What do you think Bible or Islamic texts wants the reader to think?

[firedragon]

I am sceptical of reading more tafsirs online. Mainly because i just am unsure if the translations is good. Since its spread so much online. One example is this website.
Although to be fair, i am also sceptical to the ibn kathir translation too. But i made a promise to do that one so i am keeping it. But since its so famous, i dont think they would do too much wrong on that one "Purely assumption"

But lets say this site. How would you rate it?
موقع التفير الكبير

I cant rate a website like that brother. Its impossible. See, when it comes to tafsirs you dont have to worry much about the translation. It is way too much of a task to do. I dont know how many years you are planning to dedicate to this task. Ibn Kathir says that he is "narrating" which means he is repeating something, which means you are not supposed to just gulp it down like a dumb terminal. There are times he speaks authoritatively where he says this is to be "accepted". To make this distinction I believe you have to read the arabic version. I have not come across an English version that explains it. This is why most of the Christian missionary websites on the internet is absolutely fallacious in cutting and pasting some of the text from an online version pretending its absolute fact. Its actually childish. And its a shame that there are so many atheists going to these same websites and thinking they have gained the knowledge enough to make exegesis. They dont even know that even their favourite Ibn Kathir said that he does not accept every thing he says as fact, a lot of times he is only narrating what some one said.

This is also not Quran, it is Tafassir. The Quran interpreters never considered their interpretation to be the Quran itself. But these websites are truly silly really. They are intentionally doing it, and others are reading these websites thinking "ah, I've got a great source to study".

And that's only one single tafsir we are speaking about. Also you should note, probably the most basic one.

 

[firedragon]

Well i am mainly just interested in a translation. But why would i want to go that deep? But you probably mean seeing if hadiths add up to reliability, so a narrator who is not valid is weak basically.

But Sunni collections from Sunan an nasai and outwards do have grade levels though. So experts have probably covered that.

But its probably interesting to people who go that deep in a sense

Grades? Grades provide the validity of a narrative chain. Not the mathn. The older tradition is to value the mathn over the grade. Also, a hadith maybe highly graded, as a Sahih, but maybe mathrook or single. Also what is the Sarih? Sarih, not Sahih.

Ill give you an example. Do you know who narrated all of Bukhari's ahadith? Try and find out. I mean all of it. ALL.

 

[Lars]

I cant rate a website like that brother. Its impossible. See, when it comes to tafsirs you dont have to worry much about the translation. It is way too much of a task to do. I dont know how many years you are planning to dedicate to this task. Ibn Kathir says that he is "narrating" which means he is repeating something, which means you are not supposed to just gulp it down like a dumb terminal. There are times he speaks authoritatively where he says this is to be "accepted". To make this distinction I believe you have to read the arabic version. I have not come across an English version that explains it. This is why most of the Christian missionary websites on the internet is absolutely fallacious in cutting and pasting some of the text from an online version pretending its absolute fact. Its actually childish. And its a shame that there are so many atheists going to these same websites and thinking they have gained the knowledge enough to make exegesis. They dont even know that even their favourite Ibn Kathir said that he does not accept every thing he says as fact, a lot of times he is only narrating what some one said.

This is also not Quran, it is Tafassir. The Quran interpreters never considered their interpretation to be the Quran itself. But these websites are truly silly really. They are intentionally doing it, and others are reading these websites thinking "ah, I've got a great source to study".

And that's only one single tafsir we are speaking about. Also you should note, probably the most basic one.

Well there is lot of different stuff written in them that goes back and forth. I could mention one example. After "call of nature" (presume it means after going to toilet) You are supposed to use odd numbers of pebbles (3, 6) or whatever.

So they are very odd the way these details of way of life is in the hadiths (this is not in the quran if you wonder)

But a question. How is chains added in arabic version? Since you mean sunnah.com simply lists them but dont give the full source of the narrators. Would you say arabic lists that in a sense?

But thanks for taking time talking about this. Its interesting to listen too.

 

[Lars]

Grades? Grades provide the validity of a narrative chain. Not the mathn. The older tradition is to value the mathn over the grade. Also, a hadith maybe highly graded, as a Sahih, but maybe mathrook or single. Also what is the Sarih? Sarih, not Sahih.

Ill give you an example. Do you know who narrated all of Bukhari's ahadith? Try and find out. I mean all of it. ALL.

Well i have to go to a individual hadith to find that out. But on top of my head "Abu Hurairah" seems to be the one who is the final narrator often. Example "It was narrated from this guy, from this guy, from this guy, from Abu Hurairah that muhammad said" and that usually is how it goes from my readings on it

 

[firedragon]

Well there is lot of different stuff written in them that goes back and forth. I could mention one example. After "call of nature" (presume it means after going to toilet) You are supposed to use odd numbers of pebbles (3, 6) or whatever.

Which hadith is that, what is the mathn, what is the sanad, what is the Sarih level, what is the thadhlees level??

But a question. How is chains added in arabic version? Since you mean sunnah.com simply lists them but dont give the full source of the narrators. Would you say arabic lists that in a sense?

I didnt say anything about arabic. You know something? I am talking to you as if you are educated in the subject.

I didnt say anything about arabic, and neither did I say that this Sunnah.com does not give the full source of narrators. There is a whole science behind ahadith, which can never ever be understood through reading this website. They are just listing the ahadith. Thats it. Please read at least one single book on the science of Hadith. At least one. Only then you will understand what I am saying. You dont have to believe in hadith. I will never tell you that. But to propagate this subject you have to know it.

Well i have to go to a individual hadith to find that out. But on top of my head "Abu Hurairah" seems to be the one who is the final narrator often. Example "It was narrated from this guy, from this guy, from this guy, from Abu Hurairah that muhammad said" and that usually is how it goes from my readings on it

No. Abu Hurairah is the first narrator, not the last. And that too, of some ahadith, not "ALL of Bukhari". Do you understand the question?

 

[Lars]

Which hadith is that, what is the mathn, what is the sanad, what is the Sarih level, what is the thadhlees level??



I didnt say anything about arabic. You know something? I am talking to you as if you are educated in the subject.

I didnt say anything about arabic, and neither did I say that this Sunnah.com does not give the full source of narrators. There is a whole science behind ahadith, which can never ever be understood through reading this website. They are just listing the ahadith. Thats it. Please read at least one single book on the science of Hadith. At least one. Only then you will understand what I am saying. You dont have to believe in hadith. I will never tell you that. But to propagate this subject you have to know it.



No. Abu Hurairah is the first narrator, not the last. And that too, of some ahadith, not "ALL of Bukhari". Do you understand the question?

No idea. I am not a mullah. So i cant tell you that. I just read what is available of a translation. So you are asking wrong person if you want me to answer that.

But here is the source. I assume you know about this more than me. What would your rating be on this hadith? But would you assume 90% of translation is done correctly? and 10% is in error? Interms of experts who know the science of it, and put grade level on it and all that.

But i think you are trying to say my reflection of it is not valid, because i dont do individual science of hadith?. Well, then call it a conclusion on the translation that is out there. Interms of the conclusion of what is on sunnah.com basically.

"
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) as saying:

When anyone wipes himself with pebbles (after answering the call of nature) he must make use of an odd number and when any one of you performs ablution he must snuff in his nose water and then clean it.
Sahih Muslim 237a
"
Source: Sahih Muslim 237a - The Book of Purification - كتاب الطهارة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

edit: But i will take what you said into consideration, interms of science of hadiths. Or books on it. Not making promises but i will consider it

 

[firedragon]

No idea. I am not a mullah. So i cant tell you that. I just read what is available of a translation. So you are asking wrong person if you want me to answer that.

I was only showing you that its not that straight forward. Anyway, a Mullah is not a scholar. Arabs dont use this word, neither was it historically used in Islamic tradition. Maybe you were influenced by the Taliban and the repeated mention of Mullah Umar. Its a Persian term.

But here is the source. I assume you know about this more than me. What would your rating be on this hadith? But would you assume 90% of translation is done correctly? and 10% is in error? Interms of experts who know the science of it, and put grade level on it and all that.

But i think you are trying to say my reflection of it is not valid, because i dont do individual science of hadith?. Well, then call it a conclusion on the translation that is out there. Interms of the conclusion of what is on sunnah.com basically.

"
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) as saying:

When anyone wipes himself with pebbles (after answering the call of nature) he must make use of an odd number and when any one of you performs ablution he must snuff in his nose water and then clean it.
Sahih Muslim 237a
"
Source: Sahih Muslim 237a - The Book of Purification - كتاب الطهارة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

edit: But i will take what you said into consideration, interms of science of hadiths. Or books on it. Not making promises but i will consider it

In ahadith traditions, Abu Hurairrah is considered a al mutasik or a person who narrates ahadith one after another, which is condemned. I mean its a derogatory term. Thats one thing to know. Also Ibn Shihab is known as a person who does thadhlees or "making up chains". Also, you should note that Firabri was not a person who had a valid Ijazah or how do you say "some one vouched for, vouching for him".

Also you should understand that mathn. You are reading this in English and you maybe thinking that one has to use an odd number of pebbles. Thats not the concept of this hadith. Those days in the desert they lack water, thus after peeing you use pebbles to suck in the remaining urine drops from your instrument prior to wearing your clothes again. This is a kind of a cleanliness thing. So the idea is to do it an odd number of times. 3 times minimum. Thus that is the mathn. Second, the concept of Al Akal la nakal should be understood. you have to use your reason. IN the modern day and age, if water is available, or tissues are available, or any other manner of cleansing yourself after peeing is available, you dont have to carry pebbles in your jeans pocket. The idea is to cleanse yourself.

 

[Lars]

I was only showing you that its not that straight forward. Anyway, a Mullah is not a scholar. Arabs dont use this word, neither was it historically used in Islamic tradition. Maybe you were influenced by the Taliban and the repeated mention of Mullah Umar. Its a Persian term.



In ahadith traditions, Abu Hurairrah is considered a al mutasik or a person who narrates ahadith one after another, which is condemned. I mean its a derogatory term. Thats one thing to know. Also Ibn Shihab is known as a person who does thadhlees or "making up chains". Also, you should note that Firabri was not a person who had a valid Ijazah or how do you say "some one vouched for, vouching for him".

Also you should understand that mathn. You are reading this in English and you maybe thinking that one has to use an odd number of pebbles. Thats not the concept of this hadith. Those days in the desert they lack water, thus after peeing you use pebbles to suck in the remaining urine drops from your instrument prior to wearing your clothes again. This is a kind of a cleanliness thing. So the idea is to do it an odd number of times. 3 times minimum. Thus that is the mathn. Second, the concept of Al Akal la nakal should be understood. you have to use your reason. IN the modern day and age, if water is available, or tissues are available, or any other manner of cleansing yourself after peeing is available, you dont have to carry pebbles in your jeans pocket. The idea is to cleanse yourself.

Fair enough. You seem to know alot. But what about this hadith?

Ibn Abbas narrated It on the authority of Maimuna that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was given a towel, but he did not rub (his body) with it, but he did like this with water, i. e. he shook it off.
Sahih Muslim 317c
Sahih Muslim 317c - The Book of Menstruation - كتاب الحيض - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Is this in context to prayer, or is it after a bath?
But i guess its interesting to how different islamic thinking is to certain groups. But yeah, i guess i just assumed Mullah was named for someone in authority of "expert" on this. So its the term i used, but does look like it may be mainly a Persian thing, while Imam is one who leads people in prayer.

 

[firedragon]

Fair enough. You seem to know alot. But what about this hadith?

Ibn Abbas narrated It on the authority of Maimuna that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was given a towel, but he did not rub (his body) with it, but he did like this with water, i. e. he shook it off.
Sahih Muslim 317c
Sahih Muslim 317c - The Book of Menstruation - كتاب الحيض - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Is this in context to prayer, or is it after a bath?
But i guess its interesting to how different islamic thinking is to certain groups. But yeah, i guess i just assumed Mullah was named for someone in authority of "expert" on this. So its the term i used, but does look like it may be mainly a Persian thing, while Imam is one who leads people in prayer.

What do you mean "Islamic thinking"?

 

[Brian2]

The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster

If you judge the NT by the Old Covenant and demand that the New Covenant be the same then the NT does not pass muster.
Law is something that changes in different circumstances but if it is from God then the same principle of love is in any law.
The New Covenant has the law of love and the Christian is guided in each circumstance in life by the Spirit of God given in the New Covenant and by what they read of God and what He wants in the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament. (that is the theory anyway even if nobody is perfect in the application)
For a Jew who believes the Tanakh circumcision and Sabbath keeping (as prescribed by Jewish Rabbis) would be necessary I guess but not so for someone in the New Covenant even though the same principle is at work in that love is the basis of what a Christian is meant to follow, love for God and for neighbour.
The Law is perfect in that respect even if now, for a Jew, the interpretation is no doubt by Rabbis.
What Paul sees as the curse in the Law is wanting to show God our own righteousness through the keeping of commands.
For a start the keeping of commands might not be keeping the more important law of love. Sometimes it is necessary to ignore some less important law in order to keep the law of love.
Then also in God's eyes our own righteousness is as filthy rags. (Isa 64:6)
It is through faith that Abraham was declared righteous and of course faith needs actions but there should be a realisation that our actions are imperfect at best and that it is through faith that a righteous man lives and not through the keeping of laws.(Habakkuk 2:4)

The New Testament also teaches a new idea -- have faith in the messiah as a way to avoid punishment for sin. You don't find this anywhere in the Tanakh. It essentially replaces the teaching that what God considers important is obedience.

I could almost say "see above" for part of the answer at least.
In the Tanakh however there is someone who suffers and dies and bears our sins. (Isa 53) and it is He who is the David who was to come, the Messiah whose name is "YHWH our righteousness".
Even if our sins are as (Jer 23:6, 33:16)
The Laws of sacrifice for sin in the Law of Moses was the way that God ordained for the sins of the whole world to be dealt with through the Messiah.
And God knew that the Jews on the whole would reject Him and be punished by exile just as the Law states and as happened for Adam and Eve from the garden.(Psalm 89:19-52) but through this rejection the Word/Law of God has gone to the whole earth (Isa 2:3) and through Abraham blessing came on all the world.
So the resurrected Messiah who was cut off from the land of the living sees His children (Isa 53) and will return to save the Jews politically and to judge the earth and rule on David's throne etc etc.
But back to what you said. Obedience is important in the New Covenant too and it shows our faith and sincerity, just as it does in the Old Covenant, but obedience cannot be the way to show God that we are so righteous that we deserve something. Humility before God is something we all need. (Micah 6:8)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you judge the NT by the Old Covenant and demand that the New Covenant be the same then the NT does not pass muster.

Sorry, but that doesn't work. fFor example, I doubt that you would add the Book of Mormon or the Quran to your Bible. Why ? Because they contain messages that conflict with the teaching of your New Testament.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, but that doesn't work. fFor example, I doubt that you would add the Book of Mormon or the Quran to your Bible. Why ? Because they contain messages that conflict with the teaching of your New Testament.

I don't know how can you say the New Covenant conflicts with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures when the New Covenant teachings are not specifically given in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I guess I did try to show that the NT is pointed to in the Hebrew Scriptures however.
That said, I know what you are saying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know how can you say the New Covenant conflicts with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures when the New Covenant teachings are not specifically given in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I guess I did try to show that the NT is pointed to in the Hebrew Scriptures however.
That said, I know what you are saying.

I spelled it out in post 28. You can read that again if you need to. You can't go around saying the Law brings a curse, and say you are compatible with the Law.

 

[Brian2]

I spelled it out in post 28. You can read that again if you need to. You can't go around saying the Law brings a curse, and say you are compatible with the Law.

Nevertheless the law brings with it a curse. (Deut 11:26) and if you disobey the law the curse applies. God is merciful and did not apply the curse straight away but sent prophets to turn Israel back to God.
The law also says the following:
Lev 18:4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
The problem is that a person cannot be truly righteous in following the law because it shows someone where they fall down and not how good they are.
Being sincere in wanting to obey is great and being faithful in attempting to obey is great but humans always fall down and need forgiveness. Thus the sacrificial part of the law. Trusting in the Lord to forgive and see us as righteous in the face of our sins is what the New Covenant gives in an ongoing way and this need for trust applies to the Old Covenant as well, and trying to make our own righteousness by our own actions is always going to fail.
The New Covenant goes beyond that also and gives a way of changing us to be more righteous through the work of God's Spirit in us.

Ezek 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,

Ezek 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and to carefully observe My ordinances. 28 Then you will live in the land that I gave your forefathers; you will be My people, and I will be your God.…

Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nevertheless the law brings with it a curse. (Deut 11:26) and if you disobey the law the curse applies. God is merciful and did not apply the curse straight away but sent prophets to turn Israel back to God.

The Law doesn't bring a curse. Disobedience brings a curse.

The law also says the following:
Lev 18:4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.
The problem is that a person cannot be truly righteous in following the law because it shows someone where they fall down and not how good they are.

Nothing about that prevents a person from being righteous aka obeying God. And, sir, we know how good we are by how we keep the law, so you are wrong on that account as well.

1. The standard for righteousness is not perfection.
2. Atonement is built into the law.
3. For deliberate sins, we are to repent and turn back to God's ways, and he will forgive us. No human sacrifice needed. No mediator needed. No Jesus needed.

The so-called "new covenant" that Christians talk about perverts the message of the Torah. Instead of teaching obedience to the Law, which is the heart and soul of the Tanakh, it goes off into the new thing about believing in the messiah as way to go to heaven and avoid hell. THAT message, sir, is nowhere to be found in the Tanakh. You may keep your false covenant.

 

[Brian2]

The Law doesn't bring a curse. Disobedience brings a curse.
Nothing about that prevents a person from being righteous aka obeying God. And, sir, we know how good we are by how we keep the law, so you are wrong on that account as well.

Yes disobedience brings the curse that is written in the law.
Someone would know how good and how bad they are by how they keep the law no doubt.

1. The standard for righteousness is not perfection.
2. Atonement is built into the law.
3. For deliberate sins, we are to repent and turn back to God's ways, and he will forgive us. No human sacrifice needed. No mediator needed. No Jesus needed.

It is good that God provided a way for Jews to repent and be forgiven even while in exile.
The sacrificial law however is a pointer to the way God was going to make an atonement for all sins, through a sacrifice where one righteous Jew would bear all sins. This also brought in the new Covenant of grace and faith and the Spirit of God instead of the written law. A covenant that even the Gentiles could be a part of through faith along with the Jews through faith also.
It is through faith that faithful Jews obey the law as best they can and it is through faith that the followers of the Messiah obey the Spirit of God. Faith is at work through love and not just keeping commands in a law.
The Spirit of God in a person is what makes them a child of God, joined to the Jews as a chosen people but in a better covenant.

The so-called "new covenant" that Christians talk about perverts the message of the Torah. Instead of teaching obedience to the Law, which is the heart and soul of the Tanakh, it goes off into the new thing about believing in the messiah as way to go to heaven and avoid hell. THAT message, sir, is nowhere to be found in the Tanakh. You may keep your false covenant.

I don't know about the heaven and hell idea. My understanding is that God wants to be in Zion forever and that evil people will be destroyed. Anyway...................
The New Covenant is a New Covenant and has a new priesthood and new law. The Torah is based on love and the New Covenant also is based on the command to love God and our neighbour.
It is new but spoken about in the Hebrew Scriptures, not only by Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel but also we see that Abraham received righteousness by believing, and of course it was not just a head belief but a faith that brought obedience.
Genesis 15:5 And the LORD took him outside and said, “Now look to the heavens and count the stars, if you are able.” Then He told him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 Abram believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness. 7 The LORD also told him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”
The New Covenant is the way for salvation that bypasses obedience to commands of the Law as the way of salvation. Abraham certainly did not have the Law. Through Abraham and his faith all the nations of the earth have been blessed however and Christians count Abraham as our father also because of faith.
In the following passage I don't think the servant spoken of in the following passage is Israel. Israel was not formed to bring Jacob back to God.
Isa 49:1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the Lord called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the Lord’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”
5 And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

I hope you are not too offended. Maybe it gives a better understanding of what and why Christians believe what they do. Maybe you know it all ready.

 

[paarsurrey]

Interms of psychology of it.

My assumption is this

Bible = Melevolent dictator. Mainly because there is biblical verse where physical punishment on a child is ok (assuming the context is if they dont listen)
Islamic texts = Dominance and slight sadomasochism (Sadomasochism is if you paint people or that stuff you go to hell, because image makers are cursed in sunni hadiths. Though not sure if some would argue this is in context to idol worship or literally) But i lay mostly weight on "Dominance part" where you are supposed to feel dominated and dominate with the islamic religion

But this is mainly my impression from reading or getting into it. I cant comment in Shia sources. But Sunni ones is the ones i have spent mostly time with. And Bible is more shorter so there is that.

But its mainly because of those psychological views that i find them interesting to read.

Whats your view?

" And Bible is more shorter "

In what sense Bible is shorter, please?

Regards