2,743
edits
Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→Muslim Objections Refuted: Even the misnah in the Babylonian had a variant without "of Israel") |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| 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, | '''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’ (katabna) in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding 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). 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 / made binding something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi. | Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / made binding something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi. | ||