Talmud in the Quran?

[Cyber_Knight]

For this reason was man created alone, to teach **that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. ** --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel **that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. ** --Quran, Surah 5:32

Talmud in the Quran? I do not understand. Any Jew could explain about it?

More about Talmud

 

[exoflare]

Interesting. But, I can’t say I’m surprised.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

exoflare:

Interesting. But, I can’t say I’m surprised.

oh well its just proving that Quran plagarized the talmud

 

[MugenOne]

Amen!

 

[exoflare]

Cyber Knight:

oh well its just proving that Quran plagarized the talmud

It can’t be… It just CAN’T be!

 

[Cyber_Knight]

It can’t be… It just CAN’T be!

You know exo… truth hurts only God knows.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

It can’t be… It just CAN’T be!

Salaam Exoflare;
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say but could not find the right words…Million thanks from me.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Joseph_Alison:

Salaam Exoflare;
Thank you for saying what I wanted to say but could not find the right words…Million thanks from me.

Salaam.
Joseph.

JA, I know you would say thanks to exoflare. But incase you dont know what exoflare means by that, it is fully agreement with my statement. Hope to use more imagination of yours, brother JA

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Cyber Knight:

For this reason was man created alone, to teach that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. --Quran, Surah 5:32

Talmud in the Quran? I do not understand. Any Jew could explain about it?

Dear Cyber Knight,
You’ve made an excellent point. The parallelism is clear: even the Quran admits to the borrowing. I refer to the opening words, ‘we decree for the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL’. This verse is not for the Muslims. It is only for the Jews.

This is in several versions:

1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: “Whoever destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] … it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being … it is as if he had preserved an entire world”.
2. In the Talmud Bavli, where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is the same, except for the substitution of “life of a single Jew” [nefesh a`hat \mi-yisrael] for “life of a single human being”.
3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections (Halakhot). In my edition the saying appears in Halakhot 12-13. Others divide Mishnah 5 differently: e.g. MTR locates it in Halakhah 9. It reads “destroys a single life” [ma’abed nefesh ahat] and "preserves a single life" [meqayem nefesh ahat]. There is no specific mention of either “human being” or “Jew”, though the former is clearly implied.

nizkor.org/ftp.py?antisemitism/talmud/who-saves-one-life

The implication is that Muhammad failed to understand the source he borrowed from. Claiming that Allah ‘DECREED’ (other translations say ‘ordained’) when it came from the Talmud seems a clear mistake.

If Allah did decree for the Jews then how come it isn’t in the Torah? Oh… don’t tell me the Torah is corrupted (at least on this issue)? Hmm…. Any evidence for that? I think not. The reason this ‘decree’ is not in the Torah is because it is merely the Talmudic commentary of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain.

 

[discipleofJesus]

interesting and excellent points Cyber Knight and Rodrigo Bivar

 

[Han_Ji_Hye]

Ok if no Jews come up to explain about Talmud and what its all about. How about Muslims? I think we must refer to Muslims and ask an explanation rather than the Jews as Muhammad copied Jewish Talmud for his Koran

Agree with Rodrigo Bivar this thread should be the continuation of Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures after no muslims interested to refute what Rodrigo Bivar stated there on his thread.

 

[Pure81]

Hello, please not that the Aya starts with because of that…which means you should have mentioned the previous Aya and wht it is talking about and why it lead to bringing up the children of israel, and wht it says in the end of the aya that mentions the children of israel, you failed to mention all that.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Pure81:

Hello, please not that the Aya starts with because of that…which means you should have mentioned the previous Aya and wht it is talking about and why it lead to bringing up the children of israel, and wht it says in the end of the aya that mentions the children of israel, you failed to mention all that.

I was wondering when a Muslim would come up with the old ‘out-of-context’ excuse. Of course we know what the previous ayats say. I already said this explanation is regarding the murder of Abel by Cain. Verses 5:27-31 indeed tells about this event.

The point you missed is how come the Quran says that Allah ‘DECREED’ for the Children of Israel that to kill a soul is to kill humanity? This parallelism is not in the Torah but the Talmud. Because it is in the Talmud - this proves that Muhammad made an error.

Because it is in the Talmud, Allah couldn’t have DECREED this passage, because the Talmud was written by rabbis as a commentary of the Torah. It is like the tafsirs - so what is in it is decreed by man and not God.

Hope this clears up your misconception,
Rodrigo Bivar y Valencia.

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

The point you missed is how come the Quran says that Allah ‘DECREED’ for the Children of Israel that to kill a soul is to kill humanity? This parallelism is not in the Torah but the Talmud. Because it is in the Talmud - this proves that Muhammad made an error.

Rodrigo,

Quibbling over translations in an effort to prove errancy shows a desperation to score cheap points, not someone who is really interested in learning (and this is a big reason why I find total futility in debating you). And in the presence of Arabic-speaking Muslims it’s just plain ridiculous.

The actual Arabic says “katabna”, which can mean “We wrote”, but also has other meanings, and in the context of the Qur’an most often means, literally, “We made it binding on them”. If someone kataba 'aleik, then it means he made that thing in question binding upon you. That can be done in several ways, not just writing it down in a book of rules. I’m sure you’re aware that Jews consider the Talmud the Oral Law, and no less binding than the written Torah. In Muslim terms it is Moses’ Sunnah, and in Islam the Sunnah is not any less binding than the Qur’an.

If “decreed” strikes you as necessarily meaning commandments of God in written form, then perhaps “ordained” is a better translation. I don’t happen to share your insistence, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Rodrigo,

Quibbling over translations in an effort to prove errancy shows a desperation to score cheap points, not someone who is really interested in learning (and this is a big reason why I find total futility in debating you). And in the presence of Arabic-speaking Muslims it’s just plain ridiculous.

Another Muslim ad hominem. Who’d have guess it? Of course, I’m interested in learning – that’s why I make myself open to Muslim ad hominems like yours.

Do you think committing logical fallacies like these ad hominems of yours shows any sort of intellectual prowess? I don’t think so, bud. Sorry to be harsh but that’s the truth. If you were really interested in discussion I am always ready to discuss with you.

To me, your assertion that it is futile to debate me is probably because you lack the debating skills to match mine. That should be clear to all readers. Again, sorry to be blunt but that’s also the truth.

It doesn’t matter about the translations of the word katabna – I made the point that there are other translations of the word as well – the point really is Allah making that assertion – whether he wrote or decreed or ordained or made it bind - it doesn’t matter because it was not Allah or Yahweh or any God of any kind who made the original – but some rabbi.

In the Mishnah, who ‘made it binding’ that killing a soul is like killing humanity? Not Allah but a rabbi. That is the point.

Shenango:

The actual Arabic says “katabna”, which can mean “We wrote”, but also has other meanings, and in the context of the Qur’an most often means, literally, “We made it binding on them”. If someone kataba 'aleik, then it means he made that thing in question binding upon you. That can be done in several ways, not just writing it down in a book of rules. I’m sure you’re aware that Jews consider the Talmud the Oral Law, and no less binding than the written Torah. In Muslim terms it is Moses’ Sunnah, and in Islam the Sunnah is not any less binding than the Qur’an.

I don’t think so. Kitab means book. Katabna means write or wrote. It doesn’t LITERALLY mean ‘made it binding’. That is really a metaphorical / figurative explanation I think. Again, why do you take a figurative meaning when a perfectly good literal meaning is applicable?

It really doesn’t matter because you’re missing the point: was it man or God who first made up Sanhedrin 4:9? It is commonly believed to be a man who did this. Thus, why would God take it upon himself to make something a man wrote ‘binding’?

Secondly, it doesn’t matter whether the Jews consider the Talmud the Oral Law because Sanhedrin 4:9 was written by a man, not God. You misunderstand what the ‘Oral Law’ means – it means something similar to the hadiths. Jewish laws are also promulgated based on the Talmud’s oral transmission – just like the hadiths, and no Muslim would claim that the hadiths are God’s kitab. So why claim that for the Talmud?

Now, you’re really telling us that God made this rabbi write the Mishnayot. This rabbi was not acknowledged as a prophet of God but a mere rabbi. If you claim this rabbi was the instrument of Allah, why not claim Rabbi Shelomo Amar to also be a prophet of God?

The Talmud is not a single text – there are various texts making up the Talmud. The Sanhedrin 4:9 is actually a mishnayot – meaning it is the teaching of a Jewish sage. It is commonly believed that these teachings are not from God or from Moses, thus one would question why Allah should ‘katabna’ something a Jewish sage made up as explanation for the Cain and Abel story.

Shenango:

If “decreed” strikes you as necessarily meaning commandments of God in written form, then perhaps “ordained” is a better translation. I don’t happen to share your insistence, but whatever floats your boat.

Ahhh… that’s where your apologetic gets exposed. Following your line of reasoning then everything is ‘katabna’ed by Allah, according to Muslims. You’re hanging your case on a ‘figurative’ explanation.

Besides, because the Sanhedrin 4:9 is a mishnayot it must be written by a man, not God. That is the point. In this case, it is a man’s commentary of the Cain and Abel story.

Ciudate,
Cid

 

[r.gonzales]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You misunderstand what the ‘Oral Law’ means – it means something similar to the hadiths. Jewish laws are also promulgated based on the Talmud’s oral transmission – just like the hadiths

obviously you misunderstood what shenango said, because you basically just repeated what he said regarding the talmud being a kin to the sunnah–prophetic tradition and teaching that is embodied in what is known in islam as … hadeeth.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

r.gonzales:

Rodrigo Bivar:

You misunderstand what the ‘Oral Law’ means – it means something similar to the hadiths. Jewish laws are also promulgated based on the Talmud’s oral transmission – just like the hadiths

obviously you misunderstood what shenango said, because you basically just repeated what he said regarding the talmud being a kin to the sunnah–prophetic tradition and teaching that is embodied in what is known in islam as … hadeeth.

Maybe I’m too polite for Muslims. I understood Shenango all right. It’s just that he was plain wrong.

Let me put it plainly: the Talmud comprises many texts – one of which is the Mishnah which is nothing more than commentary and teachings by Jewish sages. These are not derived by any deity but by rabbis. These are ‘man-made’.

The Sanhedrin 4:9 is a mishnayot – meaning it was merely a commentary on the Cain-Abel story by a Jewish sage, a rabbi.

Thus, Sanhedrin 4:9 has nothing whatsoever to do with Allah or Yahweh or Jehoveh or any other god. For the Quran to claim that Allah katabna / decreed / ordained / prescribed / made binding Sanhedrin 4:9 is plain wrong because Sanhedrin 4:9 has nothing whatsoever to do with any deity.

Using your hadith example: the hadiths are not all derived by God. There are hadiths of Muhammad’s companions saying things of their own accord – without reference to Allah or Muhammad. This is like that. Sanhedrin 4:9 is not a rabbi telling us what Moses said. It is not a rabbi telling us what Abraham said. It is not a rabbi telling us what Yahweh said. It is a rabbi explaining the Cain Abel story to us – that morality in the ‘kill a single soul is akin to killing humanity’ is not god-deriver, or Moses-derived, or Abraham-derived, but rabbi-derived.

I hope I’ve made this clear.

Love to see you participate, r.gonzales my old pal,
Rodrigo

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

For the Quran to claim that Allah katabna / decreed / ordained / prescribed / made binding Sanhedrin 4:9 is plain wrong because Sanhedrin 4:9 has nothing whatsoever to do with any deity.

Your mistake is in necessarily linking Surah 5:32 to the Talmudic reference. Even if I were to humor your point that only a rabbi was the source of Sanhedrin 4:9, what does this have to do with the Qur’an?

Here’s a little Arabic lesson for you: “katabna 'aleihem”, which is the wording 5:32 means “We made binding upon them”, because God can’t literally write on people’s forheads (the literal reading of 5:32 would be “We wrote upon them”). To write something down for somebody in a book or on a paper is in fact a different expression in Arabic. Hard as you may try, you cannot imprison this wording into errancy. Sorry bud.

“We made it binding upon them” can mean just about anything. It could have been a written command in the Torah, a verbal teaching of Moses (PBUH) or later inspiration of Jewish prophets or something else. So a Jewish rabbi happened to write down the teaching in the Talmud at some point in history. So what?

5:32 refers not to the Talmud, but to the teaching itself, which I don’t think can be conclusively proven to have originated solely from the rabbi who wrote it in the Talmud (at least you have not presented evidence as to such). The rabbi did not develop this teaching himself, but was only passing it on as part of his commentary.

If you have proof that the rabbi invented the teaching himself, then by all means present it, because without such proof your argument amounts to diddly squat.

By the way, you misunderstood what I was trying to say about the Talmud being Moses’ Sunnah. I understand well that it’s an eclectic book of Jewish wisdom derived from several rabbinical sources, but before the Talmud was written down, the Oral Law was transmitted strictly orally, and ultimately what all rabbis teach…that is if they are proper rabbis…should in theory trace back to Moses (PBUH) or other prophets…unless rabbis consider themselves prophets.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Your mistake is in necessarily linking Surah 5:32 to the Talmudic reference. Even if I were to humor your point that only a rabbi was the source of Sanhedrin 4:9, what does this have to do with the Qur’an?

Because Surah 5:32 specifically states that Allah katabna for the Jews… What is katabna for the Jews?

Min ajli thalika katabna AAala banee isra-eela

What is bani Israela? That’s why it is clear that Surah 5:32 is paralleling Sanhedrin 4:9 because that is the only place in the Jewish scriptures / rabbinical texts that has a similar phrase.

Got it?

Shenango:

Here’s a little Arabic lesson for you: “katabna 'aleihem”, which is the wording 5:32 means “We made binding upon them”, because God can’t literally write on people’s forheads (the literal reading of 5:32 would be “We wrote upon them”). To write something down for somebody in a book or on a paper is in fact a different expression in Arabic. Hard as you may try, you cannot imprison this wording into errancy. Sorry bud.

“We made it binding upon them” can mean just about anything. It could have been a written command in the Torah, a verbal teaching of Moses (PBUH) or later inspiration of Jewish prophets or something else. So a Jewish rabbi happened to write down the teaching in the Talmud at some point in history. So what?

5:32 refers not to the Talmud, but to the teaching itself, which I don’t think can be conclusively proven to have originated solely from the rabbi who wrote it in the Talmud (at least you have not presented evidence as to such). The rabbi did not develop this teaching himself, but was only passing it on as part of his commentary.

If you have proof that the rabbi invented the teaching himself, then by all means present it, because without such proof your argument amounts to diddly squat.

By the way, you misunderstood what I was trying to say about the Talmud being Moses’ Sunnah. I understand well that it’s an eclectic book of Jewish wisdom derived from several rabbinical sources, but before the Talmud was written down, the Oral Law was transmitted strictly orally, and ultimately what all rabbis teach…that is if they are proper rabbis…should in theory trace back to Moses (PBUH) or other prophets…unless rabbis consider themselves prophets.

But the only place that the ‘kill a soul is akin to killing humanity’ among the Jewish texts is in Sanhedrin 37a. That is the point.

Sanhedrin 37a is only a commentary of the Cain and Abel story – there is nothing there to suggest that it was Moses who made that commentary. That is the point.

This is Sanhedrin 37a:



Rabbi H. Goldwurm (ed.), Talmud Bavli: The Schottenstein Edition, 1993, Tractate Sanhedrin, Volume 1, Mesorah Publications, Ltd.: Brooklyn, New York, pp. xxvi-xxvii.

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html

I think you’re confusing Oral Law to mean it definitely came from Moses. This is not the case – the Jews have a strong rabbinical tradition – meaning that the Oral Law was transmitted in explanatory form from Jewish Sages – not necessarily Moses. In this case, the Moses bit is the story of Cain & Abel; the commentary is pure Rabbi. This should be clear from the passage I provided above. The evidence that it is rabbinical instead of Mosaic is the repeated phrase, ‘is considered by Scripture’. Now, if Moses had made the commentary he wouldn’t use that phrase. Only a Rabbi, explaining the Torah, would use that phrase.

I hope you get it now.

Ciudate,
Rodrigo

 

[Shenango]

Shenango:

Here’s a little Arabic lesson for you: “katabna 'aleihem”, which is the wording 5:32 means “We made binding upon them”, because God can’t literally write on people’s forheads (the literal reading of 5:32 would be “We wrote upon them”). To write something down for somebody in a book or on a paper is in fact a different expression in Arabic. Hard as you may try, you cannot imprison this wording into errancy. Sorry bud.

Just to clarify something that apparently got mixed up in my original response. When I had said “katabna 'aleihem” literally means “We made binding upon them” in my earlier post, I meant “literally” not in the sense of the wording (for that would be “We wrote upon them”, as I said here), but in terms of expression. That is what most directly what would be used to express the idea. I apologize if this caused confusion.

Had the text said “katabna lahum”, or something similar, you may have had something to quibble about, but as it stands, you are wrong: there is no way to literally understand “katabna 'aleihem” (“katabna 'ala bani israi’l” in the actual text, but the same meaning), as that would mean God literally inscribed the command physically on people’s bodies. Therefore the only possible meaning is figurative, that God bound them by this teaching. I’m sorry that you will have to relinquish this point, but you will.