Earlier this year I had a debate with a Muslim over a period of about eight days. The debate was sparked over a Youtube video on the topic of Judaism and Islam, in which "my debate partner" and I covered a very broad range of topics. To that end I have documented this debate and have presented it here. I have attempted to categorize the contents according to topic, but this was somewhat difficult due to the live and changing directions that it took.
Note that I have edited the content for grammar and capitalization, but have made no significant changes to any of the content in terms of subject matter. I occasionally added a phrase to the beginning of a sentence to introduce the topic, but aside from that the content provided here has basically been copied and pasted. I as well attempted to preserve the logical order of the original debate as best as possible.
I have also inserted tooltips over terms that may be unknown, and links to verses when referenced.
If you enjoy debates and comparative religion, this may be just the thing for you.
My text is in orange, and his text is in green.
Below is the list of topics that were covered in the debate:
- Did God Send the Prophets Only to the Jews?
- And I Shall Make Him a Great Nation
- What Makes a Nation "Great"?
- Doesn't Islam Confirm the Torah?
- Is Isaiah 42 a Reference to Muhammad?
- Are Muslims Bnei Noach?
- Has the Torah Been Fully Preserved?
- Islam Believes that the Torah Maligns the Prophets
- The Revelation of Islam Means that the World is in a Perfected State
- Deuteronomy Foreshadows Muhammad
- The Q'uran "Sanitizes" the Torah - Did the Prophets Sin?
- Muhammad's Prophecy Was Different than Moshe's
- A Proper Understanding of the Sins of Righteous Men
- Interpreting the Torah and Q'uran
- Does Islam Conform to the Noachide Laws and Monotheism?
- Verifying the Divine Authenticity of the Q'uran
- Monotheists in Conflict
- Inerrancy of the Q'uran
The prophets came only for the children of Israel. The Prophet Muhammad came for the whole of humanity.
Show / hide
The prophets came only for the Children of Israel, but the Children of Israel came for the whole of humanity. That is the meaning of the verse, "You shall be a light unto the nations." (Isaiah 49:6) This means that the nations of the world don't need to rely on receiving prophets because they can follow the example of the Jews, and today have no issue having access to the Torah.
That's not true. Moses and his laws are strictly for the Jews. It's an exclusive religion/race. You can't even convert to Judaism. Muhammad clearly came for the whole of humanity. Look at Muslim demographics. There are black, white, and brown Muslims. A truly universal religion for the Gentiles.
Of course you can convert to Judaism! I personally know many people that have converted from many countries and cultures, and I am an Orthodox Jew. Even Muslims have converted to Judaism (although less). By the way, Islam is exclusive too because you have to take the shahada to become a Muslim - you can't just wake up one morning and say "I'm a Muslim." Every religion is exclusive.
Exclusivity in reference to a religion for a race. Alhumdalilah, the laws of Allah sent to Moses are the religion of Allah. No one has done more to spread the laws of Allah via Moses more-so than the Prophet Muhammad.
Judaism was revealed to an exclusive group, but anybody can join. If Judaism is exclusive then Islam is more exclusive, because while God revealed the Torah to an entire nation, He revealed the Q’uran only to one individual. How can it be a religion for a race if people can convert to Judaism? You cannot change your race, yet there are tons of converts to Judaism, as I said earlier. It is a point that you seem to be conveniently ignoring. And the laws that Moses taught are not the same laws that Muhammad taught - that is clear by making a simple comparison side-by-side.
If so, how many of those 613 laws do Muslims keep? Let's see how many of the laws Muslims don't keep. Out of the 613 laws of Moses I challenge you to find 25 laws Muslims don’t keep.
They don't need to keep all 613, so that's irrelevant. They only need to keep a subset of seven out of those 613, as does everybody else in the world. It's quite possible that Muslims do keep all seven, so that's very good. Why can't I believe the Tanakh to be true and the Q’uran to be false? I still don't understand why you're saying that, and you haven't answered that question yet.
Is the nation that came forth from Ishmael really a great nation as long as not the entirety of that nation observes the Q’uran? Are there no Muslims that drink alcohol, go to clubs, and do all kinds of haram? I live in a place with many Muslims. Once I was sitting next to a Muslim man when I heard the Mu'ezzin. I asked the man if he was going to pray, and he told me that he wasn't religious.
Let's be clear, I don't need the Bible to prove Islam. I don't accept the Bible in its current form as a whole. However, the Jews have done a much better job than the Christians at preserving the Torah and Zaboor.
Thank you, I guess. However, God has surely been involved in keeping the Torah preserved. I know that you don't need the Bible to prove Islam, but it is my view that it doesn't (and I am of course referring only to the Tanakh, not to the Christian Bible). As Jews, our litmus test for authenticity of revelation is by how close or far something is to the Torah. By that standard, the Q’uran is an important piece of work, but not the product of revelation.
I would like you to inquire about Ishmael and the Arabs. Would God bless a nation, call it great, and make it false? You cannot believe of the Tanakh to be true and the Q’uran to be false. That is a joke.
Show / hide
In addition, who is the servant in Isaiah 42? What is the great nation promised to Ishmael? Who is the Shiloh?
The suffering servant is the Jews. Isaiah first refers to them in the plural, and then in the singular as the suffering servant. The great nation promised to Ishmael is the Arab peoples, but does that mean that you believe what the Torah says?! That's new to me!
So the God of the Torah, Who kills anyone who worships anyone but Him, would bless Ishmael's progeny by making them ungodly/secular? Really? Would the God of the Torah consider any nation great if they don't strictly follow Him and only glorify Him?
I don't know why you're getting agitated, and I don't know how you're coming to these conclusions. First of all, who ever said that Ishmael's progeny is ungodly or secular? You can say many things about them, but that they are ungodly or secular is probably not one of them. Secondly, greatness doesn't necessarily refer to spiritual refinement, but can also refer to quantity, and the progeny of Ishmael is certainly great in this respect. But most importantly, does the progeny of Ishmael follow the Torah? If "greatness" means "adherence to God's Will," and "God's Will" is the Torah, and God says that the progeny of Ishmael will be great, by your own reasoning that means that they are following the Torah. However, Jews believe that people can be great in God's eyes without following the entirety of the Torah, because out of the 613 commandments within it, only sevenare designated for the Gentiles.
Isaiah 42 is clearly talking about an individual from Kedar who will turn the gentiles away from idolatry and turn to Allah. If Isaiah 42 isn't referring to Muhammad, then to who? Who is the Shiloh? Would God consider an ungodly nation as being great? What does Ishmael mean? Would the Creator of this perfect universe promise one small race exclusivity to prophethood? Really? He would promise it to the younger son and not the elder? Really? You can't really believe that! How can you accept Lot as a prophet (who according to the Torah was seduced by both his daughters) and deny the prophethood of Muhammad? Really?
Regarding Kedar, are you referring to Isaiah 42:11? All that verse says is that "Kedar shall be inhabited with villages; the rock dwellers shall exult, from the mountain peaks they shall shout." If Kedar is a reference to the Arab peoples, it was already inhabited with Arabs at the time of this prophecy so I don't know why you think it refers to Muhammad. But the more important point is this; how can you assume that one, isolated (perhaps difficult to understand) prophecy refers to Muhammad when the Torah is full of prophecies that don't refer to him? It's just wishful thinking. And further, verse 19 says, "Who is blind but My servant, and deaf as My messenger whom I will send? He who was blind is as the one who received his payment, and he who was blind is as the servant of the Lord." Was Muhammad blind and deaf? In addition, verse 21 says, "The Lord desires [this] for His righteousness' sake; He magnifies the Torah and strengthens it." The Torah! Did Muhammad tell people to observe the Torah? The point is that you're playing the same game that the Christians play with the Tanakh, which is to find any verse that seems to be referring to the individual you hold to be worthy of it and assume that it is actually speaking about him. Most of the time these interpretations are completely at odds with the general theme of the books of the Tanakh.
Firstly it was the pagan idolatrous Arabs that were blind and deaf in the eyes of God until Muhammad came and taught them monotheism. Isaiah 42 is talking about a servant yet to come. If it's not Muhammad, then who? If Muhammad isn’t from Ishmael then were is that Great nation? It seems your trying so hard to right Muhammad out of the Torah!! Really? Are you being honest? You claim the Torah is from God. Yet this book from God according to you, failed to tell us about an Ishmaelite prophet who will bring judgement to the world. Isaiah 42 isn’t difficult to understand. It's very clear. This is a servant of God to come in the future. It can be no one but Muhammad. I challenge you to bring an alternative.
If they were such a great nation, why did Muhammad have to teach them monotheism?
That’s the exact point I'm trying to make friend. THEY WERENT ANYTHING UNTIL MUHAMMAD TAUGHT THEM MONOTHEISM. But the promise Allah made to Abraham in Genesis was fulfilled by Islam, a nation blessed by God.
Show / hide
But you said in an earlier comment, "What is the GREAT NATION promised to Ishmael?" That seems to imply your belief that the Arabs were a great nation, yet according to your own belief they were polytheists. So does that mean that as long as they were polytheists God's prophecy failed, and when they accepted monotheism it succeeded?
Absolutely. God would never call a NATION GREAT unless it was a nation built for the servitude of the Creator of the universe. Arabs were pagans prior to Islam. They weren’t even a nation. They were a mish-mash of warring tribes. But they all knew that they were the children of Ishmael.
The definition of "nation" is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." The children of Ishmael were always nation, with and without monotheism. Are you saying that some nations are not built for serving God?
I’m saying there are no nations ever built to serve God except; 1. Kingdom of David 2. The Islamic caliphate. Truly nations built to worship God. Deuteronomy 33, can also only be reference to Muhammad. He is the only Messenger who came to the people of mount Paran, with a fiery law and 10k saints.
I thought that according to Islam every human being, not just nations, is built to serve God, even the animals, who declare His greatness. That certainly is the Jewish view, and I've heard from many Muslims such a concept.
It says that He came from Paran, not to Paran, for the reason I mentioned earlier that God offered to the Torah to descendants of Ishmael before offering it to the Jews. That shows you the greatness of Ishmael's descendants in that God actually offered them the Torah, although they rejected it. And I also said that the holy myriads were angels, not human saints. That Muhammad had 10,000 pilgrims with him is interesting, but it has nothing to do with this verse in the Torah. By the way, the verse says "myriads," which means "a lot," but not necessarily 10,000.
Were China, Cuba, USSR, and other Marxist nation created to serve God? People were created to worship our Creator. But not all nations, no way. Was Babylon created to worship the one true God? I think not.
Of course they were, they just failed miserably. It's only a big deal that they failed because the correct function of a human being is worship God. Come on, you believe that as a Muslim! Of course Babylon was, and it's even a bigger deal with a powerful nation or empire because how do we know that God didn't bring them to power just to glorify His Name for the whole world to see? Isaiah 2:3-4 says, "And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." The Torah's vision of things at the end of days is a universal gathering of the world into belief in God and morality. There are many more verses like this in Isaiah and the other prophets.
Back to population, according to you, Yahweh is more concerned with quantity over quality. This isn’t true. God is only concerned with his sole worship. The Ishmaelites might have been a nation pre-Islam, but they were definitely not GREAT by any means including in population. They only become a GREAT NATION once they became Muslims at the dawn of Islam.
No, I'm not saying that God is more concerned with quantity over quality, and I agree that God is concerned with worshiping Him alone. What I am doing is defining what the word "nation" means, because you said that they weren't a nation until they became monotheists, but that isn't true. Being a nation isn't dependent on being righteous. There is such thing as an immoral nation (whether or not the descendants of Ishmael were).
I agree with you. A nation doesn’t need to be religious to be a nation. The Romans were a mighty nation. The Persians were a mighty nation. The Ishmaelites were a nation only of blood. They weren’t a political structure until after Islam. My point is God named Ishmael himself. He promised Abraham and Hagar that from Ishmael will come a GREAT Nation. Would God consider an ungodly nation to be GREAT? Why is it so hard so you to accept that Islam is the same promise made to Abraham and Hagar.
Have you ever considered that God named him Himself as having something to do with Ishmael's potential? And have you considered the reason why God called him that? Our tradition says that the young Ishmael's cries in the desert were genuine, and God doesn't turn away from genuine cries. The verse says, "And the angel of the Lord said to her (Hagar), "Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard your affliction." By the way, it's interesting to note that God heard her affliction, not Ishmael's.
You’re being very dishonest if you think the promise made to Ishmael, who God named himself to mean “God hears,” would bless a nation and make it ungodly. That's impossible for Yahweh. He would never call a nation GREAT unless it was God fearing. The only blessing God could bestow upon a nation is to make them God fearing.
That depends on whether "great" means "populous," "righteous," or if the Torah uses it as both based on context. To determine this we'd actually have to see how it is used in each context. The words in the Torah in this verse are "goy gadol." The word "goy" means "nation," and the word "gadol" means either "large" or "great." I don't know if you speak Arabic, but "gadol" is translated as "kabir." Does "kabir" have only one meaning, or can it be used as meaning either "large" or "great?" We can understand a lot just by looking at the context of the verse. The entire verse says, "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." This verse clearly refers to population. If you're going to refer to the verse to learn something about Ishmael, are you really going to pay attention only to one part of the verse and ignore the part that you don't like?
God said in Genesis that he will bless those who bless Abraham and his family - Muslims send salutations to Abraham and his family at least 10 times a day in every prayer. Islam is the true religion of all the prophets, not just the ones in the Tanakh.
Show / hide
How can a Jew look at Islam honestly and think it doesn’t make sense? Islam makes more sense when reading the Torah. Torah came for Israel. The Quran came for humanity, Jew and gentiles alike.
Very easily, actually, because the way the events of human history played out, the Torah was designated only for the Jews. According to many opinions in Judaism the Torah was originally designated for the entire world. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, which corrupted them from their created state, all humanity was as well born in that corrupted state. In that state they were incapable of observing the Torah that was designed for them, so God had to find a candidate from whom he could start a nation that would be capable of receiving the Torah. Those candidates were Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, and their offspring. Their offspring had to go through an arduous process that required a long period of slavery in Egypt and culminated in the giving of the Torah to that nation. Even so, God kept the door open for anybody that wanted to convert, both at that time and ever since, including today.
Why do you think Muhammad isn’t a prophet of the Creator? If he wasn’t from the God of Abraham, then why did he make a quarter of the world into perfect Noahides? Hasn't history proven Muhammad to be the most successful prophet in history? If Muhammad wasn’t a prophet of God, then there is no God and religion is all a fraud.
I already told why, because he taught laws that differed from the Torah, and tried to abolish others. That doesn't mean I don't think that he was a righteous individual doing the right thing. Regarding Noahides, being a legitimate Noachide requires the person to believe that the Oral Torah originated from God and to listen to the authority of the rabbi's. While Muslims keep the Noachide Laws, they do so incidentally without the most important part, which is that the Noachide Law would be unknown to humanity without the Oral Torah. The Written Torah only hints to several of the Noachide Laws, and gives no explanation at all of how to actually apply them in their daily lives. I will not deny that Muhammad's reach was far and wide, but that is at least partially due to the influence that Judaism had on the world up until that time in history. You realize that the Jews have been in conflict with the nations of the world since they were made into a nation because almost nobody wanted to listen to the idea of monotheism. It seems that part of the world had understood it well enough by the 7th century to fully grasp it.
Without Abraham, Moses and the Israelites, most of the world would be pagan. There would be no Islam without Moses. However just like the Torah was relevant for its time and its people, the Quran was like a top up. With Muhammad the laws of Moses went global.
Let me ask you a different question. When did the Lord come to Arabia with a fiery law (not Torah) his own law (Quran) with 10k saints. When Muhammad first came back to mecca for Hajj, he came with 10k pilgrims, all came without their weapons and Prophet Muhammad came with the Quran.
He said: "The Lord came from Sinai and shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran and came with some of the holy myriads; from His right hand was a fiery Law for them." This verse is talking about God when He gave the commandments to Jews on Mt. Sinai." (Deuteronomy 33:2) Why did he come from Seir and Mount Paran? Esav's descendants lived in Seir, and Ishmael's lived in Mount Paran. God offered each of those nations first and they rejected them, so then He came to the Jews. The myriads were angels and the fiery Law was the Torah.
How could he have to the Ishmaelites, when he promised the covenant to Isaac and that was the reason he was in Arabia?
What religion do you follow?
I am an Orthodox Jew. You are a Muslim, I take it?
I think it's the duty of every God fearing Jew to read the Quran, once in their life. Only Jews can truly appreciate the wisdom in the Quran. You owe it to God to at least know who Muhammad was. Is Islam a copy of Judaism? Only the parts that are still divine.
I want to get on to Isaiah 42. I would like you to have a good look at it. It describes the servant to have many attributes. They all are associated to Muhammad or his mission. This can be no one other than Muhammad. Isaiah 42 is an open and shut case for Prophet Muhammad. The verse is talking about an individual clearly. A man, a prophet, a mighty warrior, destroyer of idols, new song. It specifically mentions Kedar, and Sela (mountain in Medina) and the list goes on and on. Why is it so hard to believe that Muhammad must have been a true prophet? Hasn't history proven it to be so? Look how Muslims are. They are devoted to the Creator of the universe.
Show / hide
It isn't hard for me to comprehend such a concept, but it isn't supported by the Torah. Its "hard for me" the same reason that it's hard for you to accept the idea that God chose Isaac and not Ishmael. It goes against what you hold to be true. And for the record, we understand as Jews that Ishmael and Hagar were "not nobodies." We understand as part of our tradition that they were great in their own respects, and that one of God's Names ("El") appears within Ishmael's name. But we also understand that God had a reason for selecting Isaac. This is no different than God selecting Jacob over Esav, yet I have never come across Muslims taking any issue with that at all. Why is that?
I agree to take a closer look at Isaiah 42, but will you take a closer look at one verse in Isaiah 42 (verse 21), which says, "The Lord desires [this] for His righteousness' sake; He magnifies the Torah and strengthens it." What does this mean?
Because you are expressing interest in this verse, then we can study it in greater detail. One of our classical commentators, Rashi (sort of like your Ibn Kathir) gives an explanation of Isaiah 42:2, which says, "He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside." His explanation is, "It will not be necessary to admonish and to prophesy to the nations, for they will come by themselves to learn from them [i.e., from Israel], as the matter is stated (Zech. 8: 23): “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.” That does not seem to be how Muhammad spread his message, which was to admonish and prophecy to the nations. When the Messiah comes, the prophecy will be fulfilled by what is said elsewhere in the Tanakh (namely Zechariah in this case) that the nations will come seeking the truth and not that it will have to be delivered to them.
So you agree God sent hundreds of thousands of prophets. After studying history and looking at the world today, is it fair for Jews to say Muhammad was not a prophet of God? Hasn't history proven Muhammad had to be a prophet?
First of all, those hundreds of thousands of prophets, in our tradition, were Jews and were not sent to all of the nations of the world. Secondly, Muhammad's success spreading monotheism does not necessarily mean that he was a prophet. It could mean that God sought to make him succeed (considering that Islam continued to spread after his death, as it did with Christianity), and as we mentioned before, the world was more responsive to a monotheistic message due to Judaism's influence. In other words, the idea of One God was much less foreign to the pagan nations, which made the message of Islam much easier for them to accept.
The way I understand it they could have had a part in being part of the nation that today we call "Israel." History would have been different. When I think about it, that may, in some way, would have been the ideal scenario, but that's not how it turned out.
Sorry, so how has it turned out?
Well, history as we know it. The Arab nation did not accept the Torah and are at odds with the Bnei Israel, all the while being monotheists.
The Muslims aren’t at odds with Jews. How can they be? All the heroes in Islam are Jews. Muslims are at odds with Zionist. This is apolitical conflict and definitely not religious.
Only individual Jews who are literary characters. The rest of the Jews are not viewed as positively. Forget politics, I don't want to talk about Zionism.
Regarding this, "who can argue that Prophet Muhammad’s message has made more Noahides than any other prophet," did you read what I said earlier in what qualifies a believer as a Noachide? They are on the right track, that is certain, but Muslims are not Noahides. Regarding your second point, this is the real focus, because if you define the Torah as something different than what Jews possess today, then in essence you are taking the license to say that the Torah is whatever you wish for it to be. In other words, if you find a verse in it that does not support that which you wish to be true, then you say that it has been falsified. Or even more simply, you are rewriting it to say what you want it to say. That is irrational. Take Q’uran 116:15 for example (He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful). Why in the world would the Jews have made up extra dietary restrictions? We have no real reason to believe that that's true. Instead, Muhammad was looking for fault in the Jews.
Show / hide
Muslims are not Bnei Noah? , according to who? Rabbi Asher? Really? You are seriously going to say Muslims aren’t perfect Noahides? I suggest you have a look at Rabbi Tovia singer and check out his opinion.
From what I understand according to the Rambam (and I looked it up), they are not Noahides, but I could be mistaken. If you can refer me to a video where Rabbi Tovia Singer says that they are, I'd like to see it. Asher Meza is a good person, but he isn't really recognized as an authoritative figure in the religious Jewish world. Rabbi Tovia Singer's area of expertise is particularly in the area of Christianity and somewhat in Islam.
Rabbi tovia singer, are Muslims Noahides. Check it out.
My reference to history was a practical one. If the purpose of our existence is to worship the God of Abraham, then who can argue that Prophet Muhammad’s message has made more noahides than any other prophet. You keep saying that Muhammad didn’t accept the Torah. That's not true. He accepted the Torah of Moses but not the Torah in its entirety that we have today.
Show / hide
The Torah is eternal and is the Word of God, and if it's relevant at one point in history, it has to relevant forever. If we say that the Torah is no longer relevant due to one reason or another, we are saying that God gave a revelation (regardless to who) that would one day not be relevant, and that is very hard to understand from the perspective that God is perfect and unchanging. There is no "better version" of something that is perfect.
The Torah isn’t perfect. It has countless mistakes in it. God doesn’t make mistakes. So I agree, the original Torah is eternal. However, we don’t have the original Torah. That's why the Quran was revealed. To correct the mistakes of old.
Are you saying that God couldn't preserve the Torah? He's preserved the Q’uran (according to your view) - I don't know why He wouldn't do the same with the Torah.
That promise wasn’t made with the Torah, Zaboor and Injeel. It was only made with the Quran. That's not to say the message of the Torah is lost, but it has been altered for sure. We can attest to this by the fact that the Torah has multiple mistakes in it. God doesn’t make mistakes.
As Muslims we believe the Jews through away the book of Allah (Torah) and started learning what the shayateen were teaching the 70 rabbis in Babylon after the destruction of the first temple
First of all, the Torah itself says that it will be preserved. Secondly, the question still stands; why would Got let His first revelation be corrupted? Look at the (supposed) chaos that's come out of it.
That's a very strange thing to believe. Many of the details describing how to properly observe the commandments written in the Torah were expounded upon by these 70 rabbis. I assume you're talking about the Talmud? You realize that the Talmud is basically to the Torah what the Shariah is to the Q’uran?
The basic difference between Islam and Judaism as I see it, is how their respective scriptures talk about the prophets? And also who constitutes prophethood.
We believe the prophets were all perfect especially Abraham, Moses, Noah Jesus and Muhammad. The Torah is often very brutal in its description of certain prophets. The Quran finds this totally inappropriate.
Back to the the topicsThere is nothing in the Quran that would offend a Jew. You might not agree with the entire story of each prophet but you won’t disagree with the message, worship the One God.
Show / hide
Well! I guess I am in principle not opposed to that view at all! "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:9) I pray we can live to see that day!
I think the earth is already full of knowledge about the oneness of the Most High thanks to our father Abraham, Alhumdalilah.
As long as the world contains polytheists that are committed to their faiths, it doesn't seem that the prophecy about the world being full of the knowledge of the One God has been fulfilled. Sure, it's getting there, but it hasn't happened yet.
You seem to have a great hunger for knowledge, the truth. You are a seeker of the truth. Like me, I will go with whatever makes the most sense.
Gentiles weren’t obliged to follow the Torah, only the Jews were. So when did anyone get a chance to reject it?
There are only two biblical nations still around today 1. Ishmael 2. Israel. The fact that they are both still around today, is an absolutely amazing achievement. It shows the strength of their message.
Don't forget Esav, who according to Judaism developed into the Romans.
Have a look at the Prophet Muhammad’s biography. As aman of God it's your duty to understand who this Muhammad was. He is the prophet like Moses in Deuteronomy. No other man in history achieved what Moses did except Muhammad.
Show / hide
Are you referring to Deuteronomy 18:15, "A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him"? The most intuitive explanation of "from your brothers" is not figurative so that it extends to the descendants of Ishmael, but refers to another Israelite next in line for leadership after Moses, in this case, Joshua. One method of Torah study is done through cross-referencing words to other parts of the Torah. Take, for example, Deuteronomy 18:7, which says, "and he may serve in the name of the Lord, his God, just like all his Levite brothers, who stand there before the Lord." This is referring to a Levite, and refers to "his Levite brothers" from the same tribe. We see that "brother" can refer to all Israelites as well, but I have never seen it used in the Torah to refer to Ishmaelites. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
The only man in history like Moses is Muhammad. Both were; 1. Prophets who received revelation from God over a long period. 2. Both were political leaders of their communities 3. Both were military leaders 4. Both were judges of law 5. Both were fathers and brothers 6. Both made Exodus There is no equal to these two men.
Do you know how many times Moses is mentioned in the Quran? He is mentioned 125 times. Do you know how many times Muhammad is mentioned by name? Only four times.
Sure, those are both major differences. There are others, but that one is significant. I have often thought about why Islam has that view of prophecy, i.e., in contrast to Judaism's view, or how that came about.
I read the Quran first, Torah second. The Quran made more sense once I had a good look at the Torah. The Quran is a sanitized version of the Tanakh. That's the best way I can put it. The way of God was always with the Jewish people. Prophet Muhammad took that message to the world.
So by "sanitizing" the truth you've made it more truthful? But that's a moot point because we don't believe that some people you say are prophets were actually prophets, such as Lot. Does it make sense for Muslims to say that the Jews have falsified the Torah because they don't agree on the description of certain people? Remember that the Jews believed these things before Muslims existed, and perhaps it was the Muslims who deviated from the existing viewpoints.
Show / hide
Bro, come on! Sanitizing things is for people that can't handle the truth, and just because things are complex or include real-life situations, that does not make them false. I didn't realize that Islam was so PC. Even great people make mistakes, and those sins need to be understood from their perspective, not yours. Case-in-point: didn't Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree? Wasn't that a huge sin given that it brought death into the world and gave Satan the upper hand in the affairs of Man for all of human history so far? That's no wasawasa, that's big time.
Adam and eve ate the apple, yes, but Adam repented and God forgave them. That's the lesson.
In Islam, the sins of Adam, has no reflection on you or me. Moses never sinned. Neither did Noah, Abraham, Jesus, Suleiman, or Muhammad. There are lessons to be learnt from stories without the prophets becoming apostates. I believe you and me are true believers of God. We try our very best to keep up with Gods laws. And we aren’t even prophets. Imagine if we were prophets, could you see us sinning intentionally ever?? I doubt it
I think you need to read the Quran to truly understand what I mean.
If it was permissible for Noah to be a drunk then why isn’t it ok for me? If Solomon worshipped the Devil, then why shouldn't I? If David had affairs and fornicated then why shouldn't I?
We learn correct behavior from the prophets, and one of those behaviors is the correct way to repent. If we can't learn it from them, from who can we learn it? Lessons such as this should come from those most qualified for it, and the prophets are certainly those people. If we can't learn the hard lessons from revelation, from where can we learn it? The Torah is a book of guidance - God has to teach us how to properly repent. Didn't Adam and Eve eat the fruit? Didn't Cain murder Abel? Didn't Moses strike the rock instead of speaking at it? Those are sins that had great repercussions.
I love Abraham, Moses, David Solomon and Jesus all for the sake of Allah. However, there is no way my hero Solomon went from being a prophet of Allah, to an apostate. Never, no way.
My point is there is no story in the Quran that you will be offended by. All the prophet stories are positive. We believe all the prophets were masoom (beyond sin). We don’t accept that Noah was a drunk, or Suleiman became a devil worshipper. How can a prophet of God become a devil worshiper? Really?? What kind of God do you follow whose prophets argue with him and stop believing in God?
I get that. The prophets were only human, including Moses and Muhammad. However, in the Quran they are sinless. Muslim opinion varies on minor sins, but they never committed major sin.
Hold on - who ever said anything about sinning intentionally? How did you get that from my words? I was talking about giving in to temptation. Regarding Adam's sin, it certainly has a reflection on you. It changed Adam's nature from with which he was created, and that nature has been inherited by every human being. It is the reason humans are mortal (according to our tradition, Adam and Eve were created to live forever) and the reason that we have to fight against Satan's temptations for our entire lives. It is the mother of all sins that made all subsequent sins possible. It cannot be that even the most righteous person is not affected by this state of being. However, the Jewish view is that we learn almost everything from the prophets from what they did correctly (which is almost everything) in contrast to what they did incorrectly. We love and revere these prophets, and our moral stature is far lower than theirs even with whatever sin they committed. Had we been in their shoes we would not have lasted a moment. What do you think King Solomon meant when he wrote, "For a righteous man can fall seven times and rise, but the wicked shall stumble upon evil?" (Proverbs 24:16) A righteous man falling? Is he falling in minor sins, or in great ones as well? Also, there is a teaching in our tradition that the greater a person's spiritual standing, the greater his temptation is to sin. This is necessary in part to maintain his free will, for if his inclination to do good exceeded his inclination to do evil (or vice-versa), he would in effect not be choosing good and therefore it would not be an outcome of his choice (i.e., he would be responding to his programming like the angels, who have no free will).
Who said it was okay? Okay, I understand the confusion here. Do you believe that we (Jews) take these complex elements as permission to engage in these behaviors? That couldn't be farther from the truth. See my answer from the previous comment: if your spiritual standing was as great as theirs, your temptation to sin would be greater than it is now. By the way, much of Psalms was written as an outgrowth of King David's repentance for his act. The Jewish approach to studying the Torah is not to whitewash it, but to appreciate its complexity and to learn from it. You should know that some things in the Torah are very hard to understand and that religious Jews spend their lives trying to understand them. As a person studies more and experience more, he may gain more insight, which often helps to understand some of the difficult passages in the Torah.
Regarding the amount of times that the Q’uran mentions Muhammad, I understand. When Muhammad had a prophecy, how did he experience it? Does my question make sense?
I never said that believe their behavior to have been permitted, my friend. I apologies if you misunderstand. I meant in the Jewish scriptures, the prophets are accused of very major sins, including apostasy in the case of Suleiman. How can Suleiman, David, Abraham, Noah or even Moses being people I should follow especially since some of their behavior according to the Torah is very ungodly. Look at the love we have for God, I can guarantee neither of us will ever, ever start devil worshiping. But the Jewish scriptures accuse Solomon of this very crime. Does that make sense to you? That is a very serious crime that Solomon is accused of yet he is a revered prophet? Really? Suleiman in the Quran is a different reading on the story and Suleiman is totally vindicated. Suleiman never taught magic. The Israelites learnt the magic in Egypt. Read the Quran brother. Find out for yourself. Don’t rely on others. If you like reading the Torah, you will guarantee love the Quran? Mash Allah, you are a seeker of knowledge. You are truly blessed. Your name is appropriate!
Regarding the manner in which Muhammad experienced prophecy, there are hadiths which say he went into like an epileptic fit. Remember he had prophecy come over 23 years, so there are many witnesses.
Show / hide
Why did he have an epileptic fit during prophecy?
Regarding minor and major sins, I have a very simple and very direct question: do you consider what Adam did to be a minor sin?
I think for any Jewish or Christian brothers, they must answer one question as honestly as possible. Who was Muhammad? Could he really have made all that up? What were his motives? Why did he glorify the Torah, Psalms and Injeel? Does the evidence show he was a liar? Could it be possible he wrote the Quran? What did Muhammad teach that any Jewish prophet didn’t teach?
The manner you describe (of an epileptic fit) seems very similar to how the Jewish prophets experienced prophecy, and/or that they had to enter a sleep-like state. According to the Torah and to our tradition, Moses was unique among all the prophets in that he was the only one who experienced prophecy in a completely waking state and was even able to initiate it at his will. About this the Torah says, "And there was no other prophet who arose in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." (Deuteronomy 34:10). See also Exodus 32:30 and Numbers 9:8, which say, "So now I will go up to the Lord" (Exodus 32:30) and "You stand still, and I will listen to what the Lord will command concerning you." (Numbers 9:8) It was necessary for his prophecy to be different than that of all other prophets because the Torah was made known to him through it. Even if they were equal in all the regards you listed, they were different in this one significant way.
That's more than one question. :)
And speaking of witnesses, did anybody else experience his prophecies with him?
Do you believe Allah and Yahweh are the same?
Regarding the Torah accusing them of anything, let's break this down piece-by-piece. First of all, they are not accused of anything; rather the Torah simply reports it. Remember that we believe God to have revealed the entire Tanakh.
Show / hide
Secondly, you may not commit the sins that the Torah says they each committed, but you certainly do commit sins. The question really is, then, how can a believer who knows that God exists and sees everything that he does commit a sin? However, in the case of the prophets, each one has to be studied on its own because they had different motivations. Noah thought that the world was destroyed forever and gave up hope. King David thought that Batsheva was destined for him and made a mistake (for which he repented). Regarding King Solomon, the Torah says, " 'Of the nations about which the Lord had said to the Children of Israel, "You shall not go (mingle) among them and they shall not come among you, for certainly they will sway your heart after their deities.' To these did Solomon cleave to love [them]?" (Kings 1 11:2) God said that this would happen, and it happened to one of the greatest men that ever lived. "You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you." (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)
Life is grown up and so is the Torah. The Torah contains stories of real life and is not Dr. Seuss. As believers we have to understand what seems like self-contradictions, but it is not sensible to simply say that a Divinely-revealed book with such content is therefore not Divinely-revealed. Who are you to tell God what to put in His book? I don't want a sanitized book that puts bumpers on the bowling lanes for me. Authenticity is defined by complex topics, not by books edited and censored to keep out complexity.
We have the same stories in the Quran about the prophets. However, our outlook on those complexities is completely different. The prophets never committed shirk. The lessons learnt in the Quran are the same without the prophets having to have committed sin.
Yes, you are right. Moses was unique in that sense. He was the only prophet to speak directly with the Creator. Like I said to you, without Moses there would be no Islam. We believe all the prophets including Adam were Muslim and his religion was Islam. Know you must find out what Muslim and Islam mean.
You said, "The lessons learnt in the Quran are the same without the prophets having to have committed sin." You know, I was thinking about what you said and that's a bit hard for me to believe. Let us imagine, and please do not be offended because that is not my intent at all, that the Q’uran included an event in which Muhammad faced a certain moral challenge, failed in that challenge, realized his failure, and strengthened his resolve to improve himself and recommit to God. Would that lead you to doubt the veracity of the Q’uran? Or would it give you a deeper insight into the nature of what God wills of His human creations? Would it leave you with more, or leave you with less? I don't expect an answer to this question immediately, I realize that it may require some introspection, but perhaps I am wrong.
I think you missed my point. I was trying to say in a way that would not be offensive that Moses' prophecy was of the highest level that any human being has ever experienced, including Muhammad. Moses' prophecy in Islam, unless I am wrong, is simply a chain in the link of prophecies, but in Judaism, Moses' prophecy is the absolute climax of all prophetic revelation and has never been duplicated and never will.
Yeah that's a great question, my friend. I think for a Muslim, we aren’t encouraged to interpret the Quran. We are encouraged to read the Quran and its TAFSIR, which TRIES TO tell us what circumstances the verse was revealed in and what its meaning is. To us, the Quran is the word of God. Not even prophet Muhammad understand the whole Quran. Only today thanks to modern science, we are truly discovering the majesty of the Quran, with all the scientific miracles only being proven in modern times.
I wouldn't disagree with any of that in regards to Moses. The prophet Muhammad said Moses is the only prophet to have a direct line with Allah no doubt. We love Moses. The prophet loved Moses. Moses is the main hero of the Quran. The prophet never denied any of this. However the Torah you read today, us Muslims believe there is no way it is the same (word for word, passage for passage) as that revealed to Moses. That's not possible. There are too many mistakes for the Torah to be the unchanged word of God. That doesn’t mean its message was lost like the Gospels.
You can’t say Moses message hasn't been duplicated without having a read of the Quran. For some Jews to call Muslims idolaters is a blatant disrespect of our faith and in truth it is way of stopping Jews or Christians from learning, if nothing else, then to explain our current times to understand why we are at this junction in humanity
By "interpret the Quran" are you saying that you aren't encouraged to imagine the Q’uran in some way other than it currently is? If so, I can of course understand that, as we aren't really encouraged to do that either with the Torah. Or by "interpret" do you mean attempt to understand the Q’uran in a way conceivable to your own mind? For example, we study our meforshim just as you study your Tafsir. If, and this may happen from time-to-time, you conceive of some insight about a passage in the Q’uran that you have not seen in the Tafsir, what do you do with it? I am not asking this rhetorically because this has happened to me.
Show / hide
Great question. From my experience brother, the Quran isn’t understood by anyone including Prophet Muhammad completely. Some verses are only making sense today. For me personally, I refer to the trusted scholars for guidance if I am unsure. However, the Quran makes sense to different people in different ways. But honestly bro, Muslims take precedence from everything Jewish. We study Quran how you study Torah.
There is a passage in the Quran in reference to IRON and how God sent iron from the Heavens to the earth. That passage is only relevant today, it wouldn't have been proven until recent times. The prophet said the pen of a scribe is more powerful than the sword of a warrior.
How do you determine whether something is a mistake or not?
According to the Quran we must gain knowledge wherever we find it. The Quran is the standard by which we measure this knowledge.
Yes, that's the best way to go. There is a concept in Jewish study called a chiddush, which comes from the word chadash meaning "new." A chiddush, if valid, is an accurate observation on some aspect of the Torah that had not yet been discussed. The way I understand it, a valid chiddush is one that is in line with the existing thought about that subject (according to the meforashim), yet brings to light some new aspect. I'm always a bit concerned when I have an idea; if I find that no commentator has discussed it, either it's a valid chiddush or they had considered it in the past, but didn't consider it relevant enough to be a chiddush.
Show / hide
I can't speak for Christians, but only for Jews (if that). I personally don't think that Islam is idolatry in any sense of the word, and neither do many of our scholars, both alive and dead. I would agree that it's disrespectful and I wonder what aspect of Islam makes them say that.
It would be strange for Christians to say that Islam is idolatry given the issues with the Trinity, which comes closer to idolatry than anything currently found in Islam. I don't think that I have the time to read the entire Q’uran with serious concentration right now, but I have read parts of it and noted several differences throughout. Some of them are insignificant and easy enough to ignore (such as that the Golden Calf was made with a hole inside to give the illusion that it was mooing when the wind blew through), and some are more significant (such as the accusation that the Jews innovated their own dietary restrictions beyond that which they were commanded). A proposed changed in the Law of the Torah, whether through omission or addition, would indicate that the message of Moses has been changed. This can be true if even the Q’uran does duplicate part of his message, while changing other parts. I think it really comes down to which scenario is true? Scenario A) God gave the Torah to the Jews, they preserved it perfectly, and a latter religion claimed that they changed it. Scenario B) God gave the Torah to the Jews and they changed parts of it. For example, the Torah lists 24 non-kosher birds. Is it true that God prohibited the Jews from eating 24 different species of birds, or is it true that God prohibited, let's say, five different species and the Jews added on 19 more? How would you go about demonstrating which was the true version? When making an accusation it is typically the claimant that is responsible for presenting evidence, not the accused. Islam is the claimant and Judaism is the accused. Of course you would say that the Q’uran is the litmus test for determining what is true, but I would say that the Torah is the litmus test. But more pressing than that, if it is false, why didn't it generate a response at any point in time by anybody until the revelation of the Q’uran? Why didn't anybody catch these mistakes until the 7th century? Why didn't somebody make an objection and attempt to record the correct version in real time? For example, if there was an "alternate Torah" that was virtually identical to the existing one except for differences such as this, that would require serious attention, but as far as I know no such thing exists. That question has been in my mind for years now.
Statements such as this are certainly interesting, and the Torah has some too, but ultimately we can't rely on such verses to have any bearing on the status of revealed laws. What I mean is, that the Q’uran contains such statements is not a proof that the Q’uran's set of laws has replaced and/or corrected the Torah's. And I apply this concept consistently; we shouldn't believe that the Torah is true due to information contained within it that science corroborates. There are religious Jews that rely (maybe heavily) on the approach that scientific corroboration proves the truth of the Torah, but I think that the authenticity of a book must be essentially independent of scientific findings. 1) Science and 2) authenticity of revelation are two perhaps related, but separate, domains. It's nice when science backs up Torah, but my faith isn't hinged on it.
If you accept Islam isn’t idolatry, then one comes to the rational conclusion that Jews believe Muslims are Bnai Noah. If indeed they are, then you have a massive problem. Who was this man, Muhammad, and is it fair to say that a man who turned a quarter of the world into Noahides isn’t a prophet of Elohim but Daniel is?? Really?? If you accept, like many of my Jewish friends, that Muhammad had to be a prophet of God, just not for the Jews, then I this is misunderstanding the role of revelation on humanity.
If any book contains knowledge it shouldn’t do according to history then doesn’t that support its validity?
Show / hide
Ali, I've made this point a few times, but it was missed. Being a Ben Noach has a very specific definition, only part of which is to not be an idolater. To save you the energy I'll say it here again. According to the Rambam (Maimonides) being a legitimate Ben Noach requires accepting the authority of the Rabbis. The reason for that should be fairly obvious for a religiously-inclined person; it is the role of the scholars of religion to form legislation (this is the same in both of our religions). Without this ingredient, according to the Rambam as well, even if a person believes in God, observes the Seven Laws of Noach, but doesn't believe in the authority of the rabbis to instruct him in applying those laws he is simply not considered a Ben Noach - he is just a wise person. But the main reason for this is that the majority of the Seven Laws themselves are only hinted at throughout the early part of Genesis; God revealed the details to us in the form of the Oral Law, not the Written Law.
Well, I bet that the books belonging to most religions are right about some of the scientific phenomena in the world. That doesn't mean that I'm going to start bowing down to a red elephant-headed god with four arms.
You are misunderstanding what worship means in Islam. Everything we do as humans is for the sake of Allah. The laws of Noah are a set of actions we must apply. We don’t need a rabbi or an imam to show us what they are. The only Bnei Noah on this earth are the Jews and Muslims. The rest are still pagan. If the Muslims are Bnai Noah, then you have to ask yourself, “who was this man, Muhammad (pbuh)?”
If the righteous gentiles are only meant to keep the laws of Noah, why do you object to the Quran?
It’s not about guess work with the holy books. Muslims believe Allah sent 126,000 to every nation, so I'm sure there are remnants of truth in many books. However God doesn’t make mistakes. I can say the Quran has no grammatical errors. The Torah has many i.e. the varying accounts of the age of Ishmael and the varying accounts of Noah's flood story. Hence, the Torah can’t be the one revealed to Moses in its entirety
Forget the Noachide Laws for a moment. What seems to be main source of conflict between (religious) Jews and Muslims is something that have no other word for other than "metaphysical pressure." Islam cannot accept Judaism in its current form and attempts to break it down and reshape it in a way that makes more sense to it. This requires destroying the original structure and reassembling it. However, Judaism is a living tradition populated by living people and so naturally resists this effort. This is a battle of ideas. At the end of the day I would say that Judaism is more tolerant of Islam as is than Islam is of Judaism as is. We like the idea that other peoples have accepted monotheism. We *do not* like that they have, in a way, waged war on us to try to demote and replace us. Does what I just said make sense to you? This is some *very* serious stuff!
Show / hide
So the Creator sent down a book and a set of laws that only apply to a tiny group of people namely the Jews and everyone else should live in ignorance as pagans? Really?
Islam is the truth to me for a 100 reasons including I have physical evidence that the Quran I have today is the same Quran revealed to our blessed prophet. Can you prove that the Torah you read is the same Torah given to Moses? No way, you couldn't do that and historically inaccurate.
Islam, corrected the mistakes made by man in the Torah, for example the Exodus story in the Torah has no archaeological evidence whereas the Quranic version does. Mount Sinai was in Arabia not the peninsula.
Given their proper attention and study, many of these "errors" are resolved as indicators of deeper meaning. I'm talking about tense disagreement, inconsistencies in facts, etc... Our commentators have picked up on all of these "errors" and address them. You wish for people to treat your religion respectfully, and expressed frustration over Christians considering Muslims idolaters, yet speaking this way about the Torah is disrespectful.
Let's address these one-at-a-time:
It is true that God's message should reach the entire world, and we want that too. We can imagine God doing this in several ways. One of those ways (proposed by Islam) is to send each nation a prophet with a message. Another way (proposed by Judaism) would be for God create a Divinely-revealed text for one group of people, and charge those people with teaching the world (both directly and indirectly) about that message. It would be interesting to discuss the pros and cons of each.
Now you may think that Islam belongs in the first category, but the truth is that it is actually in the second. Why? Because if Muhammad is the final prophet, and no other nations receive prophecy anymore, then all nations must rely on the revelation of the Q’uran as its source for that message. If that is correct then Islam's model of disseminating truth is exactly the same as Judaism's. It may not have been identical in the past, when each nation was getting its own prophet, but those nations don't exist anymore.
About the inerrancy of the Q’uran, there are people who (attempt to) demonstrate that the Q’uran does have errors and inconsistencies. Look up Jay Smith on Youtube. He has several videos about this topic and he's the only person I've seen defeat Imam Shabir Ally in a debate (which is not easy to do).
Show / hide
If the Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia and not Egypt, how did the "Jewish authors" get their entire 40-year journey through the desert wrong? Did they not know where they were?
You are a man of God. Please don’t ever reference David Wood or Jay Smith. They are clowns defending the indefensible. Jay Smith couldn't defeat Shabir Ali in a lifetime. Christianity is dead if indeed its defenders are jokers like Jay Smith.
About the Quran and its mistakes; I challenge anyone to bring one mistake.
There can’t be a hidden meaning for having differing accounts of how many days Noah's Ark was in the water.
Gentiles don’t have to keep Torah. Why then is it wrong to worship through Islam?
What Christian's think about Muslims is unimportant. They are failed religion with obvious corruption in text and doctrine. But for some Jews to consider Muslims idolatrous like Rabbi Asher is obviously misleading and unfair.
Wait, let's back things up so we understand each other. What about Smith leads you to say that he is a joker? David Wood, I understand, you don't need to say any more. Shabir Ally is undefeatable when it comes to the Trinity simply because he has the truth of monotheism on his side. Regarding supposed self-contradictions in the Q’uran, I saw one debate between Smith and Shabir Ally where (at least as it seemed to me) Shabir Ally was unable to satisfyingly answer some points. That does not mean that Smith is smart or good or anything, it just means that the points were difficult to reconcile. But I digress, I trust that Shabir's responses to Smith were informed and so I don't have to ask you to respond as well (although you can if you want).
Now let's discuss what one may consider a "mistake" in the Torah of the type you mentioned. There are several places in the Torah when it says, "And after these things, so-and-so happened," and there is nothing mentioned before it with any obvious connection to what happened. At this point the commentators explain what the Torah is referring to. Another example of one may consider to be a mistake is events occasionally being reported out of order (sometimes way out of order). In other words: Event B, Event C, Event D, Event A, when Event A took place years before Event B. Sometimes the Torah gives two different names for one individual. Sometimes the Torah gives two different accounts of one event. Sometimes it gives contradictory timelines. Are these bona fide mistakes in your assessment, or is something else going on? Does anything remotely similar occur in any place in the Q’uran?
Yeah, I don't think that Muslims are idolatrous, and I'm pretty sure that Meza is not only not recognized as an authoritative Rabbi, most religious Jews don't know who he is. But hold on, if you don't care what Christians think about Muslims due to their failed religion and obvious corruption in text and doctrine, aren't Jews in the same boat? I mean, we can respect each other as people, but you do believe that the Torah has been corrupted in text and doctrine also. Look, if that's what you believe, that's what you believe. I don't expect you to change your religion just to avoid offending me, but let's at least be honest about this point.
3 comments:
Muslims are certainly not Noahides (Pious Gentiles).
Maimonides explains in Laws of Kings 8:11 that anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven commandments and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come. This applies ONLY when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the TORAH and informed us through MOSES, our teacher, that Noah's descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously. A Gentile who keeps the 7 commandments because of some other religion is not a Pious Gentile and he has no share in the world to come.
In Laws of Kings 10:9, Maimonides writes that Gentiles are not allowed to originate a new religion or create commandments for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the commandments or retain their 7 Noahide statutes without adding or detracting from them. Islam is obviously a new religion with new commandments.
These rulings are cited in the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner as the accepted practical rulings.
Note that Satan is the name of a prosecuting angel in the Heavenly Court. Yet Muslims say that he acts in opposition to God's will - i.e., that he is a separate god. This idolatrous concept is not even a belief in an intermediary, since it claims that Satan is not under God's control.
- Hrvatski Noahid
Hello Hrvatski Noahid, and thank you for your comment!
This "overlap" between being a genuine Noachide and incidentally (or coincidentally) following the seven laws of Noach is something that I think confuses many people, even probably some Orthodox Jews, so thanks for pointing that out and providing Halachic sources.
Many people tend to think that following a religion that incidentally adheres to all seven commandments (in the best case scenario) makes them Noachides. The aspect that most people easily miss is as you said, that a Gentile becomes a bona fide Noachide only when he accepts that they are binding through the teachings of Moses. This also indicates, as I recall reading in the Mishna Torah (Rambam - Maimonides) that he must accept the authority of the rabbis. I find this to be the most difficult area for people, i.e., accepting the Divinely revealed validity of the Oral Law, which is why I have focused on that subject on this blog.
What are some of the Q'uranic or Muslim sources that treat the Satan as one who acts in opposition to God?
Thank you!
Yes, we are not to rely on anyone else to provide explanations of any part of Torah, whether for Jews or Gentiles, aside from accepted Jewish Torah scholars (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2011, p 28, citing Rambam, Laws of Rebellious Ones 1:1).
As regards the idolatrous concept of a rebellious Satan in Islam, see Quran 2:34: "When we said to the angels, "Fall prostrate before Adam," they fell prostrate, except Satan; he refused, was too arrogant, and a disbeliever."
Post a Comment