Torah and Oral Law interchanged

The Jews brought [to the Prophet peace be upon him] a man and a woman among them who committed adultery. The Prophet peace be upon him said, "Bring the two most knowledgeable men from amongst you."  The Jews brought the two sons of Suriyya, and the Prophet peace be upon him asked them, "What punishment do you find in the Torah regarding these two?" They said, "In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned."  The Prophet peace be upon him said, "What made you stop stoning?" They said, "Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing." The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 3862, Source. Sheikh Albani declared this hadith authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, hadith no.4452)

Indeed, we do find in the Old Testament today that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10). But nowhere do we find anything about four witnesses (interestingly Islam teaches this) or any eyeliner.

This is indirect proof that this section of the Torah has been distorted with.

well, interestingly we find something on that line in the Jewish Oral ruling (Halakah).

If one has bodily contact or petting with one of the arayot (people with whom sexual relations are forbidden), or he hugged and had genital contact (literally kissing; c.f. Yevamot 55b) and benefited from nearness of the flesh, he receives (biblically sanctioned) lashes, and in suspected of having relations with arayot. Note: if he had intercourse with her, whether vaginally or anally, as soon as he begins intercourse, which is defined as insertion of the glans, he is liable for death or excision. And the witnesses do not need to observe closely similar to insertion of the eyeliner in the tube, rather as soon as the witnesses see them intertwined with one another in the manner of adulterers, they are punishable by death (Tur), and the women is forbidden to her husband (Nimukei Yosef, Yevamot chapter 2). An adult woman who had relations with a minor male under the age of 9 years, is not liable for death at his hand (Tur). It appears to me that she is similarly not forbidden to her husband. And therefore the Rabbi, author of the Turim code wrote many laws defining when people are liable for death or not. The modern day repercussions of these laws (when we no longer administer capital punishment) is that they define which relations cause a woman to become forbidden to her husband, and see further. A female less than 3 years old, her intercourse is not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns (Hagahot Yevamot). Even if the years were intercalated (e.g she had intercourse at 37 months old in a leap year) her virginity returns (words of the Rav, based on Yerushalmi Ketuboth chapter 1).

(HALAKHAH Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer Siman 20)

--------------------------------------

Let’s ignore the part where the text sanctions having intercourse with a 3 year old child “A female less than 3 years old, her intercourse is not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns”(Hagahot Yevamot).

Notice how the rabbi rules, that the “witnesses do not need to observe closely similar to insertion of the eyeliner in the tube, rather as soon as the witnesses see them intertwined with one another in the manner of adulterers, they are punishable by death”. Now if we cross reference with the Hadith it reads:

“we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned.” 

This shows that the Jews interchanged the word of God for the words of rabbis.  The Hadith is clear that the Jews testified it is written in their Torah. However this is found in the oral rulings not Torah, proving how the Jews took the words of rabbis more sacretly then the word of God. This can be clarified by the next authentic Hadith.

The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani's Al Mu'jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in hisSilsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

Another example on how the Jews interchanged the word of God with the words of rabbis can be found from the Mishnah that: “Adam was created alone to teach you that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a human life is considered by the Bible (scriptures) as if he preserved an entire world (Sanhedrin 4.5).

take attention on the second line from the saying 

"that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have destroyed an entire world"


if says "whoever takes a human life of a Israeli is considered BY THE BIBLE (SCRIPTURES) as destroying the entire world" show us from the Bible where it says that? where can we find such a saying from the Bible which says "killing one Israeli is like killing the whole world?"

How about this 

The Gemara asks: Why does the verse say: And he said? It should say: And I said. Why does the verse say: And you spared? It should say: And I spared.Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: David said to Saul: By Torah law, you should be killed, as you are a pursuer who seeks to kill me, and the Torah says: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. But it was the modesty that you displayed that spared you. (Talmud Berakhot Daf 62b:8)

Christians shouldn't have a problem showing us where in the Torah it say “If one comes to kill you, kill him first”   Unless the Jews were reading a different Torah?

We can conclude the current “Torah” which is read the Jews and Christians, is not the actual word of God. It may contain some words of God which was passed down orally and then written. However, calling it the absolute word of God would be injustice.  

The Jews of Medina read a different Torah then what the modern Jews read now. The Torah which the Jews of Medina read can be found in the oral law not the current Torah modern Jews read. This tell us not all the Jews during the early periods  held a consensus on the authenticity of scriptures.