Talk:Tawrat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have emphasized the difference between the Tawrah and the Torah at the start, as many of the Islam articles (incorrectly) use 'Tawrah' synonymously with 'Torah'. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Misleading Revision (?)

Why did you think my revision was misleading? If it's in regard to the semantics of Tawrat/Torah, what I added was my experience in reading and talking with others (I'm an English speaker only). But I did make sure to include the other side. I really want to come to an agreement on this article. --JBJ830726 20:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And . . .

I also want to add that Jesus was given the Tawrat and that Muhammad was written of in the Tawrat (Surah 7.157). I'm relatively new with wikis and have never had a discussion, so please excuse my inexperience.--JBJ830726 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] More info on Tawrat vs Torah

In my experience, in English, Muslims use Torah and Tawrat virtually interchangeable. I have heard Muslims make a distinction like you do, Mpatel, but rarely and few Muslims follow this usage. Keep in mind, English only. As far as my understanding, Torah is an English translation of Tawrat. Note that in Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an, he always uses Torah. (Yusuf Ali always uses Law and Shakir always uses Taurat.) Here are a couple uses of Torah as the original book:

"Sinai is the place where the Prophet Moses spoke to God and received the Torah." IslamOnline.net

"The knowledge of the true Torah was with the Ahl al-Bayt" al-islam.org

In Arabic, there is no word for the Torah other than Tawrat (at least at the time of Muhammad). Jews used Tawrat to refer to their modern text. In Surah 3.93, Shakir translates "Say: Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful." The Qur'an is teaching Muslims to tell Jews to bring the Tawrat/Taurat which they could not do if the Tawrat did not reffer to the modern (that is, modern at Muhammad's time) text. (We know from ancient manuscripts that the Torah was not changed between Muhamad's time and the present. Thus the Tawrat Shakir translates is the same as in synagogues.) Abu Dawud's hadith Book 38 Number 4434 says the same. (BTW, you don't have to accept Dawud as authoritative in Islam as some Muslims don't, only that the word Tawrat was used to refer to the modern text.)

However, I do agree it would be nice if everyone used Torah and Tawrat differently because it would make discussions clearer. However, the I think the fact is that modern English speaking Muslims (and non-Muslims, for that matter) do not, nor does the Qur'an or hadith make a distinction. My philosophy is that usage, not idealism, defines words. Perhaps we have a difference in philosophy? --JBJ830726 00:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


UM WTF? Jews DO NOT EVER AND WILL NEVER USE THE WORD tawrat. The only word we use is Torah (you may be referring to Torot, which is PLURAL of Torah), literally, the "Teaching;" the "Constitution" of Judaism and the Jewish People, given to them by G-d at Mt. Sinai. This belief, that the Ten Commandments, as well as the entire text of the "Five Books of Moses" and their explanation, are of Divine Origin, is known as "Torah min HaShamayim;" literally, the Torah comes from Heaven. It is one of the Fundamental Beliefs of Judaism.. And since the Torah came before whatever muslims made up... Therefore it is your copycat version that has been erroneously altered... Or do you believe in Time Travel? Therefore not only are your statements false, the whole wiki article is false. INCLUDING, but not limited to the poorly written bit where you allege a fallacy about the New version of the Torah (which is supposedly the erroneous version since Jews altered it). Um, again Torah first. this is called history. No Time Travel or time machine around aside from the editors/authors of the wiki and any book that refers to whatever copycat "tawrat" book you are talking about as the true (Torah)! If you are thinking about any alterations to any books, Look to you know Religons that are newer than Judaism! The Torah isn't a wiki, you can't change the text and the dates and then change history!

User is anonymous for fear of the ROP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.160.208 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on Tawrat v Torah

Hi JBJ830726. I appreciate your points regarding common and modern uses of the words Tawrat and Torah. We may have a difference of philosophy, but in an encyclopedia, different viewpoints on any given topic have to be made. Hence, I think some sort of compromise can be made. Let me explain thus. Firstly, Tawrat (according to the Qur'an) is the original revelation given to Moses. I want this point to be made absolutely clear at the start of the article, i.e. that according to the Qur'an, the original revelation given to Moses is called the Tawrat. The bolded statement is not an opinion, it's a fact. The Jews (and possibly others) call what they believe was the original revelation given to Moses the Torah. A lot of Islamic (and other) websites simply say that Tawrat is only a translation of Torah. If I remember correctly, 'Tawrat' and 'Torah' stand for the same word, namely, Law (given to Moses). However, and I think we've reached the source of our disagreement here, what Muslims and some non-Muslims consider to be the Law (given to Moses) are different. It is standard Islamic belief that the Torah is regarded as a corruption of the Tawrat. This is one of the reasons I created this article, to clear up these misconceptions about what Muslims believe regarding the Tawrat (and Torah). Of course, non-Islamic views on what the Tawrat is can be included in a section in this article. In a nutshell:

  • Tawrat is a translation of Torah which means Law.
  • Muslims believe that the present day Torah is a corruption of the true Law (revelation) given to Moses, which they call the Tawrat.
  • Some non-Muslims (in particular, Jews) believe that the Torah is the true Law (revelation)given to Moses.

Perhaps the article should reflect these points. Hope this clears up any misconceptions. ---Mpatel (talk) 08:47, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

First off, thanks for editing the article, not just reverting it. It seems we have the same philosophy: usage not idealism. I have no problem with anything you added and of course I'm clear that Muslims believe the Tawrat changed. I only disagree that you removed "Many translations of the Qur'an render as Law" because this is obviously true by looking at English translations. Personally, I think this is a dreadful translation, but it did happen. And removing "Most English speaking Muslims simply refer to it as "the Torah" while some reserve "Torah" to refer to the modern version, the Tawrat after its alleged corruption by Jews" also because I think this is simply a fact of usage. I agree that different viewpoints on any given topic have to be made, that's why I love wikipedia. Therefore I think both viewpoints should be included.--JBJ830726 17:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor changes & Tawrat vs Torah

I see that mpatel has again removed the reference to different meanings of Tawrat and Torah after I gave a lengthy discussion (see above) and without him offering an explanation as to why. If he does not give an explanation, then the consensus is that "Tawrat" has both meanings and this point should not be omitted. Since the reader may find the information interesting and probably deserves more than a sentence in the intro, I've given it a headline section. Note that I made the intro ambiguous, not implying one meaning of the other. Since the vast majority of Muslim scholars and laymen use Tawrat and Torah interchangeably, I think this is more than fair to mpatel's opinion. Hopefully this will resolve the debate.

Some other minor changes:

  • Removed Old Testament reference in first paragraph because Torah (in Hebrew) never refers to the Tanach. See Torah
  • Removed "which means Law" because "Law" is an incomplete translation of Torah. See Torah. Some English translations of the Qur'an and New Testament use "Law" because it's decent as a direct translation. Rather than discuss translation of Hebrew on an Islamic page, I ommitted rather than explaining. I know, this is picky.

If someone knows how to insert Arabic characters, that would help. I do not. JBJ830726 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi JBJ830726. After mulling over it a few times, I agree that the current version is better. MP (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] torah, tawrat - *tawrawat, cf. Proto Semitic

According to [1], the earliest form of the word Torah, in Ancient Hebrew, is *tawrawat, from a Proto-Semitic root *w-r-w meaning "to guide", hence the meaning "Law". That is, the cognate Arabic and Qur'anic word is closer to the original form in Proto-Semitic, and certainly not a loanword.Giorgioz 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


To Guide does not mean "Law"! Anymore than it means Lead! (for that matter, Halachic or Halacha is the word used to refer to Law, so if it was to be called "Law" Then there are more apt words for this. Secondly, Ancient Hebrew is written without vowel placement... literally the equivalent would be trt (plural Torah) in pronunciation. So it's regardless whether the Proto-Semitic root wxrxw is there for pronunciation and spelling... For Instance... In Hebrew, Hanukkah is only written one way (I could say, said one way, but then that would ignore versions and different means of, like Hanukkiah) in Hebrew, but can be written any way in English (although has 6 common ways of writing it, and one Style Guide approved version for media but I digress. The point is that regardless whether Muslims use the literal Proto-Semitic version of the Torah, makes no difference. As They cannot change the name of a Jewish book. It doesn't work that way. So The argument Giorgioz is trying to make is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.160.208 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Discuss at Talk:Torah--SefringleTalk 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy revert

I reverted all of these edits because they make the page totally incoherent and hard to understand. There's also a great deal of POV and OR information contained therein. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)