What are the "books" of Allah?

aladdin

Salaam Arnab,

So you are the product of the "flower child". May God bless them and thru them God bless us all. Ameen, Ya'Rabbi!

Now to Torah first and two questions for you

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?
God gave Torah (the law) on tablets. Why on tablets?

Mohamed

unknownuser

Salaam Arnab,

So you are the product of the "flower child". May God bless them and thru them God bless us all. Ameen, Ya'Rabbi!

Now to Torah first and two questions for you

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?
God gave Torah (the law) on tablets. Why on tablets?

Mohamed

Salam,
Yeap, flower children they were...lol

Good questions....here is how I understand it....

First off let me say that the children of Israel were nomads through out the Torah. They were a group of people who were a self contained society. As far as a I can tell the sacrifices were not only an atonement for sin, but for supporting the society (as well as the priests and levites who had no other job but God's service).

And sometimes you need a physical action that goes hand in hand with a spiritual/mental one....like prostrating when praying etc.

And I am reminded of this verse
Quran 2234 (Free-Minds Translation)
And for every nation We have made a rite that they may mention God's name over what He has provided for them of the animal livestock. So your god is One god, so to Him surrender and give good tidings to those who obey.

And, who's to say that we aren't still supposed to make sacrifices as atonement for sin, etc? The sacrifices were eaten and it wasn't anything cruel. I haven't found a verse that says that we shouldn't at this point. And it is one of the things I intend to research. Not all sacrifices were the killing of animals...there were grain sacrifices too.

I know at the very least we are supposed to mention God's name before eating and thank him when we are done for what he has given us.

I would love to hear comments on this subject.

Quran 7144-145 (Freeminds Translation)
He said "O Moses, I have chosen you over mankind with My messages and My words; so take what I have given you and be of the thankful."
And We wrote for him on the tablets from everything a lesson, and detailing all things. Take it with strength and order your people to take the best from it. I will show you the abode of the corrupt.

Torah Exodus 3118 (KJV)
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Good question...why tablets?

Salam

aladdin

Salaam Arnab,

Let us try to make it simple, usually Christians try to spin here and there. You still haven't answered my first question so unfortunately we can't move on to my second question. Here is the first question again.

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?

For which you have quoted me the following aya, and here is the literal translation for it. I believe that you have claimed to be expert in the Arabic language.

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

See the aya talks about the ritual of worshiping, not the blood scarifies for the atonement of sins. You are a Muslim, do you think that we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins? The answer is very simple either Yes or No?

The beauty of Islam is that it is not a complicated religion as some may have you believe them. It is very simple.

Mohamed

Fahad1

Salam Arnab.

Salam Fahad,

I respect your opinion. And at one time I thought that too. Try to keep an open mind on the subject though.

Thanks. I respect your opinions too.

Actually if you look at the hebrew word torah it is spelled exactly the same (transliterated) as in arabic, ...

Just because the Jewish book "Torah"(OT) is spelled the same means that it is the same thing as "at-taurat"?! The Sunni books of "Hadees"(Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc) are also spelled same as the word "hadees" that is mentioned in verse 3923. What do you think about that? Is verse 3923 refering to the Hadiths books(Bukhari, Muslim etc)?

...plus it sounds the same in both languages. ...

Indeed, it will sound the same in both languages. The Quran tells us why

Chapter 3/78 And among them is a group that twists their language with Al Kitab, so that you may think it is from Al Kitab, while it is not from Al Kitab. And they say ?It is from the presence of Allah?, while it is not from the presence of Allah. And they say the lie against Allah while they know.

Not only that the torah as given to moses was well known in the time of muhammad.

The words ?at-taurat? and ?Musa? do not occur together in the Quran.

Looking forward to your views on this.

Salam.

unknownuser

Salaam Arnab,

Let us try to make it simple, usually Christians try to spin here and there.

Salam,
Thank you for warning me about the Christians. (I will ignore any thoughts that that may be an accusation that I am a Christian, as I have already told you I am Muslim and that would be silly to think that you would still doubt me after I have said it several times ...not to mention slightly paranoid...)
But I have to say that I know who I am, so why should I fear them? People who fear what others believe are usually insecure in their own beliefs and they try to keep them from sharing their beliefs because they know that their own faith is very fragile. But to know God is to know yourself and then there is nothing to fear....you will not be called into account for what others do....you are accountable only for yourself.

You still haven't answered my first question so unfortunately we can't move on to my second question. Here is the first question again.

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?

For which you have quoted me the following aya, and here is the literal translation for it. I believe that you have claimed to be expert in the Arabic language.

I think there is a misunderstanding Mohamed, I never claimed to be an expert in the arabic language. I am learning it, though, as I stated earlier. Here is the quote from my answer to you previously

"I struggled with a language with funny looking letters that I didn't understand and an alphabetical order that was foriegn as well. Not to mention a root system that is completely different from English. I'm still learning (aren't we all?), and as I learn more my views change (a show of spiritual growth)."

You can scroll through this thread and re-read my earlier message to see the whole context.

But I have to ask if you thought I was an expert in the arabic language why would you give me an english translation?

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

See the aya talks about the ritual of worshiping, not the blood scarifies for the atonement of sins.

Actually, I still think its talking about sacrifices. But it doesn't outright say "sacrifice."
an example is I can tell you that I went to the store and bought groceries....you will know that I went "shopping" even if I don't actually say that I went "shopping."

You are a Muslim, do you think that we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins? The answer is very simple either Yes or No?

I thought you wanted my opinion on blood sacrifices, asking what most Muslims believe, doesn't really help us to explore. I didn't mean to avoid your question. I was sharing my thoughts on the subject.

I thought that you, being a Muslim, would know already what most Muslims believe. However I'm happy to tell you how the mainstream thinks too if you don't know.

The answer is most Muslims do not believe in sacrifices for the atonement of sins.
However, I am questioning that at this time. As I said it is something I intend to research.

Just because the Jewish book "Torah"(OT) is spelled the same means that it is the same thing as "at-taurat"?!

Salam,
Yes, at this time, that is what I am saying.

The Sunni books of "Hadees"(Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc) are also spelled same as the word "hadees" that is mentioned in verse 3923. What do you think about that? Is verse 3923 refering to the Hadiths books(Bukhari, Muslim etc)?

No, that is different as the Torah is specifically said in 7144-145 to be given to Moses

Quran 7144-145 (Freeminds Translation)
He said "O Moses, I have chosen you over mankind with My messages and My words; so take what I have given you and be of the thankful."
And We wrote for him on the tablets from everything a lesson, and detailing all things. Take it with strength and order your people to take the best from it. I will show you the abode of the corrupt.

And the Quran speaks specifically on hadith

Quran 316
(Transliteration) Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadeethi liyudilla AAan sabeeli Allahi bighayri AAilmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan ola-ika lahum AAathabun muheenun
(Literal) And from the people who buys the information's/speeches' amusement/fun to misguide from God's way/path without knowledge, and He takes it mockingly/making fun, those, for them (is) a humiliating/degrading torture.
(Free-Minds) And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.

Indeed, it will sound the same in both languages. The Quran tells us why

Chapter 3/78 And among them is a group that twists their language with Al Kitab, so that you may think it is from Al Kitab, while it is not from Al Kitab. And they say ?It is from the presence of Allah?, while it is not from the presence of Allah. And they say the lie against Allah while they know.

Well, I guess it depends on what the meaning of al kitab is in this verse...is it talking about the heavenly al kitab from which we are sent down scripture? Is it talking about all the books as a whole?
But, if the books are not contradicting each other, and not contradicting the Quran then its not a lie from God and we're not disobeying this verse right?

The words ?at-taurat? and ?Musa? do not occur together in the Quran.

You're right, not side by side, but in two verses

Quran 7144-145 (Freeminds Translation)
He said "O Moses, I have chosen you over mankind with My messages and My words; so take what I have given you and be of the thankful."
And We wrote for him on the tablets from everything a lesson, and detailing all things. Take it with strength and order your people to take the best from it. I will show you the abode of the corrupt.

I tried to answer all your questions to the best of my ability. Please let me know if I missed anything. Also, try to keep in mind that I am not an expert in anything, I'm just learning, like you. And this is what I pieced together so far.
Thank you for letting me share.

Salam

P.S. I had to modify this reply because realized that I inserted quotes from two people without identifying who the authors were and that could get a little confusing.

Fahad1

Salam.

Salam,

Just because the Jewish book "Torah"(OT) is spelled the same means that it is the same thing as "at-taurat"?!

Yes, at this time, that is what I am saying.

The Sunni books of "Hadees"(Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc) are also spelled same as the word "hadees" that is mentioned in verse 3923. What do you think about that? Is verse 3923 refering to the Hadiths books(Bukhari, Muslim etc)?

No, ...

But it spells the same... ?

...that is different...

Lets see...

....as the Torah is specifically said in 7144-145 to be given to Moses ...

I don't think so...

Quran 7144-145 (Freeminds Translation)
He said "O Moses, I have chosen you over mankind with My messages and My words; so take what I have given you and be of the thankful."

And We wrote for him on the tablets from everything a lesson, and detailing all things. Take it with strength and order your people to take the best from it. I will show you the abode of the corrupt.

Which translated word is "at-taurat" here? This is the transliteration

7144 Qala ya moosa innee istafaytuka AAala alnnasi birisalatee wabikalamee fakhuth ma ataytuka wakun mina alshshakireena

7145 Wakatabna lahu fee al-alwahi min kulli shay-in mawAAithatan watafseelan likulli shay-in fakhuthha biquwwatin wa/mur qawmaka ya/khuthoo bi-ahsaniha saoreekum dara alfasiqeena

Can you please highlight the word "at-taurat"?

And the Quran speaks specifically on hadith

Quran 316
(Transliteration) Wamina alnnasi man yashtaree lahwa alhadeethi liyudilla AAan sabeeli Allahi bighayri AAilmin wayattakhithaha huzuwan ola-ika lahum AAathabun muheenun

(Literal) And from the people who buys the information's/speeches' amusement/fun to misguide from God's way/path without knowledge, and He takes it mockingly/making fun, those, for them (is) a humiliating/degrading torture.

(Free-Minds) And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.

IF the word ?lahwa-al-hadees? in verse 316 is specifically speaking about Hadiths books, then the word ?ahsan-al-hadees?(3923) should be specifically speaking about Sahih Bukhari, because Sahih Bukhari is called the better(?ahsan?) of all the Hadiths(?al-hadees?). It only makes sense. What do you think ?

Indeed, it will sound the same in both languages. The Quran tells us why

Chapter 3/78 And among them is a group that twists their language with Al Kitab, so that you may think it is from Al Kitab, while it is not from Al Kitab. And they say ?It is from the presence of Allah?, while it is not from the presence of Allah. And they say the lie against Allah while they know.

Well, I guess it depends on what the meaning of al kitab is in this verse...is it talking about the heavenly al kitab from which we are sent down scripture?

?Al kitab? is introduced in verse 22. It is the book revealed with all the prophets(2213). It is the book of which the Quran is ?tafseel? of (103.

(You can read more about al-kitab here http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/al-kitab )

Is it talking about all the books as a whole?

But, if the books are not contradicting each other, and not contradicting the Quran then its not a lie from God and we're not disobeying this verse right?

The ?books/kutub? of Allah are the chapters of the Quran, not the OT and NT. I have tried to explain it in my original post. Do you disagree with it? If so, then why?

The words ?at-taurat? and ?Musa? do not occur together in the Quran.

You're right, not side by side, but in two verses

Quran 7144-145 (Freeminds Translation)
He said "O Moses, I have chosen you over mankind with My messages and My words; so take what I have given you and be of the thankful."
And We wrote for him on the tablets from everything a lesson, and detailing all things. Take it with strength and order your people to take the best from it. I will show you the abode of the corrupt.

I have provided the transliteration above. Can you please highlight the word ?at-taurat?.

I tried to answer all your questions to the best of my ability.

Thanks.

Please let me know if I missed anything.

Yes, a number of things actually, as I have tried to explain.

Also, try to keep in mind that I am not an expert in anything, I'm just learning, like you. And this is what I pieced together so far.

No problem. I am not an expert either.

Thank you for letting me share.

Thank you too.

EDITED the link http//thequran.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/al-kitab-what-i-have-understood/

aladdin

Salam,

I think there is a misunderstanding Mohamed, I never claimed to be an expert in the Arabic language.

Actually, I still think its talking about sacrifices. But it doesn't outright say "sacrifice."

The answer is most Muslims do not believe in sacrifices for the atonement of sins. However, I am questioning that at this time. As I said it is something I intend to research.

Salaam Arnab,

If we look very closely at Hindus and Buddhist, whose religion was earlier than Judaism, one finds that they believe in ?One true God? also. Not only this, the Hindus also believe in Trinity and in their language they call it ?Trimurti?. ?Tri? in their language means, ?Three? and ?Murti? in their language means, ?God?. For this reason the Hindus ?One true God? has three faces and six hands. They have the same concept as Christianity, i.e., One into Three, and Three into One. In fact, their thousands of Gods are true replicas of this ?One true God?.

According to Hindus, if God can incarnation himself 2000 years ago and will re-incarnation during Rapture, then why can?t He re-incarnation over and over thousands of time regardless of time, space, country, border, race, color, creed, religion, rich, poor, gender, and so on? The Hindus question; Is the God of Christianity a prejudiced God, who only incarnation to certain people based on time, space, country, borders, race, creed? And, he re-incarnation only as man?

As coming from the Christian background how would you answer the Hindu?
How would you answer the Hindu as a Muslim?

I would request you to keep your answers short for the above two questions, logical and without quoting any scripture as the Hindu does not believe in the Abrahmic faith.

Mohamed

savage_carrot

Can I ask you Aladdin, why you have chosen the first question when I don't see much relevance to what is being discussed and when she specifically says

Thank you for warning me about the Christians. (I will ignore any thoughts that that may be an accusation that I am a Christian, as I have already told you I am Muslim and that would be silly to think that you would still doubt me after I have said it several times ...not to mention slightly paranoid...)

As coming from the Christian background how would you answer the Hindu?

As for the second question, I also don't see the relevance of this line of thought from what is being discussed in this thread. Maybe the point is being missed here, which is a discussion about what the books of Allah are etc

I would request you to please keep to the topic of the discussion, for any other topics, start another thread in the appropriate section.

Peace

aladdin

Salaam savage_carrot

My friend I am not accusing anybody, Arnab's faith is much much stronger. I am going to the root of the Islam religion and it pertains to the discussion Arnab and I are having about the books of Allah. Torah, Psalms and Injeel are only about 4000 years old and mankind is much, much older. Below is what Arnab quoted to me early in this post

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

The Hindus, Buddhists and we all are God's children. So, please let Arnab and my discourse to continue. Thanks.

Mohamed

Fahad1

Salam Aladdin.

Salaam savage_carrot

My friend I am not accusing anybody, Arnab's faith is much much stronger. I am going to the root of the Islam religion ...

I think that the discussion is going off-topic here. The thread is not about "the root of the Islam religion". The thread is about the "kutub of Allah" being the chapters of the Quran. Do you agree or disagree with that? You didn't tell.

...and it pertains to the discussion Arnab and I are having about the books of Allah.

You haven't commented on the original article yet. Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

aladdin

Salam Aladdin.

I think that the discussion is going off-topic here. The thread is not about "the root of the Islam religion". The thread is about the "kutub of Allah" being the chapters of the Quran. Do you agree or disagree with that? You didn't tell.

You haven't commented on the original article yet. Please stay on topic.

Thanks.

Salaam Fahad

I am trying to prove to Arnab that Torah, Pslams and Injeel are not books of God.

So, my original question to Arnab and I repeat

Salaam Arnab,

So you are the product of the "flower child". May God bless them and thru them God bless us all. Ameen, Ya'Rabbi!

Now to Torah first and two questions for you

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?
God gave Torah (the law) on tablets. Why on tablets?

Mohamed

To which Arnab has so far replied

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

Actually, I still think its talking about sacrifices. But it doesn't outright say "sacrifice."

The answer is most Muslims do not believe in sacrifices for the atonement of sins. However, I am questioning that at this time. As I said it is something I intend to research.

And, so I am leading him to the root of all books of Allah, thus my earlier not properly worded phrase, "root of Islam religion". If Arnab accepts the concept that in Islam, it is our deeds that matters, not that our sins will be atoned with blood and flesh sacrifices. If he accept this principle that I can easily prove to him that Torah, Psalms and Injeel are not books of Allah. If he doesn't accept the principle that Islam is deed based religion, but rather atonements of sins are through blood and flesh, then I have to take him back to umm-al-kutub of Allah.

We are talking about Torah and Injeel. Both Judaism and Christianity are based on atonements of sins through blood and flesh, though not Islam. Muhammad wasn't the first Muslim, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus ..... were Muslims before Muhammad was and they all preached the same Islam, the deed based Islam.

Mohamed

unknownuser

Salam Fahad,

Let me try to address the issues so far

I personally believe that the Torah referred to in the Quran is the Torah that is present in the Old Testament.
And I personally believe that we are not supposed to follow hadith (the reported sayings of Muhammad) and I do not believe that 3923 is saying that we should follow these so called "hadith."

Which translated word is "at-taurat" here? This is the transliteration

7144 Qala ya moosa innee istafaytuka AAala alnnasi birisalatee wabikalamee fakhuth ma ataytuka wakun mina alshshakireena

7145 Wakatabna lahu fee al-alwahi min kulli shay-in mawAAithatan watafseelan likulli shay-in fakhuthha biquwwatin wa/mur qawmaka ya/khuthoo bi-ahsaniha saoreekum dara alfasiqeena

Can you please highlight the word "at-taurat"?

I can't, because the word "torah" is not actually there. You are right.

It referes to the book given to Moses...which would be.....drumroll....the Torah.

If the Torah was recognized as "the book given to Moses" in the time of Muhammad, and the Torah is referred to in the Quran as containing guidance and light....then why would one think that when the Quran referres to the "book of given to Moses"....that it means anything else than the Torah?

If I referred to the Quran as the book given to Muhammad, wouldn't everyone know what I was talking about?

IF the word ?lahwa-al-hadees? in verse 316 is specifically speaking about Hadiths books, then the word ?ahsan-al-hadees?(3923) should be specifically speaking about Sahih Bukhari, because Sahih Bukhari is called the better(?ahsan?) of all the Hadiths(?al-hadees?). It only makes sense. What do you think ?

Thank you for asking for my thoughts,
I fail to see the comparison, since 316 talks about baseless narrations, example "hadith (the reported sayings of Muhammad)"

And 3923 referres to what God sent down example Torah, Psalms, Injeel, Quran (as stated in numerous places in the Quran that God descended these books upon us).

Quran 316
(Free-minds translation) And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.

Quran 3923
(Free-minds translation) God has sent down the best narration, a Scripture that is similar with two paths. The skins of those who reverence their Lord shiver from it, then their skins and their hearts soften up to the remembrance of God. Such is God's guidance; He guides with it whoever He wills. And for whomever God misguides, then none can guide him.

?Quote
Indeed, it will sound the same in both languages. The Quran tells us why

Chapter 3/78 And among them is a group that twists their language with Al Kitab, so that you may think it is from Al Kitab, while it is not from Al Kitab. And they say ?It is from the presence of Allah?, while it is not from the presence of Allah. And they say the lie against Allah while they know.

Well, I guess it depends on what the meaning of al kitab is in this verse...is it talking about the heavenly al kitab from which we are sent down scripture?....

?Al kitab? is introduced in verse 22. It is the book revealed with all the prophets(2213). It is the book of which the Quran is ?tafseel? of (103.

Actually I'm glad you brought up 2213.

Quran 2213
(Free-minds translation)The people used to be one nation, then God sent the prophets as bearers of good news and warners, and He sent down with them the Scripture with the facts so that they may judge between the people in what they were disputing. But after receiving the clarity, the people disputed in it due to animosity between them. And God guided those who believed with His permission regarding what they disputed in of the truth. And God guides whoever He wishes to a straight path.

If God sent the prophets of bearers of good news and warners and he sent down with them the scripture with the facts so that they may judge between the people...(2213)

And you believe that Moses is a prophet....(as stated in 1951 among other places...)

And if you believe that Moses was given scripture (6154 among other places)

And if you believe that God "...sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light..." (544)

And the only thing referred to as "the Torah" is also called "the books of Moses" even in Muhammad's time....

Then one could reasonably conclude that we are supposed to follow the Torah given to Moses....in it is guidance and light.

This is a brief explaination of why I came to this conclusion. I don't know what else can be said about this because it seems we just see things differently, right now.

I would like to add that when I read the Torah, Psalms, Injeel and Quran in succession (struggling with the different languages). I know that a lot of rules changed. And this is pointed out in the Quran.

Jesus changed some of the rules in the Torah

Quran 350
"And authenticating what is present with me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden to you; and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so be aware of God and obey me."

And in 548 we are told that some of the scriptures have been "superseded" and we are told that "for each of you we have made laws, and a structure...."

548 And We have sent down to you the Scripture with truth, authenticating what is present of the Scripture and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.

I will respond to the rest of the posts in a few hours (insha Allah) as I have some things to do right now.

Thank you for your time

Salam

unknownuser

Salaam Arnab,

If we look very closely at Hindus and Buddhist, whose religion was earlier than Judaism, one finds that they believe in ?One true God? also. Not only this, the Hindus also believe in Trinity and in their language they call it ?Trimurti?. ?Tri? in their language means, ?Three? and ?Murti? in their language means, ?God?. For this reason the Hindus ?One true God? has three faces and six hands. They have the same concept as Christianity, i.e., One into Three, and Three into One. In fact, their thousands of Gods are true replicas of this ?One true God?.

According to Hindus, if God can incarnation himself 2000 years ago and will re-incarnation during Rapture, then why can?t He re-incarnation over and over thousands of time regardless of time, space, country, border, race, color, creed, religion, rich, poor, gender, and so on? The Hindus question; Is the God of Christianity a prejudiced God, who only incarnation to certain people based on time, space, country, borders, race, creed? And, he re-incarnation only as man?

As coming from the Christian background how would you answer the Hindu?
How would you answer the Hindu as a Muslim?

I would request you to keep your answers short for the above two questions, logical and without quoting any scripture as the Hindu does not believe in the Abrahmic faith.

Mohamed

Salam Mohamed,
As savage_carrot has pointed out this is off topic. If you would like to start a new topic I will be happy to reply. Although if you want to know more about how to answer people who are Hindus about their faith you should probably ask someone else other than me. I don't really know much about Hinduism except the very basics.

I know that the following is addressed to Fahad but since I was not at the computer and I am involved in the discussion I would like to reply

Salaam Fahad

I am trying to prove to Arnab that Torah, Pslams and Injeel are not books of God.

So, my original question to Arnab and I repeat

Quote from aladdin on October 12, 2006, 104527 AM
Salaam Arnab,

So you are the product of the "flower child". May God bless them and thru them God bless us all. Ameen, Ya'Rabbi!

Now to Torah first and two questions for you

The whole Torah is almost about blood sacrifice for atonement of sins by sacrificing animals. It goes on and on and in very detail about how to do this. Do we Muslims believe in blood sacrifices for the atonements of our sins?
God gave Torah (the law) on tablets. Why on tablets?

Mohamed

To which Arnab has so far replied

Quote from Arnab
And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

Actually, I still think its talking about sacrifices. But it doesn't outright say "sacrifice."

The answer is most Muslims do not believe in sacrifices for the atonement of sins. However, I am questioning that at this time. As I said it is something I intend to research.(end quote Arnab)

And, so I am leading him to the root of all books of Allah, thus my earlier not properly worded phrase, "root of Islam religion". If Arnab accepts the concept that in Islam, it is our deeds that matters, not that our sins will be atoned with blood and flesh sacrifices. If he accept this principle that I can easily prove to him that Torah, Psalms and Injeel are not books of Allah. If he doesn't accept the principle that Islam is deed based religion, but rather atonements of sins are through blood and flesh, then I have to take him back to umm-al-kutub of Allah.

I think we just have a difference in understanding at this point.

We are talking about Torah and Injeel. Both Judaism and Christianity are based on atonements of sins through blood and flesh, though not Islam.

Actually to the best of my knowledge I don't think Christians make sacrifices for atonement for sins....but I don't know that much about what mainstream Christians think since I have only read the Injeel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and never read the other books of the New Testament (someday I intend to just for educational purposes, but I haven't yet).

Muhammad wasn't the first Muslim, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus ..... were Muslims before Muhammad was and they all preached the same Islam, the deed based Islam.

Mohamed

If you accept that, then how hard is it to believe that they were given books as well?

As I see it the basic difference we have is that to the best of my understanding at the current time I believe that the Torah, Psalms and Injeel were also given to prophets and you do not.
That's okay. As we learn maybe one of us will change our views.

Salam

aladdin

Salaam Arnab,

The first contradiction and the two quotes. First to me.

Salam aladdin,

Actually the Torah consists of the five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). And sometimes the Torah is referred to as the Pentateuch (A greek word which means roughly "five implements."

The complete Old Testament is sometimes referred to as the Tanach.

And is seperated in three parts "The Laws" (Torah), The Prophets (Nevi'im), and the Writings (Ketivum). But the Tanach or "Old Testament" is not what we are told about it. It is the Torah (The Five books of Moses) that we are told has guidance and light.

And, now to Fahad

Salam Fahad,

I personally believe that the Torah referred to in the Quran is the Torah that is present in the Old Testament.

The second contradiction and two quotes. The recent first quote to me.

Salam Mohamed,

Actually to the best of my knowledge I don't think Christians make sacrifices for atonement for sins....but I don't know that much about what mainstream Christians think since I have only read the Injeel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and never read the other books of the New Testament (someday I intend to just for educational purposes, but I haven't yet).

And, the earlier quote to me

Salam aladdin,

When you read the four books in the order of revelation (in their original languages to the best of your ability), you see the connections between the books, you understand why chapter 2 of the Quran starts out (for the most part) talking about the children of Israel, you understand Jesus in a way you couldn't before, you come away with a completely different understanding.

I highly recommend it.

I agree with you that you mean the original of the fours book is Greek, even though Jesus spoke Aramaic. and thanks for selling me Jesus..

The third contradiction regarding the old contact with the Jews and the new contract with the Jews (I mean the Gentile dogs Jesus referred to in Matthew and Mark). And your quote to me

Salaam Mohamed,

I think we just have a difference in understanding at this point.

Actually to the best of my knowledge I don't think Christians make sacrifices for atonement for sins....but I don't know that much about what mainstream Christians think since I have only read the Injeel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and never read the other books of the New Testament (someday I intend to just for educational purposes, but I haven't yet).

And your earlier statement to me

Salaam Mohamed,

I think we just have a difference in understanding at this point.

Actually to the best of my knowledge I don't think Christians make sacrifices for atonement for sins....

And, you understand Jesus in a way you couldn't before, you come away with a completely different understanding.

I highly recommend it.

Since you are very familiar with the Gospels, and with no shadow of doubt, these four books are originally in Greek language, then you must know that under the new contract with the Jews, Jesus gave his blood and flesh, so therefore no further need for blood and glory and until the Rapture is Crapture.

The fourth and fifth contradictions check out these two separate statements. This statement made to me.

Salam aladdin,

Thank you for asking. I am a Muslim.

Before coming to Islam I researched a lot of religions but was not really brought up with a "religion" so to speak.

And,

I don't really know much about Hinduism except the very basics.

The fourth about Hinduism, And, the fifth contradiction and your statement to me

Salam,

Actually, I still think its talking about sacrifices. But it doesn't outright say "sacrifice."

an example is I can tell you that I went to the store and bought groceries....you will know that I went "shopping" even if I don't actually say that I went "shopping."

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

Thank you for asking. I am a Muslim.

Before coming to Islam I researched a lot of religions but was not really brought up with a "religion" so to speak.

Since, you are converted Muslim, so therefore the Mufti must have thought you the basic Islam, when you professed the shahaadah. And since you claim to done lot of research then you must know the salat (the first pillar in Islam) and the concept of nags. In Islam the blood is nags whatsoever the source (man, woman, animal..) and proven by the science that blood is dangerous if not handled properly. The aya you quoted me above, as you say, it might be talking about sacrifices for charity, but not blood sacrifices for the atonement of sins, neither of animals and/nor of Jesus. Islam don't believe in atonement of sins through blood sacrifices, Islam is a deed based religion.

The sixth contradiction and your quote to me.

Salam Mohamed,

As I see it the basic difference we have is that to the best of my understanding at the current time I believe that the Torah, Psalms and Injeel were also given to prophets and you do not.

That's okay. As we learn maybe one of us will change our views.

I have never made the statement that I don't believe that the Torah, Psalms and Injeel were not given to the prophets. As, a Muslim, I believe in each and every word of Koran.

As a Muslim if you agree that Islam don't believe in atonements of sins through blood and flesh sacrifices, so that we can move on and I can prove to you that the books you consider the Torah, Psalms and Injeel in their present form are not from God. These books are not from Allah. Isn't this what the thread is about, what are the "books" of Allah?

I am willing to continue since you are Muslim and teach you about Islam, not Judaism or Christianity. Teach you that though Muslims do sacrifice animals for charity, but they don't sacrifice animals and/or humans for the atonement of sins, like Judaism and Christianity do.

By the way have the four books, Injeel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) been again translated from their original language of Greek, back to Hebrew and Aramaic?

Wow what cooking and spinning.

Believe me that Hindus and Buddhist are God?s children too and as you quoted me

Salam,

And to each/every nation We made/created a ritual or method of worship/familiar place , to mention/remember God's name on what He provided for them from quadrupeds of land and sea excluding felines the camels/livestock, so your God (is) one God, so to Him submit/surrender , and announce good news (to) the humble/tranquil.

The Hindus, Buddhist and all other God?s children are part of God?s Kingdom and Nations.

Ameen, Ya?Rabbi

Mohamed

unknownuser

Salam Mohamed,
I?m not going to address all the concerns/allegations you have made because I don?t see that it will be beneficial to any of us.

I do feel the need to clarify the issue about the Torah being in the Old Testament. A lot of people get confused about the different words used and this could easily be a misunderstanding.

The Old Testament (also called the Tanach) contains three parts
A. The Torah (five books of Moses) sometimes referred to as the Pentateuch (in Greek)
B. The Nevi?im (The Prophets)
C. Ketivum (The Writings)

So when I said that I believe that the Torah in the Old Testament is referred to in the Quran it is because the Torah is contained within the Old Testament.

I also want to point out that I don?t believe that the Injeel was originally in Greek I believe that it was originally in Aramaic because Jesus spoke Aramaic (as you correctly pointed out).

I thank you for the offer to educate me, but I already have a Murshid.

If you do have someone study under you at some point, you may want to consider this quote from Rumi
?You cannot teach by disagreement?

I don?t wish to argue with you, Mohamad, I greet you every time I write with Peace and I don?t wish to be a hypocrite by declaring Salam and at once trying to destroy it by arguments.

I thank you for the discussion.

Salam

aladdin

Salam Mohamed,

I also want to point out that I don?t believe that the Injeel was originally in Greek I believe that it was originally in Aramaic because Jesus spoke Aramaic (as you correctly pointed out).

Salam

Salaam Arnab,

You have made the above statement statement. Prove it me since you are the expert in Gospel of Jesus and the four books by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as earlier claimed by you? Did you read these books in Aramaic?

Mohamed

unknownuser

Salam Mohamad,

This is a link explaining the evidence supporting the Aramaic Peshitta Primacy.

http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-alphabet.html

Salam

aladdin

Salam Mohamed,

This is a link explaining the evidence supporting the Aramaic Pes***ta Primacy.

http//www.aramaicpes***ta.com/friendsearch/aramaic-alphabet.html

Salam

Salaam Arnab,

I can give you thousands and thousands of site which say the four book were originally written in Greek. You must be joking with me. You surely don't believe that coming from the Christian background.

Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

http//www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170/

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

The popular perception of the Bible as a divinely perfect book receives scant support from Ehrman, who sees in Holy Writ ample evidence of human fallibility and ecclesiastical politics. Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another. Most of the textual discrepancies, Ehrman acknowledges, matter little, but some do profoundly affect religious doctrine. To assess how ignorant or theologically manipulative scribes may have changed the biblical text, modern scholars have developed procedures for comparing diverging texts. And in language accessible to nonspecialists, Ehrman explains these procedures and their results. He further explains why textual criticism has frequently sparked intense controversy, especially among scripture-alone Protestants. In discounting not only the authenticity of existing manuscripts but also the inspiration of the original writers, Ehrman will deeply divide his readers. Although he addresses a popular audience, he undercuts the very religious attitudes that have made the Bible a popular book. Still, this is a useful overview for biblical history collections.

The Lost Christianities The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Hardcover)

http//www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830/

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament? Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture), a professor of religion at UNC Chapel Hill, offers answers to these and other questions in this book, which rehearses the now-familiar story of the tremendous diversity of early Christianity and its eventual suppression by a powerful "proto-orthodox" faction. The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity. Ehrman eloquently characterizes some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark, as he outlines the many strands of Christianity that competed for attention in the second and third centuries. He issues an important reminder that there was no such thing as a monolithic Christian orthodoxy before the fourth century. While Ehrman sometimes raises interesting questions (e.g., are Paul's writings sympathetic to women?), his book covers territory already well-explored by others (Gregory Riley, The River of God; Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief), generating few fresh or provocative insights.

Book Description

The early Christian Church was a chaos of contending beliefs. Some groups of Christians claimed that there was not one God but two or twelve or thirty. Some believed that the world had not been created by God but by a lesser, ignorant deity. Certain sects maintained that Jesus was human but not divine, while others said he was divine but not human.

In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman offers a fascinating look at these early forms of Christianity and shows how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten. All of these groups insisted that they upheld the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and they all possessed writings that bore out their claims, books reputedly produced by Jesus's own followers. Modern archaeological work has recovered a number of key texts, and as Ehrman shows, these spectacular discoveries reveal religious diversity that says much about the ways in which history gets written by the winners.

Ehrman's discussion ranges from considerations of various "lost scriptures"--including forged gospels supposedly written by Simon Peter, Jesus's closest disciple, and Judas Thomas, Jesus's alleged twin brother--to the disparate beliefs of such groups as the Jewish-Christian Ebionites, the anti-Jewish Marcionites, and various "Gnostic" sects. Ehrman examines in depth the battles that raged between "proto-orthodox Christians"-- those who eventually compiled the canonical books of the New Testament and standardized Christian belief--and the groups they denounced as heretics and ultimately overcame.

Scrupulously researched and lucidly written, Lost Christianities is an eye-opening account of politics, power, and the clash of ideas among Christians in the decades before one group came to see its views prevail.

New Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The New Testament ( &#951, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, and sometimes also New Covenant which is the literal translation of the Greek, is the name given to the final portion of the Bible, the holy book of the Christians. It was written by various authors after c. 45 AD and before c. 140 AD. Its books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries. The New Testament is more or less the root of the Christian religion, which has played a major role in shaping modern Western morality and culture.

New Covenant (theology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Bible translations use the term New Covenant. According to Replacement theology, this refers to the covenant or agreement made between God and Christians which is the replacement for the original covenant made between God and Israel (called Judaism) at Mount Sinai. For example, the NIV translation uses the phrase 9 times, the KJV translation uses it 3 times Hebrews 88,813,1224. Technically, according to Replacement theology, the New Covenant is put into effect at the very moment of the death of Christ, first mentioned in Matthew 2750. Just as a will is not put into effect until the testator dies, so too, the New Covenant could not be put into effect until Christ died as is explained in the Book of Hebrews 916-18 (see Jeremiah 3131-32, Hebrews 1016, Hebrews 813, Matthew 262, according to some forms of Dispensationalism. Some use the term New Covenant to refer to the books of the New Testament.

Back to Old Covenant and to the New Covenant. From the old blood and gory to the new blood and gory.

Mohamed

Fahad1

Salam Aladdin.

Salaam Fahad

I am trying to prove to Arnab that Torah, Pslams and Injeel are not books of God.

Lets do it with the help of the Quran.

We are talking about Torah and Injeel. Both Judaism and Christianity are based on atonements of sins through blood and flesh, though not Islam.

We are not talking about the contents of OT and NT, or Christanity and Judaism. Lets take a Quranic approach.

Fahad1

Salam Arnab.

Salam Fahad,

Let me try to address the issues so far

I personally believe that the Torah referred to in the Quran is the Torah that is present in the Old Testament.
And I personally believe that we are not supposed to follow hadith (the reported sayings of Muhammad) and I do not believe that 3923 is saying that we should follow these so called "hadith."

Why do you believe that you are not supposed to follow Hadiths.

Using the same logic, "at-taurat" should not mean OT.

I can't, because the word "torah" is not actually there. You are right.

It referes to the book given to Moses...which would be.....drumroll....the Torah.

(Drumsroll) Thats unQuranic ) .

If the Torah was recognized as "the book given to Moses" in the time of Muhammad, and the Torah is referred to in the Quran as containing guidance and light....then why would one think that when the Quran referres to the "book of given to Moses"....that it means anything else than the Torah?

It should not matter how it was recognized in Muhammad's time. What should matter is what the Quran says. And the Quran does not say the OT is Musa's book.

Actually I'm glad you brought up 2213.

Quran 2213
(Free-minds translation)The people used to be one nation, then God sent the prophets as bearers of good news and warners, and He sent down with them the Scripture with the facts so that they may judge between the people in what they were disputing. But after receiving the clarity, the people disputed in it due to animosity between them. And God guided those who believed with His permission regarding what they disputed in of the truth. And God guides whoever He wishes to a straight path.

If God sent the prophets of bearers of good news and warners and he sent down with them the scripture with the facts so that they may judge between the people...(2213)

And you believe that Moses is a prophet....(as stated in 1951 among other places...)

And if you believe that Moses was given scripture (6154 among other places)

And if you believe that God "...sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light..." (544)

And the only thing referred to as "the Torah" is also called "the books of Moses" even in Muhammad's time....

Then one could reasonably conclude that we are supposed to follow the Torah given to Moses....in it is guidance and light.

Bro, I can't see how you reasonably conclude that OT/Torah is Musa' book. What was referred to as "Torah" in Muhammad's time should not matter.

'Musa's book' is his record in the Quran.