People Of THE Book... Which Book?
-
I think it's just a myth. There's a Jewish narrative that says that the Torah was created 2000 years before the creation of the heavens and the earth, and when Allah spoke to the people on Sinai, He simply sent the book down to the people. As you know, most of the hadiyths come from ancient Jewish and Christian ideas and myths, and they spread to the Arabs...
I dont think this is right.
Look at the following
566 If they had upheld the Torah, the Injeel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have been rewarded from above them and below their feet. From among them is a pious nation, but many of them commit evil.
568 Say, "O people of the book, you are not upon anything until you uphold the Torah and the Injeel and what was sent down to you from your Lord." For many of them, what was sent down to you from your Lord will only increase them in transgression and rejection. So do not feel sorry for the ingrates.
-
Evidence for Muhammad telling the Jews to uphold the Torah?
566 If they had upheld the Torah, the Injeel, and what was sent down to them from their Lord, they would have been rewarded from above them and below their feet. From among them is a pious nation, but many of them commit evil.
This is proof of that claim. Here, it says that if they uphold what G-d sent down, then they will be blessed in this life and in the hereafter. The problem with that is this The Jews NEVER accepted the Evangel of Jesus, since they didn't accept Jesus as a prophet. So, how could this passage be referring to them, saying that should uphold the Torah and Injeel? It's because this passage is not referring to the Jews only, it's talking about the Jews and the Nazarenes. The passage is mentioned in PRESENT TENSE, not the past tense form that you put it in. It actually says
And if only they would uphold the Torah and the Evangel, and what was descended to them from their Lord, then they would be rewarded from above and below their feet... (566)
The Jews and Nazarenes can still be blessed, as long as they uphold the scripture. So, what scripture is it speaking of as being sent down? According to the passage, it's speaking about THEIR scripture, which was descended upon "THEM". For the Jews, this is the Torah, and the Qur'aan verifies the claim that the Torah was sent down to the Jewish people from Allah, through Moses. For the Nazarenes, this is the Evangel, since, according to the Qur'aan, Allah sent the Injeel down to them, through Jesus.
-
I dont think this is right.
I don't think that's right either. Like I said, that's just a popular Jewish myth, mentioned by some rabbis in the Gemarra. There's nothing in the Torah itself that makes this claim...
-
I don't think that's right either. Like I said, that's just a popular Jewish myth, mentioned by some rabbis in the Gemarra. There's nothing in the Torah itself that makes this claim...
So what do you think 'al kitab' (the book) is?
-
So what do you think 'al kitab' (the book) is?
I think "al kitaab"/the book is the universal message of serving Allah alone, whether this comes in the form of the Qur'aan, the Torah, the Evangel, or any other inspired scripture. That's why, after the revelation of the Qur'aan, the "saabiuun"/converts (i.e. muslims) can be called people of the book, just like the Jews and Nazarenes...
-
Peace The Joker,
The Qur'aan says
And if you are in doubt concerning what is revealed to you from your Lord, then question those who read the scripture before you... (1094)
Good, ask the vatican about jesus. They have read the scripture before you...
The book/al Kitab is not any book you can hold. Unless you'd like to explain how knowledge from the book gives one the power to teleport a mansion (2740).
It's interesting to note
-That Al kitab is never plural, not once.
-There's no 'hadha al kitab' 'this al kitab '.
-There IS 'hadha kitab' i.e. this book.Here, Allah mentions the people of the book (i.e. "yahuud"/Jews and "nasara"/Nazarenes) to be questioned, so there will be no doubt concerning what He revealed to Muhammad. Would this make sense if the previous scriptures were wrong, forged, or fabricated?! The previous scriptures, namely the Torah, says the guidance was revealed to the descendants of Israel at the Mount Sinai... So, you're saying the Torah is wrong? Moses didn't even reveal it to the people, even though the Torah explicitly says that he did?
People of the book = yahood and nasara, evidence? Such trust-worthy guys they are (2/105, 3/70). I see a lot of talk and very little evidence.
The title "Jew" is synonymous with "Israelite", especially in today's terminology... So, you're saying that neither Moses nor Jesus were descendants of Jacob?
In today's terminology, yes it is. I don't care about today's terminology, today's terminology has nothing to do with the terminology of al quran. Breaking news, al quran was not written today. History is not my criteria. You are just forsaking one hadeeth for another.
What does that (moses,jesus being descendants of jacob) have to do with anything?
The Arabic word "baani" means SONS. Therefore, "baani Israel" literally means sons of Israel. If it was only speaking of the sons of Noah, it would say "baani Nuh".
ibn is not a biological son. Walad is. All the 'god has begotten a son' blasphemy verses uses walad, never ibn. 17/3 uses zurriyat, you can look at 2128 to see what it means.
Is this a joke?
You need a new catchphrase.
-
Good, ask the vatican about jesus. They have read the scripture before you...
The book/al Kitab is not any book you can hold. Unless you'd like to explain how knowledge from the book gives one the power to teleport a mansion (2740).
This is allegorical, genius... How do you explain the concept of a mountain hearing the words of the Qur'aan and bowing down to Allah (5921)? You think this is literal too?
It's interesting to note
-That Al kitab is never plural, not once.
-There's no 'hadha al kitab' 'this al kitab '.
-There IS 'hadha kitab' i.e. this book.How is this interesting to note? Saying "haadha al kitaab" is grammatically incorrect. When using a transitional adjective in Arabic, you have to drop the definate article (i.e. "al"/the). Therefore, you can only say "al kitaab"/the book or "haadha kitaab"/this book. Saying 'this the book' doesn't even make sense in English...
People of the book = yahood and nasara, evidence? Such trust-worthy guys they are (2/105, 3/70). I see a lot of talk and very little evidence.
Okay, guy... Who do YOU think the "ahl al kitaab" are?
In today's terminology, yes it is. I don't care about today's terminology, today's terminology has nothing to do with the terminology of al quran. Breaking news, al quran was not written today. History is not my criteria. You are just forsaking one hadeeth for another.
What are you talking about, dude? Of course the Qur'aan wasn't written today. The relation of "Jews" to the "Israelites" is discussed in the Torah, which was written BEFORE the Qur'aan. It's further expounded in the rest of the Tanakh, which was also written BEFORE the Qur'aan. It's mentioned in the Biblical gospels, which were written BEFORE the Qur'aan, and it's mentioned by the Rabbinical Jewish scribes, including Rabbi Hillel, who came BEFORE the revelation of the Qur'aan... You get the point now, buddy? The Qur'aan isn't the only source of religious and historical information. This terminology existed before the Qur'aan, and it still exists today, after the Qur'aan has been in circulation for 1,400 years... You're telling me you don't believe in science and history either?
What does that (moses,jesus being descendants of jacob) have to do with anything?
You said Moses and Jesus were NOT Jews, but this is a false claim. Both of them were descendants of Jacob, making them Israelites. A "Jew" is synonymous with an "Israelite"...
ibn is not a biological son. Walad is. All the 'god has begotten a son' blasphemy verses uses walad, never ibn. 17/3 uses zurriyat, you can look at 2128 to see what it means.
Good try, but not good enough... Yes, "waalad" refers to a biological son. However, "ibn" does too, just not in the traditionally direct manner. It still refers to a descendant of the person at hand. So, to say that someone is "ibn Allah" is STILL a blasphemy, since you're claiming that Allah has descendants... It also depends on the context, and this could also be referring to a direct blood relation. For example, Jesus is repeatedly referred to in the Qur'aan as "Isa ibn Maryam". Does this mean that Mary wasn't actually Jesus' mother, she was just his 'spiritual mother-figure'? laugh You can keep it moving with that nonsense. You've been studying too many 'answering Islaam' websites...
You need a new catchphrase.
Thanks, but I like the one I have...
-
I have to ask a question here, what is the Injil? Is it the gospels?
yes it is!
-
Well Jesus was not given the Gospels, they were written many years after his death by many people.
He preached the Gospel (Goodnews), and He could only preached what he has knowledge of and the knowledge is from God. so God gave him the Good news (GOSPEL)
-
-
YAP, the translations have been tempered with. But we still have the original Manuscripts
Where? police
-
We do? Is there something you know that I don't? As far as I know we only have some very old copies of copies.
Yes those old copies of copies were there before the Quran. and the Quran attest to there Authenticity as that is what the Quran was revealed to do and to supersede them.