Who did Prophet Ibraham tried to sacrifice, Ismael or Isacc, according to Quran?

belH

Take another look

Quran 37112 And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.

Gen 2215 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven,

Gen 2216 and said 'By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, your one son,

Gen 2217 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Gen 2218 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.'

Salam,
Arnab

Peace Arnab,
Thank you for the detailed answer. As you might think, the only thing that made me think that Ismail was the one is verse 37-112, but after your post I need to think about it. As you know either was Ismail or Isaac the one, as believers we should believe in what God said in his Book (Quran, Bible and Torah).
Please can you tell me what do you think about why the Good news of Son (verse 101) came right after he left his People (village)? as you know the first Son that came after Ibrahim left his village was Ismail. Moreover, as you know, when somebody try to translate Quran, he or she tend to insert words that are not in the Original Quran. Take this into consideration, would you believe that the same happened when they translated the Torah?They added Isaac name. Or you read the Torah in its original language, and found Isaac name?

Peace

unknownuser

Please can you tell me what do you think about why the Good news of Son (verse 101) came right after he left his People (village)? as you know the first Son that came after Ibrahim left his village was Ismail.

Salam,

One must keep in mind that the Quran references stories from previous scripture in condensed form to make a point, to clarify, to remind or other reasons.
So the stories are not as detailed as in previous scripture.

Actually there are 2 times that Abraham is mistaken about who the promised son is that God is referring to.

First he thinks that it is going to be Eliezer of Damascas and second he believes that it is to be Ishmael and both times he is corrected.

Yes, the first son that Abraham had was Ishmael.

But this was not the son that was to recieve the covenant nor the one God was referring to

This is specifically pointed out to Abraham

Gen 1718 And Abraham said unto God 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!'

Gen 1719 And God said "Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.

Gen 1720 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Gen 1721 But My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'

Moreover, as you know, when somebody try to translate Quran, he or she tend to insert words that are not in the Original Quran. Take this into consideration, would you believe that the same happened when they translated the Torah?They added Isaac name. Or you read the Torah in its original language, and found Isaac name?

I read the Torah in Hebrew.

Isaac is specifically named several times. When you see his name in the translation above it is in the original Hebrew as well.

Salam,
Arnab

Samia

Salaam Arnab, all

Gen 154 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

What does (thine own bowels) mean? Does this mean Ismael was not from Ibrahim's own bowels? Because this seems to be the only justification for Ismael not being the heir.
According to previous scripture Was Ismael considered a prophet?

huruf

I see that there is an insistence in saying that Genesis is the word of God. It is not. Genesis is not revealed by God, Genesis is a narration of stories in some of which God is quoted, whether faithfully or not I do not know, but Genesis is not the word of God. The quotes of What God says are the only thing that should be of interest to compare with the Quran id indeed they are reliable, and that I do not know.

But it is from genesis in fact that at one point I discussed this question with a Christian, and I can't remember where, it says concerning the sacrifice, that it was Abreham only son, which to me is clear that his only son was Ismael, since Isaac was never his only son.

That aside, I do not think it is very important to know which son it was. The gist of the story is not in whether it was the one or the other. Both sons were good. The gist of the story was in the story itself not in which persons were involved, apart from the moral qualities of those persons, and those qualities all those who could have been involved did have them.

Salaam

belH

That aside, I do not think it is very important to know which son it was. The gist of the story is not in whether it was the one or the other. Both sons were good. The gist of the story was in the story itself not in which persons were involved, apart from the moral qualities of those persons, and those qualities all those who could have been involved did have them.

Salaam

Salam All,
I agree with you that either one was the one, it would not change our faith.
But in order to judge the different translations of Bible and Torah, we need to know the ones that matches the Quran, and thus, I wanted to know about the Story of Ismal and Isacc in Chapter 37.

I will wait for Arnab and others to answer your Questions, before commenting.

Peace

dc2

But it is from genesis in fact that at one point I discussed this question with a Christian, and I can't remember where, it says concerning the sacrifice, that it was Abreham only son, which to me is clear that his only son was Ismael, since Isaac was never his only son.

this is gen 22.2 and i first became aware of this debate through yusuf ali's translation in note 4101 who claims the jews acted to gorify their branch of the family by distorting the scripture and name issac as the son and this use of "only" catches them at their game

The Jewish tradition, in order to glorify the younger branch of the family, descended from Isaac, ancestor of the Jews, as against the elder branch, descended from Ismail, ancestor of the Arabs, refers this sacrifice to Isaac (Genesis 22.1-1. Now Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21.5) while Ismail was born to Abraham when Abraham was 86 years old (Genesis 16.16). Ismail was therefore 14 years older than Isaac. During his first 14 years Ismail was the only son of Abraham; at no time was Isaac the only son of Abraham.

i agree with huruf though that the identity of the son is perhaps as meaningless as the question of the number of sleepers in the cave which the quran rebukes as not being as important as the moral of the story while also chiding those who posed it. and perhaps really it was the arabs who acted to glorify their branch of the family and name ishmael as the son.

if it is a point to claim the invalidity of the quran by non-muslims then they must be assured that the quran leaves this question unanswered and the verse 37111 "And We gave him the good news of Isaac a prophet one of the Righteous" (which is the only quranic proof offered by those who name ishmael as the son) might not be referring to the "good news" of the subsequent birth of issac but rather his acension into prophethood.

i have also remember when researching this topic before that gen 2.22 is not always translated as "take your only son", particualry in the jewish torah translations (not old testament versions) though they may have been ammended having been made aware of this arguement. i would be interested if anyone here could translate the actual hebrew and refer to the root word for this "only". or if anyone has any old torahs lying about could they look it up and see what it says. the one i checked was in a bookstore and im not near one right now. i cant remember what it was. perhaps it was just "one" as mentioned by arnab.

there is also an article here about the debate
http//www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/4d.html

i just scanned it (kinda busy right now) and i think it was going on about how ishmaels mother was a slave and therefore he is not considered a legitimate son...so the use of "only" for issac is validified this way...not sure if that was the gist but i'll read it up later
anway
peace
dc2

unknownuser

Salaam Arnab, all

What does (thine own bowels) mean?

Salam,

It seems an odd translation to me, since bowels in English is usually associated with defecation and feces. It would not have been my first choice.

The root word that is translated as bowels by the translators is meem-ayin-ha

Strong?s number H4578

meeh
may-aw'
From an unused root probably meaning to be soft; used only in plural the intestines, or (collectively) the abdomen, figuratively sympathy; by implication a vest; by extension the stomach, the uterus (or of men, the seat of generation), the heart (figuratively) - belly, bowels, X heart, womb.

From Brown Driver Briggs
H4578

meeh
BDB Definition

internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly
1a) inward parts
1b) digestive organs
1c) organs of procreation, womb
1d) place of emotions or distress or love (figuratively)
1e) external belly
Part of Speech noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong?s Number from an unused root probably meaning to be soft

Does this mean Ismael was not from Ibrahim's own bowels?

The verse where Eliezer of Damascus is referenced is in Genesis Chapter 15 does not refer to Ishmael or Isaac.

That verse was before either of them were born.

In Chapter 15, since Abraham has no children, he is asking who the heir will be.

He asks is this Elizier of Damascus to be the heir? And God corrects him

Gen 154 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying 'This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.'

Ishmael was an Heir and he was circumsized with the household and under the covenant and blessed etc etc..
The only difference is that he was not the one that Abraham attempted to sacrifice.

This does not to take away from the importance of Ishmael. There are many verses blessing Ishmael. Specifically Genesis Chapter 17

God's covenant with Abraham AND Ishmael (Isaac was not born yet)...

Gen 171 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted.

Gen 172 And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.'

Gen 173 And Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him, saying

Gen 174 'As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations.

Gen 175 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.

Gen 176 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Gen 177 And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.

Gen 178 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.'

Gen 179 And God said unto Abraham 'And as for thee, thou shalt keep My covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations.

Gen 1710 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee every male among you shall be circumcised.

Gen 1711 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.

Gen 1712 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.

Gen 1713 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Gen 1714 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'

Gen 1718 And Abraham said unto God 'Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!'

Gen 1719 And God said "Indeed, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.

Gen 1720 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee; behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Gen 1721 And My covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.'

Gen 1722 And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

Gen 1723 And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

Gen 1724 And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Gen 1725 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Gen 1726 In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son.

Gen 1727 And all the men of his house, those born in the house, and those bought with money of a foreigner, were circumcised with him.
Because this seems to be the only justification for Ismael not being the heir.

Several things that I want to point out here are

Ishmael IS under the Covenant. And this is SO important that he is singled out.
Isaac was NOT born yet, so God is assuring Abraham that the covenant will be with Isaac also. The one who is going to be born a year later.
The only reason Isaac is singled out in this verse is because HE WASNT BORN when God was making the covenant with Abraham and Ishmael. So, that there could be no confusion as to whether or not Isaac would also be under the covenant.

Gen 1719 And God said "Indeed, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.

This does NOT mean as many so-called scholars would have one believe that Isaac is under the covenant and not Ishmael.

There are many many verses dedicated to Ishmael being UNDER the Covenant and ALSO there are two verses that specifically point out that Ishmael and Abraham were circumcised ON THE SAME DAY.

Which leads us to this

2127

And when Ibrahim and Ismail raised the foundations of the House Our Lord! accept from us; surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing

This is not the RAISING of a PHYSICAL building.

This is the covenant that Abraham and ISHMAEL accepted on the SAME DAY. THE raising of the foundations of the beyt.

According to previous scripture Was Ismael considered a prophet?

I don?t think that he is specifically called nabi.
But, Noah or Lut, are not specifically identified as nabi but we KNOW that they are.
Obviously they were given commandments by God and fulfilled them in both Genesis and the Quran.
Salam,
Arnab

unknownuser

I see that there is an insistence in saying that Genesis is the word of God. It is not. Genesis is not revealed by God, Genesis is a narration of stories in some of which God is quoted, whether faithfully or not I do not know, but Genesis is not the word of God. The quotes of What God says are the only thing that should be of interest to compare with the Quran id indeed they are reliable, and that I do not know.

read http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596838.msg173954#msg173954

But it is from genesis in fact that at one point I discussed this question with a Christian, and I can't remember where, it says concerning the sacrifice, that it was Abreham only son, which to me is clear that his only son was Ismael, since Isaac was never his only son.

That's an incorrect translation it says one son. NOT ONLY SON. And it was only ONE son that was about to be sacrificed NOT two or three or four.

That aside, I do not think it is very important to know which son it was. The gist of the story is not in whether it was the one or the other. Both sons were good. The gist of the story was in the story itself not in which persons were involved, apart from the moral qualities of those persons, and those qualities all those who could have been involved did have them.

It is extremely important to analyze EVERY story that is given to us. No matter how insignificant it may seem. It's an intellectual exercise that leads to wisdom.

For example One small misunderstanding of a single word leads one to read and understand a verse in a completely different way.

Consider how much greater one's misconceptions will be if that person misunderstands a group of verses.

Its a domino effect.

Salam,
Arnab

unknownuser

this is gen 22.2 and i first became aware of this debate through yusuf ali's translation in note 4101 who claims the jews acted to gorify their branch of the family by distorting the scripture and name issac as the son and this use of "only" catches them at their game

i agree with huruf though that the identity of the son is perhaps as meaningless as the question of the number of sleepers in the cave which the quran rebukes as not being as important as the moral of the story while also chiding those who posed it. and perhaps really it was the arabs who acted to glorify their branch of the family and name ishmael as the son.

Some want to glorify Isaac and some want to glorify Ishmael. But the FACT is that BOTH were under the covenant. BOTH were blessed DIRECTLY BY GOD, several times. I don't see how one is better than the other.

These are their distortions not what GOD says.

there is also an article here about the debate
http//www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/4d.html

i just scanned it (kinda busy right now) and i think it was going on about how ishmaels mother was a slave and therefore he is not considered a legitimate son...so the use of "only" for issac is validified this way...not sure if that was the gist but i'll read it up later
anway

Their claim is ludicrous. First they rely on a mistranslation and second they try to make excuses for the MISTRANSLATION.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child in scriptures. This is something that was invented later.

Therefore, Ishmael is NOT illegitimate.

Consider that many of the sons of JACOB were from his HANDMAIDS/SURROGATE MOTHERS.

AND these children were not deminished in their status at ALL. They are NOT called illegitimate. So that claim is nonsense.

Salam,
Arnab

huruf

Arnab,

I didn't say that it was not important to examine and try to find out however there is to find out, and I usually do that within my means, what I meant was that for the moral of this story is not changed if it is one or the other. So to find out is more of an intellectual need than a need to understand the moral of the story. Or do you see a different meaning of it if it was one and not the other?

Salaam

unknownuser

Arnab,

I didn't say that it was not important to examine and try to find out however there is to find out, and I usually do that within my means, what I meant was that for the moral of this story is not changed if it is one or the other. So to find out is more of an intellectual need than a need to understand the moral of the story. Or do you see a different meaning of it if it was one and not the other?

Salaam

Salam huruf,

yes, I know what you mean.

There are many stages of belief and truth seeking.

For the ones finding faith They need to only understand the moral of the story.

Those here who are discussing the details of the willingness of Abraham to sacrafice Isaac are past that stage. They already understand the moral of the story.

So, now we are analyzing the details.

Salam,
Arnab

dc2

Their claim is ludicrous. First they rely on a mistranslation and second they try to make excuses for the MISTRANSLATION.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child in scriptures. This is something that was invented later.

Therefore, Ishmael is NOT illegitimate.

Consider that many of the sons of JACOB were from his HANDMAIDS/SURROGATE MOTHERS.

AND these children were not deminished in their status at ALL. They are NOT called illegitimate. So that claim is nonsense.

having read the article i am sorry i posted the link, i should have discounted it as soon as i saw muslims being referred to as "mohamedans". interesting though that they didnt raise the points here regarding issac as the "one". as you can expext though this topic is a point of consensus for them to dismiss the quran as a devine work even though it shouldnt be.

unknownuser

Salaam,

He didn't try to sacrifice anybody- I think. Gods people don't do such things they actually as you believe oppose such nonsense, don't they?

The translation you are reading is the biblical story embodied into the quranic translation.

Try researching- if you want to wisely use your time.

Here is the start for you. hmm if you want to try as many people here already have.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7503.msg68913#msg68913

Salaam.

unknownuser

Salaam,

He didn't try to sacrifice anybody- I think. Gods people don't do such things they actually as you believe oppose such nonsense, don't they?

Salam,

Did you not read the above verses? It's there in the Quran. Are you telling me that you don't believe in the story that is THERE in the QURAN?

The fact that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child is not called into question by any of the Abrahamic faiths (Jewish, Christian, or Muslim).

The translation you are reading is the biblical story embodied into the quranic translation.

Read it again. I purposely listed verses from the Quran and Genesis. I stated at the beginning that it was a comparison.

Try researching- if you want to wisely use your time.

Here is the start for you. hmm if you want to try as many people here already have.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7503.msg68913#msg68913

Simple... I read the Tanakh in Hebrew, the Injeel in Aramaic and the Quran in Arabic. The only research anyone needs to do is read Allah's scripture in the ORIGINAL languages.

Perhaps YOU are the one who should do more research.

Salam,
Arnab

unknownuser

Salaam,

He didn't try to sacrifice anybody- I think. Gods people don't do such things they actually as you believe oppose such nonsense, don't they?

The translation you are reading is the biblical story embodied into the quranic translation.

Salaam.

peace

Soof

Peace

The Tanakh is not a revelation from God nor is the current Torah, which was rebuilt by the Jews after it was "destroyed in a fire". The Injeel you refer to is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no Scripture we can call Gospel of Jesus Christ (ie direct revelation from God to Christ like the Torah or the Qur'an) that we know of. There is only The New Testament that is called the Peshitta. The translation of Abraham sacrificing his son is an ABROGATION of Christian/Jewish Teaching. Try looking for the root word for sacrifice. One other word from the root is slaughter, but they specifically chose SACRIFICE to fit in with what is being taught before. There is no SACRIFICE in God's religion, why would God order Abraham to sacrifice or slaughter his Son. God never orders to do wrong. The dream came from non-Godly means, God stopped him from doing it and saved Abraham's son from the great slaughter (which is the same words used in arabic but understood as ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice). Just because many Jews, Christians, Muslims believe God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son does not mean they are right. But we all believe in the God, so peace be upon you.

unknownuser

Peace

The Tanakh is not a revelation from God nor is the current Torah, which was rebuilt by the Jews after it was "destroyed in a fire".

The Tanakh is the SAME today as it was over 1900 years ago. Not to mention 1429 years ago in the time of Muhammad. There is scientific PROOF of this.

Dead Sea Scrolls are proven to be from BEFORE 100 CE

The Injeel you refer to is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no Scripture we can call Gospel of Jesus Christ (ie direct revelation from God to Christ like the Torah or the Qur'an) that we know of. There is only The New Testament that is called the Peshitta.

The WORD of ALLAH was with Isa and the WORD of ALLAH is protected. Not to mention that MANY MANY verses of the Quran are identical to Quotes of Isa. AND the stories related to Isa in the Injeel are retold in the QURAN.

The translation of Abraham sacrificing his son is an ABROGATION of Christian/Jewish Teaching.

This statement is baseless and false.

Try looking for the root word for sacrifice. One other word from the root is slaughter, but they specifically chose SACRIFICE to fit in with what is being taught before. There is no SACRIFICE in God's religion, why would God order Abraham to sacrifice or slaughter his Son.

At this point you are not arguing with me you are arguing with ALLAH. You can believe or disbelieve.

God never orders to do wrong. The dream came from non-Godly means, God stopped him from doing it and saved Abraham's son from the great slaughter (which is the same words used in arabic but understood as ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice).

These are YOUR words. I showed you the verses. Now YOU show me where it says that the dream was from "un-Godly" means!

That is a flat out fabrication on your part.

BOTH the QURAN and GENESIS specifically say that it was a TEST from GOD.

Just because many Jews, Christians, Muslims believe God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son does not mean they are right.

THE WORDS in the QURAN and TORAH say it! This is not some Hadith. This is Scripture.

Like I said, you are not arguing with me....you have an issue with Allah's words.

Are you claiming that you DON'T believe the WORDS that are in the Quran?

Salam,
Arnab

unknownuser

Peace belalhammad,

Is my understanding of these verses right or wrong? and Why?

It was the first born son...

Rabbi hab lee mina alssaliheena
My Lord grant me from the righteous.

The above implies there were no sons, thus it was announced...

Fabashsharnahu bighulamin haleemin
So We announced good news to him with a clement boy.

So when he reached the struggle/endeavor with him...

Not a boy for he reached the age to endeavor with him (i.e. suffer and forbear).

"That I, I see in the sleep/dream that I, I slaughter you.?

This is symbolic (as most dreams) for taking up hardship living a prophet life.

So when they submitted and he followed him to the foreheads (i.e. they prayed).

And We called him "That you Abraham."
You had confirmed the dream, We, like that We reimburse the good doers.
That truly that it is the test, the clear/evident.

Test is if one summits themselves to God.

And We substituted him with a great slaughtered.
And We left on him in the others/lasts.
Peace on Abraham.
As/like that We reimburse the good doers.
That he truly is from Our worshippers/slaves the believers.
And We announced good news to him (of) Isaac a prophet from the correct/righteous.
And We blessed on him and on Isaac, and from their (B)'s descendants, (are) good doers...

Abraham substituted by Ishmael, Isaac, and others (a great slaughtered) to carry on.

Peace

unknownuser

Salam nun de plume,

One only arrives at those assumptions if they don't read the previous scriptures. The QURAN assumes that the reader already KNOWS the previous revelations AND believes in them. THIS is part of the description of a BELIEVER in 24.

I'm reposting the following from the another thread so that those reading may consider

IF you read the previous scripture in THEIR ORIGINAL LANGUAGE you would KNOW that the previous scriptures ARE from ALLAH.

Often times there are people who insist on reading the Quran in Arabic and then settle for a mistranslated version of the previous scripture.

Therefore I repeat
You MUST read ALL scripture in the ORIGINAL languages and then you will KNOW that it is revealation.

But the authority on the Subject is ALWAYS ALLAH so, Let's see what is written in the Quran

Previous scripture is REVELATION from ALLAH

33
He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

543
And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers.

544
Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, and the masters of Divine knowledge and the doctors, because they were required to guard (part) of the Book of Allah, and they were witnesses thereof; therefore fear not the people and fear Me, and do not take a small price for My communications; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers.

545
And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.

546
And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

547
And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

548
And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

YOU follow NO GOOD until you Keep up the Torah and Injeel

568
Say O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.

The ones who are GUIDED?.BELIEVE in what was revealed BEFORE?THIS is how we know who is guided as said in al baqarah....

24
And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.

And this is what is said of those who do NOT believe in previous revelation?..

4136
O you who believe! believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His messengers and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error.

625
The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.

566
And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do

The common claim is that previous scripture has been lost or altered.

Those who make such claims are also claiming that THEY DISBELIEVE in the Quran when we are TOLD to uphold previous scripture.

I have given several verses as evidence regarding previous scripture. However, there ARE MANY MORE.

Allah clearly states that HE KNOWS BEST what is in the Heavens and the EARTH (that would include knowing that previous scriptures are STILL here for us to UPHOLD as COMMANDED).?

1755
And your Lord best knows those who are in the heavens and the earth; and certainly We have made some of the prophets to excel others, and to Dawood We gave a scripture.

Salam,
Arnab

unknownuser

Peace Arnab,

Was Genesis part of the Torah and Injeel?

365-66

O people of the Scripture! Why do you dispute about Abraham, while the Torah and the Injeel were not revealed till after him? Have you then no sense?

Verily, you are those who have disputed about that of which you have knowledge. Why do you then dispute concerning that which you have no knowledge? It is Allah Who knows, and you know not.