Jump to content

About Islam


Recommended Posts

Well you got to take that up with the person who mentioned that there are goatmen originally.

Buying and reading one is very different. How often do Christians read and reread the Bible. I know that almost every hotel and motel in the West has a Bible in the room, but how many use it. Muslims required by their religious code to actually memorise the whole of Koran. I do not remember any of such requirements in Christianity with respects to Bible. You also would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who never read a Koran however I have no difficulty finding Christians who never read the Bible and know the stories from it only thanks to Sunday school.

The sales of Koran are not high due to the the way the book is perceived. they are more passed on through the generations and also due to the fact that Muslims live with family staying together (multi generation family living under one roof or very close like next house). The family would share one Koran. The easiest place to spot the Koran in Muslim home is to look at the highest shelf in house and you would see it sitting there, that is very traditional. So personally, I am not being biased since I am not a Muslim. My statement comes from the book called the Religions of Man by Houston Smith. But I am sure I have seen the same statements made by other religious scholars whose books I have read.

According to Kenneth Cragg Koran is the most rehearsed and recited of all Scriptures.

Well there are people who say they are christians and those who are christians, those who are read the bible every single day for the rest of their lives.

Still, its quite hard to measure the amount of times a book is read. We have people in our church who have probably read the bible over 1000x , but i doubt the writer of that book has interviewed this person, so still, making statements like that cannot be taken seriously since it is too hard to really measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the satyrs/goat-demons. Did I misunderstand above or was it being claimed that they were real beings, that were expelled or driven to extinction? ::)

The line of reactions becomes a little blurry by now, I originally reacted to this:

"the desert was populated with evil spirits and jinns"

Wait, so Muhammed made them extinct? Damn, maybe Emprowrm was right...

...while the Bible mentions even more fantastic desert creatures, which also can't be found (any more ;) ). They are generally mentioned in prophecies as a metaphore for future destruction or chaos, so in fact we can say they don't exist "yet". But I guess it was just an author's approach to the folklore. A notion of a jumping goatmen (or of tehom, leviathans, the apocalyptic Beast) was clear for Isaia's contemporary Hebrews, I guess they also did not expect them to come to Babylon and play around; even if today we need an exegesis to find out what did he really mean. Only angels are accepted (by both christians and muslims) as "real" beings, and they play also an active role in the scriptures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am glad the whole goatman thing got cleared up. But continuing on with the story:

Besides the 4 main concepts in Islam there are also 5 main basis of Islam often referred to as 5 pillars.

If you ask a Muslim what does Islam teaches him he would most likely answer at that Islam teaches him to follow in a straight path. This idea is found int he first surah of Koran that recited by all Muslims 5 times a day.

Praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds,

The Compassionate, the Merciful. (this could also be translated as the most Merciful and the Ever Merciful)

King of the day of Judgement.

Tis Thee we worship and Thee we ask for help.

Guide us in a straight path,

The path of those whom Thou hast favoured,

Not the path of those who incur Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

The meaning behind the straight path is that the path is not crooked and not corrupt because it is straight. (Metaphor makes basic sense). However second meaning is that it is straight forward and explicit. The way of life that person should lead is spelled out clearly in Islam. There is clear obligations for every Muslims and clear punishment for not following them and what to do to correct the mistakes. Islam offers its followers clarity and order and precision from the chaos around them whether the modern life or the chaos that ruled in the desert during the time Muhammad. This is one of the main attractions of the religion.

Even in God's revelation to man Muslims see explicit order:

God reveals Abraham the truth of monotheism

God reveals Moses the 10 Commandments

God reveals Jesus the Golden Rule of loving one's neighbour

The question remains how one should love one's neighbour in the world where human interests cross and battle. This answer is revealed through Muhammad.

So what is this straight path well it rests ont he 5 pillars mentioned above

First pillar - creed

Creed in Islam is very short: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet

Every Muslim must say this at least once during the lifetime and in full voice, slowly and conviction. In practice the Muslims repeat this almost 5 times a day. This creed is designed to remove any doubt about the monotheism of the religion as well as remove any attempt to deify Muhammad as some followers wanted to after he died.

Second pillar - prayer

Prayer exist to keep man's life in perspective and to constantly teach him the lesson that he is not God. This is done to keep man from putting himself in the center of the universe and create laws around himself. Thus prayer is outpouring of love to God from the heart and as well as acknowledgment that man is just a creature and not the Creator and so God is the ultimate ruler of his life.

Muslims pray 5 times daily: upon dawn, at noon, in mid-afternoon, after sunset, and before going to sleep. the schedule is not binding if following it puts one in danger. For Muslims there is no holy day like Sabbath for Jews or Sunday for Christians. the closest day is Friday when Muslims gather for noon prayer and collective recital of Koran in mosques.(Prayers than usually focus on more collective issues). However, mosques as mentioned are not necessary the only place of prayer, a faithful can spread the prayer rug anywhere in Allah's universe and pray as any place created by Allah is pure.

In terms of how Muslims should pray there is no mentioning in Koran but it is from how Muhammad did it that Muslims derive their way. (One of the reasons for different ways Muslims pray). Muslims should pray towards Mecca where the Islam's teachings came down to Muhammad. Muslims first wash themselves and than spread the prayer rug before them. Standing erect with hands open on either side of his face with thumbs touching the lobes of his ears Muslims say Allah akbar (God is most great). Than Muslims recite the opening surah of the Koran followed by personal selection applying to their personal case. Than placing his hands on knees they says I extol the perfection of my Lord the Great. Back in upright position they say Allah akbar. Than gently they go to their knees, place their hands and their faces on the ground (that is is why there is a prayer rug to prevent putting one's face on the naked ground - hygiene purposes). Than rise to the knees and again return with faces and hands to the ground. the whole proses is repeated several times.

Third pillar - charity

While material things are important in life and some people have more than others, Islam doesn't concern itself on the question of why, instead goes to practical solution of what should be done about that. The solution is that each Muslim should give 50% (number differs from one sect to another, in Koran the figure is 2.5% of total assets, therefore the interpretation now differs due to that) of their surplus income to charity (surplus income being the income they do not require to satisfy their needs, of course the problem arises with the need definition). Thus Muhammad actually created the idea of welfare state with taxation of the rich to help the poor. The needy are defined as salves that are in process of buying their freedom, debtors that can't meet their obligations, strangers and wayfarers (here is where Muslim hospitality kicks in), and to those who collect and distribute alms (charity organisations).

Fourth pillar - Ramadan

We all heard of feast of Ramadan when Muslims only eat after sunset and do not eat or drink from dawn to dusk. Ramadan is the holy month during which Muhammad received his commission as a prophet and same month that Hijrah has happened.  To commemorate such occasion all able bodied Muslims fast (wars, sickness, or necessary physical or mental output - studies or long travels are expeditionary conditions). Ramadan is based on lunar calendar and so rotates around the year.

What is the purpose of such exercise? Well it teaches self-discipline thus having better control over appetite in other times, increases persons will power, it shows how frail are humans so that humans remember that God is above them, when person fasts person could also become more philosophical and think more about teachings of Koran. Finally it is also act of compassion, who never experienced hunger doesn't know what it is and so person would be more open to the plight of the poor.

Fifth pillar - pilgrimage

Once in their lifetime every Muslim must visit Mecca. The reason is to heighten the pilgrims devotion to God. However it also has secondary effects such as reminding equality between humans as upon reaching Mecca both rich and poor dress in the same clothing of two simple sheet like garments. It also demonstrate that people have some loyalty and connection greater than to their nations that rival for supremacy. Finally it also allows different people from different countries to meet and find out each others side of the story.

Other things also exist such as abstaining from gambling, intoxication, and pork. While prescription against the gambling is in full force the other two are relaxed by liberal Muslims because they say that rule against intoxication was directed against the orgies that were persictent during pre-Islamic times among the Arabs. Prohibition against the pork was done for hygienic reasons and so if there is no decease than there is no need to have the  prohibition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, angels. Righto. (Wink wink nudge nudge) See a lot of those, do you? ::)

[cue Twilight Zone theme]

Oh, if I should cry out, who among those angelic ranks would hear me, I wonder!

[snicker]

Well first you have to call out to God and than if he decides than he will send angels to help you and this is consistent with most religions.

Now to the social teachings of Koran.

"O ye men! harken unto my words and take ye them to heart! Know ye that every Muslim is a brother to every other Muslim, and that ye are now one brotherhood. These were the words of Muhammad shortly before he died. The idea that all Muslims should stand together and that all of them should protect each other. Of course the Muslims divided shortly after death of Muhammad as Sunni and Shi'a factions were formed. And than the Muslims continued to break apart.

Islam's social teachings are powerful as they are very explicit in terms of their teachings. We have easily to follow guide that Muslims should be like brothers. In comparison, to pre-Islam and post-Islam Arabia there is a great change. Before Muhammad there were constant inter-tribal violence, inequality in wealth and possessions were accepted with nothing being done about it, women were regarded as possessions and the institution of marriage was almost absent with ability for a man to marry as many wives as he wanted. No real marriage happened the relationships were very casual between man and the woman. Child infanticide was common especially among girls. After Muhammad there was change, inter-tribal violence almost ceased as the Arabs united in one force, marriage was formalized, donations became part of the religion, child infanticide was forbidden.

Koran has a lot of laws written into it and they are complimented by Hadith (the tradition of what Muhammad did or said mostly during his reign in Medina). So the easiest way to describe it would be to compare Koran to legislation and Hadith to rules and regulations that accompany each legislation.

While I won't go into all the social theory and laws of Islam I will go over the main things

1. Economic regulations: Islam thinks always of physical needs of the body because without satisfying them first nothing else can be accomplished. When one of the followers came to Muhammad and said that his mother just died and he wants to know what are the best alms to give out for the good of her soul. Muhammad told the follower to dig the well and give away water to the thirsty. According to Islam as with physical needs of the body for the person so should the material needs of the society be met and wealth should circulate easily. Islam has a very democratic approach to wealth it believes that wealth should be widely shared, however that doesn't mean that there should not be profit seeking competition, or that the person who works harder can not receive more income. It simply insists on charity that is one of the pillars of Islam. One fortieth of the possessions should be given towards the Poor Due which is used for the needs of the poor.

Islam also changed the system of inheritance, where earlier only the eldest son got the inheritance now all the children were given it, including the girls (unheard of measure before in Arabia).

Koran prohibits interest on loans (while if you study Islamic banking there are ways around that). On business loans there is interests but usually very low or also prohibited (depends on the country and the Islamic school of law prevailant there).

Islam is also specific with the regards to the unearned money not belonging to the person. This refers to silent partners and the people living solely from their inheritance without contributing to society. Islam teaches that when you lift a morsel of food you must be able to say that you have contributed to human enterprise sufficiently to deserve the food.

2. Status of Women. We all heard of expression of "battered woman of the East".

As already mentioned above the rights of women before Islam were really bad, infanticide, no rights to inheritance and loose temporary contracts of marriage. Muhammad forbid infanticide and gave women rights to inheritance. While they only got only half as much as the sons, the reasoning went that they do not need to carry the economic burden of the household. Women are also in Koran given the full rights for education, suffrage and vocation in terms of religion.

In terms of marriage Islam sanctified it and made the sole locus of sexual act. This rule is followed to such an extent that it is considered that the body of the girl must not be touched by a boy before marriage, however this is no longer as spread as before. Woman must give full consent before getting married, no matter who she is marrying. Divorce is allowed but looked down on and considered to be the last resort solution. To prevent divorces, laws were implemented, one of them is the requirement for the husbands to set up trust with sizable amount of money in it that will go to the wife in case of divorce. Divorce proceedings require 3 sittings during which the arbitrators try to reconcile the families and the two sides. Divorce proceedings are permitted to be initiated by either husband or wife.

Finally the issue of polygyny. There is no consent on the number of wives a man can marry in Islam however it is believed that Koran is leaning towards the monogamy. Koran is specific that if you can not live a happy life with just one wife than you should not marry a second. This means that not only that husband must give equal material care to his wives but also must love them equally (no favorites). The idea of polygamy was introduced for the cases when the wive is unable to procreate a child or when after some devastating event (mostly war) the rebuilding of population requires polygamy. Currently in marriage deeds a clause is added under which husband renounces the right to second concurrent spouse.

Purdah or the practice of veiling oneself that is part of what Muslim women do is based on the teachings of Muhammad that were response to the widespread promiscuity of the day. Plus let's face it in the desert going around with bared skin is nto the best idea. However moderate Muslims believe that the practice was not supposed to be as rigid as it is not in some Muslims countries.

3 Race relations.

Islam has principals of racial equality build into it and Koran specifically states that all people are equal before God.

4 The use of force. The west sees the Islam as violent religion, however it is not true. Koran doesn't teach the turn the other cheek principal but it teaches forgiveness and giving good for evil when situation warrants it. But this doesn't mean that one should not resist evil, Koran teaches that the wrongdoers must be reimbursed for their wrongs to the full extent of the damage they have done. This is where the famous jihad comes in. However, Islam is not religion that is to be spread byt he sword and upheld by the sword.

The following rules of military conduct were introduced by Muhammad:

Women, children and the old are not to be killed

Agreements to be fulfilled

Wounded not to be mutilated or dead are not to be disfigured

Orchards, crops and sacred objects are to be spared

Righteous war is the defensive war or war to right the wrong

People of other religion are not to be forced to convert, also there must be tolerance towards other religions (Only God can force the person to convert). Also any temple of God is good for a Muslim to be used as place of prayer.

During his time in Medina Muhammad extended the equal rights to the Christians and Jews that lived there and allowed them full freedom to practice their religion.

In terms of history of violence Muslims point to the time when Jews, Hindus, Christians in Near East, India and Spain lived happily in peace and even under worst caliphs Jews and Christians still held positions of power. Muslims instead see the Western history as much darker one. Who they ask has expelled Jews from Spain in 15th century where they lived happily during Muslim rule, who invented Inquisition, Crusades (fought in the name of Peace), religious wars on territory of Europe. However Muslims know that their religion was also used for violent purpose however they will deny that their record of violence is greater than that of other major religions. They will also say that Western histories are unfair in their picture of Islam and its use of force. Finally, they will point out that while people did abuse their religion that doesn't mean that they were true to Islam. In the end even the greeting of the Muslims "Salam alakum" means "Peace be upon you".

Islam is spread greatly around the world and is challenging Christianity for supremacy. At any point in time one can count that somewhere in the world a muezzin is calling faithful to prayer with the following words:

God is most great!

God is most great!

I testify that there is no God but Allah.

I testify that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.

Arise and pray; arise and pray.

God is great;

There is no God but Allah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tatar,

I speak and read Hebrew, and there is nothing whatsoever about the verse from the Torah (I can't speak for the Koran) which implies firstborn son, or Ishmael.  It is, in fact, quite clear that the verse is speaking of Yitzhaq (Isaac), and takes place after Yishmael (Ismael) had been sent to the south, and dwelt in Midbar Paran (Desert of Paran), which is between Mitzraim (Egypt) and Arabia.

I was able to explore the issue further and found the following explanation from Islamic scholars. In Genesis 22,2 It says that God said to Abraham: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac". Here is where the dispute is based. Muslims would say that why is it being said thine only son, when it is clear from the text before that Ismael is still alive. So their explanation is that here there is an error entering the text and the name of Isaac is substituted for Ismael at latter time. Second they say that in Genesis 21, it is mentioned that Isaac is still a baby. While in Genesis 22 he is already able to talk full sentences and completely knows the rules of offering a sacrifice. Their final argument is also that the mother of Ismael, Hagar, was a wife of Abraham. Since Abraham is a prophet and a law giving prophet he is not expected to break the laws, it would be against the law to have sexual relations outside marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sort of <b>real evidence</b> is there to back these things up? Any archaeological sites? And DNA comparison studies? Anything besides old scribblings that I just can't help think you're taking as literal historical truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was able to explore the issue further and found the following explanation from Islamic scholars. In Genesis 22,2 It says that God said to Abraham: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac". Here is where the dispute is based. Muslims would say that why is it being said thine only son, when it is clear from the text before that Ismael is still alive. So their explanation is that here there is an error entering the text and the name of Isaac is substituted for Ismael at latter time. Second they say that in Genesis 21, it is mentioned that Isaac is still a baby. While in Genesis 22 he is already able to talk full sentences and completely knows the rules of offering a sacrifice. Their final argument is also that the mother of Ismael, Hagar, was a wife of Abraham. Since Abraham is a prophet and a law giving prophet he is not expected to break the laws, it would be against the law to have sexual relations outside marriage.

I think we look at this from the Biblical point of view that line will be more clearer.

In the Bible God promises Abraham a son from Sara. Sara suggest Abraham to get a son from Hagar, which happens.

Then God again says that a son will be given to him from Sara, this is the PROMISED SON, very important to note this.

When Isaac was born, Ismael was send away, leaving Abraham with Isaac only.

I don't really understand how there can be doubts about who Abraham was supposed to sacfice. Of course God will aks for the most beloved to be sacficed, which is Isaac since he is from Sara whom Abraham loves and moreover he is the son God promised to Abraham.

This is the story, but God did not write these things so that they are just a nice story for us, they have deeper meanings. In the new testament a part of the meaning of this story is revealed.

Galatians 4:

22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:

  "Be glad, O barren woman,

      who bears no children;

  break forth and cry aloud,

      you who have no labor pains;

  because more are the children of the desolate woman

      than of her who has a husband."

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[c] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

I find it quite interesting that Islam is actually accepting Ismael to be their ancestor. Because according to the bible that would be a bad thing. Moreover, look at what God says will happen to Ismael and see that this is true if we look at the current Islamitic region:

Genesis 16:

      his hand will be against everyone

      and everyone's hand against him,

      and he will live in hostility

      toward all his brothers."

If we look at the world now, it seems that the world is against the middle east and vica versa, mainly due to terrorists etc. Moreover, since Isreal is decending from Isaac, Israel is the brother of Ismael's decendants and we all know there is big hostility between these two groups of people. This also shows that the bible is really the word of God, since this was said many thousands of years before and is not being fullfilled as we can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sort of <b>real evidence</b> is there to back these things up? Any archaeological sites? And DNA comparison studies? Anything besides old scribblings that I just can't help think you're taking as literal historical truth?

A lot of biblical events outside of Genesis are confirmed. All the accounts of wars and invasions that are given in the Bible are confirmed and they did happen. Overall, besides the supernatural things almost everything in the Bible is confirmed as that it did happen. Even the Egyptian plagues are believed to be the related to the Santorini explosion.

As for Koran, it describes the events that happened in Arabia at the time of Muhammad and also verified with the exception of supernatural things.

When Isaac was born, Ismael was send away, leaving Abraham with Isaac only.

I don't really understand how there can be doubts about who Abraham was supposed to sacfice. Of course God will aks for the most beloved to be sacficed, which is Isaac since he is from Sara whom Abraham loves and moreover he is the son God promised to Abraham.

That is understandable until you see the Islamic stance which claims that Bible has errors in it because the Torah was written after the events have happened and same with Gospels being recorded after Jesus Christ. So this things are just errors that have entered sacred texts that make Isaac more preferred son. So the same way the fact that Ishmael would be agaist everybody and everybody against him is also beleived to be a false addition to the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trick in textual criticism is not simply to adduce other passages which might suggest one or the other, but attempt to chronologise those passages. A textual error in one place might beget scores of interpolations everywhere else.

SandChigger, while I agree that citing the bible as proof that god exists or whatever is silly, using textual criticism to find out what order all the different variations and traditions arose in can still be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was able to explore the issue further and found the following explanation from Islamic scholars. In Genesis 22,2 It says that God said to Abraham: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac".

וַיֹּאמֶר קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ אֶת-יִצְחָק וְלֶךְ-לְךָ אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה

Vayomer qah-na et-bin'cha et-y'hid'cha asher ahav'ta et-Yitzhaq v'lech l'cha el Eretz ha'Moriyyah

And He said, "Take now your son, your lone son, who you love, Isaac, and go forth to the land of Moriyyah..."

Here is where the dispute is based. Muslims would say that why is it being said thine only son, when it is clear from the text before that Ismael is still alive.

Of what matter is it that Yishmael is still alive?  Yitzhaq is alive too at this time - according to Jewish tradition in his late 30s - so any attempt to interpret this as speaking of only one son being alive is incorrect from the get-go.  By this point Yishmael and Hagar had gone into the Wilderness of Be'er Sheva, finally settling far south of Be'er Sheva, as well as Hevron and Moriyyah, in the Wilderness of Paran, which is in the Sinai.  Thus, the only son living with Avraham was his son Yitzhaq, whom G-d had promised to Avraham and Sarah, as well as the covenant, etc.

So their explanation is that here there is an error entering the text and the name of Isaac is substituted for Ismael at latter time.

This claim has no support whatsoever.  The entirety of Avraham's narrative to that point leads up to the importance of his son Yitzhaq as it regards G-d's promises to Avraham.

Genesis 12:7

7. And the Lord appeared to Abram, and He said, "To your seed I will give this land," and there he built an altar to the Lord, Who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-17

14. And the Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Please raise your eyes and see, from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward. 15. For all the land that you see I will give to you and to your seed to eternity.

16. And I will make your seed like the dust of the earth, so that if a man will be able to count the dust of the earth, so will your seed be counted.

17. Rise, walk in the land, to its length and to its breadth, for I will give it to you."

Genesis 15:1-18

1. After these incidents, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Fear not, Abram; I am your Shield; your reward is exceedingly great." 2. And Abram said, "0 Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"

3. And Abram said, "Behold, You have given me no seed, and behold, one of my household will inherit me."

4. And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one will not inherit you, but the one who will spring from your innards-he will inherit you."

5. And He took him outside, and He said, "Please look heavenward and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So will be your seed."

6. And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness.

7. And He said to him, "I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur Kasdim, to give you this land to inherit it."

8. And he said, "0 Lord God, how will I know that I will inherit it?"

9. And He said to him, "Take for Me three heifers and three goats and three rams, and a turtle dove and a young bird."

10. And he took for Him all these, and he divided them in the middle, and he placed each part opposite its mate, but he did not divide the birds.

11. And the birds of prey descended upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.

12. Now the sun was ready to set, and a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and behold, a fright, a great darkness was falling upon him.

13. And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years.

14. And also the nation that they will serve will I judge, and afterwards they will go forth with great possessions.

15. But you will come to your forefathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age. 16. And the fourth generation will return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites will not be complete until then." 17. Now it came to pass that the sun had set, and it was dark, and behold, a smoking furnace and a fire brand, which passed between these parts.

18. On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river.

Genesis 17:18-21 18. And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael will live before You!"

19. And God said, "Indeed, your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his seed after him.

20. And regarding Ishmael, I have heard you; behold I have blessed him, and I will make him fruitful, and I will multiply him exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.

21. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year."

Genesis 21:12-13

12. And God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased concerning the lad and concerning your handmaid; whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, for in Isaac will be called your seed.

13. But also the son of the handmaid I will make into a nation, because he is your seed."

The Torah does not write off anyone.  Yishmael is blessed and he would become a great nation, as would Esav and his descendants, but the purpose of the covenant which passed from Avraham to his son Isaac and to his soon Ya'aqov and to his sons and so on was from a specific purpose, to bring knowledge of ethical monotheism to the world.  The fact is that the Torah clearly explains how this responsibility was passed to Yitzhaq and Ya'aqov and so on.  Furthermore, the Quran absolutely does not name Yishmael as the son to be brought up by Avraham.  So the notion that the Jews corrupted the Torah to counter the claims of Muslim commentators almost 3,000 years later is absurd.

Second they say that in Genesis 21, it is mentioned that Isaac is still a baby. While in Genesis 22 he is already able to talk full sentences and completely knows the rules of offering a sacrifice.

The entirety of the Hebrew Bible - despite being only 24 books - covers over 1,000 years of time.  There are innumerable years and stories which are not recorded in the written text (many are in the oral Torah and tradition, many others are not recorded in either).  Avraham was 86 when Hagar bore Yishmael, recorded at the end of chapter 16.  Then chapter 17 begins with Avraham being 99.  So there we have 13 years passing between one sentence and another (which in a Torah scroll there are no chapters, chapters are a medieval Christian invention).  So this objection to the time between Genesis 21 and 22 has no merit.

Their final argument is also that the mother of Ismael, Hagar, was a wife of Abraham. Since Abraham is a prophet and a law giving prophet he is not expected to break the laws, it would be against the law to have sexual relations outside marriage.

Hagar was given to Avraham as a concubine.  I am not sure what this argument is meant to imply, but Sarah is Avraham's first wife, so using the logic you present the relationship with Hagar and the son coming from that relationship would both be illegitimate.

Of course, the Torah nor Jewish tradition hold that to be true.  In fact, when Avraham's beloved wife Sarah died Avraham married a woman named Qeturah (bearing him Zimran, Yoqshan, M'dan, Midiyan, Yishbaq, and Shuach).  And Jewish tradition holds that Qeturah was in fact Hagar.

The ideal is for a man to have one wife, but there are some instances where that was not the case.  Those aren't necessarily condemned, but they are not the ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What sort of <b>real evidence</b> is there to back these things up? Any archaeological sites? And DNA comparison studies? Anything besides old scribblings that I just can't help think you're taking as literal historical truth?

There are various archaeological and DNA support for the ancient Jews.  There is a Kohen (the Kohanim were the priests descent from Aharon) gene which dates back to the second millenium BCE.  Pretty much every city in Israel has under it or in its vicinity a city from the time of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.  There is the Hezekiah inscription, the large gates at Megiddo, Gezer, and Hatzor dating to 10th century, palaces dating to the time of Humri and Ahav, the wall from the time of Nechemiyah after the return from Bavel, etc.

Of coure archaeology can absolutely never prove or disprove supernatural claims or events.  The fact that the kings of Israel and Judah have archaeological support, that Assyrian, Moabite, and Aramean kings have steles mentioning the House of David, Humri, Ahav, and various kings doesn't mean that they can prove that a plague struck down Assyrian invaders to Y'rushalayim, or this miracle or another.

It is no matter to me whether anyone else accepts these things or not.  Jews are not a proselytizing bunch in general.  We don't go door to door trying to convince people to be Jews, because we don't hold that gentiles NEED to be Jews.  The Tanach has numerous examples of righteous and important gentiles such as Noach, Job, the daughter of Pharaoh who saved Moshe, Rut the ancestress of David and all future kings of Judah, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

וַיֹּאמֶר קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ אֶת-יִצְחָק וְלֶךְ-לְךָ אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה

Vayomer qah-na et-bin'cha et-y'hid'cha asher ahav'ta et-Yitzhaq v'lech l'cha el Eretz ha'Moriyyah

And He said, "Take now your son, your lone son, who you love, Isaac, and go forth to the land of Moriyyah..."

Of what matter is it that Yishmael is still alive?  Yitzhaq is alive too at this time - according to Jewish tradition in his late 30s - so any attempt to interpret this as speaking of only one son being alive is incorrect from the get-go.  By this point Yishmael and Hagar had gone into the Wilderness of Be'er Sheva, finally settling far south of Be'er Sheva, as well as Hevron and Moriyyah, in the Wilderness of Paran, which is in the Sinai.  Thus, the only son living with Avraham was his son Yitzhaq, whom G-d had promised to Avraham and Sarah, as well as the covenant, etc.

The argument rests on the fact, when it says the only son than it can't be true since there are 2 sons, if Isaac is meant for sacrifice. While if it was Ishmael than the whole sentence can make sense since Ishmael at one point of time was the only son. So Muslims point to that discrepancy.

So the notion that the Jews corrupted the Torah to counter the claims of Muslim commentators almost 3,000 years later is absurd.

The Muslims do not claim a discrepancy could have been intentional but rather could have happened due to the fact that the story was recorded after the fact and could have been altered in oral tradition.

The entirety of the Hebrew Bible - despite being only 24 books - covers over 1,000 years of time.  There are innumerable years and stories which are not recorded in the written text (many are in the oral Torah and tradition, many others are not recorded in either).  Avraham was 86 when Hagar bore Yishmael, recorded at the end of chapter 16.  Then chapter 17 begins with Avraham being 99.  So there we have 13 years passing between one sentence and another (which in a Torah scroll there are no chapters, chapters are a medieval Christian invention).  So this objection to the time between Genesis 21 and 22 has no merit.

I'll point that out next time I see the guy.

Hagar was given to Avraham as a concubine.  I am not sure what this argument is meant to imply, but Sarah is Avraham's first wife, so using the logic you present the relationship with Hagar and the son coming from that relationship would both be illegitimate.

Yeah the idea rests on the fact that a prophet who brings laws to people is not supposed to do anything illegal and not marrying Hagar before conceiving a son would be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument rests on the fact, when it says the only son than it can't be true since there are 2 sons, if Isaac is meant for sacrifice. While if it was Ishmael than the whole sentence can make sense since Ishmael at one point of time was the only son. So Muslims point to that discrepancy.

It is not a discrepency.  Yishmael was sent away to live in Paran while only Yitzchaq remained with Avraham and his mother Sarah.  Chapter twenty two (again there are actually no chapter, this is all one narrative in a scroll) takes place after the birth of Yitzhaq and after Yishmael has been sent away to Paran, so there is no possible way that this sentence implies that Avraham only has one living son.  Muslims choose to ignore the entirety of the sentence "your son your only son who you love Isaac" and make excuses for why it says what it says, but they cannot retroactively change what it says.

And again, there is no support in even the Koran for trying to discredit how it is recorded in the Torah as the Koran does not name the son whatsoever.  The interpretation that the Koran refers to Ishmael is just that, an interpretation.  Meanwhile, the Torah spells out clearly who it was nearly three thousand years before these Islamic interpretations.

The Muslims do not claim a discrepancy could have been intentional but rather could have happened due to the fact that the story was recorded after the fact and could have been altered in oral tradition.

This claim has no legs to stand on.  It is apologetics for the fact that certain interpretors of the Koran settled on Ishmael and thus find themselves at odds with and in need of an excuse in the face of the account of the Torah, not based on what the Koran actually says.

Yeah the idea rests on the fact that a prophet who brings laws to people is not supposed to do anything illegal and not marrying Hagar before conceiving a son would be illegal.

There was nothing illegal about what went down between Avraham and Hagar.  Again, I don't see what any of this has to do with Isaac and Ishmael.  Sarah was obviously Avraham's wife, and she gave Hagar to Avraham as a concubine to conceive a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm... as I understand it, two different oral histories record the name differently. At some point, an error occurred. The question is demonstrating where that error occurred. Accusations of bad faith are counterproductive in this conext, and are only useful to explain known phenomena that are otherwise inexplicable.

The fact is neither oral nor textual histories are immune from a variety of innovations such as replacement, interpolation, omission, etc.

"Muslims choose to ignore the entirety of the sentence "your son your only son who you love Isaac" and make excuses for why it says what it says, but they cannot retroactively change what it says."

On the contrary, Tatar is claiming that Muslims do indeed take account of that sentence, but read a variation in the name, arguing that what it says today is not what it originally said, on the grounds that it is internally inconsistent. It is a matter of individual judgement whether you accept that the claim of inconsistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was nothing illegal about what went down between Avraham and Hagar.  Again, I don't see what any of this has to do with Isaac and Ishmael.  Sarah was obviously Avraham's wife, and she gave Hagar to Avraham as a concubine to conceive a child.

Sexual intercourse outside marriage is considered to be adultery, so if Hagar is not a wife than Abraham was committing adultery, adultery is illegal in Bible and Koran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm... as I understand it, two different oral histories record the name differently. At some point, an error occurred. The question is demonstrating where that error occurred. Accusations of bad faith are counterproductive in this conext, and are only useful to explain known phenomena that are otherwise inexplicable.

The fact is neither oral nor textual histories are immune from a variety of innovations such as replacement, interpolation, omission, etc.

"Muslims choose to ignore the entirety of the sentence "your son your only son who you love Isaac" and make excuses for why it says what it says, but they cannot retroactively change what it says."

On the contrary, Tatar is claiming that Muslims do indeed take account of that sentence, but read a variation in the name, arguing that what it says today is not what it originally said, on the grounds that it is internally inconsistent. It is a matter of individual judgement whether you accept that the claim of inconsistency.

There is no inconsistency within the text, though.  The claim is bogus.  It has no support linguistically or in any other manner. Yitzhaq (yud-tzadi-het-qof) and Yishmael (yud-shin-mem-alef-lamed) are not similar whatsoever in spelling or meaning.  The respective stories behind the names are consistent within the stories, whereas the notion that one name was replaced with the other would take a huge conspiracy that has no historical backing.

The Muslim tradition of Ishmael being the son in question does not come from the Koran but from later commentators, and from what I read Muslims were not unanimous in this interpretation in the first place until later.  The Jews started Medina, as certain groups of Jews had fled to the coasts of the Arabian peninsula following the destruction of Jerusalem.  The pagan Arabs of the Arabian peninsula interacted with and came into contact with Jewish textual and oral tradition for six centuries before Islam came about (and Islam incorperated many Jewish oral traditions into the Koran and their beliefs).

It's not like there were two concurrent traditions going back three millenia between Arabs and Jews, this is a fallacious representation of the facts.

There is absolutely no internal inconsistency in the text.  Tatar's claim is unsupported by the text itself, not to mention the oral tradition.  It would be like me saying the Koran is mistaken when it claims Muhammad is descent from Ishmael, and that he is actually descent from Lot and is a Moabite.  It's baseless revisionism of a long established text with a long established history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sexual intercourse outside marriage is considered to be adultery, so if Hagar is not a wife than Abraham was committing adultery, adultery is illegal in Bible and Koran.

I don't think you understand the Torah (or Bible as you call it) nor what adultery is in the biblical context.  Adultery refers to a married woman, which Hagar certainly was not, and thus neither Avraham nor Hagar were guilty of any such thing.  After the giving of the Torah when the Miqdash (whether tabernacle or later the Temple) stood and the Sanhedrin was in effect, it would be a capital crime for a man to get with a married woman/married woman to get with any other man than her husband (the circumstances under which it could be enforced are extensive, and I won't get into them).

However, there was not a K'tubah (marriage document) in the time of Avraham.  Basically, if the two parties confirm it and the man takes the unmarried woman to his tent they are for all intents and purposes married (it is and has been much more complicated for many millenium since).  Thus, Sarah gave Hagar to Avraham for a concubine, and they sealed the deal, and Ishmael was a result of that encounter.  Nothing illegal about it.  As I said before, the biblical ideal is one man and one woman, but there are nonetheless cases of a man having a number of wives and concubines, and this is not illegal.

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion about Isaac and Ishmael.  Both of them were conceived and born legitimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SandChigger, while I agree that citing the bible as proof that god exists or whatever is silly, using textual criticism to find out what order all the different variations and traditions arose in can still be interesting.

No argument there, it's a fascinating subject. I just can't see how anyone who engages in a real analysis of the texts and their histories can continue to believe the lovely fairy tales contained within them. I guess it takes a bit of self-deception, willful ignorance? Which is one reason why I think you have to take the results arrived at by believers with a grain or two of Lot's wife. ;)

Anyway, it's my understanding that the field of Qur'anic textual criticism lags far behind that of the Jewish and ChristoPaulian scriptures; would that be an accurate assessment?

I should have been more specific above: I meant evidence for the Isaac/Ishmael divide; DNA evidence for how closely related the Jews and Arabs are...or aren't. We know that the Hebrew and Arabic languages are closely related, but what of the people speaking them? (With all the genetic mixing that's gone on, that's probably a long shot, eh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

u think the other side is fake ? and that u know the unkown ? and that there is no

spiritual round ?

sir i petty u when u think u are so smart ,, and haw they fall like a rock ..

and please tell me haw do u know ??? have u been there ?? u never felt anything

  beyond ure crippled buddy ?

what about the dreams ?

i ask you because i was like u .. and i tried to know ..

and the only thing that i learned is that  i dont know ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no inconsistency within the text, though.  The claim is bogus.  It has no support linguistically or in any other manner. Yitzhaq (yud-tzadi-het-qof) and Yishmael (yud-shin-mem-alef-lamed) are not similar whatsoever in spelling or meaning.  The respective stories behind the names are consistent within the stories, whereas the notion that one name was replaced with the other would take a huge conspiracy that has no historical backing.

I am not sure if I explained the controversy properly. The idea rests on the use of word only in that line in Genesis 22. The idea rests that if Person has 2 sons, than request of bringing the only son does not make sense because there is 2 sons, which one is only. Only grammatically applies to something that there is only one of. If there was one son than request would have made sense.

I am just explaining the claim and where it stands rather than arguing its truth. But the discussion is helpful since it is helping to clarify some things.

Now the problem with criticism of Koran lies with the fact that is recorded by followers of Muhammad as he is saying it. While the Bible is recorded after the events. Second Muslims point out that the in Koran it says that God protects the Book from alterations and discrepancies.

DNA evidence for how closely related the Jews and Arabs are...or aren't.

Title:

    Jews and Arabs Share Recent Ancestry. By: Gibbons, Ann, Science Now, 10/30/2000

Database:

    MasterFILE Premier

JEWS AND ARABS SHARE RECENT ANCESTRY

Cold Spring Harbor, New York--As fighting continues in the Middle East, a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. And in a recent study of 1371 men from around the world, geneticist Michael Hammer from the University of Arizona in Tucson found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.

Intrigued by the genetic similarities between the two populations, geneticist Ariella Oppenheim of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who collaborated on the earlier study, focused on Arab and Jewish men. Her team examined the Y chromosomes of 119 Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews and 143 Israeli and Palestinian Arabs. Many of the Jewish subjects were descended from ancestors who presumably originated in the Levant but dispersed throughout Europe before returning to Israel in the past few generations; most of the Arab subjects could trace their ancestry to men who had lived in the region for centuries or longer. The Y chromosomes of many of the men had key segments of DNA that were so similar that they clustered into just one of three groups known as haplogroups. Other short segments of DNA called microsatellites were similar enough to reveal that the men must have had common ancestors within the past several thousand years. The study, reported here at a Human Origins and Disease conference, will appear in an upcoming issue of Nature Genetics.

Hammer praises the new study for "focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian populations." Oppenheim's team found, for example, that Jews have mixed more with other populations, which makes sense because they were more likely to leave the Levant.

~~~~~~~~

By Ann Gibbons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This genetic relation seems to me irrelevant for describing a nation. If I adopted a baby from Brazil and raised it as a Slovak, that would define its ethnical identity, not its genes. The goal of such research is most possibly to support the jewish rights for the land, since some 19th century scholars tried to trace the origins of Ashkenazim to Khazar. But really, that was 19th century, a blooming era of racial theories. Abraham (or Ibrahim) was more kind of a spiritual leader, who defined certain cultural values for his people and thus received the respect as a "father of the nation". Slovaks give such respect to a priest who died in 1930s, who (as far as I know) lived for whole life in celibacy. But why shouldn't we call him a "national father" as well?

Btw don't address each others' grammar next time. If the formulation is unclear, you have no need to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may interject...

What sort of <b>real evidence</b> is there to back these things up? Any archaeological sites? And DNA comparison studies? Anything besides old scribblings that I just can't help think you're taking as literal historical truth?

Actually, written sources are "real evidence." Most of our knowledge of events in the ancient world comes from more-or-less contemporary written sources - often religious in nature. And pretty much all historical accounts older than Herodotus (and most of the later ones too) were either religious texts or state propaganda, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Anyway, it's my understanding that the field of Qur'anic textual criticism lags far behind that of the Jewish and ChristoPaulian scriptures; would that be an accurate assessment?"

Difficult question to answer. On the one hand, there's the academic advancement, i.e. the methods and testing and so forth - Christian textual criticism is quite recent, beginning around the time of Erasmus, but I can't say for any of the others, nor compare their present states. On the other hand, there's how this advancement is treated - because we're dealing with holy texts, there's a great deal of defensiveness about what's written on the page. As I understand it, Islamic textual criticism is fairly well accepted as a necessity. Christian textual criticism is accepted by editors and academics, but many believers are deeply suspicious about it. In Judaism, I have no idea whatsoever.

Finally, even textual critics have their own preferences, so the texts they produce are coloured by the dogma of their day as well as personal beliefs. Intertextuality, in particular, is a minefield - in secular criticism, it's a boon, but when editing a religious text created over many years, you end up literally create your own self-fulfilling prophecies if you're not extremely careful.

"It's baseless revisionism of a long established text with a long established history."

IF you believe, as you do, there is no inconsistency in the text to be solved, then you're correct, the rest is unreasonable. But it all hinges on that semantic question. If there is a contradiction, then irrespective of whether variants survive and irrespective of when it was first noticed, then it needs to be fixed, and a mis-recording of the name followed by several interpolations seems likely. And as I say, that's a matter of personal judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, written sources are "real evidence." Most of our knowledge of events in the ancient world comes from more-or-less contemporary written sources - often religious in nature. And pretty much all historical accounts older than Herodotus (and most of the later ones too) were either religious texts or state propaganda, or both.

I'm fairly certain you understand what I meant, but let's raise a hurrah for the simplistic approach anyway. ::)

Yes, texts are "real" evidence, but of what? Even extreme age is no guarantee of the veracity of what is written in them. (Interesting that you specifically mention "state propaganda" and Ole Herodotus, the Father of Lies.)

Thank you, Tatar_Khan, for the DNA info. It's still not proof that there were actually men named Abraham, Isaac or Ishmael, but it agrees with the linguistic evidence that the two groups are related.

(Btw, has someone left a window open? It seemed for a moment there like some flappy thing with feathers flew through, squawking noisily.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...