Reasons for differences between the Quran & the Old Testament

[inJESUS]

God went easy on him? This is not what Cain felt: [GEN 4:13] “And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear”.

.

oh don’t worry about Cain…he considered it unbreable because :

Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight."

But what did God say?

Not so!" the LORD said to him. “If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.

So don’t worry about him

Still, what does the plural word damim have to do with why Muhammad quoted THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PLURAL DAMIM and said it is God’s word?

by discrediting the plural use in the Bible, you are discrediting Muhammad who quoted its interpretation, thinking it is from God

 

[Valke2]

Salaam;

The “voice” of his brother’s blood.

God went easy on him? This is not what Cain felt: [GEN 4:13] “And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear”.

Salaam.
Joseph.

That’s selective quoting. Because God immediately reassures Cain that people will not kill Cain. Which seems to be his main concern. ("…anyone who meets me may kill me!")

The first question Hashem asks Cain is “Where is thy brother Abel?” I think we can agree that this is not a question that should confuse anyone. We all know Cain’s answer. “…am I my brother’s keeper?” The rest of the Torah is an answer to answer Cain’s question. (the answer is "yes’).

The next question Hashem asks is “What have you done?” Again, not a difficult question. Followed by “your brother’s blood(s) cries out to me from the ground.”

There’s no issue of Cain being confused here and quite frankly, Cain doesn’t have the opporutnity to be confused. Because God is not interested in the answer to His question. It is rhetorical. How do we know this? Because God doesn’t wait for an answer. He immedaitely curses Cain.

I just don’t see how your explanation/metaphor holds up.

 

[Angelos]

Salaam;

Because the Judge should hear from the guilty before condemning him and Ibliss was condemned accordingly before the congregation of the Angels attending the event. Why do you think there is a Judgment Day? Cannot God just send everyone without Judgment Day to hell or paradise according to His knowledge of what everyone did during his lifetime?

Salaam.
Joseph.

So why do you keep criticizing the Old Testament while you see a similar notion in your scripture? Is this just?

In the narrative of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain, God condemns the murderer because the victim’s blood bears testimony against him. Thus, the witness and the victim are the same person. In the Quran, however, Allah interrogates Iblis when he does not obey Allah’s commandment, but Adam does nothing to accuse Iblis.

Moreover, the Judgment Day is different from the condemnation of individuals since it is a a day of collective judgment. God is not going to judge people instantly on the earth, but wait until the end of times. As for Iblis, did God need Iblis to defend himself before the congregation of the Angels so that He can prove to be a just judge? (This is my new question )

There’s another verse in the Quran that says it is impossible for Allah to know humans’ deeds until the Judgment Day:

(100) Adiyat [10-11] And that which is in breasts is made manifest, that their Lord is well-acquainted with them, that Day?

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam inJESUS;

inJESUS:

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10 The LORD then said: "What have you done! Listen: your brother’s blood cries out to me from the soil!
11 Therefore you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.
well i can see Cain lied and God showed him that he can hide nothing from God. )

What you quoted is from the NIV. I checked, it is the only version which uses the word listen :
"Listen: your brother’s blood cries out to me from the soil! [GEN 4:10], there is no mention of the word listen in the other versions, I wonder why!. But this is not a big deal to me, it only comforts my interpretation that the supposed voice of Abel’s blood was called (listen) into witnessing against Cain who denied any wrongdoing. The plural in this case has no meaning and so does the interpretation of your Rabbi. But let’s leave this aside for a moment.

The word damim in Hebrew is plural…that’s why the rabbi gave his own interpretation that Muhammad quoted as God’s word! deal with it

Yes, I will gladly deal with it!

There is no proof that Muhammad quoted anything from anyone; the above is mere speculation.

The Qur’an specifically states that it was “ordained on the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". [005.032]
You and your friends in answering.islam.de are saying that this is taken from the Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 .

What is the Mishnah? “The Mishnah, a Hebrew term meaning “repetition” or “study,” is the name given to the oldest postbiblical codification of Jewish Oral Law” The codification was done by Rabbi Judah the Prince’s around the year 200 C.E. in response to the decline during the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kokhba rebellion in the number of knowledgeable Jews who knew the Oral Law by memory.

**What is the Jewish Oral?**Law?%between% “The Oral Law is a **legal **commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out”

What is an Orthodox Jew? “Orthodox Judaism views itself as the continuation of the beliefs and practices of normative Judaism, as accepted by the Jewish nation at Mt. Sinai and codified in successive generations in an ongoing process that continues to this day.”

What does an Orthodox Jew believe in? “Oral Torah are of divine origin, and represent the word of G¬d**AND **” Emphasis mine.

Furthermore: “According to classical Rabbinical interpretation and the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, Moses and the other Jews at Sinai received an Oral as well as a Written Torah (teaching) from God at Mount Sinai.” Source HERE

What God ordained on the Children of Israel is not necessarily to be found in the Written Law (Torah) but could be also found in the Oral Law which ended up into writing **IN **the Midrash. This is where your mistake is, I quote you :

"and we drecreed to Bani Israel that whoever kills a soul ecc is not found in **Torah **( as understood by Muslims).

and this is also the mistake of your friends you are relying on to break down open doors!

To summarize:
The content of the Quranic verse 5:32 is supposedly found in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5.
In turn the Mishnah is the written version of the Oral Law.
In turn the Oral Law is also the legal interpretation of the Written Law and
Finally both the Oral and Written Law are believed to be from God. So God “ordained on the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. [005.032]. If this is not in the Written Law, then look for it in the Oral Law or its writen version, the Midrash and you found it for us. Many thanks.:clapping:

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Sufi]

one was inspired by God the other was inspired by man…there is the difference

Both books whre inspired by Allah subhana wa ta’ala. One was not correctly preserved, thus misinterpretations and lost information of it took place.

The other was preserved and the original is still in exsistance to proove this claim. Also, readers are encouraged to read it in it’s original language to get better meaning of it.

The old testament can be read in any translated language without anyone concerned about it’s originality.

The Qur’an is not even considered Qur’an in ANY translation or Arabic dialect afar from Classical Arabic.

 

[murtad]

Shalom Valke,

Hmm…You seem to know Hebrew? Biblical or Modern?

I don’t really know how Muslim scholars would react to my analysis. What they taught me at school (when I was a Muslim student) was that we had to accept the Quran as the only true and reliable Word of Allah revealed to His messenger.

So, you too are an apostate Muslim? Are you a Murtad Fitri? Can you share with us what made you leave Islam? What made you choose Eastern Orthodoxy, instead of Catholicism?

In most Muslims’ opinion, it is not good to look for answers to the question why the Quran is different from the scripture of other faiths within the Quran since all the differences but support the distortion theory.

That distortion theory is just that - a theory! Until it has been proven, the Islamist claim that the Bible is a corrupted remains a myth, just as the “Arab” Christian myth. How can the Old Testament (actually, Tenach or Torah) be corrupted when it is used by TWO rival religions, Judaism and Christianity?

 

[Angelos]

Salaam inJESUS;

What you quoted is from the NIV. I checked, it is the only version which uses the word listen :
"Listen: your brother’s blood cries out to me from the soil! [GEN 4:10], there is no mention of the word listen in the other versions, I wonder why!. But this is not a big deal to me, it only comforts my interpretation that the supposed voice of Abel’s blood was called (listen) into witnessing against Cain who denied any wrongdoing. The plural in this case has no meaning and so does the interpretation of your Rabbi. But let’s leave this aside for a moment.

There is no proof that Muhammad quoted anything from anyone; the above is mere speculation.

The Qur’an specifically states that it was “ordained on the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people". [005.032]
You and your friends in answering.islam.de are saying that this is taken from the Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 .

Furthermore: “According to classical Rabbinical interpretation and the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, Moses and the other Jews at Sinai received an Oral as well as a Written Torah (teaching) from God at Mount Sinai.” Source HERE

What God ordained on the Children of Israel is not necessarily to be found in the Written Law (Torah) but could be also found in the Oral Law which ended up into writing **IN **the Midrash. This is where your mistake is, I quote you :
and this is also the mistake of your friends you are relying on to break down open doors!

To summarize:
The content of the Quranic verse 5:32 is supposedly found in Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5.
In turn the Mishnah is the written version of the Oral Law.
In turn the Oral Law is also the legal interpretation of the Written Law and

Finally both the Oral and Written Law are believed to be from God. So God “ordained on the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. [005.032]. If this is not in the Written Law, then look for it in the Oral Law or its writen version, the Midrash and you found it for us. Many thanks.:clapping:

Salaam.
Joseph.

Hi Joseph
Have you decided to leave Islam and be an Orthodox Jew for the sake of defending the Quran? Interesting…

Your post stresses that both the Oral and Written Law are believed to be from God. Can we infer from this general statement of yours that also Muslims believe it the way Orthodox Jews do? Where does the Quran mention an Oral Law in addition to a Written Law? Where does the Quran endorse the traditional Rabbinical interpretation and the tenets of Orthodox Judaism about the Oral Law? Why does the Quran put these allegedly different Laws together without any distinction?

Listen to what the Quran says about the Law:

(005) Maidah (43-44-45) But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them? Therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith. It was We who revealed **the Law **(to Musa): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) wrong-doers.

The Quran uses the same verb “ketebna” while referring to the Law in Maidah 32 and 45, implying that The Mosaic Law (Torah) is the only form of the Law given to Moses. :clapping:

Salaam,
Angelos

 

[Angelos]

Both books whre inspired by Allah subhana wa ta’ala. One was not correctly preserved, thus misinterpretations and lost information of it took place.

The other was preserved and the original is still in exsistance to proove this claim. Also, readers are encouraged to read it in it’s original language to get better meaning of it.

The old testament can be read in any translated language without anyone concerned about it’s originality.

The Qur’an is not even considered Qur’an in ANY translation or Arabic dialect afar from Classical Arabic.

Hi Sufi

Let me give you a clue: I agree with you that only one of the books is still in its original form whereas the other is merely a false and unreliable copy of the original revelation.

It is definitely true that The Bible was distorted! Let me tell you who did that: the writers of the Quran. They took most parts of the original Bible and deliberately distorted them. They added many fables into it along with the false tenets that they devised to lead the people astray. Nevertheless, the Supreme and Good God did not allow them to replace that false copy with the original Bible (Word of God). Thus, We have the original Bible while Muslims have the false copy

I hope one day Muslims will seek the truth to embrace it!

Salaam,

Angelos

 

[Angelos]

Hmm…You seem to know Hebrew? Biblical or Modern?

So, you too are an apostate Muslim? Are you a Murtad Fitri? Can you share with us what made you leave Islam? What made you choose Eastern Orthodoxy, instead of Catholicism?

That distortion theory is just that - a theory! Until it has been proven, the Islamist claim that the Bible is a corrupted remains a myth, just as the “Arab” Christian myth. How can the Old Testament (actually, Tenach or Torah) be corrupted when it is used by TWO rival religions, Judaism and Christianity?

Hi Murtad

Pleased to meet you! Yes, it is true that I am a Murtad like you. I converted from Sunni Islam to Christianity in 1994. (in 1997 official conversion through baptism).

I am sorry, but I don’t know Hebrew. Just a few words I would love to learn Hebrew and Greek though. They are on the list of my priorities.

There is another thread entitled “Any Muslim converts to Christianity?” I briefly explained there my reasons for choosing the Christ. For you, I’ll go to the same thread and post a long message soon. Wait for it

Peace & blessings to you

Angelos

 

[Valke2]

Salaam inJESUS;

Finally both the Oral and Written Law are believed to be from God. So God “ordained on the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. [005.032]. If this is not in the Written Law, then look for it in the Oral Law or its writen version, the Midrash and you found it for us. Many thanks.:clapping:

Salaam.
Joseph.

Here’s the problem, I believe. The quote that we are discussing is not the mishna. It is later commentary on the Mishna. And this is what is apparently quoted word for word. In fact, it has to be that way. Because we are discussing a warning that was given by the Judges to witnesses in a capital case. So, while I would agree that you could argue that the original Mishna was the word of God and thus it would not be surprising that its words also appear in Koran, that argument doesn’t work here because what appears in the Koran is commentary on the Mishna. Not the Mishna itself.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Hi Joseph
Have you decided to leave Islam and be an Orthodox Jew for the sake of defending the Qur’an? Interesting…

No, but I intend to become an “expert” in Jewish Orthodoxy.

The Quran uses the same verb “ketebna” while referring to the Law in Maidah 32 and 45, implying that The Mosaic Law (Torah) is the only form of the Law given to Moses

. :clapping:
Salaam,
Angelos
Don’t be that quick in drawing conclusions.
Yes, the same verb “ketebna” is used for both verse 5:32 and 5:45 but please pay close attention: In verse 5:32, Allah (SWT) says "Min Ajli thalika katabna a’la Bani Israel….“This translates to:” Because of that we ordained on the Children of Israel…” While in verse 5:45, Allah (SWT) says: “Wa katabna a’layhim feeha…” Which translates to: “**And We prescribed in it (or therein)…” ** Feeha means “in it” or "therein"and it refers to the Torah which is mentioned just one verse (5:44) earlier: “Ina Anzalna Tawrah feeha huda…" which translates to: "It is We Who revealed the Torah, therein was guidance…” So the whole will become: “It is We who revealed the Torah, therein was guidance…And we prescribed in it (therein)…”

Since in verse 5:32, Allah (SWT) does not mention a book, it means the prescription was oral and this is a proof of the existence of an Oral Law in addition to the Written Law or Torah.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Valke2;

Valke2:

Here’s the problem, I believe. The quote that we are discussing is not the mishna. It is later commentary on the Mishna. And this is what is apparently quoted word for word. In fact, it has to be that way. Because we are discussing a warning that was given by the Judges to witnesses in a capital case. So, while I would agree that you could argue that the original Mishna was the word of God and thus it would not be surprising that its words also appear in Koran, that argument doesn’t work here because what appears in the Koran is commentary on the Mishna. Not the Mishna itself.

“How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?” the Mishna begins. “They are brought in and admonished as follows: In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his [potential] descendants are on the witness’s head until the end of time. For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: ‘The bloods of your brother cry unto Me’ (Genesis 4:10) — that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants… Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours… Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake”’ (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5). (One commentary notes, “How grave the responsibility, therefore, of corrupting myself by giving false evidence, and thus bringing [upon myself the moral guilt of [murdering] a whole world.”) SOURCE

Do you think what I bolded above is a commentary?

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land”
[005.032]
Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Valke2]

Salaam Valke2;

Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Do you think what I bolded above is a commentary?

This is important enough that I am actually going to avoid google and go to the Talmud itself.

please stand by…

 

[Valke2]

My mistake. It is from the Mishna. Sanhedrin 37A.

1. FOR THIS REASON
   WAS MAN CREATED ALONE, TO TEACH THEE THAT WHOSOEVER
   DESTROYS A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL,(39) SCRIPTURE IMPUTES [GUILT]
   TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD DESTROYED A COMPLETE WORLD; AND
   WHOSOEVER PRESERVES A SINGLE SOUL OF ISRAEL, SCRIPTURE
   ASCRIBES [MERIT] TO HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD PRESERVED A COMPLETE
   WORLD.(40)

THere are other similar references in Talmud, where the sentiment is not narrowed to a “soul of Israel” but state the more generic “single life”. Also “Of Israel” is absent in some texts.

 

[Angelos]

Don’t be that quick in drawing conclusions.
Yes, the same verb “ketebna” is used for both verse 5:32 and 5:45 but please pay close attention: In verse 5:32, Allah (SWT) says "Min Ajli thalika katabna a’la Bani Israel….“This translates to:” Because of that we ordained on the Children of Israel…” While in verse 5:45, Allah (SWT) says: “Wa katabna a’layhim feeha…” Which translates to: “**And We prescribed in it (or therein)…” ** Feeha means “in it” or "therein"and it refers to the Torah which is mentioned just one verse (5:44) earlier: “Ina Anzalna Tawrah feeha huda…" which translates to: "It is We Who revealed the Torah, therein was guidance…” So the whole will become: “It is We who revealed the Torah, therein was guidance…And we prescribed in it (therein)…”

Since in verse 5:32, Allah (SWT) does not mention a book, it means the prescription was oral and this is a proof of the existence of an Oral Law in addition to the Written Law or Torah.

Salaam.
Joseph.

Hi Joseph,

I am afraid it is YOU who is that quick in drawing conclusions. First of all, the fact that the Quran does not mention a book in verse 32 by no means implies the existence of an Oral Law in addition to the Written one. In another chapter, the Quran clearly refers to the Written Law even though it does not mention a book!

(006) Al-An’am [146] For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their willful disobedience for We are True (in Our ordinances).

It is also easy to infer that 5:32 refers to the Written Law since it presents a biblical narrative (the story of Adam’s two sons) and links a specific ordinance to an event in the Torah! It is more likely that the Quran does not deem it necessary to mention the book in that context since a clear reference is already made to it through the recitation of Cain & Abel’s story. More, the Quran might be using the words “ordained to the sons of Israel” in order to highlight the association between Adam’s sons and the sons of Israel. Above all, it is natural for the Quran not to use the same sentence structure in verse 32 as in 45 because these two verses focus on different stories. 5: 32 explains the relation between a biblical account and an ordinance whereas 5: 45 is concerned with the Jewish attitude to the Law and the rebuke of a few Jews that asks for Mohammed’s guidance for the settlement of a dispute:

05: 43 But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them? **Therein **is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

Finally, nowhere does the Quran make any implicit or explicit reference to the existence of an oral law. In this verse it is apparent that the Quran acknowledges no law apart from the one given to Moses (the written one, as you call it!):

5: 44 It was We who revealed **the Law **(to Musa): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been **judged **the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto. (For the Quran, the Law and Allah’s book are one and same).

Salaam,

Angelos

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Hi Joseph,
I am afraid it is YOU who is that quick in drawing conclusions.

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude.

First of all, the fact that the Quran does not mention a book in verse 32 by no means implies the existence of an Oral Law in addition to the Written one. In another chapter, the Quran clearly refers to the Written Law even though it does not mention a book!

(006) Al-An’am [146] For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them the fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their willful disobedience for We are True (in Our ordinances).

Look down a little and you will find the Written Law mentioned in verses 6:154 and implicitely 6:156. The context of the verse you quoted is in these two verses.

Finally, nowhere does the Qur’an make any implicit or explicit reference to the existence of an oral law. In this verse it is apparent that the Qur’an acknowledges no law apart from the one given to Moses (the written one, as you call it!):

5: 44 It was We who revealed **the Law **(to Musa): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been **judged **the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah’s Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto. (For the Quran, the Law and Allah’s book are one and same).

This above verse you quoted says that the Torah was a guidance, Yahkumu beeha, meaning judge with it, and not Yahkumu minha, meaning judge from it. It did not detail everything bit of rule or regulation, it did not address every real life situation which the Jewish people would face during its life, it had the outlines in it. The Prophets, the Doctors of Law, The Rabbis used the Torah as a reference; in Other words, it was a source for setting another Law, the Oral Law. Also, the great Prophet Moses (PBUH) was a Doctor of Law to the Jews: " And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:
When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws".[EX 18:15-16]. All was oral until it was decided to write it down, giving what is commonly known as the Mishnah.

The same thing can be said about Islam: when a situation arises which was not addressed in the Qur’an and Sunnah, the Doctors of Islamic Law do what it is called “Ijtihad” to issue a fatwa, or a ruling which does not divert from the spirit of the Qur’an and Sunnah. That ruling may stay at the state of oral or can be documented and written down for future use.

The claim that Muhammad used a Mishnah commentary and put it in the Noble Qur’an does not stand study. God truly ordained that ruling on the Children of Israel which the Mishnah captured, no mysteries.

Salaam.
Joseph

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

“How are witnesses inspired with awe in capital cases?” the Mishna begins. “They are brought in and admonished as follows: In case you may want to offer testimony that is only conjecture or hearsay or secondhand evidence, even from a person you consider trustworthy; or in the event you do not know that we shall test you by cross-examination and inquiry, then know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a man can make monetary restitution and be forgiven, but in capital cases both the blood of the man put to death and the blood of his [potential]
descendants are on the witness’s head until the end of time. For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: ‘The bloods of your brother cry unto Me’ (Genesis 4:10) — that is, his blood and the blood of his potential descendants… Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, 'My father was greater than yours… Also, man [was created singly] to show the greatness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one another, but the King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, made each man in the image of Adam, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obligated to say, 'The world was created for my sake”’ (Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5). (One commentary notes, “How grave the responsibility, therefore, of corrupting myself by giving false evidence, and thus bringing [upon myself the moral guilt of [murdering] a whole world.”) SOURCE

Do you think what I bolded above is a commentary?

Why not? Isn’t the case that of Cain and Abel referred to in Genesis 4:10? Do you find those words in Gen 4:10?

Please explain.

 

[Valke2]

Why not? Isn’t the case that of Cain and Abel referred to in Genesis 4:10? Do you find those words in Gen 4:10?

Please explain.

He was asking if the bolded text was the mishna itself or a commentary on the mishna.

 

[kellie]

The Qur’an is not even considered Qur’an in ANY translation or Arabic dialect afar from Classical Arabic.

Is this true anyone?

So if I wanted to convert (and please shoot me if I do), do I have to learn Arabic?

I can’t even speak American

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Is anyone arguing that bolded part is part of the Oral law brought down by Moses and therefore the literal word of God?