Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View The Koranic View of the Torah
Show More
Loading...
Flag BDboy April 20, 2012 9:46 AM EDT

Apr 19, 2012 -- 9:01PM, ffb wrote:


Thanks for the reply but it seemed to sidestep the question (and I was hoping for a general statement of principle that didn't require that I start reading loads of books and wade through scholarly explanation).


You wrote, "part of them were not preserved properly. So the noble Qur'an (The final revelation) conformed the authenticity of previous books (Jews and Christians are known as "People of the book" or "Ahl-al-Kitab") and "perfected" the messege and God said He will preserve this book till the last day"


Your first part seems to mean that there was a pre-Mosaic Torah which was given to him but he did not "preserve" it properly, meaning that in his transcription he introduced errors. So the second part of that selection would say that the revelation of the Koran "fixes" the Torah text to replace erroneous sections with a corrected versions. Thus, the text which the Jews have and use is the text with errors in it as Jews have not accepted the corrected versions as revealed through Islam?


Or do you mean that Moses wrote the text properly but since his time the people have either changed the words (and the Koran is reminding people of the actual text which Moses received and intended but which later people changed) or have not "preserved" the obedience of the law -- if so, how does this relate to the actual text?


Thanks.




>>>>>>>>> The last para is the closed of what I wanted to say. Moses (PBUH) did receive the Authentic revelation from God and this message was intended to guide his people (Children of Israel or Bani Israel in Arabic). Since it was a very long time ago and record keeping was not very good. SOME of it were changed by others.


The noble Qur'an confirms all most all Biblical messengers of God (PBUT) and mentioned that, every nation and tribes received messengers/reminders from our Maker.


Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the LAST messenger of God and his book (Al Qur'an) was meant for all of humanity. It also "Prefected" and "Completed" the process of revelation until the "Last day" on earth. It also corrected some misunderstandings (About God) by Jews and Christians (Ahl-al Kitab).


It is important to note, the noble Qur'an speaks a lot about history of Jews and Christians. NOT to criticise them (Some people misunderstand and distort it at times) but to encourage us to learn from history (Past mistakes etc).


For example the name Muhammad (PBUH) appreaded only 4 times in the Qur'an. The name "Moses" was mentioned more than 120 times. The name "Jesus son of Mary" was mentioned 25 times. So the lesson from previous messenges (PBUT) is important for Muslims and as per Islamic teachings, if any Muslim deny existance of previous messenges, he/she ceases to be a Muslim anymore. It is one of our articles of faith.


If you have more questions, I'll try to answer them.


Here is one more link with less reading...


PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S
CHARTER OF PRIVILEGES TO CHRISTIANS
LETTER TO THE MONKS OF ST. CATHERINE MONASTERY




One more link, click here


 


In simple words, it is like windows system. Jews and Christians were win95 and win XP and Islam is the untimate last windows edition with no need to update anymore until the last day.


Hope I made some sense to you.


Peace.

Flag ffb April 20, 2012 9:49 AM EDT

Thanks -- you wrote


"Since it was a very long time ago and record keeping was not very good. SOME of it were changed by others"


without trying then to apply this to other texts from a very long time ago, it seems that on its surface, this statement reflects the belief that the current written Torah which Jews use has been altered, either intentionally or because over time, humans make mistakes. Is that correct?

Flag BDboy April 20, 2012 10:13 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:49AM, ffb wrote:


Thanks -- you wrote


"Since it was a very long time ago and record keeping was not very good. SOME of it were changed by others"


without trying then to apply this to other texts from a very long time ago, it seems that on its surface, this statement reflects the belief that the current written Torah which Jews use has been altered, either intentionally or because over time, humans make mistakes. Is that correct?




 


>>>>>> yes, SOME of it has been changed. Muslims aren't the only one with that view. Many scholars of the Bible holds similar view.


Muslims also feel that, Jesus son of Mary (PBUH) was ALSO a messenger of God (Not son of God!) who came to "Update" Jews about God's vision for them but many of his own people (Jews) rejected his message. The "Final update" was revaled to Muhammad (PBUH) which came with an universal message for all.


Click here to learn about a Muslim scholar's take on it.


 


one more


 


Bible Compared to Quran
Based on transcripts of vairous lectures given by Yusuf Estes & Dr. Gary Miller

Flag BDboy April 20, 2012 10:22 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:49AM, ffb wrote:


Thanks -- you wrote


"Since it was a very long time ago and record keeping was not very good. SOME of it were changed by others"


without trying then to apply this to other texts from a very long time ago, it seems that on its surface, this statement reflects the belief that the current written Torah which Jews use has been altered, either intentionally or because over time, humans make mistakes. Is that correct?




 


>>>>>>>> As per Islamic view, the Torah is not in it's original form (Has some alterations). The noble Qur'an confirms the parts which has not been changed (Some we have loads of similarities with Jews and Christians) and "Corrected" where it was changed.


My knowledge of the OT and NT is not there to tell you for sure, if those changes were "Intentional" or "Human mistakes". My best guess is some of both!!


Specifically in case of NT, the "Interpretation" of the Bible is VERY different from the text itself (Even at it's current form).


There are SOME obvious "Contradictions" in the OT as well and they cannot come from our Maker. If you wish to explore, I'll try to give you some web based sources.


Peace.

Flag rocketjsquirell April 20, 2012 11:27 AM EDT

Let me see if I understand this


1. The Qur'an which is 1400 years old and for which no original examples are available is believed to be  complete and unchanged in any way from the original.


2. The Torah which is far older than the Qur'an and for which we have (at least partial)  examples which are older than 1400 years and which are exactly the same as the Torah used today is believed to be incomplete and altered. 


I have no problems with the above as a statement of faith and belief. However, it is impossible to support the position as a statements of fact. 


As a statement of faith and belief it is part of the explanation as to why the Qur'an was written and why Mohammed's prophecy was necessary. All religious traditions have and need a reason for their starting point (or if one insists their "continuity" point). However, as a statement of faith and belief it also sets up an irreconcilable disagreement with Judaism (and since the same argument is made concerning the Gospels, with Christianity) This irreconcilable difference has had any number of historic and contemporary consequences. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a forum in B'Net which is equipped to or desigend to discuss that aspect of the question.



   

Flag ffb April 20, 2012 11:50 AM EDT

"SOME of it has been changed."


this, coupled with your statements in the other message seem to clarify the position that the printed text as we have it today is inaccurate and the result of some sort change in the text. thank you.

Flag visio April 20, 2012 12:02 PM EDT

Apr 18, 2012 -- 10:31AM, ffb wrote:

Sorry to intrude -- just a simple question. Is there a summarizable view of the Koranic (or Muslim, if it is different) opinion on the veracity and accuracy of the text of the written Tanach (the 5 books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings) as it appears now in Hebrew texts which I can buy at my local book store?

On the Discuss Judaism board there has been discussion about whether textual Muslim criticism is aimed at the Torah text or those who (mis)teach it so I'm wondering where the shift is.

I ask because I know that there is a major difference of opinion about which son of Abraham's was raised up as an offering. The Hebrew text explicitly names Isaac. If there is a tradition via the version of the events in Surah 37 that the son to be offerred was Ishmael then that would be a simple claim that the written Torah text which now exists has been changed; this, though, might be an effect of Islamic scholarly criticism and not an explicit Surah based claim to any textual corruption.

Please help me understand this -- thanks.



I have a good news for you.   There is nothing in the Al-Quran that names Ismail as the one to be on the test bed.  The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


Now, would you be kind enough to refer which verses in the Taurat (Torah) are used to justify it was Ishaksaw (Isaac) was put on the test bed.   I have no problem with such qualifying phrase as "promised son" or "the only spiritual son".  I have no problem rationalising them out from Al-Quranic perspective, in my own way of course.   I am asking for these just to make sure those qualifying phrases are in the Taurat (Torah).   At least and hopefully we can put this issue to rest for good.


Thank you.


p.s.  I don't mind if you can quote all the verses, in full.   My mind is wide open for yet another learning.   They would help me dig deeper into my Al-Quran.

Flag ffb April 20, 2012 2:34 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:02PM, visio wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 10:31AM, ffb wrote:

Sorry to intrude -- just a simple question. Is there a summarizable view of the Koranic (or Muslim, if it is different) opinion on the veracity and accuracy of the text of the written Tanach (the 5 books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings) as it appears now in Hebrew texts which I can buy at my local book store?

On the Discuss Judaism board there has been discussion about whether textual Muslim criticism is aimed at the Torah text or those who (mis)teach it so I'm wondering where the shift is.

I ask because I know that there is a major difference of opinion about which son of Abraham's was raised up as an offering. The Hebrew text explicitly names Isaac. If there is a tradition via the version of the events in Surah 37 that the son to be offerred was Ishmael then that would be a simple claim that the written Torah text which now exists has been changed; this, though, might be an effect of Islamic scholarly criticism and not an explicit Surah based claim to any textual corruption.

Please help me understand this -- thanks.



I have a good news for you.   There is nothing in the Al-Quran that names Ismail as the one to be on the test bed.  The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


Now, would you be kind enough to refer which verses in the Taurat (Torah) are used to justify it was Ishaksaw (Isaac) was put on the test bed.   I have no problem with such qualifying phrase as "promised son" or "the only spiritual son".  I have no problem rationalising them out from Al-Quranic perspective, in my own way of course.   I am asking for these just to make sure those qualifying phrases are in the Taurat (Torah).   At least and hopefully we can put this issue to rest for good.


Thank you.


p.s.  I don't mind if you can quote all the verses, in full.   My mind is wide open for yet another learning.   They would help me dig deeper into my Al-Quran.


Here are the 2 verses which open chapter 22 in Genesis:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."   :

2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."


I hope that these verses clear up the Torah claim.

Flag visio April 20, 2012 6:55 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:34PM, ffb wrote:

Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:02PM, visio wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 10:31AM, ffb wrote:

Sorry to intrude -- just a simple question. Is there a summarizable view of the Koranic (or Muslim, if it is different) opinion on the veracity and accuracy of the text of the written Tanach (the 5 books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings) as it appears now in Hebrew texts which I can buy at my local book store?

On the Discuss Judaism board there has been discussion about whether textual Muslim criticism is aimed at the Torah text or those who (mis)teach it so I'm wondering where the shift is.

I ask because I know that there is a major difference of opinion about which son of Abraham's was raised up as an offering. The Hebrew text explicitly names Isaac. If there is a tradition via the version of the events in Surah 37 that the son to be offerred was Ishmael then that would be a simple claim that the written Torah text which now exists has been changed; this, though, might be an effect of Islamic scholarly criticism and not an explicit Surah based claim to any textual corruption.

Please help me understand this -- thanks.



I have a good news for you.   There is nothing in the Al-Quran that names Ismail as the one to be on the test bed.  The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


Now, would you be kind enough to refer which verses in the Taurat (Torah) are used to justify it was Ishaksaw (Isaac) was put on the test bed.   I have no problem with such qualifying phrase as "promised son" or "the only spiritual son".  I have no problem rationalising them out from Al-Quranic perspective, in my own way of course.   I am asking for these just to make sure those qualifying phrases are in the Taurat (Torah).   At least and hopefully we can put this issue to rest for good.


Thank you.


p.s.  I don't mind if you can quote all the verses, in full.   My mind is wide open for yet another learning.   They would help me dig deeper into my Al-Quran.




Here are the 2 verses which open chapter 22 in Genesis:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."   :

2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."


I hope that these verses clear up the Torah claim.




Thank you very much.  The only significant phrase to draw a distinction, I see in the verses is "Your son, your only one, whom you love."   Now then, Ibrahimsaw (Abraham) had committed an injustice to himself which was pretty obvious and God/ALLAHswt was very much aware of it.   Ibrahimsaw  as well as God/ALLAHswt knew very well that there was another son, way out in a far deserted land.   And by the phrase "Your son, your only one, whom you love" God/ALLAHswt was actually rebuking Ibrahimsaw .   Ibrahimsaw had forgotten his other son (the eldest) - Ismail, completely.   In Muhammadsaw's hadith that I referred to in my earlier post (a part of which I am quoting below) suggested that after leaving Hagar and her breast suckling toddler alone, Ibrahimsaw (Abraham) never visited them again, until after Hagar died and Ismailsaw had just passed his puberty age (13 years) and got married to a daughter of the chief of Arab Yemeni tribe, Jurhum.   There is no spiritual reason I can think of that God/ALLAHswt would come out and command a father to perform any form of sacrifice on his married children.   I do not know exactly how old was Isaac when God/ALLAHswt got the bomb upon Ibrahimsaw.   If it was 13 years of age and presumably unmarried and we add another 13 years between the birth if Ismailsaw and Ishaksaw, the  most likely event was that only after 26 years, Ibrahimsaw remembered Hagar and Ismailsaw.   And as a side note, the construction of the Ka'aba occured when Ismail was at a matured age above 26 .  The spirit in the story is that if a man has to marry one, two, three or four wives, he has to excercise fairness and justice to their wives and children.  Ibrahimsaw had forgotten that.   And hence he was put to the test.  Even prophets are put on the learning curve and tested.


It appeares to me that the above version reconciles very well with Muhammadsaw account as given in the hadith, the relevant part of which reads:


Narrated by Ibn Abbas:


.........................................Then they all went to her and said, 'O Ishmael's mother! Will you allow us to be with you (or dwell with you)?' (And thus they stayed there.) Later on her boy reached the age of puberty and married a lady from them. Then an idea occurred to Abraham which he disclosed to his wife (Sarah), 'I want to call on my dependents I left (at Mecca).' When he went there, he greeted (Ishmael's wife) and said, 'Where is Ishmael?' She replied, 'He has gone out hunting.' Abraham said (to her), 'When he comes, tell him to change the threshold of his gate.' When he came, she told him the same whereupon Ishmael said to her, 'You are the threshold, so go to your family (i.e. you are divorced).' Again Abraham thought of visiting his dependents whom he had left (at Mecca), and he told his wife (Sarah) of his intentions. Abraham came to Ishmael's house and asked. "Where is Ishmael?" Ishmael's wife replied, "He has gone out hunting," and added, "Will you stay (for some time) and have something to eat and drink?' Abraham asked, 'What is your food and what is your drink?' She replied, 'Our food is meat and our drink is water.' He said, 'O Allah! Bless their meals and their drink." Abu Al-Qa-sim (i.e. Prophet) said, "Because of Abraham's invocation there are blessings (in Mecca)." Once more Abraham thought of visiting his family he had left (at Mecca), so he told his wife (Sarah) of his decision. He went and found Ishmael behind the Zamzam well, mending his arrows. He said, "O Ishmael, Your Lord has ordered me to build a house for Him." Ishmael said, "Obey (the order of) your Lord." Abraham said, "Allah has also ordered me that you should help me therein." Ishmael said, "Then I will do." So, both of them rose and Abraham started building (the Ka`ba) while Ishmael went on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, "O our Lord ! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." (2.127). When the building became high and the old man (i.e. Abraham) could no longer lift the stones (to such a high position), he stood over the stone of Al- Maqam and Ishmael carried on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, 'O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily You are All-Hearing, All-Knowing." (2.127)


[Sahih Al-Bukhari,  English reference :  Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 584/585, Arabic reference : Book 60, Hadith 3400]


If there are any different versions of the Taurat (Torah) for the abve referenced verses such as those with the claimed qualifying phrase as "The promised son" or "The only spiritual son" please don't hesitate to quote them here.   Insha'Allah, I can explain them but it wouldn't be reconciled with the above hadith.









Flag Miraj April 20, 2012 8:04 PM EDT

Islam requires us to believe in all the sacred books, the Torah, the Injeel, the Quran.  Allah (swt) instructed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to confer with the learned men that received the Message before him, namely the Jews and the Christians.  The first person he asked for advice about his revelations was a Christian.  He consulted the Torah, with assistance of the rabbis, for answers to community problems.  


Yes, there are differences between what we read in our book and what our spiritual siblings read in theirs.  We don't have original sin, for example, or Jesus as the son of God, or as divine.  Yet, what we are instructed to strive for as our life's goal, our ideal, is to respect our differences and to find our common ground so that we can focus on what brings us all closer to God.

Flag Ibn April 20, 2012 8:19 PM EDT

"It is genarall believed that the 5 books of Moses (if these are the Revelations to Moses called "Taurat" in the Arabic Qur'an) are accurate in terms of Divine Words."



Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

But does this mean that the words which Moses wrote down are the accurate words or was there a disconnect there?


We do not know that the Torah (the 5 books) you have today was written by Moses. The Qur'an does not say that Torah was written by Moses.


My understanding is that it was written again after the Babylonian captivity from someone's memory. Is my understanding correct or not?   


Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

If Jewish tradition dictates that what I use now is the same as what Moses wrote then there would be no question about the current Torah's accuracy. But there seems to be just that question.


 Yes, just that question, the books could have been written by Moses or written later, which is true? Was everything destroyed by the Babylonians or did these 5 books remained intact? I am not sure. 


"what was being said by the Jews at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an. Some criticism is directed at the "books" written by men that are not the revelation to Moses and the prophets but are being claimed to be the revelation to Moses. "



Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

This seems, then to be a rejection of the oral Torah not as a corruption but as an a priori invalid and non-divine code.


It does seem that way.


"There is a hint of words being changed from their places but it is not explicitly stated as to wherefrom. In general, as for as the Divine Word and the Commands are concerned for spiritual enlightenment of man, and judging by whatever I have read so far (and I have not read all of it), present Torah (the 5 books) is pretty good and I can't claim that it is corrupted even if it is not the word by word account of pre-Babylonian captivity Torah."



Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

So the concern would be on isolated words if anything and, in your opinion, the current written text is complete and accurate.


Yes, as for as the Divine Word (Commands/Laws) is concerned.


"We do not know whether this is accurate or not. There is doubt in Islamic circles that "your son Isaac, the only son" is accurate as it is not expressed for Ishmael the same way in the Qur'an. At no time was Isaac "the only son" of Abraham whereas Ishmael was for for several years "the only son" of Abraham."



Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

So this isn't about particular words but about an entire passage if not logical unit being inaccurate potentially. If, through explication and exegesis, the accuracy is questioned, then what would explain the words in the current Torah text as accepted by Judaism (Gen 22:1 explicitly names Isaac as the one to be raised up as an offering)? Must it not, then, be a result of textual corruption?


It can go either way.


" We believe that it was Ishmael but it won't matter at all if it was Isaac."



Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

But your belief can be sourced in only one of two things:


a. blind belief with no basis other than a wish to validate Ishmael as central and important religious figure


b. textual support (explicit or implicit) which would comndemn the Jewish biblical text as being inaccurate.


Validating Ishmael as a "central" religious figure is not needed by my belief or religion of Islam. Ishmael is important religious figure even without him being subject of the sacrifice. He is mentioned in the Qur'an like other religious figures. Islam does not depend on Ishmael being central or important religious figure. Therefore, it is more of a thought/traditional belief rather than actual belief based on the Qur'an.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

If the Jewish Torah text IS accurate, then why would there be any reason to believe that Ishmael was offered, especially if, as you say, it would not matter if it was Isaac?


The doubt arises from the text "the only son" when Ishmael is accepted as son of Abraham in the same book. In other words, the doubt arises from the text of Torah itself rather than it being explicitly stated in the Qur'an. 


Apr 20, 2012 -- 9:43AM, ffb wrote:

But my real question isn't about the particulars of theological evolution and Isaac or Ishmael, but about the notion that the text has been changed. How can it be that you feel that the written text as is used today is "pretty good" but Islam argues that a (for Judaism) pivotal point of text is actually incorrect?


Islam does not argue that the matter of Ishmael being subject of sacrifice is a pivitol point for Islam but it seems as if it is Judaism arguing that Isaac as subject of the sacrife is pivitol point of Judaism. Whether it is Isaac or not, the Commands to the Children of Israel in the Torah are pretty accurate in my view. The pivitol point for Islam is simply obeying the Commands from our Lord, the reason I see Torah text as "pretty good" from Islamic point of view.

Flag Ibn April 20, 2012 8:38 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:02PM, visio wrote:


The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


There is nothing in this hadith about sacrifice event.


FYI, the account in Genesis differs greatly from the account in this hadith. According to Genesis, Ishmael was fourteen when he was sent away with his mother. In the hadith, he was much younger than that.

Flag visio April 21, 2012 7:51 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:38PM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:02PM, visio wrote:


The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


There is nothing in this hadith about sacrifice event.



Yes, of course!   And there are no other hadiths telling what happened to Hagar and Ismael after they were cast away by Abraham upon Sarah's insistence.  (Spiritual) knowledge wise, there are greater values/information/clues/concepts attached to it than an act of performing sacrifice.  For this reason the animal sacrifice (Qurban) is not mandatory as the five pillars.  It is optional but there it is an option for Muslims to follow what were commanded thru earlier prophets.   What we need to understand is what is the purpose behind all those sacrificial acts?   Animal sacrifies pre-existed Abraham.   Nothing new.   Pagan might have a better understanding about it.   Parents may perform sacrifices as an act of purification of evil spirits their children may inherit from anyone of their ancestors with the last 3 or 4 generations (Moses Commandments, Exodus).   The right period to perform this is before they reached their puberty age because during this period their soul are still in dominance.  The ancient Laws for bani-Israel was human sacrifice.   This was abrogated in the event of Abrahamic sacrifices. 


FYI, the account in Genesis differs greatly from the account in this hadith. According to Genesis, Ishmael was fourteen when he was sent away with his mother. In the hadith, he was much younger than that.



That's why, as I have quoted previously, Muhammadsaw, in a hadith, instructed Muslims not to beliver nor disbelieve it.  Al-Quran was sent down to bring a contrast between good and evil.   And in the life of prophets, mostly of bani-Israel, the contrast is even more apparent.  That's why God/ALLAHswt said no more human Messengers (rasool) for those wanting them desperately.   The Hindus were and are happy with just saints and sages.   And they have their theology.


Which one would you believe - Genesis or the saying of Muhammadsaw who obtained his information "supernaturally"?   Otherwise, why did Prophet Muhammadsaw classified Pharaoh's wife as a woman of perfection, in the same category of Aisha and Mary, mother of Isasaw (Jesus).   From which kitab/book obtained his information? 




Flag ffb April 21, 2012 8:54 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 6:55PM, visio wrote:

Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:34PM, ffb wrote:

Apr 20, 2012 -- 12:02PM, visio wrote:


Apr 18, 2012 -- 10:31AM, ffb wrote:

Sorry to intrude -- just a simple question. Is there a summarizable view of the Koranic (or Muslim, if it is different) opinion on the veracity and accuracy of the text of the written Tanach (the 5 books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings) as it appears now in Hebrew texts which I can buy at my local book store?

On the Discuss Judaism board there has been discussion about whether textual Muslim criticism is aimed at the Torah text or those who (mis)teach it so I'm wondering where the shift is.

I ask because I know that there is a major difference of opinion about which son of Abraham's was raised up as an offering. The Hebrew text explicitly names Isaac. If there is a tradition via the version of the events in Surah 37 that the son to be offerred was Ishmael then that would be a simple claim that the written Torah text which now exists has been changed; this, though, might be an effect of Islamic scholarly criticism and not an explicit Surah based claim to any textual corruption.

Please help me understand this -- thanks.



I have a good news for you.   There is nothing in the Al-Quran that names Ismail as the one to be on the test bed.  The most detailed of a hadith, if read deep between the lines with an open mind would rule out Ismail perfectly.  [Ref.  Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 4, #583].  Thus, the one on the sacrificial test bed referred to in the Al-Quran was Ishaksaw (Isaac).


Now, would you be kind enough to refer which verses in the Taurat (Torah) are used to justify it was Ishaksaw (Isaac) was put on the test bed.   I have no problem with such qualifying phrase as "promised son" or "the only spiritual son".  I have no problem rationalising them out from Al-Quranic perspective, in my own way of course.   I am asking for these just to make sure those qualifying phrases are in the Taurat (Torah).   At least and hopefully we can put this issue to rest for good.


Thank you.


p.s.  I don't mind if you can quote all the verses, in full.   My mind is wide open for yet another learning.   They would help me dig deeper into my Al-Quran.




Here are the 2 verses which open chapter 22 in Genesis:

1. And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."   :

2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."


I hope that these verses clear up the Torah claim.




Thank you very much.  The only significant phrase to draw a distinction, I see in the verses is "Your son, your only one, whom you love."   Now then, Ibrahimsaw (Abraham) had committed an injustice to himself which was pretty obvious and God/ALLAHswt was very much aware of it.   Ibrahimsaw  as well as God/ALLAHswt knew very well that there was another son, way out in a far deserted land.   And by the phrase "Your son, your only one, whom you love" God/ALLAHswt was actually rebuking Ibrahimsaw .   Ibrahimsaw had forgotten his other son (the eldest) - Ismail, completely.   In Muhammadsaw's hadith that I referred to in my earlier post (a part of which I am quoting below) suggested that after leaving Hagar and her breast suckling toddler alone, Ibrahimsaw (Abraham) never visited them again, until after Hagar died and Ismailsaw had just passed his puberty age (13 years) and got married to a daughter of the chief of Arab Yemeni tribe, Jurhum.   There is no spiritual reason I can think of that God/ALLAHswt would come out and command a father to perform any form of sacrifice on his married children.   I do not know exactly how old was Isaac when God/ALLAHswt got the bomb upon Ibrahimsaw.   If it was 13 years of age and presumably unmarried and we add another 13 years between the birth if Ismailsaw and Ishaksaw, the  most likely event was that only after 26 years, Ibrahimsaw remembered Hagar and Ismailsaw.   And as a side note, the construction of the Ka'aba occured when Ismail was at a matured age above 26 .  The spirit in the story is that if a man has to marry one, two, three or four wives, he has to excercise fairness and justice to their wives and children.  Ibrahimsaw had forgotten that.   And hence he was put to the test.  Even prophets are put on the learning curve and tested.


It appeares to me that the above version reconciles very well with Muhammadsaw account as given in the hadith, the relevant part of which reads:


Narrated by Ibn Abbas:


.........................................Then they all went to her and said, 'O Ishmael's mother! Will you allow us to be with you (or dwell with you)?' (And thus they stayed there.) Later on her boy reached the age of puberty and married a lady from them. Then an idea occurred to Abraham which he disclosed to his wife (Sarah), 'I want to call on my dependents I left (at Mecca).' When he went there, he greeted (Ishmael's wife) and said, 'Where is Ishmael?' She replied, 'He has gone out hunting.' Abraham said (to her), 'When he comes, tell him to change the threshold of his gate.' When he came, she told him the same whereupon Ishmael said to her, 'You are the threshold, so go to your family (i.e. you are divorced).' Again Abraham thought of visiting his dependents whom he had left (at Mecca), and he told his wife (Sarah) of his intentions. Abraham came to Ishmael's house and asked. "Where is Ishmael?" Ishmael's wife replied, "He has gone out hunting," and added, "Will you stay (for some time) and have something to eat and drink?' Abraham asked, 'What is your food and what is your drink?' She replied, 'Our food is meat and our drink is water.' He said, 'O Allah! Bless their meals and their drink." Abu Al-Qa-sim (i.e. Prophet) said, "Because of Abraham's invocation there are blessings (in Mecca)." Once more Abraham thought of visiting his family he had left (at Mecca), so he told his wife (Sarah) of his decision. He went and found Ishmael behind the Zamzam well, mending his arrows. He said, "O Ishmael, Your Lord has ordered me to build a house for Him." Ishmael said, "Obey (the order of) your Lord." Abraham said, "Allah has also ordered me that you should help me therein." Ishmael said, "Then I will do." So, both of them rose and Abraham started building (the Ka`ba) while Ishmael went on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, "O our Lord ! Accept (this service) from us, Verily, You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing." (2.127). When the building became high and the old man (i.e. Abraham) could no longer lift the stones (to such a high position), he stood over the stone of Al- Maqam and Ishmael carried on handing him the stones, and both of them were saying, 'O our Lord! Accept (this service) from us, Verily You are All-Hearing, All-Knowing." (2.127)


[Sahih Al-Bukhari,  English reference :  Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 584/585, Arabic reference : Book 60, Hadith 3400]


If there are any different versions of the Taurat (Torah) for the abve referenced verses such as those with the claimed qualifying phrase as "The promised son" or "The only spiritual son" please don't hesitate to quote them here.   Insha'Allah, I can explain them but it wouldn't be reconciled with the above hadith.










Claiming a subtext to the verses is fine -- in Judaism we see a subtext as well, an extended conversation which is reduced by the written text. But Isaac is named explicitly and in the account which follows, Isaac is named repeatedly and that is the crux of the issue.

Flag ffb April 21, 2012 9:29 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:


We do not know that the Torah (the 5 books) you have today was written by Moses. The Qur'an does not say that Torah was written by Moses.


My understanding is that it was written again after the Babylonian captivity from someone's memory. Is my understanding correct or not?   



It is not. Ezra the scribe fixed the text based on extant scrolls and study with the experts of his time. Check here www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html for the section which explains the process. Note that none fo the potential textual variants has to do with Isaac and the sacrifice.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:


Yes, just that question, the books could have been written by Moses or written later, which is true? Was everything destroyed by the Babylonians or did these 5 books remained intact? I am not sure. 



Written by Moses and transmitted faithfully.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:


"There is a hint of words being changed from their places but it is not explicitly stated as to wherefrom. In general, as for as the Divine Word and the Commands are concerned for spiritual enlightenment of man, and judging by whatever I have read so far (and I have not read all of it), present Torah (the 5 books) is pretty good and I can't claim that it is corrupted even if it is not the word by word account of pre-Babylonian captivity Torah."



if it isn't word for word (ignoring for a moment the variants explained in the above link) then the claim is that it has been changed or has changed. "Pretty good" isn't good enough.


 

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

Yes, as for as the Divine Word (Commands/Laws) is concerned.



But Judaism derives laws and codes from sections which are not what seems explicitly a "law" so any changes would indicate that Jewish law is thus an invalid code. This page has a discussion of some relatively major differences of text.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_narrative...


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

"We do not know whether this is accurate or not. There is doubt in Islamic circles that "your son Isaac, the only son" is accurate as it is not expressed for Ishmael the same way in the Qur'an. At no time was Isaac "the only son" of Abraham whereas Ishmael was for for several years "the only son" of Abraham."



so no matter that the text names Isaac, because the logic of the reference points otherwise, the naming must be inaccurate?


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

It can go either way.



thus the claim that it is corrupt is a valid claim as the claim that it is NOT corrupt? That seems strange.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

The doubt arises from the text "the only son" when Ishmael is accepted as son of Abraham in the same book. In other words, the doubt arises from the text of Torah itself rather than it being explicitly stated in the Qur'an. 



so the conclusion which is drawn from that question is that the Torah is inaccurate -- how can you say that there is a reasonable position that the text was NOT corrupted?



 

Flag visio April 21, 2012 9:54 PM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Miraj wrote:


Islam requires us to believe in all the sacred books, the Torah, the Injeel, the Quran.  Allah (swt) instructed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to confer with the learned men that received the Message before him, namely the Jews and the Christians.  The first person he asked for advice about his revelations was a Christian.  He consulted the Torah, with assistance of the rabbis, for answers to community problems.



No Islam, or rather to be more precise, Muslim and the Prophet Muhammadsaw were also required to believe in what were revealed to Musasaw (Moses), Isasaw (Jesus) to be found in their Scriptures.   Yes, that exactly what Prophet Muhammadsaw did during the initial phase of his 23 year revelations.   Muhammadsaw couldn't read, nor could understand Hebrew.   In a hadith, the Hebrews did recite the Taurat and Injil in Hebrew and explain them in Quraish Arabic.  And thus Muhammadsaw used a lot of those explanation to evaluate and above all request a verification and judgement for the One Above, God/ALLAHswt, from one issue to another.   Towards the end of the 23 year revelation when it was said that the Al-Quran was perfected and completed it ended up with comments/remarks on the Written Taurat and Injil with such  statements that says there were distortions of different kinds in their messages - exoterically and esoterically. IOW there are matters to believe and there are matters to disbelieve.   For that reason, Prophet Muhammadsaw came out with the hadith of "do not believe, nor, disbelieve".  This is a general instruction for Muslims not to trouble themselves to read the written Taurat and Injil.   But there is no stopping of those Muslims to repeat the difficult process undertaken by Muhammadsaw or SIFY (See it for yourself).  And the process was LISTEN for their explanation.


Yes, for community problems such as order and security, there is no doubt about it, consultation had been prescribed as the way to go.


Yes, there are differences between what we read in our book and what our spiritual siblings read in theirs.  We don't have original sin, for example, or Jesus as the son of God, or as divine.  Yet, what we are instructed to strive for as our life's goal, our ideal, is to respect our differences and to find our common ground so that we can focus on what brings us all closer to God.




Actually we do have a concept of original sin but their dispensation is very closely tied up to the Quranic CREATION story and the triune doctrine of each of our individual SELF, the constitution of which is made up of SOUL + inherited SPIRIT/MIND + material BODY/RECEPTACLE.   And the whole matter evolve about what one interprets ADAM is.  Just to give aone big clue, which you may or may not know, in the original text of the Arabic Al-Quran, there is no such name EVE specifically associated with Adam (the Prophet) wife.   And Adam, the Prophet is generic.   This is the idea behind the labelling of the 1st. Heaven of Muhammasaw's Mi'raj (Ascension) as Adamic.   This is the core of theology and human relation with God/ALLAHswt.   And I heard a Jew explained it in Christianity Board, that when we die, everything - the soul, the spirit and body go kaput.  And we, Muslims, know it very well that the soul is the eternal element of our SELF that is going to meet with God/ALLAHswt, everytime when we (the soul) "die" i.e. separated from the inherited spirit/mind and body.   The body rot to become worm and soil, the spirit/mind that you hated/loved so much, another soul is going to inherit it.  For those spirits/mind of bani-Israel (children of Israel) the evil among them would be sent further down as inherited spirits in the animal kingdom (hence the ape/monkey verse of the Al-Quran. And that is a form of hell.   The same, however, does not apply  to the spirits/mind of bani-Adam (Children of Adam) because they have already thru that existence as implied by the Quranic verse Az-Zumar 39 : 6.  It is also for this reason that Isasaw (Jesus) teachings prescribed for his sheep, bani-Israel, a monastic life i.e. to be monks, rabbii or sufis. 


In general Muslims are characterised  by the following attributes:


1.   Faith (Iman).   This is strictly Al-Quran/Muhammadsaw (hadith)


2. Islam.   This all the works prescribed in the Al-Quran/Hadith which are an extension/revision/modification of what were revealed to Musasaw (Moses)


3.   Ihsan (perfection).   This is perform it better than expected.   An eye for an eye, life for life is replaced by forgiveness.   Isasaw (Jesus) had a full load of it. Isasaw did not know much about sacrifices until after he was subjected to the phenomenal cross event.   It was a conjecture on the part of the Jews authority of the day that they assumed Isasaw had a inherited satanic/devil spirit in him.  And for that, the prescription is a human sacrifice.   Unless of course, someone in the Jewish authority of the day had a satanic spirit in him and he could use Isasaw (Jesus) spirit  to strengthen his thru his knowledge of astral manipulation.   This is the little knowledge that is mentioned in the respective verse of Al-Quran.


Sorry for the lengthy sermon but this is a complex subject which needs certain level of esotericism to explain and hopefully it resonates with everyone's inner spirituality.    




Flag Ibn April 22, 2012 5:14 PM EDT

 

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

We do not know that the Torah (the 5 books) you have today was written by Moses. The Qur'an does not say that Torah was written by Moses.


My understanding is that it was written again after the Babylonian captivity from someone's memory. Is my understanding correct or not?



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

It is not. Ezra the scribe fixed the text based on extant scrolls and study with the experts of his time. Check here www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html for the section which explains the process.


“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added.   


Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

Note that none fo the potential textual variants has to do with Isaac and the sacrifice.


If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time.


It is good that you are on this board where you can pass on to us knowledge about Judaism and the sequence of events concerning Abraham and promise(s) to him from G-d. This will help me to understand the near-sacrifice event better. For example, are the events in Genesis in chronological order or not? How old was Abraham’s when he was given the news of his own son in Genesis 15 and whether the two promises (of him having his own son and the land to his descendants) were given at the same age and in same order that these are in the text of Genesis 15?


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

Yes, just that question, the books could have been written by Moses or written later, which is true? Was everything destroyed by the Babylonians or did these 5 books remained intact? I am not sure.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

Written by Moses and transmitted faithfully.


From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

"There is a hint of words being changed from their places but it is not explicitly stated as to wherefrom. In general, as for as the Divine Word and the Commands are concerned for spiritual enlightenment of man, and judging by whatever I have read so far (and I have not read all of it), present Torah (the 5 books) is pretty good and I can't claim that it is corrupted even if it is not the word by word account of pre-Babylonian captivity Torah."



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

if it isn't word for word (ignoring for a moment the variants explained in the above link) then the claim is that it has been changed or has changed. "Pretty good" isn't good enough.


It depends on what we are looking in it; every single word or only the Divine Words. We, Muslims, tend to be interested in the Divine Words only. In your case it is slightly different. You are interested in the whole text. For example:


Genesis18:13-15


God said to Abraham, 'Why did   Sarah laugh and say, 'Can I really have a child when I am so old?'


Is anything too difficult for God? At the   designated time, I will return, and Sarah will have a son.'


Sarah was afraid and she denied it. 'I did not   laugh,' she said.


There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

Yes, as for as the Divine Word (Commands/Laws) is concerned.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

But Judaism derives laws and codes from sections which are not what seems explicitly a "law" so any changes would indicate that Jewish law is thus an invalid code. This page has a discussion of some relatively major differences of text.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_narrative...


How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event? It would make no difference to the Islamic law, the reason it is not necessary for us to identify Ishmael or Isaac. We look at both with great respect. Both are equally important figures in Islam.  


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

"We do not know whether this is accurate or not. There is doubt in Islamic circles that "your son Isaac, the only son" is accurate as it is not expressed for Ishmael the same way in the Qur'an. At no time was Isaac "the only son" of Abraham whereas Ishmael was for for several years "the only son" of Abraham."



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

so no matter that the text names Isaac, because the logic of the reference points otherwise, the naming must be inaccurate?


No. It could be inaccurate rather than it must be inaccurate. It may point otherwise but I can be wrong. I cannot be sure without it being explicitly stated otherwise in the Qur’an.


Once again, what we are concerned with is moral lessons we can learn from the Revelations. We can learn moral lesson from the narrative in Genesis as we learn from the narrative in the Qur’an regarding the sacrifice event.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

It can go either way.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

thus the claim that it is corrupt is a valid claim as the claim that it is NOT corrupt? That seems strange.


From your point of view it is not corrupt because it is clearly stated in the text. From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

The doubt arises from the text "the only son" when Ishmael is accepted as son of Abraham in the same book. In other words, the doubt arises from the text of Torah itself rather than it being explicitly stated in the Qur'an.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

so the conclusion which is drawn from that question is that the Torah is inaccurate -- how can you say that there is a reasonable position that the text was NOT corrupted?


The moral lessons we learn from reading the Divine Words in the Torah. In that sense, there is reasonable position that it is accurate. Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. There is no point in arguing on the difference if one can’t prove one way or the other. It comes down to the matter of faith. The direction for Muslims in the Qur’an is that G-d will decide on the Day of Judgment as to where we differ.

Flag ffb April 22, 2012 10:54 PM EDT

"“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added.   "


then you did not read the link. There were three scrolls and he worked with scholars to divine the correct version from the 3 scrolls. To say that the text was "unfixed" is therefore erroneous, as is the statement that a version was unavailavble. The variations which existed  between the three extant scrolls and which were decided upon were on the level of individual letterts, not words and therefore nothing was added. Please do not claim otherwise, and do not imply that I said otherwise.


"If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time."


We did, as stated. And any concern over the precision of the text Ezra had had nothing to do with the inclusion of Isaac's name. Thus ANY belief that Ishmael was the person offered is either an attack on the accuracy on a heretofore unheard of level or a complete fabrication. The text in the torah has no vagueness. Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly.


"From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write."


actually, the link says that the text was transmitted from Moses to Ezra faithfully. And as to the issue of the final 8 verses of the Torah there is a tradition that Moses wrote them as told by god even though they had not happened. Why assume that those 8 were not written by him because he would have been dead, while the first book WAS written by him even though he was not yet alive? Another tradition has Joshua as the author fo the final 8 verses. Why would this change anything -- it was transcribed by god to Joshua and passed down from there in that same complete and accurate form.


"There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view."


the text of the Torah is the word of god and when it reports the words of Sarah it does so as the accurate retelling by god. Changing even these retold words would be corrupting what god transmitted. Trying to split hairs and say that it is OK to corrupt some and not others is strange as it undermines the overall accuracy by saying that some parts are not held to the same divine standard. Would that be an accpetable position to take in regards to the Koran?.


"How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event?"


Because an understanding of Isaac's character and his actions later in life (especially in his relationship with Jacob), would be undermined. So the laws which we see through his life would not be valid.


"From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning."


So you are comfortable with the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that it may or may not be accurate yet it is in either case authoritative simply because the precision of a supposedly divine text does not matter as it relates to that section? I find that fascinating.


"Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. "


So if Suar 11:44 says that the Ark of Noah rested on Judiyy and Genesis 8:4 says Ararat (as a quick example) and you calim that the Koran is accurate then musn't you be claiming that the Torah is inaccurate? Why claim that you don't know if it is accurate or not?

Flag Idbc April 23, 2012 9:59 PM EDT

Howdy


The Quran confirms the REVELATION of the Jewish scriptures, but nowhere does it confirm the authenticity of the translations of the translations that existed at the time the Quran was revealed because at Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him )time the Jewish scripture was already been corrupted by its own followers ,the prove is it changed many times..so it is not anymore accepted by Allah s.w.t . Thats why Allah send Prophet Muhammad as The final Messenger to the humanity and to guide them in the true path of Islam.


It is clear to me that the Taurat and the Quran disagree about certain facts.  


What is also clear to me is that there is no way to prove which one is is telling the truth.   


What is also clear to me is that both Muslims and Jews have been very naughty and nice.  Despite the disagreements over "facts".  


It is not clear that Muhammad was mentioned in the Taurat.  It is not clear that the Jews considered Ezra to be the son of god.     



Flag Ibn April 24, 2012 6:13 AM EDT

"“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added. "


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

then you did not read the link.


I did read most of it but not all of it. Not the last part.


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

There were three scrolls and he worked with scholars to divine the correct version from the 3 scrolls.


I did read that part. There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

To say that the text was "unfixed" is therefore erroneous, as is the statement that a version was unavailavble. The variations which existed between the three extant scrolls and which were decided upon were on the level of individual letterts, not words and therefore nothing was added. Please do not claim otherwise, and do not imply that I said otherwise.


Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed.


"If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

We did, as stated. And any concern over the precision of the text Ezra had had nothing to do with the inclusion of Isaac's name. Thus ANY belief that Ishmael was the person offered is either an attack on the accuracy on a heretofore unheard of level or a complete fabrication. The text in the torah has no vagueness. Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly.


Of course Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly. I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation. I have asked you some relevant questions in the last post but you have ignored them.


"From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

actually, the link says that the text was transmitted from Moses to Ezra faithfully. And as to the issue of the final 8 verses of the Torah there is a tradition that Moses wrote them as told by god even though they had not happened. Why assume that those 8 were not written by him because he would have been dead, while the first book WAS written by him even though he was not yet alive?


Well, the fact that we are discussing inclusion of “Isaac” and the “only son” in Genesis, why should I assume that this was written by Moses? The the more I study and discuss the more I am learning that not everything in these 5 books that we have today was written by Moses. If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book.   


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

Another tradition has Joshua as the author fo the final 8 verses. Why would this change anything -- it was transcribed by god to Joshua and passed down from there in that same complete and accurate form.


Which is true, Moses wrote those verses as told by god or Joshua wrote them as told by god? If it was Joshua then you are effectively agreeing that something was added later in what Moses had written. It does not seem that even Joshua was the author of the last 8 verses. The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”. He is talking about both Moses and Joshua, and after them “to this day”. Therefore, I am beginning to learn that not everything in these 5 books was written by Moses but at least some of it was added later on. There may be even more such instances that I have not come across yet.


"There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

the text of the Torah is the word of god and when it reports the words of Sarah it does so as the accurate retelling by god. Changing even these retold words would be corrupting what god transmitted. Trying to split hairs and say that it is OK to corrupt some and not others is strange as it undermines the overall accuracy by saying that some parts are not held to the same divine standard. Would that be an accpetable position to take in regards to the Koran?


The Qur’an is not written like that. The Qur’an has its own standard that is different from the way Torah is written. The two cannot be compared the same way. For example, where you claim that God said to Moses (God’s words), “Moses said to Israelites”, in the Qur’an would not be, God said to Muhammad “say to the believers”. In the Torah, author is telling us like a story is told but in the Qur’an God is simply addressing either Muhammad or the believers through Muhammad.


"How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event?"


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

Because an understanding of Isaac's character and his actions later in life (especially in his relationship with Jacob), would be undermined. So the laws which we see through his life would not be valid.


So you “see” some laws that you base on Isaac’s character. Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d?


"From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

So you are comfortable with the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that it may or may not be accurate yet it is in either case authoritative simply because the precision of a supposedly divine text does not matter as it relates to that section? I find that fascinating.


There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself but in our belief we are to believe that there was revelation to Moses. I am trying to reconcile my belief and the text of Genesis before I can say whether the text is corrupted or not. That is my position at the moment.


"Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. "


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

So if Suar 11:44 says that the Ark of Noah rested on Judiyy and Genesis 8:4 says Ararat (as a quick example) and you calim that the Koran is accurate then musn't you be claiming that the Torah is inaccurate? Why claim that you don't know if it is accurate or not?


Because it makes sense in each case. Suppose the Qur’an had said that it rested on Mt. Everest and the Torah had said that it rested on mountains of Himalayas, both would be correct.   

Flag visio April 24, 2012 7:11 AM EDT

So far the arguments centre around stories that are allegorical in their nature that neither differentiate nor correlate the core theology that God/ALLAHswt would like us to discover in both revelation.   Since the Al-Quran is much of a later revelations, some of the core fundamentals in it's message had been revealed to earlier revelations, perhaps in a different forms or style and depth.   And I am pretty sure there are more imporatnt narratives in the Torah than those little stories, cited so far.   Take for example the following verse from Genesis:


Genesis 2:7  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


Can any one who have mastered the Taurat (Torah) explain what is the thological meanings in the above verse - exotericall or esoterically, which ever one fancies.   Meanwhile, I'll try and look a similar verse of the Al-Quran.  I could twist the above verse and the theology would move into a different course.  e.g.. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils His soul;  and the (dead) man became alive and breathing."







Flag ffb April 24, 2012 3:47 PM EDT

"There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  "


the correct version was, as stated in the article, divined through a combination of the three, though that combination was not a matter of picking one from column A and one from column B, but comparing the written texts to the oral tradition, so if one text had a Vav and another didn't have a Vav, and the oral tradition stated that there was a Vav, the written text with the Vav was considered accurate. And this wzs the level of concern, the inclusion of that letter. If you are willing to say that the "corruption" of the text is proven on the level of a single letter by this Ezraic decision, then say so.


"Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed."


maybe we are using the word "fixed" differently. The word means here to codify and establish firmly because, as was seen, there were slight variations. It does not mean that a text, from scratch was established or "fixes" had to be applied.


" I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation."


So now, saying the name more often than makes sense to you is proof of something. There is an explanation as to why Isaac is called "your singular son" and that is part of Jewish tradition and has been for more than 2000 years. This conspiracy of exclusion therefore existed before here was any reason to exclude. So is the corruption on the level of the letter or were entire words and ideas inserted? Now you seem to be saying that the "repeated" inclusion of Isaac's name is a problem which reflects changes later on.


" If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book."


You clearly misunderstand. The 5 books were not written by Moses or Joshua but by god. You are question who transcribed particular verses. The tradition about the last 8 verses has an opinion that Joshua transcribed the revelation in those 8 verses in the same way that Moses transcribed the rest. Why would that have any bearing on anything? Because the books are called "5 Books OF Moses"? That isn't their actual name nor does that indicate a particular authority. That they are of god does.


" The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”."


So something "seems" to mean something to you. That's nice. Is it a reflection of a position of Islam or simply your personal response to the text which you read on a superficial level?


"In the Torah, author is telling us like a story "


That's your read based on how you view the text. I view the Koran to be told like a patchwork set of stories and phrases with no sense of continuity or cohesiveness reflecting a variety of voices and authors and editors and is full of unnecessary repetition. But that isn't the question here.


"Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d."


Where did I say that the laws in question are "on top" of the commandments and not part of them?


"There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself "


No, you have doubt based on your reading of the text and trying to have it conform to your notion owhat the text should be. You cannot say that there is some objective "doubt" unless you are saying that Islam claims that there are textual changes that have been made.


The number of potential textual emendations in the Koran seem to speak of inaccuracies -- that the text as held by Judaism is inaccurate and the revelation, as corrected through Mohammed is accurate. It seems to me that you are saying therefore that the torah text has errors in it on levels beyond the singular letter.

Flag Ibn April 24, 2012 3:50 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 7:11AM, visio wrote:


So far the arguments centre around stories that are allegorical in their nature that neither differentiate nor correlate the core theology that God/ALLAHswt would like us to discover in both revelation.   Since the Al-Quran is much of a later revelations, some of the core fundamentals in it's message had been revealed to earlier revelations, perhaps in a different forms or style and depth.   And I am pretty sure there are more imporatnt narratives in the Torah than those little stories, cited so far.   Take for example the following verse from Genesis:


Genesis 2:7  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


Can any one who have mastered the Taurat (Torah) explain what is the thological meanings in the above verse - exotericall or esoterically, which ever one fancies.   Meanwhile, I'll try and look a similar verse of the Al-Quran.  I could twist the above verse and the theology would move into a different course.  e.g.. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils His soul;  and the (dead) man became alive and breathing."



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.




Flag Ibn April 24, 2012 4:49 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:47PM, ffb wrote:


"There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  "


the correct version was, as stated in the article, divined through a combination of the three, though that combination was not a matter of picking one from column A and one from column B, but comparing the written texts to the oral tradition, so if one text had a Vav and another didn't have a Vav, and the oral tradition stated that there was a Vav, the written text with the Vav was considered accurate. And this wzs the level of concern, the inclusion of that letter. If you are willing to say that the "corruption" of the text is proven on the level of a single letter by this Ezraic decision, then say so.


"Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed."


maybe we are using the word "fixed" differently. The word means here to codify and establish firmly because, as was seen, there were slight variations. It does not mean that a text, from scratch was established or "fixes" had to be applied.


" I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation."


So now, saying the name more often than makes sense to you is proof of something. There is an explanation as to why Isaac is called "your singular son" and that is part of Jewish tradition and has been for more than 2000 years. This conspiracy of exclusion therefore existed before here was any reason to exclude. So is the corruption on the level of the letter or were entire words and ideas inserted? Now you seem to be saying that the "repeated" inclusion of Isaac's name is a problem which reflects changes later on.


" If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book."


You clearly misunderstand. The 5 books were not written by Moses or Joshua but by god. You are question who transcribed particular verses. The tradition about the last 8 verses has an opinion that Joshua transcribed the revelation in those 8 verses in the same way that Moses transcribed the rest. Why would that have any bearing on anything? Because the books are called "5 Books OF Moses"? That isn't their actual name nor does that indicate a particular authority. That they are of god does.


" The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”."


So something "seems" to mean something to you. That's nice. Is it a reflection of a position of Islam or simply your personal response to the text which you read on a superficial level?


"In the Torah, author is telling us like a story "


That's your read based on how you view the text. I view the Koran to be told like a patchwork set of stories and phrases with no sense of continuity or cohesiveness reflecting a variety of voices and authors and editors and is full of unnecessary repetition. But that isn't the question here.


"Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d."


Where did I say that the laws in question are "on top" of the commandments and not part of them?


"There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself "


No, you have doubt based on your reading of the text and trying to have it conform to your notion owhat the text should be. You cannot say that there is some objective "doubt" unless you are saying that Islam claims that there are textual changes that have been made.


The number of potential textual emendations in the Koran seem to speak of inaccuracies -- that the text as held by Judaism is inaccurate and the revelation, as corrected through Mohammed is accurate. It seems to me that you are saying therefore that the torah text has errors in it on levels beyond the singular letter.



Dear ffb,


Thank you for your responses to my posts. I do respect you for having good knowledge of Judaism and I can still remember your first post on DJ board as you had responded quite honestly and politely.


In this thread, I have tried to discuss the issue raised but I don't think we are making any progress. Therefore, for the time being, I am still unclear about certain text in Genesis. The only explanation about the "only son" Isaac you have given is that it is because of Isaac being singular son. I could go on further on to the "sacrifice" and the "promise" but I don't think we are going to get anywhere without creating some ill feelings between us, I have no intention to get to that stage with you. For this reason, I will be stopping this discussion about Torah at this stage. If I have any other questions about Torah, I would like to ask then on a Judaism board.


As for your comments about the Qur'an, I can understand the comments quite well as to why you think that it is a "patchwork set of stories" that makes no sense to you. I agree with you that most people will find the Qur'an as you find it. Therefore, I have a good news for you; you are in the majority.Smile


I am happy to be in the minority.


Shalom


Ibn 

Flag visio April 24, 2012 6:04 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Ibn wrote:



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.





Thank you, Ibn.   That's quite the speediest od response.  38 : 72 is the verse I had in mind.  And like anything else translated into English, we have to think carefully whether the word/terminolgy applied give justice to the original idea in the Arabic test of the Al-Quran.  I have to leave now.  I'll come back later to have a closer look at 38 : 72, go thru the Arabic transliteration of the verse and what would be the most likeliest idea and theological meanings of the whole verse in English.




Flag ffb April 24, 2012 6:46 PM EDT

Ibn:


Thank you for your kind words and the information which you have provided me. I understand that there are a number of obstacles which would make it difficult to hold a theological discussion based in texts -- not only is there a language separation (the Torah's Hebrew vs. any attempt to explain the information in English) but there is a cultural one (the Torah, in the Jewish context, is complemented by an extensive set of other texts which explicate and expand and are, as a matter of faith, authoritative and necessary; to try and argue from this vantage point with someone who is looking at the (translated) text on its own is quite difficult. So I appreciate your good sense for us to stop the back and forth about the meaning. However, i am distressed on one point.


I feel that my initial question is still left unanswered: is there a unified stance in Islam about whether the words, as they are, are accurate and if not, where the changes are sourced. Ignoring the question of whether the Torah in a pre-written form did reflecting the exact revelation and word of god, just look at the idea that the Koran is correcting or in some sense presenting a "more exact" version of the revelation (not an "updated" one as claimed in the Gospels). Is there an institutional idea that the Torah scroll which is in the synagogue near my house is inaccurate? I have seen both "yes" and "no" answers and I'm just trying to understand.

Flag visio April 24, 2012 9:45 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:46PM, ffb wrote:


Ibn:


Thank you for your kind words and the information which you have provided me. I understand that there are a number of obstacles which would make it difficult to hold a theological discussion based in texts -- not only is there a language separation (the Torah's Hebrew vs. any attempt to explain the information in English) but there is a cultural one (the Torah, in the Jewish context, is complemented by an extensive set of other texts which explicate and expand and are, as a matter of faith, authoritative and necessary; to try and argue from this vantage point with someone who is looking at the (translated) text on its own is quite difficult. So I appreciate your good sense for us to stop the back and forth about the meaning. However, i am distressed on one point.


I feel that my initial question is still left unanswered: is there a unified stance in Islam about whether the words, as they are, are accurate and if not, where the changes are sourced. Ignoring the question of whether the Torah in a pre-written form did reflecting the exact revelation and word of god, just look at the idea that the Koran is correcting or in some sense presenting a "more exact" version of the revelation (not an "updated" one as claimed in the Gospels). Is there an institutional idea that the Torah scroll which is in the synagogue near my house is inaccurate? I have seen both "yes" and "no" answers and I'm just trying to understand.




I don't think, so far there is anything substantial to say language & translation issues are major obstacles.   The word "only son" is as clear as daylight as it could be expressed in other languages.  If there are a thousand other texts to explain it, what are they.   And now you factoring in another element - culture or in a crude way of saying, habits.   So what is the point of discussion when we keep on dancing on semanticism.   That is a sign of questionable theology.   The fact that there is no unified stance on Islam on the theology that comes out of the Taurat (Torah) is a proof as a faith/religion, Quran is not making the Taurat (Torah) its enemy.   And as I said it earlier regarding what has gone into the written Taurat (Torah), do not believe nor disbelieve.   However, there are something for individual Muslim to learn from whatever is available - for truth as well as falseness.   And in a separate hadith, it was made loud and clear to those listeners of the day,  Prophet Muhammadsaw said that "If Musasaw (Moses) were to be back alive in his time, he would certainly become one of his followers."   That is to say that Musasaw (Moses) would cast aside his Taurat (Torah) - both revealed and written down.   Prophet Muhammadsaw was simply using the argument to convince his listeners which could have included many interested Hebrews. 

Flag visio April 24, 2012 10:21 PM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:04PM, visio wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Ibn wrote:



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.





Thank you, Ibn.   That's quite the speediest od response.  38 : 72 is the verse I had in mind.  And like anything else translated into English, we have to think carefully whether the word/terminolgy applied give justice to the original idea in the Arabic test of the Al-Quran.  I have to leave now.  I'll come back later to have a closer look at 38 : 72, go thru the Arabic transliteration of the verse and what would be the most likeliest idea and theological meanings of the whole verse in English.







Sad 38 : 72 reads in Arabic as "Fa'izaa sawwyetuhoo wa nafakhtu feehi mir-roohee faqa'oo lahoo saajideen." 


Word by word translation: 


"Fa'izaa [When after] sawwyetuhoo [fashioning/creation of him is completed] wa nafakhtu [ I breath]  feehi [into it] mir [from]-roohee [me a created soul] faqa'oo [then bend you down] lahoo [before him] saajideen [in prostration]."   


In English, 38 : 72 thus reads:


Whenafter fashioning of him is completed, I breath into it, from me, a created soul, then bend/lower you down before him in prostration. 


 


One key and major difference is in the meaning of English terminology used - between the word "soul" and "spirit".  You can't really explain this without going into the root creation story.  




Flag Ibn April 25, 2012 3:43 AM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:21PM, visio wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:04PM, visio wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Ibn wrote:



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.



Thank you, Ibn.   That's quite the speediest od response.  38 : 72 is the verse I had in mind.  And like anything else translated into English, we have to think carefully whether the word/terminolgy applied give justice to the original idea in the Arabic test of the Al-Quran.  I have to leave now.  I'll come back later to have a closer look at 38 : 72, go thru the Arabic transliteration of the verse and what would be the most likeliest idea and theological meanings of the whole verse in English.



Sad 38 : 72 reads in Arabic as "Fa'izaa sawwyetuhoo wa nafakhtu feehi mir-roohee faqa'oo lahoo saajideen." 


Word by word translation: 


"Fa'izaa [When after] sawwyetuhoo [fashioning/creation of him is completed] wa nafakhtu [ I breath]  feehi [into it] mir [from]-roohee [me a created soul] faqa'oo [then bend you down] lahoo [before him] saajideen [in prostration]."   


In English, 38 : 72 thus reads:


Whenafter fashioning of him is completed, I breath into it, from me, a created soul, then bend/lower you down before him in prostration. 


One key and major difference is in the meaning of English terminology used - between the word "soul" and "spirit".  You can't really explain this without going into the root creation story. 


Dear visio,


My understanding is that the word "spirit" in English relates to Arabic "ruh" and the word "soul" in English to the Arabic "nafs". Therefore, "nafs" would be individual person's nafs rather than something common in each person. Knowledge of "spirit" is given to mankind but a little. It is described in the Qur'an merely as "a command of Allah". For example the Command "Be" ("come to existence" and it will "be". That is how Adam was created without father and mother and that is how Jesus was created without a father.


 [3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. 

[19.17] So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man.


[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

Flag Ibn April 25, 2012 4:56 AM EDT

Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:46PM, ffb wrote:


Ibn:


Thank you for your kind words and the information which you have provided me. I understand that there are a number of obstacles which would make it difficult to hold a theological discussion based in texts -- not only is there a language separation (the Torah's Hebrew vs. any attempt to explain the information in English) but there is a cultural one (the Torah, in the Jewish context, is complemented by an extensive set of other texts which explicate and expand and are, as a matter of faith, authoritative and necessary; to try and argue from this vantage point with someone who is looking at the (translated) text on its own is quite difficult. So I appreciate your good sense for us to stop the back and forth about the meaning. However, i am distressed on one point.



Dear ffb,


I am aware of the oral tradition which I don't believe is from G-d as is the Taurat mentioned in the Qur'an but is perhaps detailed interpretation of what was revealed to Moses. The interpretation can differ but the actual Revelation from G-d cannot differ. It must stay intact word by word from the outset or else the interpretation will not be of the original revelation. Further, interpretation is always from human beings. They can get it right or sometimes get it wrong. Culture can play a part in it. For a true believer, culture, nationality, tribe or even religius group should not be an obstacle in understanding the truth. This is why I refrain from saying explicitly that the Torah is corrupted. If I say so then I have to discard the Torah completely as a corrupted book. I am not prepared to do that because there is so much truth in it. Even if some words are not in it, there is still so much truth in it that it cannot be called "corrupted". There is still enough in it that the Jews can follow its guidance and be righteous. For this reason alone, I am not going to upset anyone by saying that the Torah is corrupted.


Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:46PM, ffb wrote:

I feel that my initial question is still left unanswered: is there a unified stance in Islam about whether the words, as they are, are accurate and if not, where the changes are sourced.


There is mention in the Qur'an of words being altered from their places but it does not say where from. Here are the relevant verses:


[5.13] But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).


[5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.


[5.15] O followers of the Book! Indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;



Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:46PM, ffb wrote:

Ignoring the question of whether the Torah in a pre-written form did reflecting the exact revelation and word of god, just look at the idea that the Koran is correcting or in some sense presenting a "more exact" version of the revelation (not an "updated" one as claimed in the Gospels). Is there an institutional idea that the Torah scroll which is in the synagogue near my house is inaccurate? I have seen both "yes" and "no" answers and I'm just trying to understand.


It is not clear in the Qur'an that the Torah you have today is exactly as revealed to Moses or not. The reason could be that if any Jew or Christian does not want to believe in the Qur'an then at least he should believe in the Torah and the Gospels rather than discard even the Torah or the Gospels. Therefore, I don't see the Qur'an as "replacement" of Torah and the Gospels but continuation of the revelation from G-d. In the following verse, Taurat and Injeel are not completely discarded but still hold their ground:


[5.68] Say: O followers of the Book! You follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.


It could be that there are differences between the Jewish belief and Christians' belief, and the Qur'an is trying to bring them together by verifying (beliefwise rather than textwise) the Taurat and the Injeel:


[27.76] Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in.


Therefore, if I have to say something to you, I would say that if you do not believe in the Qur'an being revelation from G-d then at least keep up with the Torah you have with you. My feeling is that you would be judged on whether you have kept up with the Torah or not. From this you would gather that Torah can still stand its ground if someone is willing to obey the commandments in it. Therefore, regard it uncorrupted.

Flag ffb April 25, 2012 7:43 AM EDT

Ibn --


thank you for the explanation. there seems to be a separate notion of "corrupt" in terms of the precision of the words and the importance of the message. i had not seen this before, so i appreciate the clarification.


On a side note, you quoted something which leads me to a couple fo questions:


"


[5.68] Say: O followers of the Book! You follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people."


I pick up 2 things from this and wanted to check them with 1.


 1. does this mean that according to the Koran, a Jew should accept the gospels (the use of the word "and" between Taurat and Injeel, or that a Jew can reject the gospels (the use of the words "to you")?


2. is this verse saying that by following what is given, many will be moved further from belief (at least in the Koranic theology)? Why encourage people to fololow a path which will lead away from belief?

Flag Lilwabbit April 25, 2012 10:38 AM EDT

As a total sidenote, I must express how impressed I am of the civility and meaningfulness of the dialogue between Ibn the Muslim and ffb the Jew here. Such Muslim-Jew exchanges are too rare in this world to leave unnoticed. You two are setting an example and both of you do credit to your respective faiths.


Sorry for the distraction! Laughing


Wabbit

Flag BDboy April 25, 2012 11:03 AM EDT

Apr 20, 2012 -- 11:27AM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


Let me see if I understand this


1. The Qur'an which is 1400 years old and for which no original examples are available is believed to be  complete and unchanged in any way from the original.


2. The Torah which is far older than the Qur'an and for which we have (at least partial)  examples which are older than 1400 years and which are exactly the same as the Torah used today is believed to be incomplete and altered. 


I have no problems with the above as a statement of faith and belief. However, it is impossible to support the position as a statements of fact. 


As a statement of faith and belief it is part of the explanation as to why the Qur'an was written and why Mohammed's prophecy was necessary. All religious traditions have and need a reason for their starting point (or if one insists their "continuity" point). However, as a statement of faith and belief it also sets up an irreconcilable disagreement with Judaism (and since the same argument is made concerning the Gospels, with Christianity) This irreconcilable difference has had any number of historic and contemporary consequences. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a forum in B'Net which is equipped to or desigend to discuss that aspect of the question.



   




 


>>>>>> Rocket,


This is "Discuss ISLAM" forum and I clearly said, "As per Islamic point of view" before I stated what it says.


As far rituals are concerns, we are closest to Jewish tradition and as far spirituality is concern, we are very close to spirit of Christianity. Having said that, there are FEW areas where we disagree.


If you ask me, I would say it is not only matter of faith. I have PROVEN my points more than few times in different threads over the years.


We are simply discussing ideas here AND no need to fear ideas when it is backed by SOLID logic and verify able sources. Shortly I'll discuss more on this....


 


Shalom!

Flag visio April 25, 2012 6:03 PM EDT

Apr 25, 2012 -- 3:43AM, Ibn wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 10:21PM, visio wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:04PM, visio wrote:


Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Ibn wrote:



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.



Thank you, Ibn.   That's quite the speediest od response.  38 : 72 is the verse I had in mind.  And like anything else translated into English, we have to think carefully whether the word/terminolgy applied give justice to the original idea in the Arabic test of the Al-Quran.  I have to leave now.  I'll come back later to have a closer look at 38 : 72, go thru the Arabic transliteration of the verse and what would be the most likeliest idea and theological meanings of the whole verse in English.



Sad 38 : 72 reads in Arabic as "Fa'izaa sawwyetuhoo wa nafakhtu feehi mir-roohee faqa'oo lahoo saajideen." 


Word by word translation: 


"Fa'izaa [When after] sawwyetuhoo [fashioning/creation of him is completed] wa nafakhtu [ I breath]  feehi [into it] mir [from]-roohee [me a created soul] faqa'oo [then bend you down] lahoo [before him] saajideen [in prostration]."   


In English, 38 : 72 thus reads:


Whenafter fashioning of him is completed, I breath into it, from me, a created soul, then bend/lower you down before him in prostration. 


One key and major difference is in the meaning of English terminology used - between the word "soul" and "spirit".  You can't really explain this without going into the root creation story. 


Dear visio,


My understanding is that the word "spirit" in English relates to Arabic "ruh" and the word "soul" in English to the Arabic "nafs". Therefore, "nafs" would be individual person's nafs rather than something common in each person.



And it is also my understanding that both Hebrew and Arabic evolved from a common root of languages - Aramaic (Arabic, as I read it, being the oldest).  The The Arabic word "ruh" resembles Hebrew "ruach" and the Arabic "nfs" resembles Hebrew "nephesh" in terms of forms.  In terms of meanings and/or description, however, they differ and go the opposite way.  And to my knowledge "ruach" is interpreted in English as a Hebrew word for spirit or vital air.   This is I believe is derived from their wholesome interpretation of the Hebrew terms in Genesis 2 : 7.  The Quranic 38 : 72 is clear that the (divinely created) "ruh" is breathed into Man (Adam) thus ranking it above "ruach" (spirit and vital air).  The course of the differences as I see it is that determined by the way Genesis 2 : 7 and (Quranic) Sad 38 : 72 are phrased.  And on top of that comes the confusion of a third party English word "spirit" which, perhaps, are deeply rooted in the Latin/Greek cosmology.   English speaking Muslims must be aware about this.   Otherwise, we could be sending a wrong message or easily be misunderstood, in explaining Islam/Quran.  The only way to explain the difference  is to go back, look  and understand all the elements of creation in scriptures, which in a Muslim's case, is the Al-Quran & Hadith.   To Muhammadsaw was revealed the creation of the whole Universe and of himself.      


Knowledge of "spirit" is given to mankind but a little.



And what is the little that is given is what can be contemplated upon and derived from the Al-Quran for those who can stretch their thinking to understand the general Divine Order of things.   This verse came into light when many of those enlightened persons with the knowledge given to them took it upon themselves to dwell on making specific prophecy of one kind or another.  e.g.  the coming of a Messiah, Imam Mehdi, Enf of the Universe/Earth or End Time., etc. etc.   Prophet Muhammadsaw thus ended up all speculation of another of God/ALLAHswt's Messenger openly thru the Al-Quran and by ALLAHswt's Command.  What litle knowledge to be given is given as determined by God/ALLAHswt


It is described in the Qur'an merely as "a command of Allah".



 It is said so, because all of God/ALLAHswt's Command is channeled thru the soul via Gabriel.  If our individual Gabriel is the veil of God/ALLAHswt, then our soul is the veil of our own Gabriel.   The soul proceeds from the Gabriel of our individual light (of messenger, rasool) just as a fire proceeds from a light.  And that is the point where the phrase "Son of  ......Father, God etc. originate from.   In Muhammadsaw's (thus Quranic, Islamic) view/witnessing Gabriel  is a spouse with whom the soul would be reunited as One in ALLAHswt at the end of the soul's days (time).   For good or ill, Gabriel is the "executioner" of God/ALLAHswt's Command and thru whom whatever little knowledge as one deserves it, is transmitted by God/ALLAHswt's Will, incrementally.  He/She is our inner Saviour and Lover and Messenger (rasool).    


For example the Command "Be" ("come to existence" and it will "be". That is how Adam was created without father and mother and that is how Jesus was created without a father.



So what you are saying  Adam came out of a woman's womb.  Yes, No?  My understanding is way out of that.  There are vital air (spirits) on earth (Adamic) and there are vital airs also in the heavenly sky (Israel).  When the Command "BE" is "pronounced and decreed" there are some spirits in the vital air being formulated/converted into a soul God/ALLAHswt creates and breath into an offspring of eves.  Those with spirits originating from high above, as human would be called Chidren of Israel (bani-Israel), and those from the earth (animal spirits) would be called Children of Adam (bani-Adam).  The story of  Adam & Eve were only allegorical.  The merit of the story was that to indicate only spirits from domesticated animals would be raised and not of rocks and vegetation. The story of Abraham and his two wives serve to draw the distinction between bani-Israel and bani-Adam.  For this reason the Al-Quran is meant for both mankind and jinn kind to co-exist in all nations as Children of Eves, on earth.  When the Children of Eves is raised into the Kingdom of Israel, they will co-exist with offsprings of the jinn of the Adamic Heaven and be known as Children of Adam.  And the word "BE" is a proclamation that it is God/ALLAHswt Who decides which spirit goes into which soul.  It applies in both apparent heaven (evic) and the hidden heaven (adamic).  We all have got it upside down (from Quranic point of view).   On earth we should be called Children of Eve.   Since Eve is never mentioned in the Al-Quran, we all should be called Son of Mary, a phrase that exists in the Al-Quran.   


[3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.



This is about the creation of Isasaw (Jesus) soul from the male haevenly spirit (bani-Israel)

[19.17] So she took a veil (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man.



In the Quranic Arabic the word is Our "ruh".  And that implies all the Gabriel collectively, which includes Mariyam (Mary)'s own Gabriel. To a man, when his Gabriel appears, it would be in the form/image of a woman.  To a woman, when her Gabriel appears, it would be in the form or image of a man.


[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.




Again the Quranic Arabic term used is "ruh" [wa ruhuu].



To me the Quranic term for spirit is "nfs"  which indicates all attributes not leading to God/ALLAHswt, self ego.  Although nfs could also be attributed to breath or vital air, such as nafas, it could also be used to indicate desire, nafsu, or to indicate a death (breathless) state such as nufus.  Spirit, in term of ordinary usages in English, match it well with Arabic sense of nfs.

Flag visio April 25, 2012 9:36 PM EDT

To me, the whole consciousness cosmology hinted at by the many verses of the Al-Quran finds its fundamental equivalent in the higher aspect of of Hindu esotericism in which SELF is portrayed in the following formula:


SELF (atman)= SOUL + SPIRIT/MIND + BODY.


which in Al-Quranic Arabic is written as:


INSANIAH  = RUH + NFS + JSM (Jasmani) which after adding in the factor the many stages/phases of the soul "life" i.e. the soul goes thru its learning curve of experiences over many lifetimes, this coul dstill be perfected as:


INSANIAH (Insan Kamil)= SOUL (ruh) + INHERITED SPIRIT/MIND (nfs) + INHERITED BODY (jsm)


Although both soul and spirit possess a common connotation of self awareness/consciousness,I would define it as the following to draw a distinction.


Spirit is what become of the God/ALLAHswt's Light of Descent of Adam in the creation of  the Earth and the heavens.  Soul is what God/ALLAHswt created from a part of His Light of Ascent (personated as Messenger Gabriel, Guardian angels) and potentially it has to grow so that its consciousness would be at par with that of Gabriel.  Under this condition only that both soul + Gabriel  becomes an angel.  The soul is thus liberated from the cycles of "life" and "death" which are only words in a human perspective.  


   

Flag Ibn April 26, 2012 3:51 AM EDT

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:43AM, ffb wrote:


Ibn --


thank you for the explanation. there seems to be a separate notion of "corrupt" in terms of the precision of the words and the importance of the message. i had not seen this before, so i appreciate the clarification.


On a side note, you quoted something which leads me to a couple fo questions:


"


[5.68] Say: O followers of the Book! You follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people."


I pick up 2 things from this and wanted to check them with 1.


 1. does this mean that according to the Koran, a Jew should accept the gospels (the use of the word "and" between Taurat and Injeel, or that a Jew can reject the gospels (the use of the words "to you")?


2. is this verse saying that by following what is given, many will be moved further from belief (at least in the Koranic theology)? Why encourage people to fololow a path which will lead away from belief?



Rejecting whole of the Torah, Gospels or the Qur'an is not an option for anyone. All of us (Jews, Christians and Muslims) must believe that these revelations are from G-d. Gospels are not really rejection of the Law but these were clarification of the Law for the Jews (Christians did not exist at the time). What happened later is another story.


The way I understood the verse of the Qur'an is that the Message delivered by Moses (Taurat), Jesus (Injeel) and Muhammad (peace be on them) is, in each case, from G-d. This is the starting point for us all (at least for Muslims). Therefore, the Jews are directed to keep up with the Taurat and Christians are directed to keep up with the Gospels, and both groups are to take notice of the revelation of the Qur'an because it is clarified in the Qur'an where the the two groups (the Jews and the Christians) differ in their belief (such as the Jews not believing in Jesus as a messenger and the Christians thinking that Jesus is God). The verse says that many of the both the Jews and the Christians are not going to be happy with what is revealed to you (Muhammad) and, because of their unhappiness regarding the revelation of the Qur'an (and in opposition to it), many of them are going to go further into disbelief. Basically, Jews and the Christians are also directed to believe that the revelation of the Qur'an is from G-d and take notice of what the Qur'an clarifies regarding their differences (which could be due to either the corruption of the text or gradual development of theology).


FYI, M. Asad (an ex Jew who translated and interpreted the whole Qur'an) has translated the verse as:


Say: "O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs - unless you [truly] observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer! Yet all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee [O Prophet] by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their denial of the truth. But sorrow not over people who deny the truth:


Therefore, by asking the Jews and the Christian to observe the Torah and the Gospels, it is clear that, regardless of the question of texual corruption or development of theology, there is still enough truth in these books for both the Jews and the Christians to follow/observe to be righteous people provided they also take notice of what they are directed, through the Qur'an, not to do.


Instead of sticking to just one book, I see directions in every revelation as to what G-d wants from us all. We need to concentrate on directions in revelations rather than divide ourselves (as human beings) by our egos and envy of eack other. I don't think that was the purpose of any revelation from G-d to mankind. 


I trust that this explains the verse to your satisfaction.


Peace


Ibn

Flag ffb April 26, 2012 9:03 AM EDT

Apr 26, 2012 -- 3:51AM, Ibn wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:43AM, ffb wrote:


Ibn --


thank you for the explanation. there seems to be a separate notion of "corrupt" in terms of the precision of the words and the importance of the message. i had not seen this before, so i appreciate the clarification.


On a side note, you quoted something which leads me to a couple fo questions:


"


[5.68] Say: O followers of the Book! You follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people."


I pick up 2 things from this and wanted to check them with 1.


 1. does this mean that according to the Koran, a Jew should accept the gospels (the use of the word "and" between Taurat and Injeel, or that a Jew can reject the gospels (the use of the words "to you")?


2. is this verse saying that by following what is given, many will be moved further from belief (at least in the Koranic theology)? Why encourage people to fololow a path which will lead away from belief?



Rejecting whole of the Torah, Gospels or the Qur'an is not an option for anyone. All of us (Jews, Christians and Muslims) must believe that these revelations are from G-d. Gospels are not really rejection of the Law but these were clarification of the Law for the Jews (Christians did not exist at the time). What happened later is another story.


The way I understood the verse of the Qur'an is that the Message delivered by Moses (Taurat), Jesus (Injeel) and Muhammad (peace be on them) is, in each case, from G-d. This is the starting point for us all (at least for Muslims). Therefore, the Jews are directed to keep up with the Taurat and Christians are directed to keep up with the Gospels, and both groups are to take notice of the revelation of the Qur'an because it is clarified in the Qur'an where the the two groups (the Jews and the Christians) differ in their belief (such as the Jews not believing in Jesus as a messenger and the Christians thinking that Jesus is God). The verse says that many of the both the Jews and the Christians are not going to be happy with what is revealed to you (Muhammad) and, because of their unhappiness regarding the revelation of the Qur'an (and in opposition to it), many of them are going to go further into disbelief. Basically, Jews and the Christians are also directed to believe that the revelation of the Qur'an is from G-d and take notice of what the Qur'an clarifies regarding their differences (which could be due to either the corruption of the text or gradual development of theology).


FYI, M. Asad (an ex Jew who translated and interpreted the whole Qur'an) has translated the verse as:


Say: "O followers of the Bible! You have no valid ground for your beliefs - unless you [truly] observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you by your Sustainer! Yet all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee [O Prophet] by thy Sustainer is bound to make many of them yet more stubborn in their overweening arrogance and in their denial of the truth. But sorrow not over people who deny the truth:


Therefore, by asking the Jews and the Christian to observe the Torah and the Gospels, it is clear that, regardless of the question of texual corruption or development of theology, there is still enough truth in these books for both the Jews and the Christians to follow/observe to be righteous people provided they also take notice of what they are directed, through the Qur'an, not to do.


Instead of sticking to just one book, I see directions in every revelation as to what G-d wants from us all. We need to concentrate on directions in revelations rather than divide ourselves (as human beings) by our egos and envy of eack other. I don't think that was the purpose of any revelation from G-d to mankind. 


I trust that this explains the verse to your satisfaction.


Peace


Ibn


It is interesting but, just to put my thinking in context, the way that Torah verses are explicated, every single word and idea is parsed. The statement "observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you " lends itself to two contradictory interpretations so I am trying to get a sense of the directive. Either it means that both groups must fully observe both texts, or each group should only observe its own text. That may not be the standard method of breaking down Koranic verses into much more precise levels of linguistic intent so my entire approach may not fit in. I understand that the idea is "understand your book/s and then look to the Koran to resolve some ideas" and that this will annoy some "believers" but I'm just trying to get a handle on the precise words.

Flag Idbc April 26, 2012 3:01 PM EDT

Howdy


I am probably wrong, or at least "anal"  but it is my understanding that the topic of this thread is the Koranic view on the Taurat.   It is NOT about the Koranic view of the Injeel.  


What is clear to this gentile-kufur is that there are differences and similarities.   


What is clear to this gentile-kurfur is that Muslims believe that the Torah as it existed from at least the time of Muhammad has be changed.    


What is clearto this gentile-kufur is that Jews disagree that there has been any significant change in the Torah since the time of Moses.  


What is also clear to this gentile-kufur  is that the Torah and the Quran are not the ONLY sources of literature used by Jews and Chrisitans. 


What is also clear this gentile-kufur is that both Jews and Muslims have been very, very naughty at times.   


What is also clear to this gentile-kufur is that the Torah and the Quran has been and probably will be....abused.     


  


This is what the Quran or English translations of the Quran say about the Torah


 www.quranexplorer.com/Search/?q=Torah&Su...


 There are a total of 87 references to the Torah in the Koran.  Although some of them are duplicates, or repetions of others.   


The first one says:


Sura 3 - Al-E-Imran (MADINA) : Verse 48 And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.  


I think it is safe to say that the "Gospel" being referenced is NOT the contempory "Gospel". 


Muslims make the claim that there was a "Gospel" that Jesus taught, however they have no written copy of the Gospel of Jesus.    I am fairly certain that Muslims would not want Jews to follow the Gospels as they currently exist.  I am very, very certain that mainstream religous Jews use contemporary Gospels as a source of wisdom and or guidance.     


 


 


 

Flag ffb April 26, 2012 6:28 PM EDT

IDBC, this is a DI board so my question was geared towards the Islamic (and/or Koranic) view of changes in text vs. changes in what what taught vs. emedations, and anything else as it related to the Jewish bible. Any view of the gospels is completely incidental, so please understand that there is no intention to question or involve the gospels per se.


You do make 1 statement that you might want to reconsider (and post on the Discuss Judaism board). You state "I am very, very certain that mainstream religous Jews use contemporary Gospels as a source of wisdom and or guidance."


Assuming by "contemporary gospels" you mean the section often called the "New Testament" then you are wrong. Mainstream religious Jews do not use contemporary gospels at all. If you wish to discuss this, I feel that the DJ board is better suited.

Flag rocketjsquirell April 26, 2012 9:16 PM EDT

FFB


I am unaware of any Jews who use the Christian Gospels for any purpose whatsoever.  (Outside of interfaith dialogue and understanding)

Flag Idbc April 27, 2012 12:14 AM EDT

 


Howdy ffb


Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:28PM, ffb wrote:


IDBC, this is a DI board so my question was geared towards the Islamic (and/or Koranic) view of changes in text vs. changes in what what taught vs. emedations, and anything else as it related to the Jewish bible. Any view of the gospels is completely incidental, so please understand that there is no intention to question or involve the gospels per se. 


xt


I understand that the questions are geared towards the Islamic(and or Koranic) view between the texts of the Quran and the texts of the Torah.  Whatever "emendations"  that the Quran alleges were made to the Torah are just allegations so far as I am concerned.  Until Muslims can produce a copy of a Torah that is earilier than the at least the Dead Sea Scrolls it is just an "allegation".   For example there is not Torah text in existence that states that Ishameal was the one who was to be sacrficed.   


Another "problem" that I noticed is that the Koran only makes reference to "the Torah" and "the Pslams.  It claims that only the emendations-changes that were made was to "the Torah".   


It is my understanding that "the Torah" refers to the first five books of the Tankah-Hebrew Bible.   


Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:28PM, ffb wrote:

 


You do make 1 statement that you might want to reconsider (and post on the Discuss Judaism board). You state "I am very, very certain that mainstream religous Jews use contemporary Gospels as a source of wisdom and or guidance."



I do not know which post # where I stated "I am very, very certain that mainstream religous Jews use contemporary Gospels as a source of wisdom and or guidance."


However if I did make such a statement I would definitly reconsider it and re-state  


"I am very, very certain that mainstream religous Jews do NOT use contemporary Gospels as a source of wisdom and or guidance."


Mainstream religious Jews no more use the Gospels as a source of wisdom and guidance than the use the Quran as a source of wisdom of guidance. 


Apr 26, 2012 -- 6:28PM, ffb wrote:


Assuming by "contemporary gospels" you mean the section often called the "New Testament" then you are wrong. Mainstream religious Jews do not use contemporary gospels at all. If you wish to discuss this, I feel that the DJ board is better suited.




I agree completly that "Mainstream religious Jews do not use contemporary gospels at all."


Just as "The Torah"  is only part of the Hebrew-Jewish bible, "The Gospels" are only part of the "New-Christian Bible".    Just as the Quran only makes reference to "The Torah-Pslams" it only makes reference to the "Gospels". 


Just as there are no copies of the un-changed Torah, there are no copies of the un-changed gospels.  


I do agree that "the gospels"-New-Christian Testament are "incidental" to this discussion.  


It is my understanding that at the time of Muhammad there were two "Torahs"  floating around. 


One in Greek, the Septugiant and one in Hebrew.  I do not know which one the Quran was making reference too or if it was making reference to an different allegedly "unchanged"  Torah. 


Flag Ibn April 27, 2012 3:52 AM EDT

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:03AM, ffb wrote:

It is interesting but, just to put my thinking in context, the way that Torah verses are explicated, every single word and idea is parsed. The statement "observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you " lends itself to two contradictory interpretations so I am trying to get a sense of the directive. Either it means that both groups must fully observe both texts, or each group should only observe its own text. That may not be the standard method of breaking down Koranic verses into much more precise levels of linguistic intent so my entire approach may not fit in. I understand that the idea is "understand your book/s and then look to the Koran to resolve some ideas" and that this will annoy some "believers" but I'm just trying to get a handle on the precise words.


I believe the main idea is to believe and observe what is revealed by G-d to human beings.


The sequence is, believe and observe the revelation through Moses and the prophets, and believe and observe that was revealed through Jesus (which verified what was revealed through Moses and the prophets), and then believe and observe what is revealed through Muhammad (i.e. the Qur'an) which verifies was revealed before it of the revelation through Moses and revelation through Jesus.


As to your point of Torah verses being explicated and every single word and idea being parsed, does not mean that it is the end of the revelation from G-d as if G-d tied up His hands by revealing the Torah and He is not going to take anything out of it or add anything in it. As I explained earlier in one of my posts, adding or subtracting by people from the revelation is prohibited by G-d but G-d has not prohibited Himself from doing so. G-d has the Power to do so. So please do not regard that G-d has tied up His hands with the revelation of the Torah. He can expend whatever He likes.


[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.


So, I would say that the followers of Torah should pay regard to the revelation through Jesus and observe if anything has been changed/improved by G-d on the Torah revelation. This is because of the simple fact that it is from the same G-d as is the Torah from. And if one does not believe in the revelation through Jesus then at least observe the Torah. The same applies to both the Jews and the Christians to believe in the revelation through Muhammad and observe the laws in the Qur'an, and if they do not believe that the revelation of the Qur'an is from G-d then at least observe the laws in the Torah and the Injeel respectively.


In the Qur'an, the door does not close on Torah and the Gospels but is still left open for the following reason:


[5.48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;


The above does not mean that that it is the only purpose but also to try the people as to which ones of us will believe in all the revelations from G-d and which of us human beings will reject some revelations.


[5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss


[5.66] And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do.


Of course there is more to it than we often perceive but the above is enough to be digested for the time being.


I trust that I have tried to clarify one or two points in this post for your benefit. 

Flag ffb April 27, 2012 9:15 AM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:52AM, Ibn wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:03AM, ffb wrote:

It is interesting but, just to put my thinking in context, the way that Torah verses are explicated, every single word and idea is parsed. The statement "observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you " lends itself to two contradictory interpretations so I am trying to get a sense of the directive. Either it means that both groups must fully observe both texts, or each group should only observe its own text. That may not be the standard method of breaking down Koranic verses into much more precise levels of linguistic intent so my entire approach may not fit in. I understand that the idea is "understand your book/s and then look to the Koran to resolve some ideas" and that this will annoy some "believers" but I'm just trying to get a handle on the precise words.


I believe the main idea is to believe and observe what is revealed by G-d to human beings.


The sequence is, believe and observe the revelation through Moses and the prophets, and believe and observe that was revealed through Jesus (which verified what was revealed through Moses and the prophets), and then believe and observe what is revealed through Muhammad (i.e. the Qur'an) which verifies was revealed before it of the revelation through Moses and revelation through Jesus.


As to your point of Torah verses being explicated and every single word and idea being parsed, does not mean that it is the end of the revelation from G-d as if G-d tied up His hands by revealing the Torah and He is not going to take anything out of it or add anything in it. As I explained earlier in one of my posts, adding or subtracting by people from the revelation is prohibited by G-d but G-d has not prohibited Himself from doing so. G-d has the Power to do so. So please do not regard that G-d has tied up His hands with the revelation of the Torah. He can expend whatever He likes.


[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.


So, I would say that the followers of Torah should pay regard to the revelation through Jesus and observe if anything has been changed/improved by G-d on the Torah revelation. This is because of the simple fact that it is from the same G-d as is the Torah from. And if one does not believe in the revelation through Jesus then at least observe the Torah. The same applies to both the Jews and the Christians to believe in the revelation through Muhammad and observe the laws in the Qur'an, and if they do not believe that the revelation of the Qur'an is from G-d then at least observe the laws in the Torah and the Injeel respectively.


In the Qur'an, the door does not close on Torah and the Gospels but is still left open for the following reason:


[5.48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;


The above does not mean that that it is the only purpose but also to try the people as to which ones of us will believe in all the revelations from G-d and which of us human beings will reject some revelations.


[5.65] And if the followers of the Book had believed and guarded (against evil) We would certainly have covered their evil deeds and We would certainly have made them enter gardens of bliss


[5.66] And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do.


Of course there is more to it than we often perceive but the above is enough to be digested for the time being.


I trust that I have tried to clarify one or two points in this post for your benefit. 


Thank you for this -- it does clarify the points very well. Any response I have would be in the realm of overall faith and theology and would stary far afield of the intended thread. I will leave you with one thought to give you an idea of how a religious Jew might perceive your statement about Judaism accepting later "revelations" as authoritative. God gave Christians the Book of Mormon so they would know how Jews feel. I think it can be expanded to say "God gave Islam the Book of Mormon..." to the same effect. If you say god's hands are not tied, then anyone's claim of later revelation is as valid. But that's a discussion for another day. Thank you for walking me through these ideas.

Flag ffb April 27, 2012 9:19 AM EDT

"Another "problem" that I noticed is that the Koran only makes reference to "the Torah" and "the Pslams.  It claims that only the emendations-changes that were made was to "the Torah".   



It is my understanding that "the Torah" refers to the first five books of the Tankah-Hebrew Bible.   "


 


I cannot speak to the intent of the Koran -- it is using a word to encompass an idea. The word Torah can refer to the 5 books, the entire written text (5 books, prophets, writings -- the Tanach) or the entire of the written and oral torahs taken as a whole. Since there are 3 different uses (at least), there is room for variant understandings.

Flag BDboy April 27, 2012 10:35 AM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:19AM, ffb wrote:


"Another "problem" that I noticed is that the Koran only makes reference to "the Torah" and "the Pslams.  It claims that only the emendations-changes that were made was to "the Torah".   



It is my understanding that "the Torah" refers to the first five books of the Tankah-Hebrew Bible.   "


 


I cannot speak to the intent of the Koran -- it is using a word to encompass an idea. The word Torah can refer to the 5 books, the entire written text (5 books, prophets, writings -- the Tanach) or the entire of the written and oral torahs taken as a whole. Since there are 3 different uses (at least), there is room for variant understandings.




 


>>>>>>> I am aware that Ibn is discussing this topic with you.


Just wanted to share a web based link, which talks about Islamic view of the Jewish tradition. Since we have "Common roots" there are times when we talk about OT and NT as examples to understand "Islamic point of view". Please click here

Flag Lilwabbit April 27, 2012 10:47 AM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:15AM, ffb wrote:


Thank you for this -- it does clarify the points very well. Any response I have would be in the realm of overall faith and theology and would stary far afield of the intended thread. I will leave you with one thought to give you an idea of how a religious Jew might perceive your statement about Judaism accepting later "revelations" as authoritative. God gave Christians the Book of Mormon so they would know how Jews feel. I think it can be expanded to say "God gave Islam the Book of Mormon..." to the same effect. If you say god's hands are not tied, then anyone's claim of later revelation is as valid. But that's a discussion for another day.



Did you throw this point as a bait for a Bahá'í to step in? Well it worked, since your point is very valid indeed. Bahá'u'lláh speaks equally sternly about both the Muslim divines and the Jewish learned as regards their claim that God's revelation through their prophet is final. Here's one such verse of rebuke addressing Muslim divines who falsely scorn Jews for their belief in the finality of revelation with Moses:


"Observe how in this day also, all these people have occupied themselves with such foolish absurdities. For over a thousand years they have been . . . pronouncing their censure against the Jews, utterly unaware that they themselves, openly and privily, are voicing the sentiments and belief of the Jewish people! Thou art surely aware of their idle contention, that all Revelation is ended, that the portals of Divine mercy are closed, that from the day-springs of eternal holiness no sun shall rise again, that the Ocean of everlasting bounty is forever stilled, and that out of the Tabernacle of ancient glory the Messengers of God have ceased to be made manifest. Such is the measure of the understanding of these small-minded, contemptible people. These people have imagined that the flow of God’s all-encompassing grace and plenteous mercies, the cessation of which no mind can contemplate, has been halted." (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Iqán, p. 137)


Obviously both the Jews and the majority of Muslims have found verses in their respective holy books which unambiguously (for them) set forth how God's revelation has been finalized in their books.


In our (Bahá'í) view, to even suggest that God's revelation to man can be exhausted in a single book or a finite series of books borders blasphemy (no penalties prescribed though, ;) ). This is a very interesting discussion indeed.


"Whenever this robe hath fulfilled its purpose, the Almighty will assuredly renew it. For every age requireth a fresh measure of the light of God. Every Divine Revelation hath been sent down in a manner that befitted the circumstances of the age in which it hath appeared." (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pg. 81)


"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements." (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh)


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

Flag visio April 27, 2012 10:56 AM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:19AM, ffb wrote:


"Another "problem" that I noticed is that the Koran only makes reference to "the Torah" and "the Pslams.  It claims that only the emendations-changes that were made was to "the Torah".   



It is my understanding that "the Torah" refers to the first five books of the Tankah-Hebrew Bible.   "


 


I cannot speak to the intent of the Koran -- it is using a word to encompass an idea.



The intent of the Al-Quran, the Taurat, mentioned in it, is all the revelation God/ALLAHswt gave to Musasaw (Moses) in a spiritual vision.  Some of it Musasaw (Moses) could have them transmitted, some could not and left it within himself, dependent upon his capability to interpret using what dictionary was available during his time and of course, his memory power to recall what he witnessed for each vision.      


The word Torah can refer to the 5 books, the entire written text (5 books, prophets, writings -- the Tanach) or the entire of the written and oral torahs taken as a whole. Since there are 3 different uses (at least), there is room for variant understandings.



Can you clarify your statement again?   Are you saying, as it is, all the revelation narrated by Musasaw (Moses) are, to-day, absorbed and diluted into, what you refer to as the Tanach where in Moses's narratives were subjected to a reconciliation process with narratives of other prophets?  What is the difference between oral and written Torah?


And just a little question - Is Genesis 2 : 7 a narative of Musasaw (Moses)? 


Flag ffb April 27, 2012 4:51 PM EDT

LilWabbit -- it wasn't my intent to bait anyone to join in, not that I mind the ocmpany. I was just trying to point out a particular idea which could then be applied by others to understand the Jewish point of view.

Flag ffb April 27, 2012 4:59 PM EDT

"The intent of the Al-Quran, the Taurat, mentioned in it, is all the revelation God/ALLAHswt gave to Musasaw (Moses) in a spiritual vision."


that would then be just the five books, or parts thereof, depending on your particular faith position.


"Are you saying, as it is, all the revelation narrated by Musasaw (Moses) are, to-day, absorbed and diluted into, what you refer to as the Tanach where in Moses's narratives were subjected to a reconciliation process with narratives of other prophets?  What is the difference between oral and written Torah?"


Nope -- I'm saying that there was a written text transmitted to Moses from god, which Mo wrote down word for word. After his death (beginning with the book of Joshua) there were narratives and experiences which were written down by a variety of prophets and leaders which added canonical information and provided insight into the historical development and religious experiences of the people, plus prophecies about the continued experiences. These later writings (the prophets and writings) are not about any reconcilliation process but they contribute to a fuller understanding of the 5 books of Moses.


The oral torah is predicated on the faith based statement that at Sinai, a separate set of laws was handed to Moses which he tansmitted orally to Joshua and it continued to be told down the line. Additional explication to it was added and the entire body is considered the oral law.


Gen 2:7 is part of the 5 books, and thus part of what Moses transcribed from god's mouth.

Flag visio April 27, 2012 7:30 PM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:59PM, ffb wrote:


"The intent of the Al-Quran, the Taurat, mentioned in it, is all the revelation God/ALLAHswt gave to Musasaw (Moses) in a spiritual vision."


that would then be just the five books, or parts thereof, depending on your particular faith position.


"Are you saying, as it is, all the revelation narrated by Musasaw (Moses) are, to-day, absorbed and diluted into, what you refer to as the Tanach where in Moses's narratives were subjected to a reconciliation process with narratives of other prophets?  What is the difference between oral and written Torah?"


Nope -- I'm saying that there was a written text transmitted to Moses from god, which Mo wrote down word for word.



Thank you.   I am not that familiar with the Hebrew way of expressing things.  Let me try again.  Are you saying there was a God written text given to Moses or are you saying there were words or string of words transmitted to Moses which he wrote down?.  If it was the latter, in whose presence were they written?  On the spot or at a time much later.


The reason why I am asking is that, thru my life experience getting acquaintance with mystics of a high order, none would ever write on the spot, as the words or the vision flows in. 


After his death (beginning with the book of Joshua) there were narratives and experiences which were written down by a variety of prophets and leaders which added canonical information and provided insight into the historical development and religious experiences of the people, plus prophecies about the continued experiences. These later writings (the prophets and writings) are not about any reconcilliation process but they contribute to a fuller understanding of the 5 books of Moses.



So for the last 2000+ years was there anyone else who came around to add to those written in what, if I may call it, a Master Scripture where in every thing, historical  and theological are canonised so as to be kept evergreen, open in continuity until such time as full understanding arrives.   What do you mean by canonised?  Is it a process to validate/vet out any particular interpretation?   


The oral torah is predicated on the faith based statement that at Sinai, a separate set of laws was handed to Moses......



Do you mean to say that the oral torah is specific to a set of Laws transmitted orally at Sinai? or this specific set of oral torah was part of a greater Oral Laws?     


 

which he tansmitted orally to Joshua and it continued to be told down the line. Additional explication to it was added and the entire body is considered the oral law.



By whom? 


Gen 2:7 is part of the 5 books, and thus part of what Moses transcribed from god's mouth.



What do you mean god's mouth?  Any idea/information from the elderlies what god looked like in the words of Moses?


I am sorry if you find my questioning is a barrister/solicitor-like.  Just to get away from semantic subjectivity and try to get some objectivity.  I am still bewildered at the phraseology in Genesis 2 : 7.  It challenges my understanding of the level of intellect that Moses had after all the revelation, both in words spoken (by whom-really?) and vision (spiritual).  

Flag Ibn April 27, 2012 8:32 PM EDT

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:15AM, ffb wrote:


Thank you for this -- it does clarify the points very well. Any response I have would be in the realm of overall faith and theology and would stary far afield of the intended thread.


We are here discussing ideas and trying to make sense of how we see things differently in our respective religions. As long as the discussion is respectful, there is room on this board to include overall faith and theology.  


Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:15AM, ffb wrote:

I will leave you with one thought to give you an idea of how a religious Jew might perceive your statement about Judaism accepting later "revelations" as authoritative. God gave Christians the Book of Mormon so they would know how Jews feel. I think it can be expanded to say "God gave Islam the Book of Mormon..." to the same effect. If you say god's hands are not tied, then anyone's claim of later revelation is as valid. But that's a discussion for another day. Thank you for walking me through these ideas.



I have no idea when the Book of Mormon was written but what I have been told by a Mormon is that Joseph Smith only found the tablets that were given to an earlier prophet who had even been to Arabia before Muhammad (pbuh). Therefore, the example of Baha'u'llah's writings may be appropriate in case of Muslims but not the Book of Mormons.


The main point is not whether one accepts a later revelation or not but whether one can understand the difference (if any) in the later revelation and why. If one does not accept the later revelation at all (even before reading about it) regardless of what is in it then even reading about it is pointless. Muslims will not reject the revelation of Taurat because it is the foundation of monotheism in some considerable details. Both the Christianity and Islam (the names as known today) build on revelation through Moses. For example, there is nothing about circumcision of male babies in the Qur'an but all Male Muslim babies are cirumcised the same way as the Jewish babies. It hasn't been prohibited in the Gospels or in the Qur'an and, therefore, it carries on since Abraham was commanded to do so. 


I believe it is better to see our common ground rather than miss the forest by looking for a tree.


Whatever the case, I thank you for the discussion and for your point of view. Thanks.


Peace


Ibn

Flag ffb April 29, 2012 11:57 AM EDT

"Are you saying there was a God written text given to Moses or are you saying there were words or string of words transmitted to Moses which he wrote down?.  If it was the latter, in whose presence were they written?  On the spot or at a time much later."


This is a difficult concept to summarize because according to Jewish tradition, the Torah predates the creation of the world so there is a concept of a god-created "text". But there is also extensive talmudic discussion about the actual revelation and transcription involving Mo. Check this site for a summary of opinions


www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Ori...


"So for the last 2000+ years was there anyone else who came around to add to those written in what, if I may call it, a Master Scripture where in every thing, historical  and theological are canonised so as to be kept evergreen, open in continuity until such time as full understanding arrives.   What do you mean by canonised?  Is it a process to validate/vet out any particular interpretation?


Over the last 2000 years there has been much written, starting from the writing down of the oral law and all the material used to explain it. This process, which is still going on, helps establish understanding and application of law and insight. This site gives a minimalist review of the oral law. I don't think it is great but it touches on a few main points.


www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics...


"Do you mean to say that the oral torah is specific to a set of Laws transmitted orally at Sinai? or this specific set of oral torah was part of a greater Oral Laws?   "


the oral law was a set of statements and laws taught to Moses on Sinai, which were transmitted through oral teaching and were not written down until significantly later in Jewish history, due to the fear that they would be lost.


www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Jud...


The Mishna, the codified teachings of oral law by the sages through the generations was witten down and the continued study and explanation of the mishna was written down as the gemara. It has been continuously studied and explicated.


"


What do you mean god's mouth?  Any idea/information from the elderlies what god looked like in the words of Moses?



I am sorry if you find my questioning is a barrister/solicitor-like.  Just to get away from semantic subjectivity and try to get some objectivity.  I am still bewildered at the phraseology in Genesis 2 : 7.  It challenges my understanding of the level of intellect that Moses had after all the revelation, both in words spoken (by whom-really?) and vision (spiritual). "


I'm not sure of your point. This verse was part of the whole, all given by god to moses. Your being bewildered is perfectly reasonable -- i'm just wondering why it is limited to this verse. There are MANY strange constructions and statements. But I don't concern myself with Moses' "level of intellect" in these cases. He was transctribing, not innovating.



l



Flag visio April 29, 2012 9:17 PM EDT

Apr 29, 2012 -- 11:57AM, ffb wrote:


"Are you saying there was a God written text given to Moses or are you saying there were words or string of words transmitted to Moses which he wrote down?.  If it was the latter, in whose presence were they written?  On the spot or at a time much later."


This is a difficult concept to summarize because according to Jewish tradition, the Torah predates the creation of the world so there is a concept of a god-created "text". But there is also extensive talmudic discussion about the actual revelation and transcription involving Mo. Check this site for a summary of opinions


www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Bible/Ori...




I am not asking for concept and whatever tradition is Jewish or not.   Just a simple question as written.  I have no propblem in recognising what is called as the Mother of Book before any single creation of this phenomenal Universe and Man, Jinn and Angel.  My question is specific to that particular book referred to as the Taurat in the Al-Quran, that was revealed to Musasaw (Moses).  Unless, of course, what you really mean in your sentences is that, your Torah is not 100% pure Mosaic and that contained in it are revelations made by earlier bani-Israel prophets, authored and packaged to formulate a sense of direction for a select/elect group among the bani-Israel tribes.  I am afraid to say that so far I find your response rather "evasive" or personally "non-commital".   May be you are in no position to clarify it personally, or have no idea.


"So for the last 2000+ years was there anyone else who came around to add to those written in what, if I may call it, a Master Scripture where in every thing, historical  and theological are canonised so as to be kept evergreen, open in continuity until such time as full understanding arrives.   What do you mean by canonised?  Is it a process to validate/vet out any particular interpretation?


Over the last 2000 years there has been much written, starting from the writing down of the oral law and all the material used to explain it. This process, which is still going on, helps establish understanding and application of law and insight. This site gives a minimalist review of the oral law. I don't think it is great but it touches on a few main points.


www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics..





What you are saying is that Judaism, as it is to-day, after all these past thoudsand years, still unresolved as in which direction it is going to go.   Can I conclude that?  And thanks for the link.  I am just too old to go thru all those.   What I was hoping is that someone knowledgable enough to present his/her summarised opinions.   I won't go to DJ board because from a few probing experience I have made, the feeling in there is just like living in a highly fortified forts.


"Do you mean to say that the oral torah is specific to a set of Laws transmitted orally at Sinai? or this specific set of oral torah was part of a greater Oral Laws?   "


the oral law was a set of statements and laws taught to Moses on Sinai, which were transmitted through oral teaching and were not written down until significantly later in Jewish history, due to the fear that they would be lost.


www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Jud...


The Mishna, the codified teachings of oral law by the sages through the generations was witten down and the continued study and explanation of the mishna was written down as the gemara. It has been continuously studied and explicated.



My original question was simple as stated.   I was not asking for your interpretation of the Genesis of 2 : 7.  Just not yet.   We haven't come to the core explanation of the verse be it exoteric or esoteric.


What do you mean god's mouth?  Any idea/information from the elderlies what god looked like in the words of Moses?


I am sorry if you find my questioning is a barrister/solicitor-like.  Just to get away from semantic subjectivity and try to get some objectivity.  I am still bewildered at the phraseology in Genesis 2 : 7.  It challenges my understanding of the level of intellect that Moses had after all the revelation, both in words spoken (by whom-really?) and vision (spiritual). "


I'm not sure of your point. This verse was part of the whole, all given by god to moses. Your being bewildered is perfectly reasonable -- i'm just wondering why it is limited to this verse. There are MANY strange constructions and statements. But I don't concern myself with Moses' "level of intellect" in these cases. He was transctribing, not innovating.




My point is this.  I would like to know what process or how Moses experienced the process of his meeting with his God - before and after receiving revelations.   Who was he talking to?   Th ereason I am asking is that there is a hadith by Prophet Muhammadsaw reciting a dispute between the said Adam and Moses (in the supernatural realm) and Adam was rebuking Moses for saying that he received revelation directly (that means also talked to) by God).   In the Al-Quran it is clearly stated that God/ALLAHswt always reveal things behind a veil.   In the case of Muhammadsaw it was Gabriel.  And I am pretty sure there must be some account/description in your, perhaps, so-called writings of oral traditions/history.  I was hoping my question would lead to such a description, if any.  FYI,  There are aberration among some Muslims who misunderstood the hadith and they come out glorifying Musasaw (Moses) as one who have talked directly to God/ALLAHswt, which contradicts the Al-Quran.

Flag ffb April 30, 2012 9:02 AM EDT

Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:17PM, visio wrote:


I am not asking for concept and whatever tradition is Jewish or not.   Just a simple question as written.  I have no propblem in recognising what is called as the Mother of Book before any single creation of this phenomenal Universe and Man, Jinn and Angel.  My question is specific to that particular book referred to as the Taurat in the Al-Quran, that was revealed to Musasaw (Moses).  Unless, of course, what you really mean in your sentences is that, your Torah is not 100% pure Mosaic and that contained in it are revelations made by earlier bani-Israel prophets, authored and packaged to formulate a sense of direction for a select/elect group among the bani-Israel tribes.  I am afraid to say that so far I find your response rather "evasive" or personally "non-commital".   May be you are in no position to clarify it personally, or have no idea.



You are asking for Jewish tradition because you are asking someone to give a faith based understanding of an event. If I asked you about the revelation to Mohemmed, you would tell of the Islamic understanding that it was through Gabriel. The book was given by god to Moses. I was not up there on the mountain, and there are different understandings of exactly what happened up there, as the site I linked to reflects. Judaism accepts that there are things that we take on faith and that we try to understand but which are beyond us. The conclusion you draw about something being "not 100% pure Mosaic" means that you haven't been reading. None of it is "Mosaic" in a creative sense as it is 100 percent godly as given TO Moses. You find my response evasive because it does not give you the answer which you want to see or which you can use to explain your view of things. Judaism's view of the torah revelation is simultaneoulsy simple and extremely complex.


Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:17PM, visio wrote:


What you are saying is that Judaism, as it is to-day, after all these past thoudsand years, still unresolved as in which direction it is going to go.   Can I conclude that?  And thanks for the link.  I am just too old to go thru all those.   What I was hoping is that someone knowledgable enough to present his/her summarised opinions.   I won't go to DJ board because from a few probing experience I have made, the feeling in there is just like living in a highly fortified forts.



No, that is what you are inferring. Judaism is resolved about its direction and yet constantly in flux. It is a traditional religion which is dynamic and changing. Judaism is based on historical texts and traditions but is constantly and reflectively evaluating itself. There is no single summarizable opinion because Judaism is exhaustive and complex. If you do not wish to read through links which give a more complete explanation than I can provide here then be aware that the conclusions you draw will often be incorrect.


“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.” (HL Mencken)



Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:17PM, visio wrote:


My original question was simple as stated.   I was not asking for your interpretation of the Genesis of 2 : 7.  Just not yet.   We haven't come to the core explanation of the verse be it exoteric or esoteric.



and my answer stays the same. God spoke it to Moses who transcribed it. I don't see why that is so difficult.


Apr 29, 2012 -- 9:17PM, visio wrote:


My point is this.  I would like to know what process or how Moses experienced the process of his meeting with his God - before and after receiving revelations.   Who was he talking to?   Th ereason I am asking is that there is a hadith by Prophet Muhammadsaw reciting a dispute between the said Adam and Moses (in the supernatural realm) and Adam was rebuking Moses for saying that he received revelation directly (that means also talked to) by God).   In the Al-Quran it is clearly stated that God/ALLAHswt always reveal things behind a veil.   In the case of Muhammadsaw it was Gabriel.  And I am pretty sure there must be some account/description in your, perhaps, so-called writings of oral traditions/history.  I was hoping my question would lead to such a description, if any.  FYI,  There are aberration among some Muslims who misunderstood the hadith and they come out glorifying Musasaw (Moses) as one who have talked directly to God/ALLAHswt, which contradicts the Al-Quran.



Moses spoke to God and god spoke to Moses. Simple as that. Not through Gabriel, or Michael or anyone else. While god's appearance might not have been clear (a burning bush, a voice from within a cloud of smoke) there was no angel in between. Ex 33:11 is pretty clear about that. The zoharic metaphor is that Moses spoke to god as through a translucent mirror while the forefathers spoke as through a cloudy pane of glass. That is a difficult image to grasp but either way, he spoke to god on a level and in a directness that was unique to his position.



 

Flag visio May 2, 2012 10:01 AM EDT

Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:02AM, ffb wrote:


You are asking for Jewish tradition because you are asking someone to give a faith based understanding of an event. If I asked you about the revelation to Mohemmed, you would tell of the Islamic understanding that it was through Gabriel.



First, thanks and sorry for my belated response.


Well that's is just one opening information that we all know.   What behind the name Gabriel and how it appeared before Muhammadsaw and whether Gabriel was a touchable body of flesh are another sets of question one may want to enquire, as part of the process to know, or have an idea of, that one God/ALLAHswt.   In the Islamic/Quranic context,  Gabriel is considered as the veil of God/ALLAHswt.  That is to say and reaffirm that God/ALLAHswt did not speak directly to Muhammadsaw.   There is, however one interesting verse in the Al-Quran, which implies that God/ALLAHswt spoke directly to Musasaw (Moses) :


An-Nisa 4 : 164   And Messenger We have mentioned to you before, and Messengers we have not mentioned to you, ------- and to Musa ALLAH spoke directly.


There, is therefore appear an apparent contradiction  or an interpretation error of the phraseology, that needs an explanation, on my part.  This would require some information that provides some detail on Moses account of his momentous experience talking direct to God.  Perhaps this vital information is written somewhere in your scriptures.


I am very curious who, in your scriptures, Moses was talking to - YHWH?  Hashem, Elohim ..... As far as I know from a highly accomplished direct experiencer, such statement as "I am, that I am",  "I was here, before everything existed"  and the likes of these, could only come from what is known in the Al-Quran as Gabriel.   The veil of that One God/ALLAHswt.  From my perspective that if it was YHWH that Moses was talking to, then, he wasn't talking to the One God/ALLAHswt of the Al-Quran.  I would thus consider YHWH as just another name from some tribes of bani-Israel for Quranic Gabriel, a guardian angel.   If by the word God is meant to be a personal God, taking YHWH as one's personal God is still an error because a personal God, if my understanding from Hinduism is correct, is that "Full Angel" when the light of the enlightened soul and the light of the guardian angel reunites as one single light of a divine nature.   What Islam/Al-Quran is saying all these Gods ≠ One God/ALLAHswt.  And I wonder what the Torah says about this.






The book was given by god to Moses.



If God spoke directly to Moses, in what forms?  Written on stones?  Papyrus? Date leaves and trunks?   That is magic to me, as Moses turned his stick to snakes.



I was not up there on the mountain, and there are different understandings of exactly what happened up there, as the site I linked to reflects. Judaism accepts that there are things that we take on faith and that we try to understand but which are beyond us.



No, I don't expect you to be there either an dnor does your present rabbiis or Priest of the Most High.   But, as I was told, Jews/Judaism had it all recorded in their Ancestral Holy Book since the days of Adam, like a diary, passed over from generation to generation till to-day and updated, and considering how meticulous were their writers, I am sure there are lots of details to be found in that everliving Ancestral Holy Book. 


The conclusion you draw about something being "not 100% pure Mosaic" means that you haven't been reading. None of it is "Mosaic" in a creative sense as it is 100 percent godly as given TO Moses.



Saying godly doesn't mean Moses received every thing from God.   And reading certain part of Genesis, to be honest, I was put off.  The picture painted by the words as scribed is as though there was Adam as the first Man created on Earth.   To me that's magic.   And with the high regard that we Muslims have for Moses and understanding his dilemma, I don't think it was his handiworks in those writings.  Most likely Moses never narrated anything on creation, even though it was revealed to him and made to witness.  One good reason he was made a prophet and as a bani-Israel descended on earth and become a bani-Adam.


You find my response evasive because it does not give you the answer which you want to see or which you can use to explain your view of things. Judaism's view of the torah revelation is simultaneoulsy simple and extremely complex.



And after several thousand years, I don't think Judaism has any view at all in the revelations of their prophets.   And some of their prophets were even killed before they completed transmitting all that were revealed to them.  And to my reckoning, for every one single word revealed in a second, everyone would argue on it for a hundred years.  However, that's what my sense feeling is telling me .   I may be wrong.



No, that is what you are inferring. Judaism is resolved about its direction and yet constantly in flux. It is a traditional religion which is dynamic and changing. Judaism is based on historical texts and traditions but is constantly and reflectively evaluating itself. There is no single summarizable opinion because Judaism is exhaustive and complex. If you do not wish to read through links which give a more complete explanation than I can provide here then be aware that the conclusions you draw will often be incorrect.



It sad to say that bani-Israel (Children of Israel) hasn't really quite settled down as bani--Adam (Children of Adam) here, on earth.




“Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.” (HL Mencken)



That's because, in the matter of theology and even science, there'll come a point when reason would collapse.  The spirit and mind matter have to surrender and be dead.  What would then come out would be crystal clear - as they say. (visio)


and my answer stays the same. God spoke it to Moses who transcribed it. I don't see why that is so difficult.



What is the name of the God that spoke to Moses?  What exactly you mean by "transcribed"?


If Moses were to witness the whole metamorphosis of a butterfly in a few seconds, how long do you think it would take him to write all that he witnessed? It must be magic, don't you think?


Moses spoke to God and god spoke to Moses. Simple as that. Not through Gabriel, or Michael or anyone else. While god's appearance might not have been clear (a burning bush, a voice from within a cloud of smoke) there was no angel in between. Ex 33:11 is pretty clear about that. The zoharic metaphor is that Moses spoke to god as through a translucent mirror while the forefathers spoke as through a cloudy pane of glass. That is a difficult image to grasp but either way, he spoke to god on a level and in a directness that was unique to his position.



And thank you very much for these information.   That's what I was exactly looking for.  There were nothing as extraordinarily complex as what I had initially thought.  Those description, or metaphors as you say it, could easily be found in Hinduism and Buddhism text.   My sense feeling is that to Moses was not revealed the creation of the Universe and the creation of himself.  The explanation of this simple preliminary conclusion of mine is rather complex and complicated.   It has everything to do with the ancient history of what is referred to in the Al-Quran as bani-Israel (Children of Israel) and bani-Adam (Children of Adam).  Apart from that I am trying to understand why to certain section of bani-Israel they hate Gabriel, a word/name  first mentioned by Daniel during the Babylonian era.   Prophet Muhammadsaw has this mentioned in one of his hadith.


Finally, thank you for your time.   Sorry to having asked you too many questions.
 




Flag ffb May 3, 2012 9:07 AM EDT

"Moses was talking to - YHWH?  Hashem, Elohim ..... As far as I know from a highly accomplished direct experiencer, such statement as "I am, that I am",  "I was here, before everything existed"  and the likes of these, could only come from what is known in the Al-Quran as Gabriel. "


Moses was talking to god. The three labels you list are for the same entity. In Judaism, god has many labels, each pointing to a particular facet of character. So you ask to whom Mo was talking and the answer is clear -- god, but whatever label you choose to employ. Strictly speaking, "hashem" is not a label for a facet of god, but a way that we avoid saying another of the labels. That god is "known" as Gabriel doesn;t make muchsense to me as Gabriel is a name we use for a distinct angelic figure.


"If God spoke directly to Moses, in what forms?  Written on stones?  Papyrus? Date leaves and trunks?   That is magic to me, as Moses turned his stick to snakes."


He spoke in words. Moses wrote on the equivalent of vellum. There is no magic. There are miracles.


"Saying godly doesn't mean Moses received every thing from God.   And reading certain part of Genesis, to be honest, I was put off.  The picture painted by the words as scribed is as though there was Adam as the first Man created on Earth.   To me that's magic."..."And after several thousand years, I don't think Judaism has any view at all in the revelations of their prophets. "


It does mean that to me, and to me it is an important aspect of faith in the veracity and authority of the text, including that of the prophets."


"What is the name of the God that spoke to Moses?  What exactly you mean by "transcribed"?


Again, we don't ascribe a singular personal name to god. We have labels to aspects so asking the particular name makes no sense in Judaism. By transcribed I mean god dictated and Mo wrote. Once I can wrap my brain around that, why would I have trouble assuming Mo wrote more quickly than I could? Why be selective in my belief in the miraculous. People ask "how can you believe that all the animals fit on Noah's ark?" I say "once I accept he had a conversation with god, why do I then suspend that belief because of size limitations?"

Flag visio May 3, 2012 2:25 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 9:07AM, ffb wrote:


"Moses was talking to - YHWH?  Hashem, Elohim ..... As far as I know from a highly accomplished direct experiencer, such statement as "I am, that I am",  "I was here, before everything existed"  and the likes of these, could only come from what is known in the Al-Quran as Gabriel. "


Moses was talking to god. The three labels you list are for the same entity. In Judaism, god has many labels, each pointing to a particular facet of character. So you ask to whom Mo was talking and the answer is clear -- god, but whatever label you choose to employ. Strictly speaking, "hashem" is not a label for a facet of god, but a way that we avoid saying another of the labels. That god is "known" as Gabriel doesn;t make muchsense to me as Gabriel is a name we use for a distinct angelic figure.



I am familiar with this kind of thoughtline.  We see it in certain school of Hinduism where in what you described above are specific names given to a God of specific, individuated attributes such as God of War, God of Wisdom, God of Wealth, God of Love ... and thousands of those.   These are what are referred to Gods that mankind had them named.   And That One God/ALLAHswt of the Al-Quran has made it an issue with all the angels that it is those individuated God they named that they finally worshipped.  Many of those individual pick anyone of those Names/labels/Attributes to worship/pray to and taken as their personal God.   In reality, those Gods are non existent.  I am not to sure by your non-clear, restricted-like or calculatively cautious  description, in Judaism, you do the same.  One may argue that in Islam there are 99 names/attributes of ALLAHswt.  However one of those i.e. ALLAHswt is a coded name that serves to indicate THAT ONE (undescribable, knowable) DIVINE - the absolute source of all that exists, is the focus of worship, prayer, supplication in Islam.  The rest of the 98 Names are just words of praise which THAT ONE DIVINE itself had revealed them in the al-Quran as IT's attributes.  For simplicity sake, Gabriel is not "god".  Generally Muslims would say Gabriel is a "veil" of ALLAHswt.  The reality is Gabriel also is not the "veil" of ALLAHswt.   The veil of ALLAHswt. as in the case of Muhammadsaw. whenever he was in the Presence of ALLAHswt, was (Perfectly purified soul of Muhammad + Gabriel) as a SINGLE PERSON or a SINGLE LIGHT OF ASCENT.  So, if you are assuming that Islam/Al-Quran/Muslims regards Gabriel as a god, then you are mistaken/misunderstood.  Gabriel in it's truest sense of the Al-Quran is only a companion guardian angel which is hooked up to every single on eof us.   The SINGLE LIGHT OF ASCENT is true and proper angel of the Al-Quran as that, in Prophet Muhammadsaw's Ascension (Mi'raj) account, changing batches of 70,000, constantly crossing the other side of your Moses Big Mirror.  


And so, what distinction of angelic figure are you talking of Gabriel, if you don't mind describing.   


 

"If God spoke directly to Moses, in what forms?  Written on stones?  Papyrus? Date leaves and trunks?   That is magic to me, as Moses turned his stick to snakes."


He spoke in words. Moses wrote on the equivalent of vellum. There is no magic. There are miracles.



I see.   So YHWH spoke in words.   Moses wrote those words down, at such a fantastic speed, and that was a miracle.  That is as good as saying YHWH who was doing the miracle.


And I am wondering, why didn't YHWH simply make one wholebook of Torah to descend from the sky and catch it with his two hands from the sky? That would save a lot of Moses's energy.


And by the time Moses finished scribing, YHWH was gone and Moses struggled to explain what he wrote down.  He forgot so many things that they have to be re-authored.        


"Saying godly doesn't mean Moses received every thing from God.   And reading certain part of Genesis, to be honest, I was put off.  The picture painted by the words as scribed is as though there was Adam as the first Man created on Earth.   To me that's magic."..."And after several thousand years, I don't think Judaism has any view at all in the revelations of their prophets. "


It does mean that to me, and to me it is an important aspect of faith in the veracity and authority of the text, including that of the prophets."



And you are not interested in the originator of the text be they God, Angel, Jinn or Man? 


"What is the name of the God that spoke to Moses?  What exactly you mean by "transcribed"?


Again, we don't ascribe a singular personal name to god. We have labels to aspects so asking the particular name makes no sense in Judaism.



Yes,  what makes sense to Judaism is, at the blink of an eye, there you have one whole book of the Torah and .......Genesis. Scribed by Moses himself.  


 


By transcribed I mean god dictated and Mo wrote.



And more write at a miraculous speed.  So much so, that even god forgot to get hi /her name dictated and scribed.   Was god honest or Moses dishonest? 


Once I can wrap my brain around that, why would I have trouble assuming Mo wrote more quickly than I could? Why be selective in my belief in the miraculous. People ask "how can you believe that all the animals fit on Noah's ark?" I say "once I accept he had a conversation with god, why do I then suspend that belief because of size limitations?"



Please don't overload in order to response to my silly silly, way out questions. I did that, even to my late spiritual mentor who inspite of having (spiritually) witnessed many things what prophets, saints and sages couldn't even penned down what he had witnessed.   There was one little poem which took him over a couple of weeks to recollect and finally dictated it for me to write up.  And I am sorry, your story of Mo writng down his Torah doesn't buy me.


What makes you think that the Noah's story isn't talking about the spirits of those animals? And now I am saying it to you - there are eight pairs of cattle in you.  What sense have you in the statement?  Yet, it is in the Al-Quran.   May be not in your scriptures.  


  

Flag ffb May 3, 2012 3:01 PM EDT

"I am not to sure by your non-clear, restricted-like or calculatively cautious  description, in Judaism, you do the same"


In Judaism we recognize that the labels are all ways of referring to the one and we worship the one even if our language specifies one part or another. The idea that god is at all fractured or split into parts which can then be isolated and made the object of prayer is counter to judaism.


"Moses wrote those words down, at such a fantastic speed, and that was a miracle.  That is as good as saying YHWH who was doing the miracle."


God was. Who said otherwise?


"And I am wondering, why didn't YHWH simply make one wholebook of Torah to descend from the sky and catch it with his two hands from the sky? That would save a lot of Moses's energy."


the process of writing down is an important part of establishing the text, especially one that was designed to be transmitted through writing.


"And by the time Moses finished scribing, YHWH was gone and Moses struggled to explain what he wrote down.  He forgot so many things that they have to be re-authored. "


I'm not sure where you get this. While there are rabbinic ideas that Mo did forget certain elements of the oral law, we have no tradition that he forgot or had to struggle to explain the written text. So I don;t know why you would introduce this as some sort of aspect of what I wrote.


"And you are not interested in the originator of the text be they God, Angel, Jinn or Man?"


Who said I wasn't. Since I have faith that the originator is god, I don't see what you are asking.


"at the blink of an eye, there you have one whole book of the Torah and .......Genesis. Scribed by Moses himself"


well, it isn't as simple as you want to make it, but if that helps you, then, yes.


"So much so, that even god forgot to get hi /her name dictated and scribed.   Was god honest or Moses dishonest?"


Again, why are you inserting things that no one has mentioned? Who said anything about forgeting anything about a name? Why invent ideas and then assume they are fact and present them as a problem?


"What makes you think that the Noah's story isn't talking about the spirits of those animals? And now I am saying it to you - there are eight pairs of cattle in you.  What sense have you in the statement?  Yet, it is in the Al-Quran.   May be not in your scriptures.  "


Noah's story says it is talking about animals. What it says in the koran doesn't matter to me, sorry if I don't buy the spiritual retelling. Your statement of "8 pairs in me" means nothing. It might lend itself to a very nice exposition about the nature of mankind but that doesn't really affect me or my uunderstanding of the story of Noah.

Flag browbeaten May 3, 2012 3:15 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 3:01PM, ffb wrote:


"I am not to sure by your non-clear, restricted-like or calculatively cautious  description, in Judaism, you do the same"


In Judaism we recognize that the labels are all ways of referring to the one and we worship the one even if our language specifies one part or another. The idea that god is at all fractured or split into parts which can then be isolated and made the object of prayer is counter to judaism.


"Moses wrote those words down, at such a fantastic speed, and that was a miracle.  That is as good as saying YHWH who was doing the miracle."


God was. Who said otherwise?


"And I am wondering, why didn't YHWH simply make one wholebook of Torah to descend from the sky and catch it with his two hands from the sky? That would save a lot of Moses's energy."


the process of writing down is an important part of establishing the text, especially one that was designed to be transmitted through writing.


"And by the time Moses finished scribing, YHWH was gone and Moses struggled to explain what he wrote down.  He forgot so many things that they have to be re-authored. "


I'm not sure where you get this. While there are rabbinic ideas that Mo did forget certain elements of the oral law, we have no tradition that he forgot or had to struggle to explain the written text. So I don;t know why you would introduce this as some sort of aspect of what I wrote.


"And you are not interested in the originator of the text be they God, Angel, Jinn or Man?"


Who said I wasn't. Since I have faith that the originator is god, I don't see what you are asking.


"at the blink of an eye, there you have one whole book of the Torah and .......Genesis. Scribed by Moses himself"


well, it isn't as simple as you want to make it, but if that helps you, then, yes.


"So much so, that even god forgot to get hi /her name dictated and scribed.   Was god honest or Moses dishonest?"


Again, why are you inserting things that no one has mentioned? Who said anything about forgeting anything about a name? Why invent ideas and then assume they are fact and present them as a problem?


"What makes you think that the Noah's story isn't talking about the spirits of those animals? And now I am saying it to you - there are eight pairs of cattle in you.  What sense have you in the statement?  Yet, it is in the Al-Quran.   May be not in your scriptures.  "


Noah's story says it is talking about animals. What it says in the koran doesn't matter to me, sorry if I don't buy the spiritual retelling. Your statement of "8 pairs in me" means nothing. It might lend itself to a very nice exposition about the nature of mankind but that doesn't really affect me or my uunderstanding of the story of Noah.




ffb, Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man.   And how the Qur'an has "corrected" these errors.  


Flag Miraj May 3, 2012 3:50 PM EDT

Despite the inherent differences in beliefs between a variety of faith contributors, this discussion has been respectful and congenial since the beginning.  It will continue that way.  Comments that don't contribute to the continuing productive and congenial nature of the discussion will be modified or removed.


Thank you for your cooperation.


miraj in mod mode

Flag Ibn May 3, 2012 5:09 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 3:15PM, browbeaten wrote:


ffb, Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man.   And how the Qur'an has "corrected" these errors. 


browbeaten,


What makes you think that Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man?

Flag browbeaten May 3, 2012 5:48 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Ibn wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 3:15PM, browbeaten wrote:


ffb, Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man.   And how the Qur'an has "corrected" these errors. 


browbeaten,


What makes you think that Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man?




[Putting the glass to his blind eye] "You know, Foley, I have only one eye - and I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really do not see the signal."


biography Life of Nelson



Flag visio May 3, 2012 7:47 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 3:15PM, browbeaten wrote:



 
ffb, Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man.   And how the Qur'an has "corrected" these errors.  




Yes, that's correct, browbeaten.  You can put it that way.   Whether that corruption were intentional or not, caused by or as a result of differing levels, depths and capacities  of understanding words in scriptural readings, are what the skunk type of works that ffb initially requested in his OP.  He was asking for a list.  And there was none.  Instead of asking back, do you have one, I asked a few detailed (spiritual/theological) questions, I have got the signal, now, that all of what is in the Torah are false.   Like, what I have experienced in one particular Injil (Gospel), the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarene (GoN), I wouldn't think so.  Personally, I found many of Jesus narratives are spiritually and theologically enlightening and complements quite well the deeper doctrines concealed in the Al-Quran.  But highligting them to Christians, well, what to say, they don't give a blind eye but three blank ones.


Anyway, I am glad that you could read well, between the lines.  What aberrations I am trying to unearth extends beyond the Torah.  They could be anyone of those scriptures of Hinduism & Buddhism & Lao Tse-ism.  

Flag visio May 3, 2012 11:04 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 3:01PM, ffb wrote:


"I am not to sure by your non-clear, restricted-like or calculatively cautious  description, in Judaism, you do the same"


In Judaism we recognize that the labels are all ways of referring to the one and we worship the one even if our language specifies one part or another. The idea that god is at all fractured or split into parts which can then be isolated and made the object of prayer is counter to judaism.



No problemo.  I understand that.


"Moses wrote those words down, at such a fantastic speed, and that was a miracle.  That is as good as saying YHWH who was doing the miracle."


God was. Who said otherwise?



See my response in comments given below.


"And I am wondering, why didn't YHWH simply make one wholebook of Torah to descend from the sky and catch it with his two hands from the sky? That would save a lot of Moses's energy."


the process of writing down is an important part of establishing the text, especially one that was designed to be transmitted through writing.




And God had given the task to Musa, as you said it.   Now, was he alone when he wrote it?




"And by the time Moses finished scribing, YHWH was gone and Moses struggled to explain what he wrote down.  He forgot so many things that they have to be re-authored. "


I'm not sure where you get this. While there are rabbinic ideas that Mo did forget certain elements of the oral law, we have no tradition that he forgot or had to struggle to explain the written text. So I don;t know why you would introduce this as some sort of aspect of what I wrote.



Intuition.


Are you saying that there were also rabbis present when God transcribed His/Her revelation to Mo?   Otherwise where do the rabbinic ideas that Mo did forget certain elements of the oral Law?   And yes, why oral law and not the revelations itself?  And sorry, I should have asked you first – what do you mean by elements of the oral law?  Is it something like a process and/or procedure set by your rabbinic system  whereby all revelations of the long line of bani-Israeli prophets have to comply before they were documented, approved and sealed?


"And you are not interested in the originator of the text be they God, Angel, Jinn or Man?"


Who said I wasn't. Since I have faith that the originator is god, I don't see what you are asking.




Is god a Hebrew word?  If not, what does it say/sound in Hebrew ?  If you don’t mind to do the transliteration.   I understand what you say as in Judaism God is also assigned by many labels in accordance to IT’s characters.   And my understanding is so is your guardian angel, my guardian angel, all the prophet’s guardian angels.  It so happened that Muhammadsaw referred to it as Gabriel, not Michael, not Israel, not Israfil etc. etc………  It appeared to me that too much of personification in Hebrew description of events and characters is quite confusing and not much of complication, thus your admission of complexication of the Torah or in your theology as a whole.  I couldn’t pick up any specific thing in the Torah, not yet.   But something related to the discussion please enlighten me, if you could, the following lines from Zabur (Psalms):  



16:1 Preserve me, God, for in you do I take refuge.



16:2 My soul, you have said to Yahweh, “You are my Lord.



        Apart from you I have no good thing.”



My straight question is what is that Anglo-Saxonian God says in Hebrew?   Is it Elah, Elohim,  El Shadai …………Rab(bii)




"at the blink of an eye, there you have one whole book of the Torah and .......Genesis. Scribed by Moses himself"


well, it isn't as simple as you want to make it, but if that helps you, then, yes.




It’s either you come out with an explanation or I can take it as you are not in a postion to describe your proclaimed complication, complexified.






"So much so, that even god forgot to get hi /her name dictated and scribed.   Was god honest or Moses dishonest?"


Again, why are you inserting things that no one has mentioned? Who said anything about forgeting anything about a name? Why invent ideas and then assume they are fact and present them as a problem?




In the event that the Torah itself does not indicate who was talking and dictating one complete works in the Torah, that, I suppose the best I can assume.  God had forgotten to indicate him/herself.  May be I am jumping at a pre-conclusion one byte too early.


"What makes you think that the Noah's story isn't talking about the spirits of those animals? And now I am saying it to you - there are eight pairs of cattle in you.  What sense have you in the statement?  Yet, it is in the Al-Quran.   May be not in your scriptures.  "


Noah's story says it is talking about animals. What it says in the koran doesn't matter to me, sorry if I don't buy the spiritual retelling. Your statement of "8 pairs in me" means nothing. It might lend itself to a very nice exposition about the nature of mankind but that doesn't really affect me or my uunderstanding of the story of Noah.




And so are the following verses in the Al-Quran.  It should be of no effect upon you:


Al-Baqarah 2 : 63 – 67   And (O bani-Israeli, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying):   Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein  so that you may become Al-Mutataqun (pious, righteous).   Then after you turned away.   Had it not for the Grace and Mercy of ALLAH upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers.   And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath.   We said to them:   “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”   So We made the punishment an example to their own and to succeeding generations and a lesson to those who are Al-Muttaqun (pious, righteous).   And (remember) when Musa said to his people:   “Verily, ALLAH commands you that you slaughter a cow.”   They said:   “Do you make fun of us?”   He (Musa) said : “I take ALLAH’s Refuge from being among the Al-Jahilun (the ignorant or the foolish).”


Now then, you may not understand about all these animal stuff until you really understand the following Commandments (Law) that Mo had it revealed as part of the covenant he received for a section of the bani-Israel tribes.


Do you want me to try and explain it from the perspective of Quranic Big Picture?


20 : 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;


20 : 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


Please bear it with me, ffb, if my questions are a bit to incisive.  It is just to expose anyone to another ste of thoughtlines.  I would do the same even to my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.   there are lots of things that I wrote on B'net they would find as revolting against their standard or ratehr levels of understanding.   And to and between you and them, it is not for me to make any judgements.   And I really appreciate your honest attempts to response to some of those questions and trying to read what's between the lines.  May be I have overexposed myself to mystics one too many.   I tend to read more of those between the lines. 




Flag Lilwabbit May 4, 2012 5:38 AM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Miraj wrote:


Despite the inherent differences in beliefs between a variety of faith contributors, this discussion has been respectful and congenial since the beginning.  It will continue that way.  Comments that don't contribute to the continuing productive and congenial nature of the discussion will be modified or removed.


Thank you for your cooperation.


miraj in mod mode




I am also delighted to see such a substantive and amicable debate. And I must thank Ibn for his viewpoints which are clearly well-grounded in the Qur'án.


You're a very important contributor to this board.


Wabbity regards from your North-East,


LilWabbit

Flag visio May 4, 2012 7:11 AM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 5:48PM, browbeaten wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Ibn wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 3:15PM, browbeaten wrote:


ffb, Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man.   And how the Qur'an has "corrected" these errors. 


browbeaten,


What makes you think that Visio is simply unearthing the Muslim perspective that the Torah is corrupt and was corrupted by man?




[Putting the glass to his blind eye] "You know, Foley, I have only one eye - and I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really do not see the signal."


biography Life of Nelson






Talking about a one eyed Jack, be careful of a warning in one of Pr. Muhammadsasaw's hadith about the Masih Ad-Dajjal whic he witnessed in a dream.   Perhaps one of those hadith that triggered the prophecy of Jesus return when Ad Dajjal appears.  I quote it below:


Narrated `Abdullah:


The Prophet mentioned the Masih Ad-Dajjal in front of the people saying, Allah is not one-eyed while Masih Ad-Dajjal is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a bulging out grape. While sleeping near the Ka`ba last night, I saw in my dream a man of brown color the best one can see amongst brown color and his hair was long that it fell between his shoulders. His hair was lank and water was dribbling from his head and he was placing his hands on the shoulders of two men while circumambulating the Ka`ba. I asked, 'Who is this?' They replied, 'This is Jesus, son of Mary.' Behind him I saw a man who had very curly hair and was blind in the right eye, resembling Ibn Qatan (i.e. an infidel) in appearance. He was placing his hands on the shoulders of a person while performing Tawaf around the Ka`ba. I asked, 'Who is this? 'They replied, 'The Masih, Ad-Dajjal.' "


English reference : Vol. 4, Book 55, Hadith 649


Arabic reference : Book 60, Hadith 3477


Note:   (Az-Zuhri said, "He (i.e. Ibn Qatan) was a man from the tribe Khuza`a who died in the pre-lslamic period.").   This hadith carries a signal of a reincarnation doctrine, hidden/coded in the Al-Quran.




Flag Abdullah. May 4, 2012 9:36 AM EDT

Hi ffb


my apologies for not being here earlier; the reason?:; well i can't let you be unprotected amongst the wolves, if you know what i mean! Laughing: just a jokey reference to my modernist friends on this board!


without further ado, i'll get down to business!


Torah is considered to be distorted for threee reasons i can think of, and they are, 1, Quran clarifies that all prophets were totally sinless and Torah says some of them committed henious sins if i'm not mistaken


2, there are many contradictions in the Torah; some of which can be found by google searches


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:


“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


and the exegesis for it;


...And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and, in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters, they have, mere conjectures, and no firm knowledge.


So woe, a severe chastisement, to those who write the Scripture with their hands, that is, fabricating it themselves, then say, 'This is from God' that they may sell it for a small price, of this world: these are the Jews, the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in the Torah, as well as the 'stoning' verse, and other details, and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed. So woe to them for what their hands have written, of fabrications, and woe to them for their earnings, by way of bribery (rishan, plural of rishwa).


www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&t...


 


Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:03AM, ffb wrote:


[5.68] Say: O followers of the Book! You follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people."


It is interesting but, just to put my thinking in context, the way that Torah verses are explicated, every single word and idea is parsed. The statement "observe the Torah and the Gospel, and all that has been bestowed from on high upon you " lends itself to two contradictory interpretations so I am trying to get a sense of the directive. Either it means that both groups must fully observe both texts, or each group should only observe its own text. That may not be the standard method of breaking down Koranic verses into much more precise levels of linguistic intent so my entire approach may not fit in. I understand that the idea is "understand your book/s and then look to the Koran to resolve some ideas" and that this will annoy some "believers" but I'm just trying to get a handle on the precise words.




as for the above, well this basically means that Jews and christians cannot be believers unless they follow their books, particularly the part that says to follow Muhammad [saw] once he makes his advent


the last part of that verse [and that which is revealed to you from your Lord] basically means, follow what has been revealed to Muhammad [saw]


here is a link that will explain it all for you


www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/amat.htm


any q's, dont hesitate to ask! Smile


salaam/shalom!

Flag Lilwabbit May 4, 2012 9:56 AM EDT

Salaam Abdullah,


May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:


“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


and the exegesis for it;


...And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and, in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters, they have, mere conjectures, and no firm knowledge.



Your exegesis has virtually nothing to do with the verse you cited. There's no mention of the Torah in the verse. If you think that's the obvious reference, please demonstrate using the Qur'án, not secondary sources or subjective opinion.


In fact, it refers to their "Book" which they should be literate about rather than illiterate, and separately mentions others who would write a book with their own hands. Two different books are meant -- one that should be followed and another one that is their own handiworkn. There are other verses where the Qur'án clearly suggests that the Jews should follow the Torah.


Case closed.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit


 

Flag ffb May 4, 2012 10:06 AM EDT

"Now, was he alone when he wrote it?"


yes.


"Are you saying that there were also rabbis present when God transcribed His/Her revelation to Mo?   Otherwise where do the rabbinic ideas that Mo did forget certain elements of the oral Law?   And yes, why oral law and not the revelations itself?  And sorry, I should have asked you first – what do you mean by elements of the oral law?  Is it something like a process and/or procedure set by your rabbinic system  whereby all revelations of the long line of bani-Israeli prophets have to comply before they were documented, approved and sealed? "


there were no rabbis present (or extant for that matter). But the oral law was also given to moses and was transmitted to joshua and down the line (check out mishna avot, 1:1 for the list of transmission). The oral law is a very large body of work and includes a varity of types of material from the mosaic era texts to the later explicative ones.  The procedure for deriving law from text or understanding text does follow certain rules (we say one set of rules in our daily prayer, see www.thelogician.net/3_judaic_logic/3_cha... for more details). the rules for what makes for an acceptable prophet were codified textually from Mo's time.


"Is god a Hebrew word?  If not, what does it say/sound in Hebrew ?  If you don’t mind to do the transliteration.  "


the word god comes from (IIRC) the old english or the german. Judaism has the idea that every combination of letters could be a name of god but there are certain ones (2 letters long, 4 letters long, 5 letters long, 12 letters long, 72 letters long etc) which are traditionally seen as the most common. We often use the word "hashem" which is simply the hebrew for "the name" since it, itself, is not a name but a marker to we avoid using god's name in an inappropriate context (ie, not during prayer).


"Elah, Elohim,  El Shadai …………Rab(bii)"


numbers 2 and three are often used (in part or in whole) to refer to god. The first one isn't and the last refers to a human teacher.


"It’s either you come out with an explanation or I can take it as you are not in a postion to describe your proclaimed complication, complexified"


I presented a website with much discussion and explanation but you said that you are too old to wade through it. That's your choice.


"In the event that the Torah itself does not indicate who was talking and dictating one complete works in the Torah, that, I suppose the best I can assume.  God had forgotten to indicate him/herself."


that is your conclusion. To a student of the torah, god indicates all of this and forgets nothing.

Flag ffb May 4, 2012 10:09 AM EDT

1, Quran clarifies that all prophets were totally sinless and Torah says some of them committed henious sins if i'm not mistaken


so that begins with a classification by the koran which is then retractively applied to the torah.


2, there are many contradictions in the Torah; some of which can be found by google searches


there are statements in the torah that if taken in vacuo, appear to contradict. good thing that was never the jewish method of understanding our own books.


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:



“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


so the koran says it is. ok, thank you.

Flag BDboy May 4, 2012 11:16 AM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 10:09AM, ffb wrote:


1, Quran clarifies that all prophets were totally sinless and Torah says some of them committed henious sins if i'm not mistaken


so that begins with a classification by the koran which is then retractively applied to the torah.


2, there are many contradictions in the Torah; some of which can be found by google searches


there are statements in the torah that if taken in vacuo, appear to contradict. good thing that was never the jewish method of understanding our own books.


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:



“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


so the koran says it is. ok, thank you.




 


>>>>>>> The noble Qur'an is FREE from distortion, addition or deletion (Which has been the case for NT and OT).


Here in this verse the Qur'an talking about hypocrites (Refering to some during the time of MOSES). The story started from an earlier verse...


 .. And remember Moses said to his people: "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"


[ Source: The noble Qur'an 002.067 ]


This story is agreed by Jews, Christians and Muslims. As it is part of collective human history. Just note that, among Arabs Christians, Jews and Muslims God is referred as "Allah". Certainly the verse you quoted is talking about "God of Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Jacob, David (PBUT)...". All of them were "Navis" of Allah (SWT) as per Islam.


I have given a web link to the whole chapter of the Qur'an, which has been examined by a interfaith group out of California.


Hope this explanation will help you "Understand" Islamic point of view clearly.


Salaam!

Flag visio May 6, 2012 10:51 AM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 10:06AM, ffb wrote:


.........................................


"Is god a Hebrew word?  If not, what does it say/sound in Hebrew ?  If you don’t mind to do the transliteration.  "


the word god comes from (IIRC) the old english or the german. Judaism has the idea that every combination of letters could be a name of god but there are certain ones (2 letters long, 4 letters long, 5 letters long, 12 letters long, 72 letters long etc) which are traditionally seen as the most common. We often use the word "hashem" which is simply the hebrew for "the name" since it, itself, is not a name but a marker to we avoid using god's name in an inappropriate context (ie, not during prayer).


"Elah, Elohim,  El Shadai …………Rab(bii)"


numbers 2 and three are often used (in part or in whole) to refer to god. The first one isn't and the last refers to a human teacher.



You can tell me everything about all these gemitriaic, Judaic logic things but my questions is simple.  YHWH in the Torah I presume is the same as YHWH in the Psalms.   So in the Psalms quoted below, and English translated verses, what does it say in Hebrew for the English term "God" in verse  16 : 1, which I underlined ?



16: 1   Preserve me, God, for in you do I take refuge.



16: 2   My soul, you have said to Yahweh, “You are my Lord.



            Apart from you I have no good thing.”


In 16 : 1 David talked to God.  In 16 : 2 David acknowledged that his soul talked to YHWH.  There is a distinct differences between the two verses when several questions are thrown at them.


I understand that you have a law that, perhaps taken under oath, that every Jew have to protect the Torah i.e. build a big wall around it.  If that is the case  then for such simple question, if you are not in a position to answer, then please say so.  I am happy to let you remain comfortably in your big wall.

Flag ffb May 6, 2012 11:05 AM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 10:51AM, visio wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 10:06AM, ffb wrote:


.........................................


"Is god a Hebrew word?  If not, what does it say/sound in Hebrew ?  If you don’t mind to do the transliteration.  "


the word god comes from (IIRC) the old english or the german. Judaism has the idea that every combination of letters could be a name of god but there are certain ones (2 letters long, 4 letters long, 5 letters long, 12 letters long, 72 letters long etc) which are traditionally seen as the most common. We often use the word "hashem" which is simply the hebrew for "the name" since it, itself, is not a name but a marker to we avoid using god's name in an inappropriate context (ie, not during prayer).


"Elah, Elohim,  El Shadai …………Rab(bii)"


numbers 2 and three are often used (in part or in whole) to refer to god. The first one isn't and the last refers to a human teacher.



You can tell me everything about all these gemitriaic, Judaic logic things but my questions is simple.  YHWH in the Torah I presume is the same as YHWH in the Psalms.   So in the Psalms quoted below, and English translated verses, what does it say in Hebrew for the English term "God" in verse  16 : 1, which I underlined ?



16: 1   Preserve me, God, for in you do I take refuge.



16: 2   My soul, you have said to Yahweh, “You are my Lord.



            Apart from you I have no good thing.”


In 16 : 1 David talked to God.  In 16 : 2 David acknowledged that his soul talked to YHWH.  There is a distinct differences between the two verses when several questions are thrown at them.


I understand that you have a law that, perhaps taken under oath, that every Jew have to protect the Torah i.e. build a big wall around it.  If that is the case  then for such simple question, if you are not in a position to answer, then please say so.  I am happy to let you remain comfortably in your big wall.


I don't know  where you get this idea that there is some sort of oath that jews take to build walls around the torah. It is quite humorous (and might be a complete misunderstanding of one fo the notions behind certain laws) but that's about it.


You want simple, hebrew to english translations of god's name. this can't be done. in verse one, the word "el" appears. In verse 2, the four letter name which we can't pronounce (not just "don't" which is true, but, in fact, "can't" because we lack the proper vowels) is used. These both refer to the same entity but different aspects of that entity. This is not a matter of "gemitriaic" (whatever that is) or "judaic logic" but if it makes it easier for you to assign it that label instead of accepting the fact that god has no personal name, then so be it.

Flag visio May 6, 2012 12:02 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 11:05AM, ffb wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 10:51AM, visio wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:06AM, ffb wrote:


.........................................


"Is god a Hebrew word?  If not, what does it say/sound in Hebrew ?  If you don’t mind to do the transliteration.  "


the word god comes from (IIRC) the old english or the german. Judaism has the idea that every combination of letters could be a name of god but there are certain ones (2 letters long, 4 letters long, 5 letters long, 12 letters long, 72 letters long etc) which are traditionally seen as the most common. We often use the word "hashem" which is simply the hebrew for "the name" since it, itself, is not a name but a marker to we avoid using god's name in an inappropriate context (ie, not during prayer).


"Elah, Elohim,  El Shadai …………Rab(bii)"


numbers 2 and three are often used (in part or in whole) to refer to god. The first one isn't and the last refers to a human teacher.



You can tell me everything about all these gemitriaic, Judaic logic things but my questions is simple.  YHWH in the Torah I presume is the same as YHWH in the Psalms.   So in the Psalms quoted below, and English translated verses, what does it say in Hebrew for the English term "God" in verse  16 : 1, which I underlined ?



16: 1   Preserve me, God, for in you do I take refuge.



16: 2   My soul, you have said to Yahweh, “You are my Lord.



            Apart from you I have no good thing.”


In 16 : 1 David talked to God.  In 16 : 2 David acknowledged that his soul talked to YHWH.  There is a distinct differences between the two verses when several questions are thrown at them.


I understand that you have a law that, perhaps taken under oath, that every Jew have to protect the Torah i.e. build a big wall around it.  If that is the case  then for such simple question, if you are not in a position to answer, then please say so.  I am happy to let you remain comfortably in your big wall.




I don't know  where you get this idea that there is some sort of oath that jews take to build walls around the torah. It is quite humorous (and might be a complete misunderstanding of one fo the notions behind certain laws) but that's about it.


You want simple, hebrew to english translations of god's name. this can't be done. in verse one, the word "el" appears. In verse 2, the four letter name which we can't pronounce (not just "don't" which is true, but, in fact, "can't" because we lack the proper vowels) is used. These both refer to the same entity but different aspects of that entity. This is not a matter of "gemitriaic" (whatever that is) or "judaic logic" but if it makes it easier for you to assign it that label instead of accepting the fact that god has no personal name, then so be it.




Thank you, ffb.  Now there is something I can appreciate.


Is it YHVH or YHWH?   My gut feeling is YHVH.   There are no vewels in it because you just recite th esoun dof the alphabets  Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey.   Thats it.   We have the same concept in the Arabic of the Al-Quran.  There are 29 sura/chapters that begin with serveral combination of root alphabets (1 letter, 2 letters .......5 letters) such as Alif-Lam-Mim, Alif-Lam-Roa, Ya-Sin, Sad ........etc.  There are no Arabs who can tell the meanings of this.  Only Prophet Muhammadsaw knew himself as a gift from THAT ONE indicated in the Al-Quran as ALLAHswt.  But then those words (termed as hijaiyyah alphabets) were only an invoking sound, which may relate to a specific or group of ALLAHswt's attributes. 


If and only if I were to apply the same principle to your Yod, Hey, Vav, Hey then YHVH is not a God's Name/Label.  And I not too sure, yet, about YHWH.  We don't worship but invoke the sound that enables THAT one to be worship and prayed to, appear in our consciousness when everything (soul, inherited spirit/mind and body) are at their level of perfection/purification to receive it.


I can agree with you that God has no personal name ............... because in the Al-Quran, that indicated as ALLAHswt says to Him belongs all the Most Beautiful Names that Mankind and Jinnkind can call :


Al-A'raf   7 : 180   And (all) the Most Beautiful Names belong to ALLAH, so call on Him by them, an dleave the company of those who belie or deny His Names.   They will be requited for what they used to do.




Flag ffb May 6, 2012 12:18 PM EDT

the four letter reference to god (which indicates the attribute of mercy) is represented by the four hebrew letters yod, hay, vav and hay -- some see the meaning of the "name" as relating to god's eternal existance. Aside from not having the proper vowels, we also do not have the precise pronunciation of the vav. It is not a simply "V" sound because it would then duplicating the sound of the letter "vet" so many assume that it is slightly softer than a V sound, sort of a cross between the V and the W. There is, within the yemenite community, a tradition of pronunciation like that. Thus, some people write the word yhwh and some, yhvh. Neither is, strictly speaking correct, and neither, even if the consonants are right, reflects the pronunciation as there are no vowels (the vowels seen in printed texts are those from the word "adonai" meaning "my master" transposed to the four letter name to remind us that we do NOT pronounce it that way). Therefore we do not pronounce the word at all -- in prayer we replace it with the word "adonai" and outside of prayer we use the hebrew word "hashem" meaning "the name" and generally we refrain from even spelling out the letters without some break or separation.

Flag Miraj May 6, 2012 3:05 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 9:56AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Salaam Abdullah,


May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:


“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


and the exegesis for it;


...And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and, in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters, they have, mere conjectures, and no firm knowledge.



Your exegesis has virtually nothing to do with the verse you cited. There's no mention of the Torah in the verse. If you think that's the obvious reference, please demonstrate using the Qur'án, not secondary sources or subjective opinion.


In fact, it refers to their "Book" which they should be literate about rather than illiterate, and separately mentions others who would write a book with their own hands. Two different books are meant -- one that should be followed and another one that is their own handiworkn. There are other verses where the Qur'án clearly suggests that the Jews should follow the Torah.


Case closed.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit


 




There are also verses in the Qur'an which instruct the Prophet (pbuh) to consult the learned who received the Book before him, namely learned Christians and Jews within the community.


BTW, Prophets were also fully human, not divine.  They were not perfect nor incapable of sin, but, they were rightly guided and trusted by God to deliver his message to the masses on point.  Surah 66, for example, opens with an admonishment to the Prophet about a domestic transgression he has made to please his wives.  The act displeased God and lead to a warning for the entire household.  


Surah 10, ayah 15 contains an instruction to the Prophet say that he is only to follow the direction of Allah and not to diviate and be punished on the Day of Judgment.  Surah 69 describes the punishment for deviating.  Allah ascribed human nature His Messengers, but expected them to comply with free will.  Their reward was with God.

Flag rocketjsquirell May 6, 2012 4:44 PM EDT

There are also verses in the Qur'an which instruct the Prophet (pbuh) to consult the learned who received the Book before him, namely learned Christians and Jews within the community.


An instruction which was honored in its breach and which has been honored by his followers in the same manner.  

Flag Ibn May 6, 2012 5:25 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:


Hi ffb


my apologies for not being here earlier; the reason?:; well i can't let you be unprotected amongst the wolves, if you know what i mean! Laughing: just a jokey reference to my modernist friends on this board!


without further ado, i'll get down to business!


Torah is considered to be distorted for threee reasons i can think of, and they are,


1, Quran clarifies that all prophets were totally sinless and Torah says some of them committed henious sins if i'm not mistaken


In which verse the Qur'an clarifies that the prophets were totally sinless?


May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:

2, there are many contradictions in the Torah; some of which can be found by google searches


The same may be found about the Qur'an by google searches. It is not the reliable way of considering any scriptures "distorted".


May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:

3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:


“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


The verses are not about the written Torah.

Flag visio May 6, 2012 8:37 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Miraj wrote:



There are also verses in the Qur'an which instruct the Prophet (pbuh) to consult the learned who received the Book before him, namely learned Christians and Jews within the community.



I presume this particular verse was revealed during the early stage of the whole revelations - between the time of Muhammadsaw's First Encounter with Gabriel to the time he accomplished the Ascension (Mi'raj) - that is the early drive on the learning curve, or, shall I say, experience curve.  In gear 1.


BTW, Prophets were also fully human, not divine.  They were not perfect nor incapable of sin, but, they were rightly guided and trusted by God to deliver his message to the masses on point.  Surah 66, for example, opens with an admonishment to the Prophet about a domestic transgression he has made to please his wives.  The act displeased God and lead to a warning for the entire household.  


Surah 10, ayah 15 contains an instruction to the Prophet say that he is only to follow the direction of Allah and not to diviate and be punished on the Day of Judgment.  Surah 69 describes the punishment for deviating.  Allah ascribed human nature His Messengers, but expected them to comply with free will.  Their reward was with God.




The Prophet Muhammadsaw's Ascension (Mi'raj) was the biggest of event in his life.  It was in that one night he really was made to witness and experience the whole process of continous creation and uncreation of the Universe and of his own creation, of generation and regeneration.  An outcome of this witnessing and experiencing is that other than the soul, everything else that we have with us are inherited, in nature - the bodies and the spirit/mind complex.   There are few key verses to this effect that scholars of the past have neglected.   Among those are the followings: 


Al-Insan 76 : 1   Has there not been over man a period of time, when he was not a thing worth mentioning?


Comment:   Man, in this verse refers to our individual soul aspect.   It's period of time begins when it was created the First Time and took up it's First Existence/Lifetime as human being (on earth).   The first set of spirits were complexed in into that very frist soul, from those spirits of dead animals (cattles) [Az-Zumar 39 : 6].  It was thus "not worth mentioning".   Everything were in there - Ignorance, Lust, Anger, Hatred, Jealousy, Pride, Greed, as major behavioural elements.   But ALLAHswt is Ever So Merciful.  So much so that when a man had finally made it into the paradise and become an angel, that is when no longer subjected to the cycles of life and death, he/she made a comment to another angel as said in the Al-Quran:


As-Saffat  37 : 58-59   "(The dweller of Paradise will say) Are we then not to die (anymore)?   Except our First Death (capitalizing is mine), and we shall not be punished? (After we have entered Paradise)."


Comment:  So with each of us there were lifetime (of our soul) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ......... till today.  All the sins (so called Adamic) of our First Life Time were forgiven and unpunished.  Starting from the second we began to collect and inherit those of our parents - a different sets of body and spirit/mind thru the process of human regeneration.  Due to this inherited nature of our spirits/mind and bodies, ALLAHswt comes out with another firman (verse):


At-Tur  52 : 47-49   And verily, for those who do wrong, there is another punishement before this;   but most of them know not.  So wait patiently (O Muhammadsaw) for the Decision of Your Lord, for verily, you are under Our Eyes, and glorify the Praises of your Lord when you get up from sleep.   And in the nightline also glorify His Praises - and at the settin gof the stars.


Comment :   After having been shown evrything about the whole creation and uncreation process of the Universe and of his soul, Muhammadsaw were also made to witness all of his (soul) past journey from the moment of its First Conception.  All the Father-Mother that he had stayed with and conditioned.   In surah Yunus (Jonah) 10 : 16 he even hinted that in one of his previous lifetime he lived with Jews.   In fact these are a wholesome of Self-Realisation of knowing Who He was.   In our case Who I Am/Who We are.   And following the last lines of the above verse, Is all the reason for the Islam, the religion, that ALLAHswt has prescribed to all mankind and jinnkind with His Shariat.   And in its teaching we don't see all these fancy meditation under the tree, staring at candles, divination of all kinds and contemplating in the cave as he did at Jabal-An-Nur.


The clear instruction to Muhammadsaw was to wait patiently.  This suggested not all of Muhammadsaw's sins in previous lifetime and/or his then existing lifetime were forgiven.  He would still have to surrender his last breath that was in 632 A.D.   Moses, David, Jesus ... all had to go thru the due process.   And so we are.   You (generic) can be the hell of a charm in this lifetime, but only ALLAHswt knows exactly all the havocs you have inflicted upon yourselves and others. 


Walaikum salaam wrhmtllh.




Flag visio May 7, 2012 1:47 AM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 12:18PM, ffb wrote:


the four letter reference to god (which indicates the attribute of mercy) is represented by the four hebrew letters yod, hay, vav and hay -- some see the meaning of the "name" as relating to god's eternal existance. Aside from not having the proper vowels, we also do not have the precise pronunciation of the vav. It is not a simply "V" sound because it would then duplicating the sound of the letter "vet" so many assume that it is slightly softer than a V sound, sort of a cross between the V and the W. There is, within the yemenite community, a tradition of pronunciation like that. Thus, some people write the word yhwh and some, yhvh. Neither is, strictly speaking correct, and neither, even if the consonants are right, reflects the pronunciation as there are no vowels (the vowels seen in printed texts are those from the word "adonai" meaning "my master" transposed to the four letter name to remind us that we do NOT pronounce it that way). Therefore we do not pronounce the word at all -- in prayer we replace it with the word "adonai" and outside of prayer we use the hebrew word "hashem" meaning "the name" and generally we refrain from even spelling out the letters without some break or separation.




Again, thank you for your clarification.   Now a question arise, at the "burning bush" event who/what was talking to Moses?   Since as you said, the One God is without a personal name, which I agree, then if the four letter words served as an indicator, what does it indicate or what does it invoke.   In the Quranic context, the Guardian "Angel" Gabriel is the veil of ALLAHswt.   When he/she talks to anyone, then, the presumption is ALLAHswt talks directly to him/her.   A question arises out of this.  There is a Quranic verse or a hadith (I just can't pick up at the moment) mentioning that among a section of the elderlies of the Jews of the time, they made Gabriel as their enemy (perhaps because he/she doesn't entertain to their wishes all the time).  Could the four letter words then was a substitute for Gabriel.   I am aware that th ename Gabriel appeared in the book of Daniel but not in others (?). 

Flag ffb May 7, 2012 8:43 AM EDT

May 7, 2012 -- 1:47AM, visio wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 12:18PM, ffb wrote:


the four letter reference to god (which indicates the attribute of mercy) is represented by the four hebrew letters yod, hay, vav and hay -- some see the meaning of the "name" as relating to god's eternal existance. Aside from not having the proper vowels, we also do not have the precise pronunciation of the vav. It is not a simply "V" sound because it would then duplicating the sound of the letter "vet" so many assume that it is slightly softer than a V sound, sort of a cross between the V and the W. There is, within the yemenite community, a tradition of pronunciation like that. Thus, some people write the word yhwh and some, yhvh. Neither is, strictly speaking correct, and neither, even if the consonants are right, reflects the pronunciation as there are no vowels (the vowels seen in printed texts are those from the word "adonai" meaning "my master" transposed to the four letter name to remind us that we do NOT pronounce it that way). Therefore we do not pronounce the word at all -- in prayer we replace it with the word "adonai" and outside of prayer we use the hebrew word "hashem" meaning "the name" and generally we refrain from even spelling out the letters without some break or separation.




Again, thank you for your clarification.   Now a question arise, at the "burning bush" event who/what was talking to Moses?   Since as you said, the One God is without a personal name, which I agree, then if the four letter words served as an indicator, what does it indicate or what does it invoke.   In the Quranic context, the Guardian "Angel" Gabriel is the veil of ALLAHswt.   When he/she talks to anyone, then, the presumption is ALLAHswt talks directly to him/her.   A question arises out of this.  There is a Quranic verse or a hadith (I just can't pick up at the moment) mentioning that among a section of the elderlies of the Jews of the time, they made Gabriel as their enemy (perhaps because he/she doesn't entertain to their wishes all the time).  Could the four letter words then was a substitute for Gabriel.   I am aware that th ename Gabriel appeared in the book of Daniel but not in others (?). 


When Mo ran into the bush, the revelatory experience developed. First he saw a fire, then he recognized an angelic force in the fire and then the combination of those two -- a fire which did not burn the bush. God was coming to tell Mo about the justice he would mete out against the Egyptians so the mountain and angel are called by the name indicating justice, but when the voice spoke out to Mo, the text refers to it as the voice coming from the attribute of mercy (both on Mo at this time of bewilderment and on the children of Israel who, it was saying, were to be saved from Egypt - verse 7 makes that explicit). But the text is clear that Mo was interacting with a presence of god, not an angel. While there are talmudic statements about the angel Gabriel, none of them relates to this event.


 

Flag visio May 7, 2012 12:15 PM EDT

May 7, 2012 -- 8:43AM, ffb wrote:


When Mo ran into the bush, the revelatory experience developed. First he saw a fire, then he recognized an angelic force in the fire and then the combination of those two -- a fire which did not burn the bush.



In other words, it was only a feeling that generated a sense perception of a non-burning "fire" and not even a "light".   I am a bit scarry of what may disappoint you about this statement.   However, I'll come to the Al-Quranic explanation/logic on this, later.


God was coming to tell Mo about the justice he would mete out against the Egyptians so the mountain and angel are called by the name indicating justice, but when the voice spoke out to Mo, the text refers to it as the voice coming from the attribute of mercy (both on Mo at this time of bewilderment and on the children of Israel who, it was saying, were to be saved from Egypt - verse 7 makes that explicit).


 


Can you cite the narratives upon which this was based on.


But the text is clear that Mo was interacting with a presence of god, not an angel.



 As the above, what does the specific text actually say?


While there are talmudic statements about the angel Gabriel, none of them relates to this event.



Any idea which specific event when the four letter word was first associated with?  After the escape from Egypt or before?  When he was up at the Mount to receive the first tablet,did he see the fire again?  The same question when he was up again for the two tablet replacement?

Flag ffb May 7, 2012 1:49 PM EDT

"In other words, it was only a feeling that generated a sense perception of a non-burning "fire" and not even a "light""


Light/fire is perceived from a distance. As one nears the flame one can see more detail, like the not-burning aspect.


"Can you cite the narratives upon which this was based on."


This starts with the idea that the particular "names" reflect those attributes (an idea which is from the oral law). Once that is accepted, one can see the partcular use of a name as it relates to the content of the verses there. The commentary of Nachmanides on verse 7 explains this more in detail.


"As the above, what does the specific text actually say?"


for the whole chapter? check this site www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/986... and you will see that where they translate using the word "Lord" this means that the 4 letter name was used. When they use "God" they are representing that the word meaning "master of all forces"  is in the Hebrew.


"Any idea which specific event when the four letter word was first associated with?  After the escape from Egypt or before?  When he was up at the Mount to receive the first tablet,did he see the fire again?  The same question when he was up again for the two tablet replacement?"


the particular and specific use of either name/word starts from the first verse of the torah, at the creation when the name denoting justice is used. the 4 letter word denoting mercy first appears in gen 2:4. here is the commentary of rabbi shlomo yitzchaki there


 


God’s creation of the heavens and the earth: But it does not say “of the Lord’s creation of” (i.e., it should say “of the Lord God’s creation of” as below 2:4 “on the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”) for in the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, allying it with the Divine Standard of Justice, and that is the reason it is written:“on the day the Lord God made earth and heaven.”   ברא א-להים: ולא אמר ברא ה', שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לבראתו במדת הדין, ראה שאין העולם מתקיים, הקדים מדת רחמים ושתפה למדת הדין, היינו דכתיב (להלן ב ד) ביום עשות ה' א-להים ארץ ושמים

 

Flag visio May 8, 2012 4:36 PM EDT

May 7, 2012 -- 1:49PM, ffb wrote:


"In other words, it was only a feeling that generated a sense perception of a non-burning "fire" and not even a "light""


Light/fire is perceived from a distance. As one nears the flame one can see more detail, like the not-burning aspect.



From a spiritual (consciousness) enlightenment direct experiencing point of view, what matters as a signal/clue in narratives of scriptures such as those in Chapter 3 of the Torah is not whether the fire is non-burning or not, or, wether the thorns got burnt or not, or whether fire/flame was perceived at long or short distance or felt.   What matter why (spiritual) fire/flames and not (spiritual) light?  In term of rank/order in a spiritual consiousness spectrum, fire/flame is associated with a lower order of counsciousness than light.  In the Quranic sense logic, fire is associated with a manifestation of a jinnic entity, and, light is that of an angelic entity.  So what signal I get from Moses "burning bush" experience/event as given in both the Al-Quran and Taurat,  is that while both admits God/ALLAHswt "talked directly" to Musasaw (Moses), thru the veil of his personal guardian angel, the vision or witnessing granted upon him was limited to the lower jinnic spectrum - a fire and not an image of a Man which is always associated with a divine guardian angel to whom the ancient men of knowledge have given so many names.


 What I can conclude about Musasaw's (Moses) "burning bush" event is that he didn't witness his own guardian angel but the voice he heard was that of his guardian angel.   In the case of Muhammadsaw he got it both (sound and vision) at the first time.   If Musasaw were to be made witnessed to his guardian angel, it could only occur at a later time.  Until that occassion come, Musasaw (Moses) wouldn't be in a position to identify/differentiate the visual appearance of a jinnic entity or an angelic entity.  He would need to consult his elderly rabbis who would interpret his description wrongly and any name given could be an error.  If there is any disputes surrounding the verses in the "burning bush" event it is not about the Name of God/ALLAHswt, it is only about the name of Moses guardian angel which in many ancient tradition was assumed to indicate a Personal God  - which is not THAT ONE GOD/ALLAHswt indicated in the Al-Quran/Islam.


It is sad, but, sometimes fun and amusement, to see the tug-of-war between Jew and Christianity about these naming/labelling gameplay.   A comment by Avi Sion in Judaic Logic says it:


With regard to Biblical text, we have little material to refer to, other than the document itself. This means that our conclusions are virtually pre-determined, since the data available are finite, even if they constitute a sufficiently large and varied sample of the Hebrew of the time concerned. Actually, sometimes a word or phrase is only used once in the whole document, and its meaning becomes a subject of conjecture; obviously the more often a label appears in the text, the more certain its meaning. With regard to Hebrew usage later in history, it is of course very significant, but it must be kept in mind that it has been and still is culturally influenced by the interpretations suggested by the Rabbis, and therefore it cannot necessarily be used to further justify those interpretations.





Flag ffb May 8, 2012 4:42 PM EDT

"What matter why (spiritual) fire/flames and not (spiritual) light?  In term of rank/order in a spiritual consiousness spectrum, fire/flame is associated with a lower order of counsciousness than light.  In the Quranic sense logic, fire is associated with a manifestation of a jinnic entity, and, light is that of an angelic entity.  So what signal I get from Moses "burning bush" experience/event as given in both the Al-Quran and Taurat,  is that while both admits God/ALLAHswt "talked directly" to Musasaw (Moses), thru the veil of his personal guardian angel, the vision or witnessing granted upon him was limited to the lower jinnic spectrum - a fire and not an image of a Man which is always associated with a divine guardian angel to whom the ancient men of knowledge have given so many names."


OK, so that's what you get. I get that there was fire as the text says and that, as the text says, Mo spoke to god.

Flag rocketjsquirell May 8, 2012 4:59 PM EDT

May 8, 2012 -- 4:42PM, ffb wrote:


"What matter why (spiritual) fire/flames and not (spiritual) light?  In term of rank/order in a spiritual consiousness spectrum, fire/flame is associated with a lower order of counsciousness than light.  In the Quranic sense logic, fire is associated with a manifestation of a jinnic entity, and, light is that of an angelic entity.  So what signal I get from Moses "burning bush" experience/event as given in both the Al-Quran and Taurat,  is that while both admits God/ALLAHswt "talked directly" to Musasaw (Moses), thru the veil of his personal guardian angel, the vision or witnessing granted upon him was limited to the lower jinnic spectrum - a fire and not an image of a Man which is always associated with a divine guardian angel to whom the ancient men of knowledge have given so many names."


OK, so that's what you get. I get that there was fire as the text says and that, as the text says, Mo spoke to god.




FFB


I get the same thing as you do, which is hardly surprising.


VISIO


Do you get this understanding from your view of Jinn?  (assuming the following is at all accurate):


Jinn (Arabic: جنǧinn, singular جني ǧinnī ; variant spelling djinn) or genies are supernatural creatures as mentioned in the Qur'an and often referred to in Arab folklore and Islamic mythology that occupy a parallel world to that of mankind. Together, jinn, humans and angels make up the three sentient creations of Allah. Religious sources say barely anything about them; however, the Qur'an mentions that Jinn are made of smokeless flame or "scorching fire".[1] Like human beings, the Jinn can also be good, evil, or neutrally benevolent.[2]


taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn


As you know Jewish tradition does not have the class of creation you refer to as Jinn (we also difffer in our understanding of what Angels are and are not, but we can discuss that later if you wish) Therefore, I know very little about Jinn and have a fair amount of difficulty understanding the purpose of Jinn in the Islamic cosmos.  Is there anyway you can give me a simple primer on Jinn - what they are, why they are, what they do, etc...? 

Flag visio May 9, 2012 5:57 PM EDT

May 8, 2012 -- 4:59PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


May 8, 2012 -- 4:42PM, ffb wrote:


"What matter why (spiritual) fire/flames and not (spiritual) light?  In term of rank/order in a spiritual consiousness spectrum, fire/flame is associated with a lower order of counsciousness than light.  In the Quranic sense logic, fire is associated with a manifestation of a jinnic entity, and, light is that of an angelic entity.  So what signal I get from Moses "burning bush" experience/event as given in both the Al-Quran and Taurat,  is that while both admits God/ALLAHswt "talked directly" to Musasaw (Moses), thru the veil of his personal guardian angel, the vision or witnessing granted upon him was limited to the lower jinnic spectrum - a fire and not an image of a Man which is always associated with a divine guardian angel to whom the ancient men of knowledge have given so many names."


OK, so that's what you get. I get that there was fire as the text says and that, as the text says, Mo spoke to god.




FFB


I get the same thing as you do, which is hardly surprising.


VISIO


Do you get this understanding from your view of Jinn?  (assuming the following is at all accurate):


Jinn (Arabic: جنǧinn, singular جني ǧinnī ; variant spelling djinn) or genies are supernatural creatures as mentioned in the Qur'an and often referred to in Arab folklore and Islamic mythology that occupy a parallel world to that of mankind. Together, jinn, humans and angels make up the three sentient creations of Allah. Religious sources say barely anything about them; however, the Qur'an mentions that Jinn are made of smokeless flame or "scorching fire".[1] Like human beings, the Jinn can also be good, evil, or neutrally benevolent.[2]


taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn


As you know Jewish tradition does not have the class of creation you refer to as Jinn (we also difffer in our understanding of what Angels are and are not, but we can discuss that later if you wish) Therefore, I know very little about Jinn and have a fair amount of difficulty understanding the purpose of Jinn in the Islamic cosmos.  Is there anyway you can give me a simple primer on Jinn - what they are, why they are, what they do, etc...? 




I posted quite a bit of stuff in a thread "Muslim Creation Story".   In there you may find what you need, as an interest.  If you have diffciulties, it could be your understanding of your having or not having the triune contittuion of the Self of a Person in manifestation and also that your definition of soul and spirit are not in the same Arabic sense as implied in the Al-Quran. In the Al-Quran the soul is immortal and invincible until it is enlightened.  When it is enlightened you are the only witness other than That One God/ALLAHswt.   In the Al-Quranic sense, th esoul is the "Rope" of ALLAH swtto each of His sentient Being.   As it's consciouness matures and evolves it goes thru the whole spectrum of  "colour" changes, to put it in a simple language of a layman.

Flag visio May 10, 2012 10:53 AM EDT

May 8, 2012 -- 4:42PM, ffb wrote:



OK, so that's what you get. I get that there was fire as the text says and that, as the text says, Mo spoke to god.




I don't see "Mo spoke to god" in the text:   I see only God.   And that is in English, which is not the original Torah.   The original Torah is in Hebrew, as far as I am concerned.  Same as an English Quran is not the Al-Quran.  


We are back to the same question again.   What is the hebrew term for God as given in the text of the English Torah/Exodus:


Exodus  3: 6 And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.


Is it the four letter - aleph, lam, lam, hey?
   

Flag ffb May 10, 2012 1:37 PM EDT

May 10, 2012 -- 10:53AM, visio wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 4:42PM, ffb wrote:



OK, so that's what you get. I get that there was fire as the text says and that, as the text says, Mo spoke to god.




I don't see "Mo spoke to god" in the text:   I see only God.   And that is in English, which is not the original Torah.   The original Torah is in Hebrew, as far as I am concerned.  Same as an English Quran is not the Al-Quran.  


We are back to the same question again.   What is the hebrew term for God as given in the text of the English Torah/Exodus:


Exodus  3: 6 And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.


Is it the four letter - aleph, lam, lam, hey?
   


the conversation begins in verse 4 with the 4 letter name (sometimes written as yhvh), and then moves to the word "elohim" in the same verse.


the english used in the following translation for the 4 letter name is "lord" and for the root leading to "elohim" the word in English used is "god".


6. And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.


   ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וַיַּסְתֵּר מֹשֶׁה פָּנָיו כִּי יָרֵא מֵהַבִּיט אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים:



7. And the Lord said, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their cry because of their slave drivers, for I know their pains. 


 ז. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה רָאֹה רָאִיתִי אֶת עֳנִי עַמִּי אֲשֶׁר בְּמִצְרָיִם וְאֶת צַעֲקָתָם שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפְּנֵי נֹגְשָׂיו כִּי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת מַכְאֹבָיו


verse 11 has Mo responding to God.

Flag visio May 11, 2012 6:18 PM EDT

May 10, 2012 -- 1:37PM, ffb wrote:


..............................



6. And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.


   ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וַיַּסְתֵּר מֹשֶׁה פָּנָיו כִּי יָרֵא מֵהַבִּיט אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים:


....................................




In the order of the descendancy, why the subject God of .........  stopped at the third generation?   Don't you think the following Exodus verses have the explanation?


20: 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


20: 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,


20: 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.


It wasn't that Mo was afraid to look toward God, he was ashame of himself when the above verses were revealed to him {According to Muhammadsaw hadith, Musasaw (Moses) was a basically shy person but at the same time argumentative/stubborn, even when the angel of death  came to take his life (breath) away}. 


If  "punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation" is true the opposite of it could also be true and thus the verse can also read "rewarding the children for the good of the parents to the third and fourth generation"In simple terms, the understanding/knowledge of That One God/ALLAHswt could also change within a descendant line within three to four generation.   The Way in the Quranic Cosmic View would read the verse as such.  It is based on the principle that a soul (ruh) would progress and inherit a better spirit/mind (nafas), a bad spirit/mind would be inherited by the better soul (ruh) to be purified.  You may interchange the terms soul and spirit with your Hebrew's ruach and nephesh accordingly.  The only thing to note, the ruh (soul), in Arabic Quran, is immortal.


Flag Ibn May 12, 2012 6:43 AM EDT

May 10, 2012 -- 1:37PM, ffb wrote:


..............................


6. And He said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look toward God.


   ו. וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וַיַּסְתֵּר מֹשֶׁה פָּנָיו כִּי יָרֵא מֵהַבִּיט אֶל הָאֱ־לֹהִים:


....................................




May 11, 2012 -- 6:18PM, visio wrote:

In the order of the descendancy, why the subject God of .........  stopped at the third generation?   Don't you think the following Exodus verses have the explanation?


20: 4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.


20: 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,


20: 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.



It's truly amazing the length God had to go (from human point of view) to guide Bani Israel, the fourth generation of Abraham! The verse number 5 is not literal as the attribute "jealous" is only human attribute. God is also never unjust. Punishing the children for the sins of their father is very unjust.


The Qur'an clarifies my point:


 [53.38] That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another-


[23.62] And We do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.


Of course Abraham wasn't punished for the sins of his father!

Flag visio May 12, 2012 11:19 AM EDT

May 12, 2012 -- 6:43AM, Ibn wrote:


It's truly amazing the length God had to go (from human point of view) to guide Bani Israel, the fourth generation of Abraham! The verse number 5 is not literal as the attribute "jealous" is only human attribute. God is also never unjust. Punishing the children for the sins of their father is very unjust.


The Qur'an clarifies my point:


 [53.38] That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another-


[23.62] And We do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.


Of course Abraham wasn't punished for the sins of his father!




Salaam, br. Ibn.


Those verses are referring to the soul aspect of the triune constaitution of our person/beingness (SELF = Soul + Inherited spirit/mind + inherited body).


In 53 : 38 the bearer of burden is the soul, the burden are both the inherited spirt/mind and body.   What the verse says is that the soul of X doesn't bear the burden inherited by soul of Y.   Each soul has to deal withreceptacular body the spirit/mind and body it has inherited.  It is thus called as the slave of ALLAHswt tasked to purify what it has inherited. 


The issue here is who do you think you really are?


The soul?  Inherited spirit/mind? The receptacular (formed) body?


If you think that you are the soul, do know that you are immortal, indestructible and uninjurable.  But, you (generic) cannot know this until you are detached from those inheritance.   In 23 : 62 ALLAHswt says He wouldn't burden the soul beyond its capacity.  It is therefore biased positively and slightly above the level of the spirit/mind and body it is inheriting, in the pairing and selection process.  


In the context of the verses Exodus 20 : 5, when Abraham soul departed, it left behind its spirit/mind for someone, among his descendants down the line to inherit during a period to last upto four generation.  After that period it "flew" to another branch of the tree where it would take it's covenant.   When the verse was revealed to Moses, he realised that his flock had missed the boat.   For this reason, he fought and argued with ALLAHswt, to get a new one.   And he was slapped with another set of Laws.   And ALLAHswt knew he would fail.

Flag visio May 12, 2012 6:11 PM EDT

May 12, 2012 -- 11:19AM, visio wrote:


May 12, 2012 -- 6:43AM, Ibn wrote:


It's truly amazing the length God had to go (from human point of view) to guide Bani Israel, the fourth generation of Abraham! The verse number 5 is not literal as the attribute "jealous" is only human attribute. God is also never unjust. Punishing the children for the sins of their father is very unjust.


The Qur'an clarifies my point:


 [53.38] That no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another-


[23.62] And We do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.


Of course Abraham wasn't punished for the sins of his father!




Salaam, br. Ibn.


Those verses are referring to the soul aspect of the triune constaitution of our person/beingness (SELF = Soul + Inherited spirit/mind + inherited body).


In 53 : 38 the bearer of burden is the soul, the burden are both the inherited spirt/mind and body.   What the verse says is that the soul of X doesn't bear the burden inherited by soul of Y.   Each soul has to deal withreceptacular body the spirit/mind and body it has inherited.  It is thus called as the slave of ALLAHswt tasked to purify what it has inherited. 


The issue here is who do you think you really are?


The soul?  Inherited spirit/mind? The receptacular (formed) body?


If you think that you are the soul, do know that you are immortal, indestructible and uninjurable.  But, you (generic) cannot know this until you are detached from those inheritance.   In 23 : 62 ALLAHswt says He wouldn't burden the soul beyond its capacity.  It is therefore biased positively and slightly above the level of the spirit/mind and body it is inheriting, in the pairing and selection process.  


In the context of the verses Exodus 20 : 5, when Abraham soul departed, it left behind its spirit/mind for someone, among his descendants down the line to inherit during a period to last upto four generation.  After that period it "flew" to another branch of the tree where it would take it's covenant.   When the verse was revealed to Moses, he realised that his flock had missed the boat.   For this reason, he fought and argued with ALLAHswt, to get a new one.   And he was slapped with another set of Laws.   And ALLAHswt knew he would fail.




Salaam br. Ibn,


You might have noticed I have been mentioning "inherited spirit/mind", "inherited body" in my posts on many occassion.  To get some idea, just set and give yourself a deep thought and perhaps contemplation on the following 3 verse of ALLAHswt's Prophets.


Torah Exodus  20: 5-6    You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,  but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.


GoN  94 : 2-4  "As all creatures come forth from the unseen into this world, so they return to the unseen, and so will they come again until they are purified. Let the bodies of those who depart be committed tot he elements, and the Father-Mother, who renews all things, shall give the angels charge over them and let the priestly attendant pray that their bodies may rest in peace, and their souls awake to a joyful resurrection." 


"There is a resurrection from the body, and there is a resurrection in the body. There is a raising out of the life of the flesh, and there is a falling into the life of the flesh. Let us pray for those who have crossed the death divide, and for those that are alive, and for those that are still to cross the birth divide; for all are One family in God. In God they live and move and have their being."


"The body that you lay in the grave, or that is consumed by fire, is not the body which will be, but they who come shall receive other bodies, yet their own, and as they have planted in one life, so shall they harvest in another. Blessed are they who suffer wrong in this life, for they shall have greater joy in the life to come. Blessed are they who have worked righteousness in this life, for they shall receive the crown of life."


[GoN = Gospel of the Nazarene


Comment :  Who is referred to, by Jesus, as the Father-Mother?]


Al-Quran Al-An’am   6 : 133   And your Lord is Rich, full of Mercy;  if He wills, He can destroy you, and in your place make whom He wills as your successors, as He raised you from the seed of other people.


[Comment:  Seed of other people = spirit/mind, bodies of man and jinn.  Our soul is the seed of Gabriel (the generic guardian angel) and thus of ALLAHswt. For each lifetime, there would always be a new set of seed of other people a soul is to inherit by the Will of ALLAHswt. And by default those could be a sinful ones or a pious/tighteous ones.  Let the coming ones be a lot easier on all of us. Thus, The fruit of the soul's enslavement to ALLAHswt is the seed of other people and  there is no greater love and compassion of a man and jinn to express other than to the seed of other people that is already with him/it.  Do our best with them -visio.]



Waalaikum salaam wrhmtllh.

Flag visio May 13, 2012 10:58 AM EDT

May 12, 2012 -- 6:43AM, Ibn wrote:


Of course Abraham wasn't punished for the sins of his father!




Not the soul of Abraham.   Nor was the soul of his father.   Their spirit/mind would be punished.  The punishements would be reincarnate in an environment where they would be forced to, or, guided by those souls that ALLAHswt have chosen to inherit them.  Depending on the severity, ALLAHswt would chose the hard environment or the easy environment. ALLAHswt's warning of hell indicated a hard and difficutl way.   Just to appreciate to what extent the Exodud 20 : 5  could mean, think about the spirit/mind of Abraham's father.   It could be the spirit of Abraham's grandfather Abraham inherited two, three or four generation before.  It is for this reason prophets like Jesus made such statement as " I come with sword, to slay away a father from the son, daughter from the mother.

Flag Ibn May 14, 2012 6:32 AM EDT

May 12, 2012 -- 6:11PM, visio wrote:


GoN  94 : 2-4  "As all creatures come forth from the unseen into this world, so they return to the unseen, and so will they come again until they are purified. Let the bodies of those who depart be committed tot he elements, and the Father-Mother, who renews all things, shall give the angels charge over them and let the priestly attendant pray that their bodies may rest in peace, and their souls awake to a joyful resurrection." 


"There is a resurrection from the body, and there is a resurrection in the body. There is a raising out of the life of the flesh, and there is a falling into the life of the flesh. Let us pray for those who have crossed the death divide, and for those that are alive, and for those that are still to cross the birth divide; for all are One family in God. In God they live and move and have their being."


"The body that you lay in the grave, or that is consumed by fire, is not the body which will be, but they who come shall receive other bodies, yet their own, and as they have planted in one life, so shall they harvest in another. Blessed are they who suffer wrong in this life, for they shall have greater joy in the life to come. Blessed are they who have worked righteousness in this life, for they shall receive the crown of life."


[GoN = Gospel of the Nazarene


Comment :  Who is referred to, by Jesus, as the Father-Mother?]




It looks like Jesus was referring to Father (God) and Mother (mother nature).


Also, there is mention of only "this life" and "the life to come" rather than any mention of any "previous life" and "the lives to come". Therefore, I don't believe in perpetual births and deaths cycles. There is going to be only one death at the end of our "this life" and there will be no more deaths even for those in hell.


[3.185] Every soul shall taste of death, and you shall only be paid fully your reward on the resurrection day; then whoever is removed far away from the fire and is made to enter the garden he indeed has attained the object; and the life of this world is nothing but a provision of vanities.


 [21.35] Every soul must taste of death and We try you by evil and good by way of probation; and to Us you shall be brought back.


[44.56] They shall not taste therein (in the garden) death except the first death, and He will save them from the punishment of the hell,


Salaam


Ibn


Flag visio May 14, 2012 11:10 AM EDT

May 14, 2012 -- 6:32AM, Ibn wrote:


May 12, 2012 -- 6:11PM, visio wrote:


GoN  94 : 2-4  "As all creatures come forth from the unseen into this world, so they return to the unseen, and so will they come again until they are purified. Let the bodies of those who depart be committed tot he elements, and the Father-Mother, who renews all things, shall give the angels charge over them and let the priestly attendant pray that their bodies may rest in peace, and their souls awake to a joyful resurrection." 


"There is a resurrection from the body, and there is a resurrection in the body. There is a raising out of the life of the flesh, and there is a falling into the life of the flesh. Let us pray for those who have crossed the death divide, and for those that are alive, and for those that are still to cross the birth divide; for all are One family in God. In God they live and move and have their being."


"The body that you lay in the grave, or that is consumed by fire, is not the body which will be, but they who come shall receive other bodies, yet their own, and as they have planted in one life, so shall they harvest in another. Blessed are they who suffer wrong in this life, for they shall have greater joy in the life to come. Blessed are they who have worked righteousness in this life, for they shall receive the crown of life."


[GoN = Gospel of the Nazarene


Comment :  Who is referred to, by Jesus, as the Father-Mother?]




It looks like Jesus was referring to Father (God) and Mother (mother nature).




Waalaikum salaam wrhmtllh, br. Ibn.


It may seem so to a lot of people, in the past as well as in the present time.   Jesus was referring to the Light of our Person (SELF).   In this Light ends the identity of male and female, the separation of light and darkness, the distinction of right and wrong or good and evil.   Jesus's spirit and mind was created first for an offspring in the jinnic kingdom (Israel), thus male and female aspect is adressed as mother, father.   In the earthly kingdom of Adams, male and female is adressed as husband and wife.  In the Al-Quran this is implied in the first few lines of Az-Zumar 39 : 6   ALLAHswt created you (Muhammadsaw) from a single person;   then made from him his wife. ...............  This is quite a tricky verse to explain.  I'll just simplify to just the following:  A single person in the verse refers to a single divine Light of ALLAHswt.  The "you (Muhammadsaw" that ALLAHswt is adressing is the soul of Muhammadsaw.  "made from him his wife" refers from the same single light Muhammadsaw's guardian light was made.   And this light, in the language of the days, was that impersonated as Gabriel i.e. guardian angel/archaengel.   It is not the angel proper angel which is desscribed in Muhammadsaw's Ascension (Mi'raj).  Angel proper is when the soul of Muhammadsaw (the husband)is in re-union with the 'light" of Gabriel (the spouse).  From the point of view of the spirit/mind of bani-Adam (offsprings of Adam) the Light of a single person is adressed as husband-wife.  From that of bani-Israel (offspring of the Jinn kind), it is father-mother.  And the Light of a single Person is not the Islamic/Al-Quranic That One God indicated as ALLAHswt.   If you grasp this description/explanation, you may, perhaps, have an idea where the concept of Personal God or God, the Father comes from.  In the Gospel of the Nazarene thre are also narratives that give good indication what is meant by the phrase Father-Mother.  However Az-Zumar 39 : 6 takes it deeper into creation. 




Also, there is mention of only "this life" and "the life to come" rather than any mention of any "previous life" and "the lives to come". Therefore, I don't believe in perpetual births and deaths cycles. There is going to be only one death at the end of our "this life" and there will be no more deaths even for those in hell.


[3.185] Every soul shall taste of death, and you shall only be paid fully your reward on the resurrection day; then whoever is removed far away from the fire and is made to enter the garden he indeed has attained the object; and the life of this world is nothing but a provision of vanities.


 [21.35] Every soul must taste of death and We try you by evil and good by way of probation; and to Us you shall be brought back.


[44.56] They shall not taste therein (in the garden) death except the first death, and He will save them from the punishment of the hell,


Salaam


Ibn




It doesn't matter that much if you believe in a single death or multiple death.  The verse Ad-Dukhan 44 : 56 you quoted above is citing the experience/tasting/feeling of a soul of it's First Earthly Existence and Death which it shares with its inaugural set of spirit/mind and material body given to it.   It is in it's first after death state (barzakh) that it was made to self-realise and given all the necessary knowledge.  All its first sins in association with its first set of spirit/mind and body were forgiven and unpunished.  This is what is implied in the Al-Quran where in ALLAHswt mentioned his sins (Adam) were forgiven, and ALLAHswt taught him (Adam) all the Names and by virtue of those Adam was made a prophet.  And that means for you and me, as the soul, we have benn made a prophet and equipped with the knowledge death doesn't mean a thing.  The soul is immortal, indestructible and uninjurable.  What taste death in the subsequent existence is all the spirits/mind and bodies they (the soul) are going to inherit from some other people.


The good thing is that the spirit/mind is always in a hurry, when given the driver seat, to get into the paradise and finally enters ALLAHswt's Kingdom.  So much so that it creates its own fear.  I'll let my soul take the driver seat for a long cool drive and avoid any unnecessary despair along the way. 


Note:  Ad-Dukan 44 : 56 should also be read in conjunction with - thus say those soul who have made their way into the paradise and thus become angels of ALLAHswt.  As to the "previous life/life before", please read Yunus 10 : 16 and Al-Insan 76 : 1They give good indication.


Assalamualaikum wrhmtllh.


Flag visio May 14, 2012 9:07 PM EDT

Both Az-Zumar 39 : 6  mention of a single person, and,  GoN 94 : 2 mention of Father-Mother points out to the Light of our single SELF.   Conceptually, spiritually, it is no different from much of those described in various school of pre-Abrahamic Hinduism, Buddhism and countless forms of paganism.   The difference is only in the large variation of modes of expression.  It would take some critical look to detect signs of ambiguity/deviations.  This is what I am doing to the Hebrew four-letter-word of the Torah, made mysterious, only to be pronounced/invoked 10 times a year by a few select of the millions of Jews.   Apparently, there are many names/expression that have been generated by this secretive four-letter-word such as The LORD our FatherThe LORD Most High God, The LORD my Shepherd, The LORD God of David, The LORD my Rock, The Angel of the LORD, .....etc.   If you can feel the wordds in each of those expression, between them is signals that they come from many different spots in the whole of spiritual consciousness spectrum.  Which raise a question, did really Moses say or suggest all these things in the Torah he was alleged to have it written himself.

Flag visio May 15, 2012 10:54 AM EDT

May 14, 2012 -- 6:32AM, Ibn wrote:



[3.185] Every soul shall taste of death, and you shall only be paid fully your reward on the resurrection day; then whoever is removed far away from the fire and is made to enter the garden he indeed has attained the object; and the life of this world is nothing but a provision of vanities.


 [21.35] Every soul must taste of death and We try you by evil and good by way of probation; and to Us you shall be brought back.


[44.56] They shall not taste therein (in the garden) death except the first death, and He will save them from the punishment of the hell,


Salaam


Ibn





Salaam, br. Ibn,


I just realised that you have been using M. Assad's English Translation of the Al-Quran.  In his translation, M. Assad had put Hebrew meanings into ther Arabic root word NFS used in the two verses - 3: 185 and 21 : 35.  In the Al-Quran Arabic, soul = ruh, spirit/mind/heart = NFS.  In Hebrew it is quite the opposite, although the words, ruach and nephesh may sound the same.


The opening phrase in both 3 : 185 and 21 : 35 transliterates to Kullu nafsin ......  which translates to Every spirit/mind/heart ........  The root word ruh is absent.


This is one critical point I want to highlight which was one of the reason why I don't use much of M. Assad's translation.  There were too much of Hebrew mindset he put into his works, that, from the perspective of my sanskrit spirits,  does injustice to the Quranic big picture.   This is in no way to suggest that M. Assad was less of a Muslim than the rest of us.  The spiritual works command aspect is still the same common denominator.


So what is implied in those verses is that irrespective of a single, two, three ....multiple death, it is the spirit/mind feels/tastes the suffering effect of a divine punishment and not the soul because of its ignorance.  The soul only experienced the effect at the end of it's First Existence, immediately after which the veil of ignorance was removed and given the knowledge of its real self.


The inheritable nature of our spirit/mind is not well understood by many.  There are many verses in the al-Quran reminding us He could replace our person to another one.   In this context the subject of reference is the spirit/mind aspect.   The idea behind the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice story could be just about demonstarting this verse.  Somehow Abraham could have noticed certain weird behaviour of teenaged Isaac, which he was not comfortable with.  He wished that ALLAHswt could change whatever the inherited spirit/mind that was with Isaac.  He prayed and God/ALLAHswt answered it thru a dream instructing Abraham to put Isaac to death, since only thru death, a soul would get inherit another spirit/mind and hopefully a better one.  Seeing how obedient Abraham was, ALLAHswt changed His Order of the Day.  Instead, a domesticated cattle was prescribed as a substitution.   Perhaps when Abraham visited, grown up and married, Ismael in Makkah he could have told this principle of sacrifices and thus we have this tradition of animal sacrifices especially during the festive that marked the end of the Hajj ritual.  Many of those who make the sacrifices either for their own selves or members of their families do so upon the realisation some bad spirits/mind have been inherited.  They offer the animal of sacrifices as a prayer to ALLAHswt so that the astral energy of those bad spirit/mind principles are chanelled thru the animal blood and buried in the ground - neutralised.  


Having this explained, does it really matter whether Isaac or Ismael was placed on the altar for sacrifice?   I am glad that it wasn't Ismael.  Now, you should know it better.


Why cattle ?  If you are asking, then, read Az-Zumar 39 :6


The basic metapysical principle is prescribed for slaughtering of cattles for meat.  The Halal/Kosher method is one way to ensure proper and safe discharge of any bad astral/current from the spirit/mind of the animal to which any wild/strayed dead person's spirit/mind priciple could take a temporary residence by accident or forced by the evils of man.





Flag Abdullah. May 20, 2012 10:45 AM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 9:56AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Salaam Abdullah,


May 4, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Abdullah. wrote:


3, the Quran indicates it's distortion too; Allah [swt] says:


“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)


and the exegesis for it;


...And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and, in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters, they have, mere conjectures, and no firm knowledge.



Your exegesis has virtually nothing to do with the verse you cited. There's no mention of the Torah in the verse. If you think that's the obvious reference, please demonstrate using the Qur'án, not secondary sources or subjective opinion.


In fact, it refers to their "Book" which they should be literate about rather than illiterate, and separately mentions others who would write a book with their own hands. Two different books are meant -- one that should be followed and another one that is their own handiworkn. There are other verses where the Qur'án clearly suggests that the Jews should follow the Torah.


Case closed.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit


 




 


wa alaikum salam wr wb :D


there are verses that seem to suggest the previous religions [christianity, Judaism] are still valid but when put into context, such verses merely affirm the validity of those religions in their own times


there are however absolutely decisive verses that shows how only the Quranic guidance is valid now and that all of mankind are obliged to follow it; hence the consensus on it


here are just some of them;


in the following verse we can see how Muhammad [saw] came with new guidance for the people of the book


007.157: 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. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.


The above verse is self explanatory, but i'll post up the exegesis on it anyway Smile:


those who follow the Messenger, the uninstructed Prophet, Muhammad (s) whom they will find inscribed in their Torah and Gospel, in name and description, enjoining them to decency and forbidding them indecency, making lawful for them the good things, which were forbidden [to them] by their Law, and making unlawful for them the vile things, such as carrion and the like, and relieving them of their burden, their onus, and the shackles, the hardships, that they used to bear, such as [the requirement] to kill oneself as a repentance and the severing of that part that had come into contact with any impurity. Then those who believe in him, from among them, and honour, revere, him, and help him, and follow the light that has been revealed with him, namely, the Qur’ān, they are the ones who will prosper’.


www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&t...


 


here is one that cleary catogorises Jews as desbelievers [kaafirs; rejectors of the true faith] for not accepting Muhammad [saw] as the Messenger of Allah [swt]


2-89: And when there came to them a Book from Allah, which confirms what was with them,__ while earlier, they used to seek help against those who disbelieved, __ yet when there came to them that which they did recognize, they denied it. So the curse of Allah is upon the disbelievers 


 


and here's one where Allah describes the good people of the book as those who follow their scriptures, and the Quran


003.199 And lo! of the People of the Scripture there are some who believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto you and that which was revealed unto them, humbling themselves before Allah. They purchase not a trifling gain at the price of the revelations of Allah. Verily their reward is with their Lord. Lo! Allah is swift to take account.


 


and there are many more verses, but i think, if you weigh the exegetical expertise of litterally all Islamic scholars, then the following should be enough to hammer home the one and only valid view regarding this issue


the Qur'an says, "We do not differentiate between any of His messengers" (Qur'an 2:285), showing that previous religions were the same in beliefs, and though differing in provisions of works, and now abrogated by the final religion, were valid in their own times.


As for today, only Islam is valid or acceptable now that Allah has sent it to all men, for the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has said, "By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears of me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell" (al-Baghawi: Sharh al-sunna 1.104).


This hadith is a rigorously authenticated (sahih) evidence that clarifies the word of Allah in surat Al 'Imran "Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted from him, and shall be of those who have truly failed in the next life" (Qur'an 3:85)


and many other verses and hadiths. That Islam is the only remaining valid or acceptable religion is necessarily known as part of our religion ...........


Traditional Islam certainly does not accept the suggestion that "it is true that many Muslims believe that the universality of guidance pertains only to pre-Qur'anic times, but others disagree; there is no 'orthodox' interpretation here that Muslims must accept" (Religious Diversity, 124).


Orthodoxy exists, it is unanimously agreed upon by the scholars of Muslims, and we have conveyed in Nawawi's words above that to believe anything else is unbelief. As for "others disagree," it is true, but is something that has waited for fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship down to the present century to be first promulgated in Cairo in the 1930s by the French convert to Islam Rene Gunon, and later by his student Frithjof Schuon and writers under him. Who else said it before? And if no one did, and everyone else considers it kufr, on what basis should it be accepted?


www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/amat.htm


Jazak


 


ps: here's some of them 'seemingly' perrenial verses in context


2:62 Verily! Those who believed and the Jews and Christians, and Sabians - whoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day and performed righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve .


5:69 Surely, those who believed and the Jews and Sabians and Christians - whosoever believed in Allâh and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.


The common interpretation of these verses is that they refer to righteous followers of Prophets before the coming of Prophet Muhammad pbuh.


This can be understood through the following points.


1. The Historical Context


The historical background will allow us to better understand the groups described in these verses. Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) describes the historical context in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim as follows:


[The saying of the Exalted,"verily! Those who believe and the Jews and the Christians, and the Sabians, whosoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and does righteous deeds shall have their reward with their Lord":as-Suddi said,


'the verse was revealed with regards to companions of Salmaan al-Faarisee about whom he informed the Prophet (SAW) that 'they prayed, fasted, believed in you and bore witness that you had been sent as a Prophet.' So when Salmaan had finished extolling them the Prophet (SAW) said, "O Salmaan they are from the People of the Fire." This weighed down heavily on Salmaan and then Allaah revealed this verse. So the Imaan of the Jews referred to those Jews who held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses until Jesus was sent. When Jesus (AS) came then whosoever held fast to the Tawrah and the sunnah of Moses (and did not follow Jesus) was destroyed. The Imaan of the Christians referred to those who held fast to the Injeel and the laws of Jesus - these people were the believers who accepted him. This held true until Muhammad (SAW) came, so whosoever did not follow Muhammad (SAW) and did not leave what he had been following was destroyed.'


This does not negate what Alee bin Abee Talha reports from ibn Abbaas that after this verse was revealed Allaah revealed the verse, "whosoever desires a religion other than Islaam then it shall not be accepted from him and in the Hereafter he shall be of the losers." (3: 85) Here ibn Abbaas is informing that the only thing accepted from someone will be that which is in conformity to the Sharee`ah of Muhammad (SAW) after he had been sent. As for those who came before him, then whosoever followed the Messenger of his time then he was upon guidance and the victorious way. So the Jews referred to are the followers of Moses who used to judge by the Tawrah in their time.](Tafseer ibn Katheer' 1/182)


Salman Al-Faarisee was a Persian Zoroastrian who left his home in search of God's true religion. He became a Christian in Syria and encountered many righteous Christian scholars who foretold of the coming of a Prophet in Arabia. Later, Salman came to Madinah and accepted Islam at the hands of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Naturally, he enquired about the status of those devout followers of previous Prophets whom he had encountered in his journey. Verses 2:62 and verses 5:69 clarify and explain the status of such people. They are not speaking about Christians and Jews who lived after the coming of the prophet Muhammad pbuh but did not accept him as a messenger, for one must accept the message of the Prophet sent to them in order to be guided. Contemporary Muslim writer, Dr. Jamal Badawi summarizes this explanation concisely:


This verse must be understood in the light of other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same topic. It is clear in the Qur'an that rejecting beliefs in any prophet is tantamount to rejecting belief in all of them. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to Muslims is the last, final and universal messenger to all humankind. As such rejecting belief in him and in the divine revelations or word of God given to him is tantamount to rejecting all of the prophets. Therefore, this verse may be referring to those who followed their prophet prior to the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, these people who followed the unadulterated message of their prophet are in effect "fellow Muslims", literally those who sought peace through submission to God. (SOURCE)


In light of this explanation, it becomes quite clear that verses 2:62 and 5:69 are not at all stating that Christians and Jews who reject the message of Prophet Muhammad pbuh enter paradise, as the critic claims. The verse is referring to the original followers of previous Prophets before the coming of Prophet Muhammad pbuh. In other words, those who faithfully followed the teachings of the prophet sent to them will be rewarded.


www.call-to-monotheism.com/salvation_for...


 


and some of Muhammad [saw] letters to christians kings, basically saying accept Islam or be condemned, shows that people really have no other choice other than this latest version of Gods religion


kalamullah.com/Books/The%20letters%20of%...

Flag Lilwabbit May 20, 2012 11:15 AM EDT

Salaam dear Abdullah,


There is no scholarly consensus, nor has there ever been, on the matter of whether or not  "righteous" Christians and Jews enter paradise. The key verses that have been interpreted differently by reputed scholars for some fourteen centuries are 2:62 and 3:113-115. The consensus claim is a myth. In the following I have provided just a short sampling of reputed Islamic scholars in a chronologically reverse order who have held on to the view that these verses and others, both explicitly as well as within the whole Qur'ánic context, state in active present tense that "among" the People of the Book there are righteous people (who are obviously not al-muminún in the strict sense, but neither are they al-mushrikún nor al-kafirún) for whom God in His unlimited graciousness and justice promises no fear in the afterlife:


Seyyed Hossain Nasr, Farid Esack (you should especially study his book Qur’án, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity Against Oppression, 1997), Mahmoud M. Ayoub (you should especially study his book The Qur’an and its Interpreters, Vol 1, Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1984), Mohammed Arkoun, Fazlur Rahman, Sayyid Mahmud Taleqani (a renowned Iranian mullah), Muhammad Rashid Rida (needs no introduction), Muhammad Abduh (needs no introduction), Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111, needs no introduction), Ibn al-Arabi (1076-1148, needs no introduction) and Ali Ibn Abu Talib (ca. 600-661, certainly needs no introduction). For instance this study by Mohammad Hassan Khalil demonstrates conclusively how the above scholars and others represented the pluralist view rather than the exclusivist view which you call "orthodox". The key argument of many of these scholars is that, in addition to the explicit meaning of these verses, the other more damning Qur'ánic verses on al-kafirún and al-mushrikún refer to an active hostility towards the al-muminún, and not simply passive peaceful non-acknowledgement of the Qur'án while remaining very respectful, even helpful, towards the al-muminún and maintaining genuinely friendly terms with them.


If you want more scholars, you will quickly discover through the links and books I've referenced how the exclusivist interpretation of the destiny of righteous ahl-al-kitab has never been supported by the consensus of fiqh scholars (ijmá). Also this link unequivocally establishes (by a scholar of Islam who is a non-Muslim) how both interpretations have been supported by scholars throughout Islamic history without any clear consensus.


Kind regards,


LilWabbit

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook