Talmud in the Quran?

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

there is nothing there to suggest that it was Moses who made that commentary. That is the point.

It doesn’t matter. The Qur’an isn’t saying the teaching originated with Moses (PBUH). In fact, the Qur’an makes no claims about who/what/where this teaching of God came from at all. See my above post (^^^).

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

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.

Hmmm… I don’t think I’m getting through to you. It is not ‘katabna’ that is the problem. It is the fact that it was Allah who ‘katabna’ that is the problem. This is because the original passage was ‘most probably’ by a rabbi. So how can Allah have anything to do with what a rabbi wrote?

You get it? Or is the point too subtle for you?

Besides, I should think katabna ala bani isreal means Allah wrote/ decreed/ ordained/ prescribed FOR the bani Israel? That is the interpretation given by all the translators, including shaykhs and imams. But apparently you know better.

Methinks you’re putting too much emphasis on the word ‘katabna’ because I capitalized DECREED. I was really trying to question the idea that somehow Allah got involved with something a rabbi wrote.

You see, the problem wouldn’t arise if the Sanhedrin 37a passage was in the Torah. Then it would be reasonable for Muslims to claim that the parallelism is because of a common source – Moses being a prophet of God, transmitting his word in the Torah, and God in the Quran saying the same thing. In essence, God was saying the same thing through Moses and Muhammad in the Torah and the Quran.

However, the problem arises because Sanhedrin 37a was not written by Moses – i.e. it did not come from God but a lowly rabbi. Thus, when Allah in the Quran said he ‘katabna’ something that obviously came from a rabbi we have a problem.

Are you getting it now?

Shenango:

Rodrigo Bivar:

there is nothing there to suggest that it was Moses who made that commentary. That is the point.

It doesn’t matter. The Qur’an isn’t saying the teaching originated with Moses (PBUH). In fact, the Qur’an makes no claims about who/what/where this teaching of God came from at all. See my above post (^^^).

Oh yes, it matters. Because if a rabbi wrote Sanhedrin 37a, then how come Allah replicated/paralleled it in the Quran? This definitely rules out the COMMON SOURCE explanation for the parallelism between the Quran and the Jewish scripture in this instance.

And the Quran does make the claim that the passage came from Allah. Read 5:32 again.

Allah katabna ala bani Israel…

It doesn’t say, ‘Rabbi such-and-such katabna ala bani Israel…

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo,

This is pointless…you are arguing with me without knowing Arabic. I’ve been formally schooled in the language for 8+ years and speak it informally all the time.

The Arabic text of 5:32 says, verbatim, in quote:

“Katabna 'ALA BANI ISRAI’L…”

Did you catch those first two words…it says “KATABNA ’ALA’”? Now we know “KATABNA” means “We wrote”. Do you know what “'ALA” means? IT DOES NOT MEAN “FOR”!!! It means “UPON” or “ON”. Go look up the word “'ALA” in an Arabic dictionary and prove it yourself if you have to.

So the literal translation of the above verbatim text I quoted would be:

“We wrote UPON the Children of Israel”, NOT “We wrote FOR the Children of Israel”. Do you understand that the former example is what the text actually says, and that “FOR” and “UPON” do not mean the same thing?

Once again, had it said “FOR” you would have had something to quibble about, because writing something FOR someone means writing it down on a paper or in a book somewhere. Had the text said “FOR”, it would have been this way:

“KATABNA LI BANI ISRAI’L”, NOT “KATABNA ’ALA BANI ISRAI’L”…

The only way you can "Write UPON" someone is to take a marker and physically write on their body, using it like a chalk board. Thus “KATABNA 'ALA” cannot be understood literally. To write upon someone means exactly to bind a person to that thing. If you write something on someone’s body that is figuratively what you are doing (binding a person to it), since what you wrote becomes attached to the person inseparably.

Of course, when God binds someone to a teaching, it effectively means that God has ordained or decreed it FOR that person, and that’s why the translations say “Decreed FOR” or “Ordained FOR” or whatever. Once again, the literal Arabic DOES NOT SAY “FOR”!!!

I have never seen arrogance like yours Rodrigo. Really, you are something else. How dare you try to teach me what the Qur’an says in Arabic and say to me “Got it now?”. You’re not qualified to teach me Arabic. In fact it’s the reverse. You are wrong ten times over Rodrigo, and you will NEVER win this argument. In the way you like to end your posts, DO YOU GOT IT NOW?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Rodrigo,

This is pointless…you are arguing with me without knowing Arabic. I’ve been formally schooled in the language for 8+ years and speak it informally all the time.

More of the Muslims, ‘I speak Arabic so I’m right,’ argument again, I see.

You really think I don’t have resources to Arabic? Not that it matter because you keep on failing to see the point. I’ve already told you to not look at the word katabna but at Allah. How can Allah have anything to do with Sanhedrin 37a when it was a commentary written by a rabbi?

Shenango:

The Arabic text of 5:32 says, verbatim, in quote:

“Katabna 'ALA BANI ISRAI’L…”

Did you catch those first two words…it says “KATABNA ‘ALA’”? Now we know “KATABNA” means “We wrote”. Do you know what “'ALA” means? IT DOES NOT MEAN “FOR”!!! It means “UPON” or “ON”. Go look up the word “'ALA” in an Arabic dictionary and prove it yourself if you have to.

So the literal translation of the above verbatim text I quoted would be:

“We wrote UPON the Children of Israel”, NOT “We wrote FOR the Children of Israel”. Do you understand that the former example is what the text actually says, and that “FOR” and “UPON” do not mean the same thing?

Once again, had it said “FOR” you would have had something to quibble about, because writing something FOR someone means writing it down on a paper or in a book somewhere. Had the text said “FOR”, it would have been this way:

“KATABNA LI BANI ISRAI’L”, NOT “KATABNA 'ALA BANI ISRAI’L”…

The only way you can “Write UPON” someone is to take a marker and physically write on their body, using it like a chalk board. Thus “KATABNA 'ALA” cannot be understood literally. To write upon someone means exactly to bind a person to that thing. If you write something on someone’s body that is figuratively what you are doing (binding a person to it), since what you wrote becomes attached to the person inseparably.

Of course, when God binds someone to a teaching, it effectively means that God has ordained or decreed it FOR that person, and that’s why the translations say “Decreed FOR” or “Ordained FOR” or whatever. Once again, the literal Arabic DOES NOT SAY “FOR”!!!

Sheesh. It doesn’t matter what katabna means. I’ve told you this on several occasions but you are still obsessed by this word. The point is, and I’m writing very slowly:

Allah should not have katabna ala Sanhedrin 37a for or upon the Jews. Because he has nothing to do with Sanhedrin 37a. Got it?

A rabbi wrote Sanhedrin 37a. So, why would Allah have anything to do with it? That is the point.

Shenango:

I have never seen arrogance like yours Rodrigo. Really, you are something else. How dare you try to teach me what the Qur’an says in Arabic and say to me “Got it now?”. You’re not qualified to teach me Arabic. In fact it’s the reverse. You are wrong ten times over Rodrigo, and you will NEVER win this argument. In the way you like to end your posts, DO YOU GOT IT NOW?

Have I taught you Arabic? I’m trying to teach you logic.

I’ll make my point again. The claim in the Quran that ‘Allah xxx for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc. the Jews that killing a single soul is akin to killing humanity’ is wrong because a rabbi wrote that first in the Mishnah.

Since a rabbi wrote this first Allah has nothing to do with it. That is the entire point. Only if Moses had written it can Allah rightly claim he xxx for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc. the Jews that killing a single soul is akin to killing humanity’ because Moses was the prophet of God. Not the rabbi.

You’re obsessed with katabna because I happened to capitalize DECREED. You didn’t see that it didn’t matter what the translation was because I already admitted there are various different translations of the word. What was important is Allah made binding passage that was written by a Rabbi.

How can I make it clearer than that?

It’s not the Arabic translation of katabna that wins or loses the argument, Shenango. It’s the strength of the argument of why Allah would make it binding for the Jews a passage that was written by a rabbi.

Let me try again:

1. Rabbi so and so wrote ‘killing a single soul is akin to killing humanity’ in the Mishnah.
2. Allah said he katabna ala the Jews that ‘killing a single soul is akin to killing humanity’

What do we conclude here? That Allah is this rabbi? Allah has no right to ‘make it binding’ for the Jews that ‘‘killing a single soul is akin to killing humanity’ because that passage was written by a Rabbi.

So… have you got it now? I’ve tried to tell you this many times but you keep coming back to the translation of katabna, trying to tell us since you know Arabic you must be right. In doing so, you have completely missed the point.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

It’s not the Arabic translation of katabna that wins or loses the argument, Shenango.

You’re right, but that’s not what I claimed. What wins the argument is not the translation of “Katabna”, but that of “'ALA”. Re-read my post carefully because I’m not repeating myself. “We wrote upon” is an expression in Arabic that means made it binding. You can keep erecting straw men all night long to duck my arguments if you want. On my end I’m satisfied with what I’ve explained and I consider the matter closed.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

You’re right, but that’s not what I claimed. What wins the argument is not the translation of “Katabna”, but that of “'ALA”. Re-read my post carefully because I’m not repeating myself. “We wrote upon” is an expression in Arabic that means made it binding. You can keep erecting straw men all night long to duck my arguments if you want. On my end I’m satisfied with what I’ve explained and I consider the matter closed.

Dear Shenango,
If you read my post above, when I said don’t focus on the word katabna – I also meant ala because you’ll see I made the point that Allah shouldn’t have xxx for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc. the Sanhedrin 37a passage.

Substitute katabna for xxx and ala for for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc.

I also showed that it doesn’t matter whether we accept katabna ala = made binding for because Allah has no business making Sanhedrin 37a binding for the Jews because he didn’t reveal it to them. A rabbi wrote Sanhedrin 37a so how can Allah made it binding for the Jews. If he had made it binding for the Jews he would have included it as Moses’s words, either in the Torah or the Talmud. But he didn’t do this. So he cannot make a rabbi’s words binding for the Jews.

I’m not making a straw man: that is the entire crux of the discussion – the central issue. I’m question what right Allah had to katabna ala for the Jews something a rabbi wrote. If he did this, where is it? Because the only place that the passage occurs is in the Mishnah.

Hasta Luego,
Cid

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Substitute katabna for xxx and ala for for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc.

No Rodrigo, you cannot substitute “upon” for “for”. “'Ala” and “Li” do not mean the same thing, and as I’ve told you for the umpteenth time now, the word “'Ala” (“Upon”) as used here is part of an expression with “Katabna”; they go together: “Wrote upon”. This expression in Arabic means to make binding on someone. It is used this way outside the Qur’an as well.

I also showed that it doesn’t matter whether we accept katabna ala = made binding for because Allah has no business making Sanhedrin 37a binding for the Jews because he didn’t reveal it to them.

We’re going in circles again…God made a teaching binding on the Jews. We don’t know how he did this. A Rabbi writing the teaching in the Talmud does not mean that this was how God made the teaching binding on the Jews, that is unless you can prove that the Rabbi invented the teaching and that it existed nowhere in Jewish philosophy/theology before he wrote it. And this you will never be able to do.

 

[Han_Ji_Hye]

Thats rabbinical commentary, Shenango. COMMENTARY. How come a rabbi commentary can be in the Quran? Like Rodrigo say, if it was from Torah, we do not bother but this is Talmud. You do know the difference between Talmud and Torah, right? I thinkg Islam teaches God give book to the prophet not orally. Moses has his own book, Jesus has his own book, muhammad has his own book. So HOW COULD Talmud be in the Quran?

 

[Shenango]

Han Ji Hye:

Thats rabbinical commentary, Shenango. COMMENTARY. How come a rabbi commentary can be in the Quran? Like Rodrigo say, if it was from Torah, we do not bother but this is Talmud. You do know the difference between Talmud and Torah, right? I thinkg Islam teaches God give book to the prophet not orally. Moses has his own book, Jesus has his own book, muhammad has his own book. So HOW COULD Talmud be in the Quran?

Greetings Han,

Your problem is the same as Rodrigo’s. You are not able to liberate yourself from the polemic mindset that the Qur’an can only refer to things that have already been put into writing, and…on a more fundamental level…that nothing exists if it’s not written. Think outside the box a little bit and you will get it.

You know as well as I that for centuries the oral teachings of Moses (PBUH) and other Jewish prophets were never written down, and instead handed down to rabbis and the Jews. Is it possible that teaching the Rabbi put down in the Talmud was just such an oral tradition that he learned and happened to pass on in his commentary? It’s not only possible…but probable, because as we said we know that Jews did a lot of things orally before the Talmud.

It is analogous to Hadith, which was only written down some 250 years after the Prophet’s death. Now, does this say that Hadith was authored only 250 years after Muhammad’s death. Of course not…they had been in existence since his death, but only in oral form. Learn to think outside the box my friend.

This is a difficulty I face with a lot of Christians in getting them to understand many things…not just this one. For some reason you guys just don’t understand how divine revelation works through prophets. For many of you, it’s like if it’s not documented history on paper, then it never happened. I don’t know what it is in the education of Christians that cause this mental barrier/block, but it gets to be really annoying in discussions…it really does.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Rodrigo Bivar:

Substitute katabna for xxx and ala for for/upon/onto/into/over/under/behind/beside etc.

No Rodrigo, you cannot substitute “upon” for “for”. “'Ala” and “Li” do not mean the same thing, and as I’ve told you for the umpteenth time now, the word “'Ala” (“Upon”) as used here is part of an expression with “Katabna”; they go together: “Wrote upon”. This expression in Arabic means to make binding on someone. It is used this way outside the Qur’an as well.

I’ve already accepted FOR ARGUMENT SAKE. See my point about Allah MAKING the Sanhedrin 37a BINDING FOR the Jews.

If I said ‘ALLAH MADE IT BINDING FOR THE JEWS ‘that to kill someone is to kill humanity’ it would still prove you wrong because it was not Allah who made it binding in the first place but a rabbi who did thi.

That is the point. A RABBI MADE IT BINDING FOR THE JEWS THAT TO KILL A SINGLE SOUL IS TO KILL HUMANITY. This is in the Mishnah.

So how did Allah get to make it binding when a JEW RABBI made it binding?

Shenango:

Rodrigo Bivar:

I also showed that it doesn’t matter whether we accept katabna ala = made binding for because Allah has no business making Sanhedrin 37a binding for the Jews because he didn’t reveal it to them.

We’re going in circles again…God made a teaching binding on the Jews. We don’t know how he did this.

That is the point. I’m glad you finally admitted it. If God made it binding on the Jews where is it?

The fact is that the only reference to the passage, ‘to kill a single soul is to kill humanity’ is found only in the Mishnah – i.e. it was written by a rabbi. If God made it binding – WHERE IS IT? Where in scripture did God made it binding for the Jews that ‘to kill a single soul is to kill humanity’?

You say we don’t know how he did this? So you admit you have no evidence whatsoever to support your case.

On the other hand, we have evidence that a rabbi wrote it in the Mishnah. So the question is: how come Allah MADE IT BINDING on the Jews something a rabbi wrote in the Mishnah?

If you have no evidence that Allah had made it binding on the Jews you lose. Plain and simple. Because I have evidence that a rabbi made it binding on the Jews in the Mishnah.
”Shenango’:

A Rabbi writing the teaching in the Talmud does not mean that this was how God made the teaching binding on the Jews, that is unless you can prove that the Rabbi invented the teaching and that it existed nowhere in Jewish philosophy/theology before he wrote it. And this you will never be able to do.

You’re arguing from the standpoint of ignorance. You claim that you don’t know how and where God made this teaching binding on the Jews but he did this anyway.

That is NOT EVIDENCE. That is only your opinion. The solid fact is that this passage is WRITTEN IN THE MISHNAH BY A RABBI.

So – what do you think wins? Your ‘no-evidence’ or my evidence?

As for your assertion, ‘unless you can prove that the Rabbi invented the teaching and that it existed nowhere in Jewish’ you’ve just committed the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It is the Muslims who claim that Allah MADE IT BINDING on the Jews that ‘killing a single soul is like killing humanity’. That is a positive claim made in the Quran. It is incumbent on Muslims to show where in Jewish scripture Allah made this binding.

I have shown that this passage is in the Mishnah, which doesn’t say, according to this or that Jewish scripture God made this binding on the Jews. It is clear in the Mishnah that it is a rabbinical teaching – i.e. it was written by a rabbi and not God.

To argue that ‘you will never be able to prove that the Rabbi invented the teaching’ is specious: the wording of Sanhedrin 37a makes it plain it is a rabbinical commentary and not the word of Moses (i.e. God).

Nos Vemos Despues,
Rodrigo

 

[Shenango]

Greetings Rodrigo,

Please see my response to Han. Focus on the last paragraph especially. It should resolve your problems (though I somehow doubt it will, for other reasons).

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

Greetings Rodrigo,

Please see my response to Han. Focus on the last paragraph especially. It should resolve your problems (though I somehow doubt it will, for other reasons).

Shenango:

This is a difficulty I face with a lot of Christians in getting them to understand many things…not just this one. For some reason you guys just don’t understand how divine revelation works through prophets. For many of you, it’s like if it’s not documented history on paper, then it never happened. I don’t know what it is in the education of Christians that cause this mental barrier/block, but it gets to be really annoying in discussions…it really does.

I deal with evidence. Otherwise, its just one person’s opinion versus another person’s opinion. In an intellectual discussion, you would expect your opponent to at least provide evidence to support his case, wouldn’t you? So you have to be prepared to provide evidence to support your own case.

The point is that you claim you don’t know how Allah MADE IT BINDING on the Jews that killing a single soul is like killing humanity. He could have done it but since we have no evidence that he did, we have to say that he didn’t. That is the nature of evidence. To claim otherwise is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam: “I have no evidence to back up what I say, but I’m sure as sure can be that what I say is the truth”. Hmmm. Doesn’t quite work.

I have provided the evidence from the Mishnah that a rabbi wrote that ‘to kill a single soul is to kill humanity’. What is your evidence that Allah made ‘to kill a single soul is to kill humanity’? I’m sure you’ll be the first person to expect me to evidence my claims.

Ciudate,
Rodrigo

 

[exoflare]

LOL Shenango’s “mental block” that Christians suffer from is apparently not blindly accepting everything a Muslim tells you without question or thought.

Yeah, I know how divine revelation works through prophets… Some guy claims to be a prophet, and therefore he is. There were other “prophets” before him, but they’re just there for effect and we really don’t take any of their teachings seriously, unless we think they fit our own beliefs already. It’s just that simple.

 

[Shenango]

Rodrigo Bivar:

What is your evidence that Allah made ‘to kill a single soul is to kill humanity’? I’m sure you’ll be the first person to expect me to evidence my claims.

My evidence is that the Qur’an is God’s Word. That’s all the evidence I need. If I hold the Qur’an to be the Word of God (which I do), then if God tells me in it that He bound the Jews to this teaching, then for certain He did. The Qur’an doesn’t say how, either by writing, oral tradition, a sign on a mountain, or through what prophet, so I don’t know how it happened. But not knowing how it happened doesn’t make it false.

It’s not for me to prove that the teaching in the Talmud originated with other than than the rabbi who wrote it. If the Qur’an had specified a source for the teaching, then I would have to find that source. But since it doesn’t, all I have to prove is that the teaching in the Talmud could have originated with other than the authoring rabbi.

That’s an admittedly much lower threshold to have to cross…and in fact, we both already agree that I’ve crossed…because it’s fact that much of what is in the Talmud, though authored by rabbis, already pre-existed in Jewish tradition, a large part of which is derived from the Scriptures and inspired oral teachings of dozens of prophets (not just Moses (PBUH)). The fact that the rabbi didn’t provide a citation doesn’t constitute proof he invented the teaching himself.

For me it’s clear as day, and beyond settled. I feel absurd just having to engage in this discussion, really.

 

[Han_Ji_Hye]

Your evidence is the Quran. Whatever Quran says you believe in it. IF we do not believe in the Quran, thats our mistake for not believing it and to question how talmud sanhedrin can be in the Quran, you have no evindence but the Quran itself. You ignore evidence we presented. Thus we decided Quran plagiarized Talmud.

Like you say, for me it’s clear as day, and beyond settled.

 

[Shenango]

Han Ji Hye:

Thus we decided Quran plagiarized Talmud.

So I decide that that the Torah plagiarized pre-existing Zoroastrian beliefs. Parallelism is a very poor proof of plagiarism indeed, especially among a group of people who believe in the possibility of unique revelation to different people that can have similarity, if not be identical.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

So I decide that that the Torah plagiarized pre-existing Zoroastrian beliefs. Parallelism is a very poor proof of plagiarism indeed, especially among a group of people who believe in the possibility of unique revelation to different people that can have similarity, if not be identical.

I think you’re committing the logical fallacy of tu quoque here. Instead of defending Islam you went and attacked Judaism. Instead of defending the Quran you went and attacked the Torah.

Parallelism is a perfect good way to look at the epistemology. From it, we can decide if a scripture is based on another. It is not one instance that decides for us - it is the multiple cases that makes a conclusive case.

Like I said before; I base my evidence on the balance of probability. I base my proof on the balance of evidence.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Shenango:

So I decide that that the Torah plagiarized pre-existing Zoroastrian beliefs. Parallelism is a very poor proof of plagiarism indeed, especially among a group of people who believe in the possibility of unique revelation to different people that can have similarity, if not be identical.

I think you’re committing the logical fallacy of tu quoque here. Instead of defending Islam you went and attacked Judaism. Instead of defending the Quran you went and attacked the Torah.

Parallelism is a perfect good way to look at the epistemology. From it, we can decide if a scripture is based on another. It is not one instance that decides for us - it is the multiple cases that makes a conclusive case.

Like I said before; I base my evidence on the balance of probability. I base my proof on the balance of evidence.

Also, note that it is the Quran’s claim to be a successor religion to Judaism and Christianity. I didn’t make this claim. Muhammad did. Thus, it is legitimate that we do examine his claim.

One case of similarity might be a coincidence. But a preponderance of similarities is more than a coincidence. Particularly if the similarities are not where one would normally expect it as a consequence of Muhammad’s claim about his religion being the successor of Judaism and Christianity.

Thanks for your interesting discussion,
Rodrigo

 

[discipleofJesus]

“Concerning the Qur’an, we would like to point out that, based on the findings of reputable scholars of Islam, much of the content of the Qur’an can be traced to either Jewish or Christian works (often from Jewish or Christian apocrypha) or pagan sources…

It spite of the above evidences, it is interesting that Muslim authors have been most unwilling to address the issue of human origins of the Qur’an, but have simply repeated their dogmatic assertions about its divine origin. In fact, in our research of Muslim authors we have not come across an acknowledgement of such problems in the Qur’an, to say nothing of solutions.”

p326-327
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross
Second Edition
by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb
shakinandshinin.org/AnsweringIslam.pdf

 

[Booklover]

Shenango:

My evidence is that the Qur’an is God’s Word. That’s all the evidence I need. If I hold the Qur’an to be the Word of God (which I do), then if God tells me in it that He bound the Jews to this teaching, then for certain He did. The Qur’an doesn’t say how, either by writing, oral tradition, a sign on a mountain, or through what prophet, so I don’t know how it happened. But not knowing how it happened doesn’t make it false.

It’s not for me to prove that the teaching in the Talmud originated with other than than the rabbi who wrote it. If the Qur’an had specified a source for the teaching, then I would have to find that source. But since it doesn’t, all I have to prove is that the teaching in the Talmud could have originated with other than the authoring rabbi.

That’s an admittedly much lower threshold to have to cross…and in fact, we both already agree that I’ve crossed…because it’s fact that much of what is in the Talmud, though authored by rabbis, already pre-existed in Jewish tradition, a large part of which is derived from the Scriptures and inspired oral teachings of dozens of prophets (not just Moses (PBUH)). The fact that the rabbi didn’t provide a citation doesn’t constitute proof he invented the teaching himself.

For me it’s clear as day, and beyond settled. I feel absurd just having to engage in this discussion, really.

Oh, of course, the “evidence” for the validity of the Quran is overwhelming! It can be summed up by these words “Mohammed said so”.