2,743
edits
Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Muslim Objections Refuted: Even the misnah in the Babylonian had a variant without "of Israel"
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→Muslim Objections Refuted: Sanhedrin 4/5 link added) |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) (→Muslim Objections Refuted: Even the misnah in the Babylonian had a variant without "of Israel") |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Muslim Objections Refuted=== | ===Muslim Objections Refuted=== | ||
'''Dr Saifullah has made | '''Dr Saifullah has made a number of errors here:''' | ||
# No one claims the parallelism is an ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By | # No one claims the parallelism is an ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By implying thus, Dr Saifullah has created a straw man argument. | ||
# "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. | ||