4,544
edits
Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature: Difference between revisions
Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature (view source)
Revision as of 06:44, 17 May 2021
, 17 May 2021→=Muslim Objection Examined
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
This does not by itself prove anything other than that the Qur'an might have access to traditions which were otherwise lost, which is not at all unusual in ancient literature. | This does not by itself prove anything other than that the Qur'an might have access to traditions which were otherwise lost, which is not at all unusual in ancient literature. | ||
=== Corruption of the Previous Scriptures === | ===Corruption of the Previous Scriptures=== | ||
As had been stated in the introduction, similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. However, the Judeo-Christian tales and their Qur'anic counterparts do not always match. There are three possible explanations for this: | As had been stated in the introduction, similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. However, the Judeo-Christian tales and their Qur'anic counterparts do not always match. There are three possible explanations for this: | ||
| Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
*<p>a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, 'We <u>decreed</u> (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’</p><p>This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb katabā literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in {{Quran|5|45}} regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example {{Quran|7|145}} it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb <ref>katabā [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf Lane's Lexicon book 1 page 2590]</ref>, though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.</p> | *<p>a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, 'We <u>decreed</u> (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’</p><p>This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb katabā literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in {{Quran|5|45}} regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example {{Quran|7|145}} it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb <ref>katabā [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume7/00000118.pdf Lane's Lexicon book 1 page 2590]</ref>, though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.</p> | ||
*b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage, and not from the biblical tradition as such but rather an extension of it. | *b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage, and not from the biblical tradition as such but rather an extension of it. | ||
*c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran|5|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel. | *c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel {{Quran|5|27-31}}, as does the Sanhedrin parallel. | ||
| Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
Some Muslims (e.g. [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html Dr Saifullah]) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul <u>of Israel</u>’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed. | Some Muslims (e.g. [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html Dr Saifullah]) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul <u>of Israel</u>’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed. | ||
==Muslim Objection Examined== | |||
'''Dr Saifullah has made a number of errors here:''' | '''Dr Saifullah has made a number of errors here:''' | ||
#NDr Saifullah has created a straw man argument. The Qur'anic text is not a complete copy of the Talmudic text, but rather a parrellel. | #NDr Saifullah has created a straw man argument. The Qur'anic text is not a complete copy of the Talmudic text, but rather a parrellel. | ||
#"of Israel" [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html#37a_39 is absent in some manuscripts] of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard. | #"of Israel" [http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html#37a_39 is absent in some manuscripts] of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard. | ||
#The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument. | #The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5 Sanhedrin 4/5], which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument. | ||