5:32 context jews/israelites and historical err

[ygalg]

Hello everyone, sorry not being around that often. That cause other platforms such Facebook and Twitter occupy my activity.
Anyway I am here returning to the verse 5:32 due new revelations

One of the mistakes made by religious Jews, they waving the verse 5:21 to prove validity of Israel land for Jews. They should have read from 5:20 to 5:33 to understand it does not. furthermore giving legitimacy to Quran should not they convert to it? foolish of them.

a mistake I have to admit I myself made and probably many continue. to conclude that when Quran addresses Israelites, therefore it also includes Jews. As far as Quran concerns, Israelites and Jews are separate entities. I would appreciate if someone can prove me wrong on this. so far I get mambo jumbo from apologists. tho encounter one muslim who came to same conclusion.

In regard 5:32 there's historical error.

It suggests that a commentary that was written first century CE was introduced to people, existed during Bronze Age. It is like suggesting, that Smartphone was used by Thomas Edison. perhaps someone used a delorean?

Reading within the context, which is from 5:20 to 5:32 it refers to children of Israel a copy and paste narrative from the bible. The twelve spies sent to scout the land… etc

[Hombre]

before we enter any polemic about sura 5:32 or others, first we need to establish the fact - Is Quran, or illiterate Muhammad - for that matter, as sole author of this book, are in any position (of knowledge) to decide the authenticity of entire Hebrew Bible.? The answer id NO.

This is not mere question of religion (Judea vs. Islam) - rather a question of credibility.

The fact is, Muhammad tried to align himself along with previous Jewish prophets, to gain legitimacy & acceptance among the Jews, as yet a new prophet. That BS worked on non-Jews whom had no knowledge of Judaism - while Jews simply rejected him as another Meshugeneh roaming the desert of Arabia.

[manfred]

Hi Ygalg, it is good to see you. I know I am not your mother, but I want to say be careful with facebook and twitter, there are been some very odd court cases for so-called "hate speech" ...

Yes, in the Qur'an the reluctance to fight the inhabitants of the promised land leads to the Israelites being punished to wander in the desert for 40 years...

This is not quite the story of of the Torah, at least not all of it. Israel was not ready, so the time in the desert was not so much a punishment but a time for preparation. The Qur'an does not mention that according to he Torah God also cared for His people, for example by providing food while in the desert.

For the Qur'an the desert story is merely yet another way to hit home its message of the "apes and pigs", in a different way.

As to the alleged difference between the "people of Israel" in the Qur'an and the Jews, this is a VERY modern idea, and not found in the sources for Islam, such as the Qur'an and hadith.

It is something that comes from the "Palestinian" movement. You may recall Gold Meir's comment that Palestinians as such don't exist. The Palestinian response was to somehow ape her argument. They came up with the "Kazar" theory. (remember that young Moroccan guy years back who called you a "kazar"?) The claim is that effectively most modern Israelis are not really related to the the original Israelites at all, and hence they have no business being in Israel. Most Jews, specially the Ashkenazim, they say, are Central Asian people who were converts to Judaism in the middle ages.

It is the typical Muslim "tu quoque" argument: Golda Meir states that there are no real indigenous "Palestinians", only Arabs, and the Arabs respond by saying there are no real Jews either, as if that would show Golda Meir was wrong. Somehow it never occurs to them that such a way to argue is plain silly.

[Hombre]

It is the typical Muslim "tu quoque" argument: Golda Meir states that there are no real indigenous "Palestinians", only Arabs, and the Arabs respond by saying there are no real Jews either, as if that would show Golda Meir was wrong. Somehow it never occurs to them that such a way to argue is plain silly.

The difference is. it is much much easier to prove GM's statement about the Pals, then the other way.

in all UN documentations prior to 1964, - although the name "Palestine" frequently mentioned - there is not a single reference to name "Palestinians". More important fact, you won't see a single Muslim scholar specializing in the filed of Judea or Christianity. Therefore Muslims are NOT in any position to comment on Jews 3500 year heritage & religious history.

[Garudaman]

In regard 5:32 there's historical error.

It suggests that a commentary that was written first century CE was introduced to people, existed during Bronze Age. It is like suggesting, that Smartphone was used by Thomas Edison. perhaps someone used a delorean?

who said that's a commentary? a history editor?

QS. 5:32. Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

[manfred]

Garudaman, this verse is part of a narration listing a supposed dialogue between Moses, the people of Israel, and Allah. It starts at verse 20. In that passage, amongst other things, Allah instructs Moses to tell the Israelites the story about Cain and Abel, and the murder of Abel. In the end Allah wants to give a sort of "moral" to that story, and that this verse 32.

Now, here is the trouble with that... that verse clearly is a paraphrased copy from the Talmud, and the earliest parts of that were written about 1500 years AFTER Moses. There are some differences between the original from the Talmud and the copy in the Qur'an, and these are also quite tellingm but that is not even mentioned.... What Ygalg tried to tell you is that to have Allah or Moses saying something which clearly comes from a different time is as silly as suggesting someone found Aisha's facebook page.

[Garudaman]

if God decreed to Prophet Moses, then Talmud was copy from God's decreed.

[manfred]

if God decreed to Prophet Moses, then Talmud was copy from God's decreed.

As the text in the Talmud is OLDER than the Qur'an, it is impossible for the old Rabbis to have copied from it.

If you look at the text of the Talmud, what you have is a discussion first of the role of man on creation, then the first murder of human history. In comparing what man should have been and what he had become by that point, they comment with:

Therefore, Adam [from whom all humanity descended] was created singly, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed the whole world and whoever saves a single life is considered by Scripture to have saved the whole world.

This is not part of biblical texts, but it is a rabbinic comment. Later versions have an addition "a single life in Israel" instead of merely "a single life". To some this suggests that Jews consider other human beings not worth saving, which is plainly not true and that would also not make any sense here in this context Israel is not "the world". In reality the addition places this responsibility of preserving life, all life, specially on the Jews, as a religious duty, a duty others do not automatically share.

It is clear that Mohammed must have come across the passage relating this debate of the rabbis, as he places the comment in a very similar context as the rabbis did themselves.

As several times in the Qur'an, Mohammed seems to be unaware that his source is not a sacred text, but something else, in this case merely a discussion of scholars about such a text.

[Garudaman]

I dont talk about the Quran, but original Torah.

[manfred]

That statement is not part of the Torah.

[Garudaman]

its because the Torah which you mentioned, is fake Torah.

[manfred]

Garudaman, get serious...

[Garudaman]

its said "We decreed upon the Children of Israel", show that there's original Torah which said that.

[manfred]

Really? I think it is simply acknowledging that Mohammed got this from a Jewish source, and it certainly does not say which.

[Garudaman]

& it was based on?

[manfred]

My old friend, think on it for a minute. You are actually saying this saying was in the Torah originally, then disappeared, and then re-appeared in the Talmud. Surely you can see that makes no sense at all.

"We decreed to the people of Israel" the Qur'an says. What it means that Mohammed at some sort of loose idea that this saying was from a Jewish text. Somehow Mohammed never got his head round the difference between the Torah and the Talmud.

If you take this beginning literally, you get an odd contradiction: so Allah made a rule only for the Jews that killing is a very bad thing? Other people can kill each other at their heart's content? There has to be another reason why this fragment is there, and the reason I gave is the most likely one.

[Garudaman]

your term "re-appeared" is incorrect as Talmud was appeared alongside Torah :

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscel ... and-torah/

Moses received the Torah as a written text alongside an oral version or commentary. This oral section is now what the Jews call the Talmud.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm#Talmud

God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2nd century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

[manfred]

O goodness, you totally misunderstand what the "oral tradition" means in Judaism. There were not two different Torah. First there were an oral tradition about Moses and the Exodus.Then the written text, the Torah. Not everything was written down. However, the Talmud is not this "oral tradition" merely filling in any "gaps". It is mostly a DISCUSSION between scholars of texts from the Torah and less commonly of other traditions through the ages. In this particular case, the story of Cain and Abel is discussed among some Rabbis, and their response is what ended up in the Qur'an. Moses would not have known anything at all about this comment. The Talmud is showing us how Jewish law developed through the ages. The "Oral Torah" is in essence the Rabbinic teachings and interpretations which for many years were not written down, but after the destruction of the temple it was important to preserve what was left.

The word "talmud" means "learning". It is a Jewish tradition in itself, trying to discuss, explain and bring together all important aspects of the Jewish faith. In particular, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the effort of the Rabbis helped to keep the Jewish religion alive, by making it relevant to a new chapter in Jewish history. Obviously, at the time of Moses, there was no Talmud. The Talmud did not exist until 200 AD, some parts much later....

[Garudaman]

you said, discussion about the text of Torah, which already exist in oral form, before was written?

[manfred]

Yes... The authors of of the Torah are not known by name, but we know there were several of them The Jahwist, The Elohist, The Priestly source, and the Deuterronomist. We know roughly when they wrote and quite a bit about them, though. Given that there is some overlap in the accounts they give, we can be quite sure that there were other sources preceding them. These are mostly likely partly written partly oral.

The oldest of the four sources is the Jahwist, about 1000 BC, then The Elohist some 200 years later, the Deuteronomist wronte round 621, give and take a few years, and the youngest is the Priestly source, about 330 BC.

Moses, on the other hand, lives at least 300 year BEFORE the oldest of these writers.

By contrast the passage from the Talmud is a discussion and explanation of the Gain and Abel story:

For thus we find in the case of Cain, who killed his brother, that it is written: the bloods of thy brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, is said — i.e., his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (alternatively, the bloods of thy brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul of israel, 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. Furthermore, [he was created alone] for the sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, 'my father was greater than thine, and that the minim might not say, there are many ruling powers in heaven;
Talmud: Sanhedrin 37a

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_37.html

This was written 1250 years after the oldest source of the Torah, and Cain and Abel is from that oldest source, and over 1600 years after Moses.

As to who write it, we know exactly: Judah the Prince. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_the_Prince

We know what he did and why, and we have his written works. We also know that what he recorded are not simply his own thoughts of biblical texts, but mostly the traditions from many rabbis he had access to.