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

[paarsurrey]

If Yahweh G-d was the source of Torah and he could converse with Noah, Abraham, Moses etc and tell them about the events of the past; He did converse with Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
There are quit a few verses of Quran, revealed by G-d to Muhammad and revealed again to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
This is my line of argument.
Even if Moses and Jesus would have not existed as per history, as some people hold, there is no doubt about existing of Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.
Regards

 

[RabbiO]

If Yahweh G-d was the source of Torah and he could converse with Noah, Abraham, Moses etc and tell them about the events of the past; He did converse with Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

 

[psychoslice]

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

Its easy to see when you read from differnt scriptures, the same pattern is there, I certanily don't believe that a god wrote them.

 

[Tumah]

Not entirely.
1. The stories are very different.
2. Additional information.
3. Silly things are not there.

As its been shown on this thread, the stories are not that different at all. I'll give you an example:

Qur'an 2:30-34
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful."
They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise."
He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed."

In these 4 verses are 3 themes:
1. The angels (apparently created before mankind) question G-d's decision to make man.
2. G-d shows the angels that they are not so great.
3. G-d has Adam show the angels up.

Midrash Genesis Rabbah
8:5-6 Rav Simon said, 'At the time that the Holy One Blessed is He came to create the First Man, the angels of service formed groups. Some said, 'Don't create [him]' and some said, 'create [him]'... Rav Huna in the name of Rav Aivo said... the angels of service said before the Holy One Blessed is He, "Master of the World, who is man that You should mention him, and the son of man that you should remember him? This [man who will cause] suffering, why [should he be] created?"...
17:4 ... Rav Aḥa said, 'At the time the Holy One Blessed is He came to create Man, he took counsel with the angels. He said to them, "We will make man". They said to Him, "this man, what is his nature?" He said to them, "His wisdom is greater than yours". He brought before them animals, beasts and birds [and] He said to them, "This [creature], what is its name?" And they did not know. He passed them in front of Adam [and] said to him, "This [creature], what is its name?" [Adam] said, "this is an ox, this is a donkey, this is a horse, this is a camel."

Do you see the similarities between the stories? Its very easy to see a man trying to remember a few Midrashim that he heard, and getting the main points across without remembering the minute details.

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.
The pronunciation argument is weak brother.

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.

No, I meant the vowels on the stone, not in the Qur'an. There are no tashkil on the stone. Its just three or four letters /h/ or /ḥ/ - /m/ - /n/ and another possible /h/. You are assuming that the correct ḥarakat are a fatha for the first two letters because that will make it say what you want it to say. But there's no other reason to make that assumption.
Even in the Torah, the three letters /h/ - /m/ - /n/ come out as three different words. The first is in Genesis 'HăMiN', meaning "from" in a question form. The second is in Numbers 'HaMoN', meaning "the manna". And the last is in Esther, 'HoMoN'.
(Yes, I know that this doesn't seem similar to Haman, its just that the Hebrew kamatz is pronounced like a fatha (pataḥ in Hebrew) in most Middle Eastern Jewish communities, that's why its written Haman in English, but the correct pronunciation is two vowels that sound something like 'uh'. )

So you see, with only 3 or 4 consonants on the Rosetta stone there's no real way to determine what the correct pronunciation is and by extension whether any link to the Qur'an can be made.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientifically evade" all the incest and other unnecessary stuff. As I mentioned before, he could have either conciosuly chosen not to include it, or forgot it.
Sensible and apt information is not an objective evaluation.
Missing parts of stories can easily be understood as having been forgotten or purposely left out.
Creating a single narrative for Jesus as I said before could have been because he decided on his own how to remedy contradictions.

These are all normal things that anyone might do. Have you never recalled an event that happened a certain way, while your friend or family member tells you that it happened differently?

Is that all the incest you could find? There are five in only the first book of the bible.

No, I was only pointing out that the Qur'an couldn't get around it either. I'm also not sure why this is a thing for you. Its not like its ever discussed in a positive way in the Bible either.

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.

Dahaha doesn't mean spherical it means to spread out دحاها - he spread out. Bottom line is, the Qur'an doesn't say the earth is spherical. See here to bust that myth.

Where is the evidence? Muhammed?

This is just a fleeting statement. No evidence.

The evidence is all over the Qur'an and that's what we've been trying to tell you.

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.

I am not the only one who has said this.

 

[firedragon]

As its been shown on this thread, the stories are not that different at all. I'll give you an example:

Qur'an 2:30-34
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."
And He taught Adam the names - all of them. Then He showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names of these, if you are truthful."
They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the Knowing, the Wise."
He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed."

In these 4 verses are 3 themes:
1. The angels (apparently created before mankind) question G-d's decision to make man.
2. G-d shows the angels that they are not so great.
3. G-d has Adam show the angels up.

Midrash Genesis Rabbah
8:5-6 Rav Simon said, 'At the time that the Holy One Blessed is He came to create the First Man, the angels of service formed groups. Some said, 'Don't create [him]' and some said, 'create [him]'... Rav Huna in the name of Rav Aivo said... the angels of service said before the Holy One Blessed is He, "Master of the World, who is man that You should mention him, and the son of man that you should remember him? This [man who will cause] suffering, why [should he be] created?"...
17:4 ... Rav Aḥa said, 'At the time the Holy One Blessed is He came to create Man, he took counsel with the angels. He said to them, "We will make man". They said to Him, "this man, what is his nature?" He said to them, "His wisdom is greater than yours". He brought before them animals, beasts and birds [and] He said to them, "This [creature], what is its name?" And they did not know. He passed them in front of Adam [and] said to him, "This [creature], what is its name?" [Adam] said, "this is an ox, this is a donkey, this is a horse, this is a camel."

Do you see the similarities between the stories? Its very easy to see a man trying to remember a few Midrashim that he heard, and getting the main points across without remembering the minute details.

Of course the stories are similar. Everyone knows it brother. Thank you for quoting the Midrash and going through the trouble, but I have already seen this alright. Im just telling you because you will find it easier. But I appreciate it.

Now Muhammed has copied from the Midrash. Alright, this is the belief. Its one God. One story. Many prophets. So stories are similar.

But, The biblical narration blames the woman. Quranic narration blames them both.

No, I meant the vowels on the stone, not in the Qur'an. There are no tashkil on the stone. Its just three or four letters /h/ or /ḥ/ - /m/ - /n/ and another possible /h/. You are assuming that the correct ḥarakat are a fatha for the first two letters because that will make it say what you want it to say. But there's no other reason to make that assumption.
Even in the Torah, the three letters /h/ - /m/ - /n/ come out as three different words. The first is in Genesis 'HăMiN', meaning "from" in a question form. The second is in Numbers 'HaMoN', meaning "the manna". And the last is in Esther, 'HoMoN'.
(Yes, I know that this doesn't seem similar to Haman, its just that the Hebrew kamatz is pronounced like a fatha (pataḥ in Hebrew) in most Middle Eastern Jewish communities, that's why its written Haman in English, but the correct pronunciation is two vowels that sound something like 'uh'. )

So you see, with only 3 or 4 consonants on the Rosetta stone there's no real way to determine what the correct pronunciation is and by extension whether any link to the Qur'an can be made.

Vowels on the stone? You were quoting the He and He in Arabic which you said are interchangable. You quoted Arabic letters.

I dont know where you read this brother, but
1. It is not the Rosetta Stone. Its a monument in Vienna. Rosetta stone was only the discovery that helped understand hieroglyphics. YOu have confused the information you saw.
2. It wasnt in a language the way you pose it. IT was in hieroglyphics. Cmon. Vowels on the stone?

Brother.

I did not expect you to come and do this. Neither did I expect you to go through the same path saying Dahaha does not mean Spherical. Dahy is egg. The word is still used in some countries. You can very well say that there could another meaning, but you cannot say that Dahaha does mean spherical.

Peace bro.

 

[firedragon]

Its easy to see when you read from differnt scriptures, the same pattern is there, I certanily don't believe that a god wrote them.

Not the same pattern, similar patterns. But there are very different patterns as well.

THe bible quotes two fathers for Joseph the father of Jesus. Whats the similarity with the Quran?

A very shallow reading will make you feel they are similar. Actually, not reading, hearing from others.

What most people do is, read only some parts. Read the whole book.

We believe there is a Divinity. One. Same message. Thus, of course the prophets are the same. Not similar, the same.

 

[psychoslice]

Not the same pattern, similar patterns. But there are very different patterns as well.

THe bible quotes two fathers for Joseph the father of Jesus. Whats the similarity with the Quran?

A very shallow reading will make you feel they are similar. Actually, not reading, hearing from others.

What most people do is, read only some parts. Read the whole book.

We believe there is a Divinity. One. Same message. Thus, of course the prophets are the same. Not similar, the same.

Thanks, but I cannot agree, all scriptures are someone's thoughts about how they see what we call God, but there is no God, so I cannot argue with scripture being true or not.

 

[firedragon]

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'?

Sanaa script. It is now firmly held that it is dated 671 with great accuracy.

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.

• Paleography does not suggest late7th century. What it suggests is that it could be as late as the late 7th century. It could also be late 6th century. The angle the letters are written, the height of it.
  
• Your source is bias, also not relevant because the Birmingham manuscript is skin. Bro, this is absurd.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

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.

A medieval forgery you say? Your source is lying.

And I am not referring to Sira.

Ill tell you what. Mail Daniel Wallace.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks, but I cannot agree, all scriptures are someone's thoughts about how they see what we call God, but there is no God, so I cannot argue with scripture being true or not.

Sure I understand.

 

[psychoslice]

Sure I understand.

And of course when I say there is no God that is my own opinion, I do respect your beliefs also.

 

[firedragon]

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.

• ITs an idea, no evidence and nonsensical.
  
• The audience of the Quran is me. I am the audience. ANd you.

"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

I would like to know where in the Quran are Jesus' disciples "from the new testament" mentioned. Thats a lie. An ignorant one.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

And of course when I say there is no God that is my own opinion, I do respect your beliefs also.

I know brother. You never have to explain that at all.

Cheers to you.

 

[Augustus]

Sanaa script. It is now firmly held that it is dated 671 with great accuracy.

No it isn't.

One radiocarbon dating suggests it is likely pre-671.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned about the Sanaa manuscript (which btw differs from the Uthmanic text), just pointing out that radiocarbon dating is nowhere near as exact a people like to think. This 99% accuracy stuff assumes correct calibration and as the 3 different radiocarbon dates on the Sanna manuscript show, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that calibration is correct.

• Paleography does not suggest late7th century. What it suggests is that it could be as late as the late 7th century. It could also be late 6th century. The angle the letters are written, the height of it.
  
• Your source is bias, also not relevant because the Birmingham manuscript is skin. Bro, this is absurd.

Why does it matter if it is skin? Tree rings are used to calibrate the machines as they store a record of the atmosphere. It's not about paper.

• Tree rings are used to calibrate radiocarbon measurements.
• Results calibration is necessary to account for changes in the global radiocarbon concentration over time.
• Radiocarbon measurements are usually reported in years BP with zero BP defined as AD 1950.
• Results of calibration are reported as age ranges calculated by the intercept method or the probability method, which use calibration curves.
• The internationally agreed calibration curves for the period reaching as far back as 2500 BC are those produced by Gordon Pearson and Minze Stuiver. source

And are you arguing that paleography shows that it is late 6th C? i.e. 590ish? Before Muhammed started receiving revelations? Before the evolution of the Arabic script? Now that's absurd.

Seeing as you previously dismissed a world renowned scholar as being intrinsically biased simply because he was not Muslim, will this be good enough for you? "Saud al-Sarhan, the director of research at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said he doubted that the manuscript found in Birmingham was as old as the researchers claimed, noting that its Arabic script included dots and separated chapters — features that were introduced later." source

This is the problem about sensationalist media headlines, now lots of Muslims have decided that it has been 'proved' that this Quran dates from the time of Muhammed. People who try to remain neutral and point out the more nuanced academic perspective on the issue are accused of 'absurd bias' and some kind of anti-Islamic agenda. I used the same arguments when people were trying to claim it 'proved' that the Quran pre-dated Muhammed so it works both ways.

People who are interested in history like to know what really happened, just because this doesn't match someone's theological agenda doesn't make them biased or anti-Islam. Try to remain more open minded.

 

[firedragon]

No it isn't.

One radiocarbon dating suggests it is likely pre-671.

Anyway, I'm not really concerned about the Sanaa manuscript (which btw differs from the Uthmanic text), just pointing out that radiocarbon dating is nowhere near as exact a people like to think. This 99% accuracy stuff assumes correct calibration and as the 3 different radiocarbon dates on the Sanna manuscript show, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that calibration is correct.



Why does it matter if it is skin? Tree rings are used to calibrate the machines as they store a record of the atmosphere. It's not about paper.

• Tree rings are used to calibrate radiocarbon measurements.
• Results calibration is necessary to account for changes in the global radiocarbon concentration over time.
• Radiocarbon measurements are usually reported in years BP with zero BP defined as AD 1950.
• Results of calibration are reported as age ranges calculated by the intercept method or the probability method, which use calibration curves.
• The internationally agreed calibration curves for the period reaching as far back as 2500 BC are those produced by Gordon Pearson and Minze Stuiver. source

And are you arguing that paleography shows that it is late 6th C? i.e. 590ish? Before Muhammed started receiving revelations? Before the evolution of the Arabic script? Now that's absurd.

Seeing as you previously dismissed a world renowned scholar as being intrinsically biased simply because he was not Muslim, will this be good enough for you? "Saud al-Sarhan, the director of research at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, said he doubted that the manuscript found in Birmingham was as old as the researchers claimed, noting that its Arabic script included dots and separated chapters — features that were introduced later." source

This is the problem about sensationalist media headlines, now lots of Muslims have decided that it has been 'proved' that this Quran dates from the time of Muhammed. People who try to remain neutral and point out the more nuanced academic perspective on the issue are accused of 'absurd bias' and some kind of anti-Islamic agenda. I used the same arguments when people were trying to claim it 'proved' that the Quran pre-dated Muhammed so it works both ways.

People who are interested in history like to know what really happened, just because this doesn't match someone's theological agenda doesn't make them biased or anti-Islam. Try to remain more open minded.

This argment about scripts and dating is going nowhere. ITs just absurd. you are ranging time periods that probability becomes close to 0. Arabic text you say wasnt developed until the 7th century? OMG.

Saud assarhans assessment was based on a find dating mid 7th century. That is also dating. But that does not conclude that the dots were only added later than that. debated.

None of this prove that the Quran is a copy of the bible.

 

[Augustus]

ITs an idea, no evidence and nonsensical.

There is plenty of evidence, a great deal in fact. This doesn't constitute proof, you can disagree with it if you like. Some Western academics disagree with it. When you say there is no evidence though you are displaying either ignorance or bias.

I personally find the evidence very persuasive, based both on the text of the Quran and the historical reality of the Late Antique Middle East. Arabia was not this distant far off land, and Christian Arab tribes had been providing large parts of the forces for the Roman and Persian armies for centuries. There had also been Jewish v Ethiopic Christian wars in Himyar in the 6th C. Early Muslims were said to have gone to the Negus of Ethiopia (a Roman client), early Muslims were said to have used Roman siege weapons and tactics suggesting some of the forces had previously fought with the Romans (which is almost certainly true anyway). One of the 4 hanifs became a 'viceroy' for the Romans, etc.

Early Islamic history for Muslims is theology, not academic history. These are 2 different fields and shouldn't be confused.

Medieval exegetes made up lots of things as they didn't know how to interpret passages of the Quran. Much of the sira was constructed around this. People couldn't even remember who the Sabeans were, one of a tiny number of 'people of the book'. Why should we trust them on minor issues? They managed to remember minutiae, but not something as significant as who the Sabeans were. Doesn't this seem strange?

Academic history is not an exact science, it requires educated guesses, assumptions and interpretation of ambiguous evidence. It rarely 'proves' anything, just offers up interpretations and descriptions with varying probabilities of being correct. And while your theology counts as evidence, it is not uncritically accepted and is treated the same as any other evidence and evaluated on its merits.

This is not biased, just a different methodology as used by Islamic theologians. If you prefer the theological methodology that's your choice and I have no arguments against it and no desire to challenge it (they are not compatible: one assumes God exists and intervenes, the other assumes God did not influence any of the events). I'm using the historical methodology and they are different approaches to the issue. Which one you prefer depends on your purpose, and mine is to examine the issue from using the methodology of academic history.

I would like to know where in the Quran are Jesus' disciples "from the new testament" mentioned. Thats a lie. An ignorant one.

Peace.

Good enough?

Al-i-Imran

Likewise confirming the truth of the Torah that is before me, and to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear you God, and obey you me. (50)Surely God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path".' (51)And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The Apostles said, 'We will be helpers of God; we believe in God; witness thou our submission. (52)

As-Saff

O believers, be you God's helpers, as Jesus, Mary's son, said to the Apostles. 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The Apostles said, 'We will be helpers of God.' And a party of the Children of Israel believed, and a party disbelieved. So We confirmed those who believed against their enemy, and they became masters. (14)

Al-Ma'ida

And when I inspired the Apostles: "Believe in Me and My Messenger"; they said, "We believe; witness Thou our submission."' (111)And when the Apostles said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down on us a Table out of heaven?' He said, 'Fear you God, if you are believers. (112)They said, 'We desire that we should eat of it and our hearts be at rest; and that we may know that thou hast spoken true to us, and that we may be among its witnesses.' (113)

This argment about scripts and dating is going nowhere.

My argument: The radiocarbon dating could be correct, but the text most likely dates late 7th C at the earliest for the paleographic reasons that I gave as supported by eminent Western and Muslim scholars. Also supported by the evidence that radiocarbon dating is frequently wrong as Shown by Sanaa and explained by the noted difficulties of calibrating the machines for Arabia with tree ring data from Europe and America.
Your argument: The radiocarbon dating is almost definitely accurate because it was in the newspaper.

Arabic text you say wasnt developed until the 7th century? OMG.

I stated the script was evolving at this time. For example, diacritical marks did not exist in the 6th C.

 

[Augustus]

None of this prove that the Quran is a copy of the bible.

I specifically pointed out that it is wrong to think of the Quran as a copy of the Bible. I pointed out an intertextual relationship clearly exists. This is practically undeniable and is supported by the Islamic tradition anyway.

My personal opinion is that many Quranic verses are a commentary on the Bible and related traditions, again something not incompatible with the Islamic viewpoint.


The Qurʾan’s Participation in a Larger Interpretive Tradition

Spoiler: long text

Thus the Qurʾan’s allusion to the laughter of sarah is apparently con- sistent with the biblical narrative of her laughter Yet a second prob- lem lurks beneath the apparent meaning of the pericope In the Hebrew Bible the report that sarah laughed, tiṣḥāq, explains the origin of Isaac’s name, Yiṣḥāq is etiology, however, is lost in the Arabic Qurʾan, since the verbal root for laughter (ḍ-ḥ-k) does not match the Arabic form of Isaac’s name, Isḥāq

Yet if Arabic Isḥāq does not match Hebrew Yiṣḥāq, it matches the syriac form of Isaac’s name precisely 11 Moreover, in syriac, too, the verbal root for laughter (g-ḥ-k) does not match Isaac’s name (Isḥāq) In syriac Christian literature, therefore, the etiology that is so promi- nent in the Hebrew Bible’s reference to sarah’s laughter disappears In its place, a new meaning for sarah’s laughter appears According to the traditional Christian typological reading, the annunciation to sarah foreshadows the annunciation to Mary e opening of the womb of sarah, who was long past childbearing age anticipates the opening of the womb of Mary, who hadn ot known man Luke himself shapes his description of the annunciation to Mary on the model of the annunciation to sarah In Gen 18, sarah asks herself, “now that I am past the age of childbearing and my husband is an old man, is pleasure to come my way again?” (v 12) In Luke 1:34, Mary wonders, “But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man ” In Gen 18:14, the Lord confirms the message, declaring, “nothing is impossible for the Lord ” In Luke 1:37, the angel reminds Mary, “nothing is impossible for God ” Finally, while sarah laughs in amaze- ment at the annunciation, Mary visits her cousin elizabeth, whose son John leaps in her womb at the approach of the unborn Jesus Mary then confesses her joy to elizabeth in the Magni cat (Luke 1:46–55) 12

Accordingly Mar ephrem, in his Hymn on Abraham and Isaac (§27), compares the laughter of sarah to John’s reaction at the approach of Mary and Jesus: “And as John by leaping, so sarah by laughing revealed the joy ”13 Moreover, and here is the key point, ephrem relates that sarah’s joy was not on account of her promised son Isaac, but rather on account of Jesus (§26): “sarah did not laugh because of Isaac, but because of the one who is born from Mary ” sarah’s laughter, therefore, is to ephrem a foreshadowing of Mary’s amazement at the annunciation of Jesus is typological parallel can also be found in the Qurʾan In Q 11:71, the divine voice relates bashsharnāha bi-isḥāq, “We announced to her the good news of Isaac,” while in Q 3:45 the angels say to Mary, inna llāha yubashshiruki bi kalimatin minhu, “God gives you good news of a word from him ” In Q 11:72 sarah responds, “Woe is me, shall I bear a child while I am an old woman, and this, my husband, is an old man, too? is is truly a very strange thing,” while in Q 3:47 Mary responds, “Lord, how can I have a child when no man has touched me?”

There is reason to believe, then, that in its reference to sarah’s laughter the Qurʾan is participating in an interpretive tradition, prominent in the thought of Syriac Christian writers like Ephrem, according to which the annunciation to Sarah is connected with that to Mary. In this case, at least, a clearer understanding of the Qurʾan emerges not by separating it from the Bible, but by joining the two together.

(from GS Reynolds - The case of Sarah's laughter)

 

[Augustus]

A medieval forgery you say? Your source is lying.

And I am not referring to Sira.

Ill tell you what. Mail Daniel Wallace.

If this the letter you are referring to then it is likely not authentic. As well as questions of why they would be offered protection by Muhammed over a decade before the invasion of Egypt, the letter contains anachronisms.

There appears to have been some claims of protection offered to the monks relatively early, and it is likely that this got 'backdated' to Muhammed. Either they protection was offered by later leaders, of the monks invented it to stave off persecution



In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

 

[firedragon]

There is plenty of evidence, a great deal in fact. This doesn't constitute proof, you can disagree with it if you like. Some Western academics disagree with it. When you say there is no evidence though you are displaying either ignorance or bias.

I personally find the evidence very persuasive, based both on the text of the Quran and the historical reality of the Late Antique Middle East. Arabia was not this distant far off land, and Christian Arab tribes had been providing large parts of the forces for the Roman and Persian armies for centuries. There had also been Jewish v Ethiopic Christian wars in Himyar in the 6th C. Early Muslims were said to have gone to the Negus of Ethiopia (a Roman client), early Muslims were said to have used Roman siege weapons and tactics suggesting some of the forces had previously fought with the Romans (which is almost certainly true anyway). One of the 4 hanifs became a 'viceroy' for the Romans, etc.

Early Islamic history for Muslims is theology, not academic history. These are 2 different fields and shouldn't be confused.

Medieval exegetes made up lots of things as they didn't know how to interpret passages of the Quran. Much of the sira was constructed around this. People couldn't even remember who the Sabeans were, one of a tiny number of 'people of the book'. Why should we trust them on minor issues? They managed to remember minutiae, but not something as significant as who the Sabeans were. Doesn't this seem strange?

Academic history is not an exact science, it requires educated guesses, assumptions and interpretation of ambiguous evidence. It rarely 'proves' anything, just offers up interpretations and descriptions with varying probabilities of being correct. And while your theology counts as evidence, it is not uncritically accepted and is treated the same as any other evidence and evaluated on its merits.

This is not biased, just a different methodology as used by Islamic theologians. If you prefer the theological methodology that's your choice and I have no arguments against it and no desire to challenge it (they are not compatible: one assumes God exists and intervenes, the other assumes God did not influence any of the events). I'm using the historical methodology and they are different approaches to the issue. Which one you prefer depends on your purpose, and mine is to examine the issue from using the methodology of academic history.



Good enough?

Al-i-Imran

Likewise confirming the truth of the Torah that is before me, and to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear you God, and obey you me. (50)Surely God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path".' (51)And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The Apostles said, 'We will be helpers of God; we believe in God; witness thou our submission. (52)

As-Saff

O believers, be you God's helpers, as Jesus, Mary's son, said to the Apostles. 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The Apostles said, 'We will be helpers of God.' And a party of the Children of Israel believed, and a party disbelieved. So We confirmed those who believed against their enemy, and they became masters. (14)

Al-Ma'ida

And when I inspired the Apostles: "Believe in Me and My Messenger"; they said, "We believe; witness Thou our submission."' (111)And when the Apostles said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down on us a Table out of heaven?' He said, 'Fear you God, if you are believers. (112)They said, 'We desire that we should eat of it and our hearts be at rest; and that we may know that thou hast spoken true to us, and that we may be among its witnesses.' (113)



My argument: The radiocarbon dating could be correct, but the text most likely dates late 7th C at the earliest for the paleographic reasons that I gave as supported by eminent Western and Muslim scholars. Also supported by the evidence that radiocarbon dating is frequently wrong as Shown by Sanaa and explained by the noted difficulties of calibrating the machines for Arabia with tree ring data from Europe and America.
Your argument: The radiocarbon dating is almost definitely accurate because it was in the newspaper.



I stated the script was evolving at this time. For example, diacritical marks did not exist in the 6th C.

Mate. Of course Islam is an Abrahamic theology. In fact, the Quran tells us that we follow the Millat Ibrahim. There is no argument on that.

The problem is in saying it is solely based on that. The Quran is not a copy of older documents. I can understand from your point of view since you dont believe in the prophethood of Muhammed you will see it in a different way. I mean, any book if it carries older stories, they have been taken from older narrations or books.

The argument against that idea is that the Quran does not contain the blatant errors the bible has. It does not contain almost pornographic nonsense the bible has. It does not have stupid teachings like "Eating shi(t) like Barley Cakes" and prophets walking naked. Also it does not have the rampant contradictions the bible has. A simple thing about Noahs story, Bible talks of the great flood, Quran talks of a local flood. One flood could never span the whole earth. It is dumb. Thus Muhammed had to have filtered what he picked up then.

Then he dedicated his life to do that. A lot of work. The Quran is definitely the same religion. The same God. And I agree with you, you cant prove historically that the Quran was never influenced. Its stupid to even say that Muslims never had any interactions with Jews or Christians. And you dont have to seriously quote old interactions with the Arabs. Thats absurd. The Arabs, Romans, etc had links with even Asian countries.

The point is, the Quran is not copied from the bible. Its not a historical or theological question. Its a scriptural question.

I asked a specific question, Griffith makes a fleeting statement in that introduction that the Quran mentions "New Testament" apostles. It is not New Testament apostles as if it cites names.

Brother, of course the Quran cites the Disciples. But not by name. Nor are they from the NT. Quran mentions Hawarriyun. Disciples. Jesus's disciples. They proclaim Iman or Amanna, we believe and that they are Muslims.

 

[firedragon]

If this the letter you are referring to then it is likely not authentic. As well as questions of why they would be offered protection by Muhammed over a decade before the invasion of Egypt, the letter contains anachronisms.

There appears to have been some claims of protection offered to the monks relatively early, and it is likely that this got 'backdated' to Muhammed. Either they protection was offered by later leaders, of the monks invented it to stave off persecution



In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

The theory is that Muhammed had a good relationship with the Monks and that the monks feared they will be invaded and wanted an assurance. You are right, the conquest did happen after the prophet. To say that he wont give a letter before dies is not quite right, he could have given the letter for future protection.

The monks at the church narrate that Muhammed had a good relationship with them. He had visited them. But there is no written proof to say that. Some do say that the Monks forged this document. But there is no basis.