Jewish Sources: the borrowings that expose Islam's origins

[@Jeem196]

Excellent topic to cover, Rabbinic Judaism cannot be ignored when debating Islamic theology and origin. Great to see you on here as well Put Istina Život!

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Amin broather!😊😊

[@gavinjames1145]

My main focus this past year or so has been Quranic intertextuality: looking at the very many Biblical (and extra-Biblical) sources used by the authors of the Arabic Qur'an. I have not studied Jewish apocrypha (except for _The Book of Jubilees_ ), so this presentation was very interesting and useful for me. Hopefully, I can now add a few more footnotes to my study Qur'an!

[@temporaryaccount5307]

What isn’t made up in the Q and what isn’t simply taken from the Jws and “revealed” opposite (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 668 as example) is admitted by early to modern scholars as folklore. Yusuf Ali's Translation and Commentary: 2: 60 Jewish and Arab legends 65 Jewish legends 125 Arab legends 158 Arab legends 189 Arab legends 194 Arab legends 196 Arab legends 197 Arab legends 198 Arab legends 200 Arab legends 259 Jewish legend 3:49 Christian legend 7:65 Arab legends 73 Arab legends 85 Arab legends 11:59 Arab legends 18:9 Christian legend 110 Persian source 74:32 Arab legends Islam is a sham and I don’t know how mzms don’t know it!

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

I would be grateful if you share staff from book of Jubilees?

[@OnTheThirdDay]

For instance, Islam Critiqued has a lot of great videos on topics related to this video.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

@@OnTheThirdDay i know but also he missed some things nad made mistakes but 90% he is right

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 Do you have an example of someof the 10%?

[@OnTheThirdDay]

For those who liked the video, Islam Critiqued has similar discussions of these and more. The 23:00 minute example wasn't too compelling. At 40:00 the guest says that this is a vision a hindred years or so after Jesus. However, he said it was in the Holiest Place, which would be in the Temple before it was destroyed 70 AD. So, it could be around the time of Jesus or a little before or after. Also, just because it says something does not mean it was true. However, it shows that it was a preexisting Jewish idea.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

well at 40 i showed a picture with dating and dating put it little bit after destruction of the Second Temple up to 150. And yes, Islam Critique is great channel !

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Mam, rabbi Ismail was not a High priest in the time of Second Temple but his father (Elisa) and ater the destruction of the Second Temple, sacrifices were prohibited because there was no longer a Temple, the only place allowed by halakha for sacrifices. Offering of sacrifices was briefly REINSTATED during the Jewish-Roman wars of the second century AD and was continued in certain communities thereafter....

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 Thanks for the correction on that point.

[@massacredsnake706]

Might I ask for the reference in the Talmud where Sasha mentions that one may use sand instead of water at 1:24:18?

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

I can find but that can be that predate Jesus so is not good for polemicks argument.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Barachot 15a:3 and sahih hadiths from sunnah com just tipe sunnah com and this: كتاب التيمم7 Rubbing hands and feet with dust (Tayammum) The saying of Allah: "But if you ... cannot find water, then purify yourselves with clean earth by wiping your faces and hands."قَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَ: فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُم مِّنْهُ

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

believe or not, even famous muhammad's hadith about cleaning the hm, back side with 3 rocks if you have no water is taken from a jews.

[@AnnaMaria-po5mk]

I have research the Bible's for 20years. The Quran I started to study when I started to listen to Christian prince. His channel is about the Quran and Islam very interesting.

[@detectiveholmes4088]

Really?..

[@detectiveholmes4088]

"Interesting".. to quote. Your an IDIOT!

[@detectiveholmes4088]

CP would agree..

[@AnnaMaria-po5mk]

@@detectiveholmes4088 The caller mentioned my name the comments was for him. See you are still the same old IDIOT. Some people never change.

[@andrewcole4843]

Read this late but very good. Seems to show a divergence in Jewish theology towards a proto Islamic one before Islam arose and in an Iraqi location.

[@ilanbouwmeester6838]

The Arabic word توراة (tawraat) implies a *plural. So Quran seems to be aware of the dual nature of the Torah. Which all fits with the synchronicities between the Talmud and the Quran as discussed within this presentation.

[@AnnaMaria-po5mk]

Because the caller mentioned my name the massages in the chat were for him.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Thank man, didn't know that. Can you give some references for that?

[@AnnaMaria-po5mk]

@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 "There is no "Palestine" in the Quran. "And remember when Moses said to his people: ' O my people, call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you. When he produced prophets among you, made you kings, gave to you what he had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy land which Allah has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin. "" (Quran 5:20-21). Moreover- and those who try to use Islam as a weapon against Israel always conveniently ignore this point-the Holy Quran explicitly refers to the return of the Jews to the land of Israel before the Last Judgement-where it says: " And thereafter we Allah said to the children of Israel: "Dwell securelty in the promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd." (Quran 17:104). Therefore, from an Islamic point of view there is No fundamental reason which prohibits Muslims from recognizing Israel inherited the Holy Land by Allah. The lsrealiets should use the Quranic Revaluation, but they don't because they have never read the Quran. Why don't Muslims recognize (Surah Al-Ma'Idah 5-20-20/21) which clearly states the Jews have the right to the Holy land. (Quran surah Ali 'Imran 3:55). (Mention) when Allah said 'O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to myself and purify you from THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE AND MAKE THOSE WHO FOLLOW YOU SUPERIOR TO THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE UNTIL THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. Allah made the Christians superior to the Muslims and that is quite clear in the Quran. Muslims and some Jews are not the followers of Jesus christ. In sura 7, verse 157. Prophet Muhammad has described himself as Allah's messager and as a pagan prophet, who, foretold in the Torah and Gospel, has now reppeared, and who commands the right and forbids all that Allah Judges to be reprehensible. This formula-commanding the right and forbidding the wrong- be comes from now a distinctive characteristic of the community as described by the pagan prophet with the divinely promulgated moral code. The prophet Muhammad was a false prophet and a sinful man. (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, Book 58 Hadith number 234). Muhammad married Aisha, when she was 6 years old and he was 54 years old. He raped her when she was nine years old because a child of that age can not consent to intercourse when she was still playing with dolls. Muhammad dreamed of Aisha when she was still a child. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, volume 9, Book 87 Number 140 see also Number 139). (Sahih Al-bukhari 5134). Verse 4of surah 65 encourages marriages to young little girls and it still happens today in Islamic countries. Little girls being forced to marry dirty old men. The Quran already existed the original Quran was burnt by caliph uthman. Some of the leaves of the original Quran survived and are preserved in France, The Vatican, Russia. Muhammad Quran was written 20 years after he died, it was nothing that Muhammad had written because the Quran identifies the prophet Muhammad as AI-nabi al-ummi (Quran 7:157-158) Muhammad, was known as 'the illiterate prophet. Because of Muhammad action pedophilia is allowed because it's in the Quran. Marriage to young girls before reaching puberty is permissible in Islam. (Al-Talaaq 65:4).

[@ilanbouwmeester6838]

@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 The word itself is a direct loan from Hebrew, not via Aramaic or Syriac. Syriac has ܐܘܪܝܬܐ (oraytaa). The Arabic standard feminine *plural ending is ات+ (+aat). The spelling of Torah in Arabic, should have mirrored the Hebrew תורה (Torah) as in توره. Instead they spelled it as توراة, ending in alif (ا) + taa marbuta (ة). And historically they even spelled it as تورىٰة ending in alif maksura (ى) + dagger alif ( ٰ ) + taa marbuta (ة), implying that the modern spelling should have been تورىه / تورىة. The spelling chosen in the Quran mirrors the feminine *plural. In Jewish theology the Torah is a singular law, given in two parts a written and an oral part. So actually applying a 'real' *plural as in تورات (tawraat), wouldn't have made sense to Judaized-Arabs, or Arabized-Jews.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

@@ilanbouwmeester6838 so basically quran apply that Tewrat is word that means like dual Low or scripture?

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Hi Sneaker, I wanted to mention that you should have a scholar who actually is familiar with Aramaic and the Greek NT because "facts" that Odin said is almost universally opposed by NT scholars. So, it would be good to hear someone else's opinion of the relationship between the NT and Aramaic.

[@ilanbouwmeester6838]

I have looked at several verses of the NT in Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek, and even the modern Hebrew. And in both verses below I find linguistic evidence for a Hebrew original. See comments under 'Islam's art amnesia' , of the 17th of January. In the thread about the Hebrew Matthew. I reviewed Mat. 3:9. And in the comments of 'Early Christianity and the Aramaic Gospel - Part 2 | Odin Lafontaine' of the 1st of January I reviewed Rev. 18:13.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@ilanbouwmeester6838 If you see the Lanier Theological Seminary talk about Hebraism in the New Testament, you see that there is evidence that the original authors spoke Hebrew (and also Aramaic). This can be seen by idioms and grammarical usage of Greek like Hebrew/Aramaic. Apparently, John is a lot like this and even though Luke has very polished Greek he also has a lot of Hebraisms. However, these are not used to show that they are a TRANSLATION of a Hebrew original like how we have translations of the Bible into English but that the authors knew Hebrew and Aramaic, thought that way, and that some of the original conversations may have been in these languages and perhaps some of these parts are translations. For instance, for Luke, it is evidence that Luke was using testimony or oral tradition by people who spoke these languages, though he himself has no problem writing high quality Greek. Do you make a specific case that is even stronger than what I said (e.g. see the lecture, it has lots of interesting information, some of which might be new to you) by proving more than what I said: that these books are translations of earlier copies that were not in Greek? (There are historical reasons to believe that the Gospels and the rest of the NT were in Greek originally, but I was focusing on the language of the Greek and what it says about who wrote it and if it maybe was originally a different language.)

[@ilanbouwmeester6838]

@@OnTheThirdDay Have you actually looked at the Hebrew manuscripts, and compared them with the Greek and Aramaic? I did, please first review my analysis, as presented in the comments under 'Islam's art amnesia' , of the 17th of January. In the thread about the Hebrew Matthew. I reviewed Mat. 3:9. And in the comments of 'Early Christianity and the Aramaic Gospel - Part 2 | Odin Lafontaine' of the 1st of January I reviewed Rev. 18:13. I'm specifically referring to textual differences in between the Hebrew manuscripts and the Aramaic and Greek. The specific differences do really point to a Hebrew original, with Greek copying from Hebrew, and not the other way around.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

@@ilanbouwmeester6838 I am assuming that you know Greek and Hebrew. I know neither of these and would not get very much from the analysis. My understanding is a simple statistical fact: there are a lot of variants for the Greek based on all the copying and copying early done potentially by non professionals. (But most of the variants are nonsubstantial.) We have thousands of years of much copying under heavy persecution at times. I don't think that there is good evidence for Hebrew versions going back very long. There is a chain of custody problem: how can I know that the manuscripts were made up in the middle ages by "backtranslating" it into Hebrew? We have early copies of the Greek and some small manuscript evidence that the Greek existed very early. For instance, P45 (I think) of John's Gospel is in Greek. I am not sure that any Hebrew has ever been found. I am not aware of any versions other than the Greek for nonGospel parts of the NT, which is by far the majority. (E.g. Greek Acts suggests a Greek Luke. Greek Pauline letters. Etc.) Because I don't know the languages, I can't say whether or not there is evidence for it based on the text or even the manuscripts as you say. Btw, my view is that as is said by a church father quote passed on by other fathers is that Matthew originaly wrote the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue. This might include the sermon on the mount and some parables. Then Mark was written in Greek. Then the other Synoptics (Matthew and Luke) write their Gospels in Greek using these. Then John wrote his in Greek. Then the rest of the NT in Greek. For instance, the Septuagint is a Greek translation and everyone says so in those days. I don't see any evidence that there are Hebrew originals that were then translated. It is possible that that church father quote about the sayings of Jesus actually refers to Matthew's gospel. I am not sure that that is true, though, that he meant that. Maybe he did, though. I think Jerome (who learned Hebrew for his work on the Vulgate) mentioned Hebrew NT writings (Mattew?) but we don't know much more about it than about what I said here. Anthony Rogers has two videos in his Mark playlist going over textual arguments and church father history that Mark wrote his gospel for the church in Rome, a Greek text for a Latin speaking audience that knew Greek. Mark goes out of his way repeatedly to explain aramaic expressions to his audience, which suggest that they did not know aramaic. If they knew Hebrew then maybe they would be more likely to know aramaic. All that said, there is a lot of evidence that the Greek are early and original. There is little manuscript evidence for Hebrew originals of the gospels as far as I know. I can't comment on the language or textual criticism because, maybe unlike yourself, I don't understand the grammar or even vocabulary of the relevant languages so as to be able to speak competently.

[@ilanbouwmeester6838]

@@OnTheThirdDay I've written my analysis in such a way, that it should be understandable without actually knowing the languages. If you have specific questions with regards to those specific verses I've written about, please let me know. I myself am 100% convinced by the textual evidence, that at least a portion of the NT was written in Hebrew originally. Apart from that, we have the early church fathers mentioning translations from Hebrew to Greek. If the Hebrew was translated from the Greek, it really should have looked way more similar to the Syriac. As is the case with modern Hebrew translations from the Greek. A "back translation" of the middle ages will not result in the specific textual differences, we find. Like double meanings that aren't there in the Greek, but are there in the Hebrew that are consistent with theology. Rabbi's of the medieval period, had nothing to gain from making Christianitian works more theological consistent. Actually the opposite is the case, with the forced interfaith debates of the early inquisition, it was easier for them to win debates based on the Greek text.

[@elicalexander6174]

What is the summary of the Quran ? Is it promote Jesus as God ? And make a refutation to the herecy sect ? I think the Muhammad person is karaite Jew who latter believe Jesus as mesiah

[@johnlee7699]

It's still a very hard question to answer, in that it's difficult to ascertain definitively. 1 thing it is definitively not: Standard Narrative as per Islam. The evidence is beyond compelling I personally find most compelling are 2 theories. 1) Originally a Hymn/Lectionary in Aramaic called the Quryan'a 2) A series of letters by multiple parties of different sects within Judaism (most likely messianic vs non messianic). I lean more towards the former but I think it is possible that both are true in a chronological sense. Keep searching for the Truth my Brother. Blessings in Christ Jesus Our Lord 😇😇😇

[@benmoi3390]

the mountain is a way of calling the chiefs, the leaders... a rabbi is also often called a mountain... if 2 disciples would argue about their rabbi they would say "my mountain will crush your mountain" in the verse you see it's clear that the mountain is the rabbi teaching to those who stand at the buttom of the mountain... being crush by a mountain or a mountain falling on you as various meaning depending of the context. When God summon the mountains of Isreal.... that's the intended meaning... he summon all the leaders, the "elites" of isreal...not the geological mountains. here it means that either you accept the torah or you are to be forced into it by the elite/rabbis, because Jews were not chosen because they are better than other people... God chose the Jews because of Abraham, and he will keep his promise... and anyone who claim to be a jews Must follow the torah or follow the rabbis, "be crush by the mountain"... there is no other alternative, other than stopping to claim to be jewish, but it's easier to reject islam or christianism, than to reject your jewish ancestry... because for the antisemite, you'll always remain a jew. All that text is an alegory... the mountain is Moses, Aaron and the 70 ancients who are raised above Israel to protect them and guide them.

[@sasa_sasa_sasa230]

Well as i read it said if the jews don't accept Torah it will their burial and that is explanation by the same rabbies, but if we take again your explanation then again islamic narativ is wrong.

[@chrisazure1624]

I asked Chat GPT to write a Surah like the Quran. This is what it said. "I'm sorry, but as an AI language model created by OpenAI, I don't have the authority to create new religious scripture. The Quran is a revered text in Islam and is considered by Muslims to be the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It's important to approach religious texts with respect and reverence." I guess the Quran is true. Allah doesn't allow AI to mimic him. That will be the new Dawah argument.

[@jma7600]

The Qur’an is indeed a miracle. Allah was the first to use “copy and paste” in history. 😇🤪😂

[@a51m10]

Saying the quran is from the torah or bible is like the best books are all from the dictionary 😂😂 the quran has no mistakes in it unlike the bible and torah. The stories, laws, and commandments are not broken like other books. Nice try but bible and torah are nothing like the quran.

[@IslamicOrigins]

There are literally hundreds of mistakes in the Qur'an. You fool!