dear brother Shabir, thanks for the above post: while I’ve never received the post you addressed above, I found the questions and answers you noted beneficial. You also clearly answered the questioner, and made the paradox of Qadr and free will clear: my only qualm would be not mentioning the hadith (two Sahih that I’m aware of): first, where the bedouin asked: “O Messenger of God, if I’m destined for hell, why should I strive?” Whereupon the Prophet, Sal Allahu alayhi wa Salaam, answered: “Each of us is created with a destiny, and finds easy those actions which take him to the place to which he was destined.” – perhaps because this one can seen by those who are argumentative as still promoting passivism. Or the second on the matter of hell, where the Prophet assured a mother who showed concern for her children not falling into a fire, and asked the Prophet how Allah could throw people into the fire, when she would not do such a thing — weeping, he, sal Allahu alayhi wa Salaam, answered: “Allah does not throw anyone into the fire except for those persistent in their rebellion.” (aw qama qala hu, as he said).

Please correct me on the hadith, but these answers were sufficient for me on the matter of destiny, and I also remember that the Prophet warned that arguing about it led to disbelief – which is not dissuade one from reasoning with those who have reasonable concerns, as do believers who question.

May Allah bless your efforts.

Paul

If someone feels that these are unsubstantiated claims, then the challenge has already been put above– get the tape! Simply watch the tape and ask yourself objectively and impartially whether Morey gave Ally the respect that one speaker should accord to another. The answer will be no.

In fact, to add even more force to what I’m saying, I invite any one who has been unable to get a hold of this debate tape to contact me at my e-mail address: sadatba@yahoo.ca Since I have a VHS copy of the debate myself, I would be happy to assist anyone who is looking for it. It will make it clear that Tony Costa’s assertion that Shabir Ally would not want to touch Robert Morey with a pole is either false, or it is true only because of Morey’s disgraceful misconduct and unacademic ethos.

Without the exact references I cannot discuss the texts to which you allude. But, in brief, I will just add that the term “Torah” does not necessarily mean a specific Jewish writing. It is used to refer to the entire corpus of Jewish writings – canonical, non-canonical, Talmud etc. – as well as the oral traditions. Thus, the term encompasses all sources of Jewish learning. The early Muslims, who did not have easy access to the Jewish writings, took any piece of information/report acquired from the Jews (and Christians) – or known to be linked with Judaism – as eminating from the “torah”. If they came to learn of something which was actually within, say, the Talmud (which the Muslims didn’t know about), they would say, “the Torah says…” Similarly, when they reported any Jewish tradition that they had heard of, whether it be actually oral or coming from a non-canonical document etc., they would likewise simply say, “the Torah says…”

Moreover, as far as I know, the Quran no where says that the writings *in the hands* of the Jews and Christians are accurate in their entirety. References to corruption (tahrif) are to be found within the Quran. At its simplest, you may recall that the Quran denies certain Christian beliefs such as the crucifixion, Jesus (P) being divine/God, “Son of God” etc. The Christians who were conversing with Muhammed (P) carried all of these beliefs and it is only reasonable to suppose that their books (and traditions), whatever they were, contained these teachings. Yet the Quran denies them, the Author being fully aware what the Christians (and Jews) are saying and conciously denying those assertions and beliefs. Thus, to say the Quran “endorses” the Bible, as some Christians do, is not a very convincing argument.

I plan to write some on this subject in the near future. I am already in the midst of collecting references.

wassalam

It’s interesting all right but more attention needs to be given to what material the qur’an addresses as being ‘with them’. This is also present in hadith: ‘don’t these jews and Xtians have the torah and the injeel without knowing a thing about their contents?’

What did they hav? there is understandable resistance of course as identifying it as the bible (whichever canon). But equally prevalent Xtian process: ‘your book is false but incidentally says my book is true..therefore your book is crazy.’
Moreover if the torah is revelation to Moses (a.s.) quranically, then why call Isaiah 42 ‘torah’ in islamic tradition, ie. abdulla b amr b al-aas, bukhari, chapter on being calm in the markets.

wa salam alayk