Circumcision - Including a Discussion on Biblical and Quranic Laws

[Sardar Miyan]

Salam All, I read Bro Joseph Islam's Article about circumcision which is OK as per Quran but I just
 wanted to know as to why the Jews follow this practice? Is this mentioned in Taurah or the practice of the Jews? The members of Forum or Bro Joseph may kindly clarify.

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu Alykum brother Sardar Miyan

From what I have read so far from the Old Testament, there seems to be many references to circumcision. It seems to have started from the narratives refering to Prophet Abrahams covenant and continues throughout the Old Testament to the Children of Israel.

I have heard very few controversies over the interpretation. I have also heard there maybe doubts over there authenticity but I have not yet found a webpage that explains the doubts and why.

One can always question the ruling through logic but I'm not too familiar with the Old Testament and would rather not comment on it.

Insha'Allah another member may share some wisdom.

Salam

[wanderer]

This should explain it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah
Regards
wanderer

[Joseph Islam]

Dear All,

As-salamu alaykum

There will always be the question that albeit one can (hitherto, non-Muslim) adopt the practices / customs of Judaism and follow the Old Testament, can they truly be classed as ‘Jews’ / Children of Israel?

Does any potential covenant of Prophet Abraham or those made with the Jews extend past the Scriptures and guidance to whom they were revealed to?

The religion of Islam as revealed to Prophet Muhammad did not come to teach one community alone, but provided the framework for true religion for all communities who had not known of the truth / true religion henceforth.

Therefore, it is quite possible that men (and women) of various ages, young, middle aged and old (irrespective of age), would potentially convert to Islam as preached by the Quran when they came in contact with the truth and accepted its veracity.

If ‘circumcision’ was a precursor to ‘accepting truth’ and being embraced by the religion, this would arguably pose all sorts of issues not least the unduly unnecessary hindrance to a potential male (of any age) to accept Islam as the religion of truth.

This idea of potential 'surgery' (rite of passage) before acceptance would almost seem superfluous and a serious obstacle, particularly for adult men.

There is much wisdom that can be inferred for the fact that any form of circumcision has not been mentioned in the Quran as a practice necessary / incumbent on those that embrace Islam.

The focus of Islam as portrayed in the Quran appears to be on correct religion / guidance with supporting rites / practices which are explicitly mentioned by the Quran. This is certainly the case for 'believers'.

I hope this helps, God willing.

Regards,
Joseph

[Nura]

Salam Brother Joseph

After reading your response to this topic, some questions have popped up in my head and I cannot really reconcile them, hence I am seeking your help, other brothers and sisters are welcome to express their opinions as well.

Regarding the practice of circumcision, since the Quran makes no mention of this practice and in another thread you said that the Quran mentions the practices and rites that it confirms from previous books, will it be wrong to suggest that, if modern 'Children of Israel' decide not to partake in this practice, they will not be wrong? After all the Quran is not confirming this practice.

Brother, does the Quran confirm and mention all the practices that God wants 'Children of Israel' to continue practicing till end of time ? If that is so, then no mention of circimcision can mean that God wants this practice to be stopped?

I read in the Quran, I do not remember the verse number now, that God replaces his laws with better ones, would you please explain this to me. Does this include differences in laws between the previous books and Quran? For example: The punishment for fornication is 100 lashes in the Quran, but there is mention of stoning in the Bible, but the Quran does not confirm the practice of stoning, so should 'Children of Israel' now also give 100 lashes as punishment? If not, and they should stone, then the Quran does not mention and confirm all their laws, and they have to follow those laws also that are not confirmed by mentioning in Quran?

The Quran does mention differences in shariah like sabbath and different Qiblah. I understand this mention in Quran as confirmation of these differences in law, but for example, the Quran does not confirm the prayer timings for 'Children of Israel', so should they pray five times like us but facing a different qiblah? Their Qiblah is confirmed but timing is not in the Quran. Then for fasting, the month of Ramadan is confirmed, their practice details are not mentioned or confirmed in Quran, so can we say that, they also have to fast the month of Ramadan with us now, since fasting is confirmed, but the details of their practice is not mentioned hence not confirmed in the Quran.

Basically I am asking, are the ' Children of Israel' only to follow the practices that are confirmed and mentioned in the Quran? The Quran  confirms and mentions the differences from the Bible practices like sabbath, their way of preparing food, different qiblah etc. But should they follow the Quran for other things not confirmed and is different, like timing of salat, month of fasting, punishment for adultery etc. The things that are not confirmed by the Quran by mentioning them, what should Children of Israel do in such cases like fasting, praying and adultery?

[wanderer]

Hi Nura-
I'm not really sure where your newfound confusion is coming from. You have argued (quite well I may add) with brother Zach on how you believe the Quran views previous scriptures and laws. (PLEASE NOTE: While I understand Joseph's views on this matter, I do confess to be skeptical as to some of his positions. Nonetheless, from his position, this is my response to your question). There are obviously differences between Biblical and Quranic law. Those differences do not need to be explicitly pointed out for them to exist. For example, just because the Quran mentions Sabbath and not circumcision, does not mean that circumcision is an invented practice that Jews need to give up. If Jews/Christians only followed practices that were talked about in the Quran, wouldn't that essentially make them Muslims? If so, what is the point of the Quran even telling them to go back to their own laws? The verse you are referring to is 2:106, which is sometimes misquoted to provide support for the false doctrine of naskh. It refers to the canceling out of certain Biblical practices by God for MUSLIMS specifically. It is not aimed at Jews or Christians.
Let me know if you need me to expand on my answer
Regards
wanderer

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu Alykum Nura and Wanderer

I believe we had a conversation before about this, but I dont think the Quran goes into detail or confirms the laws and practices that have been revealed in the previous Scriptures. It may skim over some and tell us they had a different Qibla, fasting and prayers were ordained etc, but when, how, and location is not in the Quran to my understanding.

A while back I noted in a post that I view that the People of the Book have a "option" of either retaining their laws and practices or adopt the Quranic laws and practices. Brother Joseph has also provided that answer before.

The reasons for this view I hold is based on these points below.

Lets just for one moment put ourself in the body of those who are from the People of the Book(Jews, Christians).

If you are reading the Scriptures as they should be read, then there should be no "shirk" involved. That monotheism is what should be attained plus the laws and practices.

There maybe no doubts of any of the narratives in their hearts of the People of the Book as there maybe no way to ascertain what is true and what is fabricated. Unless one may use a method of taking explicit verses over implicit verses. However that would be another topic and not part of this scope.

If one for the People of the Book is taking their religion on here say and not referring everything to the Scriptures, there maybe a good change if they are Christians, that they may of inherited a false doctrine of Jesus being Divine. (This in my view from a Quranic perspective God is telling them they have no grounds to stand upon unless they go back to the Revelations from their Lord)

Those who follow the Scriptures in truth are termed "Muslims"(Submitters) from a Quranic view.

If at any point one of the People of the Book who follows their Scriptures in truth interacts with the Quran and has been touched by it he/she simply has an option to retain to what he/she is following and at the same stroke believing in the authenticity and veracity of the Quran or switch over completely if they feel more comforted with the Quran.

Those of the People of the Book who do not follow their Scriptures in truth are possibly not searching for truth and taking their religion based on inheritance(no different than some Muslims today), I believe that there should be more people from the People of the Book who also refer their own People to the truth contained within their Revelations and try to come to understanding that the religion is Monotheism. However if one comes in contact with the Quran then they are referred back to their Revelations. As they are given lots of respect and weight. That guidance and truth are in the Revelations. They also have the same option as to whether go back to the truth in their Revelations or adopt the Quranic view.

There does seem to me some heavy evidence that the Quran invites them to a new way. As I have stated before verse 7:157 seems to suggest that any burdens, fetters, weight that they were on maybe relieved once they are confronted with the veracity of the Quran. Also it maybe that 2:106 is also revealing to them that God is allowing them to do so.(God knows best).

Verse 5:5 does seem to suggest that once they are convinced with the veracity of the Quran, they may eat now fat from the grazing animals. This would now seem to separate certain People of the Book. Those who believe in the veracity of the Quran who eat the fat and those who dont and dont eat fat, but all remain Jewish.

Now, from my limited knowledge of the Old Testament as i'm not finished reading all of it yet, I can see that one may decipher the prayers, fasting, location, laws, other practices, etc from the OT. Whether these are 100% authentic we cannot tell as the Quran does not tell us all their laws and practices if all the laws and practices in the OT are true.

We do note that again once the People of the Book encounter the Quran and believe in it but wish to remain their laws and practices they can use the Quran as a guard.

This topic is not very easy in my opinion. But there seems to be a lot of flexibility and mercy towards which ever path one chooses for many different reason. Some may retain their ways and follow the laws and practices for family matters, while believing in the Quran authenticity and eating fat of the animals. While some may outright adopt to the Quranic ways as they feel its more pure. Some may not of understood the previous Scriptures while they were born from the families of them, but encountered and become more learned in the Quran.

God knows best.

Those are my thoughts.

Salam

[Hamzeh]

Salam

Also well said brother Wanderer, I do agree with your points although I can see the views i mentioned would not necessarily contrast your views.

Salam

[wanderer]

I would agree with brother Hamzeh, in that, whatever you believe about the Quran's perspective on previous scriptures, it is most definitely recommended that the People of the Book become full-fledged Muslims and follow the Quranic shariah. By far the biggest challenge to brother Joseph's position, is that, when the Quran is silent on a certain Biblical edict (which is often), how are Jews and Christians supposed to know if it is true or not?
Regards
wanderer

[Nura]

Salam Wanderer and Hamzeh

My confusions started after I saw this response and also after I read in a post where Brother Joseph argued that the Quran mentions the parts of previous books that it confirms. Thus, the parts Quran is not mentioning the Quran is not confirming, ( not confirming part is my deduction, am I wrong?)  so what are today's sincere Children of Israel supposed to do during those times? I gave some examples of this situation in my previous post. The Quran does say that it confirms previous scriptures and also that it lifts some burdens. My question is similar to the one you asked in your last post.

I on the other hand did not interpret that verse as abrogation for the same scripture, i.e verses from Quran abrogate other verses of Quran. But was thinking it was talking about the changes in law that we witness in the Quran from the Bible, the Quran says God does not change a law until He replaces with a better one, lashing for adultery comes to mind instead of the biblical stoning. This is not to say that stoning was ever prescribed by God in the first place, since stoning is not being confirmed and then being changed to lashing for believers. This is just an example that came to my mind. I might be interpreting the verse all wrong hence I sought help.

I am not confused about the parts I argued about, I do still believe they are asked to go back to their scriptures and discern with the Quran but my question is, What are they supposed to do when the Quran is silent about their particular rites or practices or law? I was of the opinion they are free to follow them or discard them, the choice is theirs, but now I am thinking they maybe should not follow what is not confirmed in Quran. After all the differences are also pointed out in the Quran as I mentioned. Maybe these are the differences in shariah that God has approved e.g Sabbath, way of preparing food, different qibla etc. It is not necessary that if the Quran is followed, everything becomes similar to ours, there are recognised differences in the Quran. If, those differences are followed, they still will have a different shariah than ours. We are not doing sabbath, or preparing food in the way they are etc. I think that the differences in shariah are also confirmed in the Quran. But I wanted to ask Brother Joseph whether I am wrong or not in my new opinion.

[wanderer]

Hi Nura-

"I on the other hand did not interpret that verse as abrogation for the same scripture, i.e verses from Quran abrogate other verses of Quran. But was thinking it was talking about the changes in law that we witness in the Quran from the Bible, the Quran says God does not change a law until He replaces with a better one, lashing for adultery comes to mind instead of the biblical stoning. This is not to say that stoning was ever prescribed by God in the first place, since stoning is not being confirmed and then being changed to lashing for believers. This is just an example that came to my mind. I might be interpreting the verse all wrong hence I sought help."

Yes, your interpretation of 2:106 is 100% correct, however, as I previously noted, this is addressed to Muslims and has little to do with our current discussion. Now, the example you cite (adultery) is very interesting. It is possible that the stoning law was legitimate, but only introduced to deal with a particular situation at a particular time, and the real 'universal' punishment should be 100 lashes. It is also possible that it was forged. BUT, even if my first explanation is correct, doesn't that mean that those Biblical verses were time-bound, and would constitute a grave sin (murder) if the Children of Israel were to implement them today?? AND, how much else of Mosaic law is time-bound?? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It seems to me that adopting Joseph's interpretation would open up a whole Pandora's Box of questions. It would be interesting to hear his response on this matter.
Regards
wanderer

[Hamzeh]

Asalamu Alykum brother Wanderer

Just a side note, I do recall that brother Joseph has also made it clear that the People of the Book have been given an option.

As far as your question regarding ‘conversion’ is concerned; if one prefers to follow Islam underpinned by the Quranic way of life as a righteous, committed believer, then this should not necessarily be seen as a contradiction of verses 5:44-47. It can be posited as an option though not an 'expectation' as is usually the belief of the traditional masses. That I feel, is the difference.

I hope that clarifies, God willing
Joseph

Just a few other thoughts which are I'm still trying to figured out but I think I'll share so someone may add their own thoughts as well and try to get a conclusion Insha'Allah.

Now regarding the punishments found in the Mosaic Law. If the Scriptures that we have today are the same as what was in the hands of the People of the Book at the time of Prophet Muhammad (and theres no need to assume otherwise without proof as I had been told there is proof they are and were 1600 years old), then the laws for adultery, fornication circumcision etc would be legitimate. If it was not legitimate then it would of been the perfect time for the Quran to correct such punishments as we know they are not light punishments.

What the Quran did mainly corrected was the doctrines that was read into the Scriptures and not what was really sourced from them (trinity, Jesus and God, doing good to all humans, not only certain people are chosen for heaven etc). I mean, there is verses in the Quran that do refer the Jews and Christians back to their own Scriptures 5:42-47. These verses are cannot be overlooked and seem to be explicit and cannot be denied or we need to really go back and really figure out what 5:42-47 is really asking and portraying.

Otherwise How is one to say which law, ritual, practice, punishments, etc are the correct ones from the Mosaic Law when God Himself did not confirm or correct those laws in the Quran? He just referred them back to the Books that was in their hands(despite the fabricated changes.)

So it could safely be posited that the laws are intact and God did not deem any changes to them.

It might be a shock to some including myself that the laws contained in the Mosaic Law, like stoning, circumcision, etc are authentic. Especially after one had realized and were glad to realize that these laws were not from a Quranic perspective.

After all the Quran does also command punishments that at first glance may seem very harsh. One then might realize the justice behind the laws.

Sometimes I think that its not because of the absence of stoning, or the cutting hands off the unordinary thief that makes me a believer in God, its really more of the arguments put forth, the perfectness, consistency, the structure, parables, the answers given to ones thoughts and much more that are portrayed.

After all, there is still somethings that the Quran may disapprove of which might not fit to ones desires but still is required to believe.

Some today are giving excuses and reading into the the Quran that its permissible to eat any meat even if Gods name is not mentioned while slaughter, that allegorical meanings are read into the Quran and disproving of the miracles, that praying and fasting is not part of the religion etc.

Hope to hear more about this topic.

I would still like to hear brother Joseph elaborate just a little more on this as well, as we know the seriousness of this topic.

Salam

[Hamzeh]

Salam brother Wanderer

One more thing I should put to question as I find you Masha'Allah have been a good critic/evaluator to peoples thoughts which I find very interesting and important.

You had stated about the punishment of adultery in the Mosaic Law

It is also possible that it was forged.

I am not dismissing that answer outright as of yet, but the big question is how can one possibly figure that out when God Himself had not corrected such a serious punishment in the Quran when it was a perfect time to do so.

If the absence of confirmation of the punishment is the answer one can argue the Quran does not need to confirm all the punishments and laws in the Mosaic Law as this would be similar to reiterate lots of the Scripture when with one stroke God refers them back to the Scriptures between their hands.

Also what about when prophet Muhammad was told not to doubt the Scripture of Moses.

32:23 And certainly We gave Moses the Scripture, so do not be in doubt encountering it (Arabic: liqaihi) and We made it a guide for the Children of Israel

I can see some stories which contain no guidance or laws from the Bible are forged. The ones for example that seem to be very odd and go against the Quran. Example "God or and Angel fighting with prophet Jacob", possibly the disturbing narratives about Lot and the others about the harlot etc.

But the laws, punishments, practices would possibly be a different matter.

God knows best


Peace

[Hamzeh]

Peace

As I read over my post it could of mistakenly sounded rude. I hope I didn't sound rude as I did not mean to at all when I said

"I would still like to hear brother Joseph elaborate just a little more on this as well, as we know the seriousness of this topic."

I ment Insha'Allah we will hear from him soon if or when he feels to do so. He did spend lots of time on this topic. So I can imagine how frustrating it would be going over it again.

 

Salam

[Nura]

Salam Brother Hamzeh and Wanderer

Upon much contemplation, I am now of the opinion that the Quran mentions the things God wants to confirm from the previous books and when God wants, God also confirms the differences in Shariah in the Quran. It is not that the Quran does not mention differences. But, in many posts it has been said that when the Quran says something about an incident that is differently described in the previous books, the Quran's narratives have to be taken as the truth. The Quran guards and confirms the Bible not the other way around.

I do not think that only stories and personal anecdotes about other Prophets are confirmed by the Quran, previous laws are also confirmed and mentioned,  if God wants to, e.g God mentions the eye for an eye law He gave to them, and mentions that the one who forgives does what is best. So, I do not agree that the confirmation part only applies to narratives in the Bible but not to laws and rites. I think laws are also confirmed when it was deemed fit.

Brothers we have to have a consistent approach in my opinion, if we have one rule for personal narratives and other for laws then a lot of confusion will arise. The Quran does not confirm or correct a lot of disturbing stories told about other prophets. The story of Lot and his daughters is particularly disturbing, but we know that regarding the life stories of people of yore, the general wisdom of the Quran is that, they were people of old times and we will not be asked about them. But, since the Quran does not confirm anything, there is a high chance that this story is untrue. Regarding previous books the Quran also says that it is pardoning and overlooking much. This might suggest that the stories and laws not confirmed by God in Quran are not needed to be followed, discontinuation can be seen as implied . If we do not understand it like this, then there is confusion. The only way to avoid confusion is that God confirms the similarities and differences in the shariahs in the Quran. The stories and laws not confirmed are pardoned and overlooked. Otherwise we will have to accept a lot of disturbing things in the Bible or we can just say these are overlooked ( this I believe is Quranic).

Brothers, God does mention that He replaces laws with better ones, there is no point in mentioning this if this never happens or happened. I believe God asks us to go ask People of the book or them to refer to their own books in cases where God already confirms what they should be looking for in previous books e.g God asks Muhammad to ask people of the book when he was having doubts that he was a messenger, because they could tell him about other humans who were messengers. And God asks people of the book to go back to their books when they were particularly lying or misled about laws and beliefs like where exactly  is the concept of trinity mentioned in their books if they are truthful also that monasticism was never prescribed by God, Jesus is not His son etc. To prove that these believes were not based on scripture, they would have to be referred back to their scripture! How else are we to prove that those things were not prescribed by God? They are more likely to accept these as false if they are not mentioned in their books rather than the Quran not confirming them. We have to keep in mind that people of the book were in doubt regarding the divinity of the Quran, they were not questioning the divinity of their books. It makes sense to ask them to refer back to their books in cases where their beliefs were unfounded.

Also when something is being pardoned or overlooked, it doesn't necessarily mean that the things being overlooked were not authorised by God, they may have been authorised or not, or may have been time bound. The  message for the Children of Israel was not for everyone, Jesus was very clear when he said that his ministry did not extend beyond the Children of Israel. Now, whether the whole message of the Bible was time bound, this I doubt. I do not believe that the entire Bible was time bound and Quran replaces it, but some laws in the Bible were definitely time bound just like our laws pertaining to slavery in the Quran.

We also have to keep in mind that the Quran confirms stories that are in apocryphal scriptures of the Bible, like the story of healing blindness and giving life to clay birds and speaking in his crib. Some biblical stories are only found in apocryphal books not in the canons. Truth does not care about human authorized canonisation.

I think that in conclusion I am of the opinion that Allah mentions and confirms the differences and the similarities in the shariah as well. The parts that are not mentioned are pardoned and overlooked. If we choose to give validity to laws or stories not confirmed, this will give rise to many confusions and complexities and a lot of things will not be reconciled. Let's wait for Brother Joseph's input