Why Have An Old Testament At All?

[koroigetsuga 3]

Can someone please explain to me the point of having an Old Testament?

Frankly in most churches I have noticed that preachers tend to avoid the Old Testament altogether, because of some of the controversial things mentioned there that might dissuade a church audience.

The Quran is new and totally independent of both Christians and Jewish scriptures. There is nothing translated from a previous religion's holy book into our book. So when Jews and Muslims talk we can as the Quran says do the "on to you my religion, and on to you your religion" thing.

When Jews and Christians talk, because the Old Testament is from the Torah it becomes part of Christian bible. So then we get issues of misunderstanding/mistranslating texts hampering interfaith dialogue. Because the Old Testament is part of the Christian bible, it seems for "some" Christians it almost becomes obligatory to believe it, regardless of the accuracy of how its translated.

With the Quran any background information such as the Jews escaping from the Pharoah,etc is already included in the newly revealed book. There is no need for an Old Testament. If you believe that the New Testament is the word of God then don't you think God would have included whatever you needed to know from the previous religion in the new book; again think back to the example I gave with the Pharaoh.

So why have an Old Testament at all?

[yonus 3]

I don't know how you see this matter is so simple . Convince them first that the Quran is the last testament , then .......... wallah I don't know what to say .

Although prophet Muhammad is son of Ismael or northern Arabs are from dynastey of Ismael and I can't convince them that Abraham and his family departed to Mecca .

14:35] And when Abraham said: My Lord! Make safe this territory, and preserve me and my sons from serving idols.

14:36] My Lord! Lo! they have led many of mankind astray. But whoso followeth me, he verily is of me. And whoso disobeyeth me - Still Thou art Forgiving, Merciful.

14:37] Our Lord! Lo! I have settled some of my posterity in an uncultivable valley near unto Thy holy House, our Lord! that they may establish proper worship; so incline some hearts of men that they may yearn toward them, and provide Thou them with fruits in order that they may be thankful.

[koroigetsuga 3]

brother yonus I am not trying to convert anyone.

I never given anything even closely resembling dawah on this site. This is no place for dawah. The people who take part in this forum already believe what they believe and aren't coming here to convert.

The prophet himself said that the best dawah is being a good muslim. If someone wants to learn about islam then it is our duty to point them in the right direction, but beyond that dawah is best suited for those who want it.

I am simply asking a genuine question. Why does the Bible need an Old Testament at all?

Edited January 24, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[IloveImamHussain 164]

Why does the Bible need an Old Testament at all?

No book of the New Testament existed in the early years of Christianity. They all came much later. And Christians needed to identify themselves with some book to start with. Since Christianity evolved from Judaism, it made sense to sanctify the OT.

It was the later Church which decided what books would form part of the NT and what books would form part of the OT. And that the two together formed the Bible.

[Ariella 0]

It was the later Church which decided what books would form part of the NT and what books would form part of the OT. And that the two together formed the Bible.

It's more complex than that, because we (Jews -- I'm a Jew ...) already have the Tenakh (what Christians call "The Old Testament"). So, there was no need to have a book, they could have just pointed to the Tanakh and been done with it.

Except that, as Koroigetsuga pointed out, Christians have mistranslated the texts and so they have to be very careful to keep Christians from reading the "Old Testament" lest they start figuring things out and run off and become monotheists.

As regards the verses from the Qur'an Yonus brought regarding Abraham -- the only way a Christian could find fault with the set of verses is if they are ignorant. Here's what the Torah says for openers --

Gen 25:12 ¶ Now these [are] the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:

Gen 25:13 And these [are] the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

Gen 25:14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,

Gen 25:15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:

Gen 25:16 These [are] the sons of Ishmael, and these [are] their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.

Gen 25:17 And these [are] the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people.

Gen 25:18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that [is] before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria: [and] he died in the presence of all his brethren.

But here's the kicker --

Gen 25:1 ¶ Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah.

Gen 25:2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Gen 25:3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.

Gen 25:4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these [were] the children of Keturah.

So, it's obvious that Abraham is not just sitting around. But one of those names, Midian, shows up again later. And rather than jump all over the place, I'll let Wikipedia explain Midian.

[surfinjo 1]

The inclusion of the Old testament is to provide background context, especially the 10 Commandments.

[koroigetsuga 3]

The inclusion of the Old testament is to provide background context, especially the 10 Commandments.

Then why are there discrepancies with the way the Jews translate it. In a previous thread I have posed this same question; that for the Bible to remain "honest" dutiful christians should be willing to get the right text

How many of the fights in this part of the forum alone revolve over mistranslations of the Old Testament?

This especially problematic for those who feel the Bible is the literal word of God.

The Quran also has background information but that is included in the whole book as part of the newly revealed scripture. There is nothing in there from a previous religion's text, like the Old Testament.

I'm surprised you don't see this as a problem.

[surfinjo 1]

Then why are there discrepancies with the way the Jews translate it. .........I'm surprised you don't see this as a problem.

Most of the books in the Bible are narratives.

Some people do indeed claim to accept the entire Bible as the literal word of God. But generally these people are rather selective in their knowledge of what it contains.

Moses was given the 10 Commandments for all mankind. His successors, seeking to build a nation out of the huge numbers of peoples from so many different backgrounds, lacked faith and chose to adapt the instructions of God with their own additions to create something very different.

The people who followed Moses were indeed chosen. Chosen to deliver the 10 Commandments to the people of the world.

What resulted was an aggressive, insular nation which constantly fought and killed almost anyone. Their leaders made many claims about god's wishes which contradicted His Commandments. This was a nation built upon a heritage of supposed suffering. The result was that they continued to suffer.

If they had followed God's will their lives would have been very different, as would all our lives.

Even today, the people who call themselves Jews continue living with their suffering heritage. Though now, that suffering is mainly directed at the events of WW2. The result is the mass murders, especially in Palestine, Lebanon and increasing revulsion in much of the world.

Jesus was sent to correct this. He told us the truth of God's Commandments. He told us that what matters is what is in our hearts. He told us that our worship of God is a continuing thing, not something that we do once a week. He told us that God's will for us is to obey His Commandments and live our lives according to our conscience. He told us our relationship with God is personal and private much like our relationship with our own parents.

[sarajlici 6]

Most of the books in the Bible are narratives.

Some people do indeed claim to accept the entire Bible as the literal word of God. But generally these people are rather selective in their knowledge of what it contains.

Moses was given the 10 Commandments for all mankind. His successors, seeking to build a nation out of the huge numbers of peoples from so many different backgrounds, lacked faith and chose to adapt the instructions of God with their own additions to create something very different.

The people who followed Moses were indeed chosen. Chosen to deliver the 10 Commandments to the people of the world.

What resulted was an aggressive, insular nation which constantly fought and killed almost anyone. Their leaders made many claims about god's wishes which contradicted His Commandments. This was a nation built upon a heritage of supposed suffering. The result was that they continued to suffer.

If they had followed God's will their lives would have been very different, as would all our lives.

Even today, the people who call themselves Jews continue living with their suffering heritage. Though now, that suffering is mainly directed at the events of WW2. The result is the mass murders, especially in Palestine, Lebanon and increasing revulsion in much of the world.

Jesus was sent to correct this. He told us the truth of God's Commandments. He told us that what matters is what is in our hearts. He told us that our worship of God is a continuing thing, not something that we do once a week. He told us that God's will for us is to obey His Commandments and live our lives according to our conscience. He told us our relationship with God is personal and private much like our relationship with our own parents.

(salam)

Jews do not worship once a week. Actually, most Christians do so only on Sunday. The other six they are clamouring for war and tax cuts. Suffering is a theme in Jewish history, and for very good reason thanks to Christians. It is also a big theme in our Shia faith thanks to 1400 years of persecution. One must remember that it was the Jews who fought for monotheism and even took on the Greeks and Romans three times to rid their land of shirk.

In Judaism you are supossed to love God with all your heart and all your might, lying down and sitting...

Jesus as I remember it was a Jew before he was christened a god. You Christians, on the whole, preach peace but practice it the least.

[baqar 1,363]

The inclusion of the Old Testament is to provide background context, especially the 10 Commandments.

The major reason for keeping the OT as part of the Bible is to ensure the memory of the fact that Christianity was essentially an offshoot of Judaism. Jesus was supposed to be the Messiah promised to the Jews, not to the Confucianists. So if Judaism and its core beliefs, books and prophets were not recognised, the Messiahship of Jesus had no legs to stand on.

[ShortOfDeeds 0]

Can someone please explain to me the point of having an Old Testament?

So why have an Old Testament at all?

Why do we have an OT?

It is a record of history and the future. The OT tells us about creation. It tells us about God’s chosen people. The promises God made to Israel and mankind. The OT is God speaking to us through His prophets. The OT tells us what God expects of us. The OT tells us what He will give to mankind the last day. The OT shows us the magnificence of our Creator. None is like our God. He created all things. He has power to give life. His love and mercy is shown in the OT. The promise of a Messiah who will end all sin, war, and hate is foretold in the OT. The Messiah will end hunger. He will rule a world that is perfect. He will lead all mankind to worship the God of Israel.

Don’t we need to know our Creator?

[koroigetsuga 3]

Why do we have an OT?

It is a record of history and the future. The OT tells us about creation. It tells us about God’s chosen people. The promises God made to Israel and mankind. The OT is God speaking to us through His prophets. The OT tells us what God expects of us. The OT tells us what He will give to mankind the last day. The OT shows us the magnificence of our Creator. None is like our God. He created all things. He has power to give life. His love and mercy is shown in the OT. The promise of a Messiah who will end all sin, war, and hate is foretold in the OT. The Messiah will end hunger. He will rule a world that is perfect. He will lead all mankind to worship the God of Israel.

Don’t we need to know our Creator?

ShortOfDeeds, with all due respect, there is also another purpose for there being an Old Testament and not the Tanakh

There are mistranslations, and these mistranslations were made to make Judeo-Christianity, a religion that continues from the Jewish tradition, a reality. Isaiah 7:14 is a prime example of a text that was reworded to show that Jesus was prophecized in the old scripture

If you are going to have an Old Testament at all should not Christians be willing to rewrite the Old Testament to match how the Tanakh is translated? Its about being honest with scripture.

[satyaban 188]

Why do we have an OT?

It is a record of history and the future. The OT tells us about creation. It tells us about God’s chosen people. The promises God made to Israel and mankind. The OT is God speaking to us through His prophets. The OT tells us what God expects of us. The OT tells us what He will give to mankind the last day. The OT shows us the magnificence of our Creator. None is like our God. He created all things. He has power to give life. His love and mercy is shown in the OT. The promise of a Messiah who will end all sin, war, and hate is foretold in the OT. The Messiah will end hunger. He will rule a world that is perfect. He will lead all mankind to worship the God of Israel.

Don’t we need to know our Creator?

The "God of Israel"? Is there more than one Creator? Do not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc etc worship the same one.

Surfinjo:

"Moses was given the 10 Commandments for all mankind." I am not so sure about that. I think the Hebrews considered the commandments to apply to only affairs within their monad. Simply reading the book of Deut. you can see how they applied these commandments to outsiders, which is not at all. I don't think brutality is one of those commandments. Of course to think that these 10 commandments originated with and were exclusive to the Hebrews is incredibly ethno-centric.

Peace

Satyaban

[surfinjo 1]

I think the Hebrews considered the commandments to apply to only affairs within their monad. Simply reading the book of Deut. you can see how they applied these commandments to outsiders, which is not at all. I don't think brutality is one of those commandments. Of course to think that these 10 commandments originated with and were exclusive to the Hebrews is incredibly ethno-centric.

All of those points are certainly correct. That is the point.

"Moses was given the 10 Commandments for all mankind." I am not so sure about that.

The Commandments were give for all mankind.

It was the leaders of those who followed Moses, who lacking faith, chose to adapt the commandments and add greatly to them in order to establish their authority and an insular aggressive nation.

No leaders were appointed or suggested by God when He gave the 10 Commandments.

1 Don't worship any other god

2 Don't worship any idol

3 Don't abuse the name of God

4 Rest one day in seven

5 Honor your father and mother

6 Don't kill

7 Don't commit adultery

8 Don't steal

9 Don't lie about other people

10 Don't covet others goods or relationships.

[Son of Placid 1,449]

I guess the best answer to " Why the OT?" would be: Ask Muhammad. He's the one who said look to it for guidance and light.

The major reason for keeping the OT as part of the Bible is to ensure the memory of the fact that Christianity was essentially an offshoot of Judaism. Jesus was supposed to be the Messiah promised to the Jews, not to the Confucianists. So if Judaism and its core beliefs, books and prophets were not recognised, the Messiahship of Jesus had no legs to stand on.

Cynasism at its worst. When was Chinese philosophy ever part of the OT?

Confucius say...Huh?

Edited January 26, 2008 by Son of Placid

[koroigetsuga 3]

I guess the best answer to " Why the OT?" would be: Ask Muhammad. He's the one who said look to it for guidance and light.

That verse in the Quran has been explained a dozen times. When referencing the other revealed books it is referring to the original message, not what they have become today. Kinda like following the gospel of Jesus (pbuh), not the gospel of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Everything that we need, for muslims anyway, is in the Quran and the Sunnah, and there is nothing that is required outside of those two categories.

Why isn't anyone answering my question about mistranslations between the Tanakh and the Old Testament? For the sake of being honest with scripture, should not the Old Testament be rewritten to match with the way Jews translate the Tanakh? If your gonna have an Old Testament than shouldn't you be honest with it.

Edited January 26, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[surfinjo 1]

Why isn't anyone answering my question about mistranslations between the Tanakh and the Old Testament? For the sake of being honest with scripture, should not the Old Testament be rewritten to match with the way Jews translate the Tanakh? If your gonna have an Old Testament than shouldn't you be honest with it.

I think your question has already been answered.

Perhaps not the answer you were hoping for.

But, sadly, we are bound by honesty so it's all we can give. :!!!:

[koroigetsuga 3]

I think your question has already been answered.

Perhaps not the answer you were hoping for.

But, sadly, we are bound by honesty so it's all we can give. :!!!:

Do you believe that if you follow a religion, then it should be an honest one?

the Old Testament is not just used for background information, it is used as a way of verifying that Jesus (pbuh) was the messiah using mistranslations

Why continue allowing the mistranslations? Please answer that.

[surfinjo 1]

Do you believe that if you follow a religion, then it should be an honest one?

the Old Testament is not just used for background information,

Most of it is.

it is used as a way of verifying that Jesus (pbuh) was the messiah using mistranslations

Why continue allowing the mistranslations? Please answer that.

I doubt there are any mistranslations. It is a favourite theme of Muslims to say this. I suppose it makes it easier for their leaders to stop them reading the will of God.

Who Jesus was and is, is verified to those that accept His teachings.

Those who accept those teachings and submit themselves to the will of God, understand.

[koroigetsuga 3]

Wishful thinking is a fallacious argument

And since when was it muslims who were saying it; it the Jews who have on various occasions pointed out that their scriptures are mistranslated/misinterpreted in the Old Testament. My inquiry is simply a result of the numerous times Jews here have pointed out the discrepancies between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible.

For you to say that you doubt there are any mistranslations is unbelievable considering there are Christian apologists who have admitted it.

[ShortOfDeeds 0]

ShortOfDeeds, with all due respect, there is also another purpose for there being an Old Testament and not the Tanakh

There are mistranslations, and these mistranslations were made to make Judeo-Christianity, a religion that continues from the Jewish tradition, a reality. Isaiah 7:14 is a prime example of a text that was reworded to show that Jesus was prophecized in the old scripture

If you are going to have an Old Testament at all should not Christians be willing to rewrite the Old Testament to match how the Tanakh is translated? Its about being honest with scripture.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon...amp;Version=kjv

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

I am surprised a Muslim would deny the virgin birth. I thought Muslims excepted Jesus' birth from the virgin Mary.

When Christians, Talmud, and Midrash agree on a suffering Messiah are all 3 wrong because Rabbinic’s disagree?

The "God of Israel"? Is there more than one Creator? Do not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc etc worship the same one.

God is One. Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship the God of Israel. Why do I refer to God as the God of Israel? Because the OT says all mankind will come to the Messiah to worship the God of Israel.

I thank God for Israel because through the words written and protected through out the ages we are able to read the word of God given to His prophets. These people have managed to preserve God's word for us all.

[surfinjo 1]

For you to say that you doubt there are any mistranslations is unbelievable considering there are Christian apologists who have admitted it.

Christian apologists???

Wow. Nice turn of phrase.

Now, why don't you just get to the point?

(Or ask those who are telling you what to say if they will be so kind as to permit you to do so.)

[koroigetsuga 3]

"The truth shall set you free"

[Son of Placid 1,449]

The truth is...any/everything written by man is subject to variance. That includes writing from memory.

If there was a perfect book, there would be only one religion.

In your case that perfect religion would be called Shia? or Sunni?

Edited January 27, 2008 by Son of Placid

[koroigetsuga 3]

The truth is...any/everything written by man is subject to variance. That includes writing from memory.

If there was a perfect book, there would be only one religion.

In your case that perfect religion would be called Shia? or Sunni?

Ah shia/sunni are political issues in islam. the theology is hardly effected by them; hence why mature sunnis and shias consider each other muslims and frankly have for the past 1400 years. And as for the perfect book, yeah we have that too hence why all muslims regardless of sect have the exact same Koran. If u have seen debates in the shia/sunni section we never say this Quran says that or that Quran says that, we all reference only the one Quran. translations differ due to the bias of each writter, but the Quran is only one the world over

And what does my question have to do religion at all. I am talking about the Old Testament in the Bible which has mistranslations in it. How many times have you been here and seen Ariella or Maimonides point out mistranslations in the Bible? The reason she has almost given up debating here is because she doesn't want to continue pointing out this stuff to the likes of Daystar. Is your faith so weak that you can't accept that? Please go read the tanakh in the Hebrew Bible and see the discrepancies for yourself

Edited January 27, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[Son of Placid 1,449]

Please go read the tanakh in the Hebrew Bible and see the discrepancies for yourself

Not so easy...I'd have to learn another language first. Have you learned it yet? Do you know these discrepancies first hand?

Do you know how many discussions have been had soley over one commandment?

Thou shalt not kill.

Sounds simple enough, but others say it means Thou shalt not murder, so that means kill with intent? Humans, or all living things? Now...how do you want to distinguish living things? How many ways does Canadian law distinguish kill? Then there's discussions over watching death, see the dead, touch the dead, etc.

Silly example, but see what I mean?

I have asked Maimonides about interpretations of things, and find his answers to be very deep, as he is very knowledgable. Not that my interpretation differed so much, but it's more the approach to the passage, or the background, (culture) that seems to make more of a difference. I think half the time, the reason I interpret things differently is because I don't live in a desert, eating unleavened bread from whatever rare grains are around, and boiled fish, when available.

Jews have many rules, including not starting fires on the Sabbath. Okay, if you don't live in Canada, but today it is -23 degrees with a wind chill factor of, I dunno, but it sure is blowing. My furnace runs on natural gas, as does the majority of this city, which requires fire. If no fire is the absolute case, it means once we thaw out, we'll have to go gather up all the frozen Jews. More than that, turning the ignition on your car also creates a fire, so you can't go anywhere. The actual idea of no fire was to mean the Sabbath foods were prepared prior to the Sabbath, and cooking was done over a fire. Cooking = work. My stove is electric, so how does the "No fire on the Sabbath" apply to us today? The No work rule applies, but many things that used to be work are no longer. Does tossing a frozen pizza in an electric oven constitute work?If Thou shalt not kill is subject to so many opinions, what do we do with this?

Shia/Sunni, Predestination/freewill are not political differences. They are theological differences that come from reading the same book. The same paragraph you wrote can be said about Christians as well. You've no doubt heard the fire and brimstone Javy/Inhislove/SoyadeGloria has thrown at me. Interestingly Daystar has not. The difference is probably the maturity factor you mentioned.

Ariela's big problem here was evangelists. She just can't stand them. To a point I can relate, but it does not mean they are not also Christians which read the same books I do. The differences do not come from reading different books, but the interpretation of reading the same words in the same books. Annoying isn't it?

My faith is not weak enough to be changed by an internet site, although my understanding has often been enlightened by Jews, and Muslims since coming here.

The Quran is not "one" the world over or I would not be able to read it in english. Often I've read from the Quran, asked the reasoning behind some passages, and been told that I would understand it if I read it in the original Arabic. That means...differences. Fair enough?

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

The same can be said about the OT and the Torrah.

The OT is the wisdom of the ages. I assume this is what you consider the "Christian" Bible, as opposed to the NT which is commonly referred to as the Christian Bible.

The OT was translated from the Torrah, which was written in primitive languages that evolved as the world evolved. No way are any of our present books the "actual" words of God. First of all, the Actual words of God were audible, not written. Since the days of King James, how many words have been added to the english language, and how many of the old english words have lost their original meaning?

I can't speak for the Arabic language, but 1400 yrs ago, what was the original word for quadraphonic?

[Ariella 0]

Son of Placid,

My Arabic is miserable enough that I might as well not refer to it as "my Arabic". But what I can tell you is that the Semitic languages are special. Hebrew is referred to by Jews as "Lashon Kodesh", the Holy Language. There are concepts in Hebrew that don't even exist in other languages. Words in Hebew, like "tzedakah", that only have meaning in other Semitic language ("sadakah" in Arabic).

Hebrew is DENSE. My signature says the same thing in Hebrew as it says in Arabic -- more or less "May the Merciful One create good will between the children of Sarah and the children of Hagar" (it's intentionally reversed, for those of you following along in Arabic). Or "Can we please just get along?" Except for "can we please just get along" there is no more concise way of writing what I wrote.

What does "Bismillah" / "B'shem Adonai" mean? It means that G-d's name is G-d's reputation. It is a statement of Who G-d Is. Just as my name, Ariella, "Lioness of G-d", means that I am fierce in my devotion to G-d, that I strive for the truth of G-d the way a lioness strives, G-d's attributes of Mercy and Compassion and Justice and Truth, and all the other attributes of G-d, as attested by Jews and Muslims, are Who G-d Is.

This is completely lost when you leave the original Semitic languages because the compactness of those languages is lost, and the need to study the meaning in greater detail is lost with it.

Likewise, when we say "There is only one Torah", it means that if you start with the first letter -- bet, B'reish1t bara El-him et hashamayim v'et haretz -- and you go letter by letter, every Torah is the same. And, from what I know of the Qur'an, if you start with the first letter -- bet, Bismillah ar'Rachman ar'Rachim (apologies for any bad transliteration, my Hebrew transliteration skills have been called into question before as well) -- that letter by letter, they are also identical. You cannot say the same for the Christian texts. There are multiple "witness" for the various manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain parts others don't. From time to time a new "witness" is found that may or may not agree with the others. Evidence is found that parts of the texts are forgeries or interpolations. Snake charmers, anyone?

To understand Judaism and Islam you must turn to the original texts.

[koroigetsuga 3]

Shia/Sunni, Predestination/freewill are not political differences. They are theological differences that come from reading the same book.

NO...they are political differences; they revolve around who should have lead the muslims after the prophet died. The sunni ten sahaba vs the shia 12 imams.

They DON'T come from reading the same book otherwise sunnis/shia would disagree on the content of the Quran....but they don't.

We agree on what the Quran says. this is not like catholics and protestants having different number of books creating the totality of each individual bible. There is only one Quran that muslims follow. Different sects do not have different number of books, or have more or less verses than the other.

For example; muslims the world over consider Rashid Khalifa a lier and a fraud. Why? Because in his exegis of the Quran he removed two verses from it.

The Quran is not "one" the world over or I would not be able to read it in english. Often I've read from the Quran, asked the reasoning behind some passages, and been told that I would understand it if I read it in the original Arabic. That means...differences. Fair enough?

The original arabic version is the same the world over.

Interestingly do you know what a hafiz is. Its people who memorize the Quran. I personally have witnessed one correct a publication when he found a "nuktah", kinda like a period, was missing in one verse.

Regardless, I think I am going to give on this topic as its giving me a migraine.

Peace/Salam

[surfinjo 1]

My Arabic is miserable enough that I might as well not refer to it as "my Arabic". But what I can tell you is that the Semitic languages are special. Hebrew is referred to by Jews as "Lashon Kodesh", the Holy Language. There are concepts in Hebrew that don't even exist in other languages. Words in Hebew, like "tzedakah", that only have meaning in other Semitic language ("sadakah" in Arabic).

To understand Judaism and Islam you must turn to the original texts.

I won't argue with the point you're attempting to make, except to say that I disagree because I believe that English is the best language in the world, simply because it is so tolerant of variation and innovation. It can adapt to almost any community of peoples anywhere.

However. I am bound to point out that it is unlikely that God would deliver His Commandments to all the peoples of the world in a manner that can only be understood by a few who understand Semitic languages.. This would suggest that God intends for all of us to revere only those leaned in Semitic languages.

This is a nonsense.

When God told the people who followed Moses out of Egypt they were chosen He meant they had been chosen to deliver the Commandments. These were a diverse group of people, from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds who were united in following Moses. All 3 million + of them!

To set yourselves up as some sort of genetically superior race with exclusive access to God is astonishing. Though we've heard it before.

The claim of misunderstanding and mistranslation is a common theme among Muslims.

They point out that they all follow the same Quran. But Christians all follow the same Gospels.

The behaviour of Muslims is as varied as the behaviour of Christians.

koroigetsuga claims that Shia and Sunni consider each other Muslims. I have heard from some otherwise. I have met educated and intelligent Muslims who deny that there are different groups, Shia, Sunni and so on, claiming that there are only Muslims and some who hijack the Quran for their own ends but who are not real Muslims.

[koroigetsuga 3]

The claim of misunderstanding and mistranslation is a common theme among Muslims.

They point out that they all follow the same Quran. But Christians all follow the same Gospels.

Dude even I know that the catholic bible has more stuff in it than the protestant king james version

So christians don't follow the same gospels, and those same gospels contradict each other

the Quran has no contradictions in any testimony it makes

The behaviour of Muslims is as varied as the behaviour of Christians.

ridiculous; we have FAR less disagreements then christians

christians have various theological differences....our differences are mostly political

koroigetsuga claims that Shia and Sunni consider each other Muslims. I have heard from some otherwise. I have met educated and intelligent Muslims who deny that there are different groups, Shia, Sunni and so on, claiming that there are only Muslims and some who hijack the Quran for their own ends but who are not real Muslims.

why because you say so

all learned scholars in both sects consider each other muslims.....the average village idiot in Pakistan or in the arab states doesn't know any better, and is probably who you have been talking to

But the learned scholar, the guy who didn't just randomly pick up a Quran and start preaching, the guy who spent a decade learning about islamic theology/science/humanism/etc says that sunni/shia are muslims......the proof is in the various fatwas coming from Qum (Shia center of the world), Cairo (Sunni center of the world), etc that verify this

A knowledgeable sunni will tell you that shias are sunnis with just extra stuff like matam (which is a cultural practice mind you, not theological)....sunni comes from the word 'sunnah'; a sunni is one who follows the sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh), which both shias and sunnis do....the differences lie in who was to lead the ummah after the prophet; the shia twelve imams or the sunni ten sahabah

now there are salafis (wahabis) who think everyone else is a kaffir; but they are considered herectics by both sunnis and shias.....they are only really dominant in Saudi and frankly as Saudis slowly become more liberal the salafis lose more power.

Edited January 28, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[IloveImamHussain 164]

koroigetsuga claims that Shia and Sunni consider each other Muslims. I have heard from some otherwise.

Some Sunnis, but not all, consider us Shias infidels.

Shia/Sunni are not political differences.

NO...they are political differences; they revolve around who should have lead the muslims after the prophet died.

I agree with Son of Placid that Shia - Sunni differences are not just political. They are deeply theological. What appears to be a difference that arose at the death of the Holy Prophet is far deeper.

The Shia point of view of a God-given right of spiritual leadership for the twelve Imams after the Prophet does not exist for Sunnis.

This is not just political but deeply theological.

The sunni ten sahaba vs the shia 12 imams.

No, the ten Sahaba of the Sunnis are not what they have in place of our twelve Imams. The two entities are not related.

They are theological differences that come from reading the same book. I can't speak for the Arabic language, but 1400 yrs ago, what was the original word for quadraphonic?

But I don't agree with SoP that the Shia-Sunni differences come from reading the same Book. Ab initio, the differences were caused by the grab for power by some members of the community and justified by them by hijacking the words and intent of the Holy Prophet.

I can't speak for the Arabic language, but 1400 yrs ago, what was the original word for quadraphonic?

The concept did not exist 1400 years ago.

[koroigetsuga 3]

This is not just political but deeply theological.

once again its political because its the disagreements on who leads the ummah after the prophet

deeply theological is not the word I would use. its the hardcore guys, favouring sectarianism, who do that

No, the ten Sahaba of the Sunnis are not what they have in place of our twelve Imams. The two entities are not related.

I was giving an example

we have the 12 imams and they have the 10 sahabah promised paradise

Edited January 28, 2008 by koroigetsuga

[Abu Hurairah 1]

Son of Placid,

My Arabic is miserable enough that I might as well not refer to it as "my Arabic". But what I can tell you is that the Semitic languages are special. Hebrew is referred to by Jews as "Lashon Kodesh", the Holy Language. There are concepts in Hebrew that don't even exist in other languages. Words in Hebew, like "tzedakah", that only have meaning in other Semitic language ("sadakah" in Arabic).

Hebrew is DENSE. My signature says the same thing in Hebrew as it says in Arabic -- more or less "May the Merciful One create good will between the children of Sarah and the children of Hagar" (it's intentionally reversed, for those of you following along in Arabic). Or "Can we please just get along?" Except for "can we please just get along" there is no more concise way of writing what I wrote.

What does "Bismillah" / "B'shem Adonai" mean? It means that G-d's name is G-d's reputation. It is a statement of Who G-d Is. Just as my name, Ariella, "Lioness of G-d", means that I am fierce in my devotion to G-d, that I strive for the truth of G-d the way a lioness strives, G-d's attributes of Mercy and Compassion and Justice and Truth, and all the other attributes of G-d, as attested by Jews and Muslims, are Who G-d Is.

This is completely lost when you leave the original Semitic languages because the compactness of those languages is lost, and the need to study the meaning in greater detail is lost with it.

Likewise, when we say "There is only one Torah", it means that if you start with the first letter -- bet, B'reish1t bara El-him et hashamayim v'et haretz -- and you go letter by letter, every Torah is the same. And, from what I know of the Qur'an, if you start with the first letter -- bet, Bismillah ar'Rachman ar'Rachim (apologies for any bad transliteration, my Hebrew transliteration skills have been called into question before as well) -- that letter by letter, they are also identical. You cannot say the same for the Christian texts. There are multiple "witness" for the various manuscripts. Some manuscripts contain parts others don't. From time to time a new "witness" is found that may or may not agree with the others. Evidence is found that parts of the texts are forgeries or interpolations. Snake charmers, anyone?

To understand Judaism and Islam you must turn to the original texts.

Spot on. A arabic word for example "Ahad" Means one in English but in Arabic it also means unique in the arabic we understand this but what do we put for the english translation? Also Allah means "The God" in Arabic it is not feminian nor masculine so it has no gender and cannot be plural, translating it to merely the god in english takes away its true meaning.

I'm sure there are many examples in the Hebrew too. Again there is no logic in translating a more complex language or a different language at that and expecting the same result or meaning to be derieved (English). Its just like translating your favourite song from Japanese to English they certainly will have a difference and a far more weaker effect on the reader

Edited January 28, 2008 by Abu Hurairah

[Son of Placid 1,449]

I llearned English first, then French, and yeah there are words from each that have no actual literal word in the other language. Not disputing a word Ariela said, as a matter of fact it is exactly what I meant.

But I don't agree with SoP that the Shia-Sunni differences come from reading the same Book. Ab initio, the differences were caused by the grab for power by some members of the community and justified by them by hijacking the words and intent of the Holy Prophet.

I thought Shia, and Sunni both read the same Quran? Please explain.

If the concept of predestination is political then you have to accept whoever is in power, even if you are Shia. No, my friend, Predestination, as opposed to free will is not political. This is the big difference in theology that separates Shia/Sunni, like it separates Calvanists/Arianists. It's not in the legal books.

They DON'T come from reading the same book otherwise sunnis/shia would disagree on the content of the Quran....but they don't.

Is that a quote from original text? It doesn't make sense in english, not even sideways. If Shia and Sunni agreed, then Shia and Sunni would only be one belief. No need for the two distinct names.

[koroigetsuga 3]

I thought Shia, and Sunni both read the same Quran? Please explain.

They do.

If the concept of predestination is political then you have to accept whoever is in power, even if you are Shia. No, my friend, Predestination, as opposed to free will is not political. This is the big difference in theology that separates Shia/Sunni, like it separates Calvanists/Arianists. It's not in the legal books.

You are bringing christian concepts like predestination into a religion that outright denies there being any such thing. Imam Ali in Najul-Balagah has called the belief in predestination a satanic institution

The sunnis believe that after the prophet's death the people were supposed to select a leader via shura. The shia believe that the prophet had already assigned this leadership to Imam Ali

The starting point WAS political not theological

Is that a quote from original text? It doesn't make sense in english, not even sideways. If Shia and Sunni agreed, then Shia and Sunni would only be one belief. No need for the two distinct names.

But shias and sunnis do agree on the same Quran

That is the beauty of being muslim; no matter which sect you belong to we all have the same Quran. Same thing with the Jews whether reform, conservative, orthodox or secular they all have the same Torah.

As a christian the concept of different sects all having the same book is foreign to you