Should Muslims be concerned with what is written in Gospel and Torah?

[InvestigateTruth]

As already said, it is the Pentateuch and the four NT biographies of Jesus that I have issues with on the basis of their own contents, format/style and claims.


As I already quoted yesterday:

The book of Luke even directly goes out of it's way to describe what the book matter of fact is:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)

And as John ends:

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
(John 21:24-25)


Two very basic examples of the books themselves giving self-definition. The four NT biographies of Jesus are 3rd person narratives recounted from oral tradition (as with much of the Apocrypha and so-called "gnostic" texts).
I think the Qur'an's own commonalities with certain infamous "Gnostic" texts (like the infancy gospel of Thomas for examples, which Christian apologists love getting sweaty over) help to prove my case, that the Qur'an speaks to a much wider discourse than the Bible canon of the Catholics/Protestants. Rather speaking of the direct revelation given to Jesus, distinguished from his life. By extension, the many streams of oral tradition that have filtered down through various forms of Pre-Christianity (including those included in the NT which are simply one compilation of a few select streams, Paulian and Johannine being the most prolific sect).

Torah is a far more complex and nuanced situation, as I've already said. I believe though that whatever Moses received on Mount Sinai was "Torah", but not the accounts of Moses reciving things on Mount Sinai. Do you get the distinction?
Islamically speaking; revelation (Qur'an) is not biography (Seerah). Hadith are not Qur'an either, but they are related, in the sense of Moses' relationship to the Torah.
Scholarship on what Jews have with the Pentateuch is very interesting though.


Anyway, I've tried the Baha'i view before and it just doesn't sit right and feels very intellectually dishonest to me. However I do respect your right to hold such a view.

So, in your view, the Holy Books among Christian's and Jews do not contain any prophecy regarding Muhammad?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

So, in your view, the Holy Books among Christian's and Jews do not contain any prophecy regarding Muhammad?

I've seen arguments against and for, and I'm just not concerned. I rejected the Bible long before I accepted the Qur'an. The claims of the Qur'an and of Muhammad are a separate matter to me, but if people want to take up 7:157 under such an interpretation, then more power to them, I won't stop them.

What I have been saying though is that the Jewish and "Christian" texts aforementioned are not the direct revelations from God that the Qur'an speaks of. Such a conclusion comes from the Jewish and "Christian" texts themselves btw, not what the Qur'an says.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I've seen arguments against and for, and I'm just not concerned. I rejected the Bible long before I accepted the Qur'an. The claims of the Qur'an and of Muhammad are a separate matter to me, but if people want to take up 7:157 under such an interpretation, then more power to them, I won't stop them.

What I have been saying though is that the Jewish and "Christian" texts aforementioned are not the direct revelations from God that the Qur'an speaks of. Such a conclusion comes from the Jewish and "Christian" texts themselves btw, not what the Qur'an says.

What about verse 6:16?

"And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."

Do you see this verse of Quran claiming that Jesus had prophesied about Muhammad?
Does Quran expect Chrsitians believe that Muhammad was a Messenger Jesus had promised? If so, how can Christians verify such a glad tiding?

Do you think, if Gospels are not direct revelations from God, they cannot be true and authentic?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

What about verse 6:16?

"And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, "O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad." But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, "This is obvious magic."

Do you see this verse of Quran claiming that Jesus had prophesied about Muhammad?
Does Quran expect Chrsitians believe that Muhammad was a Messenger Jesus had promised? If so, how can Christians verify such a glad tiding?

Do you think, if Gospels are not direct revelations from God, they cannot be true and authentic?

Sure, I believe the historical Jesus prophesied Muhammad, that's no contention from me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sure, I believe the historical Jesus prophesied Muhammad, that's no contention from me.

So, do you think such a prophecy was either never written in scriptures, or it was written, the Chrisitans removed it from their Holy Book?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

So, do you think such a prophecy was either never written in scriptures, or it was written, the Chrisitans removed it from their Holy Book?

I don't know. As I've already mentioned we're dealing with sparse oral tradition recorded in different forms at different times by anonymous authors narrative them.
Some people argue the Paraclete (mentioned in John 14), which I like the idea of but don't find sufficient enough. But the Qur'an does corroborate with such a theory - given verses like Surah 16:102 and Surah 26:192-195, etc which denote an identical concept to the Paraclete in reference to the revelation of the Qur'an itself via Angel Gabriel.

I already know far enough of the history of NT manuscripts to make such a statement of "removed it", when in the case of the NT manuscripts there is more of the tendency of replacing or adding words and sections, rather than explicitly removing things of such a nature.
The biographies of Jesus in the NT are as I've said, passed down orally so on the basis of that and of the sectarian aspect rooted in the writing of these biographies (Matthew, Luke and John especially), we can ascertain that the writers included what they thought was necessary to their narrative and left out which didn't work for their intentions (keeping in mind that much of these biographies originally serve quite a liturgical basis in their practical use).

 

[Harel13]

lovely is not a name

The translation I used chose lovely.

makh-mawd'

Surprisingly, this pronunciation-spelling looks way more Arabic than the actual word...

 

[Samael_Khan]

What?
It's right there in black on parchment off-white:
"His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.'" (Song of Songs 5:16) - "lovely" in Hebrew is Machmadim. This is clearly a reference to Muhammad (Muchammad in Hebrew) and his grandeur and his belovedness by God! How could you miss that, @KenS?

Wow.... are you insinuating that Muhammed and Allah are in a certain type relationship....?

(I have heard muslims make this argument before. I usually respond with the above.

 

[Harel13]

Wow.... are you insinuating that Muhammed and Allah are in a certain type relationship....?

Errr...no, not my intention at all. It's an idea expressed by some Muslims. What they mean by it, I have no idea. Most likely, not a romantic relationship, considering that Allah is an infinite entity and Muhammad was a mortal man. Remember - Allah is not Jesus.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Errr...no, not my intention at all. It's an idea expressed by some Muslims. What they mean by it, I have no idea. Most likely, not a romantic relationship, considering that Allah is an infinite entity and Muhammad was a mortal man. Remember - Allah is not Jesus.

I know it wasn't your idea but a muslim one. You were being sarcastic.

The reason why I mentioned the romantic relationship is because the Song of Solomon is about romance. Muslims often criticise the Bible for having "explicit" sexual content but they use one of those verses to say that it prophecied about Muhammed. I find it very ironic on their part, and one of the reasons why I don't take them seriously on such subjects.

 

[Kenny]

That's not what some of the Jewish writers in the NT believed, They preached the message from the OT

Acts 11:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

 

[Kenny]

How would you expect that to appear in the prophecies?
Do you think that Muhammad would be mentioned by name?

something to give an indication. I haven't found anything

 

[Aupmanyav]

Should Muslims be concerned with what is written in Gospel and Torah?

NO.

Koran: 5:48
To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so advance to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

No proof. Abrahamics go to the grave, Zoroastrians to the tower, others to flames.

3. As a Muslim and follower of Muhammad, do you find Muhammad mentioned in INJIL and Torah? If yes, quote a verse from Injil, and a verse from Torah that you see as Muhammad.

Can you quote a verse from Injil, and Torah that mentions Muhammad by values He holds?

These are very silly statements, InvestigateTruth. Do you think Allah-Ta'ala is obliged to write His messages in the way you want? Where is His omnipotence? He wrote what came to His mind. You have no respect for Allah. If he wants a change, he can always send any number of His prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis to change it. Did he not send Mirza Ghulam Ahmad after he had sent Bahaollah?

Why would you find that in the Bible?
Muhammad walked the earth many centuries after the Bible was canonized.

Another silly posting. Then why do you claim that your uneducated Iranian preacher is mentioned in Torah, Injil, Qur'an and in the books of other religions? He walked the earth just about 170 years ago.

How would you expect that to appear in the prophecies?
Do you think that Muhammad would be mentioned by name?

Another silly post. If even the name is not given, then how does one identify the person. To make a claim on basis of such doubtful and unclear prophecy will be fakery, fraud.
I do not believe all this crap being an atheist, but at least Bhavishya Purana clearly states when exactly the Kalki avatara will be born and where, also the name of his father and mother, and that his spouse will be from Sri Lanka. Trailblazer and others, kindly make sensible post.

This verse, suggests that, Allah had revealed to previous prophets, about coming of another future prophet, so, when He comes The previous prophets help Him.

That definitely proves that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was the Mahdi sent by Allah.

 

[stvdv]

the Song of Solomon is about romance. Muslims often criticise the Bible for having "explicit" sexual content

I did not even know that.

IMO:
Strange if someone criticizes "explicit" sexual content, esp. when they are known for having daily "explicit" sexual actions

At least I would say "explicit sexual content" is much better than "explicit violent content" (chopping off body parts)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are right. We need "explicit sexual content" in India with a right-wing government. Alas, Osho is dead, Nithiyananda has flown to Equador and others are in jail.

 

[PruePhillip]

As a "Quranist" i think we are not supposed to look if the name "Muhammad" is mentioned but rather for the values he holds

What values? As a war lord? First Muslim Jew killer? Killer of those who want convert?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I did not even know that.

IMO:
Strange if someone criticizes "explicit" sexual content, esp. when they are known for having daily "explicit" sexual actions
At least I would say "explicit sexual content" is much better than "explicit violent content" (chopping off body parts)

I used be heavily invested in refuting muslim arguments against Christianity when I was a christian because my muslim colleague used to bring this stuff up and present videos to me.

Generally, the people who make these statements are idiots and are just being extremely biased. In their very own hadiths there is content that is waaaay more "explicit" than the bible's verses. But for some reason they object to it being in a Holy Book when God himself apparently invented sex. Then they object to some Christians having such strict sexual regulations for "purities" sake. They can't make consistent cases.

 

[stvdv]

the Song of Solomon is about romance. Muslims often criticise the Bible for having "explicit" sexual content

but they use one of those verses to say that it prophecied about Muhammed. I find it very ironic on their part,

IMHO:

Indeed ironic and it all seems hypocritical also.

and one of the reasons why I don't take them seriously on such subjects

#MeToo

Muslims criticizing the Bible (or anyone criticizing other's Scriptures) = pointing 1 finger at others = forget 3 fingers point back

Criticizing "violent verses towards others" is good, but criticizing "Romantic verses" in other Scriptures seems crazy

I would rather have them reverse this and "criticize violent verses" and applaud the "romantic verses"

 

[Samael_Khan]

IMHO:

Indeed ironic and it all seems hypocritical also.


#MeToo

Muslims criticizing the Bible (or anyone criticizing other's Scriptures) = pointing 1 finger at others = forget 3 fingers point back

Criticizing "violent verses towards others" is good, but criticizing "Romantic verses" in other Scriptures seems crazy

I would rather have them reverse this and "criticize violent verses" and applaud the "romantic verses"

I myself am OK with people criticising the content of another religions scriptures, but ONLY if they have read the scriptures, read them in context, understand what is being said and examine alternative views within the religion. Then a person would make valid arguments.

And yeah, these guys have their priorities and morality reversed. It is OK in their view to kill people for God but it isn't OK to hold hands in public or go on a one on one date before marriage, or for a wife to be alone with another man.

 

[stvdv]

Should Muslims be concerned with what is written in Gospel and Torah?

NO.

Koran: 5:48
To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so advance to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.

No proof. Abrahamics go to the grave, Zoroastrians to the tower, others to flames.

Are you sure?
Maybe it proves that this "God picture" is wrong. God might still exist (using a different definition)

God as Consciousness.
If all is Consciousness then even the above is true if "grave, tower and flames" is just Consciousness