Conflict between Oral and Written Tradition in both Judaism and Islam
-
Salaam everyone,
The following is an excerpt from an email I sent to my Islamic tutor several weeks ago. I had previously brought up 3821-25 and the "orthodox" belief that prophets are sinless, which is what I was referring to
As far as the issues related to David and sin, I raised the issue to see what information was available because of the grammatical anomaly of a plural pronoun being used instead of a dual one for the two litigants. I don't know if you read the post or not, but this would put (presumably) a third person at the scene, which would be Nathan since the passage parallels the story from the Jewish scripture. And yes, I hear a lot that the Torah is not the unadulterated word of God. Neither are the hadiths. And just as there is a science to confirming a hadith, there is a science to manuscript evidence. Given the evidence that we have, there is miniscule doubt that the Torah we have today is the same as what was extant at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an. I'm not talking from any other perspective than from evidence.
Any tampering with the Torah can be one of two ways either tampering of interpretation, or tampering with the actual manuscript. I've already mentioned the manuscript evidence, and there are verses where what Jesus was given in the gospel confirms what was in his hands of the Torah, and the prophet was given revelation that confirmed what was in his hands. In other words, what the prophet was given confirms what was available at the time of both the Torah and Gospel, and we have very, very strong manuscript evidence to believe that the manuscripts we have today are the same as what was available at the time of the final revelation. So we have to make sure we aren't making sweeping judgments about the validity of the evidence without careful examination. This is one of the problems I see with modern Islamic scholarship. The level of scrutiny and attention to detail when it comes to hadiths and sources, even though it is not revelation, but then to look at prior revelation and say, "Nah bro, it's corrupt. Not even going to consider it." To me, this lacks consistency.
The case of Ashura in the hadiths is similar. We have two hadiths with possible contradiction, and an outside source of arguable levels of credibility related to it. Since the hadiths make reference to Jewish tradition and praxis, I think not only does the isnaad have weight, but the coherence to the best possible understanding of Jewish sources on the subject. What makes this difficult is the possible reference to Jews in Medina celebrating Jewish fasts and feasts according to a purely lunar calendar (impossible by the Torah), and the very nature of what the hadith says about how Jews celebrated the day being contradictory to the nature of how Jews viewed feasts and fasts. Fasts were never celebratory. The day that the Jews celebrate the parting of the Yam Suph is the seventh of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and it is called, as the hadith and the Talmud confirm a "Yom Tov", a "good day." There is no fasting on this day. So part of the narrative shows some knowledge of Jewish practice, but the rest is pretty difficult to accept. Just like the commentary about Jews worshipping Ezra, as opposed to the Qur'an simply stating that they called him a "son of God." The phrase is nuanced and has unfortunately not been interpreted within the context it was used, but this commentary can't be correct because any worship of a man would cause those Jews to cease to be Jews by violating the sh'ma (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the lord is one.).
And no, I'm not saying interpret anything simply by the Torah. What I'm saying is weigh the evidence. If someone says that a particular group of people did something, and all historical and documentary sources point to them NOT doing it, then reason says that there is a level of scrutiny that should be applied before accepting what that person says.
In general, I see two particular views that I have to choose between. Going back to David and the litigants. the "letter" of what was written says he sinned and was scolded by a prophet and had to repent. The "letter" of the Qur'an, based on the grammatical use of the plural, and the fact that David asked for forgiveness in the narrative, confirms the written word of the Torah. There's no need for the Qur'an to restate the details of the event because it had already been said.
But this is where things get interesting. The oral tradition of Judaism says that David did not sin, but committed a violation of good social manners. To the average person, this would be nothing, but because of his station as king, he needed to repent. The Talmud says that David did not sin and goes to a rather lengthy explanation as to why he did not. But not surprisingly it references Jewish halacha that would not have been practiced until after the beginnings of the oral tradition in Judaism - some time after the event in question happened and would have been recorded. This oral tradition in Judaism is cohesive with the oral tradition of Islam, and the rather lengthy commentary on this verse is pretty similar in it's reasoning in defending David's sinlessness as the Talmudic commentary.
So there are the written texts of the Torah and the Qur'an, which are essentially in agreement and are pretty iconoclastic in their view of even the best humans on earth, and then there are oral traditions between Judaism and Islam that deviate from the written tradition in defense of this man being sinless because of the potential problems created in defending established jurisprudence for both Judaism and Islam.
And so we have an instance of "same old, same old." In Judaism, the deepest division between Jews is between those that accept the rabbinical tradition and those that do not (Qaraite Jews). Notice the similarity of the name Qaraite to the first word of Surat 'Alaq "Iq'ra." The root in Hebrew and Arabic is the same and means the same thing. But the division between the Qaraites and all other Jews is so strong that that they are not eligible to make the migration to Israel and they are forbidden to marry between the two groups. And in Islam, there is no greater division, even between Sunni and Shi'a, than that of traditional Islam and Quranists. Same old, same old.
I'll be honest, I don't trust how the hadiths are handled in terms of reliability based on how they compare with outside evidence. I do not reject all hadiths, I'm sure some of them are valid. But Islamic scholarship seems to be a big quagmire of contradiction, uncertainty, and appeals to authority. If I hear one more person quote Ibn Taymiyya, who spent more time going well beyond the Qur'an in his efforts to out-takfir everyone else, I'm going to scream. Islamic scholarship produces both a Tariq Ramadan and an Anwar Al-Awlaki. Quranists are considered guilty of personally interpreting according to their whims, but don't we do pretty much the same thing? We pick a scholar that we like or that we find likeable or more reasonable to our tastes, and we follow him. Aren't we following our own personal choice there, too? If a scholar is a scholar is a scholar, then there is no reason to find Ramadan's call to stop enforcing the penalty of capital crimes any more moral of a choice than a classical scholar like Ibn Taymiyya's call for any person to heed the call to kill a kaffir. Do you see what I'm saying? At some point, scholarship is not enough, and there are a host of moral, procedural, and ethical questions we just have to resolve on our own as best we can. If I want to justify doing something stupid, I can find a scholar or classical jurist to justify it. And I'm getting tired of all of all of the parroting of hadiths and scholars about things that really don't mean crap. Jeans? Music? Pants above the ankles? Circumcision? Which days are best to fast in order to get mad hasanat and have sins forgiven for the next year? Bro, none of these things are explicit in the Qur'an, none of these things address the huge issues facing Islam and humanity in general, and yet the few Muslims that I know in person and online talk about this crap all the time. Just like there is yet another beard post on , saying it is wajib. I'm not growing a beard, and I'm tired of people bringing it up. We've got much bigger problems than the number of people who shave.
I'll be honest, I came real close to just saying, "Screw it, I'm done." a few weeks ago. I got tired of comments from family about being a Muslim (my and my wife's parents), and then talking with Muslims and feeling like they are talking an entirely different language in terms of what is important."
Thoughts?
-
Hi Everyone,
Prophets in Torah/Tanach are not sinless. Look at King David. The Tanach is absolutely clear that he killed Goliath. Hence he killed a man(Giant). In the Torah it is also clear that Moses killed a man (Egyptian). Hence these two prophets were not sinless. Yes you may be able to justify what they did in some way. However, they did commit the sin of killing another human being. And hence they are not sinless. The new testament also shows that Jesus was not without sin. He attacked and beat a money changer at the Temple. Noah was also sinful. He got drunk and slept with his daughter.
The notion that they should be sinless is also foreign to me. I think it is clear that we view them as sinful as we all commit sins. What we should take away from this is that Allah forgives even sinful people and they can go from being sinful to repentance.
Don't say "screw it" and give up. Work through your issues with your family and your wife. These relationships are very important to maintain. Sometimes saying nothing communicates more than arguing. I have a saying that goes with wisdom... "The less you say, the louder it is." Meaning if you say this is what I believe and then be quiet, then it up to the listener to process what you have said. Where if you argue they may forget what you said. Hang in there.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
Salam Maverick
I'll be honest, I don't trust how the hadiths are handled in terms of reliability based on how they compare with outside evidence. I do not reject all hadiths, I'm sure some of them are valid. But Islamic scholarship seems to be a big quagmire of contradiction, uncertainty, and appeals to authority. If I hear one more person quote Ibn Taymiyya, who spent more time going well beyond the Qur'an in his efforts to out-takfir everyone else, I'm going to scream. Islamic scholarship produces both a Tariq Ramadan and an Anwar Al-Awlaki. Quranists are considered guilty of personally interpreting according to their whims, but don't we do pretty much the same thing? We pick a scholar that we like or that we find likeable or more reasonable to our tastes, and we follow him. Aren't we following our own personal choice there, too? If a scholar is a scholar is a scholar, then there is no reason to find Ramadan's call to stop enforcing the penalty of capital crimes any more moral of a choice than a classical scholar like Ibn Taymiyya's call for any person to heed the call to kill a kaffir. Do you see what I'm saying? At some point, scholarship is not enough, and there are a host of moral, procedural, and ethical questions we just have to resolve on our own as best we can. If I want to justify doing something stupid, I can find a scholar or classical jurist to justify it. And I'm getting tired of all of all of the parroting of hadiths and scholars about things that really don't mean crap. Jeans? Music? Pants above the ankles? Circumcision? Which days are best to fast in order to get mad hasanat and have sins forgiven for the next year? Bro, none of these things are explicit in the Qur'an, none of these things address the huge issues facing Islam and humanity in general, and yet the few Muslims that I know in person and online talk about this crap all the time. Just like there is yet another beard post on , saying it is wajib. I'm not growing a beard, and I'm tired of people bringing it up. We've got much bigger problems than the number of people who shave.
I'll be honest, I came real close to just saying, "Screw it, I'm done." a few weeks ago. I got tired of comments from family about being a Muslim (my and my wife's parents), and then talking with Muslims and feeling like they are talking an entirely different language in terms of what is important."
i read your post - there are so many excellent points- i would like ask you maybe if i have change, do you have the same in Arabic? I try to speak with my husband, but he can't really understand, what i like to tell him. Your post is intelligent and logic and with knowledge- thank you for it.
peaceSalam JewishDude
Prophets in Torah/Tanach are not sinless. Look at King David. The Tanach is absolutely clear that he killed Goliath. Hence he killed a man(Giant). In the Torah it is also clear that Moses killed a man (Egyptian). Hence these two prophets were not sinless. Yes you may be able to justify what they did in some way. However, they did commit the sin of killing another human being. And hence they are not sinless. The new testament also shows that Jesus was not without sin. He attacked and beat a money changer at the Temple. Noah was also sinful. He got drunk and slept with his daughter.
Sure prophets are not sinless - but personally i can't believe that story about Noah got drunk and SLEPT WITH HIS DAUGHTER?
We can compare the story from Musa in the Quran with the one in the Torah, we will found a difference also.
Yes prophets are not sinless- but they are leaders. One question again this sin from Noah was before he was before his ministry as prophet?
peace -
Salaam everyone,
The following is an excerpt from an email I sent to my Islamic tutor several weeks ago. I had previously brought up 3821-25 and the "orthodox" belief that prophets are sinless, which is what I was referring to
As far as the issues related to David and sin, I raised the issue to see what information was available because of the grammatical anomaly of a plural pronoun being used instead of a dual one for the two litigants. I don't know if you read the post or not, but this would put (presumably) a third person at the scene, which would be Nathan since the passage parallels the story from the Jewish scripture. And yes, I hear a lot that the Torah is not the unadulterated word of God. Neither are the hadiths. And just as there is a science to confirming a hadith, there is a science to manuscript evidence. Given the evidence that we have, there is miniscule doubt that the Torah we have today is the same as what was extant at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an. I'm not talking from any other perspective than from evidence.
Any tampering with the Torah can be one of two ways either tampering of interpretation, or tampering with the actual manuscript. I've already mentioned the manuscript evidence, and there are verses where what Jesus was given in the gospel confirms what was in his hands of the Torah, and the prophet was given revelation that confirmed what was in his hands. In other words, what the prophet was given confirms what was available at the time of both the Torah and Gospel, and we have very, very strong manuscript evidence to believe that the manuscripts we have today are the same as what was available at the time of the final revelation. So we have to make sure we aren't making sweeping judgments about the validity of the evidence without careful examination. This is one of the problems I see with modern Islamic scholarship. The level of scrutiny and attention to detail when it comes to hadiths and sources, even though it is not revelation, but then to look at prior revelation and say, "Nah bro, it's corrupt. Not even going to consider it." To me, this lacks consistency.
The case of Ashura in the hadiths is similar. We have two hadiths with possible contradiction, and an outside source of arguable levels of credibility related to it. Since the hadiths make reference to Jewish tradition and praxis, I think not only does the isnaad have weight, but the coherence to the best possible understanding of Jewish sources on the subject. What makes this difficult is the possible reference to Jews in Medina celebrating Jewish fasts and feasts according to a purely lunar calendar (impossible by the Torah), and the very nature of what the hadith says about how Jews celebrated the day being contradictory to the nature of how Jews viewed feasts and fasts. Fasts were never celebratory. The day that the Jews celebrate the parting of the Yam Suph is the seventh of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and it is called, as the hadith and the Talmud confirm a "Yom Tov", a "good day." There is no fasting on this day. So part of the narrative shows some knowledge of Jewish practice, but the rest is pretty difficult to accept. Just like the commentary about Jews worshipping Ezra, as opposed to the Qur'an simply stating that they called him a "son of God." The phrase is nuanced and has unfortunately not been interpreted within the context it was used, but this commentary can't be correct because any worship of a man would cause those Jews to cease to be Jews by violating the sh'ma (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the lord is one.).
And no, I'm not saying interpret anything simply by the Torah. What I'm saying is weigh the evidence. If someone says that a particular group of people did something, and all historical and documentary sources point to them NOT doing it, then reason says that there is a level of scrutiny that should be applied before accepting what that person says.
In general, I see two particular views that I have to choose between. Going back to David and the litigants. the "letter" of what was written says he sinned and was scolded by a prophet and had to repent. The "letter" of the Qur'an, based on the grammatical use of the plural, and the fact that David asked for forgiveness in the narrative, confirms the written word of the Torah. There's no need for the Qur'an to restate the details of the event because it had already been said.
But this is where things get interesting. The oral tradition of Judaism says that David did not sin, but committed a violation of good social manners. To the average person, this would be nothing, but because of his station as king, he needed to repent. The Talmud says that David did not sin and goes to a rather lengthy explanation as to why he did not. But not surprisingly it references Jewish halacha that would not have been practiced until after the beginnings of the oral tradition in Judaism - some time after the event in question happened and would have been recorded. This oral tradition in Judaism is cohesive with the oral tradition of Islam, and the rather lengthy commentary on this verse is pretty similar in it's reasoning in defending David's sinlessness as the Talmudic commentary.
So there are the written texts of the Torah and the Qur'an, which are essentially in agreement and are pretty iconoclastic in their view of even the best humans on earth, and then there are oral traditions between Judaism and Islam that deviate from the written tradition in defense of this man being sinless because of the potential problems created in defending established jurisprudence for both Judaism and Islam.
And so we have an instance of "same old, same old." In Judaism, the deepest division between Jews is between those that accept the rabbinical tradition and those that do not (Qaraite Jews). Notice the similarity of the name Qaraite to the first word of Surat 'Alaq "Iq'ra." The root in Hebrew and Arabic is the same and means the same thing. But the division between the Qaraites and all other Jews is so strong that that they are not eligible to make the migration to Israel and they are forbidden to marry between the two groups. And in Islam, there is no greater division, even between Sunni and Shi'a, than that of traditional Islam and Quranists. Same old, same old.
I'll be honest, I don't trust how the hadiths are handled in terms of reliability based on how they compare with outside evidence. I do not reject all hadiths, I'm sure some of them are valid. But Islamic scholarship seems to be a big quagmire of contradiction, uncertainty, and appeals to authority. If I hear one more person quote Ibn Taymiyya, who spent more time going well beyond the Qur'an in his efforts to out-takfir everyone else, I'm going to scream. Islamic scholarship produces both a Tariq Ramadan and an Anwar Al-Awlaki. Quranists are considered guilty of personally interpreting according to their whims, but don't we do pretty much the same thing? We pick a scholar that we like or that we find likeable or more reasonable to our tastes, and we follow him. Aren't we following our own personal choice there, too? If a scholar is a scholar is a scholar, then there is no reason to find Ramadan's call to stop enforcing the penalty of capital crimes any more moral of a choice than a classical scholar like Ibn Taymiyya's call for any person to heed the call to kill a kaffir. Do you see what I'm saying? At some point, scholarship is not enough, and there are a host of moral, procedural, and ethical questions we just have to resolve on our own as best we can. If I want to justify doing something stupid, I can find a scholar or classical jurist to justify it. And I'm getting tired of all of all of the parroting of hadiths and scholars about things that really don't mean crap. Jeans? Music? Pants above the ankles? Circumcision? Which days are best to fast in order to get mad hasanat and have sins forgiven for the next year? Bro, none of these things are explicit in the Qur'an, none of these things address the huge issues facing Islam and humanity in general, and yet the few Muslims that I know in person and online talk about this crap all the time. Just like there is yet another beard post on , saying it is wajib. I'm not growing a beard, and I'm tired of people bringing it up. We've got much bigger problems than the number of people who shave.
I'll be honest, I came real close to just saying, "Screw it, I'm done." a few weeks ago. I got tired of comments from family about being a Muslim (my and my wife's parents), and then talking with Muslims and feeling like they are talking an entirely different language in terms of what is important."
Thoughts?
There was no Quran like scripture that came to Moes or David or Solomon etc. The Ot was always like that from its first days. Just like only Jesus was given holy spirit and he was the word of God, Muhammad was given the Quran which is the word of God and Moses talked to God. There is an assumption that all scriptures should be like the Quran.This is not the case. The Quran makes clear that what God gave Muhammad different from the others is the Quran. But neither did Muhamad or Moses or David could speak from the craddle like Jesus and Jesus or Muhammad never had a conversation with God like Moses.
You are absolutely right about how people simply want to ignore the previous scriptures. I see many here do it to. I think this has to do with their expectation that all scriptures should be Quran like, the word of God and only word of God. The Quran never revered to the OT and NOT as words of God but Books of God. But it say Jesus was the word of God since he was given the holy spirit. His hadith is revelation. While Moses talked to God and other prophets all had their each unique special thing (fadl). We know psalms is David poetry. So its not like Quran but the Quran says God gave David the Psalms. Here it means gave in honor and placed that in the OT for mankind to witness and be inspired by.
-
Hi Everyone,
The story about Noah is based on Genesis 9 20-25.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father?s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
?Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.?Well the story doesn't say slept with his daugthers. But the garment was laid across their shoulders, in the plural. Hence someone else was there with Noah. This is after the flood.
The story I was remember was about Lot as well.
Then the firstborn said to the younger, ?Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. ?Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.? So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, ?Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.? So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.? Gen. 1931-35
Hence we have another Prophet? who was sinful. The point is these are stories that clearly show some sin. Both of these sins were produced by getting drunk first. So you can see later why the Quran says be careful when drinking wine (if you drink it).
There is a lot of oral tradition in Judaism. However, looking at Judaism and Islam together I think they are essentially the same religion. One is more refined than the other. Islam is soooo close to Judaism I wonder why the two groups haven't merged. The only reason I think is that around 60AD the Rabbis said the door to revelation was closed. This is in response to Paul's version of Christianity. The fact that they are so close leads me to believe they are essentially the same. We just delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
Hi Everyone,
The story about Noah is based on Genesis 9 20-25.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father?s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
?Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.?Well the story doesn't say slept with his daugthers. But the garment was laid across their shoulders, in the plural. Hence someone else was there with Noah. This is after the flood.
The story I was remember was about Lot as well.
Then the firstborn said to the younger, ?Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. ?Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.? So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, ?Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.? So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.? Gen. 1931-35
Hence we have another Prophet? who was sinful. The point is these are stories that clearly show some sin. Both of these sins were produced by getting drunk first. So you can see later why the Quran says be careful when drinking wine (if you drink it).
There is a lot of oral tradition in Judaism. However, looking at Judaism and Islam together I think they are essentially the same religion. One is more refined than the other. Islam is soooo close to Judaism I wonder why the two groups haven't merged. The only reason I think is that around 60AD the Rabbis said the door to revelation was closed. This is in response to Paul's version of Christianity. The fact that they are so close leads me to believe they are essentially the same. We just delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peacePaul's version of Christianity or Jesus's?
-
Hi Bigmo,
I think Jesus' message was "Be a better Jew!". Paul said you can throw away the laws of God which the Jews held to very strongly. Jesus never said that the law should be discarded. Paul came up with that one.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
Hi Bigmo,
I think Jesus' message was "Be a better Jew!". Paul said you can throw away the laws of God which the Jews held to very strongly. Jesus never said that the law should be discarded. Paul came up with that one.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peaceBut which Laws was Paul refering to because Paul was the only Pharisee among the Gospel charachters. I sometimes see Paul like a Sunni who became a Quranist who struggled with the legalism and ritualism extremes he inherited. The other disciples of Jesus did not come from that background. Maybe Paul like a Quranist was communicating with other Sunnis who were asking all this legalism questions. Maybe his message was that legalism should not be taken to extermes and rituals are a means to an end.
I say that because because of Paul's Pharisaic background. Anyways the Quran was concerned with the trinity and divinity of Jesus .
-
Hi Everyone,
There is a lot of oral tradition in Judaism. However, looking at Judaism and Islam together I think they are essentially the same religion. One is more refined than the other. Islam is soooo close to Judaism I wonder why the two groups haven't merged. The only reason I think is that around 60AD the Rabbis said the door to revelation was closed. This is in response to Paul's version of Christianity. The fact that they are so close leads me to believe they are essentially the same. We just delude ourselves into thinking otherwise.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peacePeace to Everyone,
The problem would not be between Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, they would all
glorify our lord, fast, fall prostrate, do good deeds, preach monotheism. The problem
is us! Many of us (muslims, christians, jews) are idolaters knowingly or unknowingly
(one can pick from the long list of idols) that is the original sin (obeying other than God)
and continues till this day. Despite guidance in the form of revelation and inspiration,
idolatry continues to plague humanity and has had devastating consequences on us all.The people before rejected the jews, the jews rejected jesus, the jews and the
christians rejected muhammad This is because the truth is secondary to many and not
as important as conformity, traditions, etc.,.The only religion approved by GOD is "Submission." Ironically, those who have
received the scripture are the ones who dispute this fact, despite the knowledge they
have received, due to jealousy. For such rejectors of GOD's
revelations, GOD is most strict in reckoning.You shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has
chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion -
the religion of your father Abraham. He is the one who named you
"Submitters" originally. Thus, the messenger shall serve as a witness among
you, and you shall serve as witnesses among the people. Therefore, you shall observe
the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and hold fast to GOD;
He is your Lord, the best Lord and the best Supporter.ONE GOD ONE WAY
-
Hi Bigmo,
But which Laws was Paul refering to because Paul was the only Pharisee among the Gospel charachters. I sometimes see Paul like a Sunni who became a Quranist who struggled with the legalism and ritualism extremes he inherited. The other disciples of Jesus did not come from that background. Maybe Paul like a Quranist was communicating with other Sunnis who were asking all this legalism questions. Maybe his message was that legalism should not be taken to extermes and rituals are a means to an end.
I say that because because of Paul's Pharisaic background. Anyways the Quran was concerned with the trinity and divinity of Jesus .
If you look at Paul's letters they are to the Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc. These people he was writing to were not even Jewish. He was trying to gain support for his group. When he went to a new group and said hey be Christian the other Disciples said, if you want to be Christian then we need males to be circumcised. Of course grown men say "No Way!" Hence Paul said you don't need circumcised. Then when they argued about the dietary laws he said, "So long as you believe, you will go to heaven." This is in stark contrast to the Jewish ideal at the time. Deeds are more important than creeds in Judaism. I see Paul as a Pharisee that couldn't gain power in Jerusalem and went looking for another group he could gain power with. He found the Christians/Disciples who didn't have a leader. So he decided to lead them. In the Book of Acts it is clear that Paul had arguments with the Disciples. Of course this is my opinion. Which is a very Jewish biased opinion. But maybe it adds some perspective to the conversation.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
Hi Bigmo,
If you look at Paul's letters they are to the Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc. These people he was writing to were not even Jewish. He was trying to gain support for his group. When he went to a new group and said hey be Christian the other Disciples said, if you want to be Christian then we need males to be circumcised. Of course grown men say "No Way!" Hence Paul said you don't need circumcised. Then when they argued about the dietary laws he said, "So long as you believe, you will go to heaven." This is in stark contrast to the Jewish ideal at the time. Deeds are more important than creeds in Judaism. I see Paul as a Pharisee that couldn't gain power in Jerusalem and went looking for another group he could gain power with. He found the Christians/Disciples who didn't have a leader. So he decided to lead them. In the Book of Acts it is clear that Paul had arguments with the Disciples. Of course this is my opinion. Which is a very Jewish biased opinion. But maybe it adds some perspective to the conversation.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peaceBut many Quranist have no problems with not circumcising and see nothing wrong with eating what you want as these things are not what determines salvation. The Quran talks about facing a direction in praying but then reminds us that this is not what determines a person's place with God. So how is Paul different?
-
Peace to Everyone,
The problem would not be between Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, they would all
glorify our lord, fast, fall prostrate, do good deeds, preach monotheism. The problem
is us! Many of us (muslims, christians, jews) are idolaters knowingly or unknowingly
(one can pick from the long list of idols) that is the original sin (obeying other than God)
and continues till this day. Despite guidance in the form of revelation and inspiration,
idolatry continues to plague humanity and has had devastating consequences on us all.The people before rejected the jews, the jews rejected jesus, the jews and the
christians rejected muhammad This is because the truth is secondary to many and not
as important as conformity, traditions, etc.,.The only religion approved by GOD is "Submission." Ironically, those who have
received the scripture are the ones who dispute this fact, despite the knowledge they
have received, due to jealousy. For such rejectors of GOD's
revelations, GOD is most strict in reckoning.You shall strive for the cause of GOD as you should strive for His cause. He has
chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion -
the religion of your father Abraham. He is the one who named you
"Submitters" originally. Thus, the messenger shall serve as a witness among
you, and you shall serve as witnesses among the people. Therefore, you shall observe
the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and hold fast to GOD;
He is your Lord, the best Lord and the best Supporter.ONE GOD ONE WAY
What does Judaism, Christianity and Islam have to do with shirk? Shirk is in another domain altogether.
-
Hi Bigmo,
My opinion is that Paul is different in his motives. His motives were to create a new religion/sect where he could have power and influence. Quranists are saying go back to the basic Abrahamic faith that is revealed in the Quran. Our goal is to better submit to Allah. At least that is my goal. Also remember by Jewish bias, in everything I say. You may be right. Just adding perspective.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
What does Judaism, Christianity and Islam have to do with shirk? Shirk is in another domain altogether.
Peace Bigmo,
Please re-read I did not say Judaism, Christianity and Islam but muslims, christians, and
jews, by that I mean many of the adherants of our faiths.Another domain? please explain
ONE GOD
-
Hi Bigmo,
My opinion is that Paul is different in his motives. His motives were to create a new religion/sect where he could have power and influence. Quranists are saying go back to the basic Abrahamic faith that is revealed in the Quran. Our goal is to better submit to Allah. At least that is my goal. Also remember by Jewish bias, in everything I say. You may be right. Just adding perspective.
Just my crazy thoughts,
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peaceYes Jews post Christianity had a problem with paul because he was a Pharisee who joined Jesus hence the treason argument. But at Jesus's time the Pharisees were one sect of many. jesus conflict was with the Pharisees most of all because of the Talmudic influence. The Pharisees were the only sect that believed the oral traditions were binding. Other Jewish sects either did not follow the oral traditions or did not consider it binding. The other Jewish sects are like Quranist today with some accepting many hadoths but not all and some rejecting it altogether. Only Sunni/ Shia believe hadith is binding. So Sunni/Shia are basically the same as the Pharisaic Judaism.
But during times the Pharisees had a problem with Jesus because he attacked the Talmud and because he objected to extreme ethnocentrism. Jesus did complain about the excessive legalism but his main argument was abrogation. The Pharisees believe oral traditions can abrogate the OT.
Paul was a Pharisee who was persecuting Jesus's followers. He then joined with the disciples. He as expected struggled as many Quranist do with their past religious mentality. That is why Paul talked a lot about the Law.
The reason why paul has become sensitive for many Jews is to do with him being a Pharisee who left that tradition.
Paul did as you said preach to the gentile. But the disciples argument was they fear rejection by the gentiles like they did with the Jews. Paul was given a mission by God to take it in the chin. Paul was a great man but misunderstood. Many Muslims also think Paul was behind the trinity and divinity of Jesus. But this is not true.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
-
Peace Bigmo,
Please re-read I did not say Judaism, Christianity and Islam but muslims, christians, and
jews, by that I mean many of the adherants of our faiths.Another domain? please explain
ONE GOD
"Many of us (muslims, christians, jews) are idolaters knowingly or unknowingly
(one can pick from the long list of idols)"How does one be an idolater without knowing? Anyways no Muslim or Christian or Jews worships idols. At least not in todays world. In ancient times many Israelites did worship idols as we are told in the OT that many times the Israelites worshiped the idols like Baal. But no Jew today worshps idols. Some may not believe in God but there is no shirk anymore.
I am not sure what you mean by a long list of idols. Anyways shirk is not something you can believe in without knowing.
-
"Many of us (muslims, christians, jews) are idolaters knowingly or unknowingly
(one can pick from the long list of idols)"How does one be an idolater without knowing? Anyways no Muslim or Christian or Jews worships idols. At least not in todays world. In ancient times many Israelites did worship idols as we are told in the OT that many times the Israelites worshiped the idols like Baal. But no Jew today worshps idols. Some may not believe in God but there is no shirk anymore.
I am not sure what you mean by a long list of idols. Anyways shirk is not something you can believe in without knowing.
Peace Bigmo,
The majority of those who believe in GOD do not do so without committing idol
worship (mush'rikna).Many muslims idolize the prophet Muhammad, and some do, but do not realize it due to
being born and raised in that situation, same with christians (jesus) and jews (rabbis).Say, "I am no more than a human being like you, who has been inspired that your
god is one god. You shall be devoted to Him, and ask His forgiveness. Woe to the idol
worshipers (mush'rikna).Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary.
The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord
and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden
Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers."On the day (of judgment) when we gather all the people, we will ask the
idolworshipers, 'Where are your idols whom you set up beside God?' Then, their
only answer will be, 'By God our Lord, we were not idolworshipers.'
Note how they lied even to themselves, and note that the idols they had set up
will abandon them." (622-24)ONE GOD ONE WAY
-
Hawkeye, 29/69 proposes many ways under God, bro. It's not one God, one way.
-
Ah yes, that'd be the sirat al-mustaqeem , outlined in 6/151-153. Good one, thanks