Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jews are not told they are superior? Okay, there's a lot of texts in the talmud that speaks against that. Are you surprised that the (arabic) jews that lived in Mecca/Medina during that time based their belief on Talmud too?
You do realize that we leave arguments in the Talmud that have been ruled against, right? A lot of people make that mistake and read things that seem to indicate something without knowing that it was the losing side of the argument. You can't just read a line on a website and assume it is the belief. I mean, you would object to people doing that with Islamic material, right? In fact, that seems to be exactly what you are fighting here.
Indeed I'm fighting that, but the difference is, people here dosen't even paste the whole verse of what is begin said, instead they take 1/2 of the verse...and not last, they don't know the historical view of the fights that were taken place and so on. I would like to understand you better, would you mind to bring up sources by rabbics that says against that verse?
Which verse? I'd have to see which part you are referencing in the whole of the Talmud. In the end, it probably wouldn't be worth the time to go though all of them. The Talmud is actually pretty difficult to understand being written in Aramaic in a weird style. I've heard it said that it is considered an advanced level to be able to read the text and understand what it is saying. I can't even read Aramaic so I'm not even at the beginner level.
However, I have plenty of books on Jewish ethics and beliefs and I can assure you that the accepted view is that Jews are not superior. The only difference is that we were given the Torah to keep. That doesn't make us better or worse. These books reference the writings in the Talmud and all that. Maybe those people did think they were superior or whatever, but the fact remains that all we have is one side of hte story. I really wonder what the other side would have to say. I always believe there is one side, the other side, and somewhere in between the truth.
I really just worry about these kinds of ideas. For a long time these things have been the charges thrown at the Jewish people and have been the basis for persecution. I do my best to counter them when I see them. I don't honestly expect Muslim writers to get the theology 100% correct. Jewish writers wouldn't get Islamic theology 100% correct. That's why I went after the parts I feel they got wrong.
Go ahead. I'd like to see what you've got and I'll break out my books (hopefully sometime this week..) to give you what I've got.I fully understand you, but you have to keep in mind who the Talmud is written by. To me it sounds a bit absurd that you have more knowledge of the Mosaic Law than the Jewish Rabbis. If you would like to I can send you the verses of the Talmud over Pm to you since I dislike to throw stones in my brothers window. Remember what the title of this thread is, let's keep it on-topic !
Just keep in mind that moses warned his people for the (bible) that was sended down to him, that it would be corrupted.
For I know that after my death (Moses speaking) ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 31:29)
The Talmud is actually pretty difficult to understand being written in Aramaic in a weird style. I've heard it said that it is considered an advanced level to be able to read the text and understand what it is saying. I can't even read Aramaic so I'm not even at the beginner level.
I'm confused myself... were two figures prophesied but everything understood as referring to one? This is something worthy of research, in my opinion. Touchy topic.
Go ahead. I'd like to see what you've got and I'll break out my books (hopefully sometime this week..) to give you what I've got.
It says the people (not every person individually but the people collectively), not the Torah, will deviate from the path. Seems like as a collective that happened, even though all the prophets spoke of a remnant that remained true to the path. It's all about context. You can't prove anything with a single verse, especially when it doesn't say what you are trying to prove.
Maybe you can read Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death. Let's be little logic now. If the people turn against the commands of moses, wouldn't they be able to change the context of Torah for their own desires? Do you see it as something...hard to do? I believe it's so. About the verses in the Talmud you wanted, I can send them in Pm since I don't want to be off-topic here, it seems like there have been lots of off-topic here and people change subject when they can't prove the evidence they are given about they are wrong. (Not speaking about you now)
You are starting with a conclusion (The Torah is corrupt) and finding text to attempt to prove that. You are not starting with text (People will fall away from the Law and not follow it) and then reaching your conclusion (the Torah is corrupt). If you had no Islamic belief that the text was corrupt, you could not deduce it from that line.
Also, the fact that you are using the Torah to prove the Torah is corrupt seems to be a flaw in your logic. Why didn't the Jews change that when it says bad things about them? Shouldn't it be all sunshine and rainbows for the Jews where they never do anything wrong?
You mean I'm gonna have to learn Aramaic when I'm done with Hebrew?
---
b&w, what Rebax brings up is something that I've been thinking a lot about. There is basis for these theories within the Qur'an.
In Chapter 2, talking about Jews in Madinah:
And when there came to them a Book from Allah confirming that which was with them - although before they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved - but [then] when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers. How wretched is that for which they sold themselves - that they would disbelieve in what Allah has revealed through outrage that Allah would send down His favor upon whom He wills from among His servants. So they returned having [earned] wrath upon wrath. And for the disbelievers is a humiliating punishment. And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has revealed," they say, "We believe [only] in what was revealed to us." And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them. Say, "Then why did you kill the prophets of Allah before, if you are [indeed] believers?" (Probably referring to John and Jesus, I think.)
Anyhow... I have read commentaries that translated the part of praying for victory differently... commentaries that suggest (don't know how accurate) that the Jews of Madinah thought that a messenger to the Jews (I'm thinking the Messiah?) was going to appear in Madinah and that's why there was a large migration of Jewish tribes to that location. Instead of translating it as 'praying for victory' it's understood as them giving tidings to the pagans of their sure and upcoming victory once this prophet/Messiah arrives. The reason I'm thinking Messiah is because when I was looking up ahadith about David, remember, there were ones where some Jews told Prophet Muhammad that they believed he was a Prophet (and fit certain descriptions) but that they couldn't become Muslim or they'd be killed by their people because they were waiting for a son of David. I'm confused myself... were two figures prophesied but everything understood as referring to one? This is something worthy of research, in my opinion. Touchy topic.
I've respect for people that criticise religion after they've read through it a lot and have knowledge in what they criticise. Rather less respect for people who have no knowledge and spreads agenda without any sources/knowledge and floating in ignorance, does this seem strange to you? I've never claimed that I support the people that treated the cartoon maker, nah... Islam don't go under because of them. Also anyone who would like to really understand Islam they don't search for it on a christian forum, instead they look at other places. I see people convert to islam nearly everyday and in great tons.
That actually addresses my very point about your approach to circular logic.As for the first Hadith you posted, the right translation is ''He insulted Allah and his messenger'' Not hurt Allah, none can hurt Allah (God) or don't you agree with me? Why do I have a feeling that you have copy this from Answering-islam?
He may have used poetry in his verbal attack on Muhammed/incitement. However he was a single man. If he's inciting violence then that means he's not yet undertaking it. So by that he's doing what I said he's doing – he's not 'at war', excepting in Islamic standards that thinks any 'attack' even by words, is an attack that can be responded to with violence.Anyways, let's go back to the discussion.
Ka'ab did not only insult Islam by his poetry, he also traveled all the way to Mecca to encourage the enemies of Islam to attack Medina and annihilate the Muslims.
I am sure you will find it more interesting to note that the early arabic inscription of Muhammad (peace be upon him) can be found at Inscriptions Near Madinah Of The Early Years Of Hijra: Inscription C
The above is dated 4AH or 625 CE. Muhammad (pbuh) passed away on 632 CE.
What exactly did these "secular sources" contradict?Sorry,A muslim dates it at 625 A.D.,the other dates it closer to the first century.My point is that for such a supposed universally accepted prophet, history shows differently,there is virtually nothing until after 690 A.D..And another thing I find disturbing is the fact that there is very little archeological evidence to support Quranic claims.If this truly is the final revelation of God then archeologists should be uncovering tons of physical evidence as to its historical accuracy,but yet secular sources contradict many of the claims of the Quran.
When one is critical about Islam, Muslims are not any longer a partner in the discussion, because they cannot be... (As it is forbidden, to criticize Islam, according to Islamic law.)This is the strangeness of Islamic apologetics.
I cite an hadith from a university web-site. It's 'assumed' to be from an anti-Islamic one, though I clearly gave the link.
I say this man was murdered for speaking out against Islam and Moslem apologists say EXACTLY THE SAME THING - he was murdered for being 'at war' with Islam.
I'm left wondering if the apologetics is actually understanding of this problem.
Yes, and faith without love, is no faith at all. But they do not understand that... They think that being born into a religion means faith... But that is no faith at all.... (That is also stipulated by the famous quote of Christ Himself, that even some who say Lord, Lord, He will say: Depart from me, I never knew you....)Exactly, that's why they can't take non-Moslems as close friends because by our very 'stubborness' in not joining Islam we're deemed to be cursed.
Hi Plenary,Yes, and faith without love, is no faith at all. But they do not understand that... They think that being born into a religion means faith... But that is no faith at all.... (That is also stipulated by the famous quote of Christ Himself, that even some who say Lord, Lord, He will say: Depart from me, I never knew you....)
Because, again, it is not dead faith what matters, but a loving heart.... And when one understands the origin of faith, it becomes even clearer...
For angels, there is no difference between love and faith... Indeed, pure faith and pure love are the same... There is no difference, only for the imperfect word it is...
But the vast majority of Muslims are no partners to the discussion, as many are not searching for truth, only to defend their pre-disposed opinions and indoctrinated facts.... All part of self-expression... The children of the world will always be more in number than the real children of God.... At least in these times, as it is written...
And do you think, Montalban, that Muslims are the least interested in the fact that prophets still exist (as the gift of prophecy still exists...)
Of course not, because they only repeat what they have been indoctrinated...
And remember, it is also written in the prophetic texts, that a people get the rulers they deserve...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?