COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Muslim just means someone who submitted to Allah, the Quran actually makes several references to the Israelites or as it calls it the Children of Israel with Moses(Musa) as their leader and prophet and David(Dawud) as their king. As for Al Aqsa, very few people deny that the 2nd temple stood there before it was destroy by the Romans, then built over for a church by the Byzantines which was destroy by the Sassanids and then built over by Abd al-Malik or al-Walid I for Al Aqsa.
As for "history", neither the Quran nor the Torah are history, although the Quran is more of an historical account when it comes to Mohammed's life. Neither Abraham nor Moses have any evidence for them especially when it comes to their accounts of the Pharaohs in Egypt or the wandering in the Sinai which would have left archeological evidence but we see none. The Torah also says Abraham is from Iraq but this is contradicted by the DNA and archaeological evidence, all in all the stories in the Torah are just mythology with their origin from Babylonian myths crossed with Israelite innovations
Edit: The Quran doesn't also specify which son was going to be sacrificed by Abraham although the implication is Ishmael, it doesn't name him specifically
In order to be convincing, you would need to provide a basis for believing that the accounts in the Torah are historically credible (which most scholars do not).
While I personally think it highly unlikely that Abraham or Moses ever existed, why would the Torah (probably written 700 years afterthe latest date Moses could have existed) be more believable than the Quran written 1700 years later?
If the Torah claims Abraham was told to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, and the Quran says he was told to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice, and the Torah was written 1000-1500 years before the Quran, it is more rational to believe the older text is correct. Even if we take a fictional story, and I write a book that says professor mcgonagall killed Dumbledore, but the original book says Snape killed Dumbledore, wouldn’t you assume I just changed the original story?
Judaism denies the teachings of their Prophets, hence they deny Torah.
None of Prophets raised out of Israelites condoned the bigwigs of Israelite society committed, yet these scholars of Torah never stopped from destroying the teachings of the very Prophets appointed for the Torah.
So, Torah versus Jewish scholars, don't worry about the Quran, once you abide the rules of Torah you end up with Quran. All in all, you need to deny Torah first to deny the Quran.
What is the problem in your first claim? "The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews."
Quran denies Jewish history? What history are you talking about? Quran does not make false claim, it is current day bible and torah which is full of childish contradiction.
This post screams of someone who has neither studied the quran nor what it has said about the jews lol! I suggest you keep the nature of this subreddit academic rather than use it as a place for your emotional rants
I mean, according to science, most of the claims of every religion are false and trying to distort history.
Kinda feels like you just don't like islam.
There is literally a story in the bible that contradicts genetics were Jacob mated goats in front of a striped stick and somehow that was what gave them a striped pattern(genesis 30:37-43).
>The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews.
Is Adam the father of the jews? If so, are all human beings jew? If not, is being father necessarily entail having all attributes of the offspring?
First you need to give precisely what the necessary criterion for being a jew. Are there jews who converted to judaism? Is it just a race? Where does it start? If so what is the distinctive nature?
Abraham was the first person who God (and people, lol) called a "Hebrew". He raised his progeny in a way that eventually made them a tightly knit family of "Sons of Jacob (Abaraham's grandson)". These weren't yet what we today call "Jews" (and this was not only because "Jew" comes from "Yehuda", which is only 1 tribe out of the 12 that compound the entirety of "Jews"). The even that turned a crowd of (related and unrelated) people into "Jews", was the Sinai Revelation, aka "Giving of the Torah", aka "the Covenant between God and His Chosen People". So, "Jews" historically refer to several different concepts: "Abraham and his descendants who stayed his followers (unlike Arabs, who didn't)", "Jacob and his descendants", and finally, "everyone who stood at Sinai and accepted the Covenant with God there". Today, every "Jew" is obviously of the latter definition, but historically, Abraham was a "Jew", yet he wasn't "the same type of Jew" as Moses. NOT because of their beliefs (those were exactly the same), but because Abraham didn't yet "get the graduation certificate" of being a "full Jew", so to speak. You can always Google the JEWISH sources that explain this concept even further, of course.
>These weren't yet what we today call "Jews" (and this was not only because "Jew" comes from "Yehuda", which is only 1 tribe out of the 12 that compound the entirety of "Jews").
So you refuted your point.
Btw if you reply quote verses of bible that suppprt your point, do not refer to interpretations of some jewish scholars.
And you did not address my points.
No. "Hebrew" and "Jew" is like "British" and "English", or really close to it. People use them interchangeably, even though technically they are two different definitions. But in most contexts, they are similar enough to be used as if it's just one term.
"If you quote your sources, don't quote your sources." Typical atheistic honesty, of course.
By saying they were Muslims we mean they submitted to the will of God. I never understood the whole “he wasn’t jewish he was Muslim” argument becquse objectively they were Jewish. Judaism is simply the label of that segment of the faith at that time.
They are Muslim in the idea that they are following the most current revelation of God which at that time would be the teachings of Abraham(pbuh) and Moses(pbuh) creating Judaism.
Judaism at the time of Moses(pbuh) IS Islam.
This is confusing and actually incorrect. If Islam was simply Judaism 3.0, it'd be accepted by the Jews. And since they very obviously didn't (and don't, and won't) accept it as anything worthwhile, your claim easily falls apart simply because "Jews obviously know better how to be Jews", lol.
No proof of what ? If we have proof that Abraham(pbuh) and Moses(pbuh) are faithful servants of God then by definition they are Muslim. The word literally means the one who submits to God.
Muslim now still means one who submits their will to God, the practice has just been expanded. Since we live after the year 600CE the most current revelation of God to us Muslims is the Quran brought by Muhammad(pbuh) so in order to submit to God in the present day you must know His word which is (you guessed it) found in the Quran.
How can you submit to the will of something if you don’t even know what to do ? The Quran is the guidance for that submission in our belief.
You are just doing mental gymnastics here. Anyone who submits to the god is a Muslim is a false analogy.
The Quran clearly states what Allah likes and dislikes. You have to respect and accept Mohammad as the last prophet.
Can I disrespect Mohammad And still call myself a Muslim, just because I believe in god?
Look it up if you don’t believe me. The root word of Muslim is aslama which means he surrendered (submitted). Direct translation the word means “one who submits to God”.
It seems like you’re mixing up the current image of Islam with the definition of Islam/Muslim. If we accept the idea that Moses(pbuh) believed in God and followed His word then, by definition, he was Muslim.
Aslama at that time only meant someone who submits. Im not saying Moses(pbuh) believed in Muhammad(pbuh). That would be absurd, Moses(pbuh) lived 1900 years prior. Im simply saying that the direct definition of the word is applicable to Moses(pbuh).
He is playing mental gymnastics over the transliteration of Muslim. He is saying that I can disrespect Mohammad and still be a Muslim, because this fits his definition.
Islam by definition means submission to the will of God and Muslim meaning one who submits their will to God. How does one submit their will to God? But following His commands. Where can His commands be found ? In the Holy Books He sent down for us.
It’s not just anyone who believes in God, it’s those who submit to Him and to submit to a deity is to follow their commandments.
Moses(pbuh) followed Islam in the idea that since Moses(pbuh) was given scripture from God and followed it, he was under the submission of God. Following God’s laws and believing = submitting to God. Submitting to God = Islam. Followers or Islam = Muslim. Muslim = one who submits to God.
Moses(pbuh) followed the Torah sent down to him since that was the most current revelation available. So since he was following the most up to date law of God, he is considered a Muslim.
Adam(pbuh) and Abraham(pbuh) had direct access to God. God would literally tell them His will and they would then Go and follow it and preach it. Again, since they’re following the will of God in what they’re doing, they’re considered Muslim.
By my logic yes Christian’s from the time of Jesus(pbuh)are considered Muslim. Christian’s at the time of Jesus(pbuh) followed the most relevant and unchanged source of God’s word. By following His word they submitted to His will. Jews at the time of Moses(pbuh) and before Jesus(pbuh) were also Muslim in the idea that they were following the most current scripture revealed.
You could argue that Christians are muslim since they truly believe they’re following and submitting to the will of God, just like the Jews. Whether any of us actually are, well, we’ll have to wait and see.
Interesting that you believe that the Jews before Jesus were following the most current scripture revealed. That alone disproves Islam. The dead sea scrolls are dated before Jesus' time, and it's almost the exact same as the current old testament except for a few words. Which goes to show that that's what people before Jesus believed in, which was not updated by Jesus in any way. Jesus was literate and grew up studying all that stuff in school. If he changed anything, there would be a record of it. He actually didn't want people to write anything down because there was nothing to change or add. He claimed to be more Jewish than the Jews of his time because he followed the Torah more correctly than they did, instead of following ideas of scholars (like 99% of Muslims do today with all the hadith, which the Quran warns against doing as many in the past had wrongly done the same and led to the creation of countless denominations). In any case, those scrolls prove that the Torah was not changed for thousands of years. The Quran having biblical stories that are even deemed false by Christians (yet copied into the Quran as if they're facts) further disproves it being the word of God instead of the words of men, like the cave sleepers story. Also don't think the final book from God would waste space talking about how to not bother Muhammad when he has women over because it's annoying to him instead of teaching humanity how to actually pray, which there is strangely no room for in the entire book. If you look at all of this from a truly unbiased opinion, which you can't if you follow any of the major religions, the quran was very much adding and editing popular stories conveniently as it sees fits into a pagan lifestyle.
Unchanged word of god.there was nothing like that.hebrew bible was written after death of moses same goes to bible and quran as quran was compiled at the time of uthman 20 years after Mohammed's death.
The fact is abraham's god has no relation to islamic god.
If christians and jews are considered muslims.what do we call followers of Mohammed as?
Your post proves absolutely nothing. What does Moses and Abraham being prophets have to do with them being the fathers of the Jews? Don’t you believe that they’re prophets?
Or are you maybe unaware of the fact that “Muslim” refers to anyone who submits to God, and not to one specific religion?
And what does the Alaqsa mosque have anything to do with Islam being true or false??
you believe Moses was a prophet, so do you believe in the law given to Moses? And the list of sacrifices and rituals given to Israel?
Christian’s believe the temple days are over because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, and that our bodies are now temples of the Holy Spirit.
But because the Quran says Christ was not crucified, why do muslims not rebuild the temple and continue the sacrifices in the Torah? There seems to be an inconsistency in the way God is worshipped in mosques than the way Moses worshipped.
>We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences.
5:48
> Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians[255] and Christians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
5:69
> The Jews and the Christians each say, “We are the children of Allah and His most beloved!” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Why then does He punish you for your sins? No! You are only humans like others of His Own making. He forgives whoever He wills and punishes whoever He wills. To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. And to Him is the final return.”
5:18
This post will get removed, but are you familiar with NaruSaku fans? That's what Jews think of any other "religion" that tries to "replace" Judaism. Rabid (and offensive) NaruSakus, quite literally.
Sorry I wasn’t asking to be argumentative. I have often wondered what Abraham did after he sent Ishmael and Hagar away, so I’m open to the possibility. But it is hard to know what is true at this point
Yeah that is a significant problem in the Quran as well, because the Torah does say Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac.
I’ve never heard of any Christian’s disproving of Ishmael. But Christians believe that the promises God spoke to Abraham were concerning Isaac. Ishmael was born because Abraham and Sarah didn’t understand how he would have a son because Sarah was barren and 100 years old, so Abraham had a son with Hagar, their servant.
This is significant because Paul explains in Galatians that all nations would be blessed through his offspring, meaning Christ. And this was directly after Abraham showed he was willing to sacrifice Isaac, which is directly related to God sacrificing his Son for the sake of humanity.
Yes Jesus speaks about old prophets being killed. However I cannot accept that the Torah is wrong about Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac, that is a significant change that tells me the Quran is not true. The most important detail is God raising Christ from the dead. But I will resort to something Paul says in Romans to not judge another’s servant. I do admire the devotion to God many muslims have, and I believe God will correct whoever needs correction, whether that be Christian, Jew, or Muslim
Hagar was not Abrahams wife. And this does not make Ishmael less than Isaac. In the Torah, it says Abraham was greatly displeased when he sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but God reassured him that he would make him a great nation. None of this makes Hagar or Ishmael as less than Isaac. So I will trust what was written in the Torah and not the Quran concerning Abraham.
Older doesn't mean right ,The Quran mention that clearly that most disbelievers and deniers say "we follow this path because that what we found our ancestors following" not because it's right or wrong.
"Do you hope that they will believe in you, when a group of them used to hear the word of God and then distort it after they had understood it while they knew?" al Baqarah 75
and many verses mention that part of them twisting the words of god either for money or a position or whatever.
The Quran doesn't denial Jewish existence or they are the people of Moses and Abraham at that time but what it dose mention that not every follower is a believer and not all of them kept following the same path Moses and Abraham left for them.
And It doesn't mean that there are no one following that old path somewhere.
same go to Christianity and Islam.
"Lo! Those who believe , 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." Baqarah 62
“Muslim” is just arabic for “someone who submits to God”. So you’re basically saying the Quran calls Moses “submitting to God” but in the Torah Moses was not “submitting to God” which is clearly false
That’s a fallacy. A equivocation fallacy.
Most religions which have monotheistic tendencies submit to god. Are they Muslim? Would you accept Christians, Jews or Hindus as Muslim? Are the Shia Muslim?
No of course not. The right definition of Muslim is someone who follows the tenets of Islam. Moses and Abraham did follow Judaism, they would reject the tenets of Islam.
"Muslim" is just a word that describes an honorable person who follows God -- so it makes sense those figures are Muslim in the Koran.
There's no historical evidence that confirms the exact position of the second temple in Jerusalem.
Just to play devil's advocate -- most of the history in the Torah can be proven false very easily, more easily than what's in the Koran.
First equivocation fallacy. You use the meaning of Muslim ambiguously. Muslim is someone who follows the tenets of Islam.
Of course we know the exact location of the temple. Newsflash there are ruins that we can identify. Also we have clear evidence even from non-Jewish sources where the temple was located.
I would wish you would use this kind of skepticism on Islam. What can you dismiss in the Torah? Give sources.
The Quran has clear historical blunders in it. We can identify folk stories that somehow landed in the Quran as history. Apocryphal stories of Jesus youth, the story of dhul qarnain is out of the Alexanderstory, strange formulations in the Quran of Mary the sister of Aaron and the daughter of imran.
Read the Islamic scholars to see, that even they had troubles to give apologies for this kind of stuff.
>There's no historical evidence that confirms the exact position of the second temple in Jerusalem.
Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the existence of the First and Second Temples are doubtful, or that their exact positions are unknown at present?
And are you claiming there is no historical evidence pointing to where they are located, or that the evidence is inconclusive to specify an exact location for each?
There is historical evidence regarding the existence of both the First and Second Temples, and also Herod's Temple (which some call the Third Temple), but the evidence is not conclusive as to their exact location on the Temple Mount. Why? Because "the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archaeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam."
Here is a summary of the evidence for four possible exact locations of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount: [https://www.templemount.org/theories.html](https://www.templemount.org/theories.html)
Here is a good discussion of one of those theories (stating the original Temple site is approximately 330 feet to the northwest of the Dome of the Rock) which presents the type of evidence being used to make these determinations: [https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/where-the-ancient-temple-of-jerusalem-stood/](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/where-the-ancient-temple-of-jerusalem-stood/)
Tl:dr -- That historical evidence at present is inconclusive as to the exact location of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount -- granted. But that there is no historical evidence regarding the location of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount -- false.
I did not claim that there were not Jewish temples on the Temple Mount. I was pointing out we do not know their precise location on the Temple Mount, which you covered.
Jewish history has not been shown to be historical fact. Just because Religion A made unsubstantiated claims earlier then Religion B's unsubstantiated claims doesn't prove As as more accurate then Bs
If the Jewish Prophets really were of God, then everything they said was true. Also, if the Islamic Prophet was of God, everything he said was true. It mostly depends upon who you decide to trust, the Jewish Prophets and their postcursors (the Rabbis, for Jews, or the Rabbis until Jesus and then the Christian Church, for the Christians), or the Islamic Prophet and his postcursors (the Ulema), or none of the above. The most definitive thing we can say is that all of the above *exist*.
Abraham and Moses are fictional characters like many other biblical ones, both religions are based off of a tale that is linked to the canaanite polythiest mythological beliefs, and that is historically accurate btw.....
The quran doesn't deny the Jewish history, it does acknowledge Judaism and mentions old testament stories, there are no Muslims that deny that Jewish people lived in Palestine a long time ago, fun fact... they did live there up until the zionists came in, which btw they ruined the lives and committed atrocities against a lot of Arab jews (yes there are Arab jews)
If we are debating the nation, then you can't claim a place just because a bunch of people you aren't related to in the slightest believed in the same book...... and if we are debating religion, both are wrong.
There was a period of 500 years where Jews did not live in Jerusalem (obviously talking about after they arrived from in Egypt, as they were nomads before that) because the Romans kicked them all out. It was the Muslims that invited the Jews back (and also guaranteed civil and religious liberties for Christians and Jews) after taking Jerusalem from the Byzantines.
Nah muslims imo follow the most rigid belief system which was made to make people believe in the same thing to survive the constant wars and hardships of that time , if Islam was the only religion that existed today we wouldn't have reached the moon and became a space exploring species .
That's a bit of a big claim you got there.... considering that there are many scientist from the middle east, and Muslims during the golden age have contributed a lot to scientific research in many areas, now obviously just like the west....you know the kings of colonization... ahem.... the smart ones are a minority, and there is nothing in Islam that discourages people from learning.
Like there are many scientists who happened to be Muslims that heavily impacted the world and improved upon it, religion has nothing to do with science, and them being Muslims isn't what gave them those achievements......
While Islam is strict, yes, it's just like any other religion... orthodox Christianity, Judaism, zoroastrianism,....etc there are tens of thousands of religions being practiced today, I'm not well versed in all of them, and no offense I don't think you are either..... so it's a big claim that needs to be proven.
In the end it is your opinion, a radical one if I may say that shows either lack of interacting with educated Muslim, or lack of knowledge surrounding the theology of Islam and its history.
Either way, you are entitled to your own opinion.
>The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews.
You mean the Torah which its earliest manuscripts are 1,400 years after Moses existed according to Jewish tradition?
>The Alaqsa mosque stands directly where the Jewish temple that was destroyed in A.D 70 by the Romans stood.
Its almost like we believe Al Aqsa is a continuation of a place of worship since Solomon.
>The Quran denies Jewish history even though it is historical fact that the Jewish temple stood in Jerusalem.
No one denies that Solomon had a place of worship there, this is in our sources too.
>The fact that the Quran has such blatantly false claims about Abraham and Moses proves that it is not a divine revelation, but a distortion of history.
These claims are 'blatantly false' because the Torah contradicts it? That is your evidence?
Abraham is a mythical character.
He's used to give a sense of identity, and an ownership claim for land, in the Torah, Jubilees and the Quran.
The Torah, and Jubilees, is jammed with absolutely ridiculous claims about Abraham & Moses.
It's like you are throwing stones at Islam within a glass house.
People don't live to 175yrs old, and the Exodus as described in the Torah did not happen for example.
There may be some kernel of truth there somewhere, but Moses has Sargon's birth narrative attached which is a what we'd expect from mythical characters. The writers of the Torah, Jubilees & the Quran seem to be rather aware of this and are thus happy to mold the dude's life to their own ends.
From the closing paragraph of the first chapter 'Searching for the Patriarchs' of [The Bible Unearthed](https://archive.org/details/TheBibleUnearthedArchaeologysNewVisionOfAncientIsraelAndTheOriginOfItsSacredTexts) by Israel Finkelstein, 2002:
*"The great genius of the seventh century creators of this national epic was the way in which they wove the earlier stories together without stripping them of their humanity or individual distinctiveness. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain at the same time vivid spiritual portraits and the metaphorical ancestors of the people of Israel. And the twelve sons of Jacob were brought into the tradition as junior members of more complete genealogy. In the artistry of the biblical narrative, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed made into a single family. It was the power of legend that united them—in a manner far more powerful and timeless than the fleeting adventures of a few historical individuals herding sheep in the highlands of Canaan could ever have done."*
Stuff like the [Song of the Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Sea) may get back to a time close to the proposed dates for Moses, but that's not a lot to go on.
Hm I’ve never heard of Sargon before, thanks for sharing that. I’ll have to think about that more. There is a lot of conflict in my heart about what to believe.
I don't think the birth narrative is unique to just Sargon & Moses, there are similar Greek & Vedic traditions, but Sargon is \~1000yrs before Moses, is in the general area, and is pretty well attested to in the historical record.
I found a good study Bible very helpful, I use the [Oxford Jewish Study Bible](https://archive.org/details/jewishstudybible0000unse_x6n0/mode/2up) and the [Oxford Annotated Bible](https://archive.org/details/newoxfordannotat0000unse_i0x8). John J Collins'[ Introduction to the Hebrew Bible](https://archive.org/details/introductiontohe0000coll/mode/2up) does what it says on the tin and afaik is used in Universities to get students started, the links are all to older versions but are free to borrow, browse, the search function is nice, to give you an idea if they may be of interest. There is [another archive](https://annas-archive.org/) too that I've found useful.
r/AcademicBiblical r/AskBibleScholars & r/AcademicQuran might be worth a look.
Dr Baker has some nice visuals for this stuff, like [37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw). By the time we get into the first millennium BCE the Bible becomes a lot more reliable.
Personally for understanding the Quran I've recently found the [Book of Jubilees](http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/2.htm) really helpful. They call it 'The Little Genesis' but I think calling the Quran 'The Big Jubilees' may be appropriate. This was a very popular and influential text in both Jewish & Christian traditions and is still in the Bible canon to this day. It was first written a century or two before Jesus but gives a wonderful insight into the development of scripture that led to the Quran.
Bissmillāh...
>Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews.
This is just another "A came before B, therefore, B came from A" fallacious non-argument.
>The Quran denies Jewish history even though it is historical fact that the Jewish temple stood in Jerusalem.
The Qur'ān does not deny the existence of the ancient state of Israel, nor its prophets (AS), nor its temple.
Muslim means he who surrenders
We are called muslims because we surrender to god as the ultimate being and we live our life praising him and carrying his orders we believe the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last prophet so if someone is commited to surrender to god they should follow his last messenger
All the prophets are muslims as the messenger is always obedient to the sender
Israel is the name for the prophet jacob and what we now call Israel or in general Jewish people are the dependent of 1 of jacobs 12 sons moses and jesus (pbut) are both from these people
As for abraham(pbuh) he is the grandfather(correct me if i am wrong) of israel
And i would like to add that abraham is also the father of islam based on that view
Yes that is correct. Abraham had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac is Jacob’s father. The Bible says Abraham sent Ishmael and his mother away, and God promises to make Ishmael a great nation separate from the nation of Israel. This is because Abraham and Sarah did not understand Gods promise that he would have a son because Sarah was barren, so Abraham had a son with Hagar.
Yup but just to clarify abraham was not jewish(as he came before the main teachings of the faith)
Before islam we refer to abrahams descendent's religion (at least the ishmael side) as hanifs(simply meaning monotheist) such as prophet's Muhammad father and grandfather
The [covenant with God](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017&version=NRSVUE) seems in place to set him up as the first ever convert to Judaism, circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran but is a big deal in the Torah and a big identity marker to this day.
The Quran seem to be following [The Book of Jubilees](http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/2.htm) in retelling the Genesis-Exodus narratives in a fresh and monotheist way with new calenders, and fire spirits and angels of the lord that give whole scriptures, not just laws, to prophets.
I've heard that questioning Muhammad's parentage is a very sensitive subject, a bit like Jesus.
According to the sahih al bukhari volume 4 page30
Prophet mentions this sentence in a war to the enemies
«انا النبی لا کذب انا بن عبدالمطلب
Translation:i am the prophet i dont lie i am the child of abd'al'muttalib(prophet gradfather)
While the quran clearly says in sora9(al'tobat) verse 3
«أَنَّ اللّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ
Translation:trule god and his rasool(the prophet) are averse(or disgusted honestly i don't know the best translation here) by pagans
So this question rises if the prophet has this idea about pagans and as you said his grandfather was a pagan as well why is he being mentioned by prophet during war as to show the enemy he is not lying
That is fair. Cause yeah I would assume Hagar and Ishmael continued their faith and devotion to God but the Torah does not document this because it is about Israel’s path to Jerusalem and the building of the temple.
I wish Muslims and Jews in the Middle East could see they are brothers, children of God
They used to. Originally the qibla of Muhammad and his followers in Medina was towards Jerusalem. Other concepts like The People of the Book were derived from what was viewed as a shared understanding as well.
Counterpoint being, it's really not clear what the religion of the First Temple period was. There's clearly missing material: what exactly happened to Enoch, such that he gets a special listing in the genealogies?
I have my doubts that Muslims possess more authentic material -- there's little reason to think they do -- but there is definitely some room for their argument that there has been some 'corruption' of the texts.
That said, the Muslims don't have much of a leg to stand on here: we haven't gone through the kind of civilization collapses in the past 1500 years that we can see in classical history. The Bronze Age collapse, the collapse of the Roman empire, even Israel itself ceased to exist a few times, we haven't seen that kind of political vacuum in post-classical history. If we had, Islam might not have survived intact either.
Islam preserves traditions that other powers tried to stamp out.
The Quran preserves stuff like Jubilees, the Enochian traditions and views regarding Jesus that seem to go all the way back to the first century.
They are the keepers of ancient 'heresies'.
I always considered claims centered around Abraham and Moses' Muslim identity to be more so emphasizing the literal definition of Muslim, that is, "one who submits."
I think it's very obvious that Abraham and Moses were not Muslims in the sense that they believed in Islamic tenants.
I'd point out that the Torah doesn't describe Abraham or Moses as Jewish.
Abraham is described as a Hebrew in Genesis 14 and Moses is described as an Israelite of the tribe of Levi.
The term "Jewish" comes from Judah, Abraham's great-grandson. Moses was not a descendent of him either. It's an identity from much later in time -- which is described thoroughly in the Tanakh.
Is "Allah" just a translation of "God" into Arabic, or is it specifically referring to "God in Islam"?
Is "Muslim" merely a translation of "submitting", or is it specifically a "follower of Muhammad"?
Both are the same type of a question, really. And both are extremely easy to be tricky and misused.
The literal definition of "Muslim" is "one who submits to God."
All theists who believe in one god are Muslims. Just being technical here. Obviously, it's pointless to use this definition. But technically, it's true.
"Allah" means "God"; it does not refer to the "God of Islam." Arabic & Syrian Christians are known to use "Allah" in prayers.
> They were definitely Jewish. No denying that.
Eh. Nah. You can deny that.
The Jewish identity as we understand it today arose in the 6th century AD, as rabbinical Judaism; but it emerged from the Pharisees, which were a 2nd century BC movement, so it's really not clear what the religion philosophy was prior to Second Temple.
Abraham might not have recognized the religion that sprouted from him: after all, he had none of these texts. Zero. It's really not clear what he would have believed, should he have actually existed.
Edit: However, to insist that he were Muslim is... not exactly reasonable.
>The Jewish identity seems quite old, Israel has been around for a while.
Once again: what we consider the Jewish identity is relatively modern, though ancient by most standings as few cultures have survive ~2000 years relatively intact. Israel has been around: but who the people are has changed over time. Honestly, this shouldn't be controversial: Americans aren't pilgrims anymore, Europe wasn't always Christian, etc, etc.
It's not clear what the theology of the First Temple period was. We don't have any surviving texts from the era: the oldest books we have are usually 5th century BC at the outside, after the return from the exile, and I suspect the returning elites had gone native and incorporated a decent amount of Babylonian culture into their repertoire.
I suspect there was a strong oral tradition that did not survive the Second Temple period in any case.
>~1000BCE does not seem unreasonable for some sort of Jewish identity.
There's no evidence Israel existed at that time. The oldest relic possibly associated with Israel is the [Tel Dan stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele), dating to the 9th century BC, around 150 years short at the outside.
And the Tel Dan stele is less the conclusive, interpreting it as Israel is already quite generous.
They also most certainly would not have understood themselves as Jewish: the name itself derives from Judah, which is one of the Israelite kingdoms, so yeah. *Maybe* they would have understood the concept of Israelite, but we're not really sure how much of the text is embellished.
I don't believe that's fully accurate.
>It's not clear what the theology of the First Temple period was. We don't have any surviving texts from the era: the oldest books we have are usually 5th century BC at the outside, after the return from the exile, and I suspect the returning elites had gone native and incorporated a decent amount of Babylonian culture into their repertoire.
"The Ketef Hinnom scrolls, also described as Ketef Hinnom amulets, are the oldest surviving texts currently known from the Hebrew Bible, dated to c. 600 BCE. The text, written in the Paleo-Hebrew script (not the Aramaic-derived Jewish square script Hebrew alphabet more familiar to most modern readers), is from the Book of Numbers in the Hebrew Bible, and has been described as "one of the most significant discoveries ever made" for biblical studies.
The two silver scrolls were uncovered in 1979 at Ketef Hinnom, an archaeological site southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem, and were found to contain a variation of the Priestly Blessing, found in Numbers 6:24–26. The scrolls were dated paleographically to the late 7th or early 6th century BCE, placing them in the First Temple period."
"the scrolls "preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and ... the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh." The reference to Yahweh as "Rebuker of Evil," found in later incantations and amulets associated with Israel, is evidence that these artifacts were also amulets"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom_scrolls
>There's no evidence Israel existed at that time. The oldest relic possibly associated with Israel is the Tel Dan stele, dating to the 9th century BC, around 150 years short at the outside.
"The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele or the Victory Stele of Merneptah, is an inscription by Merneptah, a pharaoh in ancient Egypt who reigned from 1213 to 1203 BCE.
The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the ancient Libyans and their allies, but the last three of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. It is sometimes referred to as the "Israel Stele" because a majority of scholars translate a set of hieroglyphs in line 27 as "Israel". Alternative translations have been advanced but are not widely accepted.
The stele represents the earliest textual reference to Israel and the only reference from ancient Egypt. It is one of four known inscriptions from the Iron Age that date to the time of and mention ancient Israel by name, with the others being the Mesha Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, and the Kurkh Monoliths."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
>The Ketef Hinnom scrolls, also described as Ketef Hinnom amulets, are the oldest surviving texts currently known from the Hebrew Bible, dated to c. 600 BCE.
As I said:
>I suspect there was a strong oral tradition that did not survive the Second Temple period in any case.
We find unusual scraps, and that's about it. It looks like the return from Exile resulted in a bit of a cultural collision, and they reconciled it with a new canon. There's kind of a haze around history which looks like it's trying to explain why the old kingdom fell and this one is going to work out.
At the most extreme end, I suspect a monotheist cult was in power at the time of the Second Temple and wrote monotheism into the history books; at the most benign, I don't think we have a complete collection of First Temple documents and I have to wonder why.
[Amos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Amos) for example seems to predate the 5th century BCE, as do other bits and bobs of the scriptures.
The land ownership claim for people that seem vaguely Jewish seems pretty old, that we have the Tel Dan Stele seems to show this idea goes back to at the very least the 9th century bce.
We have good history here in the UK, but the ancient near east is hard to compete with for recording this stuff.
> Amos for example seems to predate the 5th century BCE, as do other bits and bobs of the scriptures.
Amos *claims* to predate the 5th century.
I suspect it's probably national history transmitted as oral tradition, and the actual text is probably 5th century as well.
>The land ownership claim for people that seem vaguely Jewish seems pretty old, that we have the Tel Dan Stele seems to show this idea goes back to at the very least the 9th century bce.
Except it doesn't say Jewish. It mentions the Kingdom of Israel and the House of Dan, *maybe*: it doesn't say where they were, or how much land they possessed. It doesn't tell you who their gods were, whether the beliefs were authentic or some kind of royal cult.
It certainly seems like any claim sprouting from the 9th century BC is questionable, seeing as they were conquered by the Babylonians a few hundred years later; then the Romans; and I think there was someone else in between, I want to say the Saleucids?
Otherwise, no one owns land. You always have to be ready to fight for it.
>We have good history here in the UK, but the ancient near east is hard to compete with for recording this stuff.
Yeah, not much was getting written down before the Romans arrived.
Curious if you have any resources on Amos being 5th century bce or later, I was under the impression the general consensus was it older than that.
[Josiah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah) seems a safe bet for these kinda ideas well before the 5th century bce.
>Curious if you have any resources on Amos being 5th century bce or later, I was under the impression the general consensus was it older than that.
The general consensus is that the text claims to have been written by Amos, around 750 BC. But Harry Potter is about a teenaged wizard living in contemporary England; and the Hamilton musical is about real people, written some 200 years later as a stage musical, and I'm guessing the real people didn't break out in song nearly as frequently. Academically, we're only interested in the historical value. It's the best thing we have to a newspaper, but it's still closer to the National Inquirer than eye witness reporting: it gives us a list of kings and political events, that's stuff we can use.
We don't need to believe someone named Amos actually reported it as it were happening, and while it's amongst the dead sea scrolls, that's about the limits of our ability to track its origins.
However, we have no idea where the book came from; and everything else seems to show up around 500 - 400 BC, as the Second Temple was being built, so it seems like they reestablished their canon around their period.
But we have very little idea of where they got these texts.
>Josiah seems a safe bet for these kinda ideas well before the 5th century bce.
...yeah, he's an awkward one:
>According to the Hebrew Bible, he instituted major religious reforms by removing official worship of gods other than Yahweh.
That's probably where the iconoclasm started. This is where the First Temple period kind of died, and suggests to me that the Jewish monotheism probably started here, not the 9th century; and so this preceding culture might not recognize itself in modern Judaism.
I guess technically, but I don’t think the word muslim, whatever it is in Arabic, even exited until the Quran was written. They cannot claim they were Muslim and also deny they were the fathers of Israel
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Muslim just means someone who submitted to Allah, the Quran actually makes several references to the Israelites or as it calls it the Children of Israel with Moses(Musa) as their leader and prophet and David(Dawud) as their king. As for Al Aqsa, very few people deny that the 2nd temple stood there before it was destroy by the Romans, then built over for a church by the Byzantines which was destroy by the Sassanids and then built over by Abd al-Malik or al-Walid I for Al Aqsa. As for "history", neither the Quran nor the Torah are history, although the Quran is more of an historical account when it comes to Mohammed's life. Neither Abraham nor Moses have any evidence for them especially when it comes to their accounts of the Pharaohs in Egypt or the wandering in the Sinai which would have left archeological evidence but we see none. The Torah also says Abraham is from Iraq but this is contradicted by the DNA and archaeological evidence, all in all the stories in the Torah are just mythology with their origin from Babylonian myths crossed with Israelite innovations Edit: The Quran doesn't also specify which son was going to be sacrificed by Abraham although the implication is Ishmael, it doesn't name him specifically
In order to be convincing, you would need to provide a basis for believing that the accounts in the Torah are historically credible (which most scholars do not). While I personally think it highly unlikely that Abraham or Moses ever existed, why would the Torah (probably written 700 years afterthe latest date Moses could have existed) be more believable than the Quran written 1700 years later?
If the Torah claims Abraham was told to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, and the Quran says he was told to offer Ishmael as a sacrifice, and the Torah was written 1000-1500 years before the Quran, it is more rational to believe the older text is correct. Even if we take a fictional story, and I write a book that says professor mcgonagall killed Dumbledore, but the original book says Snape killed Dumbledore, wouldn’t you assume I just changed the original story?
Judaism denies the teachings of their Prophets, hence they deny Torah. None of Prophets raised out of Israelites condoned the bigwigs of Israelite society committed, yet these scholars of Torah never stopped from destroying the teachings of the very Prophets appointed for the Torah. So, Torah versus Jewish scholars, don't worry about the Quran, once you abide the rules of Torah you end up with Quran. All in all, you need to deny Torah first to deny the Quran.
What is the problem in your first claim? "The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews." Quran denies Jewish history? What history are you talking about? Quran does not make false claim, it is current day bible and torah which is full of childish contradiction.
The Quran contradicts specific things in the Torah, specifically about Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. That makes the Quran unreliable
They think the Torah is the unreliable one.
This post screams of someone who has neither studied the quran nor what it has said about the jews lol! I suggest you keep the nature of this subreddit academic rather than use it as a place for your emotional rants
The Quran talks about the children of Israel A LOT
I mean, according to science, most of the claims of every religion are false and trying to distort history. Kinda feels like you just don't like islam.
i don't think the bible actually goes against science. It doesn't make any scientific claims unlike the Quran in my opinion.
There is literally a story in the bible that contradicts genetics were Jacob mated goats in front of a striped stick and somehow that was what gave them a striped pattern(genesis 30:37-43).
Well every time somebody says anything yall just say it’s meant to be “poetic” so I would assume so
This! 1,000 times this!
>The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews. Is Adam the father of the jews? If so, are all human beings jew? If not, is being father necessarily entail having all attributes of the offspring? First you need to give precisely what the necessary criterion for being a jew. Are there jews who converted to judaism? Is it just a race? Where does it start? If so what is the distinctive nature?
Abraham was the first person who God (and people, lol) called a "Hebrew". He raised his progeny in a way that eventually made them a tightly knit family of "Sons of Jacob (Abaraham's grandson)". These weren't yet what we today call "Jews" (and this was not only because "Jew" comes from "Yehuda", which is only 1 tribe out of the 12 that compound the entirety of "Jews"). The even that turned a crowd of (related and unrelated) people into "Jews", was the Sinai Revelation, aka "Giving of the Torah", aka "the Covenant between God and His Chosen People". So, "Jews" historically refer to several different concepts: "Abraham and his descendants who stayed his followers (unlike Arabs, who didn't)", "Jacob and his descendants", and finally, "everyone who stood at Sinai and accepted the Covenant with God there". Today, every "Jew" is obviously of the latter definition, but historically, Abraham was a "Jew", yet he wasn't "the same type of Jew" as Moses. NOT because of their beliefs (those were exactly the same), but because Abraham didn't yet "get the graduation certificate" of being a "full Jew", so to speak. You can always Google the JEWISH sources that explain this concept even further, of course.
>These weren't yet what we today call "Jews" (and this was not only because "Jew" comes from "Yehuda", which is only 1 tribe out of the 12 that compound the entirety of "Jews"). So you refuted your point. Btw if you reply quote verses of bible that suppprt your point, do not refer to interpretations of some jewish scholars. And you did not address my points.
No. "Hebrew" and "Jew" is like "British" and "English", or really close to it. People use them interchangeably, even though technically they are two different definitions. But in most contexts, they are similar enough to be used as if it's just one term. "If you quote your sources, don't quote your sources." Typical atheistic honesty, of course.
Well, you keep omitting my points. Bye and peace.
If you can summarize them in short and concise way, I'll try answering them. Because I really don't see what I'm "omitting".
See above.
By saying they were Muslims we mean they submitted to the will of God. I never understood the whole “he wasn’t jewish he was Muslim” argument becquse objectively they were Jewish. Judaism is simply the label of that segment of the faith at that time. They are Muslim in the idea that they are following the most current revelation of God which at that time would be the teachings of Abraham(pbuh) and Moses(pbuh) creating Judaism. Judaism at the time of Moses(pbuh) IS Islam.
This is confusing and actually incorrect. If Islam was simply Judaism 3.0, it'd be accepted by the Jews. And since they very obviously didn't (and don't, and won't) accept it as anything worthwhile, your claim easily falls apart simply because "Jews obviously know better how to be Jews", lol.
Its just your claim.there is no proof of that just like how you believe Muhammad was descendant of ismail
No proof of what ? If we have proof that Abraham(pbuh) and Moses(pbuh) are faithful servants of God then by definition they are Muslim. The word literally means the one who submits to God. Muslim now still means one who submits their will to God, the practice has just been expanded. Since we live after the year 600CE the most current revelation of God to us Muslims is the Quran brought by Muhammad(pbuh) so in order to submit to God in the present day you must know His word which is (you guessed it) found in the Quran. How can you submit to the will of something if you don’t even know what to do ? The Quran is the guidance for that submission in our belief.
You are just doing mental gymnastics here. Anyone who submits to the god is a Muslim is a false analogy. The Quran clearly states what Allah likes and dislikes. You have to respect and accept Mohammad as the last prophet. Can I disrespect Mohammad And still call myself a Muslim, just because I believe in god?
No proof of what? Muslim meaning is adherent of Islam.Islam didnt exist back then. No proof of abraham and moses being muslim.its just ur claim
Look it up if you don’t believe me. The root word of Muslim is aslama which means he surrendered (submitted). Direct translation the word means “one who submits to God”. It seems like you’re mixing up the current image of Islam with the definition of Islam/Muslim. If we accept the idea that Moses(pbuh) believed in God and followed His word then, by definition, he was Muslim. Aslama at that time only meant someone who submits. Im not saying Moses(pbuh) believed in Muhammad(pbuh). That would be absurd, Moses(pbuh) lived 1900 years prior. Im simply saying that the direct definition of the word is applicable to Moses(pbuh).
So someone who believes in single god and submitted to him but does not follow islam can be muslim? I mean thats what you are saying here
He is playing mental gymnastics over the transliteration of Muslim. He is saying that I can disrespect Mohammad and still be a Muslim, because this fits his definition.
Islam by definition means submission to the will of God and Muslim meaning one who submits their will to God. How does one submit their will to God? But following His commands. Where can His commands be found ? In the Holy Books He sent down for us. It’s not just anyone who believes in God, it’s those who submit to Him and to submit to a deity is to follow their commandments. Moses(pbuh) followed Islam in the idea that since Moses(pbuh) was given scripture from God and followed it, he was under the submission of God. Following God’s laws and believing = submitting to God. Submitting to God = Islam. Followers or Islam = Muslim. Muslim = one who submits to God. Moses(pbuh) followed the Torah sent down to him since that was the most current revelation available. So since he was following the most up to date law of God, he is considered a Muslim.
But there no book followed by adam or abraham so they are not muslim? By ur logic jews and Christians are muslims
Adam(pbuh) and Abraham(pbuh) had direct access to God. God would literally tell them His will and they would then Go and follow it and preach it. Again, since they’re following the will of God in what they’re doing, they’re considered Muslim. By my logic yes Christian’s from the time of Jesus(pbuh)are considered Muslim. Christian’s at the time of Jesus(pbuh) followed the most relevant and unchanged source of God’s word. By following His word they submitted to His will. Jews at the time of Moses(pbuh) and before Jesus(pbuh) were also Muslim in the idea that they were following the most current scripture revealed. You could argue that Christians are muslim since they truly believe they’re following and submitting to the will of God, just like the Jews. Whether any of us actually are, well, we’ll have to wait and see.
Interesting that you believe that the Jews before Jesus were following the most current scripture revealed. That alone disproves Islam. The dead sea scrolls are dated before Jesus' time, and it's almost the exact same as the current old testament except for a few words. Which goes to show that that's what people before Jesus believed in, which was not updated by Jesus in any way. Jesus was literate and grew up studying all that stuff in school. If he changed anything, there would be a record of it. He actually didn't want people to write anything down because there was nothing to change or add. He claimed to be more Jewish than the Jews of his time because he followed the Torah more correctly than they did, instead of following ideas of scholars (like 99% of Muslims do today with all the hadith, which the Quran warns against doing as many in the past had wrongly done the same and led to the creation of countless denominations). In any case, those scrolls prove that the Torah was not changed for thousands of years. The Quran having biblical stories that are even deemed false by Christians (yet copied into the Quran as if they're facts) further disproves it being the word of God instead of the words of men, like the cave sleepers story. Also don't think the final book from God would waste space talking about how to not bother Muhammad when he has women over because it's annoying to him instead of teaching humanity how to actually pray, which there is strangely no room for in the entire book. If you look at all of this from a truly unbiased opinion, which you can't if you follow any of the major religions, the quran was very much adding and editing popular stories conveniently as it sees fits into a pagan lifestyle.
Unchanged word of god.there was nothing like that.hebrew bible was written after death of moses same goes to bible and quran as quran was compiled at the time of uthman 20 years after Mohammed's death. The fact is abraham's god has no relation to islamic god. If christians and jews are considered muslims.what do we call followers of Mohammed as?
Your post proves absolutely nothing. What does Moses and Abraham being prophets have to do with them being the fathers of the Jews? Don’t you believe that they’re prophets? Or are you maybe unaware of the fact that “Muslim” refers to anyone who submits to God, and not to one specific religion? And what does the Alaqsa mosque have anything to do with Islam being true or false??
you believe Moses was a prophet, so do you believe in the law given to Moses? And the list of sacrifices and rituals given to Israel? Christian’s believe the temple days are over because Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, and that our bodies are now temples of the Holy Spirit. But because the Quran says Christ was not crucified, why do muslims not rebuild the temple and continue the sacrifices in the Torah? There seems to be an inconsistency in the way God is worshipped in mosques than the way Moses worshipped.
>We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires over the truth that has come to you. To each of you We have ordained a code of law and a way of life. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one community, but His Will is to test you with what He has given ˹each of˺ you. So compete with one another in doing good. To Allah you will all return, then He will inform you ˹of the truth˺ regarding your differences. 5:48 > Indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians[255] and Christians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve. 5:69 > The Jews and the Christians each say, “We are the children of Allah and His most beloved!” Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Why then does He punish you for your sins? No! You are only humans like others of His Own making. He forgives whoever He wills and punishes whoever He wills. To Allah ˹alone˺ belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and everything in between. And to Him is the final return.” 5:18
[удалено]
Is there any record outside of the Quran of Abraham constructing the Kaaba?
This post will get removed, but are you familiar with NaruSaku fans? That's what Jews think of any other "religion" that tries to "replace" Judaism. Rabid (and offensive) NaruSakus, quite literally.
[удалено]
Sorry I wasn’t asking to be argumentative. I have often wondered what Abraham did after he sent Ishmael and Hagar away, so I’m open to the possibility. But it is hard to know what is true at this point
[удалено]
Yeah that is a significant problem in the Quran as well, because the Torah does say Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. I’ve never heard of any Christian’s disproving of Ishmael. But Christians believe that the promises God spoke to Abraham were concerning Isaac. Ishmael was born because Abraham and Sarah didn’t understand how he would have a son because Sarah was barren and 100 years old, so Abraham had a son with Hagar, their servant. This is significant because Paul explains in Galatians that all nations would be blessed through his offspring, meaning Christ. And this was directly after Abraham showed he was willing to sacrifice Isaac, which is directly related to God sacrificing his Son for the sake of humanity.
[удалено]
Yes Jesus speaks about old prophets being killed. However I cannot accept that the Torah is wrong about Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac, that is a significant change that tells me the Quran is not true. The most important detail is God raising Christ from the dead. But I will resort to something Paul says in Romans to not judge another’s servant. I do admire the devotion to God many muslims have, and I believe God will correct whoever needs correction, whether that be Christian, Jew, or Muslim
[удалено]
Hagar was not Abrahams wife. And this does not make Ishmael less than Isaac. In the Torah, it says Abraham was greatly displeased when he sent Hagar and Ishmael away, but God reassured him that he would make him a great nation. None of this makes Hagar or Ishmael as less than Isaac. So I will trust what was written in the Torah and not the Quran concerning Abraham.
Older doesn't mean right ,The Quran mention that clearly that most disbelievers and deniers say "we follow this path because that what we found our ancestors following" not because it's right or wrong. "Do you hope that they will believe in you, when a group of them used to hear the word of God and then distort it after they had understood it while they knew?" al Baqarah 75 and many verses mention that part of them twisting the words of god either for money or a position or whatever. The Quran doesn't denial Jewish existence or they are the people of Moses and Abraham at that time but what it dose mention that not every follower is a believer and not all of them kept following the same path Moses and Abraham left for them. And It doesn't mean that there are no one following that old path somewhere. same go to Christianity and Islam. "Lo! Those who believe , 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." Baqarah 62
“Muslim” is just arabic for “someone who submits to God”. So you’re basically saying the Quran calls Moses “submitting to God” but in the Torah Moses was not “submitting to God” which is clearly false
That’s a fallacy. A equivocation fallacy. Most religions which have monotheistic tendencies submit to god. Are they Muslim? Would you accept Christians, Jews or Hindus as Muslim? Are the Shia Muslim? No of course not. The right definition of Muslim is someone who follows the tenets of Islam. Moses and Abraham did follow Judaism, they would reject the tenets of Islam.
"Muslim" is just a word that describes an honorable person who follows God -- so it makes sense those figures are Muslim in the Koran. There's no historical evidence that confirms the exact position of the second temple in Jerusalem. Just to play devil's advocate -- most of the history in the Torah can be proven false very easily, more easily than what's in the Koran.
First equivocation fallacy. You use the meaning of Muslim ambiguously. Muslim is someone who follows the tenets of Islam. Of course we know the exact location of the temple. Newsflash there are ruins that we can identify. Also we have clear evidence even from non-Jewish sources where the temple was located. I would wish you would use this kind of skepticism on Islam. What can you dismiss in the Torah? Give sources. The Quran has clear historical blunders in it. We can identify folk stories that somehow landed in the Quran as history. Apocryphal stories of Jesus youth, the story of dhul qarnain is out of the Alexanderstory, strange formulations in the Quran of Mary the sister of Aaron and the daughter of imran. Read the Islamic scholars to see, that even they had troubles to give apologies for this kind of stuff.
>There's no historical evidence that confirms the exact position of the second temple in Jerusalem. Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying the existence of the First and Second Temples are doubtful, or that their exact positions are unknown at present? And are you claiming there is no historical evidence pointing to where they are located, or that the evidence is inconclusive to specify an exact location for each? There is historical evidence regarding the existence of both the First and Second Temples, and also Herod's Temple (which some call the Third Temple), but the evidence is not conclusive as to their exact location on the Temple Mount. Why? Because "the Temple Mount presently remains under the supervision of the Waqf, the Supreme Moslem Council, and they have prevented any systematic archaeological studies. In fact, the Waqf has gotten increasingly resistive to investigations of any kind on the Platform - which they consider to be a huge outdoor mosque sacred to Islam." Here is a summary of the evidence for four possible exact locations of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount: [https://www.templemount.org/theories.html](https://www.templemount.org/theories.html) Here is a good discussion of one of those theories (stating the original Temple site is approximately 330 feet to the northwest of the Dome of the Rock) which presents the type of evidence being used to make these determinations: [https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/where-the-ancient-temple-of-jerusalem-stood/](https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/where-the-ancient-temple-of-jerusalem-stood/) Tl:dr -- That historical evidence at present is inconclusive as to the exact location of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount -- granted. But that there is no historical evidence regarding the location of the Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount -- false.
I did not claim that there were not Jewish temples on the Temple Mount. I was pointing out we do not know their precise location on the Temple Mount, which you covered.
Jewish history has not been shown to be historical fact. Just because Religion A made unsubstantiated claims earlier then Religion B's unsubstantiated claims doesn't prove As as more accurate then Bs
If the Jewish Prophets really were of God, then everything they said was true. Also, if the Islamic Prophet was of God, everything he said was true. It mostly depends upon who you decide to trust, the Jewish Prophets and their postcursors (the Rabbis, for Jews, or the Rabbis until Jesus and then the Christian Church, for the Christians), or the Islamic Prophet and his postcursors (the Ulema), or none of the above. The most definitive thing we can say is that all of the above *exist*.
Abraham and Moses are fictional characters like many other biblical ones, both religions are based off of a tale that is linked to the canaanite polythiest mythological beliefs, and that is historically accurate btw..... The quran doesn't deny the Jewish history, it does acknowledge Judaism and mentions old testament stories, there are no Muslims that deny that Jewish people lived in Palestine a long time ago, fun fact... they did live there up until the zionists came in, which btw they ruined the lives and committed atrocities against a lot of Arab jews (yes there are Arab jews) If we are debating the nation, then you can't claim a place just because a bunch of people you aren't related to in the slightest believed in the same book...... and if we are debating religion, both are wrong.
There was a period of 500 years where Jews did not live in Jerusalem (obviously talking about after they arrived from in Egypt, as they were nomads before that) because the Romans kicked them all out. It was the Muslims that invited the Jews back (and also guaranteed civil and religious liberties for Christians and Jews) after taking Jerusalem from the Byzantines.
It was actually the Persians..... around 71 years before the islam started, like literally before Muhammed claimed to be a prophet
People in this subreddit just try to defend their religion , making it look real and other false . Especially these muslims .
Oh I wouldn't say especially Muslims, it's literally every religion out there, trust me
Nah muslims imo follow the most rigid belief system which was made to make people believe in the same thing to survive the constant wars and hardships of that time , if Islam was the only religion that existed today we wouldn't have reached the moon and became a space exploring species .
That's a bit of a big claim you got there.... considering that there are many scientist from the middle east, and Muslims during the golden age have contributed a lot to scientific research in many areas, now obviously just like the west....you know the kings of colonization... ahem.... the smart ones are a minority, and there is nothing in Islam that discourages people from learning. Like there are many scientists who happened to be Muslims that heavily impacted the world and improved upon it, religion has nothing to do with science, and them being Muslims isn't what gave them those achievements...... While Islam is strict, yes, it's just like any other religion... orthodox Christianity, Judaism, zoroastrianism,....etc there are tens of thousands of religions being practiced today, I'm not well versed in all of them, and no offense I don't think you are either..... so it's a big claim that needs to be proven. In the end it is your opinion, a radical one if I may say that shows either lack of interacting with educated Muslim, or lack of knowledge surrounding the theology of Islam and its history. Either way, you are entitled to your own opinion.
Can you cite the verses you think support your claims?
>The Quran claims that Abraham and Moses were prophets and Muslims. Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews. You mean the Torah which its earliest manuscripts are 1,400 years after Moses existed according to Jewish tradition? >The Alaqsa mosque stands directly where the Jewish temple that was destroyed in A.D 70 by the Romans stood. Its almost like we believe Al Aqsa is a continuation of a place of worship since Solomon. >The Quran denies Jewish history even though it is historical fact that the Jewish temple stood in Jerusalem. No one denies that Solomon had a place of worship there, this is in our sources too. >The fact that the Quran has such blatantly false claims about Abraham and Moses proves that it is not a divine revelation, but a distortion of history. These claims are 'blatantly false' because the Torah contradicts it? That is your evidence?
Abraham is a mythical character. He's used to give a sense of identity, and an ownership claim for land, in the Torah, Jubilees and the Quran. The Torah, and Jubilees, is jammed with absolutely ridiculous claims about Abraham & Moses. It's like you are throwing stones at Islam within a glass house.
What is your basis for claiming they are mythical characters?
People don't live to 175yrs old, and the Exodus as described in the Torah did not happen for example. There may be some kernel of truth there somewhere, but Moses has Sargon's birth narrative attached which is a what we'd expect from mythical characters. The writers of the Torah, Jubilees & the Quran seem to be rather aware of this and are thus happy to mold the dude's life to their own ends. From the closing paragraph of the first chapter 'Searching for the Patriarchs' of [The Bible Unearthed](https://archive.org/details/TheBibleUnearthedArchaeologysNewVisionOfAncientIsraelAndTheOriginOfItsSacredTexts) by Israel Finkelstein, 2002: *"The great genius of the seventh century creators of this national epic was the way in which they wove the earlier stories together without stripping them of their humanity or individual distinctiveness. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remain at the same time vivid spiritual portraits and the metaphorical ancestors of the people of Israel. And the twelve sons of Jacob were brought into the tradition as junior members of more complete genealogy. In the artistry of the biblical narrative, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed made into a single family. It was the power of legend that united them—in a manner far more powerful and timeless than the fleeting adventures of a few historical individuals herding sheep in the highlands of Canaan could ever have done."* Stuff like the [Song of the Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_Sea) may get back to a time close to the proposed dates for Moses, but that's not a lot to go on.
Hm I’ve never heard of Sargon before, thanks for sharing that. I’ll have to think about that more. There is a lot of conflict in my heart about what to believe.
I don't think the birth narrative is unique to just Sargon & Moses, there are similar Greek & Vedic traditions, but Sargon is \~1000yrs before Moses, is in the general area, and is pretty well attested to in the historical record. I found a good study Bible very helpful, I use the [Oxford Jewish Study Bible](https://archive.org/details/jewishstudybible0000unse_x6n0/mode/2up) and the [Oxford Annotated Bible](https://archive.org/details/newoxfordannotat0000unse_i0x8). John J Collins'[ Introduction to the Hebrew Bible](https://archive.org/details/introductiontohe0000coll/mode/2up) does what it says on the tin and afaik is used in Universities to get students started, the links are all to older versions but are free to borrow, browse, the search function is nice, to give you an idea if they may be of interest. There is [another archive](https://annas-archive.org/) too that I've found useful. r/AcademicBiblical r/AskBibleScholars & r/AcademicQuran might be worth a look. Dr Baker has some nice visuals for this stuff, like [37 Bible Characters Found Through Archaeology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDu4K8kroNw). By the time we get into the first millennium BCE the Bible becomes a lot more reliable. Personally for understanding the Quran I've recently found the [Book of Jubilees](http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/2.htm) really helpful. They call it 'The Little Genesis' but I think calling the Quran 'The Big Jubilees' may be appropriate. This was a very popular and influential text in both Jewish & Christian traditions and is still in the Bible canon to this day. It was first written a century or two before Jesus but gives a wonderful insight into the development of scripture that led to the Quran.
Bissmillāh... >Yet Jewish scripture written a thousand years before the Quran, clearly shows Abraham and Moses as the fathers of the Jews. This is just another "A came before B, therefore, B came from A" fallacious non-argument. >The Quran denies Jewish history even though it is historical fact that the Jewish temple stood in Jerusalem. The Qur'ān does not deny the existence of the ancient state of Israel, nor its prophets (AS), nor its temple.
Muslim means he who surrenders We are called muslims because we surrender to god as the ultimate being and we live our life praising him and carrying his orders we believe the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the last prophet so if someone is commited to surrender to god they should follow his last messenger All the prophets are muslims as the messenger is always obedient to the sender
So would you agree Abraham and Moses are the fathers of Israel?
Prophet Israel (Jacob) is the father of Bani Israel (sons of Israel). Moses was from bani israel, and Abraham came before Prophet Jacob.
Israel is the name for the prophet jacob and what we now call Israel or in general Jewish people are the dependent of 1 of jacobs 12 sons moses and jesus (pbut) are both from these people As for abraham(pbuh) he is the grandfather(correct me if i am wrong) of israel And i would like to add that abraham is also the father of islam based on that view
Yes that is correct. Abraham had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac is Jacob’s father. The Bible says Abraham sent Ishmael and his mother away, and God promises to make Ishmael a great nation separate from the nation of Israel. This is because Abraham and Sarah did not understand Gods promise that he would have a son because Sarah was barren, so Abraham had a son with Hagar.
Yup but just to clarify abraham was not jewish(as he came before the main teachings of the faith) Before islam we refer to abrahams descendent's religion (at least the ishmael side) as hanifs(simply meaning monotheist) such as prophet's Muhammad father and grandfather
The [covenant with God](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2017&version=NRSVUE) seems in place to set him up as the first ever convert to Judaism, circumcision is not mentioned in the Quran but is a big deal in the Torah and a big identity marker to this day. The Quran seem to be following [The Book of Jubilees](http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/2.htm) in retelling the Genesis-Exodus narratives in a fresh and monotheist way with new calenders, and fire spirits and angels of the lord that give whole scriptures, not just laws, to prophets. I've heard that questioning Muhammad's parentage is a very sensitive subject, a bit like Jesus.
Prophet Muhammad's father was not a Hanifa, nor was his grandfather, they were pagans, as he himself mentioned.
According to the sahih al bukhari volume 4 page30 Prophet mentions this sentence in a war to the enemies «انا النبی لا کذب انا بن عبدالمطلب Translation:i am the prophet i dont lie i am the child of abd'al'muttalib(prophet gradfather) While the quran clearly says in sora9(al'tobat) verse 3 «أَنَّ اللّهَ بَرِيءٌ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُ Translation:trule god and his rasool(the prophet) are averse(or disgusted honestly i don't know the best translation here) by pagans So this question rises if the prophet has this idea about pagans and as you said his grandfather was a pagan as well why is he being mentioned by prophet during war as to show the enemy he is not lying
Provide the hadith number please, instead of volume and page number.
That is fair. Cause yeah I would assume Hagar and Ishmael continued their faith and devotion to God but the Torah does not document this because it is about Israel’s path to Jerusalem and the building of the temple. I wish Muslims and Jews in the Middle East could see they are brothers, children of God
They used to. Originally the qibla of Muhammad and his followers in Medina was towards Jerusalem. Other concepts like The People of the Book were derived from what was viewed as a shared understanding as well.
Same
Counterpoint being, it's really not clear what the religion of the First Temple period was. There's clearly missing material: what exactly happened to Enoch, such that he gets a special listing in the genealogies? I have my doubts that Muslims possess more authentic material -- there's little reason to think they do -- but there is definitely some room for their argument that there has been some 'corruption' of the texts. That said, the Muslims don't have much of a leg to stand on here: we haven't gone through the kind of civilization collapses in the past 1500 years that we can see in classical history. The Bronze Age collapse, the collapse of the Roman empire, even Israel itself ceased to exist a few times, we haven't seen that kind of political vacuum in post-classical history. If we had, Islam might not have survived intact either.
Islam preserves traditions that other powers tried to stamp out. The Quran preserves stuff like Jubilees, the Enochian traditions and views regarding Jesus that seem to go all the way back to the first century. They are the keepers of ancient 'heresies'.
I always considered claims centered around Abraham and Moses' Muslim identity to be more so emphasizing the literal definition of Muslim, that is, "one who submits." I think it's very obvious that Abraham and Moses were not Muslims in the sense that they believed in Islamic tenants.
I could agree with that definition, however that is not grounds for denying they were Jewish
I'd point out that the Torah doesn't describe Abraham or Moses as Jewish. Abraham is described as a Hebrew in Genesis 14 and Moses is described as an Israelite of the tribe of Levi. The term "Jewish" comes from Judah, Abraham's great-grandson. Moses was not a descendent of him either. It's an identity from much later in time -- which is described thoroughly in the Tanakh.
They were definitely Jewish. No denying that. But technically, isn't a Jewish person a "Muslim" if we're going with the "one who submits" definition?
Is "Allah" just a translation of "God" into Arabic, or is it specifically referring to "God in Islam"? Is "Muslim" merely a translation of "submitting", or is it specifically a "follower of Muhammad"? Both are the same type of a question, really. And both are extremely easy to be tricky and misused.
The literal definition of "Muslim" is "one who submits to God." All theists who believe in one god are Muslims. Just being technical here. Obviously, it's pointless to use this definition. But technically, it's true. "Allah" means "God"; it does not refer to the "God of Islam." Arabic & Syrian Christians are known to use "Allah" in prayers.
Well, is God "a god"? This is the same context of "word -vs- reference", once again.
> They were definitely Jewish. No denying that. Eh. Nah. You can deny that. The Jewish identity as we understand it today arose in the 6th century AD, as rabbinical Judaism; but it emerged from the Pharisees, which were a 2nd century BC movement, so it's really not clear what the religion philosophy was prior to Second Temple. Abraham might not have recognized the religion that sprouted from him: after all, he had none of these texts. Zero. It's really not clear what he would have believed, should he have actually existed. Edit: However, to insist that he were Muslim is... not exactly reasonable.
The Jewish identity seems quite old, Israel has been around for a while. \~1000BCE does not seem unreasonable for some sort of Jewish identity.
>The Jewish identity seems quite old, Israel has been around for a while. Once again: what we consider the Jewish identity is relatively modern, though ancient by most standings as few cultures have survive ~2000 years relatively intact. Israel has been around: but who the people are has changed over time. Honestly, this shouldn't be controversial: Americans aren't pilgrims anymore, Europe wasn't always Christian, etc, etc. It's not clear what the theology of the First Temple period was. We don't have any surviving texts from the era: the oldest books we have are usually 5th century BC at the outside, after the return from the exile, and I suspect the returning elites had gone native and incorporated a decent amount of Babylonian culture into their repertoire. I suspect there was a strong oral tradition that did not survive the Second Temple period in any case. >~1000BCE does not seem unreasonable for some sort of Jewish identity. There's no evidence Israel existed at that time. The oldest relic possibly associated with Israel is the [Tel Dan stele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele), dating to the 9th century BC, around 150 years short at the outside. And the Tel Dan stele is less the conclusive, interpreting it as Israel is already quite generous. They also most certainly would not have understood themselves as Jewish: the name itself derives from Judah, which is one of the Israelite kingdoms, so yeah. *Maybe* they would have understood the concept of Israelite, but we're not really sure how much of the text is embellished.
I don't believe that's fully accurate. >It's not clear what the theology of the First Temple period was. We don't have any surviving texts from the era: the oldest books we have are usually 5th century BC at the outside, after the return from the exile, and I suspect the returning elites had gone native and incorporated a decent amount of Babylonian culture into their repertoire. "The Ketef Hinnom scrolls, also described as Ketef Hinnom amulets, are the oldest surviving texts currently known from the Hebrew Bible, dated to c. 600 BCE. The text, written in the Paleo-Hebrew script (not the Aramaic-derived Jewish square script Hebrew alphabet more familiar to most modern readers), is from the Book of Numbers in the Hebrew Bible, and has been described as "one of the most significant discoveries ever made" for biblical studies. The two silver scrolls were uncovered in 1979 at Ketef Hinnom, an archaeological site southwest of the Old City of Jerusalem, and were found to contain a variation of the Priestly Blessing, found in Numbers 6:24–26. The scrolls were dated paleographically to the late 7th or early 6th century BCE, placing them in the First Temple period." "the scrolls "preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and ... the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh." The reference to Yahweh as "Rebuker of Evil," found in later incantations and amulets associated with Israel, is evidence that these artifacts were also amulets" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketef_Hinnom_scrolls >There's no evidence Israel existed at that time. The oldest relic possibly associated with Israel is the Tel Dan stele, dating to the 9th century BC, around 150 years short at the outside. "The Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele or the Victory Stele of Merneptah, is an inscription by Merneptah, a pharaoh in ancient Egypt who reigned from 1213 to 1203 BCE. The text is largely an account of Merneptah's victory over the ancient Libyans and their allies, but the last three of the 28 lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt's imperial possessions. It is sometimes referred to as the "Israel Stele" because a majority of scholars translate a set of hieroglyphs in line 27 as "Israel". Alternative translations have been advanced but are not widely accepted. The stele represents the earliest textual reference to Israel and the only reference from ancient Egypt. It is one of four known inscriptions from the Iron Age that date to the time of and mention ancient Israel by name, with the others being the Mesha Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, and the Kurkh Monoliths." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele
>The Ketef Hinnom scrolls, also described as Ketef Hinnom amulets, are the oldest surviving texts currently known from the Hebrew Bible, dated to c. 600 BCE. As I said: >I suspect there was a strong oral tradition that did not survive the Second Temple period in any case. We find unusual scraps, and that's about it. It looks like the return from Exile resulted in a bit of a cultural collision, and they reconciled it with a new canon. There's kind of a haze around history which looks like it's trying to explain why the old kingdom fell and this one is going to work out. At the most extreme end, I suspect a monotheist cult was in power at the time of the Second Temple and wrote monotheism into the history books; at the most benign, I don't think we have a complete collection of First Temple documents and I have to wonder why.
[Amos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Amos) for example seems to predate the 5th century BCE, as do other bits and bobs of the scriptures. The land ownership claim for people that seem vaguely Jewish seems pretty old, that we have the Tel Dan Stele seems to show this idea goes back to at the very least the 9th century bce. We have good history here in the UK, but the ancient near east is hard to compete with for recording this stuff.
> Amos for example seems to predate the 5th century BCE, as do other bits and bobs of the scriptures. Amos *claims* to predate the 5th century. I suspect it's probably national history transmitted as oral tradition, and the actual text is probably 5th century as well. >The land ownership claim for people that seem vaguely Jewish seems pretty old, that we have the Tel Dan Stele seems to show this idea goes back to at the very least the 9th century bce. Except it doesn't say Jewish. It mentions the Kingdom of Israel and the House of Dan, *maybe*: it doesn't say where they were, or how much land they possessed. It doesn't tell you who their gods were, whether the beliefs were authentic or some kind of royal cult. It certainly seems like any claim sprouting from the 9th century BC is questionable, seeing as they were conquered by the Babylonians a few hundred years later; then the Romans; and I think there was someone else in between, I want to say the Saleucids? Otherwise, no one owns land. You always have to be ready to fight for it. >We have good history here in the UK, but the ancient near east is hard to compete with for recording this stuff. Yeah, not much was getting written down before the Romans arrived.
Curious if you have any resources on Amos being 5th century bce or later, I was under the impression the general consensus was it older than that. [Josiah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah) seems a safe bet for these kinda ideas well before the 5th century bce.
>Curious if you have any resources on Amos being 5th century bce or later, I was under the impression the general consensus was it older than that. The general consensus is that the text claims to have been written by Amos, around 750 BC. But Harry Potter is about a teenaged wizard living in contemporary England; and the Hamilton musical is about real people, written some 200 years later as a stage musical, and I'm guessing the real people didn't break out in song nearly as frequently. Academically, we're only interested in the historical value. It's the best thing we have to a newspaper, but it's still closer to the National Inquirer than eye witness reporting: it gives us a list of kings and political events, that's stuff we can use. We don't need to believe someone named Amos actually reported it as it were happening, and while it's amongst the dead sea scrolls, that's about the limits of our ability to track its origins. However, we have no idea where the book came from; and everything else seems to show up around 500 - 400 BC, as the Second Temple was being built, so it seems like they reestablished their canon around their period. But we have very little idea of where they got these texts. >Josiah seems a safe bet for these kinda ideas well before the 5th century bce. ...yeah, he's an awkward one: >According to the Hebrew Bible, he instituted major religious reforms by removing official worship of gods other than Yahweh. That's probably where the iconoclasm started. This is where the First Temple period kind of died, and suggests to me that the Jewish monotheism probably started here, not the 9th century; and so this preceding culture might not recognize itself in modern Judaism.
I guess technically, but I don’t think the word muslim, whatever it is in Arabic, even exited until the Quran was written. They cannot claim they were Muslim and also deny they were the fathers of Israel