These questions were sent by some Christian missionaries intending to distort the image of Islam and challenge Muslims thereby. Undoubtedly, their attempts were in vain for they behaved like a naive man who strikes a piece of steel with his. It is noteworthy that the challenge of these Christian missionaries was supported by the following two factors:.
Generally speaking, when knowledge adheres to whims, it will be more harmful than ignorance itself. In so doing, they would defame the image of Islam.
Internal consistency of the Bible
Rather, what they used to acquire from Western women who wanted to know Islam presented their unawareness of the characteristics of Islam, even unwillingly and with good intention. Log in. Click to enlarge. Next product. It is noteworthy that the challenge of these Christian missionaries was supported by the following two factors: i Those missionaries have gotten partial knowledge of Islam, which, in turn, led them astray. They shouldered the task of defending Islam due to the lack of outstanding scholars in their countries.
Their shortcomings, however, were revealed in many aspects. Following are some of these They were not well-acquainted with their status quo as well as their beliefs. Add to wishlist. Additional information Additional information Weight 0. Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest linkedin Telegram. Related products. In this book, the author mentions ten odd doubts from the people Shirk and answers them with excellent answers, relying upon textual proof along with a easily comprehensible meaning and clear expression.
I ask Allah to reward him for that and to benefit the servants through it. Indeed, Allah is capable of all things. Add to basket. Quick View. By Shaykh Ubayd Al-Jabiri. Exemplary Principles Concerning The Beautiful Names Of Allah The pristine beliefs of the early Muslims are preserved in this vitally important masterpiece written by one of the most outstanding scholars of our time. Seven clear principles and their evidences from the Book and the Sunnah guide the reader through the confusion and false claims of the ignorant to the clarity of belief in Allah's Names accomplished by the righteous early scholars of Islam.
Seven more principles and their evidences follow, giving the reader firm understanding of the correct beliefs about Allah's Attributes. Four more principles outline the correct approach in studying the related proofs and evidences. All of this leads the reader into an enthralling series of refutations of the false notions of the Ash'aree sect, a text-by-text breakdown of how and why they went wrong in a careful and precise study of fifteen texts from the Book and the Sunnah. It is crystal clear from this that Muhammad assumes that the scriptures in the hands of the Jews were genuine and authentic.
Again if Muhammad and the Quran had clearly taught for 23 years that the Torah was textually corrupted then this affirmation by early Muslim scholars that the Torah was textually sound is incomprehensible. As we have shown, in the upside down mind of Roudh, day is night and night is day and if they are not then the twain shall always meet. When Muslims refer to the Torah, they are certainly not referring to the extant Old Testament that comprises a number of works, by both known and unknown authors, which contain blasphemous and heretical theological beliefs and concepts. And when Muslims refer to the Gospel, they are certainly not referring to the extant New Testament and its 27 books comprising of works ascribed to authors unknown and Paul of Tarsus, whose apostleship Muslims reject.
Thus, we reject the four Gospels ascribed to four pseudonymous authors since we believe in only a single Gospel revealed by God and disseminated by one man only: Jesus, son of Mary who is not considered the Son of God nor part of the fictitiously illogical concept of a Triune God-head. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.
There he goes again with his eisegesis; and here we come with the correct exegesis. But sorrow thou not over these people without Faith. The above verses urge the Jews and Christians to follow the guidance of their respective scriptures. So which scriptures were available to the Jews and Christians that the Quran was telling them to abide by? This simple argument is sufficient in refuting Roudh. The Christians are being urged to follow the remnants of truth from the original source, i. Since the Quran can only be referring to a scripture that the Christians were able to access, we must determine which scripture this was.
Also it needs to be said that there is absolutely no evidence that a single Gospel revealed by God and disseminated by one man only: Jesus, … has ever existed. Muslims need to produce some evidence for this book as it is not credible that it has disappeared without trace. The absence of such a source does not necessarily infer that no such source existed. To the contrary, New Testament scholars have inferred the existence of a hitherto undiscovered source for at least two Gospels, viz.
For example, renowned New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, states:. Q then is the source of material found in Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. This material appears to have come from a lost Gospel accessible to the two later Gospel writers. We do not know everything that was in Q or that was not in Q , but whenever Matthew and Luke agree word for word on a story not found in Mark, it is thought to came from Q. So Mark and Q are our two earliest sources. Matthew used one or more other written or oral sources for his Gospel, and these we call Matthean sources , or M.
The sources for material special to Luke we call L. These are our earliest materials for reconstructing the life of Jesus. We would, therefore, invite him to further studies in this subject by suggesting the following website as a starting point to what scholars over the past century have said regarding The Lost Sayings Gospel Q. Similarly we need to know which scripture the Quran is telling the Jews to follow. This cannot be the nonexistent Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was textually corrupted not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible because the Jews could not follow a book that did not exist.
So what scriptures were available to the Jews and Christians in the seventh century? The historical records attest that the only scriptures available to these Jews and Christians were the Jewish Bible or the Torah and the New Testament. This also means that the Quran confirmed the scriptures in the possession of Jews and Christians today.
In addition, we can also confirm that there exists evidence in the historical tradition of Islam to suggest that the Torah in the hands of the Jewish community in Arabia during the time of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him must have gone through some textual corruption given that it differs to the Torah we have today. Islamic traditions cannot be given greater credence than the findings of independent and unbiased historians and scholars who have no theological axes to grind, regardless of how authentic these traditions are, or it would beg the question.
Given that there is no evidence to prove that the presence of bias resulted in Islamic sources being inaccurate or unfair when chronicling historical accounts and findings, this is nothing short of a cheap ad hominem attack. In these scrolls we have the manuscripts of the Jewish bible which date to about a thousand years earlier B.
The full copy of Isaiah that was discovered was word for word identical with the standard Hebrew bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations. Ron Rhodes. The alleged reliability of the Hebrew Bible dating back only years before Jesus does not account for the remaining approximately years extending back to the time of the first book of the Torah, Genesis.
It is a hasty generalisation to claim that because reliability allegedly exists from BC to AD that this is also true of the time between BC and BC. Hence, there is no reason to say that corruption could not have occurred during this period of years. Although it is true that complete copies of Isaiah were found in Qumran, this is not the case with the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible.
For example, the Book of Esther was not present among the finds, while only fragments were found accounting for all the other remaining books. According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:. Even looking to the book of Isaiah, to simplistically suggest that this book has arrived to us in its complete and unadulterated form directly from Prophet Isaiah is nothing but wishful thinking. Hence, literary criticism has long since proved that the Book of Isaiah falsely attributed to the Prophet of the same name was, for centuries, incrementally added to and changed in response to whatever expediential theological points required inclusion.
Take the example of the Book of Psalms. In the Hebrew scripture, however, the Book of Psalms comprises songs many of which are written by anonymous authors while others are attributed to other than David. German theologian, Johann Peter Lange, provided a tabulation of the songs which we have further broken down statistically:. By his overly ambitious reasoning, all the contents of the Psalms must be attributed to David; yet Biblical scholars have acknowledged that the Book of Psalms again shows the same signs of adultery and corruption as the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
Roudh cannot have his cake and eat it. Now if there were predictions of Muhammad then we would expect to find evidence for these in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. All the extant manuscripts of the Jewish bible which were written during and after the time of Jesus would contain traces of such prophecies since all of these manuscripts virtually read the same, and no variant reading questions the textual integrity of the Jewish bible.
Allegations in some Islamic traditions that the Torah contained references to Muhammad which were later corrupted are not only contradicted by other authentic traditions but by the Quran, early Muslim scholars and most importantly by the manuscript evidence. The Old Testament, written originally in Hebrew with a portion of Daniel in Aramaic , was translated into Greek about two hundred years before the time of Christ.
The Septuagint as this translation came to be known was likewise widely disseminated. Its complete consistency with the Massoretic text of the Old Testament, right down to this day, testifies to the authenticity of the Old Testament centuries before the times of both Jesus and Muhammad. John Gilchrist. We know what the Torah in the hands of the Arabian Jews looked like before Muhammad claimed to be a prophet as we have extant copies of the Torah written at various times and places, some of which predate Jesus as well as Muhammad. It does not logically follow that because certain manuscripts have survived from certain regions that this must also be true of all regions.
None of these copies contained the passages mentioned by the hadiths quoted by Zawadi. Again, it is a hasty generalisation to claim that all the copies of the Torah of that time were the same by dismissing, without any credible and objective justification, historical evidence that suggests the opposite.
Credible because Roudh says it is? Where is the proof that the Muslims of that time attempted to search for these prophecies, but failed to do so? Could it not be possible that they simply did not bother wasting their precious time in search of said prophecies? Ironically for Roudh, Muslims at a later date have forwarded examples from the Bible they believe to be accurate descriptions of their Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Even if we assume for arguments sake that the Arabian Jews removed these references to Muhammad from their Torah then how do you explain the absence of these references from the copies of the Torah which were in the possession of Jews and Christians in the rest of the world?
How do you explain the absence of these references from the copies of the Torah that predate Muhammad? You cannot if you do not consider them to be absent! There is nothing in said hadiths to suggest that all the descriptions of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him from all the Torahs were removed.
Although Roudh seems to have correctly acknowledged that these prophetic traditions are restricted to the Jews of Arabia, he then falsely attempts to over state his case by suggesting that they must have been absent from all others. It would not be possible for prophecies of Muhammad to have been removed since this would require that the Jews and Christians have access to all the Biblical manuscripts all over the then known world in order to remove these alleged predictions.
This would further mean that the Jews and Christians would have to know of Muhammad beforehand and also agree to come together in order to corrupt their writings so as to remove any mention him. But their basic beliefs are so different this suggestion is not even worthy of consideration.
To accomplish this without leaving any trace of evidence would have required a miracle. It would have only been possible for the Jews to remove prophecies of Muhammad after they came to know him i. That is the whole point; the Jews residing in Arabia, who were settled in Arabia for so long that they were independently autonomous and self-sufficient, attempted to expunge the descriptions from only the Torah in their possession.
But if they removed these references after coming to know him we could easily expose their corruption by comparing copies of the Torah that were written prior to the coming of Muhammad with those that were written after him. This claim is predicated on the assumption that such copies have survived; otherwise we are effectively left with the historical accounts of Muslims which, as seen earlier, Roudh summarily dismisses simply because they are from the Muslims.
When comparing these copies what we find is that copies of the Jewish bible written before Muhammad are essentially the same and are almost identical to the copies that were written after him. What copies?! If Roudh is hiding away an extant copy of the Torah belonging to the Jews of Madinah, now would be the time to reveal it to us and, more importantly, the rest of the world. The writers of the Christian scriptures New Testament also claimed that the Jewish Bible contains numerous verses that are prophecies of Jesus, but the Jews did not remove these verses from their Bible.
With regards to this consider the following:. One of the great themes of the New Testament is that the covenant recorded in its pages which came through the revelation of Jesus Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, the Scripture of the Jewish peoples which was completed at least four centuries before Jesus was born. In Psalm 2.
Both these texts are quoted in Hebrews 1. To this day the relevant texts remain in the Old Testament, the cherished Scripture of the Jews, a people who no more believe that God has a Son than the Muslims do. The doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God is as vehemently rejected by the Jews as it is by the Muslims, even more so by the Jews as they do not believe in Jesus at all, whereas the Muslims at least acknowledge that he was a true prophet. The fact that the Jews did not remove these texts also strongly argues against the charge that Jews removed references to Muhammad from their scriptures.
It does not follow that because the Jews did not remove the Prophecies of Jesus, they had no reason to remove any prophecies of Muhammad. A question for Roudh to ponder over is what purpose would it have served the Jews of Madinah to attempt to remove the prophecies of Jesus? However, with the advent of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him , they had every reason to attempt this extirpation.
- Good Argumentation With the Doubters of Islam – IBCI!
- Good Argumentation with the Doubters of Islam.
- Navigation menu?
- Good Argumentation with the Doubters of Islam by Quraan and Sunnah - Issuu.
- Internal consistency of the Bible.
If a description of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him were pointed out to them, they would have found very little excuse to reject him as a Prophet thereafter? With regard to this issue consider also the following quotes that were taken from a Christian website.
However, this refers more to interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the sacred books. The problem of alteration tahrif needs further study. Brenner and S. Ricks, The University of Denver, , p. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text.
Download or Print
Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their books and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious. These explanations directly contradict the explicit historical accounts that suggest otherwise. However, this again is a false assumption because there could have been any number of other plausible reasons for them to think otherwise.
For example, perhaps they were willing to take the risk; perhaps they could not have cared less what their non-Arab coreligionists might have accused them of; perhaps the Torah being in the hands of their Rabbinical elite and, thus, not readily available to the lay, as was often the case with Jewish and Christian communities and their respective scriptures, made them believe they would not be exposed. With this in mind, it would be inconceivable to entertain the notion that the leaders of these Arab Jews were capable of conspiring to change all the Torahs of the world.
There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except Allah. It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his messenger Muhammad to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this command from their copies , that is why they covered up the stoning verse while they were reading it to the prophet.
It was then when Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the Jews. Also, whenever the prophet would ask them the Jews concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were not able to remove them either , and they would respond by stating that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet in their Torah. So again we find more Muslims scholars who were unable to believe that the Torah has been textually corrupted.
Zawadi appears unable to allow for the possibility that the hadiths he quoted may have been fabricated despite the fact they contradict all the evidence. The leaders of the Jews in Medina erased the descriptions and traits of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah, and they wrote other traits and descriptions. And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but see therein their own desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. There is nothing in the verse to imply that it was the illiterates who wrote the book with their own hands, i.
In fact, when we take this issue in context, which, lo and behold, Roudh has again failed to do, we find the following to be the case. We cursed them and made their hearts grow hard. He then quotes Mujahid as saying:. It goes without saying that it was the literate scholars or leaders of the Jews who achieved this feat, not of course the illiterates. That is, another category of people other than the illiterate ones Arabic: ummiyyoon mentioned in the previous verse. This verse is accusing a section of the Jews of fabricating verses for the purpose of selling them off as divine scripture.
What it does not say is that they were corrupting the text of the Jewish Bible. In addition the Quran also recognises righteous Jews who obviously would not corrupt their scriptures. For them is a reward with their Lord, and Allah is swift in account. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in emulation in all good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.
You cannot hide, distort, twist, misinterpret or even sell a book you no longer have access to. Why does Allah condemn the Jews for doing this to a book if it was already corrupted beyond recognition and not even worth reading? And why do the Jews need to distort, twist, conceal and misinterpret a book if it was already hopelessly corrupted? Firstly, what makes Roudh believe that the Jews did not have access to their distorted scripture?
We have already furnished evidence to show that the Jews came to Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and attempted to cover with their hands the verses in reference to the punishment of adultery in their book. How can anyone physically cover up inaccessible scriptures? Secondly, who said it was not worth reading for the Jews? More importantly, why does Roudh persistently insist on resorting to eisegesis in constructing his false arguments?
As stated before, the Jewish scripture was not so hopelessly corrupted that it did not contain elements of truth, such as, descriptions of the Prophet or the punishment for adultery. Hence, the remnants of truth allows for the possibility of further corruption, such as the Madinan Jews attempt in expunging the descriptions of the Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Why make such a hard job of it? If this is what he was really trying to tell us then he has certainly managed to fool me, not to mention his prophet, many Muslim scholars and probably all of the non-Muslims who have studied this matter.
There is nothing difficult in this regard save for those who have very little understanding and consistently resort to eisegesis. If Roudh had bothered to ascertain the correct methodology of Islamic exegesis, rather than stumbling around blindly as he has done, he would not feel as though he has been fooled. As Allah says:. After writing the above comment I came across this observation submitted by a reader of a Christian website:.
Essence of Islam – Part 13
Here is an argument which I have not seen on your site:. Surahs ; ; ; , ; Furthermore, these verses, once correctly read, actually prove to be a confirmation of the authenticity of the Torah and the Gospel. A question for Muslims: Why did Allah fail to explicitly and clearly announce that the text of the Torah and Gospel have been falsified, especially when this is such an important topic of discussion in Muslim and Christian polemics? Another question: Muslims often say at the end of their articles that Allah has more knowledge i.
Are you more erudite than Allah? To this I would like to add another point. For Islam to be true the Torah needs to have been corrupted beyond recognition. If the Torah has been corrupted beyond recognition then why does the Quran repeatedly testify that the Torah is genuine, reliable, original and authentic? Muslims are compelled to distort the clear testimony of the Quran in order to save their faith. One of the arguments that the Quran repeatedly puts forward as evidence of its divine origins is that it is in harmony with previous revelations.
The unwarranted and unnatural meaning that the Quran is telling people that it is in agreement with the nonexistent Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was textually corrupted not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible is imposed on the text by Muslims who recognise the devastating implications of the plain meaning of these verses. Hopefully, we have now shown him otherwise.
Or further, assuming that an actual corruption of the manuscripts themselves took place, may it not be asked if all Jewry necessarily followed in the footsteps of those Jews here addressed? And if all Jews in the world joined in this corruption, did all the Christians of the world, who also possess the Tawrat, assent to these changes? To deduce thus a general corruption of the Tawrat among all Jewry and Christendom, for all subsequent ages, from one specific instance of corruption by a small colony of Jews in so remote a place as Madina, as is here assumed for the moment, is hardly a legitimate deduction.
You quoted Ibn Abbas in an attempt to prove that one of the greatest Muslim scholars interpreted Quran to mean that the Jews corrupted the Torah. Let me give another quotation from Ibn Abbas. Reported by the famous hadith collector that you mentioned. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. It is clear from this quote that Ibn Abbas and another respected scholar did not believe in the textual corruption of the Jewish or Christian scriptures.
If the Quran and Muhammad had clearly taught for 23 years that the Bible was textually corrupted beyond recognition then this statement from an eminent Muslim scholar and a companion of your prophet is inexplicable. This is a perfect example of why Roudh needs to at least attempt to conduct his own research rather than blindly rehash the efforts of Christians. Had Roudh only bothered to click on the source link, he would have noticed a typical example of distortion that some Christians often employ: selective quotation.
What is conveniently clipped is the following:. The answer is obvious: they wrote these books themselves, thereby committing a form of textual corruption, and falsely claimed them to be divinely inspired. Reading Surah alone makes that very clear. It all happens as Allah says it would. Al Ramaani narrated on the authority of Qataadah who said: There is no change in the judgment of God.
This is a crucial point that is being made. Rather, changing the words of Allah in the passage means that one cannot change what He has promised would occur. A unique claim NOT made for any other scripture. On the other side, another party of hadith and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. We searched through Sahih al-Bukhari but could not find the above citation. From the point of view of research, providing a full or adequate reference for a citation usually helps!
The accusation of the Quran is not that the Jews corrupt the text of their scriptures but they falsify them by misinterpreting them. In addition I have never seen any evidence from the Quran or Hadith where the Jews defend the charge of textual corruption. I find it absolutely astonishing that Muhammad could have for decades accused the Jews and yet from the Jewish side we do not come across a single reply to this charge. As regards to the Christians, which would by default cover the Torah, there is an authentic narration of the Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him addressing a crowd during which he accuses the Jews and Christians of making forbidden what Allah had originally legislated as permissible and vice-versa:.
Adi ibn Hatim was originally a Christian who converted to Islam and acknowledges that the Rabbis and Monks did indeed alter the original edicts of their scripture. This is consistent with the understanding that it was the religious scholars who changed their scripture. Another proof is the famous encounter between the King of Rome, Heraclius, and Abu Sufyaan, the leader of the Arab Quraish and, thus by extension, the Meccans.
After the long interrogation, Heraclius then gives an evaluation of the answers he receives from Abu Sufyaan. In his magnum opus , Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani states the following in this regard:. Even from the hadith they do not come across as the sort of people who would let attacks upon the integrity of their scriptures pass without comment.
We have cited two authentically narrated historical accounts where an objection was raised in defence of these scriptures and against the heinous charge of textual corruption. However, these were contested and shot down by people from that faith, viz. Adi ibn Haatim and the Jewish boy on his death bed. Another possibility that Roudh would do well to ponder over is that, obversely speaking, such silence could even be understood to be an admission of guilt on their part. It is generally the trend for the innocent to contest any charges brought against them.
However, despite the Prophet and his companions levelling such serious charges against them claiming that God Himself was implicating them, there are good grounds to postulate that such deafening silence could be understood as an admission of their guilt. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.
What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of the unbelieving people. One thing this question from the Jews proves categorically is that the Jews were completely unaware that Muhammad had ever accused them of textual corruption. The only explanation for this is that Muhammad never did at least not to their knowledge. The fact that the Prophet peace be upon him accused the Jews of innovating shows that the Prophet peace be upon him accused them of adding to the religion things that did not belong there.
He continues:. He also accuses them of concealing what they were ordered to make plain to men. For the Jews to be told that they have concealed the truth assumes that they had the truth and reliable scriptures in the first place. You cannot conceal truths from people which you do not have access to yourself. But all he says in reply to their question is certainly I believe in your Torah as you say and testify that it is the truth from God but you have sinned because you are not following its teachings you have broken the covenant and you are concealing rather than making plain to people its message and I disassociate myself from your sin.
This Hadith proves that Muhammad believed that the Torah in the possession of the Jews was the original. Further still, Roudh also begs the question by assuming that said verse is indeed a prophecy accepted by all Muslims, and thus citable as proof. The counter we throw in response is to simply ask how Roudh knows we here at Islam-Sikhism accept this verse to be a prophecy? If we do not, then poor Roudh has wasted his time arguing a strawman. If it is assumed that Deuteronomy , is not a prophecy of Muhammad.
Where then is the prophecy referred to by Quran ? What the description of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him in the Torah is is not the subject of debate, and neither will we be sidetracked by such red herrings. Although we could cite what we believe to be convincing arguments for the presence of such descriptive prophecies, we will suffice with leaving such apologetics to the reams of information already presented by other Muslims.
Nor should it be necessary for me to address only those issues which every single Muslim believes. We would never assume something so ridiculous as expecting Roudh to know the view of over a billion Muslims! What I have done is to address what I believed to be the majority view. If I intended to address a minority view then I would have made that clear beforehand.
I will give a list of a few well known Muslims who have claimed this verse to be a prediction of Muhammad.
- The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England;
- 5000 Decorative Monograms for Artists and Craftspeople!
- Navigation menu;
- Tea - A Medical Dictionary, Bibliography, and Annotated Research Guide to Internet References.
Then we suggest Roudh contact them. However, if his intention is to forward an equally half-baked diatribe which he has sent us, then we would sincerely advise him to think twice, nay ten times, before doing so. But as stated above, since languages differ grammatically, the name of God cannot, therefore, be the same, phonetically speaking, across the board. Exodus And neither did we claim such a thing.
How does this square with the very first verse of the Bible:. It would be an act of heresy for any Jew or Christian to believe that there is more than one God who created the heavens and the earth. One or Plural? It seems that Roudh needs to be reminded of the argument at hand. He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god , but will exalt himself above them all.
Daniel bold mine. He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. But they will be held guilty, They whose strength is their god.
Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working wonders? We have already shown how Elohim the plural for El and Eloah was used as a title for the true God. If this is true of the plural noun, it follows that it must also certainly be true of its singular forms El and Eloah. And who better to put Roudh back in his place in corroborating this than the preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher, Moses ben-Maimon, or more famously known as Maimonides:.
The Jewish bible gives and the Jews recognise only one name for their God. How can a noun devoid of its vowel points still be intelligibly used as a name for an object, let alone the supreme deity? Would Roudh or any other Jew or scholar wish to wager the correct pronunciation for this mysterious vowel-less name of God? Muslims need to answer, why in the Jewish scriptures the God of Moses does not once say that his name is Allah? We already have; it seems, however, that Roudh has selective vision and only sees what is in his best interests. Muhammad simply took Allah the chief deity of the Meccans to whom they attributed three daughters and re-invented him as the one true God without partners.
But as a prophet, unable to perform any miracles and devoid of any convincing evidence for his claims, Muhammad failed miserably. The Arabs turned hostile they mocked and ridiculed him mercilessly. The Quran must rank as one of the longest and most hateful rants ever written. His paradise was a reflection of his fantasies and his hell was a manifestation of the revenge he craved. It is obvious that at this stage, Roudh is seriously losing the plot. Plucking verses that have nothing to do with anything and making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims only reflects poorly on such a person.
Nearly all the narratives of the Bible that are re-told in the Quran are re-worked corrupted by Muhammad to reflect his own situation. Muhammad writes himself in as a fellow prophet, the lead act in the line of Bible prophets and casts Allah in the role of YHWH. These stories are re-written to make the Meccan rejection of his own mission look prophetic.
The characters in these narratives sound just like Muhammad and as one writer observed, if they are not Muhammad then they had the same speech writer. Actually, what we have to throw in here is the fact that in terms of what all the Prophets of God taught, it was exactly the same call: to worship God alone and to eschew the worship of false Gods. It is inconsistent to suggest that Moses, and his fellow brethren Prophets thereafter, taught that Allah is one who could never become a weak and ineffectual mortal, only for a sect of the Christians to suddenly rise up and, in opposition to the true message of Jesus, contradict this infrangible rule by claiming that God had condescended to become a mortal who was the second person of the fictitious Trinity and the Divine Son of the Father.
In this respect, yes, Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him came to primarily rectify this awful heresy. We have clipped the rest of this emotional rant since it amounts to nothing except a red herring. What Muhammad did not know and what exposes his fraud was that the God of the Jewish scriptures with whom he identified his deity had only one name and it was never Allah. Roudh presupposes that the Arabic name of God: Allah, is immutable in the sense that it must be consistently used to address Him for all time and in all languages.
The point you may have over-looked is that the author of the Quran puts Allah into the mouths of the Israelites. According to the Torah when Moses came to the burning bush God told him regarding His name:. Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.
This story is retold in the Quran although differently. When Moses came to the burning bush God told him regarding His name:. Emphasis mine. For example, the Handbook of Biblical Criticism reveals:. You cannot even use the name to make a meaningful call. Consider for one moment the Lord of the heavens and the earth contacting mankind and calling on them to worship Him and CALL upon Him by His proper name during times of worship, distress, help, need, etc.
As time went by, His followers resorted, for one reason or another, to using secondary names titles , such as, Elohim and Shaddai in its place. If ever there was evidence of scriptural corruption, it is in the example of this fancifully named Tetragrammaton. As we explained in our original article, there is an obvious difference between the Arabic and Hebrew language; thus, a Muslim, or anyone else for that matter, who understands and acknowledges this obvious difference would never expect the Prophets from the non-Arab line of Isaac to call upon God using a name in a language other than their own.
Either the Quran is correct or the Torah is correct. The answer to that we thought would have been obvious given that Roudh in this entire tract has failed both to give us the vowel points for correctly pronouncing this unpronounceable name, as well as a genuine reason why and how they were lost to begin with. There is no evidence in either the Jewish scriptures or Jewish history that the Israelites ever recognised Allah as a name for God. This proves without any doubt whatsoever that Quran is a lie, but Exodus is supported by the evidence.
Paul, were both false emissaries of God. In fact, on this basis, could an argument not be forwarded against the Sikhs who all, without exception, call upon their God by the name Waheguru knowing full well that this word is nowhere to be found in their holy book: Sri Guru Granth Sahib? It proves that all the narratives in the Quran where the Israelites call upon God as Allah are fictitious.
Not knowing any better the author of the Quran simply put his own name for deity into the mouths of the Israelites. This evidence proves that the Quran cannot be a divine revelation and Muhammad was a fake. It proves that the author of the Quran fabricated verses and passed them off as divine scripture. The evidence proves that the author of the Quran was a complete and utter fraud. A forgery, i.
One would have expected the best poets, orators, or masters of the Arabic language to do better than the efforts of an illiterate Muhammad ; and yet they failed. Despite the fact that the author of the Quran repeatedly accuses all who disbelieve his Quran as being liars, the evidence proves that his Quran is the biggest lie of all. My presupposition is not that the Arabic name of God: Allah, is immutable in the sense that it must be consistently used to address Him for all time and in all languages.
My point is that according to YHWH his name is changeless:. YHWH and not necessarily Allah since this name is not immutable. Just as God has revealed the equivalence of His proper name in both Hebrew and Aramaic, respectively, there is nothing peculiar or problematic in Him doing the same for Arabic, which He did.
Also the Quran quotes the Israelites as calling upon God by many names including Allah but never by the name YHWH, the only name for deity which they recognised. Muslims would have no qualms in accepting the possibility that Allah could have revealed his name to other non-Arabic speaking nations that would be distinguished by an obvious difference in pronunciation. Since Allah is conveying an historical account to an Arabic speaking people, He would naturally use His name in this language for such a purpose. If the author of the Quran was God, He would have quoted the Israelites correctly by putting into their mouths the only name for God that the Tanakh gives then we would have had the correct pronunciation of the proper name YHWH in the Tanakh.
Is Roudh conceding here that the correct pronunciation is lost to the Israelites, and that Allah should have rectified this mistake for them? If he is, then the Torah is corrupt. If he is not, then the conundrum still stands for Roudh to solve. Jesus is recorded in the Gospels to have called upon God in Aramaic: Eli and Eloi, which again sounds remarkably similar to Allah and al-Ilaah. Firstly, Jesus did not speak Arabic. Why would God expect a non-Arab speaking Prophet sent to non-Arabs to call upon Him by a name that would only make sense in the Arabic language?
It is more reasonable to assume that an all-Wise Creator who is revealing the clarity of Truth would facilitate ease in guiding His people by revealing to them His name — of course with the vowel points included — in their own language. Secondly, Jesus, it seems, did call on God by the Aramaic equivalent of the derivative of the name Allah: ilah. If he could miraculously call upon God as Allah from the cradle then why not later when he became an adult when no miracle was required?
ABOUT ISLAMIC SOURCES
Why did Jesus later only manage to call upon God as Eli or Eloi which again sounds remarkably similar to Allah and al-Ilaah and not Allah? What Roudh is trying hard not to accept is that the name of God in Arabic, Allah, can also be found as equivalent cognates — words that have a common etymological origin — in other Semitic languages, proving that these names of God existed both independently of and concurrently to the pre-Islamic Arabs. Hence, Elohim came to be used in place of the unpronounceable Tetragrammaton, thereby serving as a replacement to the proper name of God, such as in the book of Ecclesiastes.
Its Aramaic equivalent, Elaha, is similar to the name Allah; whilst the Syriac equivalent Allaha is even more so. If Islam is the true religion why do Muslim need to resort to such desperate arguments to defend their religion? Or it could be possible that instead Roudh is the desperate one clutching to any straws he can find to stay afloat. The fact that there is no evidence that Jesus or his Jewish contemporaries ever recognised Eli, Eloi or Allah as a name for God, proves the Quran to be a lie.
I should mention that Jesus either used the word Eli or Eloi as both these verses report one and the same incident. There will be a term for My God in Arabic My ilah? Although that is the case, the point already covered above is that the derivative for the word Eli and Eloi in both Aramaic and Hebrew, respectively, is related to the same derivative of the name Allah: ilah. Whatever that term is it cannot be said to be the name of God even if it were to sound remarkably similar to Allah and al-Ilaah. So how can a similar term in Hebrew or Aramaic be said to be a name for God.
But the terms elaha and alaha were recognised as names of God, as evidenced above. In fact, we could not care less about this particular issue. The only reason we are arguing our corner is because we are confronted by a person who is disposed to forwarding arguments that are often based on either misconstrued evidences or, worse still, no evidences at all. But instead there is nothing; absolute silence; as if the ancient name was not important enough to warrant a place as part of the so-called new covenant.
If it is that important, should it not be present without desperately searching for other words that are derived from the same root letters? In fact to my knowledge no one recognises Eli or Eloi as a name for God except Muslim apologists! Not only has he grabbed a hold of the wrong end of the stick, but his knowledge in this regard hardly inspires admiration. As we said before, Jesus uses a name of God in Aramaic and Hebrew to call upon Him; that much is without doubt. And as we pointed out, it sounds remarkably similar to the name Allah or, more precisely, its derivative al-ilah.
There are no depths to which these apologists are not prepared to sink in their efforts to find Allah in the Bible and legitimise their religion. This is the plight of those who try rescue the Quran from the gross errors its author has made. Jesus certainly never called God by the Tetragrammaton and it is impossible for Roudh to produce evidence to counter this assertion since no evidence exists.
This is a point that Roudh will do well to accept, rather than thick headedly argue on. Your observation that the loss of pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came about due to the nonsensical ancient Judaic rule that it was forbidden to pronounce His name outside the Temple in Jerusalem indicates the extent to which this name was revered by the Jews. So much for the name being changeless and revered and the book being uncorrupted; it could not even preserve the greatest name of God. No other name was revered in this way because no other name was considered to be the name of God.
In view of this it would not have been possible for Jesus to recognise Eli or Eloi as a name for God? Muslims need to understand that for a first century Palestinian Jew to claim that Eli , Eloi or Allah for that matter was a name for God is not only inconceivable but would have meant death by stoning. The Arabic word ilah which means god does not become the name of God just because it sounds like Allah. Just as the Hebrew word for oak tree alah does not become a name for God just because it sounds very much like Allah the Arabic name for God.
So why must Eli or Eloi become a name for God just because they may sound like Allah? We know perfectly well what Eli and Eloi meant in Hebrew and Aramaic and they were never recognised as names for God. Now, unless Roudh is an expert in Hebrew and Aramaic, or unless he produces evidence to counter what we have furnished, his words are no more weightier than the one who claims that the moon is made out of cheese!
Roudh should be given credit for his attempts at pussyfooting around this issue. Notice that, thus far, he has not revealed whether he believes this name to have been lost to posterity. One cannot blame him for trying. Instead, he attempts to shift the goal post with red herrings. Roudh has miserably failed throughout this entire response to provide the vowel points for the Tetragrammaton as we initially asked, and has miserably failed to rebut our contention, which we have subsequently strengthened in this response by providing further evidence, that its true pronunciation is not just unknown, but will never be known.
Roudh has greater problems to contend with than asking why Jesus did not utter this name like answering why he and the rest of the Gospel writers, both known and anonymous, failed to make a single mention of the YHWH? The answer is simple: the author of the Quran was completely ignorant of the divine name as given in Jewish scripture.
It is the charge itself that matters, not a collation of every single detail that makes up the charge. In this respect, Allah said of the Jews and Christians:. He also says that they concealed and hid the truth. Recall the verse:. In terms of the clarity of truth and guidance that Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him brought for humankind in general, and the Jews in particular, what could be better for them in this case than revealing not just the true name of God in Arabic, which in essence goes back to their forefather Abraham and his eldest son Ishmael, but also the Truth in the absolute sense?
Would Roudh care to point out the Greek or, more appropriately, the original Aramaic word that Jesus used in this instance or is he again expecting us to do the research for him? Instead, they are combined as a conjugation. What a cop out! If only Roudh had enough guts, fortitude and love to defend his own religion as he has done with Judaism.
If this teaching be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity with earlier scripture , and has believed while ye are arrogant, how unjust ye are! Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun polytheists, disbelievers and wrong-doing. So what Allah is saying to them is look this Jew who is able to verify my claim has testified that the Quran and the Torah are similar and has as a result accepted that the Quran has been revealed by Allah and accepted Islam.
Therefore you now have no good reason for not believing and it is only your pride and arrogance which is preventing you. It really does not matter how many translations Roudh cites, the outcome, if he persists in eisegesis, will always be the same: a complete and thorough dismantlement of his arguments and an exposition of his ignorance. Whereas you have arrogantly refused to follow it. So by saying that I am correct on this point you have inadvertently contradicted Allah. The Jewish scripture that Quran Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was textually corrupted not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible.
But Roudh has not seen any of our counter arguments unless he is referring to other Muslims, which would render this a strawman. You have not presented any evidence that questions the authenticity of these verses. Verses cannot be rejected simply because they annihilate our cherished beliefs. We have no reason to question the authenticity of this prophecy or any other. As for said prophecies, then they certainly existed in clear and explicit terms without any ambiguity in the original Torah.
However, following its corruption, we believe that these now exist as general descriptions of our Prophet. As stated earlier, this lost knowledge would come under the classification of scriptural corruption. You need to understand it is not I but the God of Moses that finds fault with your prophet. It is the Torah Deuteronomy that the Quran claims to confirm that finds fault with your prophet. The pronunciation of this name was lost to later generations of Jews but it was never lost to the Jewish prophets, if YHWH could reveal his name to Moses then why not Muhammad?
Once again, Roudh attempts, albeit deludingly, to skirt around the crux of the argument, which is that the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton has been lost. After all, is this not the name, according to the books of Moses, by which God wanted to be known by every generation and forever? It is the author of the Quran who is guilty of scriptural corruption when he puts the Arabic name Allah into the mouths of the Israelites when the evidence proves that they only recognised YHWH as a name for their God!
As recorded in the Law of Moses all true prophets must speak in this name. Any prophet who did not speak in this name the Israelites were ordered to execute. It would have been impossible anyway to speak in a name whose pronunciation was not known. What remains to be said is how a true Prophet would be able to prove his prophethood by attempting to speak with a name whose pronunciation was unknown? Muslims need to understand that if a prophet had arisen amongst the Israelites who spoke in the name of Allah he would have been executed for speaking in the name of a false god!
The other criteria given by Moses for judging a prophet is that all his prophecies must come true. In other words the prophet must never fail to predict the future correctly. This is one of the reasons why when engaging the Jews, Muhammad who was ignorant of this divine name was on a mission impossible. Once this point is understood, Muslims will realise the futility of trying to locate Allah in the Bible through words like Elohim, Eli, Eloah etc because none of these words are the name of the deity of the Jewish Bible.
The Jews believed that YHWH was the one and only name of the true God and this was his name forever and every generation. If Allah was an all-knowing God he would have known that this is what the Torah teaches. How then did then did he expect the Jews to believe in a god who identified himself as Allah along with many other names but never YHWH? I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name YHWH.
Deuteronomy This proves that Allah was too foolish to be God. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.
Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia
How can a god as incompetent as Allah be God? Did Allah not tell them to observe the Torah? So when they did observe the Torah which compelled them to reject Muhammad and his message why did Allah condemn them? Since the Quran was blatantly contradicting their scriptures did the Jews have any choice but to reject it? The only way that these Jews could accept Muhammad was by abandoning the Torah, a book which Allah keeps urging the Jews to follow.
If Allah was an all knowing God then why did he never address the Jews on these crucial issues? The fact that Allah never addresses Exodus and many other important teachings of the Torah which contradict the Quran and yet condemns the Jews for rejecting Muhammad proves that he cannot be an all-knowing and just God.
One of the problems was that whilst the author of the Quran knew that the Jewish scriptures teach that there is only one God, he did not know that they also teach that he has only one name. And how did Allah expect the Jews to follow the Torah and the Quran at the same time when they contradicted each other? Just because Muhammad came along and claimed that this Allah who could perform no miracles, could not any provide any evidence for his divinity and was the most ignorant and foolish god ever presented to mankind was the God of the Torah could not make him so.
Poor old Roudh; he cannot help himself in continuously resorting to making false or unsubstantiated claims. Shall we adore that which thou commandest us? Like the Jews the Meccans were not prepared to worship just any deity Muhammad presented to them. As far as the Meccans were concerned just because Muhammad said Rahman and Allah were the same it did not make them so. Again a case of eisegesis leading again to a false interpretation. We would correct this man, but since this has nothing to do with the debate, we have no reason to. To the contrary, after all this, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Roudh has very little inkling of what it means to formulate well thought out and well researched arguments.
He would do well to rectify this character flaw if he has any shame and self-respect. If Allah is the God of the Torah then is it not extremely odd that he revealed YHWH as his name 7, times in the Jewish Bible and then never mentions this name or this fact even once in the Quran?