Parallelism: Sanhedrin 37a

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search
Parallelism Between the Qur'an
and Judeo-Christian Scriptures
By: Julian Charteris
Talking Baby Jesus
Sanhedrin 37a
The Raven & the Burial of Abel
The Quranic Version of Trinity‎
Jesus Christ & the Clay Birds
Mary & Zachariah
Mary, Jesus & the Palm Tree
Satan & His Refusal to Prostrate
The Queen of Sheba
Abraham & the Idols
The Wealth of Korah

It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Talmudic Verse[edit]

“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.”

Qur'anic Verse[edit]

“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.

The salient points are:

  • a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, ‘we decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding (katabna) for the Children of Israel…’
  • b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.
  • c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel Qur'an 5:27-31, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.

Muslim Objections[edit]

Some Muslims (e.g. Dr Saifullah) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul of Israel’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed.

Muslim Objections Refuted[edit]

Dr Saifullah has made two logical errors here:

  1. No one claims the parallelism is an ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By imply thus, Dr Saifullah has created a straw man argument.
  2. The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, 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, ‘we katabn’ 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.

Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / made binding something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.

Previous Previous - Talking Baby Jesus            The Raven and the Burial of Abel - Next Next