2,743
edits
Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Muslim Objections Refuted
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→Qur'anic Verse: katabna shows the the author believed it to be in the written Torah) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
# 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. | ||
'''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Qur'an. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We | '''Prima facie''' - this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Qur'an. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding/written for the Children of Israel where is the corresponding verse in the Torah? The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, why does he quote verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not quote directly this hypothetical lost verse? It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning. | ||
Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / | Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi. | ||