Question about Quran : Islamic and Jewish perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter inJESUS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

inJESUS

Guest
Those same men said, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we believe not any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire.’ Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’ S. 3:183

1- was "bringing a sacrifice devoured by fire " ever made a distinguishing sign that Jews should demand from everyone who claims to be a prophet? is this a covenant as the author of the Quran says?

2- Why does the author of the Quran adress the Jews he is speaking to as “you did slay them” if the author himself says that one does not bear the sins of others?

Thank you all.
 
inJESUS said:
1- was "bringing a sacrifice devoured by fire " ever made a distinguishing sign that Jews should demand from everyone who claims to be a prophet? is this a covenant as the author of the Quran says?
Click to expand...
A good question indeed, maybe our fellow Jews can point us a sentence in the OT or any other reference they have.
2- Why does the author of the Quran adress the Jews he is speaking to as “you did slay them” if the author himself says that one does not bear the sins of others?
Click to expand...
Simply a contradiction like the other contradictions within the Quran itself.
 
I am not aware of any condition of burnt offerings for the prophets.
 
Valke2 said:
I am not aware of any condition of burnt offerings for the prophets.
Click to expand...
it is not burnt offering for the prophets but rather to determine the mission of a prophet…in other words, it is a sign from God to determine prophethood…the mentionned aya seems to imply that it is the criteria to determine a prophet, even calling it a covenant…and i found it strange . The only example that comes to mind is Elijiah…yet it was not a covenant nor a general criteria as implied by the verse.
 
still not ringing any theological bells. Is it somehow tied into the burning bush?
 
inJESUS said:
it is not burnt offering for the prophets but rather to determine the mission of a prophet…in other words, it is a sign from God to determine prophethood…the mentionned aya seems to imply that it is the criteria to determine a prophet, even calling it a covenant…and i found it strange . The only example that comes to mind is Elijiah…yet it was not a covenant nor a general criteria as implied by the verse.
Click to expand...
To complicate this issue, the Koran never states that Elijah was sent to Israel and proved the prophets of Baal false through the descension of fire on his offerings.
 
inJESUS said:
Those same men said, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we believe not any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire.’ Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’ S. 3:183
Click to expand...
Tafsir of the passage, 181-184 (please read the verses in context!)
1- was "bringing a sacrifice devoured by fire " ever made a distinguishing sign that Jews should demand from everyone who claims to be a prophet? is this a covenant as the author of the Quran says?
Click to expand...
The Qur’an is in fact refuting the claim, not asserting it. It appears that the Jews were saying that Allah promised this particular sign to them, though that was not in fact the case. Allah says He sends proofs, but the people reject them.
2- Why does the author of the Quran adress the Jews he is speaking to as “you did slay them” if the author himself says that one does not bear the sins of others?
Click to expand...
This is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. The passage is directed at some Jews in the presence of Muhammad, and asking them why their people (other Jews) killed Prophets before, because these particular Jews are rejecting the Prophet Muhammad. The rejection is similar.

It has nothing to do with one person “bearing the sins” of another. The passage seems to show Jews that they have a history of rejecting Prophets.
 
Sister_Amy said:
The Qur’an is in fact refuting the claim, not asserting it. It appears that the Jews were saying that Allah promised this particular sign to them, though that was not in fact the case. Allah says He sends proofs, but the people reject them.
Click to expand...
Hi Amy 🙂

Sorry to say, you are the one ignoring the context of the verse in the Koran, which was quoted by inJESUS.

Surah 3:183 by no means accuses Jews of fabricating lies against God or concocting stories to debunk Mohammad’s claims for his prophetic mission.

“Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’”

What the Koran verse actually confirms is that many messengers were sent to Jews before Mohammad and they brought the signs Jews demanded from them, including the supposed sign of bringing down a fire to devour the offerings.

This is the strategy Mohammad follows while responding to those Jews: “Many prophets had worked those signs before me, yet you did not believe in them. Now I do not have to perform the same miracle, for I know that you would not believe me even if I brought that same clear sign”.
Sister_Amy said:
This is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. The passage is directed at some Jews in the presence of Muhammad, and asking them why their people (other Jews) killed Prophets before, because these particular Jews are rejecting the Prophet Muhammad. The rejection is similar.

It has nothing to do with one person “bearing the sins” of another. The passage seems to show Jews that they have a history of rejecting Prophets.
Click to expand...
It has a lot do with one’s bearing the sins of another, for the Koran verse overtly holds Jews of Mohammad’s time responsible for the slaughter of prophets by their ancestors! 😉
 
Yes Angelos thank you. Actually, the author of the Quran is implying that it is a covenant that a messenger is believed only after bringing a sacrifice devoured by fire. Yet this is nowhere in th entire Bible.

Those same men said, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we **believe not **any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire.’ Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’ S. 3:183

Instead of saying no, this was no covenant, Muhammad/Allah confirmed it and then said he will not make a sign because their ANCESTORS killed prophets and thus they are entitled no signs because of their ancestors.
 
It IS possible that such a tradition existed and is not mentioned in the Jewish scriptures. Or that it was a localized custom known to the people in Mohammed’s area.
 
Don’t you people know the meaning of the word “context?”
 
Why don’t you answer it?

Explain the “context” of verse 183.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Why don’t you answer it?

Explain the “context” of verse 183.
Click to expand...
i read the tafsir you gave but am afraid it does not ansswer the question but rather confuses it by saying that “it was not a covenant”.

in other words, if it were not as Jews claimed, Muhammad had the opportunity to prove them wrong and he could simply have said: “God says you are lying…show me where does your scriptures command this?” or he could have said" they lie who claimed it was a commandmant" or whatever scenario…but the problem is that Muhammad confirmed it and instead of attacking the claim, he attacked ancestors killing prophets! in other words, he was rightfully asked about miracles and he replied : " why should i make miracles if your ancestors killed miracle doers?" he attacked the honesty of these because of their ancestors instead of attacking the false claim . In other words, Ad hominen.suddenly the question is no longer what is the correct criteria for a true prophet, and whether Muhammad satisfies this criteria, but the issue became the sincerety of the people questioning Muhammad because of their ancestors, knowing that the only prophet given this criteria was NOT killed by Jews.

Those same men said, ‘God has made covenant with us, that we believe not any Messenger until he brings to us a sacrifice devoured by fire.’ Say: ‘Messengers have come to you before me bearing clear signs, and that you spoke of; why therefore did you slay them, if you speak truly?’ S. 3:183
 
To be honest with you, I can’t get my head around your perspective. I see it the way I described it, the way it is, and it makes sense to me… 🤷 sorry, I don’t think I can be of any more help to you here.
 
Sister_Amy said:
To be honest with you, I can’t get my head around your perspective. I see it the way I described it, the way it is, and it makes sense to me… 🤷 sorry, I don’t think I can be of any more help to you here.
Click to expand...
We have no difficulty understanding the verse and its context.

Thanks for trying to help us. 🙂
 
Sister_Amy said:
To be honest with you, I can’t get my head around your perspective. I see it the way I described it, the way it is, and it makes sense to me… 🤷 sorry, I don’t think I can be of any more help to you here.
Click to expand...
my perspective is actually simple. Jews supposedly claimed a criteria for prophethood not found in the Bible…Muhammad had the best opportunity to tell them " you liars…this is not in your sciptures so why are you askingme to do the same"…but what does he say? he says, you were given these miracles by previous prophets yet you killed them. In other words, he confirmed the teaching but blamed the behavior of those given the criteria.

many problems with this response. First, the only prophet given that criteria was not killed, let alone by Jews…Second, it was not even a covenant, nor written in the Bible. Third, muhammad simply attacked the killing of prophets instead of attacking the lie itself, because if he refuted the claim, he’d have responded as to WHY he was not given that criteria, since it was not truly a criteria!..yet he reverses the order…he attacked the speakers in order to absolve himself from the fact that he was not given that “criteria” from God.

Simple, instead of saying " i was not given that criteria of prophethood from God because God did not give it in the first place you liars so why are you asking me that which God does not state anywhere?"…

instead he replied " yes the criteria is true but why should God give me that criteria IF YOU KILLED the ones given that criteria"?

in other words, he was not given that criteria from God not because it is a lie by Jews, but because Jews killed the ones given that critera!

on both account he is wrong since the only prophet given that criteria was NOT killed by Jews, and because it was not a criteria for prophethood in the first place…
 
I think (in fact, I believe) that GOD who revealed the Qur’an was instructing Muhammad to say what would best expose the Jews present. And I don’t think that you know better what was going, or what the appropriate resposne should have been.

Calling people liars clearly is not the best way to guide them.
 
Sister_Amy said:
I think (in fact, I believe) that GOD who revealed the Qur’an was instructing Muhammad to say what would best expose the Jews present.

that is the problem. The author did not expose the Jews present but confirmed their claim .
And I don’t think that you know better what was going, or what the appropriate resposne should have been.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top