Verses 27-32 re-tell the story of Cain and Abel (but without naming them). The gist of the story agrees with the Biblical account. However there are some details which have some potentially important implications. At answering-islam.org/Books.../chap3.htm one can read a brief presentation of a case that the Quran here is clearly based on earlier rabbinic materials. At www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html one can read a Muslim's response, in which the main thesis is that the rabbinic materials cited post-date the Quran (and therefore are suspected of deriving material from it).
Two components of the Qurans account of the story of Cain and Abel are featured in rabbinic materials:
(1) 5:31 says that a crow (or raven) scratched the ground, prompting Cain to desire to bury Abels corpse. In the (so-called) Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (c. 21), a raven appears after Abels death to Adam and Eve, and buries a dead fellow-raven, prompting Adam to resolve to bury Abels corpse.
(2) 5:32 says that "because of that We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone killed a person, not in retaliation for murder, or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind."
At www.us-israel.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin4.html and at www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html one may read material from Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a). There, the author comments on a feature in Genesis 4:10 ~ the Hebrew word usually translated as the "blood" of Abel which cries from the ground is actually a plural, "bloods." The Mishnah explains why this is the case: "Bloods means his blood and the blood of his descendents. Therefore man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world."
In Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5, the flow-of-thought is smooth: the verdict about the importance of a single life is rooted to the concept of the potential descendents of a single life, and this is illustrated by the cessation of the blood-lines of Abel when his blood was shed by Cain. In the Quran, the connection is asserted but it is /only/ asserted.
According to the introductory essay by rabbi J.H. Hertz at www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/nezikin_h.html , the Babylonian Talmud (of which Tractate Sanhedrin is a part) achieved a stable, codified form 500 years after the Christian era had begun. Thus, whatever objections one may have regarding the Jerusalem Targum and the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, it seems obvious that the contents of 5:32 were derived, directly or indirectly, from the Talmud, specifically from Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a). I think this is an important point, inasmuch as Muhammad and his followers consistently presented the Quran as something that Muhammad recited after being given its contents from Gabriel. Whats Gabriel doing quoting Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a)?
Instead of continuing the anecdote about Cain and Abel by describing Cains punishment (though the phrase rendered "committed excesses in the land" at the end of v. 32 might conceivably mean "became prodigals in the land," thus alluding to Cains punishment), the text shifts in v. 33 to describe punishments to be enacted by Muslims. There are some options by which those who "wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land" should be punished: they may
(1) be killed,
(2) be crucified,
(3) have their right hand and left foot, or left hand and right foot, cut off, or
(4) be banished from the land.
Also, unless they repent, they will be sentenced to hell. The fourth option (banishment) has been variously interpreted to refer to something as severe as drowning, and as light as merely one year of banishment.
Verses 36-37 briefly diverge to describe hell: people will desire to escape, and be willing to trade all that they had during their earthly life for a reprieve, but "they will never get out therefrom." This is reminiscent of some New Testament statements (Matthew 16:27, for example) and some material in the Apocalypse of Peter part 13.
Then in verses 38-39 the punishment for thievery is decreed: the amputation of a hand. Allah, being merciful, will pardon the penitent. (However, unless the thief was unaware of the penalty for theft, the standard application of this law is that the thief still gets his hand cut off. Some exceptions are made for cases of theft committed by children, theft of low-value goods, people who can make a good case that they thought they were taking their own property, and so on.) Some hadith about the penalty for theft - along with some disturbing reports of modern-day enforcement of this penalty - can be read at www.hraic.org/thievery_and_prophet_muhammad.html . As that site suggests, it is interesting that Muhammad, who instructed his followers to plunder several caravans, nevertheless opposed theft.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
Two components of the Qurans account of the story of Cain and Abel are featured in rabbinic materials:
(1) 5:31 says that a crow (or raven) scratched the ground, prompting Cain to desire to bury Abels corpse. In the (so-called) Pirke Rabbi Eliezer (c. 21), a raven appears after Abels death to Adam and Eve, and buries a dead fellow-raven, prompting Adam to resolve to bury Abels corpse.
(2) 5:32 says that "because of that We ordained for the children of Israel that if anyone killed a person, not in retaliation for murder, or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind."
At www.us-israel.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin4.html and at www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html one may read material from Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a). There, the author comments on a feature in Genesis 4:10 ~ the Hebrew word usually translated as the "blood" of Abel which cries from the ground is actually a plural, "bloods." The Mishnah explains why this is the case: "Bloods means his blood and the blood of his descendents. Therefore man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world."
In Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5, the flow-of-thought is smooth: the verdict about the importance of a single life is rooted to the concept of the potential descendents of a single life, and this is illustrated by the cessation of the blood-lines of Abel when his blood was shed by Cain. In the Quran, the connection is asserted but it is /only/ asserted.
According to the introductory essay by rabbi J.H. Hertz at www.come-and-hear.com/talmud/nezikin_h.html , the Babylonian Talmud (of which Tractate Sanhedrin is a part) achieved a stable, codified form 500 years after the Christian era had begun. Thus, whatever objections one may have regarding the Jerusalem Targum and the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, it seems obvious that the contents of 5:32 were derived, directly or indirectly, from the Talmud, specifically from Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a). I think this is an important point, inasmuch as Muhammad and his followers consistently presented the Quran as something that Muhammad recited after being given its contents from Gabriel. Whats Gabriel doing quoting Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5 (37a)?
Instead of continuing the anecdote about Cain and Abel by describing Cains punishment (though the phrase rendered "committed excesses in the land" at the end of v. 32 might conceivably mean "became prodigals in the land," thus alluding to Cains punishment), the text shifts in v. 33 to describe punishments to be enacted by Muslims. There are some options by which those who "wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land" should be punished: they may
(1) be killed,
(2) be crucified,
(3) have their right hand and left foot, or left hand and right foot, cut off, or
(4) be banished from the land.
Also, unless they repent, they will be sentenced to hell. The fourth option (banishment) has been variously interpreted to refer to something as severe as drowning, and as light as merely one year of banishment.
Verses 36-37 briefly diverge to describe hell: people will desire to escape, and be willing to trade all that they had during their earthly life for a reprieve, but "they will never get out therefrom." This is reminiscent of some New Testament statements (Matthew 16:27, for example) and some material in the Apocalypse of Peter part 13.
Then in verses 38-39 the punishment for thievery is decreed: the amputation of a hand. Allah, being merciful, will pardon the penitent. (However, unless the thief was unaware of the penalty for theft, the standard application of this law is that the thief still gets his hand cut off. Some exceptions are made for cases of theft committed by children, theft of low-value goods, people who can make a good case that they thought they were taking their own property, and so on.) Some hadith about the penalty for theft - along with some disturbing reports of modern-day enforcement of this penalty - can be read at www.hraic.org/thievery_and_prophet_muhammad.html . As that site suggests, it is interesting that Muhammad, who instructed his followers to plunder several caravans, nevertheless opposed theft.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
