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

[Harikrish]

The prophet Mohammad only began to recite at the age of 40 what was later to be compiled into a book called the Quran. He heard plenty of stories of the Bible and had plenty of time to formulate his recitations (20 years). But because he was illiterate he could not read the bible and therefore he could not find specific answers to the questions asked of him in the Bible. He made up those answers claiming even that was revealed to him. This explains why there are additions in the Quran not found in the bible. Those are the actual words and solutions the prophet concocted to offer justification for many of his ungodly actions.

The verses Paarsurrey keeps posting are not plagiarized from the bible. They are the actual words and solutions the prophet concocted to offer justification for many of his ungodly actions. For example there are 164 jihad verses in the Quran not found in the Bible.

 

[paarsurrey]

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

You may express anything you like. Most welcome.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The prophet Mohammad only began to recite at the age of 40 what was later to be compiled into a book called the Quran. He heard plenty of stories of the Bible and had plenty of time to formulate his recitations (20 years). But because he was illiterate he could not read the bible and therefore he could not find specific answers to the questions asked of him in the Bible. He made up those answers claiming even that was revealed to him. This explains why there are additions in the Quran not found in the bible. Those are the actual words and solutions the prophet concocted to offer justification for many of his ungodly actions.

The verses Paarsurrey keeps posting are not plagiarized from the bible. They are the actual words and solutions the prophet concocted to offer justification for many of his ungodly actions. For example there are 164 jihad verses in the Quran not found in the Bible.

But because he was illiterate he could not read the bible and therefore he could not find specific answers to the questions asked of him in the Bible.

Muhammad had no personal questions about Bible. It happened sometimes though that people asked him questions for guidance in a certain situation. He had a great respect for the prophets so he used to inquire if there was something from the prophets in this connection, if there was any, he would say to act upon that until he received specific word of Revelation from G-d about that, then that was to be followed.

The verses Paarsurrey keeps posting are not plagiarized from the bible.

Yes.

Regards

 

[McBell]

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

The denial is strong in some.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 74: Al-Muddaththir [6]

[74:51]As if they were frightened asses
[74:52]Fleeing from a lion?
[74:53]Nay, every man among them desires to have open sheetsof revelationgiven to him.
[74:54]Never! verily they fear not the Hereafter.
[74:55]Never! verily this is an exhortation.
[74:56]Let him, then, who will, remember it.
[74:57]And they will not remember unless Allahsoplease. Healoneis worthy to be feared and Healoneis worthy to forgive.

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

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 73: Al-Muzzammil [1]

[73:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[73:2]O thou who art bearinga heavy responsibility,
[73:3]Stand upin Prayerat night except a small portion thereof —
[73:4]Half of it, or make it a little less than that
[73:5]Or make it a little more than that — and recite the Qur’an slowly and thoughtfully.
[73:6]Verily, We are charging thee with a weighty Word.
[73:7]Verily, getting up at night is the most potent means of subduingthe selfand most effective in respect of wordsof prayer.
[73:8]Thou hast indeed, during the day,alongchain ofengagements.
[73:9]So remember the name of thy Lord, and devotethyselfto Him with full devotion.
[73:10]He is theLord of the East and the West; there is no God but He; so take Him asthyGuardian.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=73

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.

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

Your comments please

Regards

It is pretty "obvious" that the Quran took biblical stories also present in the Old Testament. But, that doesn't mean that they were necessarily "copies from the Bible". Muhammad was illiterate, and most likely did not have a copy of the Hebrew Bible during his life. That, however, doesn't speak to this issue at all, as these stories were still well-known and were not even claimed to originate in scripture. Stories like the following were all over the place in Muhammad's neck of the woods, so, it seems that the only reasonable explanation is that Muhammad took these stories, changed them a bit to better suit his intended message, and added them to what would one day be the Quran.

"Many of the stories of the Qur'an are derivatives of Biblical stories, containing many similarities but also striking differences in what is stated and what is omitted. This compilation provides references to the passages of the Qur'an which are re-narrations of Biblical material, and has the objective to allow the Christian reader who is familiar with the Bible to quickly find and compare the Biblical story with the Quranic version." (http://answering-islam.org/Index/Stories/index.htm)

Biblical Stories in the Qur'an

1. THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
2. ADAM
3. THE SONS OF ADAM
4. NOAH
5. THE TOWER OF BABEL
6. ABRAHAM
7. JOSEPH
8. MOSES
9. SAUL
10. DAVID AND SOLOMON
11. LATER MEN OF GOD
12. PROPHETS

 

[gnostic]

But because he was illiterate he could not read the bible and therefore he could not find specific answers to the questions asked of him in the Bible.

Don't be so naïve, paarsurrey!

You have heard of storytellers, bards and oral tradition, haven't you?

You can tell stories without books.

You can learn and memorise stories without books.

Muhammad didn't need to have a book to know about it.

Many Christians and Jews never learn to read back then, but stories can be passed down from person to person or to an entire audience. It's called "oral tradition". And many of stories were can be told without books. And not everyone can afford the education to read and write, and books were expensive.

Jews have long history of oral tradition.

Muhammad may not be able to read, but he has ears and he could listen to stories. Muhammad was neither deaf, nor stupid. And there have been Jews living in the the Arabian peninsula for centuries before Muhammad became a prophet, so I am quite sure that he could hear and learn them without reading them.

A large numbers of Christian missionaries travelling around everywhere, didn't carry books with them, but could recite stories from what they heard from memory.

And when Muhammad was younger he had travelled to Byzantine Syria with his uncle, who was trader. Muhammad wasn't so isolated that he didn't met a single Christian or Jew.

Are you telling me that Muhammad is stupid or deaf that he can't learn from spoken words? How did Muhammad learn his uncle's merchant trade, if not by listening?

You are making excuses as if illiterate mean "unlearned" or "stupidity".

The two greatest masterpieces of Greek literature - The Iliad and The Odyssey, were passed down, from master bard to apprentice bard, recited from memory, from mouth to ear, before they were written down. And these epic poems were sung and performed to audiences.

The evidences that epic poems attributed to Homer were originally from oral tradition before writing down the tradition, come from the verses. Verses are often used in illiterate societies because verses were easier to transmit from person to person than from prose in oral tradition. And the Iliad and Odyssey were told in hexameter verses.

Can you learn from what I have told you? Or are you going to repeat making excuses that Muhammad couldn't learn biblical stories by "listening"?

Muhammad didn't need to memorise what he learn, word for word. The beauty of oral tradition is that story can be modified, refined or embellished more.

 

[Shad]

So a person that can not read that creates a bunch of religious poetry and whatever is amazing to the point God must be behind it. Yet illiterate masons that built many of the cathedrals in Europe are not. Argument from incredibility. Maybe the god of architecture send them an angel to explain things... That about amounts to the illiterate arguments

 

[paarsurrey]

But, that doesn't mean that they were necessarily "copies from the Bible"

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

The situation is altogether changed due to the above.

Regards

 

[leibowde84]

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

The situation is altogether changed due to the above.

Regards

Oh. I thought that was debunked because they only tested the paper. And, I don't think anyone would claim that he copied the Bible. Instead, he copied oral traditions that one day ended up in the Bible.

 

[Shad]

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

The situation is altogether changed due to the above.

Regards

You are still not understanding that people are not claiming he copied a completely text whole sale. Merely that he is repeating known stories as part of it. Credible scholars are making these claims already. You also do not understand that academia does not count Allah as a source. All sources are strictly human sources whether from Mo or someone else. The Quran is the product of man not of the divine. You only have issues since you have to believe in divine authorship as per your religion. So your bias is so great that you can contribute nothing to this discussion since you can not suspend your bias for a moment to engage in the discussion and what is circulating in academia. You must deny it or you deny your faith.

 

[gnostic]

It is frustrating.

You don't have to copy words for words to plagiarize ideas. You can tell the story of the same person, but with different details.

There are no doubts in my mind that Muhammad used biblical characters in biblical stories without having to read a single word.

No one said that the Qur'an was word-for-word copy of the Bible. It is stupid to think so.

You can take a story, and change it.

Clearly the stories of the bible and other Jewish legends and folklore were well known, that people didn't need to read the stories to learn it.

No where in the bible state that Solomon could understand the speech of birds or ants, or them understanding human speeches, but it does appear in the Qur'an. But Muhammad clearly Solomon's abilities, not from the bible, but from ancient Jewish oral traditions of folklore that were later recorded in the rabbinic writing, known as the Aggadah.

The Aggadah were derived from mostly the Midrash that were composed during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, and some were derived from the Talmud. The Midrash and Talmud both come from Jewish oral traditions that predated Jesus.

What is clear that Muhammad's version about Solomon's abilities were definitely not original story. Muhammad was not stupid nor deaf, so he must have learned from Jews when he was younger, because there were Jews living in Arabia centuries before Muhammad's birth. Muhammad didn't grow up in a cave.

One thing is certain, that you don't need to read, to learn a story. That's Muhammad's version about Solomon is not exactly the same, doesn't mean much, because you don't have to learn word-for-word in order to tell a story.

Take the story of Adam for example. A number of gnostic (unknown) authors wrote about the creation and Adam that depart from the original story. Muhammad have done the same things, except that he learned story relating to Adam, more from listening to another person telling it, not reading it.

The story where Satan refused to bow down to Adam when God created man, doesn't appear in the Genesis, but it does in the oral tradition/Aggadah, and in the Qur'an. The story that won the naming animals appeared in oral Jewish folklore (Aggadah) and in the Qur'an, clearly showed that Muhammad heard of it being told, not reading the writing.

Even when stories are written, they aren't always exactly the same, because some authors/scribes will modify it at some points.

The story of Gilgamesh have been copied and rewritten so many times for over 2000 years. Some details are not exactly the same. The standard version found in the library of Nineveh (7th century BCE) bear a lot of similarities to the Sumerian poems, but it is also quite different in details and styles. They are certainly not written, word-for-word copy.

Stories can change over time, whether they be oral traditions or written versions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Oh. I thought that was debunked because they only tested the paper. And, I don't think anyone would claim that he copied the Bible. Instead, he copied oral traditions that one day ended up in the Bible.

You mean they jumped to wrong conclusions?
Do proper scholars and proper scientists say such things so that pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science start bullying people on that basis? The so called academia comprising pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science is good for nothing in religion to be more specific.
Science is not against religion per-se , by definition it cannot be.
Regards

 

[McBell]

Science is not against religion per-se , by definition it cannot be.
Regards

Agreed.
However, science can be an quite often is at odds with a lot of claims made by religions.

 

[Shad]

You mean they jumped to wrong conclusions?
Do proper scholars and proper scientists say such things so that pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science start bullying people on that basis? The so called academia comprising pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science is good for nothing in religion to be more specific.
Science is not against religion per-se , by definition it cannot be.
Regards

See, you can not even entertain competing ideas due to your ideology. You reject honest academic work that disagrees with your religion. Heck I am not even arguing that the early date is a reliable basis nor are other people. We are talking about known stories of the region that existed for centuries as sources of parts of the Quran. An early date to the Quran is largely irrelevant as academia has already established the theological tradition is unreliable and a construct.

 

[paarsurrey]

See, you can not even entertain competing ideas due to your ideology. You reject honest academic work that disagrees with your religion. Heck I am not even arguing that the early date is a reliable basis nor are other people. We are talking about known stories of the region that existed for centuries as sources of parts of the Quran. An early date to the Quran is largely irrelevant as academia has already established the theological tradition is unreliable and a construct.

It is simply incorrect. The academia is wrong.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Agreed.
However, science can be an quite often is at odds with a lot of claims made by religions.

The claims are wrongly understood.
Regards

 

[McBell]

The claims are wrongly understood.
Regards

Perhaps.
Perhaps not.
You have not shown that they are.
You have merely claimed they are.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I have so far quoted following 43 full chapters from Quran in these threads:[Summary]

74. Al-Muddaththir 75.Al-Qiyamah,76.Al-Dahr,77.Al-Mursalat,78.Al-Naba'79. Al-Nazi`at,80. `Abasa,81. Al-Takwir,82. Al-Infitar, 83. Al-Tatfif,84. Al-Inshiqaq,85. Al-Buruj,86. Al-Tariq,87. Al-A`la,88. Al-Ghashiyah,89. Al-Fajr,90. Al-Balad,91. Al-Shams,92. Al-Lail,93. Al-Duha,94. Al-Inshirah,95. Al-Tin,96. Al-`Alaq,97. Al-Qadr,98. Al-Bayyinah,99. Al-Zilzal,100. Al-`Adiyat,101. Al-Qari`ah,102. Al-Takathur,103. Al-`Asr,104. Al-Humazah,105. Al-Fil,106. Al-Quraish,107. Al-Ma`un,108. Al-Kauthar,109. Al-Kafirun,110. Al-Nasr,111. Al-Lahab,112. Al-Ikhlas,113. Al-Falaq,114. Al-Nas,1. Al-Fatihah.3.Aal-e-`Imran,14. Ibrahim.]

Our Jewish (or non-Jewish) friends have not been able to quote or reference places of Torah where verses of these forty three Quranic chapters have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from.

There being 114 Surahs/chapters in Quran. Number-wise this makes more than 1/3 of Quran.

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth. " and some of the pseudo scholars also , link also provided by the poster, saying this; since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

We can therefore conclude with 100% certainty that 0% of verses of these chapters of Quran have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from Torah or any other scripture.
Quran is, therefore, the Word Revealed from G-d and authored by Him and is original.

Regards