Look at our own laws. Say, our driving laws. Sign says "55". Who can go ov.er "55"? Ambulances, police, fire? Yes. Why? To save a life.
Very few laws are absolute. The Watchtower Society tries to convince it's followers that "no blood" is an absolute ultimatum. They are full of it. They say "no blood" all the while allowing fractions and "current therapy."
Back to Jewish law discussion.
Judaism has long understood Leviticus 18:5 to mean that those who keep God's decrees and laws will live by them [not die by them].1
The Jewish faith strictly exempts people on "the [health] danger list" from compliance with God's laws necessary to preserve their life or health.2
This principle can be seen throughout the Jewish religion in:
1) the Talmud's (oral tradition and judicial decisions, first written down in about 200 AD) allowing sick or pregnant people to violate the dietary laws if necessary to preserve their health or life;3
2) exempting the sick from Yom Kippur's fasting requirements;4
3) the Jewish saying "pikkiah nefesh doheh Shabbot - [rescuing a] life in danger takes precedence over the Sabbath";5 and
4) the Talmud's account that King David was permitted to violate the Sabbath's laws in order to help his ill child.6
Islamic interpretation of the Biblical passages against eating blood is similar to Judaism.
Many scholars theorize that the Muslim people started in the 22nd century BC when Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham's sons, parted.7
In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses also recognize the common history between Judaism and Islam.8
Interestingly, the Islamic religion also forbids eating blood9 but recognizes exceptions to food laws for those unable to comply.10
Like the Jewish Talmud, the Islamic Sunnah in Chapter 5, verse 4 says that the prohibited food may be eaten in cases of extreme hunger, but if any is forced by hunger with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed oft-forgiving and most merciful.
Thus, both Judaism and Islam permit the breaking of God's dietary laws to save a life.
Is it a coincidence that these two distinct religions, originated by the same ancestor 22 millennia before Christ, would share similar beliefs?
In answering the Jehovah's Witness 1 Samuel argument, a Jew or Muslim might state that these soldiers were hungry, not ill or starving-to-death, when they broke the commandment. In either event, Jehovah God was, as Islam says (supra), "most merciful and kind" as none were sanctioned.
Since both of these ancient religions contain an "in order to save a life" exception, this is not an argument that originated in modern times like the Jehovah's Witnesses want to try to state..
