4/18/2021 0:00:01
First, we must talk about an important point so that the topic is not understood in the wrong way.
Leave the person alone when discussing or criticizing the ideas of thinkers and historians. We will not advance in our ideas unless we get rid of the personal view of those who hold the ideas.
Any idea should be put on the dissection table, regardless of who has the idea, and ideas should not turn into glorifying those who have ideas and promoting them as personal idols, because in doing so we would have committed the same mistakes as the previous ones that we were criticizing, such as:
The Messenger said
Abu Hurairah said
Nietzsche said
Aristotle said
Espinoza said
These people have turned into idols to be worshipped, and any statement attributed to those idols has become a truth and is not open to debate. As soon as people hear an idol said, they believe the words directly without the slightest thought.
It is a thought that can be criticized, and the question must be asked whether it is true or false. The only statement that rises above criticism is the word of Allah only for me as a Muslim, and anything less than it is the words of human beings that may be true or false.
This is what we have begun to notice clearly, in the enlightenment group that began to spread in our reality, and which did not emerge from the mentality of what Abu Hurairah said and Ibn Masoud said in presenting its ideas, for example:
This group no longer discusses Blackbird’s thought from the point of view of right or wrong, but rather it has begun to promote the character of Blackbird as an idol, and deals with his ideas from the mentality of “Shahrour said.”
Even the Enlightenment pages that publish other ideas do not publish the ideas out of criticism, but out of the fact that they are postulates and out of rationality. So-and-so said and Zatan said.
So what is the difference between what Abu Hurairah said and what Shahrour said?
This is on the one hand, and on the other hand, there is a process of enlightenment repelling any attempt to criticize new ideas, just like the processes of repelling any attempt to criticize the heritage….. Indeed, the repelling processes of criticizing new ideas take intolerance towards the ideas and the personality of the thinker and the historian, completely. Such as fanaticism towards traditional ideas and the personalities of religious sheikhs.
So what’s the difference?
Let me leave the personality behind in understanding any attempts at criticism. We are only criticizing ideas, and it is childish for the subject to be understood as personal. Criticism is above the person and above any other consideration.
We greatly respect the thinker Fadel Al-Rubaie, who raises very important issues in our great reality, and the mere methods of such topics in his intellectual production is evidence of the extent and size of his awareness of their great importance to the movement of collective cultural awareness that will affect the political reality in the region.
But this does not at all prevent us from criticizing his production…and we are not in the arena of competition or belittlement of anyone at all, and the matter should not be understood as being preoccupied with his personality as many believe, for we have never talked about his personality in any topic that we raise in criticizing his ideas. Because we believe that our reality definitely needs intellectual production and must be published to open new, unthought-of windows in order to think about it… But there is a danger we believe, which is that new ideas, with all their right and wrong, will be transformed into a new framework that prevents the mind from His departure…….and people begin to deal with these new ideas as a wave or fashion just because they are new….and without scientific criticism.
Therefore, I will present a critique of an interview with Fadel Al-Rubaie on an Arab channel, and I hope that it will reach him and all his followers… because I know that abandoning theories that have been built on is a very difficult issue for any researcher, and the seeker of the truth is the one who does not find any problem. In rewriting and formulating his theories after the truth was revealed.
First, let me ask a question to the thinker Fadel Al-Rubaie
■ Why do you think that the Jewish book is called the Torah?!
– What Fadel Al-Rubaie calls the Torah a book is not only the book of the Al-Yahoud, but rather it is a book in which the Christian West believes, so why is the Christian book not called the Torah as well?
– The book of the Al-Yahoud has several names, not one name. Its name is (the Old Testament, the Bible, the Bible, the Torah). This is an unnatural reality, because the natural, original and unquestionable book can only have one name, and its name is In all languages with the same name.
The Muslim has a religious text called (the Qur’an)….and in Russian, Italian, English, French, Chinese, and Japanese, its name is (the Qur’an).
So why does the book of the Al-Yahoud carry several names…the Old Testament, the Bible, the Holy Bible, the Torah?!
Four names… This is an unnatural reality and not a natural movement of an ancient reality.
If the book of the Al-Yahoud was actually the Torah…..the West would also call it the Torah in their languages…just like the Qur’an which bears the same name in the languages of the West and in all the languages of the world…but the West calls it the Bible, the Covenant. The old one…why?!
The original product has only one name, and its name will be imposed on all languages.
I will try to ask questions until we understand the reason for this belief among Fadel Al-Rubaie that the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah.
– Is it because the Book of the Al-Yahoud contains stories of prophets, and as we know that the prophets have a religious characteristic (Adam and the two sons of Adam, Nouh, Ibrahim, Ishak, Ismail, Suleiman, Youssef, and Musa), and therefore the thinker and researcher Fadel Al-Rubaie believes that the Book of the Al-Yahoud is a religious book and is the Torah. ?! .
If this is the reason…….that made the thinker Al-Rubaie believe that it is the Torah, then Fadel Al-Rubaie is required, or it is better for him, to call (the Holy Qur’an) the Torah as well, because the Qur’an contains the same stories of the prophets that are found in the book of the Al-Yahoud. Even if it was different in terms of narration, style, and language (Adam and the sons of Adam, Nouh, Ibrahim, Ishak, Ismail, Suleiman, Youssef, and Musa)?!
what is the difference ?! … There is no difference
So what is the reason for Al-Rubaie ignoring this logic?!
– Is it because the book of Muslims is called the Qur’an and is not known as the Torah?!
But the truth is that the name (the Qur’an) is not the name of a book, but rather it is a general name for any reading of any book, just like the word book is a general name for any book. The word “book” refers to a mathematics book and a cookbook, and therefore it is not required that the name of the Qur’an be the name of a single thing on earth. We can call reading the book “Les Misérables” by the name of the Qur’an, and it is not required that the Qur’an be Arabic, as the Qur’an can be French or Persian or foreign, because the Qur’an means (reading any book), and therefore (the Qur’an from the book Les Misérables, the original version) is a French Qur’an.
And the Qur’an… is (the Qur’an of writing the Torah).
{A Book whose verses are detailed, an Arabic Qur’an for a people who know. And if We had made it a foreign Qur’an, they would have said, “If only its verses were detailed, is it a foreign Qur’an and an Arabic?” Say, “It is for those who believe a guidance and a cure.”
– So what’s the reason?! This will lead us to a logical question: Do you think, Fadel Al-Rubaie, that you would have believed that the book of the Al-Yahoud was called the Torah if it had not contained the stories of the prophets, that is, if it had been a book completely devoid of the stories of the prophets (Adam and the sons of Adam, Nouh, Ibrahim, Ishak, Ismail, Sulaiman, Youssef, and Musa)? And he only kept the stories of (Sargon, the Babylonian captivity, Sennacherib, Ramesses, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and other historical information, events, and stories). Would you have believed that it was the Torah?!
of course no
You would have looked at it as an ordinary book that did not have a religious character, and you would have considered it a historical book like any other history book…and the reason is because you saw the stories of prophets present in your Qur’an (Adam and the two sons of Adam, Nouh, Ibrahim, Ishak, Ismail, Suleiman, Youssef, and Musa). And there are stories similar to it and found in the Book of the Al-Yahoud… So I thought that the Book of the Al-Yahoud came out of the same religious and divine structure from which the Qur’an emerged, and because the Qur’an talks about the Torah, I thought the Book of the Al-Yahoud was the Torah.
So……. The stories of the prophets and messengers of Allah are what gave the book of the Al-Yahoud a religious character, and it is certain that it is the reason behind Al-Rubaie and others believing that the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah.
But the Qur’an…contains the same stories of the apostles and prophets that are found in the book of the Al-Yahoud, and this makes the Qur’an presented with great force and more logical in extracting the name of the Torah from the book of the Al-Yahoud……..right?!
Rather, the Qur’an… speaks about this particular issue and clarifies it to Fadel Al-Rubaie and provides a final solution to it when comparing the Qur’an in Arabic with the book of the Al-Yahoud in Hebrew, and says:
{And among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say, “It is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah, and they say lies about Allah while they know.}
This is the fundamental point that Fadel Al-Rubaie did not realize.
– So what is the reason for your continued belief, Fadel Al-Rubaie, that the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah?!
Is it because you believe in the Book of the Al-Yahoud and do not believe in the Qur’an, or because the Book of the Al-Yahoud takes precedence over the Qur’an because of temporal precedence according to the Roman calendar, or because you believe in the Darwinian Allah who develops his religion?
But, Fadel Al-Rubaie, you are at least supposed to be objective, and try to rely on the Qur’an, and you should not ignore the 2 billion Muslims who believe in the Torah mentioned in the Qur’an, which the Qur’an describes as light and guidance.
Is the book of the Al-Yahoud a light and guidance for the Muslim, according to your belief, Fadel Al-Rubaie? But what is the benefit of Allah ordering a Muslim to read the Book of the Al-Yahoud when the Book of the Al-Yahoud contains the same stories as the Qur’an?
If the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah, and Allah commands the Muslim to take the book of the Al-Yahoud, then I believe that the Muslim must take the stories of the prophets in the book of the Al-Yahoud, which are similar to the stories of the prophets in the Qur’an. Then the Muslim will have two texts from Allah for the stories of the prophets, a Hebrew text and an Arabic text, and The texts are different. Is it possible that Allah will reveal two different words in language, speech and style? Is it reasonable that Allah says in one text Abel and Cain, and says in another text the sons of Adam? Will Allah change His words, Fadel Al-Rubaie?!
– So what is the reason for your continued belief, Fadel Al-Rubaie, that the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah?!
Is it because you did not understand the meaning of the Torah that is mentioned in the Qur’an, and you believe that it is the book of the Al-Yahoud, and you did not understand that the Qur’an talks about the Torah and the Enjil as the names of ancient, sacred scripts, in which the word of Allah was written, and reading those scripts is called the Qur’an, and this The lines were hidden from you and from the Muslims, so that they would steal names in the Qur’an and paste them on their books, to make you believe that it is the Torah, so that the global deception that they carried out on earth would not be revealed.
The Torah is the writing that is falsely called hieroglyphic writing, and it is the first book on earth.
{Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which is guidance and light. The prophets who submitted to those who were Jewish, and the Rabbis, and the Rabbis judged by it because they preserved the Book of Allah and were witnesses to it. So do not fear people, but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – those are the disbelievers. (44) And We prescribed for them therein that the soul (45)
——————
Let us move on to address the new theory of the thinker Fadel Al-Rubaie, in which he says (that the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book).
Let us try to discuss this hypothesis by asking him questions:
– What is the meaning of your statement, Fadel Al-Rubaie, that the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book?!
Do you mean that in ancient times, the residents of Yemen decided one day to write a religious book and it spread among the Yemenis only, or do you mean that the residents of Yemen had a different ancient religion and the Torah was the book of that religion?!
If the Torah was an ancient Yemeni book, this book would still be in circulation today among the people of Yemen, and it would have had great depth in the culture of the people of Yemen.
Or do you mean by the sentence (the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book) another sentence, which is (the book of the Al-Yahoud is an ancient Yemeni book)?! .
If you mean the second sentence, the logical question is: Why did the West decide to adopt and import an old Yemeni book and make it its belief?! .. Was the political, cultural, and intellectual structure of the West completely incapable of producing its own religious book, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, or the religions of Greece, and decided to import a book from Yemen?!
But if you mean the first sentence literally (the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book), then the logical question is: Don’t you think that you are thinking with the mentality of Sykes-Picot when you launched your theory and granted the book of the Torah a Yemeni nationality?!
This is a very modern logic in understanding things, history, and the world. It did not exist in the past, and books did not bear a geographical characteristic or be attributed to peoples. People in ancient times had a nature that did not know borders or nationalities, and the land was one.
– So what does it mean that (the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book)?!
Does this mean that the people of Yemen alone were circulating that book within the borders of Yemen only, and that no one outside of Yemen knew about it, and that no one throughout history decided to take it and pass it on during a visit to Yemen, even as a matter of culture and not as a matter of faith?!
What is the meaning of the word book in the sentence (The Torah is an ancient Yemeni book)?!
Do you mean by the word book… it is a book with two covers inside of which is paper with texts written on it, and it was widespread in Yemen?!
If the Torah was really a book with two covers and inside it was paper containing texts, Yemen would be flooded to this day with copies of this book, and also this book would be an established culture existing in Yemen and the people of Yemen have continuous popular knowledge of the book and circulate it to this day. So where is the book of the Torah that is It was an old book in Yemen?!
Or do you believe that the Muslims in Yemen are not the inhabitants of Yemen and are not its origin, but rather the Al-Yahoud are the original inhabitants of Yemen, and therefore the inhabitants of Yemen currently do not carry this book and do not have an established culture with it, unlike the Al-Yahoud, the original inhabitants of Yemen are the only ones who carry it.
But suppose we agree with you…and that (the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book)…why, Fadel Al-Rubaie, did you not present a more beautiful, stronger and more logical theory:
What if the Torah was the ancient Yemeni inscriptions (Musnad)?!
What if the original name of the ancient Yemeni inscriptions was the Torah, because Yemen in ancient times did not know any clear writing in its land except the Book of Musnad.
Because, since you, Fadel Al-Rubaie, are talking about an ancient time in Yemen, then you should and should believe that the Musnad is an ancient Yemeni book…..and it is the Torah?!
Rather, logic says……….. If the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book, then the current population of Yemen still has an established and strong culture to this day that possesses a sacred religious text (the Qur’an) and talks about the Torah (which you are talking about, Fadel). Al-Rubaie described it as an ancient Yemeni book), but the Qur’an, which is a well-established Muslim culture in Yemen, does not describe the Torah as a Yemeni book, but rather describes it as the book of Allah, and Allah is believed in by Yemenis and other peoples of the region. This Allah, in whom Yemenis believe, is the same Allah in whom they believe. Humans in Iraq, Misr, the Levant, Libya, Lebanon, India… etc
Rather, this text that is present among the Yemenis and is the basis of the structure of their culture (the Qur’an) greatly praises the Torah (which, Fadel Al-Rubaie, you consider to be an ancient Yemeni book) and describes it as guidance and light for the people, and not guidance for the Yemenis, and it is the source of arbitration for all the prophets. The human being in Yemen is not a Yemeni, but rather a human being, and he is the same human being in Iraq, Misr, Lebanon, Libya, etc.
{Indeed, We have sent down the Torah, in which is guidance and light. The prophets who submitted to those who were Al-Yahoud judged by it, and the Rabbis and the Rabbis, because they had guarded themselves from the Book of Allah and were witnesses to it. So do not fear people, but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – those are the disbelievers.}
Why does Al-Rubaie believe that the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book and is the book of the Al-Yahoud?!
First, let us list the foundations that shaped the thinking mind of Fadel Al-Rubaie and who produced all his theories, which are:
– His outlook borders on Sykes-Picot.
– The book of reality is neglected by him
– His belief in the Darwinian Allah
– His belief in Roman times
The Book of the Al-Yahoud is considered a standard reference
– It is based on unreliable primary texts
We will talk about these foundations in detail in another article………but let us review a little one of the foundations, which is the reason that made him come up with his theory that (the Torah is a Yemeni book), which is: his Sykes-Picot border view.
Fadel Al-Rubaie sees the ancient world with the same vision of the world today, with borders and nationalities. This view was further consolidated by his belief in the Book of the Al-Yahoud as a natural religious book and that it is the Torah spoken of in the Qur’an. This view is what led him to the theory that the Torah is a Yemeni book and not a book. An Iraqi book, not a Syrian book, and not an Egyptian book.
how ?
It is true that there is some similarity between the Holy Qur’an and the Jewish Book in the story of creation and the stories of the prophets, and there are many who believe that they come from one divine source, but the question is:
Why are there two similar books from one divine source but with differences? How can there be one Allah who revealed two books with differences? Did Allah issue a book and then update the information, wording, style and language of the book?
The idea of a religious text…makes us believe that this formal similarity does not mean that they are from the same source at all. It is related to the importance of the accuracy of the information in them. It is related to the existence of a fundamental difference between the two.
This fundamental difference can be well sensed and understood from a very important observation provided to us by an American doctor in this link.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159215017777154&id=679387153
The doctor, during his speech in which he reviewed the beginning of his story with Islam, which was when a friend sent him a copy of the Qur’an, said that he was not interested, as he knew that religious books contain the same stories, such as the beginning of creation, etc., and he began to browse the Qur’an and understand its meanings, so he said A very important note is:
“I believe that the Qur’an is talking about the story of the beginning of creation that is known to us, but it seems that the author of the Qur’an has a problem in understanding the story…. There is something wrong with it.”
This American doctor is very honest in his observation…and reveals to Fadel Al-Rubaie the fundamental difference in the matter, and is certain that this doctor was indeed a scientific researcher and thinker as well, more than just looking at things from the standpoint of form and decoration, otherwise When he said that phrase while comparing the story in the Qur’an and the story in the Bible.
The doctor summarized for us the answer to our previous question, which is:
There is a fundamental difference between the speech of the Qur’an and the speech of the Jewish writers.
The truth is that many researchers and thinkers in our society, such as researchers in religions and history, including Fadel Al-Rubaie, have not reached the level of awareness of the meaning that this doctor has reached in understanding the essence of the issue……. when they developed their theories on historical issues. The religious book associated with the Al-Yahoud, including the Torah, an ancient Yemeni book, is the book of the Al-Yahoud.
Not only researchers, but ordinary people, everyone starts from a vision in the form and decoration between the two books in their belief that they are two books from one source, and this belief will be completely reflected in their perception of the world around them in understanding historical and religious issues, and that understanding will emerge in the books and Books that contribute to establishing the Zionist narrative.
If we go to the Qur’an and the Book of the Bible and carefully consider the discourse in the two books, we will find a truly fundamental difference between the two.
1- For example, if we look at the vocabulary of the Qur’an, we will find that it is very simple and the words are general, and there is no great celebration in establishing complex vocabulary and special nomenclature. It is an innate, primitive speech, as if he speaks with a tongue that is the first on earth, which knows no borders or nationalities. No identities, no differences, and no differentiation.
For example, the Qur’an speaks in vocabulary (village, city, mountain, sky, land, plant, people, people, crops, sea, water, trees, soil, sun, moon, stars) and without adding other labels to those vocabulary.
It describes the surrounding world…..without borders, nationalities, or identities, and without specification or distinction (the earth, the sun and the moon, the mountains, the seas, the heavens and the earth).
He addresses people…and does not distinguish them by spatial or temporal boundaries, nationalities, or identities. He asks them to look at the world around them and at themselves, and when he describes them, he does not describe them in terms of nationalities or borders, but rather in terms of faith. O people, O mankind, O children of Adam, O you who have believed.)
He talks about the contexts of things without an evolutionary mechanism.
2- But when we look at the discourse in the book The Al-Yahoud…we will find that it is the exact opposite of the Qur’an discourse, a modern political discourse that is completely similar to the Sykes-Picot discourse.
For example, if we look at the vocabulary of the Bible, we will find that it is very crowded with special names. It contains very, very many names for peoples, peoples, and lands. There is a great celebration in mentioning complex vocabulary and special names, and it speaks in a number of tongues that know borders, nationalities, identities, and Differences and differentiation.
For example, the Bible talks about (the names of many cities, the names of many countries, the names of many peoples, etc.) with the addition of descriptions to those words such as (my people, your land, etc.)
It describes the modern world…..which has borders, nationalities, and identities, and without specification or discrimination (the land of Elam, the land of Canaan, etc.)
He addresses people…and distinguishes them by spatial or temporal boundaries, nationalities, or identities, and when he describes them, he describes them in the language of nationalities or borders (Oh my people, the land of Chaldeans), so he attributes the land to peoples and peoples and are not attributed to humans.
And when making a comparison between the two
– For example, the book of the Al-Yahoud uses the discourse (Damascus, Jerusalem, Kadesh, Ethiopia, and Eritrea), while the Qur’an deals with the discourse (city, village, country, land).
– For example, the Jewish book deals with the speech (Alexandria), while the Qur’an deals with the speech (the village by the sea).
– For example, the book of the Al-Yahoud deals with the discourse of (Sodom and Ur), while the Qur’an deals with the discourse of (Al-Qaryatayn).
– For example, the book about the Al-Yahoud deals with a discourse that is keen to define identities and nationalities (the Kashmiris, the Chaldeans, the Elamites, the Philistines, the Qedarites, the Jebusites, etc.), while the Qur’an deals with the discourse (the people, the people, and the people are one nation).
– For example, the book of the Al-Yahoud deals with the discourse of basic borders of the land (the land of Canaan, the land of Judah, the land of Kedar, the land of a certain people), while the Qur’an deals with the discourse of (the land is one).
– For example, the book of the Al-Yahoud deals with the speech of (Abel and Cain, Joshua, Asif bin Barkhiya), but rather it deals with the speech of (a righteous man, a young man, who has knowledge of the Book)
– For example, the Book of Yahud deals with the discourse of linguistic nationalities and that people have become more mature, while the Qur’an deals with the discourse of only two tongues on earth, the tongue of the people and its opposite (Arabic and non-Arabic).
The discourse of the Jewish writers is preoccupied and concerned with the specific names of things, concerned with dividing the land into borders for peoples and nationalities, and distinguishing people with special names and separating them. A speech filled with a crowd of complex, special, and distinctive vocabulary. A speech that tells a person about borders, nationalities, identities, and nationalities… while the readers’ speech is busy with general names of things, simple general vocabulary, very simple and brief speech, and elementary general vocabulary. Uncomplicated and undistinguished, an initial speech that addresses the first instinct of man.
This makes us well aware that there is a big fundamental difference between the Qur’an and the Bible, two books that are completely different and even opposite in message, meanings and worldview, even if there are those who try to create a formal similarity between the two to prevent a person from noticing that big fundamental difference between them.
This makes us realize that (the Holy Qur’an) and (the Book of the Al-Yahoud) come from two different sources and not from one source, and it is impossible that the source from which the Qur’an came (Allah) will be the same source from which (the Book of the Al-Yahoud) came, but rather from Two different sources. The source from which it came (the Qur’an) is the Allah of the first nature on earth, while the source from which it came (the Book of the Bible) is the Allah of the modern political mind.
This difference between the discourse of common sense and the discourse of modern politics, which has led us to the conclusion that they come from two sources and not one source. The first source is the Allah of human nature and the second source is the Allah of the modern political mind. This will make us conclude that it is impossible that the first Allah of human nature will also descend. The discourse of modern politics is the opposite of it, and it is impossible that the Allah of modern politics will bring down the discourse of nature that is opposite to it, and it is impossible that the discourse of the Allah of modern political reason would appear before the discourse of the Allah of nature, the first human. It is logical that the discourse of the Allah of the first nature (the Qur’an) is prior to the discourse of Allah. The modern political mind (the Bible).
This is the summary of Allah’s first instinct speech in the Qur’an, and it is possible that the American doctor still to this day has not realized the reason for the difference, and Fadel Al-Rubaie, the researcher and historian of the Zionist novel, has not yet realized… that the book of the Al-Yahoud is not the Torah at all that the speech talks about. The Qur’an, rather, a book written by a political mind… after he hid the book from which the Muslims memorized the Qur’an (Al-Naba’), so that he could write his book and make it similar to the Qur’an so that you would think it (the Torah) was from Allah and you did not know, then he went out to the world to spread this. The Book and made it the religion of the people on earth.
{A Book whose verses are explained in detail. We recite it in Arabic for a people who know. * And among them is a party who twist their tongues with the Book so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book. And they say, “It is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah, and they speak a lie while they know.}
So…there is a very big difference between the Jewish book and the Qur’an, even though they contain similar stories of prophets, and their impact on the intellectual, cultural, and scientific structure of those who believe in them is very great.
Therefore, it is natural that the continuation of the thinker Fadel Al-Rubaie’s belief in the fact that (the book of the Al-Yahoud is the Torah) and the continuation of his belief that it is a natural book that appeared on earth in a natural way and went through a natural history, will affect his thinking, imagination, analysis, and interpretation of things in the ancient world, and will make his thinking With these things, he arrives at a view that carries an identity character and carries nationality and political borders, and from here came the theory of Fadel Al-Rubaie Al-Saykes-Bikoya (the Torah is an ancient Yemeni book).
How could it not, when the Book of the Al-Yahoud bears a deceptive, chronological name (the Old Testament) to make Fadel Al-Rubaie believe that the world in the Book of the Al-Yahoud is a very ancient world on Earth…..and that it was the awareness and outlook of the people in the ancient world on Earth.
Finally…… I pray to Allah to keep arrogance away from us, and to always make truth our path.
{A Book whose verses are detailed, an Arabic Qur’an for a people who know. The tongue of the one to whom they atheist is foreign, and this is a clear Arabic language. Indeed, those who atheist in Our verses do not hide from Us. So is the one who is thrown into the Fire better, or the one who comes safe on the Day of Resurrection? Do what you will. Indeed, He sees what you do. Indeed, those who disbelieve With remembrance of what has come to them, and indeed it is a Mighty Book. Falsehood does not come to it from before it or behind it. It is a revelation from the Wise, Praiseworthy. What is said to you except what was said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Allah is the Possessor of Forgiveness and the Possessor of Painful Punishment. If We had made it a non-Arab Qur’an, they would have said, “If only its verses had been explained in detail, is it a non-Arab or an Arabic?” Say, “It is for those who believe a guidance and a cure.” And for those who do not believe, there is deafness in their ears, and it is blindness to them. Those are being called from a far place. And indeed, We gave Musa the book, but they disagreed about it, and had it not been for a word that had preceded from Your Allah, it would have been decided between them, but they are in doubt about it, doubtful.