
(2:246). According to the Qur'an the Israelites asked for a king so
that they could (start to) fight in the cause of Allah. But under the
leadership of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, they have already been
fighting their enemies for centuries, especially the Midianites and the
Philistines, long before they asked for a king! See the Torah, the book
of Joshua and large parts of the book of Judges as well as 1 Samuel 7,
the chapter just before their request for the king when the judge and
prophet Samuel lead them in the battle against the Philistines and
Israel is victorious.
5. In 1 Samuel 10:17-27, we read how Saul is made king and we find that
the majority of people are very pleased to receive him as king (10:24).
Only a very small minority of a few trouble makers despised him
(10:27). In the Qur'an (2:247) it looks as if most (of the leaders)
rejected his authority and appointment as king.
6. The Qur'an declares the return of the Ark to the Israelites to be the
sign of Allah's election of Saul as king. Indeed, the Ark was captured
at some time by the Philistines (1 Samuel 5), but the ark had been
returned (1 Samuel 6) long before Saul became king (1 Samuel 10).
According to 1 Samuel 7:2, the Ark had come back to Israel over 20
years before the events in chapter 7 happen, and only after that,
Israel asks for a king (1 Samuel 8:1-5). The Ark was continually in
Israel's possession long before and all the time throughout Saul's
reign. This is the first detail of the historical compressions in this
account. This is a compression of about 20-30 years, in addition to the
false statement that the return of the Ark would be a sign of Allah for
Saul's authority.
7. In regard to his (first) battle, the Qur'an claims that Saul separated
the fighters and picked only a few by the way they drank from the river
(2:249). Nothing like this is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11-12, the report
on Saul's first battle, or even in the complete account of Saul's reign
ranging over chapters 9 - 31. Instead this story is found in Judges 7,
where Gideon lead the Israelites into battle. This is again a
historical compression where the author of the Qur'an confuses details
of separate stories and weaves them into one. In fact, Gideon's first
battle against the Midianites where this story of separating the men
according to their drinking behavior is taken from, took place about
1160 BC, while Saul's first battle was against the Ammonites, and took
place approximately 110 years later! Furthermore, the Qur'an loses the
whole point of the testing and separating of men, when Talut supposedly
tells his men the terms of the test before they drink. As such it
becomes an act of open disobedience instead of means of separating out
the soldiers chosen by God according to his secret knowledge as in
Judges 7:4-8.
8. And there is even more historical compression is this same story. The
first battle of Saul did not involve Goliath and the Philistines
either. Instead they fought against the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11).
Goliath came on the scene much later when Saul had sinned against God
in blatant disobedience, was then rejected by God and replaced by
David. The Qur'an implied that David was serving with Saul at his first
battle! But the battle against Goliath and the Philistines was about
1025 B.C., 25 years after Saul's first battle against the Ammonites and
after David was already secretely annointed the new king (1 Samuel
16-17).
The obvious question now is:
Why are these accounts so different?
There seems to be no theological reason for altering these many details as
there might be in regard to passages on the crucifixion (since the Qur'an
rejects the idea of atonement) or the various claims of Jesus to be the
unique Son of God and other doctrinally important texts. No such theological
motivation presented itself to Muhammad, nor is there any reason why the
Israelites should produce such an elaborate fraud over many chapters and
even books in order falsify their history.
What would be a reasonable explanation?
What would a Muslim answer be?
I have my own thoughts and conclusions about this,
but I would like to first hear and understand yours,
before I present mine.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
Zaharuddin Fikri
bism ALLAH al-raHman al-raHeem
On 4 Feb 1998 18:05:53 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>...the story of King Saul.
What strikes me immediately from the recount of the story as
narrated in the Qur'an is that the moral teachings of obedience
to Allah, His dominion of the universe and man's temporary and
limited dominion of the earth, His assistance to those who would
obey His precepts, even if they be small in number and pitted
against greater forces, and His mercy and bounty to the entire
universe, is so beautifully and succinctly told in just six
verses, as opposed to the biblical narrative which spans several
massive chapters and containing no explicit message whatsoever,
except perhaps "history."
Perhaps people are looking for the wrong things, such as
emphasizing on history, when they should be concentrating on ways
to pay devotion to God.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
Asim Mehmood Awan
In a short reply, the Bible is wrong and the Quran is right. As for a
historical anitquity of the Old Testament, I think Jochen first needs to
concern himself with Farrel Till.
The story in the Bible, could have been merely a narration by a certain
author. It certaintly isn't what the Quran calls the Torah, which was
revealed to Musa (AS). It is not uncommon, that time blurs the narration
of historical events.
Asim Mehmood Awan
The Quran knows the Jews were fighting under Musa (AS). And Miqdad (R)
replied to the Prophet (S) in Badr, "We will not say like the Jews did to
Musa
(AS) You and your Lord go fight...." It is in the Quran to, and Jochen
needs to stop assuming before he attempts to discredit Islam..
The Jews have always been known for there disobedience of the commands of
Allah. It is even clear in Deuteronomy, where God tells Musa (AS) that
they will break the covenants after his (AS) death.
They demanded Allah to do everything, with no struggling whatsoever on
their part, except a handful who were righteuous and grateful. They
were cowards, and in the face of adversity, they didn't even want to fight
the armies of Jalut.
The history of the Jews show nothing but ungratefulness, there falling
into even idolatry, and there desiring the world. Are they going to right
in their books how they told Saul (AS) to go fight, and we will fight with
you, but they ended up running away like cowards. Instead of a handful
that didn't drink, are they going to tell the world that all of them DRANK
except a few.
As for desiring a king, I hardly think they wanted a king for some
personal appeal, like other nations, and maybe that is what they wanted
deep down in their heart. And Allah makes reference to their consistent
frauds in their statements, when there asking to fight wasn't a true oath,
and their actions proved it. The Jews were a greedy people, and when they
took the calf as a god, auzubillah, after THEY WERE RESCUED from Firaun,
is just a proof of their stupidity.
It is no surprise, the Children of Israel relinquished there title as
Chosen People by their own hands, and the Ishmaelite line showed nothing
but obedience at times of Badr, and so on and so forth. The final straw
was when they attempted to crucify Isa (AS), which they obviously failed.
Bentamba
>ih...@wam.umd.edu (Asim Mehmood Awan) wrote:
>The Quran knows the Jews were fighting under Musa (AS). And Miqdad (R)
>replied to the Prophet (S) in Badr, "We will not say like the Jews did to
>Musa
>(AS) You and your Lord go fight...." It is in the Quran to, and Jochen
>needs to stop assuming before he attempts to discredit Islam..
(the rest is snipped away)
I think what brother Jochen was saying in his posting was WHY the obvious
VARIATIONS between the Biblical records and the story quoted in Quran, of the
historical events. Which one is correct? The detailed historical records
(chronicles) of the Jews, OR the "vaguely similar" story in the Quran?
ARIA DHANI
Bentamba
> za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) wrote:
>Perhaps people are looking for the wrong things, such as
>emphasizing on history, when they should be concentrating on ways
>to pay devotion to God.
>
>wassalam,
>Zaharuddin Fikri
>
Brother Jochen's posting is trying to point out something very fundamental
here. Let us not beat around the bush. The foundation of Islam IS AT STAKE
here. Islam is based on the "perfectness" and "the infallibilty" of the Quran,
which Muslims claim to be a "word-per-word" or "iota-per-iota" revelation from
Allah.
If EVERY dot in the Quran is TRUE and CORRECT, there should be no problem
supporting it with the so called corroborating evidence, i.e. history,
archaelogical findings, etc., as in the case with the Bible. So when a question
arises that Quranic stories are not in line with historical records, it is
worth looking into, and do it with an open mind.
Archaelogical discipline was primarily started with one purpose in mind: to
prove that the Biblical accounts are wrong. The discoveries prove the opposite,
and therefore making it even stronger and stronger every day. Can we say the
same with the Quran?
Wassalam.
ARIA DHANI
Jochen Katz
In article <6bh27t$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
} The Quran knows the Jews were fighting under Musa (AS). And Miqdad (R)
} replied to the Prophet (S) in Badr, "We will not say like the Jews did to
} Musa
} (AS) You and your Lord go fight...." It is in the Quran to, and Jochen
} needs to stop assuming before he attempts to discredit Islam..
What is "in the Qur'an too"? Certainly not Miqdad's statement to Muhammad?
Mr. Awan, sadly, as is his habit, does not give any references. Gladly
there are search engines on the web. I did find it eventually, and
guess I have to be grateful to him, since his posting produced two
more odditites in the Qur'an that I had not seen before.
} They demanded Allah to do everything, with no struggling whatsoever on
} their part, except a handful who were righteuous and grateful. They
} were cowards, and in the face of adversity, they didn't even want to fight
} the armies of Jalut.
That is the first one. The Qur'an talks twice about "Jalut and his forces"
in the story of Talut. So, Muhammad transforms Jalut in the leader of the
enemies, maybe their king but at least their military commander. But Jalut
was only their champion fighter. He was not in command as 1 Samuel 17
shows. It is only a small detail, but I had overlooked it before.
Now let me quote the part that Mr. Awan seemingly refers to in his
above comment:
[al-Ma'idah 5:27]
They said: "O Moses! while they remain there,
never shall we be able to enter, to the end of time.
Go thou, and thy Lord, and fight ye two, while we sit here (and watch)."
This is the verse that Mr. Awan pointed to. And he claimed that the
Qur'an knows that they have been fighting before under Moses. But
doesn't this text say the exact opposite? Doesn't it speak of the
fear and refusal to fight and therefore they are sent back into the
desert for 40 years? Where does the Qur'an know about Israel fighting
under Moses? Certainly not in this passage, which continues:
[al-Ma'idah 5:28]
He said: "O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother:
so separate us from this rebellious people!"
[al-Ma'idah 5:29]
God said: "Therefore will the land be out of their reach for forty
years: In distraction will they wander through the land: But sorrow
thou not over these rebellious people.
But there is much more, the story begins like this:
[al-Ma'idah 5:22]
Remember Moses said to his people:
"O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you,
when He produced prophets among you, made you kings,
and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
1. I am not aware of any prophet among the children of Israel
before Moses. Whom is he talking about?
2. Even clearer with "kings". Moses lived about 1450 BC and Saul,
the first king of Israel was appointed in 1050 BC. How can Moses
speak of kings in the plural and in the past tense?
Actually, I found another verse just two verses before that story:
[al-Ma'idah 5:20]
(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of God, and
his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins?
Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth
whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to God
belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all
that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
This fits into our earlier discussion on "son of God". The Qur'an
responds to the statement of the Jews/Christians that they are sons
of God: NO, (as you can see from the fact that you are punished for
sins), therefore you are mere mortals (not sons of God). And again,
the author of the Qur'an fails to understand the Biblical use of
the term. The author of the Qur'an thinks that "son of God" means
a claim for deity. He is wrong. Any Christian is called a son of
God as various passages show, e.g. John 1, Romans 8, Hebrews 12
and more. And Israel itself, the nation is called the son of God.
And nobody would suggest for a second that Christians or Jews
are therefore gods.
How come that the author of the Qur'an is so utterly unaware of
the meaning of this terminology that is very common throughout
the Bible? Has God forgotten what he said in the earlier revelation?
Or even if it had not been revelation, was God ignorant about the
way the Jews and Christians used the term?
} As for desiring a king, I hardly think they wanted a king for some
} personal appeal, like other nations, and maybe that is what they wanted
} deep down in their heart.
You might want to try again what you wanted to say with this sentence,
since it makes no sense whatsoever. Did they or did they not want a
king like other nations? First you say: "hardly", and then you say,
that this might have been their hearts deep desire. Can you at least
decide what you think? Not that your personal opinion will be in any
way decisive for the reality of what happened, but how on earth can
one even discuss what you said above?
} And Allah makes reference to their consistent
} frauds in their statements, when there asking to fight wasn't a true oath,
} and their actions proved it. The Jews were a greedy people, and when they
} took the calf as a god, auzubillah, after THEY WERE RESCUED from Firaun,
} is just a proof of their stupidity.
What does have the calf to do with greed? Could you explain what
that chain of association is supposed to be?
} It is no surprise, the Children of Israel relinquished there title as
} Chosen People by their own hands,
they did? I am not aware of it. And God said to Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob that this is an "everlasting" covenant. Do you want to call
God a liar?
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6bh1tk$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
} In a short reply, the Bible is wrong and the Quran is right.
I guess, that answer settles it for any inquiring mind.
} As for a
} historical anitquity of the Old Testament, I think Jochen first needs to
} concern himself with Farrel Till.
Why should I care about him?
I don't think he is of any great relevance.
But maybe Mr. Awan would like to debate the historicity of Jesus
and Moses with Mr. Till? I am sure Mr. Awan will be the first to
convince Till that Moses actually existed. Maybe he can even convert
him to Islam with his powerful arguments? If you agree to debate
that with Mr. Till, I will join in and concern myself with him.
Jochen Katz
Asim Mehmood Awan
It is amazing how Allah works and proves the miracle of the Prophethood of
Muhammad (S).
< 1. The prophet is Samuel and the first king of Israel is Saul (1 Samuel
10:1,24-25). The author of the Qur'an does not name the prophet
(a/their prophet: 2:246-248) (may we ask "Why?") nor correctly state
the name of the king. The prophet remains anonymous and the king is
instead called Talut in the Qur'an (2:247,249).>
The prophet (AS) being referenced here is apparently Samuel (AS). The
Quran calls
Mary (AS), Maryam (AS), so I guess the Quran got that wrong also.
(sarcasm)
And Alah knows best.
< 2. The Israelites asked for a king because the new judges (Samuel's
sons)
were evil, and they wanted a king just like other nations (1 Samuel
8:1-5). In the Bible, the Israelites left Egypt by God's command and
they were even sent away with gifts (Exodus 11:1-2; 12:35-36).>
That's a surprise. They left with gifts from the Pharoah being drowned,
who chased them and was intent on slaughtering them?
Anyway the Quranic narration 'Set up for us a king that we may fight in
the way of Allah.' And surprisingly in the Bible, which Jochen seems to
have missed 'No! But we will have a king over us, that we may be like all
the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us AND
FIGHT OUR BATTLES." (1 sAMUEL 8: 4-22)
<During
Samuel's time, "being forced from their homes" was no issue. The
Qur'an
states that the Israelites asked for a king so that they may fight in
the cause of Allah, because they had been forced from their homes!
(2:246)>
Oh really Jochen. Maybe the persecution by the Amalekites who had
deprived THEM OF THE GREATER PART OF PALESTINE had nothing to do with that
desire, and like the Bible states they wanted to fight the other nations.
< 3. Samuel was displeased with this proposal, and asked the LORD what to
do. And God answers: Although this request means the people's
rejection
of Me as their king, Samuel should do as they say after first setting
before them the disadvantages of having a king, like heavy taxes,
drafting their sons into his army and more as detailed in 1 Samuel
8:6-22). In the Bible Samuel tries to dissuade the people from their
desire for a king. The Qur'an on the other hand presents Samuel
asking
them whether they would fight for God if they were so commanded.
Since
this was their original request(!), he only reinforces the wish of
the
people.>
The objectionis answered in the Bible itself. 'No! But we will have a
king over us, that we alsoi may be like all the nations, and that our king
may govern us and go out before us and FIGHT OUR BATTLES.'
And in 1 Samuel 12: 6 -23 Samuel starts off by saying "And when you saw
that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me,
No, but A KING SHALL REIGN OVER US, WHEN THE LORD YOUR GOD WAS YOUR KING."
So maybe, the Jews really wanted a king to fight.
I think its about time Jochen starts rethinking his objections. As for
Bentambe, he shouldn't jump on a bandwagon before its about to crash.
4. Fighting was prescribed in the Qur'anic verses (2:244) and fighting in
Allah's cause leads to victory (2:251), but many failed to fight when
the time came and they are severely reprimanded for this by Allah
(2:246). According to the Qur'an the Israelites asked for a king so
that they could (start to) fight in the cause of Allah. But under the
leadership of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, they have already been
fighting their enemies for centuries, especially the Midianites and
the
Philistines, long before they asked for a king!>
This is after the time of Musa (AS), and has no relevance to the story.
The Quran recognizes that they fought in the way of Allah. And that
brings us to mass reserrection, and ayat 243. Those that fought were the
ones "reserrected." "Have you thought of those who went forth from their
homes for fear of death even though they were in the thousands? Allah
said to them: 'Die! Then He restored them to life. Indeed Allah is
Bounteuous to men - but most people do not give thanks in return."
How is this applicable to the Children of Israel. Oh! The subtelty of
the Quran. The Israelites had left Egypt in large numbers and were
wandering in the desert, eager to find a home. God ordered them to drive
out the Canaanites from Palestine, and they showed cowardice and refused
to proceed. They were left wandering in the desert for fourty years till
a full generation of Israelites had died and been replaced by a new one
reared in tough conditions of desert life. And then, by God's grace, they
were able to overcome the Canaanites. The former condition is described
as death, and the latter condition life.
< See the Torah, the
book
of Joshua and large parts of the book of Judges as well as 1 Samuel
7,
the chapter just before their request for the king when the judge and
prophet Samuel lead them in the battle against the Philistines and
Israel is victorious.>
There is no contradiction at all between the Quran and the Biblical story,
except for now.
5. In 1 Samuel 10:17-27, we read how Saul is made king and we find that
the majority of people are very pleased to receive him as king
(10:24).
And the Quran differs on it. The quran says the Israelites replied "By
what right shall he rule over us when we are more worthy than he to
dominion, since he is not even wealthy?' Why would they be jealuous?
They said they wanted a king like other kings. A king that was like the
king of other nations. I have no idea why? They were tyrants, and people
of wealth, and the Quranic description is way more accurate and plausible
than the Jews of the Torah.
Jochen's version is iinvalid.
Only a very small minority of a few trouble makers despised him
(10:27). In the Qur'an (2:247) it looks as if most (of the leaders)
rejected his authority and appointment as king.
Look can be decieving, especially for one who chooses the path of it.
< 6. The Qur'an declares the return of the Ark to the Israelites to be
the
sign of Allah's election of Saul as king. Indeed, the Ark was
captured
at some time by the Philistines (1 Samuel 5), but the ark had been
returned (1 Samuel 6) long before Saul became king (1 Samuel 10).
According to 1 Samuel 7:2, the Ark had come back to Israel over 20
years before the events in chapter 7 happen, and only after that,
Israel asks for a king (1 Samuel 8:1-5). The Ark was continually in
Israel's possession long before and all the time throughout Saul's
reign. This is the first detail of the historical compressions in
this
account. This is a compression of about 20-30 years, in addition to
the
false statement that the return of the Ark would be a sign of Allah
for
Saul's authority.>
Samuel apparently judged Israel all of his life. Samuel was a very old
man. So apparently he was around more then twenty years. Now, as Jochen
has been shown wrong, the Israelites wanted a king to fight. Now if the
Philistines had captured it twenty years ago, and the Jews weren't
fighting because they obviously asked Samuel "No! But we will have a king
over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may
govern us and go out before us AND FIGHT OUR BATTLES." nOW sAMUEL WAS
OBVIOUSLY IN CHARGE OF ISRAEL, FOR "HE JUDGED ISRAEL ALL THE DAYS OF HIS
LIFE", it seems quite contradctory that the Ark could have been captured
during a battle with the Philistines when they weren't even fighting,
DON'T YOU THINK?
And they also refused to fight because there was no king according to
Samuel 12:6, the story is quite ill-conceivably. Why the rabbis would
fabricate a story against Saul (AS), they obviously were disappointed as
to his stature and wealth according to the Quran. And his supposed
disobedience later on, would in no way justify a man being appointed by
God through the return of the ark. So you cannot have it both ways.
7. In regard to his (first) battle, the Qur'an claims that Saul
separated
the fighters and picked only a few by the way they drank from the
river
(2:249). Nothing like this is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11-12, the report
on Saul's first battle, or even in the complete account of Saul's
reign
ranging over chapters 9 - 31.
That's funny. I don't remeber it being mentioned as the first battle.
Anyway, this tactic doesn't have to be exclusive anyways.
< Instead this story is found in Judges
7,
where Gideon lead the Israelites into battle.
I wonder where all the weapons went, and organized military went.
According to Samuel (8:44-22) It couldn't have disappeared over Samuel's
lifetime.
This is again a
historical compression where the author of the Qur'an confuses
details
of separate stories and weaves them into one. >
I'm loving every second of it. Jochen hasn't even realized the accounts
of the Bible as being way off.
In fact, Gideon's first
battle against the Midianites where this story of separating the men
according to their drinking behavior is taken from, took place about
1160 BC, while Saul's first battle was against the Ammonites, and
took
place approximately 110 years later!
And yet the Philistinians supposedly stole the ark twenty years before
Saul (AS)!!!!! Were they fighting everybody all at once, that seems quite
odd considering the fact, thje Israelties asked Samuel for a king to go
out before them and fight, and they weren't fighting under Samuel's reign
as khalipha. And they refused to fight the Ammonites because they didn't
have a king.
<Furthermore, the Qur'an loses
the
whole point of the testing and separating of men, when Talut
supposedly
tells his men the terms of the test before they drink. As such it
becomes an act of open disobedience instead of means of separating
out the soldiers chosen by God according to his secret knowledge as in
Judges 7:4-8.>
I really see bad understanding here.
That secret knowledge is found in the Quran which when Saul (AS) says
'Allah will try you with a river," It seems the river wasn't seen yet,
and obviously Saul (AS) was given a secret knowledge.
I think Jochen has lost the point of the Quranic verse, which is what was
meant by Saul (AS). These people who disobeyed do not belong to Saul
(AS). Nowhere in it does it say those people left the regiment, for
apparently those same people say 'Today we have no strength to face
Jalut and his forces.'
As for an act of disobedience instead of choosing who was those of God,
the Quran says after Saul (AS) and the BELIEVERS crossed the river, those
who drank said that they didn't have strength to face the army. And so,
in actuality, contrary to Jochen's understanding, the people of God were
distinguished through this incident. The Believers said most eloquesntly
"How often has a small party prevailed against a large party by the leave
of Allah.' (249)
< 8. And there is even more historical compression is this same story.
The
first battle of Saul did not involve Goliath and the Philistines
either. Instead they fought against the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11).>
Hitsorical compression seems to be the trait for the Biblical testimants.
The earth being onle five thousand years old and all.
And the
Philistines were the ones who captured the Ark of Covenant, yet the Jews
weren't fighting the Philistinians? And this was a sign of Saul (AS)
being elected king. How is it the ark was returned twenty years from a
nation that was supposedly waging war on the Israelites, yet under
Samuel's (AS) long life and reign they were not even involved in fighting.
That was the point of Saul (AS) going to fight the Philistinians, it
seems.
They didn't have the commander and chariots and so on for fighting, yet
the were fighting one hundred and ten years ago during Gideon's reign.
where did all the weapons go. (8:4-22 Samuel)
The Quranic version is much more consistent with the historical events.
Goliath came on the scene much later when Saul had sinned against God
in blatant disobedience, was then rejected by God and replaced by
David.
Thats funy. Because in 1 Samuel 17 and 18, Daud's (AS) remarkable
qualities are illustrated, and wo!! what do we find. Supposedly Saul (AS)
was rejected by God, yet it is quite a surprise Saul (AS) gave Daud (AS)
HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE.
Thats funny also, because these chapters illustrate otherwise. Daud (AS)
joined the army of Saul (AS), even though Saul (AS) was replaced?
<The Qur'an implied that David was serving with Saul at his
first
battle! But the battle against Goliath and the Philistines was about
1025 B.C., 25 years after Saul's first battle against the Ammonites
and
after David was already secretely annointed the new king (1 Samuel
16-17).>
I thought, according to Jochen, Saul (AS) was already replaced?
The Quran gives a clue to the obvious disatisfaction of the Jews with Saul
(AS) originally, yet that marriage s a key factor.
God alone knows the exact times, and the Quran we see, doesn't involve
itself in details, yet what we find is amazingly it is much more in
accordance then the Bible is with itself. The Bible contains many
conflicting ideas, and things that just don't make sense.
As for why the rabbis would corrupt it, that is answered in a different
work.
And sufficient is Allah as a guardian.
Ilyas Abdul-Salaam
Dear Jochen,
> [al-Ma'idah 5:22]
> Remember Moses said to his people:
> "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you,
> when He produced prophets among you, made you kings,
> and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
>
> 1. I am not aware of any prophet among the children of Israel
> before Moses. Whom is he talking about?
>
> 2. Even clearer with "kings". Moses lived about 1450 BC and Saul,
> the first king of Israel was appointed in 1050 BC. How can Moses
> speak of kings in the plural and in the past tense?
Peace. In reference to prophets which precede Musa (A.S.), Islam teaches
that Issac, Jacob, and Joseph (Ishaq, Yaqoub, and Yusuf, PBUT) were
prophets of God.
As far as being "kings", Musa (A.S.) was referring to the entirety of the
children of Israel, correct? Now, this points to a different meaning of
kings than the one that you are leaning towards. It seems that you mean
king, as in the head of the country, as per your reference to Talut as the
first king of Israel. How could an entire nation be the heads of their
people (unless you believe in the Pythonesque concept of an
"anarchosyndicalistic commune")? That wouldn't make any sense. I can't
tell you exactly what Musa (A.S.) meant, but the gist of it seems to be
that God is giving them dominion over the kingdoms of Canaan. The nation
is being allowed dominion over a land of their own. God has made them
kings, if only they would put their faith in God, overcome their fear, and
fight.
Peace,
Ilyas
Zaharuddin Fikri
bism ALLAH al-raHman al-raHeem
On 8 Feb 1998 18:27:23 GMT, bent...@aol.com (Bentamba) wrote:
>Brother Jochen's posting is trying to point out something very fundamental
>here. Let us not beat around the bush. The foundation of Islam IS AT STAKE
>here. Islam is based on the "perfectness" and "the infallibilty" of the Quran,
>which Muslims claim to be a "word-per-word" or "iota-per-iota" revelation from
>Allah.
Perfectness of something does not rest on a test based on
erroneous criteria. I hope this is crystal and I would not have
to spell it out to anyone.
As for it being the word-for-word or iota-per-iota revelation,
yes that is the claim and the evidence has been presented and
will continue to be presented -- God Willing! -- on this and
other forums where that question is raised. As to this particular
instance when the issue of historical accuracy is being
questioned, my conclusions about the Qur'an stands: it cannot be
read as a history book. The "historical" narratives are there to
showcase a moral or a teaching.
>If EVERY dot in the Quran is TRUE and CORRECT, there should be no problem
>supporting it with the so called corroborating evidence, i.e. history,
>archaelogical findings, etc., as in the case with the Bible.
Not so. The Bible stands or falls on its historicity because
among other things, it purports to tell so-called actual history.
Have you not read your own book, man?
Should you read the Qur'an, outside of a few references to the
Prophet (and these are verifiable through external histories),
you simply cannot read it for historical lessons. It's sole
purpose is clearly stated in the earliest chapter of the Book, if
anyone bothered to check: A guide for the muttaqeen (among other
things).
>Archaelogical discipline was primarily started with one purpose in mind: to
>prove that the Biblical accounts are wrong.
Don't let your dissatisfaction with findings of archaeologists
sway you to come to wrong conclusions about the Qur'an. Also,
whether or not archaeologists only began that discipline to
"test" the Bible is a rather strong claim. I hope I am reading
you wrong. ;-)
>The discoveries prove the opposite,
>and therefore making it even stronger and stronger every day. Can we say the
>same with the Quran?
For every archeologist who finds something which (you say) proves
the Bible, it would also strengthen my case that the Bible bases
a great deal of its authenticity on whether or not it agrees with
history-telling. This has never and will never be the claim for
the Qur'an.
Can't you see that any so-called matching of the sequence of
events between these two books is bound to fail? As I said
earlier, perfectness of the Qur'an does not rest on tests based
on erroneous criteria.There are of course many other things that
could be said on that issue, but I shall leave it to others more
learned and scholarly.
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
--
Robert Minvoeld <r...@dec.idiom.com>
Idiometrics Corporation * Mountain View, CA
Jochen Katz
Dear Ilyas,
In article <6bnckg$p...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
you write:
} > [al-Ma'idah 5:22]
} > Remember Moses said to his people:
} > "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you,
} > when He produced prophets among you, made you kings,
} > and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
} >
} > 1. I am not aware of any prophet among the children of Israel
} > before Moses. Whom is he talking about?
} Peace. In reference to prophets which precede Musa (A.S.), Islam teaches
} that Issac, Jacob, and Joseph (Ishaq, Yaqoub, and Yusuf, PBUT) were
} prophets of God.
But one could not talk of the "people of Israel" before the
exodus. They only really became a nation at Mt. Sinai at the
time of Moses.
Even though the Bible usually doesn't call Abraham and Isaac
prophets thought they might be to other people, they can't be
prophets to THIS people, the people of Moses, since they didn't
exist yet. The Israelites are all the descendents of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. At the time of Joseph they still were an
extended family, not a people/nation. But they are at the time
of Moses. But it seems not to be appropriate to speak in this
way of their past.
} As far as being "kings", Musa (A.S.) was referring to the entirety of the
} children of Israel, correct?
I agree, that seems what he does, and I have not realized that
very well. Thanks for pointing it out.
} Now, this points to a different meaning of
} kings than the one that you are leaning towards. It seems that you mean
} king, as in the head of the country, as per your reference to Talut as the
} first king of Israel. How could an entire nation be the heads of their
} people?
Good point.
} That wouldn't make any sense. I can't
} tell you exactly what Musa (A.S.) meant, but the gist of it seems to be
} that God is giving them dominion over the kingdoms of Canaan. The nation
} is being allowed dominion over a land of their own. God has made them
} kings, if only they would put their faith in God, overcome their fear, and
} fight.
If this is the meaning that is intended, why then does Moses not say,
"Who WILL make you kings"? After all, they are still wandering in the
desert and haven't taken anything in possession yet?
"O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you,
when He produced prophets among you, made you kings,
And he starts out that sentence even stronger, "Call in remembrance",
i.e. it does really seem to refer to some past event. Any explanation?
Thanks for pointing out though that it is "MADE YOU kings" not
"gave you kings".
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6bnci0$p...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
} It is amazing how Allah works and proves the miracle of the Prophethood of
} Muhammad (S).
Let us not draw conclusions before we have examined all the evidence.
} < 1. The prophet is Samuel and the first king of Israel is Saul (1 Samuel
} 10:1,24-25). The author of the Qur'an does not name the prophet
} (a/their prophet: 2:246-248) (may we ask "Why?") nor correctly state
} the name of the king. The prophet remains anonymous and the king is
} instead called Talut in the Qur'an (2:247,249).>
}
} The prophet (AS) being referenced here is apparently Samuel (AS).
I agree.
} The
} Quran calls Mary (AS), Maryam (AS), so I guess the Quran got that wrong
} also. (sarcasm)
No, Mary is the English form of Maryam, or Miriam as the Hebrew goes.
I would assume that the Arabic Bible has about the same name as the
Qur'an just as most names between Qur'an and Arabic Bible agree when
refering to the same person. Talut is a very unique case, since it
is the only name in the Qur'an for an identifiable person where the
Qur'anic name has not even any similarity to the Biblical name.
There are lots of others, like Luqman, Shuaib, Hud and others about
whom we don't really know who they are.
They could be
1. Otherwise unknown people, who left no record outside of the Qur'an
and maybe some legends available at Muhammad's time, but that are
lost by now.
2. people known from other sources, with this name but there is too
little detail in the Qur'an (or so much distorted), that we can't
recognize anymore who is meant.
3. Similar to 2., but that they are otherwise known under a different
name, but the info is too sketchy to identify them.
With Talut, the name is completely unrelated to his real Hebrew name,
but the details of the story make it clear it is about Saul.
A friend made a partial list of names, and as you can see, Talut
is really the exception. Mostly Qur'an (or Islamic traditions) and
Arabic Bible are in agreement.
Qur'an Arabic Bible English Bible
Talut Shaol Saul
Dawood Dawood David
Galut Giliat Goliath
Soliman Soliman Solomon
Yehea Yohna John
Yusuf Yusuf Joseph
Mossa Mossa Moses
Yunus Yunan Jonah
Ishaq Ishaq Issac
Ibrahim Ibrahim Abraham
Ya'qoob Ya'qoob Jacob
Ayoub Ayoub Job
Haroon Haroon Aaron
Lott Lott Lot
Elias Elia Eli
Adam Adam Adam
Howa' Howa' Eve
Qabil Qaiin Cain
Habil Habil Abel
Noh Noh Noah
In particular, for Maryam, the Arabic is much closer to the Hebrew
than the English. So your example is not relevant.
But there is really no explanation for the origin of the name "Talut"
though there are a few speculations about it.
} < 2. The Israelites asked for a king because the new judges (Samuel's
} sons)
} were evil, and they wanted a king just like other nations (1 Samuel
} 8:1-5). In the Bible, the Israelites left Egypt by God's command and
} they were even sent away with gifts (Exodus 11:1-2; 12:35-36).>
}
}
} That's a surprise. They left with gifts from the Pharoah being drowned,
} who chased them and was intent on slaughtering them?
} Anyway the Quranic narration 'Set up for us a king that we may fight in
} the way of Allah.' And surprisingly in the Bible, which Jochen seems to
} have missed 'No! But we will have a king over us, that we may be like all
} the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us AND
} FIGHT OUR BATTLES." (1 sAMUEL 8: 4-22)
Yes, that is in there. I didn't miss it. But the issue what is primary
and what is secondary reason? And, the formulation is still different.
In the Bible the fighting is what they want to make the king responsible
for, instead of they themselves fighting. In the Qur'an they want a king
so that they can fight, as if they couldn't fight without a king. In the
Qur'an: Appoint a king that WE may fight. Bible: Appoint a king that HE
may fight. But that is a minor issue in comparison with the other things.
} <During
} Samuel's time, "being forced from their homes" was no issue. The
} Qur'an
} states that the Israelites asked for a king so that they may fight in
} the cause of Allah, because they had been forced from their homes!
} (2:246)>
}
} Oh really Jochen. Maybe the persecution by the Amalekites who had
} deprived THEM OF THE GREATER PART OF PALESTINE had nothing to do with that
} desire, and like the Bible states they wanted to fight the other nations.
They had? Evidence, references?
I am always amazed how people make up stuff as they go along.
In any case, you will have to deal with the much more interesting
things I have to tell later about this issue.
} I think its about time Jochen starts rethinking his objections. As for
} Bentambe, he shouldn't jump on a bandwagon before its about to crash.
Just be patient. The big "boom" is about to come. :-)
} 4. Fighting was prescribed in the Qur'anic verses (2:244) and fighting in
} Allah's cause leads to victory (2:251), but many failed to fight when
} the time came and they are severely reprimanded for this by Allah
} (2:246). According to the Qur'an the Israelites asked for a king so
} that they could (start to) fight in the cause of Allah. But under the
} leadership of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, they have already been
} fighting their enemies for centuries, especially the Midianites and
} the
} Philistines, long before they asked for a king!>
} This is after the time of Musa (AS), and has no relevance to the story.
I don't understand. In particular, when you look at this:
} < See the Torah, the book
} of Joshua and large parts of the book of Judges as well as 1 Samuel 7,
} the chapter just before their request for the king when the judge and
} prophet Samuel lead them in the battle against the Philistines and
} Israel is victorious.>
They just fought victoriously in the chapter (a couple of years) before
they request a king.
} The Quran recognizes that they fought in the way of Allah. And that
} brings us to mass reserrection, and ayat 243. Those that fought were the
} ones "reserrected." "Have you thought of those who went forth from their
} homes for fear of death even though they were in the thousands? Allah
} said to them: 'Die! Then He restored them to life. Indeed Allah is
} Bounteuous to men - but most people do not give thanks in return."
This is not what the Qur'an says. You might interpret it that way,
but it is certainly strained.
} How is this applicable to the Children of Israel. Oh! The subtelty of
} the Quran.
Declaring a "subtlety" that which is incomprehensible?
What a "solution"!
} The Israelites had left Egypt in large numbers and were
} wandering in the desert, eager to find a home.
True.
} God ordered them to drive
} out the Canaanites from Palestine, and they showed cowardice and refused
} to proceed.
True.
} They were left wandering in the desert for fourty years till
} a full generation of Israelites had died and been replaced by a new one
} reared in tough conditions of desert life.
True.
} And then, by God's grace, they
} were able to overcome the Canaanites. The former condition is described
} as death, and the latter condition life.
Well, the ayah seems to describe the same people as dying and rising,
not another generation, different people. That is the issue.
} 5. In 1 Samuel 10:17-27, we read how Saul is made king and we find that
} the majority of people are very pleased to receive him as king
} (10:24).
}
} And the Quran differs on it. The quran says the Israelites replied "By
} what right shall he rule over us when we are more worthy than he to
} dominion, since he is not even wealthy?' Why would they be jealuous?
} They said they wanted a king like other kings. A king that was like the
} king of other nations. I have no idea why? They were tyrants, and people
} of wealth, and the Quranic description is way more accurate and plausible
} than the Jews of the Torah.
I don't think so. We will discuss that later when I have sent in my
own explanation of the story.
} Jochen's version is iinvalid.
It is the Bible, the Holy Word of God that says so.
It was not invented by me. And so far, no Bible translation has been
named after me either.
} Only a very small minority of a few trouble makers despised him
} (10:27). In the Qur'an (2:247) it looks as if most (of the leaders)
} rejected his authority and appointment as king.
} Look can be decieving, especially for one who chooses the path of it.
If that was a comment about the content, I don't understand it.
If that was an ad hominem on me, then it is irrelevant.
Your discussion of the discrepancy about the Ark makes no sense to
me and I don't even know where to start correcting it or asking
about it. So I will snip and skip it.
} 7. In regard to his (first) battle, the Qur'an claims that Saul separated
} the fighters and picked only a few by the way they drank from the river
} (2:249). Nothing like this is mentioned in 1 Samuel 11-12, the report
} on Saul's first battle, or even in the complete account of Saul's reign
} ranging over chapters 9 - 31.
}
} That's funny. I don't remeber it being mentioned as the first battle.
} Anyway, this tactic doesn't have to be exclusive anyways.
It is not a tactic. It is a rather unique thing. To claim that this
became a general method of choosing soldiers is rather silly, don't you
think so?
} < Instead this story is found in Judges 7,
} where Gideon lead the Israelites into battle.
}
} I wonder where all the weapons went, and organized military went.
} According to Samuel (8:44-22) It couldn't have disappeared over Samuel's
} lifetime.
I have no clue what that comment has a relevancy to. And Samuel was probably
not even born until after Gideon. Weapons don't just disintegrate, but a
standing army certainly doesn't take much time to disperse.
} This is again a
} historical compression where the author of the Qur'an confuses details
} of separate stories and weaves them into one. >
}
} I'm loving every second of it. Jochen hasn't even realized the accounts
} of the Bible as being way off.
I am glad you love it. :-) That will make our ongoing discussion much
easier.
} In fact, Gideon's first
} battle against the Midianites where this story of separating the men
} according to their drinking behavior is taken from, took place about
} 1160 BC, while Saul's first battle was against the Ammonites, and took
} place approximately 110 years later!
}
} And yet the Philistinians supposedly stole the ark twenty years before
} Saul (AS)!!!!!
Yes. Why not? In the time of Samuel's leadership.
} Were they fighting everybody all at once, that seems quite
} odd considering the fact, thje Israelties asked Samuel for a king to go
} out before them and fight, and they weren't fighting under Samuel's reign
} as khalipha.
They were fighting. Many times. That is what I said before.
} And they refused to fight the Ammonites because they didn't
} have a king.
??? Where did they ever refuse to fight because they had no king?
} < 8. And there is even more historical compression is this same story.
} The
} first battle of Saul did not involve Goliath and the Philistines
} either. Instead they fought against the Ammonites (1 Samuel 11).>
}
}
} Hitsorical compression seems to be the trait for the Biblical testimants.
} The earth being onle five thousand years old and all.
You don't understand the term historical compression it seems.
Go and read the various stories and explanations at this page:
http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/index.html#histcomp
} And the
} Philistines were the ones who captured the Ark of Covenant, yet the Jews
} weren't fighting the Philistinians? And this was a sign of Saul (AS)
} being elected king. How is it the ark was returned twenty years from a
} nation that was supposedly waging war on the Israelites, yet under
} Samuel's (AS) long life and reign they were not even involved in fighting.
} That was the point of Saul (AS) going to fight the Philistinians, it
} seems.
Why don't you read the whole story of 1 Samuel and you might actually
learn and understand. I can't narrate it all for you.
} They didn't have the commander and chariots and so on for fighting, yet
} the were fighting one hundred and ten years ago during Gideon's reign.
} where did all the weapons go. (8:4-22 Samuel)
How about you read the record in Judges 6-7 as well, so that you know
what kind of weapons they used?
} The Quranic version is much more consistent with the historical events.
What are the historical events that you compare the Qur'an to?
This is an odd statement.
} Goliath came on the scene much later when Saul had sinned against God
} in blatant disobedience, was then rejected by God and replaced by
} David.
} Thats funy. Because in 1 Samuel 17 and 18, Daud's (AS) remarkable
} qualities are illustrated, and wo!! what do we find. Supposedly Saul (AS)
} was rejected by God, yet it is quite a surprise Saul (AS) gave Daud (AS)
} HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE.
} Thats funny also, because these chapters illustrate otherwise. Daud (AS)
} joined the army of Saul (AS), even though Saul (AS) was replaced?
Read the chapters and you will understand. At this time, Saul didn't know
yet, that David would be his successor.
} <The Qur'an implied that David was serving with Saul at his first
} battle! But the battle against Goliath and the Philistines was about
} 1025 B.C., 25 years after Saul's first battle against the Ammonites and
} after David was already secretely annointed the new king (1 Samuel
} 16-17).>
} I thought, according to Jochen, Saul (AS) was already replaced?
I never said so. You seemingly don't like to read the Biblical text,
and you don't like to read carefully what I write either. Go back and
read and then write.
Do you see "secretely"? Saul will reign another 15 years after Goliath,
before David will officially become king.
} The Quran gives a clue to the obvious disatisfaction of the Jews with Saul
} (AS) originally, yet that marriage s a key factor.
Which marriage?
I don't see any marriage mentioned in the Qur'an.
So far for today. More later.
Regards,
Ilyas Abdul-Salaam
I would like to make a correction and apology for an error in my writing.
In the process of revising my article I left in an incorrect statement by
accident. Where my statement reads
On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Ilyas Abdul-Salaam wrote:
> This is a blessing in and of itself. For example, Muhammad (PBUH) was not
> meant for the entire world, and I am sure the arabs, particularly the
> arabs in the area of Medina and Mecca count it as a blessing that he came
> from them. And perhaps Abraham and Isaac (PBUT) weren't THE PROPHETS of
I intended to state that Muhammad (peace be upon him) WAS meant for the
entire world. When I first made this statement, before I revised it my
statement read "Muhammad (PBUH) was not just meant for the arabs, but for
the entire world" and when I made the alteration, I accidentally retained
the "not".
I would like to simply take this moment to state that I believe that there
is no one worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is the
Last Messenger of Allah.
Truly, anything good that has been written in these postings is from
Allah and anything incorrect is from myself and I pray that it does no
harm to you, Jochen, or to anyone else who reads this newsgroup.
If there are any similar errors in any article I write, I ask my brothers
and sisters, insha Allah, to point these out to me. Jazakallah.
Peace,
Ilyas
Ilyas Abdul-Salaam
Dear Jochen,
On 9 Feb 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:
> But one could not talk of the "people of Israel" before the
> exodus. They only really became a nation at Mt. Sinai at the
> time of Moses.
I hope you don't really expect me to just concede to your understanding of
the people of Israel. Nor do I expect you to just bow in deference to me.
I mean it's your opinion and I respect that.
However, in my opinion, they Hebrews must have had some sense of community
if they were to survive under Pharaoh's persecution as a distinctive
group. I mean, they had their own God, their own promise from God, and
their own distinctive culture. There must have been a cohesive group in
order for Pharaoh to have grouped them together and persecuted them.
I know that my opinion isn't going to convince you, and I know the
statement from the Quran isn't valid in your eyes. Also, I do know that
one source you will believe is your Bible. Although I hesitate using it,
because I don't consider it completely valid, I will out of necessity.
The people of Israel-
Exodus 1:5
"All the offspring of Jacob were seventy persons; Joseph was already in
Egypt."
Exodus 1:7
"But the descendents of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly; they
multiplied and grew exceedingly strong; so that the land was filled with
them."
Exodus 1:9
"And he (Pharaoh) said to his people,'Behold, the people of Israel are too
many and too mighty for us."
1:10
"Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war
befall us, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the
land."
Exodus 1:12 "And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel."
1:13
"So they made the people of Israel serve with rigor,"
Exodus 2:11
"One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on
their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his
people."
Exodus 2:25
"And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition."
Exodus 3:15-16
"God also said to Moses,'Say this to the people of Israel,'The LORD, the
God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, has sent me to you': this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations.
Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them,'The LORD,
the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has
appeared to me, saying,"I have observed you and what has been done to you
in Egypt."
Perhaps Exodus 1:5 and 1:7 are a bit on the weak side, but the rest of the
quotations from the Bible establish the Hebrews as a separate people. They
are seen as a group with possible political ambitions and one that can be
made treaty with by powers outside of Egypt (1:9-10). They are a people
that can be distinguished from other groups. They have a sense of pride
and care for others "of their people" (2:11). Also, they have their own
elders that have patriarchal (which is admittedly a family thing, but what
do you expect from a nation that is an extended family) sway over the
people (3:16). In my opinion, they are a people, and it would seem the
Bible would agree with me.
And even if you disagree with all of that, at the very least, Jochen, God,
in the Bible (which you believe to be the perfect word of God) refers to
the Hebrews previously to the covenant at Sinai as "the people of Israel"
(3:15-16). How can you disagree with what you say is the word of God?
> Even though the Bible usually doesn't call Abraham and Isaac
> prophets thought they might be to other people, they can't be
> prophets to THIS people, the people of Moses, since they didn't
> exist yet. The Israelites are all the descendents of Abraham,
> Isaac and Jacob. At the time of Joseph they still were an
> extended family, not a people/nation. But they are at the time
> of Moses. But it seems not to be appropriate to speak in this
> way of their past.
See above. The children of Abraham through Isaac on through Jacob are
"the people of Israel" whom God referred to in the Bible. After all,
Abraham was told (if the Bible is to be believed) that his descendents
would occupy the land of Canaan. Who are the descendents of Abraham who
inherit that promise at that time? The people of Israel. The ones who
stood at Mt. Sinai. If the Bible says that Abraham is making covenants
with God on their behalf, how can you say that he was not a prophet from
among them? Besides, "among" does not equal "to". Also, if we are going
to play word games, in the passage of the Quran that we are referring to,
the near-translation of the meaning of it reads:
al-Ma'idah 5:22
"O my people! Call into rememberance the favour of God unto you, when He
produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not
given to any other among the peoples."
Musa (A.S.) says that Allah has "produced prophets among you." Among
means that from among the children of Abraham (A.S) through Isaac (A.S)
through Jacob (A.S), there have been men chosen by God to be prophets.
This is a blessing in and of itself. For example, Muhammad (PBUH) was not
meant for the entire world, and I am sure the arabs, particularly the
arabs in the area of Medina and Mecca count it as a blessing that he came
from them. And perhaps Abraham and Isaac (PBUT) weren't THE PROPHETS of
the time, but that's why Moses appeared. He was the prophet/messenger of
Allah at that time. He came not to abrogate the message of monotheism that
Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Joseph (PBUT) taught, but to continue it and
restore it to its intial purity. These prophets were ancestors to the
very people Moses (A.S) was speaking to, the very people who began to be
referred as the children of Israel in honor of their prophet-father Jacob
(A.S.)
> If this is the meaning that is intended, why then does Moses not say,
> "Who WILL make you kings"? After all, they are still wandering in the
> desert and haven't taken anything in possession yet?
>
> And he starts out that sentence even stronger, "Call in remembrance",
> i.e. it does really seem to refer to some past event. Any explanation?
Perhaps because it is an inevitability that the Hebrews will take
possession of the land of Canaan. Whether it is right at that moment, or
40 years down the road, the Hebrews have already gained power over Canaan.
They have only deferred it because of their cowardice and their lack of
trust in Allah.
The reason that I have this impression is because whenever I have read
that surah it says to me that Moses (A.S.) is telling the children of
Israel that Allah has already granted them the land of Canaan, and that
all it requires them to do is place their faith and trust in Allah and
march into the land. They didn't place their trust in God and so were
denied the land God granted them. Now they are here to take it. That's
why "made you kings" seems plausible to me.
Peace,
Ilyas Abdul-Salaam
Zaharuddin Fikri
bism ALLAH al-raHman al-raHeem
On 9 Feb 1998 15:55:56 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>} > [al-Ma'idah 5:22]
>} > Remember Moses said to his people:
>} > "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of God unto you,
>} > when He produced prophets among you, made you kings,
>} > and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
First of all, a trivial correction. This is in reality in 5:20,
not 5:22.
As to the prophets, I see that br. Ilyas had already spoken about
Jacob and Joseph.
Jochen then makes this uncommon error:
>The Israelites are all the descendents of Abraham,
>Isaac and Jacob.
I think he should have remembered his OT better than the rest of
us, for it is recorded there that Abraham was considered the
father of the Hebrews, not the Israelites.
Technically the Israelites are descendants of Jacob, who was
called Israel.
>Even though the Bible usually doesn't call Abraham and Isaac
>prophets thought they might be to other people, they can't be
>prophets to THIS people, the people of Moses, since they didn't
>exist yet.
As for this objection, it is only valid if the premise was
accepted that Moses meant ONLY that. There is no indication that
the alternative explanation, that he was referring to them as a
people who descended from Abraham i.e. Hebrews, is invalid.
> At the time of Joseph they still were an
>extended family, not a people/nation. But they are at the time
>of Moses. But it seems not to be appropriate to speak in this
>way of their past.
Because it is spoken in the past tense that it is appropriate and
in fact lends further credibility that he is not speaking of them
as a nation now, but was asking them to recall to mind the
prophets of the past. This would also be more in keeping with the
subsequent statement that in the past they were kings, i.o.w.
masters of their own destinies, and when were they ever masters
of their own destinies except prior to the Egyptian captivity?
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
Jochen Katz
In article <6bo53t$3m4$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes:
} On 8 Feb 1998 18:27:23 GMT, bent...@aol.com (Bentamba) wrote:
} >Brother Jochen's posting is trying to point out something very fundamental
} >here. Let us not beat around the bush. The foundation of Islam IS AT STAKE
} >here. Islam is based on the "perfectness" and "the infallibilty" of the Quran,
} >which Muslims claim to be a "word-per-word" or "iota-per-iota" revelation from
} >Allah.
}
} Perfectness of something does not rest on a test based on
} erroneous criteria. I hope this is crystal and I would not have
} to spell it out to anyone.
I agree on that part, but what are the criteria?
} As for it being the word-for-word or iota-per-iota revelation,
} yes that is the claim and the evidence has been presented and
} will continue to be presented -- God Willing! -- on this and
} other forums where that question is raised. As to this particular
} instance when the issue of historical accuracy is being
} questioned, my conclusions about the Qur'an stands: it cannot be
} read as a history book. The "historical" narratives are there to
} showcase a moral or a teaching.
Oh, if you only knew how right you are about that in this
particular case. It is not about history, but about a teaching.
I fully agree. I am anxious to see if you also agree to this
after you see the implications.
} >If EVERY dot in the Quran is TRUE and CORRECT, there should be no problem
} >supporting it with the so called corroborating evidence, i.e. history,
} >archaelogical findings, etc., as in the case with the Bible.
}
} Not so. The Bible stands or falls on its historicity because
} among other things, it purports to tell so-called actual history.
} Have you not read your own book, man?
And the Qur'an does not fall if it turns out that what is
reported is not historical?
Are you ready to say up front now that the Qur'an is a book
of legends with a moral? It tries to teach you a lesson,
and application for your life today, and whether a seemingly
historical story is actually factual doesn't matter?
I feel this posting has brought up a few important
points in this particular issue.
Warm regards,
Jochen Katz
Kamal
In article <6bkteb$h...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Bentamba <bent...@aol.com> wrote:
Firstly excuse the *many* mispellings here, I am typing fast here and I
don't have ispell handy =). Also you made several points which I felt were
either wrong, or somewhat in error. But I only have time to deal with
one. :-(
->If EVERY dot in the Quran is TRUE and CORRECT, there should be no
->problem supporting it with the so called corroborating evidence, i.e.
->history, archaelogical findings, etc., as in the case with the Bible. So
->when a question arises that Quranic stories are not in line with
->historical records, it is worth looking into, and do it with an open
->mind.
->Archaelogical discipline was primarily started with one purpose in mind:
->to
This is false, archaelogy as a discipline, outside of mere
treasure hunting, primarly concentrated on investigating and proving
Clasical myths, and exploring what was then percieved as the West's
classical foundations. Biblical archaelogy was not the primary aim of
early researchers. Perhaps access was one of the problems, getting access
to most biblical lands very hard, the French invasion of Egypt in the
early 1800's was one of the first wide doors opened to western research.
Biblical archaeology was also carried out by both believers in the bible,
as well as disbelievers. So the intents varried greatly(though nowdays
the field is, perhaps, dominated by disbelievers).
->prove that the Biblical accounts are wrong. The discoveries prove the
->opposite,
Firstly, unlike some of my other Muslim brothers, I am not very
critical of the Old Testament. In fact reading it encourages my faith in
Islam as well ! While all Muslims have some problems with the
authenticity of some biblical material, and the hands of men *have* indeed
peverted the word of God's prophets, I am not going to attack the bible.
However the statement you made is flat out *wrong* there have been
some discoveries that *very* roughly affirm the existance of some
*general* things in the bible; some place names, a few events. But
*nothing* specific.
Just as there have been some discoveries that generally affirm
some things spoken of in the Quran too, in fact I just read of one from
the city of Ebla, the confirmation of the existance of the city of Irim in
documents, which was unknown and unmentioned in any document that I am
aware of, outside of the Quran Kareem. Also in Eblite documents are
mentioned some common names, which parallel biblical names like a form of
the name Abraham(alahi as-salaam), note that the mention of these names
*predates* I believe the existance of these Prophets(alahim asalaam
ajmaeen May Allah's peace be upon them *all*) by *perhaps* hundreds of
years.
But it *does* prove that these names are *real* and were in
general use So we see, unlike your claim, made perhaps in excusable
ignorance, we have a site that very roughly affirms things both in the
Quran and the Torah.
But Christians often make themselves sound completely ignorent
when they make claims like " It's so exciting to study the archaeological
discoveries of the last few hundred years and see how vividly they conform
to the Biblical account." (exerpted from a christian archaeology site)
As a result they latch onto things that are acutally rather weak. Like
the Turkish "Noah's Ark", for which there is reason to suspect
being a hoax. Let me put it this way, my University has a historicaly
sound department of archaeology. If I showed anyone in that dept. your
claim they would laugh.
->and therefore making it even stronger and stronger every day. Can we
->say the same with the Quran?
In general most broad discoveries that *might* apply to the Old
Testament will also apply to the Quran since the two only generaly differ
in small (but *very* important) details that are next to impossible to
prove, or disprove, through archaeology. Besides anyone who places their
faith in anything other than God is a fool, I am a Muslim, alhamdulillah,
because Allah has guided me, the words of the Quran echo with truth and
smell with the perfume of divinity, and Allah has blessed my undeserving
and sinning heart with knowledge of his truth. I am not aware of *any*
finds that explicitly prove any event or persons found in the Torah, I
remember that there was a good kind of "crossfire" type of issue, on
these claims, about 3 years ago in "Biblical Archaeology", I think. I'll
go check up and get the exact issue.
He has guided me and my family and my friends. He has actually
caused physical events and wonders in my life so alhamdulillahi rabil
alameen(praise to Allah lord of the worlds) do not put your faith in
pottery dug from the dry dust of the earth instead put your faith in God
alone.
Archaeological theories change constantly, they are also vague. Allah
is not vague, and divinity does not change. Allah hates idols, so don't
erect any.
--
We should be mindful here of the changing usage of words. "Intellect" and
"intellectual" are so closely identified today with the analytical functions
of the mind that they hardly bear any longer any relation to the contemplative.
-Seyyed Hossein Nasr "Science and Civilization in Islam"
Kamal
Jochen Katz
In article <6c5jdo$56c$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
sout...@oz.fd1.uc.edu (Kamal) writes:
} But Christians often make themselves sound completely ignorent
} when they make claims like " It's so exciting to study the archaeological
} discoveries of the last few hundred years and see how vividly they conform
} to the Biblical account." (exerpted from a christian archaeology site)
} As a result they latch onto things that are acutally rather weak. Like
} the Turkish "Noah's Ark", for which there is reason to suspect
} being a hoax.
Is that unique to Christians? You yourself made a statement about
Ebla and Iram, but that is about as vague as it gets, wouldn't you
agree?
And, since you mention Noah's Ark, what do you think about this
story that it has supposedly been found on Mt. Judi, ... ?
It is after all placed on nearly half a dozen Muslim websites.
} Archaeological theories change constantly, they are also vague. Allah
} is not vague, and divinity does not change. Allah hates idols, so don't
} erect any.
Amen.
Jochen
---
"I am certain that God has given us our reason to discern between truth
and falsehood, and he that makes not use of it, but believes things he
knows not why, I say, it is by chance that he believes the truth, and
not by choice; and that I cannot but fear that God will not accept this
sacrifice of fools." Chillingworth