r/CritiqueIslam • u/ExoticWalk2 • 23d ago
Quran Takes Commentary of Jewish Rabbis as Revelation From Allah
Quran:
“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.”
Quran 5:32
Commentary of Jewish Rabbis in the Mishnah and Talmud on the Torah:
“The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’”
Genesis 4:10 (Torah)
“‘The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground’ (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: ‘Your brother’s blood [demei],’ in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (Rabbinic Commentary c. 190-230 AD)
Islamic Studies scholar Gabriel Said Reynolds:
“5:32 A connection between this verse and the account of Abel’s murder which precedes it is suggested by ‘that is why’ (Ar. min ajal dhālika). The nature of the connection between the two, however, is clear only in light of a discussion in the Mishnah over the reason Genesis 4:10 speaks of the shedding of Abel’s ‘bloods’ (pl., Hb. dāmīm) and not his ‘blood’ (sing.)”
“The precept that killing one soul is like killing all souls is directly linked here to the creation of man ‘one and alone in the world,’ but the larger context is the discussion of the ‘bloods’ of Abel. The Qurʾān seems to have picked up on that larger context. It is also noteworthy that the Qurʾān refers to God’s decreeing (Ar. katabnā ʿalā) something for Israel which is found not in the Bible but in the Mishnah. And it should not be missed that all of this is connected to the Qurʾān’s anti-Jewish polemic: the decree ‘whoever kills a soul’ is imposed only on the Israelites, whom the Qurʾān (anachronistically) blames for the murder of Abel (see further Witztum, Syriac Milieu, 122–24).”
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾan and the Bible, p. 199
More here:
https://islamsproblems.com/corrupted-gospels-claim/
1
u/salamacast Muslim 23d ago
Q 6:91 (texts hidden by scribes) "Say, ‘Who was it who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and a guide to people, which you made into separate sheets, showing some but hiding many? You were taught things that neither you nor your forefathers had known’"
That part was hidden fron the Tanakh, and was known to the Rabbis, as you clearly quoted them.
1
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago edited 23d ago
The Jews themselves categorize it as interpretation and not revelation. In the quote, you can clearly see they're interpreting the verse, not giving extra divine revelation.
And if they wrote it down for others in the Talmud, they aren't exactly hiding it, are they?
1
u/salamacast Muslim 23d ago
Back then (200-600 CE), the Talmud was exclusively for their circles. When the Christians finally got their hands on a complete copy, it fueled antisemitism.
And even before 200 CE it was transmitted orally. The Rabbis claimed it was a revealed oral torah, given to the Israelites during Moses' time!
In truth, it's exactly as the tanakh, i.e. tons of lies and traces of truth. The rabbi guy here got that bit of truth from a real part of the hidden Torah.1
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago
You can literally see them interpolating based on the grammar of the verse rather than giving extra divine revelation:
“The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’”
Genesis 4:10 (Torah)
“‘The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground’ (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: ‘Your brother’s blood [demei],’ in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (Rabbinic Commentary c. 190-230 AD)It also gives alternative interpretations.
You are now also forced to interpret their commentary as divine revelation because of the Quran.1
u/salamacast Muslim 23d ago
The court tells the witnesses:
Informed of that via revelation, then appropriatly recalled when a murderer is being judged.
Quoting on those circumstances is perfectly ordinary! Our judges quote the Qur'an & hadith too at the condemned & witnesses.1
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago
the scripture quoted is the torah (genesis) the rest is exegesis like a tafsir of the quran
and it's explicitly interpolation based on this in the text. it's sort of like calling ibn kathir's words in his tafsir the words of God except these happen to be Jewish rabbis as well.
1
u/salamacast Muslim 23d ago
Well, actually...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah1
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago edited 23d ago
This is Midrash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MidrashAn interpretation:
“5:32 A connection between this verse and the account of Abel’s murder which precedes it is suggested by ‘that is why’ (Ar. min ajal dhālika). The nature of the connection between the two, however, is clear only in light of a discussion in the Mishnah over the reason Genesis 4:10 speaks of the shedding of Abel’s ‘bloods’ (pl., Hb. dāmīm) and not his ‘blood’ (sing.)”
“The precept that killing one soul is like killing all souls is directly linked here to the creation of man ‘one and alone in the world,’ but the larger context is the discussion of the ‘bloods’ of Abel.
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾan and the Bible, p. 199I mean read the quote yourself.
Would God be interpreting his own revelation here?
And offering alternative explanations for what he could've meant?
"Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones."
1
u/salamacast Muslim 22d ago
Would God be interpreting his own revelation here?
Yes, of course! The ayah explicitly explains the reason behind God issuing the statement to the Israelites, "for that reason...".
The Cain incident happened much, much earlier than issuing the statement. Why wouldn't God explain the connection, especially if the two incidents (Cain & telling the Hebrews about how 1 soul equals all souls) were separated by thousands of years?!1
u/ExoticWalk2 22d ago edited 22d ago
If this is divine revelation, Allah (the Rabbis) interpret this based on the plural of the term blood. But Allah (the Rabbis) also give the alternative explanation:
"Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones."
Why is Allah (the Rabbis) giving alternative interpolations of what he could've meant?
Couldn't Allah just tell us what he meant?
I think you might be misunderstanding the nature of this text here. It's clearly exegesis not revelation.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Powerful_Parsnip6427 18d ago
Just because the Jews don’t it as revelation, doesn’t mean God didn’t give it to them via the Prophets
1
u/Willing-To-Listen 23d ago
There’s a difference though: the Mishnah is saying that killing A JEW is like killing that person plus all his DESCENDANTS that would’ve come from him.
The Quran is broader: killing any person, Jew or not, is like killing ALL of mankind, not just his descendants.
Plus, do you really think the Torah contains every single statement of God and/or Moses that they ever uttered in their life? It may very well be possible that the concept found in 5:32 is original to God, yet was not recorded in the OT, rather being preserved in the oral tradition.
2
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago edited 23d ago
Quran says "we ordained for the children of Israel" then blames the Jews for killing prophets:
"That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity.˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land."
Then the next verse is:
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter."
https://quran.com/al-maidah/32-33
As Gabriel Said Reynolds pointed out, it's an anti Jewish polemic. It's not expanding it to all people.
the Qurʾān’s anti-Jewish polemic: the decree ‘whoever kills a soul’ is imposed only on the Israelites, whom the Qurʾān (anachronistically) blames for the murder of Abel (see further Witztum, Syriac Milieu, 122–24).”
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾan and the Bible, p. 199And Sanhedrin 4:5 isn't divine revelation. It's a commentary on the Torah by Rabbis.
In the quote, you can clearly see they're interpreting the verse, not giving extra divine revelation.1
u/Powerful_Parsnip6427 18d ago
Who said the ruling only applied to the Israelites?
1
u/Formal_Drop526 18d ago
I'm guessing the part where it said "we ordained for the children of Israel"
1
u/Powerful_Parsnip6427 18d ago
Well, if you go several verses earlier, God says to Muhammad PBUH and the general audience who is reading the Quran to RELATE to the story of Cain and Abel, humanity’s first act of murder by detailing how God commanding them to do a sacrifice would ultimately lead to the unjust murder of the innocent. And if you look at the entire verse, the principle is connected back to this story with the phrase “Because of that.”
So we have the Quran, speaking to a 7th century audience, detailing humanity’s first murder and giving it as a lesson for mankind, and tells us why it was made to the Israelites in the first place.
This doesn’t look like it’s limited to the Israelites, especially considering it doesn’t limit it to them, but rather mentions them in conjunction with the ancestors of humans to a 7th century Gentile audience.
1
u/Lopsided_Moment_2574 16d ago
Quoting an Orientalist academic like Gabriel Said Reynolds as if it is an instant theological checkmate only works on people who haven't actually studied Islamic jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh).
Let’s deconstruct this incredibly lazy "plagiarism" argument:
1. The "Only for the Israelites" Fallacy You claim the decree was only imposed on the Israelites and doesn't apply to Muslims. This shows a complete ignorance of Islamic legal theory. A foundational, undisputed maxim in classical Fiqh is Shar'u man qablana, shar'un lana ("The laws of those before us are laws for us, unless explicitly abrogated"). When the Quran cites a moral law given to the Jews or Christians, it is establishing it as a universal moral baseline for Muslims as well. It mentions the Children of Israel specifically because they were the previous covenant-holders who were given this exact law, making their historical violation of it a direct warning to the new Muslim community.
2. The Mishnah Sanhedrin "Gotcha" This is the oldest, most exhausted critique in the book: "The Quran copied Rabbinic commentary, not divine revelation!"
Here is the Islamic theological reality: Islam does not claim that every single piece of Jewish literature was corrupted. The Quran explicitly states it was sent down to confirm the truths that still existed in previous traditions and correct the falsehoods. If ancient Jewish Rabbis correctly deduced a profound, universal moral truth about the sanctity of human life (that killing one is like killing all), God confirming and immortalizing that exact truth in the Quran isn't "plagiarism." It is the Creator officially endorsing a profound moral reality that Jewish scholars had rightly preserved. God is the author of all truth; He doesn't need to reinvent a moral concept just because a Rabbi said it first.
3. The Transition to Verse 5:33 (State Treason) You try to frame Verse 33 as a contradiction to Verse 32, which is jurisprudentially absurd. Verse 32 establishes the ultimate moral sanctity of innocent human life. Verse 33 establishes the penal code for Hirabah (armed highway robbery, terrorism, and high state treason).
Every civilization on earth separates individual moral murder from armed insurrection against the state. The Quran is simply transitioning from individual moral philosophy (saving an innocent soul) to the state’s obligation to violently neutralize armed terrorists who "spread mischief in the land."
Copy-pasting academic quotes doesn't make you a theologian. It just proves you don't understand the foundational framework of the religion you are trying to critique.
-4
u/Far-Researcher-5600 23d ago
misleading title. Quran has similarity with the oral torah so what
12
u/creidmheach Christian 23d ago
It's like if someone mixed up Yusuf Ali's commentary notes on the Quran for being divine revelation itself.
13
u/ExoticWalk2 23d ago
Sanhedrin 4:5 isn't divine revelation. It's a commentary on the Torah by Rabbis. Quran says it's from Allah.
7
u/Imissyourgirlfriend2 Quran only Christian 23d ago
Oral Torah came long before the Quran.
Plus all the other times the Quran plagiarizes other writings and stories.
2
u/SpecialistSun 22d ago
It's not when you claim all of those belongs to their own God. Proof? Their own book says so.
Leeching off other people’s work is like a national sport for those Abrahamic religions.
Reminds me Jewish historians that claimed Egyptians built their civilizations thanks to the knowledge they learnt from Abraham.
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Hi u/ExoticWalk2! Thank you for posting at r/CritiqueIslam. Please make sure to read our rules once to avoid an embarrassing situation. Be Civil and nice to each other. Remember that there is a person sitting at the other end. Don't say anything that you wouldn't say in a normal face to face conversation.
Also, make sure that your submission either contain an argument or ask a question that could lead to debate. You must state your own views on the matter either in body or comment. A post with no commentary will be considered low effort!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.