Banee isra-eel # Isra-eel (3:93, 19:58)
-
Peace,
When we speak about Banee isra-eel in the Reading, the verbs used are conjugated in the plural form
-
O Children of Israel, remember (YOU) My blessings that I had blessed you with, and fulfill your pledge to Me that I may fulfill My pledge to you, and revere Me alone.
-
And We took the covenant of the Children of Israel YOU shall not serve except God, and regard your parents, and regard the relatives, and orphans, and needy, and say kind things to the people, and hold the contact-method, and contribute towards betterment. But then you turned away, except a few of you; you were objecting.
-
Ask the Children of Israel how many clear signs did We give THEM? And whoever changes Gods favour after it has come to him, then God is Mighty in retribution.
There is only two occurences when the verse is about Isra-eel in the singular form
-
Those are the ones whom God has blessed from amongst the prophets from the progeny of Adam, and those We carried with Noah, and from the progeny of Abraham and Israel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fall down prostrating, and in tears.
-
All the food was made lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel forbade for himself before the Torah was sent down. Say Bring (YOU) the Torah and recite it if you are truthful.
Abraham and the progeny of Abraham are two distinct things, Idem for Israel and the progeny of Israel, the Children of Israel.
In 393, THis is Israel and NOT the children of Israel who forbade for himself some food.
Correct me if I'm wrong, if Israel is a prophet like Abraham, Noah, did he prohibit some foods according his desire or to what is inspired to Him by the God?
Thanks
-
-
Peace Marie,
I was discussing this for quite sometime, it's a very interesting question
There is also verse 2136
"We believed with God and what was descended to us and what was descended to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Issac, and Jacob, and the grandchildren/branches/Jewish tribes , and what was given to Moses, and Jesus , and what was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not separate/distinguish between anyone from them, and we are to Him."
This I believe is in chronological order, thus Israel would be somewhere after Jacob and before the grandchildren/branches/Jewish tribes (whether he was a prophet or not, in the sense of chronological order).
If Israel prohibited some foods for himself, it makes sense that the followers would have also accepted these for themselves, but after the Torah came down, that was the only Law they were required/supposed to follow. Israel may or may not be a prophet. If he was he was allowed to make laws by himself, what he can't do is make laws from himself and say it's from God. I'm sure the situation the many prophets were in, they made laws by themselves (some were after all governing communities and not everything would have to be divinely inspired, they would have leeway there from anything not previously specified), and never called them from God if they weren't. The problem is people after them would mess up and think it must be from God intentionally or non intentionally, that is why the Torah came down to clarify the criterion/laws for the children of israel.
The hebrews/children of Israel were a defined community before Moses. They had their own laws and tradition as 393 might hint at and we know that they were a community in Egypt. The earlier verses in your post are referring to the signs with Moses and after the arrival of Moses and the Torah in the plural as well? Or referencing something before Moses?
I think it would be prudent to find out if Israel was a prophet at all or a normal man in a postion of power/patriachy. Jacob is called Israel by Judaism and Christianity but not in the quran to my knowledge. Could it be referencing the same?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, if Israel is a prophet like Abraham, Noah, did he prohibit some foods according his desire or to what is inspired to Him by the God?
Thanks
Israel is Jacob, Isaac's Son.... God gave the name Israel to Jacob and All the decendents of Jacob are "The Children of Israel" (ie. The Children Of Jacob)
Before Jacob there were no "Children Of Israel" because Jacob was the First to be given the Name Israel.
Gen 3228 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
-
...
-
Salam, PB,
The ayat says...what Israel made haram for himself, NOT what Allah made haram for him/them.Also, I must investigate whether the ayat says "himself" or "itself".
If Israel mean the people of Israel, then we should read like after the word qawm/people (singular form) their self (nafsihim) instead of (nafsihi masculine singular form)
Nonetheless, the ayat, does not mention that Allah made something haram.
Can you answer this in the light of the Reading
if Israel is a prophet like Abraham, Noah, did he prohibit some foods according his desire or to what is inspired to Him by the God?
Jacob is called Israel by Judaism and Christianity
Gen 3228 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Thanks
-
Salaamun alaikum all,
I would say that its very iffy to accept information from the bible to aid our Quranic understanding. This simply goes against the science of information set by al-quraan itself. Ya'cuub has no connection with Israil. In fact, the people with Nuh were already called 'bani israil' (17/3)
Jaxal Maybe im wrong here, but if Jacob made haram something that wasnt from God, isnt he a disbeliever then? Truely Wicked?
The Nabi (not Joe, heheh) also made something haraam which Allah made halaal in 66/1.
-
Peace mq,
In fact, the people with Nuh were already called 'bani israil' (17/3)
172 And We gave/brought Moses The Book, and We made it guidance to Israel's sons and daughters; that you do not take from other than Me a guardian/protector .
173 Descendants (of) whom We carried/loaded with Noah, that he truly was a thankful/grateful worshipper/slave.
This is referring to the descendants of those with Noah, not those with Noah?!? Please explain?
-
Salaamun alaikum Nadia,
In the story of Musa, you can see how the word 'dzuriyat' is usedBut none believed in Moses except some DHURIYAT of his people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. (10/83)
Yet we know Bani Israil left with musa across the sea, no mention of 'dhuriyat' or descendants were made. This shows the continuity of the term Bani Israil from generation to generation. From here, I deduce that the followers of Nuh themselves were Bani Israil for thier journey (the word 'israa' implies journey anyway).
-
Peace mq,
In the story of Musa, you can see how the word 'dzuriyat' is usedBut none believed in Moses except some DHURIYAT of his people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and his chiefs, lest they should persecute them; and certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth and one who transgressed all bounds. (10/83)
Yet we know Bani Israil left with musa across the sea, no mention of 'dhuriyat' or descendants were made. From here, I deduce that the followers of Nuh themselves were Bani Israil for thier journey (the word 'israa' implies journey anyway).Interesting point about the word implying journey...It's overall an interesting take on the whole situation...How would you translate children of israel then? If Israel is being taken to imply journey...followers of the journey?
But I had some questions/thoughts about someone taking it the 'conventional' way in answer to the points you raised...
If we take the conventional understanding of descendants in 10/83 then could it mean none believed in Moses except some descendants of his nation/people as in the literal translation of the verse. The children of israel does then relate to israel as in 1958, and they were a community/nation (hebrews) before Moses appeared to guide them. Even if the children of israel then left with moses across the sea, they still would be the children of israel, just not all of them as the verse 10/83 states. As all of moses' followers left with him across the sea, they were the children of israel, but not all of the children of israel were moses' followers.
Nadia
-
Salaamun alaikum Nadia,
Interesting point about the word implying journey...It's overall an interesting take on the whole situation...How would you translate children of israel then? If Israel is being taken to imply journey...followers of the journey?
To me, Bani Israil is a group of people who are currently in the movement towards Allah under a musa personality.
If we take the conventional understanding of descendants in 10/83 then could it mean none believed in Moses except some descendants of his nation as in the literal translation of the verse. The children of israel does then relate to israel as in 1958, and they were a community/nation (hebrews) before Moses appeared to guide them. Even if the children of israel then left with moses across the sea, they still would be the children of israel, just not all of them as the verse 10/83 states. As all of moses' followers left with him across the sea, they were the children of israel, but not all of the children of israel were moses' followers.
The word for 'nation' here is 'qaum'. if you check for occurences, you'll find that its used for ppl of the same standing (qaum comes from same word 'qiyaam' or stand). Its not something racial as far as i can see.
-
Peace mq,
To me, Bani Israil is a group of people who are currently in the movement towards Allah under a musa personality.
I see.
The word for 'nation' here is 'qaum'. if you check for occurences, you'll find that its used for ppl of the same standing (qaum comes from same word 'qiyaam' or stand). Its not something racial as far as i can see.
People of the same standing can definitely mean a community, after checking occurences, thats what it's used for as as well (most verses sent to his people etc, so what are 'his people'? His community.)... and if descendants is taken along with it...it can mean descendants of a community...in which case children of israel a community, descended from israel...It doesn't have to be purely racial as a thing can start from one place but is mixed up considerably with time, that doesn't change what is being referenced in my understanding...but I can see there is a difference in the way we take things...Thank you for sharing your understanding.
Nadia
-
Peace be upon you,
MQ, why dont you post more man? D
With this understanding, can it be said that all food was lawful except what the individuals journey towards the God made restricted? Maybe one person is allergic to something and therefore restricts him/hersewlf from that, etc.
-
PEACE, IDOL,
Peace be upon you,
MQ, why dont you post more man? D
With this understanding, can it be said that all food was lawful except what the individuals journey towards the God made restricted? Maybe one person is allergic to something and therefore restricts him/hersewlf from that, etc.
That wouldn't make that food haram, but simply not tayyib for that individual.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
If Israel mean the people of Israel, then we should read like after the word qawm/people (singular form) their self (nafsihim) instead of (nafsihi masculine singular form)
QUES Can nafsihi refer "itself" as well as "himself"? Omar, The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, states it can mean both. Yusef Ali and Muhammad Asad, translates the ayat as follows
393 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."
PBM Nonetheless, the ayat, does not mention that Allah made something haram.
Can you answer this in the light of the Reading
if Israel is a prophet like Abraham, Noah, did he prohibit some foods according his desire or to what is inspired to Him by the God?
The folowing was my reply to Wakas. I think it is close to what you're asking. If not, I will try to be more on target in my next reply;
WAKAS Well, its very likely he was a prophet , thus held the same restrictions as prior prophets, i.e. the ones we have in 'al quran'. Being a prophet means you are under direct guidance, and under such direction one does not forbid anything without authority (usually), thus it is safe to assume what he forbade was with authority.
I can agree with the above in the main, because the Messenger stated that, "he brought no new doctrine"--469. If the ayat is translated properly as "himself", then, it is possible that the prophet Israel, in making something haram on his own, erred in judgement. While in the capacity of prophet, a prophet could err, whereas, a prophet acting in the capacity of Messenger, could not err.
66.1 O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
661 Ya ayyuha annabiyyu lima tuharrimu ma ahalla Allahu laka tabtaghee mardata azwajika wallahu ghafoorun raheem.
In the above ayat, Allah, by using Yaa (O) is speaking directly to the Prophet. There is no yaa (O) preceding Israel in ayat 393, hence, further indicating that Israel may be referring to a nation and not an individual. The above ayat establishes that a prophet can err, however, if Israel is a prophet in 393, then why didn't Allah correct him as He did the Last Prophet? In both cases, something was halal and then made haram. In addition, man cannot make something haram, only Allah makes haram
1059 Say "See ye what things Allah hath sent down to you for sustenance? Yet you hold haram some things thereof and (some things) halal." Say "Hath Allah indeed permitted you, or do ye invent (things) to attribute to Allah.
Nowhere, in Al-Quran, does Allah give permission for a prophet to declare something to be haram.
If the ayat is referring to a..."himself", then there is no reason to believe the COI, as a people, followed suit. Now, if they did, then, they followed the sunnah of a prophet. If this be the case then, the so-called Muslims today can make an argument for The Last Prophet's so-called sunnah to be followed.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
MQ, why dont you post more man?
With this understanding, can it be said that all food was lawful except what the individuals journey towards the God made restricted? Maybe one person is allergic to something and therefore restricts him/hersewlf from that, etc.
I can't 'feel' that, im afraid Kyle. The bells aren't ringing. And as for me, I havent been noting down my own readings. Just been reading off the cuff of late.
-
moved....
-
Why not using the bible to understand the stories implying the children of Israel ?
You need to ask what your starting point is. If it's the Quran and you accept its as your criteria, the bible fails its test. Furthermore, the Quran is explained in detail and so doesn't need any extra information.