rabbinic interpretation and jewish law is neither "worship" nor "shirk"

[bananabrain]

now, i've seen this allegation repeated many times and i think it's about time we had it out properly.

2.89: And when there came to them a Book from Allah verifying that which they have, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on Kafirun.

Originally Posted by Abdullah

[in the above verse, it is very clear that Allah cursed Jews, for rejecting the Quran [which verified the Torah...] and the Prophet Muhammad [saw], and called them Kaafirs [rejectors of faith/disbelievers]. Many other versus attest to the fact that a kaafir burns in hell for all eternity [if he/she dies while still benig a kaafir]. Simmilary, who ever rejects Islam, the Quran or the prophet Muhammad [saw], will suffer the same fate...]

with all due respect, abdullah, i think you ought to be careful with your language. i don't think it's at all clear from the verse. for example, in order for us to know who "they" are, someone has to interpret the verse. and who is this "someone"? why, "scholars", of course. the scholars then become interpreters of G!D's Word. and this is all to the good, because muhammad explained it himself:

here is an explanation by the Prophet [saw] of how exactly they have taken their priests and Rabbis to be Lords [gods/partners to God] besides Allah:

On the authority of Adil Ibn Hatim [ra], it is reported that he heard the the Messenger of Allah [sm] reciting the verse:

"They [Jews and Christians] took their Rabbi's and their Priests to be their Lords besides Allah..." [Quran 9: 31]

"...and I said to him: "We don't worship them". He [the Messenger [sm]] said: "Do they not forbid what Allah has permitted you and do you not then forbid it [to yourselves]?, and do they not make permissable for you what Allah has forbidden and do you not then make it permissable [to yourselves]"?, I replied "certainly!". He [sm] said: "That is worshipping them" [Narrated by At-Tirmidhi who graded it as well-authentic [hasan]]

So it is established from these very clear sources that when people start obeying and believing others in what Allah has made haraam, as halaal and what Allah has made halaal as haraam, then that is a from of shirk, thus all non-Muslims are commiting one form of shirk or another, so according to the Quran, they will not be forgiven.

sooo, what we have here is what is known as a conundrum. apparently, it's all right for *muslim* scholars to make what is very clearly an interpretation and to pass this down as correct but, apparently, when rabbis do it they are "forbidding what G!D has permitted and permitting what G!D has forbidden". so i would like to ask the following:

a) could you please supply ONE example of something FROM MUSLIM SOURCES, whether Qur'anic or otherwise, that rabbis have permitted or forbidden where it contradicts something that G!D has said, according to MUSLIM SOURCES, elsewhere. otherwise this statement is so general as to be effectively meaningless except as a general stick to beat jews with.

b) could you please explain with reference to ONE example, how exactly following explanations of MUSLIM scholars as to what G!D actually means is different from how we jews interpret unclear pieces of sacred text. from what i know it is a very similar process.

unfortunately i don't think you people actually understand what you're implying - or at least i hope so. i know how we interpret and we would be extremely horrified if it were to be suggested that we were in any way "worshipping" rabbis - this would be just as great "shirk" to us as it would be to you. what i would like to believe is that muhammad knew better than these scholars and was referring strictly to a certain group of jews he knew locally, NOT to jews IN GENERAL. from the way the Qur'an and muslim sources describes how these local arabian jews behaved, they were either very ignorant or just plain wrong and the fact that they are described as jews may have little or nothing to do with what normative mainstream judaism actually says. in other words, these words should not be taken as applying to all jews.

there are therefore the following possibilities:

1. the Qur'an is not referring to all jews at this point
2. there is some difference in the way jews and muslims treat scholarly interpretation
3. this is incorrect reporting of what muhammad said
4. this is incorrect reporting of what jews actually do
5. this is slander

i'd like to know which it is.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[farhan]

Salam,

You will find somthing in the link below. There are a lot of other traditions where jews would come to Prophet Muhammad for decisions, & would say things different from what is/was writted in torah. But I am not able to find anything right now.

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

An important thing to mention, Islam considers Bani-Israel as "people who were supposed to establish the law of God on earth". So it always gives examples from them. If you read the 2nd surah, the whole theme is "this is what people before you did, & this is what happened to them, so you better watch out".

Although hadith literature says that muslims will do everything that people of the book did before them.

Peace

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by farhan

There are a lot of other traditions where jews would come to Prophet Muhammad for decisions, & would say things different from what is/was writted in torah.

hi farhan and thanks for responding.

well, for a start i can tell you that muhammad, not being jewish, let alone a rabbi himself, was not qualified to render decisions in halakhah, jewish religious law, therefore despite his undisputed wisdom and greatness anyone who went to him for a decision on this basis would be acting incorrectly, just as a muslim would be unlikely to come to a jewish rabbi for a decision on a point of shari'a. so that for a start tells you something about the sort of jews we are talking about.

Islam considers Bani-Israel as "people who were supposed to establish the law of G!D on earth".

hmm. well, i suppose it depends what we mean by "establish the Law of G!D". if it means are we supposed to bring everyone to live according to the Torah, then we'd certainly be failures in that because we are prohibited from evangelising, so in the strict sense, we cannot do both. if, however, it means that we are supposed to influence wider human society to act in a more ethical, moral and G!Dly way then again you could argue either that we are doing a pretty lousy job of it at the moment, or you could argue that we have done a fantastic job of it over time when you consider that many beneficial aspects of christianity are derived originally from judaism, as well as judaism having produced such towering figures as freud, einstein and marx (not to mention jesus himself) - indeed, if you dropped almost any person back into roman times, they would have more in common with a jewish person than almost anyone else in terms of their ethical and moral outlook. so, depending on what that means, precisely, we may have established it, or we may not! it depends on how you interpret the facts.

If you read the 2nd surah, the whole theme is "this is what people before you did, & this is what happened to them, so you better watch out".

OK, but does that mean *some* of the "people before you", or *all* of the "people before you"? there's an important distinction. the Torah itself does not spare the jewish people from criticism for our many sins and shortcomings.

as for the link, it's interesting. i note the first sentence:

Allah criticized the Jews who lived in Al-Madinah during the time of the Messenger of Allah .

OK - that's pretty specific. therefore surely one shouldn't generalise about "the jews" on the basis of that particular group?

We took your covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your (people), nor turn out your own people from their dwellings.) meaning, "Do not kill each other, nor expel one another from their homes, nor participate in fighting against them.''

i don't recognise this attribution - can anyone identify precisely where in the Torah is being referenced? nonetheless, i agree that according to Torah, it is clear that such action is prohibited, therefore the jews of al-madinah were breaking a number of Torah laws, which is kind of my point. however, one cannot conclude thereby that jews in general act in this manner or that jews in general would consider such behaviour permitted.

Allah mentioned that He gave Musa the Book, the Tawrah, and that the Jews changed, distorted, and defied its commands, as well as altered its meanings.

yet this is still general, not specific. which commands and meanings have been changed, distorted or defied?

And We gave `Isa, the son of Maryam, clear signs and supported him with Ruh-il-Qudus. Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant Some you disbelieved and some you killed.)

ok, but this would mean that if the Qur'an upholds the claims of christians in reard of jesus's prophethood and condemns us for not recognising him, then we would have to answer by pointing out how according to the Torah itself, he did not qualify as a) a prophet, let alone b) the messiah, in which we feel we have a pretty watertight case, because there were, as far as we were concerned, a clear *lack* of signs to qualify him.

the Children of Israel became more defiant and envious of him and did not want to differ with even one part of the Tawrah, as Allah said about `Isa, "And to make lawful to you part of what was forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a proof from your Lord"(3:50).

OK, but this doesn't make sense - on one hand we are being criticised for changing and distorting Torah, but on the other hand this chap is supposed to come along and "make lawful to you part of what was forbidden" and that *isn't* changing, distorting or defying Torah? the Torah itself says that one of the signs of a false prophet is that he 'commands what is not commanded by the Torah and permits what is not permitted' - so if someone makes something lawful, how is that to be distinguished from defying G!D's Law?

Hence, the Children of Israel treated the Prophets in the worst manner, rejecting some of them and killing some of them. All of this occurred because the Prophets used to command the Jews with what differed from their desires and opinions.

this is also confused reasoning. certainly this occurred with many of the prophets, but it was *not* because the prophets were in conflict with the Torah - far from it, they were its custodians in our own intermittent times of jahiliya - it was because the people themselves were in conflict with the Torah. so for this accusation to hold water you would have to show that the jews of the time of jesus were in conflict with the Torah and, given that this is the time of the great interpreters, the tannaim and amoraim who form the basis of all post-Temple judaism, you'd have to show that they didn't know Torah interpretation properly and frankly, that beggars belief. besides, at this point, prophecy had ceased, so either you're talking about the prophetic period or the rabbinic period - they didn't intersect for more than about a hundred years or so if that.

it is also incorrect (as well as offensive) to state that it was us who killed the guy when in fact it was the roman authorities who did so - otherwise we'll have to go back to the gospel descriptions of jesus' trial, which would not have passed muster as bona fide sanhedrin procedure, but a mere kangaroo court. i might even also point out that it is pretty arrogant to try and blame the jews for not embracing jesus' messiahship and prophethood when the Qur'an itself dismisses the crucifixion and the resurrection.

in short, it is quite simply not sufficient to say "the jews". which jews? when? where? in a nation with a 3500-year history, you quite simply cannot make sweeping statements about the entire group in this way.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

I am curious about something.

In 1492 the Catholic leaders took Andalusia and removed the Muslim Caliphate. The Muslims, together with the Jews fled, as one community, to North Africa. I believe these Jews are now called the Sephardim? Perhaps you believe these Muslums did not understand the Quran?

Did not Caliph Umar (pbuh) forbid the destruction of Christian and Jewish religious sites, when he conquered Jerusalem? Surely if these sites were used for purposes of shirk, he would have destroyed them? Also, did he not bring a number of Jewish families to live in his community when the Jews were expelled from Tiberias by the Romans?

I am simply curious how you think that one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (pbut), who had personally spent so much time with the Prophet Mohmmad (pbuh), had such little understanding of the Quran, in that he would protect 'infadels' and allow them to commit shirk in the Muslim community?

In my opinion, to say anyone from the Book, commits shirk is to take upon yourself the judgment reserved for Allah Himself. Nobody knows what any Jew believes, how he/she prays, what is in their hearts. This is for G-d alone to judge. I shall leave the last word for Allah, if you wish to argue this topic with Him, I wish you the best of luck:

002.062YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

I see nothing in that verse, or any following verse, that suggests this only refers to those before the coming of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), surely it would have been easy for Allah to put the words "those who USED to believe"..

Salaam

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

In 1492 the Catholic leaders took Andalusia and removed the Muslim Caliphate. The Muslims, together with the Jews fled, as one community, to North Africa.

actually, it's not quite as simple of that. the non-christians were given a choice: convert or leave. a large number (100,000 jews and a similar number of muslims) chose to stay and convert, a large number of whom continued to practice their original faith in secret. many jews also went to portugal where, unfortunately they were subsequently expelled less than a century later as a condition of the portuguese king marrying into the spanish royal family.

I believe these Jews are now called the Sephardim?

that is correct. my father's family are sephardim. many people like to go on about the supposed golden age when the muslims were running things in spain, but it certainly wasn't all wine, roses and poetry. periodically the jews were subject to persecution, such as under the almoravids and almohads, the salafists of their day.

Did not Caliph Umar (pbuh) forbid the destruction of Christian and Jewish religious sites, when he conquered Jerusalem? Surely if these sites were used for purposes of shirk, he would have destroyed them?

i presume this question is not pointed at me!

Also, did he not bring a number of Jewish families to live in his community when the Jews were expelled from Tiberias by the Romans?

er, i doubt it. the romans banished jews from judea after the second jewish war in the C2nd, several hundred years before the time of umar. you might mean the byzantines or someone, but probably not the romans.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

actually, it's not quite as simple of that. the non-christians were given a choice: convert or leave. a large number (100,000 jews and a similar number of muslims) chose to stay and convert, a large number of whom continued to practice their original faith in secret. many jews also went to portugal where, unfortunately they were subsequently expelled less than a century later as a condition of the portuguese king marrying into the spanish royal family.

Sorry BB i was just trying to demonstrate that there have been many times in our past that Jews and Muslims have travelled and lived together in peace. So this 'hatred' of Jews is rather a modern and distasteful trend.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that is correct. my father's family are sephardim. many people like to go on about the supposed golden age when the muslims were running things in spain, but it certainly wasn't all wine, roses and poetry. periodically the jews were subject to persecution, such as under the almoravids and almohads, the salafists of their day.

Has any period of any cultures history been all wine, roses and poetry? Muslims have and continue to commit some brutal acts but that is the failing of man, we desire power above all.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i presume this question is not pointed at me!

Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

er, i doubt it. the romans banished jews from judea after the second jewish war in the C2nd, several hundred years before the time of umar. you might mean the byzantines or someone, but probably not the romans.

Sorry I was a bit miffed and got carried away. I had done a very long post then decided to shorten it and got mixed up. I cannot find the site I got the info from but found this in Wiki:

Umayyad Period 638–750 CE
In 638 CE, the Christians of Jerusalem surrendered to the conquering armies of the Caliphate (Islamic Empire) under Caliph (Emperor) Umar, the second of the initial four Rashidun Caliphs.
Umar allowed seventy families from Tiberias in Galilee to move to Jerusalem to live.
In Arabic, the area approximating the Byzantine Diocese of Palaestina I in the south (roughly Judea, Philistia, and southern Jordan) was called Filastin, and the Diocese of Palaestina II in the north (roughly Samaria, Galilee, Golan, and northern Jordan) Jordan.
In 661 CE, with the assassination of Ali, the last of the Rashidun Caliphs, Muawiyah I became the uncontested Caliph and founded the Ummayad Dynasty

I was simply trying to demostrate that this modern "hate the Jews" does not sit well with our own history. If Umar, a Rightly Guided Caliph and Companion of the Prophet, allowed Jews to move to the city he lived in, then where does this 'hate all Jews' attitude come from. Are people saying the Caliph Umar went against the Quranic teaching they claim forbids friendship or trust of Jews?

Salaam
MW

[Abdullah]

Hi bananabrain

Sorry my answer is a bit late; I had a problem with my computer, just got it fixed...

A well established principle in Islam, is that, although certain verses refers to specific circumstances, but yet the specific gives way to the general in terms of the basic message it gives and principle it establishes...

So although that verse refers to the Jews of Madinah during the time of the Prophet [saw], but yet the principle derived from it, i.e, that to reject the message of Islam is to invoke the curse of Allah on one and to become rejectors of the one and only true faith, applies generally.

There is indeed difference from what Islam teaches and how the Jews themselves interpret their religion.

According to the Quran, the Jews have distorted the original teachings that was revealed to Moses [as] and are passing these distortions off as the uncorrupted teachings of the Torah:

“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.â€� (The Qur’an, 2:77-79)

Tafsir of As-Suyuti of above verse:

...And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon; and, in their rejection of the prophethood of the Prophet and fabrications of other matters, they have, mere conjectures, and no firm knowledge.

So woe, a severe chastisement, to those who write the Scripture with their hands, that is, fabricating it themselves, then say, 'This is from God' that they may sell it for a small price, of this world: these are the Jews, the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in the Torah, as well as the 'stoning' verse, and other details, and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed. So woe to them for what their hands have written, of fabrications, and woe to them for their earnings, by way of bribery (rishan, plural of rishwa).

Altafsir.com – The Tafsirs - ÇáÊÝÇÓíÑ

Also, according to Islam, People are required to accept whatever New Messenger and new revelation that God sends to them, and if they dont, then they go out of Gods religion, although they may consider themselves to be true to the previous Messenger and revelation, for any New Messenger is from God and new revelations affirm/reform/abrogate... old ones.

So according to Islam, for the fact that the Jews have rejected Isa 'as' [Jesus pbuh] and the prophet Muhammad [saw], and the latest revelation form Allah; the Holy Quran; this takes them out of the truth and renders them disbeleivers/rejectors of faith:

4:150-151. Lo! those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.

I think the reason why it is considered in Islam that to accept the laws of man [regarding the lawfull and unlawfull] that are contrary to the laws of Allah, is a form of shirk, is because such an acceptance is to regard the human legislators as independent 'Lawmakers/lawgivers', and as only God is the 'Lawgiver' [even Prophets merely established laws which Allah commanded them and inspired them to], thus this may be considered to be tantamount to accepting those humans as deities. Also, such an accepetance could be considered to be 'obeying man' in the sense in which people should be obeying God [in the worship sense], thus these two comparisons may effectively render such an act to be shirk

And regarding the authenticity of that hadith; it is verry clearly in accordance with the Quran [they took their rabbi's and their priests to be lords besides Allah 9:31]... so on what basis should we consider the hadith not authentic?

Hope that helps

Peace.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

i was just trying to demonstrate that there have been many times in our past that Jews and Muslims have travelled and lived together in peace. So this 'hatred' of Jews is rather a modern and distasteful trend.

i would say there have been many times that jews and muslims have co-existed more or less peacefully. all i am saying is that the framework of the dhimma, not to mention the provisions of the Pact of Umar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, (yes, the rightly-guided one) of which you have no doubt heard, will not be acceptable to jews in a modern context - i don't imagine you would consider it acceptable that i not be allowed to sit in front of a muslim, or build a synagogue, be prevented from showing my religion in public, or be forced to wear distinctive dress. during the mythical "convivencia" of al-andalus, these provisions were generally not enforced, but they were still there in the background. we coexisted as subjects of the muslim ruler, not as equal citizens with the muslims - and that is a *big* difference. personally, i'm not about to turn the clock back. the best thing that can be said about jewish life under islam, historically speaking, is that we were not persecuted and subject to pogroms until european anti-semitism began to be imported after the C18th. sorry if this sounds a bit huffy, it isn't meant to be.

Originally Posted by Abdullah

There is indeed difference from what Islam teaches and how the Jews themselves interpret their religion.

hmm. i was always of the opinion that it was for people to define themselves, not for others to define us.

According to the Quran, the Jews have distorted the original teachings that was revealed to Moses [as] and are passing these distortions off as the uncorrupted teachings of the Torah:

but what actual evidence is there for this other than "the Qur'an appears to say so" - i mean, has anyone yet produced *one* teaching of Torah which has been corrupted? has anyone yet produced the "original" teachings?

And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

and who is this supposed to refer to? surely not the sages of the Talmud? i can believe it refers to the jews of arabia, but cannot see how it can be fairly applied to jews in general.

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

and how do we know that this "those" is not a completely different group of people from the "illiterates"? surely "illiterates" couldn't have written the Book (which book? it doesn't say!) with their own hands? and surely the whole argument could just as easily apply to muslims distorting the message of the Qur'an?

as for mr tafsir of as-suyuti:

And there are some of them, the Jews, that are illiterate, unlettered, not knowing the Scripture, the Torah, but only desires, lies which were handed down to them by their leaders and which they relied upon;

again, you can hardly make this a general accusation against all jews when it is obvious to all that we are not short of rather learned scholars in Torah. therefore it must apply to a specific group.

these are the Jews, the ones that altered the description of the Prophet in the Torah, as well as the 'stoning' verse, and other details, and rewrote them in a way different from that in which they were revealed.

so what this appears to be saying is that there were jews who knew about muhammad being prophesied in the Torah (!) and then systematically wrote him out of it? and when was this supposed to have happened? and how were they supposed to have perpetrated this fraud throughout the jewish world, two thousand years before islam was revealed? you don't think this sounds a bit, well, far-fetched for a bunch of unlettered illiterates?

Also, according to Islam, People are required to accept whatever New Messenger and new revelation that God sends to them

so when it says in the Torah that G!D's covenant and the Law will be for the jewish people "forever", it actually means until G!D sends a new revelation? why not send a decent revelation in the first place? do you know just how many people still turn up claiming to be prophets? we've even had one here at CR!

although they may consider themselves to be true to the previous Messenger and revelation, for any New Messenger is from God and new revelations affirm/reform/abrogate... old ones.

well, i'm sure that's all very convenient, particularly as you would presumably agree with us that any *new* prophets that show up now (take baha'ullah for example, or mirza ghulam ahmad, or joseph smith) are not true prophets and they can't abrogate your religion because your prophet was the last prophet and so on and so forth? that's what the christians said too, about muhammad - they said that *their* revelation was the last one anyone would ever need. and yet:

Lo! those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers, and seek to make distinction between Allah and His messengers, and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and seek to choose a way in between; Such are disbelievers in truth; and for disbelievers We prepare a shameful doom.

see - that's what you said, too, when the baha'i came along. but where does anyone get off claiming that their religion makes other people's religion obsolete? jews don't say that of judaism and that is why we are different - yet we are the ones being accused of distortion? it beggars belief. how insulting. go talk to a mormon, why don't you? i am sure they believe their revelation reforms and abrogates yours. and as far as i am concerned you can all get in the queue because we don't need any of you to tell us who we are. thus it has been for 3000 years - surely if G!D had plans for us to disappear the persians, greeks, romans and europeans would have succeeded. yet here we remain - 'am yisra'el [u]hai![/i]

such an acceptance is to regard the human legislators as independent 'Lawmakers/lawgivers', and as only God is the 'Lawgiver' [even Prophets merely established laws which Allah commanded them and inspired them to], thus this may be considered to be tantamount to accepting those humans as deities. Also, such an acceptance could be considered to be 'obeying man' in the sense in which people should be obeying God [in the worship sense], thus these two comparisons may effectively render such an act to be shirk

the trouble with this argument, abdullah, is that it's unworkable, because it is impossible to tell with any degree of certainty where the Divine Law stops and the "manmade" law starts. consider the caliph - if he issues a decree based on the Qur'an and the sunnah and the hadith and all of that, yet it uses words and explanations and interpretations that are not used in those sources and it applies to a situation that is not explicitly mentioned in those sources, how can we say with any degree of certainty that this is "manmade" and not "Divine"? "ah," but you'll say, "well, the scholars will decide, based on their knowledge", to which i would reply, "ah, but how do we know that the scholars' knowledge is 100% Divine and not manmade?" unless we concede that humans can, with 100% reliability, interpret the mind of G!D, which i personally would consider absurd, we cannot draw a line between that which comes from a Divine Source and that which is "manmade", and therefore we must at some point TRUST A HUMAN TO DO SOME INTERPRETING. this principle was established explicitly for us long ago: "[the Torah] is not in Heaven".

i stand by my objection: if we are taking our rabbis and priests to be "lords beside Allah", G!D forbid, then you are doing the same with your muftis, qadis and imams, including mr tafsir of as-suyuti. i put it to you that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as we say in the UK.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i would say there have been many times that jews and muslims have co-existed more or less peacefully. all i am saying is that the framework of the dhimma, not to mention the provisions of the Pact of Umar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, (yes, the rightly-guided one) of which you have no doubt heard, will not be acceptable to jews in a modern context - sorry if this sounds a bit huffy, it isn't meant to be.

Shalom BB

I don't see it as huffy at all. All I was saying is that we should all concentrate on the times of peace and see that we are not taught to hate en-mass. I do not imagine that Muslims and Jews treated each other in ways that would be seen as acceptable in todays world but that could be said of any society 1400 years ago. I just keep hearing this "the Quran says to hate Jews" line and fail to see how so many important Muslims in history managed to miss this teaching, that was my only point.

Salaam
Sally

[Abdullah]

Just a quick note on 'hate' in islam:

Regarding hating the infidels, the hate is only for the actions [that are contrary to Allah's religion] of the infidels and not hate directed towards the humans themselves.

So we hate the sins, but not the sinner.

Peace.

[Abdullah]

Peace bananabrain

The above quoted verse refers to two types of Jews; the illiterates and the educated leaders. Tafsir Ibn Kathir explians it more elaborately:

78. And there are among them (Jews) `Ummyyun (unlettered) people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon Amani (false desires) and they but guess.) (79. Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah,'' to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.)

Allah said,

(And there are among them Ummyyun people) meaning, among the People of the Book, as Mujahid stated. Ummyyun, is plural for Ummi, that is, a person who does not write, as Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ar-Rabi`, Qatadah, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others said. This meaning is clarified by Allah's statement,

(Who know not the Book) meaning, are they not aware of what is in it.

Ummi was one of the descriptions of the Prophet because he was unlettered.
Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah's statement,

(But they trust upon Amani) means, "It is just a false statement that they utter with their tongues.'' It was also said that Amani means `wishes and hopes'. Mujahid commented, "Allah described the Ummiyyin as not understanding any of the Book that Allah sent down to Musa, yet they create lies and falsehood.'' Therefore, the word Amani mentioned here refers to lying and falsehood. Mujahid said that Allah's statement,

(And they but guess) means, "They lie.'' Qatadah, Abu Al-`Aliyah and Ar-Rabi` said that it means, "They have evil false ideas about Allah.''

Allah said,

(Then Waylun (woe) to those who write the book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah,'' to purchase with it a little price!).

This is another category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people's property. `Waylun (woe)' carries meanings of destruction and perishing, and it is a well-known word in the Arabic language. Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.'' This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The little amount here means this life and all that it contains.''
Allah's statement,

(Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby) means, "Woe to them because of what they have written with their own hands, the lies, falsehood and alterations. Woe to them because of the property that they unjustly acquired.'' Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas commented,


(Woe to them), "Means the torment will be theirs because of the lies that they wrote with their own hands,

(And woe to them for that they earn thereby), which they unjustly acquired from people, be they commoners or otherwise.''

Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir

[bananabrain]

that's all very well, abdullah, but you're just repeating yourself. i know what you're saying, but my point is that it *doesn't make sense to apply it to all jews* given that we know more about our own Book than anyone else does. bukhari may be an authority on reported speech but that doesn't mean that what he is reporting was accurate in the first place and consequently, any statement about "the jews" should be appropriately qualified.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Abdullah]

If there was any Jew who followed the original Torah, he would have accepted Jesus [pbuh] as a Messenger and Muhammad [saw] too and thereby converted to a Muslim. And they wouldn't have regarded the stoning verse to be obsolete.

Peace.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Abdullah

So we hate the sins, but not the sinner.

What a shame then that this so often manifests itself as hatred for the sinner, even amongst our own.


BB

You must remember that the stoning verse, which is also not in the Quran, must be adhered to. Just because a goat ate our stoning verse doesn't mean it should be forgotten. Ahem.

BB did you make the mistake of going to a synagogue to learn about the Torah instead of to a mosque?

Adbullah have you ever noticed how many misconceptions people hold about Islam? Have you ever asked yourself whether maybe we hold the same misconceptions about BB's religion? Perhaps we, as Muslims, should be asking about their beliefs rather than stating them?! Just a thought.

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Adbullah have you ever noticed how many misconceptions people hold about Islam? Have you ever asked yourself whether maybe we hold the same misconceptions about BB's religion? Perhaps we, as Muslims, should be asking about their beliefs rather than stating them?! Just a thought.

Salaam sis

That is a good thought sis, but however one thing should be taken into consideration before we compare the cause of misinformation:

The misinformation about Islam is generally due to propaganda, lies, distortion, spin, astray Muslims, etc, but our view on the ahle kithab is based on the Quran and Sunnah [the two most authentic and reliable source of evidence in the world], so whereas information from the former source is utterly unreliable, there is no more concrete evidence than the latter.

Salaam