The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Or he did it deliberately in an attempt to throw-off accusations of plagiarism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Or he did it deliberately in an attempt to throw-off accusations of plagiarism.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Excellent. Well done.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Wow. Congratulations. Seriously, I applaud you.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Haman of the bible
1. More than a thousand miles from Egypt. Deemed to be Persian. Achaemenid Persia vs Pharaohs Egypt.
2. More than a thousand years away.
3. Part of Esthers and Mordecai story. Esther 3
4. No scriptural reference to connect Egypt or the Pharaoh.
5. No Archeological proof to connect Egypt or the Pharaoh.
6. Haman sort to kill all the Jews
7. Haman was higher than the noble, a decorated official who was honoured by all the nobles.
Completely different man, time and country.
Haamaan of the Quran.
1. He was the Pharaohs helper.
2. He was the leader of the Quarry builders of the pharaoh.
3. In Egypt. Part of the Moses and Pharaoh story. (28:38)
4, Scriptural evidence to show that he was in Egypt, during the pharaoh Moses standoff.
5. Archeological evidence (The Rosetta stone found in the 18th century, dated earlier than 150 years BC)
6. Haamaan was ordered to build for the Pharaoh by the Pharaoh. He was just a builder. The leader of the quarry builders. No official or honoured noble.
The bible does not have this haamaan. Pharaoh did not have a helper in the bible. The Quranic citings are clarified by the Rosetta stone, only found in the 18th century, over a thousand years after Muhammed. It wasnt even understood until they managed to some 200 years ago.
Thus, Muhammed picked up the Moses and pharaoh story from the Torah, randomly picked up the haman character form Esther, put them two together, added some juice, take some stuff off, Confused the two stories, though they are explicitly two separate things. The bible even mentions Hamans father, the plot, the whole story is different. Muhammed just picks up the name, enters it into the Quran, travels 6 - 7 hundred years back in time, creates archeological evidence to support his book, makes sure that people forget the 3 scripts the evidence is written with, then comes back to the 7th century, dies after making sure that someone will discover the stone with the evidence and desipher what it says in the 18th century.
Only the difference in the scriptural stories of the pharaoh and Moses shows that Quran cannot be copied from the bible. Especially a character never in the bible cannot enter the Quran, to be verified by Archeologists.
Peace.
1. More than a thousand miles from Egypt. Deemed to be Persian. Achaemenid Persia vs Pharaohs Egypt.
2. More than a thousand years away.
3. Part of Esthers and Mordecai story. Esther 3
4. No scriptural reference to connect Egypt or the Pharaoh.
5. No Archeological proof to connect Egypt or the Pharaoh.
6. Haman sort to kill all the Jews
7. Haman was higher than the noble, a decorated official who was honoured by all the nobles.
Completely different man, time and country.
Haamaan of the Quran.
1. He was the Pharaohs helper.
2. He was the leader of the Quarry builders of the pharaoh.
3. In Egypt. Part of the Moses and Pharaoh story. (28:38)
4, Scriptural evidence to show that he was in Egypt, during the pharaoh Moses standoff.
5. Archeological evidence (The Rosetta stone found in the 18th century, dated earlier than 150 years BC)
6. Haamaan was ordered to build for the Pharaoh by the Pharaoh. He was just a builder. The leader of the quarry builders. No official or honoured noble.
The bible does not have this haamaan. Pharaoh did not have a helper in the bible. The Quranic citings are clarified by the Rosetta stone, only found in the 18th century, over a thousand years after Muhammed. It wasnt even understood until they managed to some 200 years ago.
Thus, Muhammed picked up the Moses and pharaoh story from the Torah, randomly picked up the haman character form Esther, put them two together, added some juice, take some stuff off, Confused the two stories, though they are explicitly two separate things. The bible even mentions Hamans father, the plot, the whole story is different. Muhammed just picks up the name, enters it into the Quran, travels 6 - 7 hundred years back in time, creates archeological evidence to support his book, makes sure that people forget the 3 scripts the evidence is written with, then comes back to the 7th century, dies after making sure that someone will discover the stone with the evidence and desipher what it says in the 18th century.
Only the difference in the scriptural stories of the pharaoh and Moses shows that Quran cannot be copied from the bible. Especially a character never in the bible cannot enter the Quran, to be verified by Archeologists.
Peace.
Shad
Veteran Member
Just because you have presupposition from your religion that Mo can not be wrong does not mean everyone else believes as you do. I provided an explanation which is reasonable considering Mo also confused the Talmud with the Torah; commentary vs scripture.
Shad
Veteran Member
Irrelevant as all you have done is repeat your presupposition as if it was a fact. There is no archaeological evidence of Haman nor Exodus. Spend time actually studying archaeology before you make your empty assertions. The Rosetta stone contains nothing about Moses, Pharaoh, Hamam nor the story within the Quran. You have no idea what the Rosetta stone actually is. You toss out the name as if you think it gives weight to your argument sadly it doesn't.
You created your own strawman to knocked down. Congratulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Pharoah had magicians if you read the Bible, which you didn't. In both the Quran and the Bible these helpers both call Moses as sorcerer. Read your sources since you never bothers to read the stories. Wants to built a tower just like the story of Babel.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Good.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Very true. Thank you.
Shad
Veteran Member
Good to see you admit that your argument is fallacious and your assertion of evidence is actually false thus you have admitted your argument has no merit.
Great counter-argument you have there.... Oh wait...
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah
The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [1]
[67:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[67:2]Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3]Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4]Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the GraciousGod. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5]Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight willonlyreturn unto thee confused and fatigued.
[67:6]And verily, We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and We have made them for driving away satans, and We have prepared for them the punishment of the blazing Fire.
[67:7]And for those who disbelieve in their Lord there is the punishment of Hell, and an evil resort it is!
[67:8]When they are cast therein, they will hear it roaring as it boils up.
[67:9]It would almost burst with fury. Whenever a hostof disbelieversis cast into it the wardens thereof will ask them, ‘Did no Warner come to you?’
[67:8]When they are cast therein, they will hear it roaring as it boils up.
[67:9]It would almost burst with fury. Whenever a hostof disbelieversis cast into it the wardens thereof will ask them, ‘Did no Warner come to you?’
[67:10]They will say, “Yea, verily, a Warner did come to us, but we treatedhimas a liar, and we said: ‘Allah has not revealed anything; you are but in great error.’ ”
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67
Please prove that the above 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.
Just impossible to do it.
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 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
The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [1]
[67:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[67:2]Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3]Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4]Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the GraciousGod. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5]Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight willonlyreturn unto thee confused and fatigued.
[67:6]And verily, We have adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and We have made them for driving away satans, and We have prepared for them the punishment of the blazing Fire.
[67:7]And for those who disbelieve in their Lord there is the punishment of Hell, and an evil resort it is!
[67:8]When they are cast therein, they will hear it roaring as it boils up.
[67:9]It would almost burst with fury. Whenever a hostof disbelieversis cast into it the wardens thereof will ask them, ‘Did no Warner come to you?’
[67:8]When they are cast therein, they will hear it roaring as it boils up.
[67:9]It would almost burst with fury. Whenever a hostof disbelieversis cast into it the wardens thereof will ask them, ‘Did no Warner come to you?’
[67:10]They will say, “Yea, verily, a Warner did come to us, but we treatedhimas a liar, and we said: ‘Allah has not revealed anything; you are but in great error.’ ”
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67
Please prove that the above 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.
Just impossible to do it.
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 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
firedragon
Veteran Member
There is no point in even responding to utter shameless concoctions like this brother. Koran dated to before Muhamads birth is based on the earliest dating of the manusctipt.
- First they will try the ploy "No early manuscripts". The earliest is 8th century.
- When you show them that the British University has a manuscript dated latest 645 they say "Oh I forgot about that". You cant forget something like that, you could only be ignorant and later upon revelation build up a lie to cover your lying arse.
- Third, in the face of no choice, they will say it predates Muhammed.
Its a fallacy.
Any carbondating or paleographic dating has an earliest and latest date. Also carbon dating can vary because of the life of the animal the skin was taken from. Yes it was skin, not paper. Its a bit more than that. This is the Hijazi script. The Birmingham manuscript dates the fragments latest 645, 13 years after the death of the prophet Muhammed. Earliest being 568. It may very have been written during the lifetime of the prophet.
This cannot be said to the bible. Paul the closest to Jesus' time was born between 5 years before him or 5 years after. The Markan priority makes the Gospel of Mark 30 years later than Jesus. Though that is a source used by later Gospels, no one knows who wrote it. The earliest complete bible is the Codex Sinaiticus. At least 3 centuries after Jesus. Though this is a fantastic find, it still has two books that are not in the current bible. Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepard of Hermes. There is no basis. Manuscripts contradict eachother, each Gospel contract eachother, Pauls books contradict the Gospels, books with no trace of authorship are added into it.
The Quran cannot be a copy of the OT or the NT. There are too many reasons to the fact.
- No story is alike. None. So the prophet Muhammed stands accused "he copied the OT, then changed the stories to fit the bill". Thats because almost all the stories cited in the Quran seemingly plagiarised from the bible are vastly different. The biblical narrations are cruel, murderous, silly and nonsensical. The Quranic versions are much more sensible.
- Muhammed stands accused that he copied form the OT. He copied the stories, but left out the rampant incest and sexual crap found in the OT.
- The bible has it that the world is flat, and circular. Quran says that the earth is Geo Spherical.
- The bible is the work of at least 40 authors. Quran is one mans work. When authoring a book with 6246 verses, he made sure that he does not copy the contradicting narrations found in the bible. Even in the story of Jesus there are contradictions between one Gospel to another. The geneology of Jesus is just one of them. How could it be so vastly different? Why didnt Muhammed copy that? If Jesus had no father, thats it. He did not have a father. Only a mother. Thats what the Quran does. Thus there is no way the Quran copied the bible.
- They say that Muhammed copied the Haman story from the book of Esther. Which esther did he copy from? The hebrew Esther or the Greek Esther. Yep, when this is said with no narration people laugh saying "Dude, its the same thing. Its just a translation". No, that is good for the Kidergarten. It is common knowledge that the Greek version is not a translation, its a retelling of the story. Again, its not a translation. So which one did Muhammed copy from? If he copied only the name Haman, why didnt he copy other names? Like the father of Haman. The Quran says that Pharaoh asked his helper Haamaan to build him a tower (Quran 28:38), or a high platform for him to see. Haamaan is mentioned several times as a Quarry builder for Pharaoh. Esther story is completely different. There is no basis to this lie. Do a research on the Egyptian lit found in the Hof museum, you will find that Haman is the leader of the Quarry builders for the Pharaoh. That is authentication to the Quranic story, Muhammed could not have picked that up from the Bible.
- The bible has stoning for adultery. Quran has death penalty only for murder. Yes some say "corruption on earth" also deserves death penalty as per the Quran. Yes, thats Ufsidhooa fil ardha, very explicitly explained in the Quran as killing in the name of God. Death sentence. TO the likes of ISIS/ISIL, Anfasadhin fil ardha, death sentence. Not for adultery. Thus, Muhammed could not have picked that up from the Bible.
- The bible depicts God as a Greek God, riding cherubims as if he needs to fly. Kul hu allahu Ahad, Allahus Samad, Lamyalid, Walamyulda, Walam yakullahu Kufuwan Ahad.
Peace.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I believe everyone has taken from other scriptures, and added to it their own beliefs, I personally see nothing wrong with that, its only when we believe our own version is the only version that we get into stupid arguments, to me this is nothing more than the ego wanting to be the right one, when in fact it is not. Most religion needs to take a good look at itself, and see its arrogance, and hopefully do something positive about its arrogance, for the sake of its own religion and more importantly for the rest of the world.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I prefer objective arguments.
LIke if one says "YOU have taken from other scriptures, and added it to their own beliefs" and this is the proof, rather than general sweeping statements.
With all due respect.
Cheers
Tumah
Veteran Member
You are making the exact same mistake your friend is making. No one is suggesting that Muhammad or Abu Bakr lifted passages word for word from the Bible. We are not suggesting that Muhammad even studied the Bible. What we are saying is that during Muhammad's early years as a camel driver, he had occasion for many interactions with various Jews and Christians who ordered his services and lived in the various areas he traveled to. On those long travels he had occasion to discuss theology and hear stories about the Bible (and from Jews, Talmudic and Midrashic ideas). Being illiterate, he couldn't record everything he learned and so relied on his memory years later when he decided to dictate the Qur'an.
- Some stories and passages, he remembered more clearly, perhaps they resonated better with him. Like the Mishnaic statement about killing someone, the seven heavens and lands, or the absolute Unity of G-d taught in Judaism. The concept of the angel Gabriel speaking to Jesus could have easily provided him with inspiration for his own prophetic experience. The Qur'anic account of the creation of Adam and Hawwa where the angels are questioning G-d's decision to create Man, and subsequently not being able to name the various creatures as Adam can likewise be found in Midrash etc., etc.
- Some Biblical elements, because so many years had passed, became somewhat conflated with other stories forming new passages. Hence we find that the name of Haman, is introduced with the idea of the Tower of Babylon and the story of Pharaoh; or the Miriam that is Moses' and Aaron's sister, with the Miriam that is Jesus' mother, etc.
- Other elements, he may have either not recalled accurately or purposely wanted to change, for instance the penalty for adultery, or mixing Isaac and Ishmael at the Binding.
This is natural and totally understandable. We are talking about years of conversations and then years until he finally dictates the Qur'an. We can't expect him to have recalled every detail of every story accurately. But the general idea is definitely easily discernible for anyone willing to be open to the possibility.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Again, if you read my post you would understand that this argument is baseless. I understand your point.
Yes, if he had stories in his memory then he will forget some, and write only what he remembers. But how come he forgot the ones I mentioned?
And please see again, Haman is not the same or even close. And pls read that post again about that.
Quran - Haman and Pharaoh
Hofs evidence - Haman and Pharaoh.
And I have hear this "General Idea" idea. No, rather the Quran is explicit in some narrations.
Have you heard of the codex sinaiticus? Muhammed during his life time had issued a letter to the monastry holding it that no Arab should harm it. The priests had it with them.
If Muhammed wanted to copy the stories from the bible fully he could have easily taken the bible and done it. He didnt have to remember stories he heard from here and there and later write what he remembered.
There is no proper basis to this claim you make. I respect your view, but I would also respect it if you looked at these points and pondered over them.
Thank you
Peace.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I did read your post actually. But your argument is that because every specific event is not quoted in its entirety, or its not entirely quoted, then it can't have come from there. So I will go through your post point by point and explain myself better.
That's not real evidence though is it. If you're familiar with it, then you know that first of all, there's no pronunciation guide: no vowels. So it could be saying He-man for all we know. The existence of a similar three letter (not very many) consonant sequence is not a proof. And that's only if we drop the possible forth letter /-h/. And of course, you're probably familiar with the fact that it might not be an /h/ (ه) at all but an /ḥ/ (ح). So what you're saying is:
- if there is really only three consonants and not four
- and if the first consonant is an /h/ and not a /ḥ/
- and if the vowels for those letters match the pronunciation of هامان
Then maybe the Haman of the Qur'an matches a Haman of a certain Pharaoh.
Its not a really airtight case there, you see?
Yes, because he had to reformulate the stories according to how he remembered them. So although they are detailed, the details were built around the general ideas that he had remembered hearing.
There were different points over the course of the dictating of the Qur'an where Muhammad was trying to woo the various religions in his area. Its not hard to see that Muhammad was trying to prevent enmity with people he may have been trying to convert. Hence, according to the legend, he sent the letter of protection.
But Muhammad wasn't trying to re-write the Bible, he was writing a new one while claiming to be a prophet. What would you have him say, "Hey guys, look, I'm trying to write my own bible here, but I can't recall the storied properly. Would you mind reading me yours so that I can include it in mine?" He's working on becoming a prophet and he's trying to present familiar elements to people so as to make it seem less foreign to them. The Christian church did the same thing in its efforts to entice the various pagans.
To cover all the bases, I'll include your previous points here.
As I mentioned earlier. This is probably because Muhammad was recalling them from memory and had to reformulate them as to fill in missing pieces.
I don't see what your argument is here. But anyways, who did Cain and Abel marry?
Geo Spherical is not a shape. 'Geo' means related to the earth. From what I can tell, the Qur'an doesn't say the earth is round or egg-shaped and this is only being read back into the Qur'an after the fact.
You are both correct and incorrect here. Remember, Muhammad is trying to pull these stories out of what he remembers having heard from Jews and Christians. He's obviously going to want to remedy the contradictions he find as he's going along. But the concept for the story itself, certainly came from what he had heard those years ago from the Christians.
This was dealt with above.
Either he forgot the correct sentence, or he intentionally changed it.
The idea of the absolute unity of G-d, as I said before is taught in the Talmud and Midrash. Obviously we have ways of understanding those depictions that you are calling Greek. Muhammad understood this from his discussions with the Jews and so when it came time to writing his Qur'an, he left out the metaphors and stuck strictly to the Oneness.
The responses that I am giving here don't need to be exact. I'm only showing how easy it is to understand how Muhammad could have fabricated many passages of the Qur'an based on what he recalled from earlier years. Again, he isn't trying to rewrite the Bible. He doesn't need to introduce every story in the Bible. He's dictating his own book. So he says what he remembers, makes up what he doesn't, and adds what he wants to add. Its as simple as that.[/quote]
Augustus
…
The trouble is that you are playing the 'radiocarbon dating' card - the assumption that this is highly accurate. The number you quote is given as authoritative and beyond doubt, but I assume you will dismiss the 433–599 dating of the Sanaa manuscript as being an obvious error (it was also dated 543–643 showing the variability)
So if carbon dating 'proves' that the Birmingham Quranic fragment was from close to the time of the prophet, then what does the Sanaa one 'prove'?
A paleographic analysis suggest late 7th C, although it could be wrong. On balance of probabilities though this is more likely to be accurate than the carbon dating.
"The problem, it would seem, is that radiocarbon dating in the medieval period is only accurate when it can be calibrated by tree ring data, particularly from oak trees. Such data is wanting for the medieval Mediterranean or Near East, and the data from the northern hemisphere that has been used to calibrate these tests was taken from Ireland and North America. If one were to instead use the data from the southern hemisphere (and we are talking about Arabia here), I am told by those more expert in this procedure than me that very different datings would result. For the time being, then, we must remain skeptical of these sensationalist findings and their often uncritical dissemination in the popular media." source
It is not "ignorant" to avoid jumping to hasty conclusions based on media headlines.
Augustus
…
The letter is considered a medieval forgery.
Anyway, why would a Monastery in Byzantine/Persian controlled Egypt need a letter of protection from a Hijazi Arab? It was ibn al-As who invaded Egypt in the time of Abu Bakr, not Muhammed. If it resulted from a genuine interaction, then it most likely relates to ibn al-As not Muhammed anyway.
The story of the letters to Mukawkis are likely to relate to the later communication between ibn al-As as there are multiple independent sources that acknowledge the communication between Cyrus and ibn al-As, whereas Cyrus wasn't even in Egypt at the right time to communicate with Muhammed.
The sira is not reliable academic history. It is theology.
Augustus
…
There is another idea that the Quran came from an 'Abrahamic' environment, rather than the pagan one that Islamic theology (not history) says it came from.
The key evidence in favour of this is that the audience of the Quran is assumed to be familiar with Biblical narratives and figures.
I don't use the terms plagiarised or copied as they are polemical, oversimplistic, inaccurate and cannot be supported given the evidence available. there is clearly a significant intertextual relationship between the 2 texts though. The Islamic tradition even accepts this to be true.
Large parts of the Quran appear to be a commentary on Abrahamic tradition and they assume the audience is familiar with these stories.
"Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience. In it there are frequent references to biblical patriarchs, prophets, and other gures of Late Antique, Jewish, and Christian religious lore. One hears of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, and Jonah, among others from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, one reads of Jesus, Mary, Zecharaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples from the New Testament, but no mention of Paul and his epistles. What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts. So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth- century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic" S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic
"In surah 11 (Hūd), the Qurʾan refers to messengers (rusul) who come to Abraham and give him the good news of the promised birth of a son and a grandson (vv 69 ) Immediately thereafter (vv 77 ), the text refers to messengers, apparently the same messengers, who come to warn Lot of the destruction of his people is narrative sequence, of course, accords with Genesis 18–19 Yet the quality of the narrative is quite different in the Qurʾan. The Bible provides a detailed story, beginning with Gen 18:1–2: “Yahweh appeared to him at the oak of Mamre while he was sitting by the entrance of the tent during the hottest part of the day He looked up, and there he saw three men standing near him. The Qurʾan, on the other hand, provides only allusions It mentions neither the oak of Mamre nor a tent, nor the heat of the day, nor does it specify the number of messengers at three evidently, the Qurʾan is not borrowing or retelling the biblical story, but rather commenting on it
Accordingly, there is a distinctly homiletic feel to this passage It is all carefully rhymed, according to the fāṣila of a penultimate -ī or -ū It is interrupted on several occasions with pious reminders, such as verse 73, when the messengers ask, “Do you wonder at God’s command? May the mercy and blessings of God be upon you, o people of the house surely he is praise- worthy and glorious" even the very substance of the story seems to be remolded by the homiletic goals of the author"
(Reading the Quran as homily: the case of Sarah's laughter
Gabriel Said Reynolds )
"a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.
This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, “reading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture."Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic - G. Dye
Medieval exegetes tried to distance the Islamic traditions from the Christian ones, however this led them to make errors in interpretation. Without recourse to the Biblical stories the stories were incomplete (because they were intended as commentary, not narrative) so the exegetes filled in the gaps with their own guesses. We know they were guesses because of the wide range of opinion they all had.
Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. [Aṭ-Ṭabarī(d 310/923), for example, provides six different, and mutually exclusive, explanations for the laughter, proposing one thereof as “more correct,” but not ruling out the others Abū Isḥāq ath- aʿlabī (d 427/1036) also offers six different explanations. Fakhr ad-Dīn ar-Rāzī (d 606/1209) lists nine.]Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.
For some parts of the Quran, it is necessary to understand the intertextual references in order to understand the intended meaning.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Appreciate your analytical criticism.
Not entirely.
1. The stories are very different.
2. Additional information.
3. Silly things are not there.
But it will stand true for the Hebrew Aman in Esther. It is then, completely contrasting. How in the world would you pronounce that as Haman? Then thats EMN. In that case, Muhammed has just cooked up this name out of thin air because it is not biblical at all.
Then it is authenticated by an 18th century finding.
Remembered and wrote what he ultimately remembered.
1. He has to scientifically evade all the incest and other unnecessary stuff.
2. Include only sensible and apt information. Throughout 6236 verses.
3. Take out the murderous parts of the stories (e.g. Moses and Gods wrath upon pharaoh)
4. Give one story about Jesus.
Is that all the incest you could find? There are five in only the first book of the bible.
Thats a fleeting statement. Bottomline is, bible says that the earth is flat, and circular. Quran says its spherical. Dahaha, Dahy.
A clear and present difference.
Where is the evidence? Muhammed?
This is just a fleeting statement. No evidence.
So youre saying that Muhammed copied some stories from the bible, then some from other Jewish sources.
I understand your point. I respect it. But this is only said by a one who does not know anything about the Quran.
Al Quranil Hakeem.
Not entirely.
1. The stories are very different.
2. Additional information.
3. Silly things are not there.
- You are right. But the deciphering was done in the 18th century. The vowels were already there at that time. Thus, no one could have added vowels just for the argument. I know this is besides the point, but hope you agree.
- Also if you read, the vowels are really not necessary for this name. Ya hamanu (Addressing Haman) has 3 alifs. It cannot be pronounced He-man. If you say a fatha is necessary, bro, I dont have words to say.
But it will stand true for the Hebrew Aman in Esther. It is then, completely contrasting. How in the world would you pronounce that as Haman? Then thats EMN. In that case, Muhammed has just cooked up this name out of thin air because it is not biblical at all.
Then it is authenticated by an 18th century finding.
Remembered and wrote what he ultimately remembered.
1. He has to scientifically evade all the incest and other unnecessary stuff.
2. Include only sensible and apt information. Throughout 6236 verses.
3. Take out the murderous parts of the stories (e.g. Moses and Gods wrath upon pharaoh)
4. Give one story about Jesus.
Is that all the incest you could find? There are five in only the first book of the bible.
Thats a fleeting statement. Bottomline is, bible says that the earth is flat, and circular. Quran says its spherical. Dahaha, Dahy.
A clear and present difference.
Where is the evidence? Muhammed?
This is just a fleeting statement. No evidence.
So youre saying that Muhammed copied some stories from the bible, then some from other Jewish sources.
I understand your point. I respect it. But this is only said by a one who does not know anything about the Quran.
Al Quranil Hakeem.