Islam Critique's dilemma

Islam Critiqued has gained a fascination for the Talmud (oral tradition). He tries to use his limited understanding by deceiving his Patreon followers that he found something troubling for Muslims e.g. the Quran copied from the oral tradition, Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews etc…

He claims since the oral tradition, (Talmud/Mishna/ Legend of the Jews) came before the Quran and a lot of its contents are found withing the Quranic stories then the Quran must have borrowed its stories and elaborated them? This is one absurd claim which carries no ounce of truth nor does it help Christians as we will see later In Shaa Allah.

Let's start by citing what the Quran says about the events which happened in the past.

These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this. So be patient. The future belongs to the pious. (Surah 11:49)

In their stories is a lesson for those who possess intelligence. This is not a fabricated tale, but a confirmation of what came before it, and a detailed explanation of all things, and guidance, and mercy for people who believe. (Surah 12:111)

   

We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance. (Surah 18:13)

 He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. (Surah 3:3)

As you can read the Quran is very clear in informing us that the stories which are being mentioned were already in circulation however, the Quran is telling the us the "true" events on what really happened.

The Quran is confirming what came before it. Many stories were circulating from the Jews. The Jews added their own twist to those stories. The Quran tells us the true events to what happened.  If the stories of Prophets were being passed down by oral traditions and twisted how could you tell what is true and what is false?

Remember the same stories found in the "Torah" are also oral traditions written down by Jewish rabbis.  The events took place first then decades or centuries later they were written down.  E.g. the Gilgamesh speaks of the flood of Noah.  The "Torah" you have also speaks of the same flood? Let's assume Moses was the author of Genesis, are you saying Moses wrote 2600 later the story of Noah and it was unknown to other people? How do you explain the Gilgamesh?

What about the hammurabi code which predates the "Torah". The hammurabi code mirrors many laws of the "Torah". So, the question is, what makes you say the oral tradition did not have some truth in what they said? Bear in mind the same bible you claim to defend stems from the same form oral tradition.  Luke is a prime example to this. Luke 1:1 states "eyewitnesses passed down the information which Luke is using. This is the oral tradition.  It's highly possible the Jews had accurate information about events of the past which gradually was fading by the word of mouth or deliberate changes were made. This kind of stuff happens with the bible even now. It's easy to make an allegation but to prove it is difficult. You have no evidence at all from the 7th century that the Quran copied and previous information. We have evidence from ancient text Proverbs plagiarised from Egyptian instruction of Amenemope. Isaiah plagiarised from Yasna (sacred text of the Zoroastrians) even Jesus plagiarised from Bhudda.

If Islam Critique believe stories or legends which pre=date a particular revealed or written text makes it more authentic then we have a surprise for him.

Christians throughout the world unanimously agree Jesus was crucified on the cross which killed him. The source they use to verify this "historical event" is the New Testament which they believe accurately documented this event.  Here’s were Islam Critique disqualifies the authenticity of his bible.

According to Islam critique any ancient document which pre-dates scriptures but be accepted as giving sound information. The earliest manuscripts which speak of the crucifixion of Jesus come from the 3rd century. We have nothing earlier which mentioned the crucifixion narratives.

We have the Babylonian Talmudic documents which stemming from the 2nd century predating the gospel narratives which speak of Jesus.

BELOW WE DEMONSTRATE HOW THE GOSPELS TOOK INFORMTION FROM EARLIER SOURCES I.E. TALMUD AND CHANGE IT TO MAKE JESUS LOOK GOOD

Jesus was stoned and then "hanged" (Talmud Sanhedrin 43a-45b)

Jesus was burned after he was lowered into dung to his armpits with his mouth forced open and molten lead was poured in, burning his internal organs. (Talmud Sanhedrin 52a)

Jesus was strangled after being lowered into the dung (Talmud Sanhedrin 56a, 106b)

Jesus is in Hell where his punishment is boiling in hot semen. (Talmud Gittin 57A)

Jesus committed bestiality, corrupted the people, and is turned into Hell. (Talmud Sanhedrin 105a)

Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement by way of membrum, committed bestiality with an ass, and was a fool who did not know his beast's mind. (Talmud Sanhedrin. 105a, 105b)

Jesus attempted to seduce a woman, was excommunicated by a Rabbi, and then worshipped a brick. He was a seducer of Israel and practiced magic. (Talmud Sanhedrin 107b)

Using Islam Critique's criteria on authenticating earlier traditions put his gospels in a serious dilemma. Let's go through a few on them

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was stoned and then hanged." The gospels of Islam Critique show no sign of this Jewish practice of stoning sanction by the Torah instead says he was beaten then hanged.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was burned, lowered in dung and forced to open his mouth so lead can be poured." The gospels of Islam Critique clearly didn't mention this punishment.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus was strangled then lowered in dung." Islam Critique's gospels makes no mention of Jesus being strangled?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus is in hell boiling in hot semen" Islam Critique's gospels tell us Jesus was in paradise not hell?

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus committed bestiality" Islam Critique's gospels don't mention Jesus committed bestiality however, does state we was left alone with the beast to be tempted.

Babylonian Talmud 2nd century predating the gospels states: "Jesus limped on one foot, was blind in one eye, practiced enhancement" Islam Critique's gospels doesn't make mention of such features or practices?

Do you see the dilemma Islam Critique put his bible into? The earliest documents speak of a severe punishment inflicted on Jesus. The gospels took that information, but added their own personal censored version dismissing what the earliest traditions said.

Islam Critique should use all the early documented tradition which pre-date his gospels and embrace them.  Why did the gospels take Jesus's trial and punishment for the Talmud and change it?

Wait we have more. Since Islam Critique loves using the Talmud to prove it early attestation as authenticity. What does he make out of the following information from the Talmud?

1)

This is a reference to the passage from the Talmud 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 as if he preserved an entire world (Sanhedrin 4.5).

Take attention to the second line from the saying 

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

it says "whoever takes a human life of a Israeli is considered BY THE BIBLE as destroying the entire world" 

Can Islam Critique show us from his "inerrant, preserved Bible", such saying? Where can we find this quote from the Bible which says "killing one Israeli is like killing the whole world?"

2)

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’s “If one comes to kill you, kill him first” Unless the Jews were reading a different Torah.

If Islam Critiqued cannot show us from his bible where those saying are then we conclude the Jews he relies on confirmed his book is no more than garbage

3)

Show us where this saying can be found word for word in the Torah? If you can't then admit the ancient Jews were reading a different "Torah"

Similarly the Torah says, "Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth]," and reishis means Torah, as in "Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way". (Midrash Bereishit Rabbah Chapter 1

Islam Critiqued's bogus argument only backfired on him