Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

[Al-Fatihah]

Here it is again then.

Response: And after reading your entire post, not once does it say that Muhammad says "kill the innocent." Rather, we see in the Qur'an the clear verses that condemn doing so (2:256 and 8:61). Thus your own evidence supports the fact that Muhammad chose peace and fought in self-defense.

 

[idav]

Response: And after reading your entire post, not once does it say that Muhammad says "kill the innocent." Rather, we see in the Qur'an the clear verses that condemn doing so (2:256 and 8:61). Thus your own evidence supports the fact that Muhammad chose peace and fought in self-defense.

So you would rather just ignore the bloodshed he caused contradicting his own supposed call for peace. Suit yourself.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Quran never made a mistake.

Regards

34:10-11
chain mail did not exist around 1000 BCE.

18:96-97
This is a repeat of a myth about Alexander the Great which is, well, a myth.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

The Holy Quran : Chapter 77: Al-Mursalat [4]

[77:31] ‘Aye, move on towards a shadow which has three sections,
[77:32] ‘Neither affording shade, nor protecting from the flame.’
[77:33] It throws up sparks like huge castles,
[77:34] As if they were camels of dim colour.
[77:35] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:36] This is a day when they shall not be able to speak;
[77:37] Nor shall they be permitted to offer excuses.
[77:38] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:39] ‘This is the Day of Decision; We have gathered you and all the earlier peoples together.
[77:40] ‘If now you have any stratagem, use it against Me.’

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious revealed scripture in the world by quoting from that book, the reference and providing the link.

Quran is authored by G-d, it is the reality.

Regards

 

[Al-Fatihah]

So you would rather just ignore the bloodshed he caused contradicting his own supposed call for peace. Suit yourself.

Response: In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that your own evidence refuted you and shows that Muhammad fought in defense to establish peace. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[idav]

Response: In other words, you have no rebuttal to the fact that your own evidence refuted you and shows that Muhammad fought in defense to establish peace. Thanks for the clarification.

No the evidence doesn't refute itself. I have no problem with muhammads claims, he is a hypocrite when it doesn't follow his actions. Give me a break, you saw all those stories of how violent he was.

 

[idav]

Response: And after reading your entire post, not once does it say that Muhammad says "kill the innocent." Rather, we see in the Qur'an the clear verses that condemn doing so (2:256 and 8:61). Thus your own evidence supports the fact that Muhammad chose peace and fought in self-defense.

Here are the pertinent parts.

the prophet of Islam immediately brought war to this community of traders by first raiding Meccan caravan

Muhammad conquered each of the Jewish tribes

did what he could to provoke the Battle of Badr

he would be guaranteed safe passage to a meeting with Muhammad to discuss peace. However, once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were easily slaughtered by the Muslim tricksters.

As we have shown, the Muslims were the first to break the treaty between themselves and the Meccans

Jeez it just goes on and on. Muhammad is a war monger, I stand by my statement.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

No the evidence doesn't refute itself. I have no problem with muhammads claims, he is a hypocrite when it doesn't follow his actions. Give me a break, you saw all those stories of how violent he was.

Response: To the contrary, we see the inconsistency in your logic that only exposes you. For you are telling us that Muhammad is violent, yet not even your own sources says to kill the innocent. Instead, we see from the Qur'an not to attack the innocent. So you've exposed and refuted yourself.

What is even more amusing is that for your claim to be true then your source has to be valid. Well your own source also says that Muhammad is a Prophet, so according to your own logic, Muhammad is a Prophet. So to deny his prophet hood means that your own source must be invalid, thus refuting yourself again. Debunked as usual.

 

[idav]

Response: To the contrary, we see the inconsistency in your logic that only exposes you. For you are telling us that Muhammad is violent, yet not even your own sources says to kill the innocent. Instead, we see from the Qur'an not to attack the innocent. So you've exposed and refuted yourself.

What is even more amusing is that for your claim to be true then your source has to be valid. Well your own source also says that Muhammad is a Prophet, so according to your own logic, Muhammad is a Prophet. So to deny his prophet hood means that your own source must be invalid, thus refuting yourself again. Debunked as usual.

His actions speak against his own words therefore more of war than spirituality. History tells his actions were more pro war.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

His actions speak against his own words therefore more of war than spirituality. History tells his actions were more pro war.

Response: And according to his actions, they coincide with his words, which shows that the Prophet fought against oppression and in self-defense. Thus history itself is proof that his actions were just and assisted in establishing peace.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

The Holy Quran : Chapter 77: Al-Mursalat [5]

[77:41] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:42] The righteous will be in the midst of shades and springs,
[77:43] And fruits, such as they will desire.
[77:44] ‘Eat and drink pleasantly as a reward for what you did.’
[77:45] Thus surely do We reward those who do good.
[77:46] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:47] ‘Eat and enjoy yourselves a little while in this world, O rejectors of truth; surely you are the guilty ones.’
[77:48] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:49] And when it is said unto them, ‘Bow down,’ they do not bow down.
[77:50] Woe on that day unto those who reject the truth!
[77:51] In which word then, after this, will they believe?

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious revealed scripture in the world by quoting from that book, the reference and providing the link.

Quran is authored by G-d, it is the reality.

Regards

 

[jonathan180iq]

... Thus history itself is proof that his actions were just and assisted in establishing peace.

Oh, you guys...

:camp:

What unrest was there except for that which he instigated by invading places that didn't want him or his new religion?

This whole "I have to conquer them so that there can be peace" is a concept that has been used by just about every dictator ever. He was a military leader who invaded and killed in order to spread his fledgling new religion. There's just no two ways around it.

 

[gnostic]

34:10-11
chain mail did not exist around 1000 BCE.

I had brought up this same point, in another thread (can't remember which one)...got very little in term of answers, except that someone tried to translate into "coat of armor", instead of coat of chain mail, which is basically the same thing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I had brought up this same point, in another thread (can't remember which one)...got very little in term of answers, except that someone tried to translate into "coat of armor", instead of coat of chain mail, which is basically the same thing.

Thanks for even mentioning this - I've posted quite a bit, and since even one pokes a hole in the concept of absolute perfection, the argument is actually already over.
There are dozens of scholarly translations. Maybe 2 of them try and alter the fact that it says "chain mail". Again, this is evidence of the time period and culture influencing what is written. It's historically factually inaccurate.

There are plenty of others. There's a section where it talks about how to divide property. If you actually pay attention to it mathematically, what is divided is more than the whole... That would be a flaw on a math test.

The other cultural myths, like Alexander the Great which was mentioned, also show that it was just adapting stuff that it had heard about as coming from the mouth of god... A common go-to response is saying that it was meant as poetry. It's a common tactic to avoid what is right in front of them. Fundamental Christians do the same.

 

[Harikrish]

How Mohammad got his facts about the Bible confused. It is ridiculous to expect any scholarly work from an uneducated illiterate.

- Surah 7:59 and 7:136 say Noah's flood took place in Moses' day. Did anyone tell Moses that?

- Surah 14:37, says Abraham lived in the valley of Mecca (Muslim Sacred House). The Bible says he lived in Hebron, Israel. (Genesis 13:18, 23:2, 35:27)


-Surah 2:61 In this beauty, Moses is being told about the prophets who were killed in Moses' day. Yet there were no prophets killed during Moses' time. Moses was the first prophet.

(Noble Qur'an) PICKTHAL: And when ye said: O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.

- Surah 9:30 mistakenly claims that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. No Jews have ever believed this.

- Surah 6:74, says Abraham father's name was Azar. The Bible says it was Terah (Genesis 11:27). How can Muhammad claim he verified the Torah which came first as true, yet differ with the facts in the Torah?

- Surah 9:10 says Zakarias was mute for only 3 days. The Bible says Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was made mute because of his unbelief concerning Gabriel's prophecy of John's birth. He would remain mute until the baby was born (Luke 1:20), which is roughly nine months.

- Islam says it was Ishmael that was nearly sacrificed on the mountain rather than Isaac as both the Torah and Christian Gospels say. Islam says that Hagar was the legitimate wife (and not a concubine) of Abraham, rather than Sarah; so Ishmael was the heir of Abraham. But wait! Muhammad had already attested to the Bible and Torah as being correct. Then why these huge errors? Of note: After Muhammad's death, the Meccans (Waraquah) changed the name Isaac in Suras 2:125 and 127 for the name Ishmael and invented the story about Abraham taking Ishmael to their black rock in Mecca, so that pilgrims would continue to visit Mecca-

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Oh, you guys...

:camp:

What unrest was there except for that which he instigated by invading places that didn't want him or his new religion?

This whole "I have to conquer them so that there can be peace" is a concept that has been used by just about every dictator ever. He was a military leader who invaded and killed in order to spread his fledgling new religion. There's just no two ways around it.

Response: A claim that both history, logic, and reason fails to support.Nor do you have proof of. For we can test such a fictitious theory firsthand and see that it is humanly impossible to conquer and rule a nation by inspiring followers with speech that goes against their liking. We can test firsthand and see it is also humanly impossible to out wrestle just 5 people, showing the absurdity in claiming one man used force to conquer his followers or a nation. In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise, Firsthand. The fact that you cannot debunks your own claim and shows from firsthand evidence that Muhammad never started any unjust war. Whereas you cannot prove firsthand to the contrary, thus refuting yourself.

 

[McBell]

Response: A claim that both history, logic, and reason fails to support.Nor do you have proof of. For we can test such a fictitious theory firsthand and see that it is humanly impossible to conquer and rule a nation by inspiring followers with speech that goes against their liking. We can test firsthand and see it is also humanly impossible to out wrestle just 5 people, showing the absurdity in claiming one man used force to conquer his followers or a nation. In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise, Firsthand. The fact that you cannot debunks your own claim and shows from firsthand evidence that Muhammad never started any unjust war. Whereas you cannot prove firsthand to the contrary, thus refuting yourself.

This post makes no sense as written.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Response: A claim that both history, logic, and reason fails to support.Nor do you have proof of. For we can test such a fictitious theory firsthand and see that it is humanly impossible to conquer and rule a nation by inspiring followers with speech that goes against their liking. We can test firsthand and see it is also humanly impossible to out wrestle just 5 people, showing the absurdity in claiming one man used force to conquer his followers or a nation. In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise, Firsthand. The fact that you cannot debunks your own claim and shows from firsthand evidence that Muhammad never started any unjust war. Whereas you cannot prove firsthand to the contrary, thus refuting yourself.

This is just silly.

If a man is a leader of people, do not the spoils of war get attributed to the leader? Is that not how human history has worked for, well, forever? It has nothing to do with one man being able to slay 5 men on his own either, although that's easily debunked too...

About 3 years ago there was a court case involving a woman in the courthouse where I work. At her sentencing, she felt that she had been unjustly convicted and went absolutely nuts. She was 5'3 and about 100 pounds and single-handedly fought off 4 male police officers who tackled her. She threw one of them nearly 6 feet into a partition. It took another 2 officers coming into the room in order to subdue a single woman. So there's that. (I'll find you dozens of accounts if you need me to)

You say that's its absurd for one man to be able to use force in order to conquer a nation, yet even 1st graders know about the rise and fall of Napoleon's Europe or the brief section of history that we like to call World War II. People follow a person based on hope in their words, and then are suddenly culturally invested in a war of aggression against anyone that their leader deems as subordinate. Do you attribute the actions of the nations on just the individuals, or does the blame fall on the leaders who lead them to war and their commanders and generals and confidants?

What about the countries that were invaded and the people that were killed? Are they guilty for not accepting the rule of the aggressor, or are they considered the victims?

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - who started those? It certainly wasn't me. It wasn't anyone that I know. It was a leader and his company of generals, was it not? Aren't the Arabs the victims here, or should we get onto them for not conforming the ultimate truth of american stewardship?

Mohammed, during the early spread of Islam, and his generals, were aggressively pursuing land that they were either told to claim by Allah or they were simply spreading their empire by invading surrounding lands and having the audacity to "defend" themselves against people who fought back...

how dare they oppose Mohammed and Islam. It's the one true path. Anyone who disagrees with that should be attacked, ya know, in defense of oppressing Mohammed and Allah

 

[idav]

Response: A claim that both history, logic, and reason fails to support.Nor do you have proof of. For we can test such a fictitious theory firsthand and see that it is humanly impossible to conquer and rule a nation by inspiring followers with speech that goes against their liking. We can test firsthand and see it is also humanly impossible to out wrestle just 5 people, showing the absurdity in claiming one man used force to conquer his followers or a nation. In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise, Firsthand. The fact that you cannot debunks your own claim and shows from firsthand evidence that Muhammad never started any unjust war. Whereas you cannot prove firsthand to the contrary, thus refuting yourself.

I see your MO. Intead of debating you just want to claim people are wrong without having to ever support your belief. Try some evidence, just saying "your wrong" isn't helping your case.

 

[gnostic]

No Muslims have reply to this:

Below is another example of the author plagiarizing idea from the pre-Islamic non-scriptural. In Qur'an 5:32, a verse about if one murder one human, is like one has murder all of mankind:

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.

The Qur'an has plagiarized what the famous 1st century BCE Jewish scholar - Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE - 10 CE) wrote, and preserved in the Talmud:

"As Hillel the Elder had stated, whosoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whosoever that saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

Although, I have seen Muslims quoted this verse from the Qur'an in this threads, I doubt many (including Muhammad) knew the words actually originated centuries before Muhammad's time.

What do you think? Is that not plagiarising?