Muslims, I Find This Really Offensive

[paarsurrey]

Did Muhammad (p) ever read the Qur'an even once in the whole of his life as we find it today?

Many a time he recited the same Quran as we find it today. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

That is what is very natural, reasonable and truthful. That is what a good critic does, he points the bad points in a work and appreciates the good and lasting points. Quran gives reasonable and rational arguments for rejecting the part it has rejected and appreciates the parts that are good.
I agree with one on the points colored in magenta by me, if I have understood the points correctly. Please
Regards

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'd like to know your trick for getting so many responses under the 1.2k character limit.

I don't do a word count or anything, LOL. I do have a good eye for how long my posts are.

All I was ever taught was that the Jews were stubborn and decided to ignore the 'fact' that Jesus fulfilled all the Messiah prophecies. I've never heard a Christian proclaim that Judaism or Jewish scripture is corrupt; though I confess my experience is limited.

Indeed. However, I think it's a bit like not accusing someone of being a thief and then describing that they took things without permission. Just because the term isn't used doesn't mean that's not the message being used.

Yes, I suppose it is. Does that counter the fact Muslims rely on the same sort of contradictory thinking too?

Not really. I just don't like to blame other religions for sins my own commits.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

I said that Quran justifies reasonably the acceptance part and justifies the rejection parts to be wrong, so there should be no complaint against Quran in this regards, as for instance the OP has expressed and others who agree with it. Please
Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said that Quran justifies reasonably the acceptance part and justifies the rejection parts to be wrong, so there should be no complaint against Quran in this regards, as for instance the OP has expressed and others who agree with it.

The thing with the Bible and Quran are they often contradict themselves in many areas, and both the pacifist and violent extremist can point to their verses to support their claims, so from a logical perspective it must be asked to demonstrate your position is the correct approach. What ISIS does is like reading from the Tanakh with the violence and slavery and other wicked ways, but Muhammad and Jesus were both pretty big into charity. One thing I even like about the Quran that we find the humane treatment of animals as a part of it, but in the other two animals are pretty much just there for us to dominate and largely expendable anyways.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

I agree with the part I have colored in magenta.
These people live in the past and are wrong in doing this. Quran is a living Revelation/Recitation and fulfills the needs of a time, of the present times and of all times to come in future, as it fulfilled the needs of the time in of the past during the life of Muhammad. It is a time tested Revelation/Recitation because it encompasses all the lasting teachings of all the truthful religions of the past that passed before Muhammad. It is a valid aspect as Muhammad had been given the title of Khatam-un-Nabiyyen or last prophet/messenger, the prophet/messenger of the lasting teachings from G-d and hence Quran is the last book containing lasting teachings as rightly claimed by it with reasons:

[98:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[98:2] Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters would not desist from disbelief until there came to them the clear evidence —
[98:3] A Messenger from Allah, reciting unto them the pure Scriptures.

[98:5] And those to whom the Book was given did not become divided until after clear evidence had come to them.
[98:6] And they were not commanded but to serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience,and being upright, and to observe Prayer, and pay the Zakat. And that is the religion of the people of the right path.
www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=98

Whatever I have stated in this post and some other posts under discussion in response to friend @Shadow Wolf is just expansion of the points mentioned in Quran itself in brief. Quran is a living Revelation/Recitation and Muhammad is the living prophet/messenger of G-d in this sense and ONE-GOD is the only living G-d in this sense.
Please nobody take it personal as no offense is intended against any person or religion or no-religion. This is what I believe to be reasonable, rational and truthful. Should have I concealed from others and spoken hypocritically? It is a religious debate forum, isn't it appropriate to express oneself fully on religion here?
Anybody and everybody who disagrees with me, they come up with the reasonable arguments, if they have any, either given by their Religion/Book they themselves believe in or from Science if they are from no-religion. Right? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

"I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species"

It is because G-d has created human being as such and has not left us unattended and it is one of His attributes to send His messenger/prophets in all times and in all regions of the world and to all peoples to guide humans on His right path so that we are not left in the darkness and sends his enlightened ones to provide us His light. Right? Please

Regards

 

[Augustus]

How does that address issues such as Haman in Egypt with Pharaoh

This for example:

In brief, the idea that Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower that would reach the
heavens was widely known from a pre-Islamic Near Eastern story. The story is that of
Ahiqar the Sage, a tale that was extremely influential and widespread in the Near East,
from the Achaemenid period32 until the Middle Ages, leaving its mark on Jewish,
Christian and Muslim scriptures and cultures along the way.33 The episode of this
tale that is pivotal for our purposes concerns a challenge that the Egyptian Pharaoh
presented to the Assyrian ruler.

[What is] the relationship between the Qur'an's Fir'awn and the Bible's Pharaoh? Aside
from the obvious fact that Fir' awn's sarh and association with Haman have no
equivalent in Pharoah's biblical career, the most interesting answer in my view
comes from the exegetical materials that support both the Bible and the Qur' an. It
is striking that the classical Qur'anic exegetes, in describing Fir'awn and Nimrod
in similar terms and in conflating their respective sarhs followed the pre-Islamic
commentaries on the Bible more closely than they followed the evidence of the
Qur'an itself. Had they stuck to the Qur'an, they would surely have revealed
layers of intertextuality that connect Fir' awn's sarh with that of Sulayman rather
than the old midrashic connection between Pharaoh and Nimrod. On this basis, I
would even suggest that Fir' awn, or "the Qur' anic Pharaoh," may be distinguished
from "the Muslim Pharaoh." What they have in common, though, is that both
Fir' awn and the Muslim Pharaoh owe their existence to Mesopotamia: the latter is
the product of cross-pollination'-and scholarly interaction between Muslims and
other monotheists in Late Antique and early Islamic Iraq; the former is the product
of an earlier Mesopotamian tradition in which wisdom and tower-building were
intertwined with divine favour, ever since the days of ziggurats and Ahiqar the
sage. Thus, what unites the Qur'anic and Muslim Pharaohs, and what distinguishes
both characters from the Biblical Pharaoh, is that they are less "Egyptian"
than we might have thought. (A. Silverstein - Quranic Pharaoh)

the sacrifice of Ishmael by Abraham, etc.?

As @Rival noted, that's not in the Quran. Not only that, many early Muslims thought it was Isaac

In the account of Abraham’s would-be sacrifice of his son (XXXVII, 102/100-107), the name of the son is not mentioned; and there was a fierce controversy among Muslim scholars over the identity of the son. At first most Muslims probably considered the “sacrifice” ( d̲h̲abiḥ ) was Isaac (cf. Goldziher, Koranauslegung , 79-81). This is explicitly stated of ʿUmar and ʿAlī by Ḳuṭb al-Dīn (Wüstenfeld, Chron. Mekka , ii, 37). A story is told of how a convert told ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz that the Jews had substituted Isaac (their ancestor) for Ishmael (the Arabs’). Actually the controversy came to be more concerned with Persian than with Jewish rivalry for the Arabs (Goldziher, Muh. St ., i, 144 f., Eng. tr., i, 135), since the Persians claimed descent from Isaac. Al-Masʿūdī ( Murūd̲j̲ , ii, 146 f.) quotes a Persian poet in 290/902 who boasted that his descent from Isaac the d̲h̲abīḥ was superior to that of the Arabs. Later representatives of the Isaacparty were Ibn Ḳutayba ( Maʿarif , 18 f. ed. ʿUkās̲h̲a2 , Cairo 1969, 30 f.) and al-Ṭabarī (Tafsīr on XII, 6 and XXXVII, 107; vol. xii, 86; xxiii, 46-9); they argued that God’s perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in XII, 6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac. The other party held that the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (XI, 71/74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac. Although Ibn Ḳutayba, for example, had seen Isaac mentioned in the Old Testament, Muslim opinion eventually gave full endorsement to the view that the son in question was Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs (Encyclopedia of Islam 2)

That doesn't seem like an analysis of Jewish Scripture as much as a confusion of it.

It's not an analysis of Jewish scripture, it is a rhetorical discourse that grew out of the Late Antique religious milieu, particularly a Syrio-Arabic one.

A lot of the 'mistakes' narrative implicitly relies on the later Islamic tradition that saw Islam emerge from an isolated pagan backwater. It supposes a primitive 'copying' of Abrahamic traditions, which is not plausible given the nature of the text itself which shows a very nuanced understanding of a wide range of religious issues. The text clearly expects the audience to be familiar with these issues as were they not little would make sense. We even see in Medieval exegesis where scholars have no idea how to interpret certain passages as they are not familiar with the Biblical narratives that are necessary to understand them.

To accept this, while also accepting the premise that it contains elementary errors is not tenable imo, meaning that 'mistakes' are more likely to be representative of competing narratives present during that period. For example, the 'mistake' of Christians taking Mary as a 'god' is representative of earlier Christian religious polemics regarding the excessive veneration of saints in general, and Mary in particular.

Islamic traditions that emerged hundreds of years later are not always the most accurate when describing the realities of the 7th C.

There's usually more to it than meets the eye.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

"but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic".
If one means from the secular the disciples of a state/country which is equitable to everybody in the worldly affairs and provide justice and rights to everybody, that I will strongly agree with.
But if one means that the world should adopt Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism as a world-view, it is totally not required and will be harmful for the human race. I disagree with vehemently. Please
What truthful basis Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism have got? Please mention them here. Right? Please
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Can it be said that anyone either fully embraces or rejects everything? One of the things that keeps philosophy going is someone taking a part of what they like about what some other said, expanding on that idea, and discarding the ideas from the same author they don't like.
It's really only an issue when you refuse to accept when you are doing this, and cannot rationally justify the acceptance of part and rejection of others. As for religion, so much of the world, even some Muslim states, are so far removed from a "truly strict and literal" interpretation of their scriptures that they should just leave the past in the past and embrace ideas that are suited for global unity rather than sectarian, national, economic, and other forms of supremacy and dominance. I don't think "religion," as it can be generally interpreted and understood, will ever go away from our species, but I do think we aren't too far away from a global secular shift and the emergence of new non-dogmatic religious/spiritual ideas and the rise of atheism and agnosticism, and even those who are too busy doing other things to be concerned with god. And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this, because it won't be too much longer before people have absolutely had it with the **** coming from both of them.

"And I do feel we'll have radical Islam and far-Right Conservative Christians to thank for this"

Jesus and Muhammad never gave any teachings in the Word Revealed to them from G-d to support extremism/radicalism and conservatism. Did they , please. If so , please, quote from them. Right? Please

Regards

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Can women rape men? Can you kill ur own kind men women and children and neighbor? When you mold something from malten metal does it just pop out instantly shaped and well defined?

 

[loverofhumanity]

No, this is not a joke thread.

Muslims, I find it really offensive that you dare refer to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as 'corrupted', but not only this, you then proceed to try to tell us that, using the same so-called 'corrupted' Scripture, that Muhammad was prophesied in said Scripture. Not only this but also that all previous prophets were Muslims.

Seriously, make up your damn minds.

You cannot use BOTH arguments.

Also, the Christian and Jewish Scriptures have remained unchanged since before the time of Muhammad; we know this, we have copies from before the 7th century.

Either you believe the Torah and the Gospel are corrupted or you don't.

Goddamn pick one.

The Quran fully upholds the Torah and the Gospels, the Virgin birth and Christ's miracles. All it does not uphold is the commentaries and interpretations of individuals. A Muslim who says other than the Quran is going against his own Holy Book.

Sura 3:2-3

2. God, there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal. 3. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.

Sura 2:87

We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.

Sura 3:45-48

“O Mary! Allah giveth Thee glad tidings of a word from him: His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, she said: “O My Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: “Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is! “And Allah will teach Him the Book and Wisdom, the law and the Gospel.

 

[firedragon]

Hmm. I wonder why focus on Muslims when the Talmud calls Mary basically almost a prostitute.

The Quran fully upholds the Torah and the Gospels, the Virgin birth and Christ's miracles. All it does not uphold is the commentaries and interpretations of individuals. A Muslim who says other than the Quran is going against his own Holy Book.

Sura 3:2-3

2. God, there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal. 3. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.

Sura 2:87

We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.

Sura 3:45-48

“O Mary! Allah giveth Thee glad tidings of a word from him: His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, she said: “O My Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: “Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is! “And Allah will teach Him the Book and Wisdom, the law and the Gospel.

What is the Torah? What is the Zaboor?

You believe the Pentateuch is the Torah? 5 books. At least four different schools of thought. No author.

What is the Zaboor?

What is the Gospel? The Gospel?

Though Quran speaks of these revelations, how do you know what they are? I mean you.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Quran fully upholds the Torah and the Gospels, the Virgin birth and Christ's miracles. All it does not uphold is the commentaries and interpretations of individuals. A Muslim who says other than the Quran is going against his own Holy Book.
Sura 3:2-3
2. God, there is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal. 3. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.
Sura 2:87
We gave Moses the Scripture, and sent a succession of messengers after him. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear proofs, and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.
Sura 3:45-48
“O Mary! Allah giveth Thee glad tidings of a word from him: His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, she said: “O My Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: “Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is! “And Allah will teach Him the Book and Wisdom, the law and the Gospel.

I fully agree and support your viewpoint.
How could G-d be against His own people or against His own Revealed scripture? G-d cannot be against His own prophets/messenger/rishis whom He Himself sent. G-d cannot be against Buddha, Krishna. Rishis, Zoroaster Moses, Socrates, Laozi, Confucius, Jesus? Why should He? G-d cannot be against the Light that Enlightened Buddha gave or agains Veda or against Bhagvad Gita or against Torah or against the Revelations He made to Zoroaster or Jesus or against the Wisdom He gave to Socrates, Laozi, Confucius? And why shoud He? Please

G-d given His objective and constructive criticism on what the people have done to His prophets/messengers and to the Wisdom, Revelation and Light he gave these worthy people. What is bad abort it. He wants that human improve and take to reason.

Sorry, but that is what I believe to be reasonable, logical and peaceful. Right? Please
Anybody and or everybody who disagrees with me, could do it as a right, but one should give reasonable arguments if one has any for benefit of us all, no compulsion however and whatsoever, please.

Regards

 

[Tumah]

This for example:

In brief, the idea that Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower that would reach the
heavens was widely known from a pre-Islamic Near Eastern story. The story is that of
Ahiqar the Sage, a tale that was extremely influential and widespread in the Near East,
from the Achaemenid period32 until the Middle Ages, leaving its mark on Jewish,
Christian and Muslim scriptures and cultures along the way.33 The episode of this
tale that is pivotal for our purposes concerns a challenge that the Egyptian Pharaoh
presented to the Assyrian ruler.

[What is] the relationship between the Qur'an's Fir'awn and the Bible's Pharaoh? Aside
from the obvious fact that Fir' awn's sarh and association with Haman have no
equivalent in Pharoah's biblical career, the most interesting answer in my view
comes from the exegetical materials that support both the Bible and the Qur' an. It
is striking that the classical Qur'anic exegetes, in describing Fir'awn and Nimrod
in similar terms and in conflating their respective sarhs followed the pre-Islamic
commentaries on the Bible more closely than they followed the evidence of the
Qur'an itself. Had they stuck to the Qur'an, they would surely have revealed
layers of intertextuality that connect Fir' awn's sarh with that of Sulayman rather
than the old midrashic connection between Pharaoh and Nimrod. On this basis, I
would even suggest that Fir' awn, or "the Qur' anic Pharaoh," may be distinguished
from "the Muslim Pharaoh." What they have in common, though, is that both
Fir' awn and the Muslim Pharaoh owe their existence to Mesopotamia: the latter is
the product of cross-pollination'-and scholarly interaction between Muslims and
other monotheists in Late Antique and early Islamic Iraq; the former is the product
of an earlier Mesopotamian tradition in which wisdom and tower-building were
intertwined with divine favour, ever since the days of ziggurats and Ahiqar the
sage. Thus, what unites the Qur'anic and Muslim Pharaohs, and what distinguishes
both characters from the Biblical Pharaoh, is that they are less "Egyptian"
than we might have thought. (A. Silverstein - Quranic Pharaoh)

That's an interesting idea.
I do see some of the author's idea in the general idea of the story, that the story is meant to follow the exploits of Ahiqar/Haman as adviser to the Egyptian Pharaoh. But what I also see is an attempt (or mistake) to conflate this well-known Assyrian tale, with the other well-known Biblical one. There doesn't seem to be any tale about Ahiqar's Pharaoh trying to build a tower, nor is his name Haman. Perhaps what the author means to say, was the Qur'anic way of re-interpreting these Biblical stories to match tales they were familiar with. And so they took various elements of separate Biblical stories to create a tale that more closely resembled the one they knew. That I can more readily agree to.

If that's the case, then it remains a mixed bag of a tale.

As @Rival noted, that's not in the Quran. Not only that, many early Muslims thought it was Isaac

In the account of Abraham’s would-be sacrifice of his son (XXXVII, 102/100-107), the name of the son is not mentioned; and there was a fierce controversy among Muslim scholars over the identity of the son. At first most Muslims probably considered the “sacrifice” ( d̲h̲abiḥ ) was Isaac (cf. Goldziher, Koranauslegung , 79-81). This is explicitly stated of ʿUmar and ʿAlī by Ḳuṭb al-Dīn (Wüstenfeld, Chron. Mekka , ii, 37). A story is told of how a convert told ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz that the Jews had substituted Isaac (their ancestor) for Ishmael (the Arabs’). Actually the controversy came to be more concerned with Persian than with Jewish rivalry for the Arabs (Goldziher, Muh. St ., i, 144 f., Eng. tr., i, 135), since the Persians claimed descent from Isaac. Al-Masʿūdī ( Murūd̲j̲ , ii, 146 f.) quotes a Persian poet in 290/902 who boasted that his descent from Isaac the d̲h̲abīḥ was superior to that of the Arabs. Later representatives of the Isaacparty were Ibn Ḳutayba ( Maʿarif , 18 f. ed. ʿUkās̲h̲a2 , Cairo 1969, 30 f.) and al-Ṭabarī (Tafsīr on XII, 6 and XXXVII, 107; vol. xii, 86; xxiii, 46-9); they argued that God’s perfecting his mercy on Abraham and Isaac (in XII, 6) referred to his making Abraham his friend and saving him from the burning bush and to his rescuing Isaac. The other party held that the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob (XI, 71/74) excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac. Although Ibn Ḳutayba, for example, had seen Isaac mentioned in the Old Testament, Muslim opinion eventually gave full endorsement to the view that the son in question was Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs (Encyclopedia of Islam 2)

Well that is interesting. Although I don't recommend announcing that anywhere in my neighborhood outside my country.

It's not an analysis of Jewish scripture, it is a rhetorical discourse that grew out of the Late Antique religious milieu, particularly a Syrio-Arabic one.

With who on the other side of the Qur'an?

A lot of the 'mistakes' narrative implicitly relies on the later Islamic tradition that saw Islam emerge from an isolated pagan backwater. It supposes a primitive 'copying' of Abrahamic traditions, which is not plausible given the nature of the text itself which shows a very nuanced understanding of a wide range of religious issues. The text clearly expects the audience to be familiar with these issues as were they not little would make sense. We even see in Medieval exegesis where scholars have no idea how to interpret certain passages as they are not familiar with the Biblical narratives that are necessary to understand them.

To accept this, while also accepting the premise that it contains elementary errors is not tenable imo, meaning that 'mistakes' are more likely to be representative of competing narratives present during that period. For example, the 'mistake' of Christians taking Mary as a 'god' is representative of earlier Christian religious polemics regarding the excessive veneration of saints in general, and Mary in particular.

Islamic traditions that emerged hundreds of years later are not always the most accurate when describing the realities of the 7th C.

There's usually more to it than meets the eye.

I don't have enough knowledge about the Qur'an to argue. I don't think its necessarily difficult to accept that the Qur'anic author(s) simply didn't have enough Biblical knowledge and pieced it together - based on the debates of the day that may have been floating around - themselves to create new accounts. I also think there seems to be a lot that was written as a polemic against those that didn't accept the Qur'an. Choosing the side of a debate to present in the Qur'an in order to castigate those that don't accept the emerging religion for those that do or vilifying a people through inaccurate portrayal of their beliefs when they are exiled and massacred and unable to respond. Those things don't seem to far from the authors either.

So what I will concede is that you're right if the author(s) of the Qur'an was not an illiterate camel driver who occasioned among the Jews and Christians and was privy to some of their concerns of the day but not the full story, but was actually a literate scholar (or group of them) engaged in the debates of the day. Then it must be that the mistakes were intentional conflations and distorted polemics to encourage its readers against those that were unwilling to follow the Qur'an.

 

[Tumah]

At this point, I will leave you to call it what you will. The fact remains that your religious Laws apply to you and only you, not to me...at all. And that's that.

That's not the whole story though is it. Because you've also taken the liberty to reinterpret my religion and religious laws as we've seen, in order to accommodate your religion.

No, technically, it's not. It's actually a case of realistic optimism, in this scenario.

What else, might we not confidently affirm, but the unreserved acceptance of the Divine Program enunciated, with such simplicity and force as far back as sixty years ago, by Bahá’u’lláh, embodying in its essentials God’s divinely appointed scheme for the unification of mankind in this age, coupled with an indomitable conviction in the unfailing efficacy of each and all of its provisions, is eventually capable of withstanding the forces of internal disintegration which, if unchecked, must needs continue to eat into the vitals of a despairing society. It is towards this goal—the goal of a new World Order, Divine in origin, all-embracing in scope, equitable in principle, challenging in its features—that a harassed humanity must strive.
-Baha'i Reference Library​

This is a replacement of Jewish, Christian and Islamic eschatology, where G-d (ולהבדיל), Jesus and All-h are the ones to cause unity among mankind.

Again, Jewish religious law has no bearing on my faith as a Bahá’í. It is irrelevant to me. So, again, call it what you will.

One Baha'u'llah came to replace Jewish (and Christian and Islamic) Laws, you are right. It probably would become irrelevant to you. However, what was relevant to my point, was that a Jew born of a Jewish mother the daughter of a Jewish mother, who converts to Baha'i has become a sinner according to Jewish Law. Baha'i Law which replaces Jewish Law, does not see him as such.

Noooo, actually, the Plan is to essentially bring reconciliation among the followers of various religions. We're actually not big on world domination.....

The only way to bring reconciliation among the followers of various religions, is to accept the Baha'i interpretation of the various religions. Which fits with Baha'u'lah's vision of all world religions recognizing his view of all world religions.
And to put it in your words:

This is our hope, at least, the unification of humankind, yes. And under Bahá’u’lláh’s banner (as Bahá’ís) could be very groovy.​

 

[Tumah]

Such is a reflection of your own misunderstandings, then. There is no incompatibility here.

If that's what you think, I think you should go back and read my thread again. Allow me to quote myself:

According to Maimonides, the problem (of keeping the Sabbath -ed.) is that it looks like one is creating a new religion. And in fact creating any sort of new religious rituals or celebrations that were not already commanded would fall into this category.​

As well, the Baha'i revelation is a concept that goes against Judaism.

Yeeeeeah, if you say so.



Actually, what you actually wrote is very crystal clear to me. You clearly mention ‘fulfillment of the SEVEN LAWS’ . Either you meant what you actually wrote, or you're just confused. Point blank.

I don't really understand your reluctance to accept my clarification. Especially in light of the evidence that I brought. However, it doesn't really matter, since even if we go with your view on my post, then the simple response is that I was wrong or confused or whatever you like. And this is clearly defined by the in-depth examination of Noahidism that I provided in my thread on Jewish Noahidism at a much later date.

 

[Kirran]

I fully agree and support your viewpoint.
How could G-d be against His own people or against His own Revealed scripture? G-d cannot be against His own prophets/messenger/rishis whom He Himself sent. G-d cannot be against Buddha, Krishna. Rishis, Zoroaster Moses, Socrates, Laozi, Confucius, Jesus? Why should He? G-d cannot be against the Light that Enlightened Buddha gave or agains Veda or against Bhagvad Gita or against Torah or against the Revelations He made to Zoroaster or Jesus or against the Wisdom He gave to Socrates, Laozi, Confucius? And why shoud He? Please

G-d given His objective and constructive criticism on what the people have done to His prophets/messengers and to the Wisdom, Revelation and Light he gave these worthy people. What is bad abort it. He wants that human improve and take to reason.

Sorry, but that is what I believe to be reasonable, logical and peaceful. Right? Please
Anybody and or everybody who disagrees with me, could do it as a right, but one should give reasonable arguments if one has any for benefit of us all, no compulsion however and whatsoever, please.

Regards

Do you believe logic and reason are all that is required for religion? Or do you see personal experience of God as positive?

 

[Tumah]

Do you believe logic and reason are all that is required for religion? Or do you see personal experience of God as positive?

You're barking up the wrong Akshayavat.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe logic and reason are all that is required for religion? Or do you see personal experience of God as positive?

Is logic given in Veda/Yajurveda. If yes, please quote from it.
Regards