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

[Tumah]

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.

The Rabbis of the Midrash are not prophets nor do they claim to be. You are making the argument that the traditions of the Rabbis are valid.

The Biblical narrative blames Adam, Eve and the snake. All three are cursed explicitly in the passage.

You are also, in the same response, telling me that the narratives are similar because its one G-d many prophets and dissimilar because the Bible blames Eve and the Qur'an, both. How do you rationalize this?

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 don't think you understand what I was saying. The sounds of the hieroglyphics as they are understood do not contain vowels.

This is the name and transliteration of it into English letters as it appears on the doorpost. Do you see what I'm saying?

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.

Baida is an egg. The word is still used in all Arabic speaking countries. Dahy (duhiya) is not a root word. Dahaha can't be derived from there. The root word is da-ha-wa which means to spread out. This follows well with all the other verses in the Qur'an describing Allah as having spread out the earth flat. The only ones who make this argument are some Muslims. If you ask none-Muslims or look at any regular translation, it says "spread out".
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=79&verse=30

 

[Augustus]

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.

To deal with just one point (there are more):

The use of the term Muslims itself is probably anachronistic. There is no recorded usage of the term until late 7th C in any source outside the Quran or on any inscriptions, graffiti, etc. Prior to this it is always variants on believers (mu'minun), and emigrants (muhajirun) from the 'Muslims' and saracens, Ismaelites and Hagarenes from the non-Muslims.

This is what the historical record shows anyway.

All of a sudden the term became popular and starts to appear in the historical records, suggesting it started to be used around this time rather than had always been in common usage.

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.

He is making an inference (and a justifiable one at that), you disagree. It's not too important to the general point he was making though. It is arguable that by not naming them, he assumes the reader is familiar with who they are.

The Quran seems to do this a lot. Resultantly, it wouldn't make sense to pagans who are totally unaware of the Biblical traditions. I feel the evidence is compelling that the people who Muhammed gave his message to in the 7th C were already scripturally literate.

The only reason to believe otherwise is that the Islamic tradition and sira says differently. I don't trust these as sources of history any more than I trust the gospels as giving an accurate portrayal of the historical Jesus.

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...

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.

Let's try to find some common ground.

First of all, I think you are still misunderstanding my position in this. There are others in this thread who are arguing that the Quran is copied/plagiarised, but I am not (in fact I frequently argue against it here - you can find these via the search function).

Moreover, I don't even see what I am arguing as being incompatible with Islamic beliefs (there are academics who are Muslim who hold similar views). It is of interest to some Muslims (not a large number yet admittedly) who want to know about the teachings of the historical Muhammed rather than what some medieval theologians made up about him.

Using the historical methodology, God cannot be used as an explanation. This is a fundamental assumption for the methodology and not something that is questioned. If God was the source, as per theological methodology, then it would obviously be wrong. I'm not arguing about which is better, just saying which one I'll be using.

So the historian says if this didn't come from God, where did it come from?

If you look at the text alone, ignoring all of the exegesis and traditions built up around it, you can see that it frequently refers to Biblical characters. In many of these cases though, it doesn't tell you about these people and give you their backstories, it uses them to make a rhetorical point. This is solid evidence that the people to whom Muhammed gave his message already knew who these figures were.

I quoted the example of 'Sarah's laughter', that totally confused medieval exegetes who genuinely had no idea why she laughed. Anyone who understood the Biblical story though (Isaac even means he will laugh), can understand why she laughed. You even need to know the story simply to know who the woman is, as the Quran doesn't name her.

I think that the Quran is clearly from a scripturally literate environment - something that even has traces is the sira, and allusions to in the Quran (these messages had been sent to previous prophets however the true meaning was corrupted).

This is an argument against copying/plagiarism as you can't 'plagiarise' what is commonly known and accepted in the cultural environment (It would be like saying Tolkien 'plagiarised' the concept of dragons in his books).

The Quran is not attempting to be an exact replacement of existing scriptures, it is commenting on them. The presence of existing material is needed in order to comment on them. You can't review a book without referring to its content. That the Quran seeks to comment on/correct previous traditions is compatible with the Islamic perspective after all.

The difference being a human as the source rather than God.

There is a very big difference between being a 'copier/plagiarist' and being a commentator, interpreter or 'warner' [divinely guided or otherwise].

What do you think of Reynolds case for why Sarah laughed btw? I'd be interested in your opinion.

 

[firedragon]

The Rabbis of the Midrash are not prophets nor do they claim to be. You are making the argument that the traditions of the Rabbis are valid.

You think Rabbis just cooked the information up?
Where did they get the information from?

The Biblical narrative blames Adam, Eve and the snake. All three are cursed explicitly in the passage.

You are also, in the same response, telling me that the narratives are similar because its one G-d many prophets and dissimilar because the Bible blames Eve and the Qur'an, both. How do you rationalize this?

I cant believe this is necessary.

Bible

1. God made created in six days (Days with day and night. 24 hour days. If some argue those days hours would have been long, still they were day with night and day).
2. He rested the next day and he was refreshed (God needs to be refreshed)
3. God puts man or Adam in the garden of Eden and tells him not eat from the tree of knowledge.
4. God makes all the animals and birds etc. Then brings them all for Adam to see (All creatures of earth in one place!)
   
5. Adam names all the animals.
6. Then when Adam was made to sleep, God takes his rib and out of that creates Eve. (God needs Adams rib to make Eve?)
7. She was called she because she was taken out of man.
   
8. The serpent tells the woman that she would not surely die if she eats off the tree and somehow entices her.
9. It was the woman who eats first and gives the husband as well.
10. When questioned, Adam tells that the woman gave him the fruit.
    
11. The snake is cursed to go on his belly, (Wonder if he had wings prior to that) And the snake will eat dust forever.
    
12. God will create enmity between the serpent and the woman.
    
13. The womans punishment is conception. Childbirth will be painful and that will be her punishment, all women, forever. (I wonder if all female animals were cursed too, because Im sure it hurts at childbirth)
14. Womans desire will be towards the man and the man will rule over her.
15. Adam is only punished because he listened to his wife and ate the fruit and his punishment is nothing compared to the admonishment the woman received.

Quran

1. God made the universe in six days.
2. Nothing about resting
3. There is no Garden of Eden
4. God teaches Adam the names.
   
5. Adam does not name the Animals.
   
6. God didnt need Adams rib to create the woman.
7. She was not called she because she was taken out of man. She was woman, he was man, from the beginning. Man is not superior.
8. Both of them are enticed to eat off the tree.
9. Both of them face the blame equally.
10. Both of them are guilty.
11. The serpent would have always been on his belly. Probably. Going on his belly is not his punishment.
    
12. No enmity towards the serpent or anything like that.
    
13. There is no nonsense like her pregnancy is the punishment. A punishment all women inherit due to Eves mistake.
    
14. Man ruling women is not there. IN fact its harmony.

The Quran says Adam is a prophet of God. THe Quran also says that Moses, Abraham etc are prophets. When they come, they will bring the same message of monotheism, and they will all narrate the stories God deems fit for us to know. How did Adam enter the Torah? Did Adam write it on his own? Well obviously someone later narrated that story. Probably Moses. Thats how the stories are similar in the bible and the Quran.

But the Quran is not copied off the bible. It was given directly to Muhammed. Thats why the Quran does not have this nonsense.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. The sounds of the hieroglyphics as they are understood do not contain vowels.

This is the name and transliteration of it into English letters as it appears on the doorpost. Do you see what I'm saying?

BTW, how do you put an image like that?

Brother, you quoted Arabic letters to me. And you said nonsensical things like He and He can be interchanged. No they cannot, Both he's have different pronunciations. Or how do I say accentuations. This is hieroglyphics, then how could you say that He and he can be interchanged? Brother, you had looked at answering Islam. That website has a lot of errors. Nevertheless please note the below point, in order to debunk some Quranic information, a lot of people do look at things very shallowly. Dont do that, there is no gain.

It is not the same as the English letters hmn. Its Ha. Ma. Na. Just like Arabic. Without vowels, both would read the same.

Baida is an egg. The word is still used in all Arabic speaking countries. Dahy (duhiya) is not a root word. Dahaha can't be derived from there. The root word is da-ha-wa which means to spread out. This follows well with all the other verses in the Qur'an describing Allah as having spread out the earth flat. The only ones who make this argument are some Muslims. If you ask none-Muslims or look at any regular translation, it says "spread out".
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=79&verse=30

My God.

Baida is egg, lol thats what google translate will return. But do you with confidence say that Dahaha cannot mean egg? Impossible? You should check a lexicon rather than just fishing off the web and places like answering this and answering that. (Actually its Lad. not Dal, so its Baidha(l)thun. I really dont how to explain the correct word in English.

And what kind of person even says something like Dahy is not a root word? I cant believe this. Bro, without knowing anything why do you just blurt things out like this? OF course Dahy is not a root word. This is not the motessory.

Dahaha literally means egged it. Daha means Egg Shaped or the shape of an egg. Ask me what Dahiyah means, I would say egg shape. Ask an Arab beduin, he would say ostrich egg.

Anyway, the point was that while copying the bible, why did Muhammed not copy the unscientific bible description of the earth being flat, and circular in two different places? Oh, because he heard only the good and decent parts of the bible. Everything is on hearsay.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

The use of the term Muslims itself is probably anachronistic. There is no recorded usage of the term until late 7th C in any source outside the Quran or on any inscriptions, graffiti, etc. Prior to this it is always variants on believers (mu'minun), and emigrants (muhajirun) from the 'Muslims' and saracens, Ismaelites and Hagarenes from the non-Muslims.

This is what the historical record shows anyway.

All of a sudden the term became popular and starts to appear in the historical records, suggesting it started to be used around this time rather than had always been in common usage.

Either you believe Muhammed wrote that doc or not, you have to decide. Muslim is not a word like Buddhist. Its a description, not a name.

Can you say something like "anti theist" was never ever used before a particular time? Do you understand what I say?

ANywya, thats an argument you will not understand.

Do you accept that the Quran was narrated by the prophet Muhammed? If that is the case, the QUran has the word Muslim, obviously right? If the book was narrated by Muhammed, the word existed before Abu Bakr. Isnt that obvious?

Now that point I made is only with the preconceived notion that you dont understand Arabic. If you do, I can explain in a different way. But, simply, its not a name.. Its a description, like Mu - safer. Traveller.

First of all, I think you are still misunderstanding my position in this. There are others in this thread who are arguing that the Quran is copied/plagiarised, but I am not (in fact I frequently argue against it here - you can find these via the search function).

Bro, if I did misunderstand your position, I am sorry.

Moreover, I don't even see what I am arguing as being incompatible with Islamic beliefs (there are academics who are Muslim who hold similar views). It is of interest to some Muslims (not a large number yet admittedly) who want to know about the teachings of the historical Muhammed rather than what some medieval theologians made up about him.

Using the historical methodology, God cannot be used as an explanation. This is a fundamental assumption for the methodology and not something that is questioned. If God was the source, as per theological methodology, then it would obviously be wrong. I'm not arguing about which is better, just saying which one I'll be using.

So the historian says if this didn't come from God, where did it come from?

You are right. This theological stuf are not historical. And to you, divinity will be a joke. Of course I see that. Also, mostly justified.

But thats an argument to be taken separately, hope you can agree on that!

But also, like an amatuer, you say theological mythology. Alright, maybe I should fetch a bib.

If you look at the text alone, ignoring all of the exegesis and traditions built up around it, you can see that it frequently refers to Biblical characters. In many of these cases though, it doesn't tell you about these people and give you their backstories, it uses them to make a rhetorical point. This is solid evidence that the people to whom Muhammed gave his message already knew who these figures were.

I quoted the example of 'Sarah's laughter', that totally confused medieval exegetes who genuinely had no idea why she laughed. Anyone who understood the Biblical story though (Isaac even means he will laugh), can understand why she laughed. You even need to know the story simply to know who the woman is, as the Quran doesn't name her.

I think that the Quran is clearly from a scripturally literate environment - something that even has traces is the sira, and allusions to in the Quran (these messages had been sent to previous prophets however the true meaning was corrupted).

This is an argument against copying/plagiarism as you can't 'plagiarise' what is commonly known and accepted in the cultural environment (It would be like saying Tolkien 'plagiarised' the concept of dragons in his books).

The Quran is not attempting to be an exact replacement of existing scriptures, it is commenting on them. The presence of existing material is needed in order to comment on them. You can't review a book without referring to its content. That the Quran seeks to comment on/correct previous traditions is compatible with the Islamic perspective after all.

The difference being a human as the source rather than God.

There is a very big difference between being a 'copier/plagiarist' and being a commentator, interpreter or 'warner' [divinely guided or otherwise].

What do you think of Reynolds case for why Sarah laughed btw? I'd be interested in your opinion.

Bro, Sarahs laugh is something many people use in their Phd thesis. It is so common.

I agree, the bible has 66, 73 r 75 books. Normally. I have not thought of the ethiopean canon

Which bible did Muhammed comment upon?

The bible is a much larger volume than the Quran. And since it was also a document that talks of God, it might have more details on some persons story than the Quran.

But, at least, do you agree that the Quranic stories make more sense? Do you agree?

e.g. Noahs flood was the GREAT FLOOD.
Qurans Noahs flood was a local flood.

Bible says the earth is flat.
Quran does not say thaat.

Bible says that Jesus had two grand fathers.

This has no basis for you I think. See tha thing is you cant historically prove this topic. Its absurd.

In that case, first it should be established that there is a God or a divinity and the Quran is a revelation.

Muhammed narrated the Quran. I believe we have consensus on that.
In that case, why did he mention Jesus 25 times, also Adam instead of himself.

Why is Mary mentioned more than the bible. 32 times. Bible 18 times.
Also, you must realise that the NT has four Gospels that have the same story said in four ways. THe number of times you mention something is dubious dut to the repetition of the same story.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [2]

[67:11]And they will say, ‘If we had but listened or possessed sense, we should not have been among the inmates of the blazing Fire.’​

[67:12]Then will they confess their sins; but far away are the inmates of the blazing Firefrom God’s mercy.
[67:13]Verily, those who fear their Lord in secret — for them is forgiveness and a great reward.
[67:14]And whether you conceal what you say or make it public, He knows full well what is inyourbreasts.
[67:15]Does He Who has createdyounot knowit? He is the Knower of all subtleties, the All-Aware.
[67:16]He it is Who has made the earth even and smooth for you; so traverse through its sides, and eat of His provision. And unto Him will be the resurrection.
[67:17]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause the earth to sink with you when lo! it begins to shake?
[67:18]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not send against you a sandstorm? Then will you know howterriblewas My warning.
[67:19]And indeed those before them also treatedMy Messengersas liars; then howgrievouswas My punishment!
[67:20]Have they not seen the birds above them, spreading out their wings without movingthemand then drawingtheminto swoop down upon the prey? None withholds them but the GraciousGod. Verily He sees all things.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=11

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

 

[sojourner]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [2]

[67:11]And they will say, ‘If we had but listened or possessed sense, we should not have been among the inmates of the blazing Fire.’​

[67:12]Then will they confess their sins; but far away are the inmates of the blazing Firefrom God’s mercy.
[67:13]Verily, those who fear their Lord in secret — for them is forgiveness and a great reward.
[67:14]And whether you conceal what you say or make it public, He knows full well what is inyourbreasts.
[67:15]Does He Who has createdyounot knowit? He is the Knower of all subtleties, the All-Aware.
[67:16]He it is Who has made the earth even and smooth for you; so traverse through its sides, and eat of His provision. And unto Him will be the resurrection.
[67:17]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause the earth to sink with you when lo! it begins to shake?
[67:18]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not send against you a sandstorm? Then will you know howterriblewas My warning.
[67:19]And indeed those before them also treatedMy Messengersas liars; then howgrievouswas My punishment!
[67:20]Have they not seen the birds above them, spreading out their wings without movingthemand then drawingtheminto swoop down upon the prey? None withholds them but the GraciousGod. Verily He sees all things.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=11

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

Please prove that they haven't been. Every religion borrows from what came before it. for example, the biblical flood narrative is borrowed from the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic, even though the sets, window dressings, words, and characters are different. The root metaphor is the same. The root metaphor here of the warning of God's wrath is almost identical to that found in the bible.

 

[Augustus]

Do you accept that the Quran was narrated by the prophet Muhammed? If that is the case, the QUran has the word Muslim, obviously right? If the book was narrated by Muhammed, the word existed before Abu Bakr. Isnt that obvious?

Now that point I made is only with the preconceived notion that you dont understand Arabic. If you do, I can explain in a different way. But, simply, its not a name.. Its a description, like Mu - safer. Traveller.

I noted that the word was used in the Quran, I said it didn't seem to be a term in common usage to describe the people until late 7th C.

"It is by now commonly known that the early followers of the Prophet Muḥammad were not primarily titled Muslims, muslimūn. Rather, the documentary Arabic evidence shows that they called themselves “Believers,” muʾminūn.1 It must be admitted that there are some Qurʾānic passages where muslimūn and islām seem to be employed as technical terms. The most compelling is Q. 22:78, “He (God) has named you al- muslimīn.”2 But outside the Qurʾān, the word Islam, as a name of the religion, appears for the first time on the tombstone of a woman named ʿAbbāsa dated 71 Ah / 691 Ce.3 There, the Believers are called ahl al- islām. The first definitely datable evidence of the usage of the word muslimūn, in the sense of adherents of Islam, is from 123 Ah / 741 Ce,4 although it was probably used widely even before that.5 Thus, the change from a “community of Believers to [a] community of Muslims”6 was a rather slow one, at least appellation- wise. Islam seems to have been a distinct religion from early on,7 but it took some decades, if not more, for its characteristics to become shaped." (Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/ Seventh Century Muslims - I Lindstedt)

This isn't the only issue with the authenticity of the document though. It contains a drawing of a mosque with a design that appeared in the 10th C and is written in a later script for example [athough as the existing document is acknowledged to be a copy anyway you could argue that these were added by the scribe who copied it].

Bro, Sarahs laugh is something many people use in their Phd thesis. It is so common.

Yet something so simple perplexed some of the greatest medieval theologians. It was not understandable to them as they didn't know the Biblical story. The Quranic narrative assumes knowledge of the Biblical narrative:

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.

In my opinion, this is because there was an ongoing attempt to distance Islam from the other religions and a 'history' emerged to support this. This, however, made people less able to understand the Quran. As you can see, when they didn't understand they guessed and made things up [such as Abraha's attack on the Kabaa]

Why do you think that Tabari et al clearly didn't understand something so simple and instead made wild guesses as to its meaning?

But also, like an amatuer, you say theological mythology.

In ancient times 'history' was not an attempt to objectively describe real events. History was a tool to explain the present (and possibly future). As I said before, the value of these texts from a theological perspective is not dependent on them meeting the criteria of academic history. They are 2 different methodologies with 2 different purposes.

Muslims take great meaning from these stories and I respect that and have no intention to challenge that. In terms of history though, I treat them the same way we treat the history of the Romans, Vikings, Western colonialism or the Napoleonic Wars.

Do you think that the sirah is generally very accurate as academic history? Do you think that a non-Muslim historian being honest and objective should find it very accurate based on the available evidence?

Which bible did Muhammed comment upon?

Mostly Syriac.

It wasn't specifically the Bible though, it was a larger corpus of mostly Syriac religious tradition including canonical and non canonical texts, church orders, Midrashic traditions and folk tales such as the 7 sleepers of Ephesus and the Syriac Neṣḥānā d-leh d- Aleksandrōs [the victory of Alexander, part of a broader Alexander romance tradition], etc.

The names of Biblical characters for example are derived from their Syriac names, specific religious terminology, most hapax legomena are also derived from Syriac and Dhul Qarnayan/Alexander is from the Syriac version.

As a collection of religious teachings, commentaries, etc. the Quran covers a wide range of contemporary religious issues. The word Quran itself is an etymon of Syriac qǝryānā, "reading of scripture in Divine Service”.

But, at least, do you agree that the Quranic stories make more sense? Do you agree?

Stories make sense if they have meaning for people. Some get more meaning from the Quran, others from the Bible.

I'm not religious, but don't see religious texts as being things which should be interpreted as books of facts that are right or wrong. The Bible was written by numerous authors over hundreds of years and unsurprisingly contains contradictions and factual inaccuracies.

As a work of history, cosmology, etc. it doesn't stand up, but this is not its purpose (or the purpose of the Quran). They are religious texts.

 

[firedragon]

I noted that the word was used in the Quran, I said it didn't seem to be a term in common usage to describe the people until late 7th C.

"It is by now commonly known that the early followers of the Prophet Muḥammad were not primarily titled Muslims, muslimūn. Rather, the documentary Arabic evidence shows that they called themselves “Believers,” muʾminūn.1 It must be admitted that there are some Qurʾānic passages where muslimūn and islām seem to be employed as technical terms. The most compelling is Q. 22:78, “He (God) has named you al- muslimīn.”2 But outside the Qurʾān, the word Islam, as a name of the religion, appears for the first time on the tombstone of a woman named ʿAbbāsa dated 71 Ah / 691 Ce.3 There, the Believers are called ahl al- islām. The first definitely datable evidence of the usage of the word muslimūn, in the sense of adherents of Islam, is from 123 Ah / 741 Ce,4 although it was probably used widely even before that.5 Thus, the change from a “community of Believers to [a] community of Muslims”6 was a rather slow one, at least appellation- wise. Islam seems to have been a distinct religion from early on,7 but it took some decades, if not more, for its characteristics to become shaped." (Muhājirūn as a Name for the First/ Seventh Century Muslims - I Lindstedt)

This isn't the only issue with the authenticity of the document though. It contains a drawing of a mosque with a design that appeared in the 10th C and is written in a later script for example [athough as the existing document is acknowledged to be a copy anyway you could argue that these were added by the scribe who copied it].

Please my friend, why do you quote this kind of thing? Why do you assume that no one has read these things?

The Quran has the phrase Muslim. The Quran was narrated by the prophet Muhammed. Thus, in any of his documents he can easily use that phrase to refer to people.

The original is known to have been replaced about 500 years ago. But largely, even conservative scholars agree that the monastry actually had this document and used it with the invaders. That is why the theory that it was forged by the monks arose.

).

Yet something so simple perplexed some of the greatest medieval theologians. It was not understandable to them as they didn't know the Biblical story. The Quranic narrative assumes knowledge of the Biblical narrative:

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.

In my opinion, this is because there was an ongoing attempt to distance Islam from the other religions and a 'history' emerged to support this. This, however, made people less able to understand the Quran. As you can see, when they didn't understand they guessed and made things up [such as Abraha's attack on the Kabaa]

Why do you think that Tabari et al clearly didn't understand something so simple and instead made wild guesses as to its meaning?

Is that all?

I agree with you. Not only you my friend, I agree with Reynolds, Waleed, Bruce etc. I also appreciate you quoting sources. You even quoted one I respect and studied under. I dont intend to discuss these theories. Some of them make no sense, some of them dont even make sense of pursuing.

The thing is this. That does not make any changes to the Quranic standpoint. None. Quran was narrated to us through Muhammed. It was a separate narration. BUt thats a purely Quranic standpoint. Not a historical standpoint. THey do not go hand in hand. So, this discussion is fruitless.

In ancient times 'history' was not an attempt to objectively describe real events. History was a tool to explain the present (and possibly future). As I said before, the value of these texts from a theological perspective is not dependent on them meeting the criteria of academic history. They are 2 different methodologies with 2 different purposes.

Muslims take great meaning from these stories and I respect that and have no intention to challenge that. In terms of history though, I treat them the same way we treat the history of the Romans, Vikings, Western colonialism or the Napoleonic Wars.

Do you think that the sirah is generally very accurate as academic history? Do you think that a non-Muslim historian being honest and objective should find it very accurate based on the available evidence?

Nope. I dont.

Mostly Syriac.

It wasn't specifically the Bible though, it was a larger corpus of mostly Syriac religious tradition including canonical and non canonical texts, church orders, Midrashic traditions and folk tales such as the 7 sleepers of Ephesus and the Syriac Neṣḥānā d-leh d- Aleksandrōs [the victory of Alexander, part of a broader Alexander romance tradition], etc.

The names of Biblical characters for example are derived from their Syriac names, specific religious terminology, most hapax legomena are also derived from Syriac and Dhul Qarnayan/Alexander is from the Syriac version.

As a collection of religious teachings, commentaries, etc. the Quran covers a wide range of contemporary religious issues. The word Quran itself is an etymon of Syriac qǝryānā, "reading of scripture in Divine Service”.

I asked you which bible. Not the language.

The word Quran came from Qaryana? Who said that?
Jeffreys and/or Luxenberg's work dont provide that conclusion.

Indians call their father Appa. Koreans also call em Appa. Dont you the similarity in Pithar and Vidar? Or Vader and Father? Or Mother and Matha.

That does not make a difference. Siriac, Aramaic, Hebrew all have so many similarities. And all have the same root.
Hell, the English language is made up of so many borrowings. Obviously.

Stories make sense if they have meaning for people. Some get more meaning from the Quran, others from the Bible.

I'm not religious, but don't see religious texts as being things which should be interpreted as books of facts that are right or wrong. The Bible was written by numerous authors over hundreds of years and unsurprisingly contains contradictions and factual inaccuracies.

As a work of history, cosmology, etc. it doesn't stand up, but this is not its purpose (or the purpose of the Quran). They are religious texts.

My question was to you. Why are you giving general answers from a third party view. You are intelligent, try and understand this.

If I ask you if the Voodoo card or ATI Radeon is better, whats better out of the two of them, you can say Both are not good.

But that does not answer my question.

And may I remind you, we were discussing bible and Quran. They are both religious texts.

 

[firedragon]

Please prove that they haven't been. Every religion borrows from what came before it. for example, the biblical flood narrative is borrowed from the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic, even though the sets, window dressings, words, and characters are different. The root metaphor is the same. The root metaphor here of the warning of God's wrath is almost identical to that found in the bible.

Have you read the Gilgamesh?

Anyway, I would like avoid an argument on this, though I must say that if your assessment is that the bible copied the great flood story from Gilgamesh Epic then Gilgamesh could have picked it up form an old book. Maybe the story of Noah itself.

Also, Nostradamus will be proven divine because he narrated about a person similar to Hitler.

I understand that you are talking from a rational historic point of view, but there are so many possibilities.

 

[sojourner]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [2]

[67:11]And they will say, ‘If we had but listened or possessed sense, we should not have been among the inmates of the blazing Fire.’​

[67:12]Then will they confess their sins; but far away are the inmates of the blazing Firefrom God’s mercy.
[67:13]Verily, those who fear their Lord in secret — for them is forgiveness and a great reward.
[67:14]And whether you conceal what you say or make it public, He knows full well what is inyourbreasts.
[67:15]Does He Who has createdyounot knowit? He is the Knower of all subtleties, the All-Aware.
[67:16]He it is Who has made the earth even and smooth for you; so traverse through its sides, and eat of His provision. And unto Him will be the resurrection.
[67:17]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause the earth to sink with you when lo! it begins to shake?
[67:18]Do you feel secure from Him Who is in the heaven that He will not send against you a sandstorm? Then will you know howterriblewas My warning.
[67:19]And indeed those before them also treatedMy Messengersas liars; then howgrievouswas My punishment!
[67:20]Have they not seen the birds above them, spreading out their wings without movingthemand then drawingtheminto swoop down upon the prey? None withholds them but the GraciousGod. Verily He sees all things.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=11

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

Please prove that they haven't been. Every religion borrows from what came before it. for example, the biblical flood narrative is borrowed from the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic, even though the sets, window dressings, words, and characters are different. The root metaphor is the same. The root metaphor of the warning of God's wrath is almost identical to that found in the bible.

Have you read the Gilgamesh?

Anyway, I would like avoid an argument on this, though I must say that if your assessment is that the bible copied the great flood story from Gilgamesh Epic then Gilgamesh could have picked it up form an old book. Maybe the story of Noah itself.

Also, Nostradamus will be proven divine because he narrated about a person similar to Hitler.

I understand that you are talking from a rational historic point of view, but there are so many possibilities.

Gilgamesh is far older than the biblical story of Noah. Most OT scholars worth their salt know the origin of the flood narrative -- which appears in many ancient cultures, all hearking back to Gilgamesh.

 

[Augustus]

Please my friend, why do you quote this kind of thing? Why do you assume that no one has read these things?

I don't assume people haven't read them, I post them in case anyone is interested in them. It's sort of the purpose of a forum such as these.

It also provides evidence to support my contention that the use of the term as a description for the community of believers is likely an anachronism.

The Quran has the phrase Muslim. The Quran was narrated by the prophet Muhammed. Thus, in any of his documents he can easily use that phrase to refer to people.

The original is known to have been replaced about 500 years ago. But largely, even conservative scholars agree that the monastry actually had this document and used it with the invaders. That is why the theory that it was forged by the monks arose.

He could use the phrase, but to me given the choice between a) it was commonly used by the early Muslims, then they forgot what they were supposed to be called for nearly a century, then they remembered and it became commonly used again b) it wasn't commonly used until the late 7th/early 8th C [when it likely gained currency due to evolving religious identity]

It's not a fact. It's not impossible that it could have been used, just unlikely. Numerous other things make it even less likely that the document is authentic, including the 2 other anachronisms and the strange situation that they are being 'protected' by Muhammed 10 years before the invasion of Egypt, the existence of other 'letters' of dubious provenance etc.

It can't be 'proved' either way, balance of probabilities says that it is inauthentic.

Nope. I dont.

Given that this is the main source of the idea of the Quran's revelation happening in a polytheistic pagan environment, and seems to be incongruent with the nature of the Quranic text and also contemporary understanding of the late antique ME, why should we trust the 'pagan Arabs' narrative?

Why do you find it so absurd to believe that the Quran was revealed in/grew out of an environment that was already mostly Abrahamic and integrated with the broader ME rather than an isolated pagan backwater?

I asked you which bible. Not the language.

What do you mean 'which Bible?' I'm not saying he copied a Bible, I'm saying the Quran reflects an Abrahamic environment, specifically the Syriac Christian traditions. Many of these individual texts and traditions can be identified. Syriac Gospel of Matthew, Protoevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the neshana, Didascalia Apostletorum, etc.

These weren't "a Bible", but there are clear similarities between these and certain Quranic passages. You might disagree why there are similarities, but do you agree that such close similarities exist?

The word Quran came from Qaryana? Who said that?
Jeffreys and/or Luxenberg's work dont provide that conclusion.

This is why I sometimes include quotes

Guillaume Dye - Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic


From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic PsalmsĪ as well as Qur’ānic madrā ē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. ν don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrā ē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic sa ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. Indeed, 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 Scripture73.

My question was to you.

Can you define what you mean by 'make more sense'?

What criteria am I supposed to be using to make this value judgement?

They aren't exactly 'like for like' either, it's a bit like saying which is better milk or bread, rather than graphics card A or card B.

The Bible contains complete narratives so it is easier to understand and make more 'sense' in this regard. The Quran is more poetic and allusive and doesn't try to narrate the stories though so I can't compare them on this regard.

The Bible contains more clear 'mistakes', but it is longer and its narrative prose make it harder to rationalise such 'mistakes' when compared to the poetic and allusive Quran where such things are easier to explain away as metaphors and other rhetorical techniques. The lack of narrative also means ideas are more malleable [so that the flood can be said to be local even though that isn't actually stated] and people can easier reinterpret passages to say what they want (like the 'Scientific miracles' fad). So I can't really compare them on this regard either.

 

[firedragon]

Please prove that they haven't been. Every religion borrows from what came before it. for example, the biblical flood narrative is borrowed from the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic, even though the sets, window dressings, words, and characters are different. The root metaphor is the same. The root metaphor of the warning of God's wrath is almost identical to that found in the bible.

Gilgamesh is far older than the biblical story of Noah. Most OT scholars worth their salt know the origin of the flood narrative -- which appears in many ancient cultures, all hearking back to Gilgamesh.

• When do you think the flood happened? Do you also believe that the world is 5000 years old? Any OT scholar worth their salt as you say that there is no proper dating for Noahs story, except the biblical one which is calculated either from the present day backward or from the beginning. .
  
• The earliest for Gilgamesh Epic can be 2700 BC. Probable 2100. Some say it could be around 3000 BC. According to the bible, Noahs flood would have happened in or around 3400+ BC. But thats according to the bible. The oldest bible would be much later than that, but that cannot be the time of the event. Same as Gilgamesh where it didnt happen in 650. According to the language.

So, Noahs story could be much older than that.

What people say is that the bible writers could have sopied that story because there are parallels much later and included it in a book called the bible. But you cannot in any way say that the "Story of Noah is newer than GIlgamesh of Uruk". Thats not what the scholars say.

Hope you understand.

Even if the stories are similar, that cannot deem one story is a lie or a concoction.

I personally dont believe in the timelines of these stories as I believe that the earth is more than some 5k years old. So the story could be old, and the writers of Gilgamesh could have been newer. Even at the same time.

Utnapishtim could have been Noah himself.

 

[sojourner]

• When do you think the flood happened? Do you also believe that the world is 5000 years old? Any OT scholar worth their salt as you say that there is no proper dating for Noahs story, except the biblical one which is calculated either from the present day backward or from the beginning. .
  
• The earliest for Gilgamesh Epic can be 2700 BC. Probable 2100. Some say it could be around 3000 BC. According to the bible, Noahs flood would have happened in or around 3400+ BC. But thats according to the bible. The oldest bible would be much later than that, but that cannot be the time of the event. Same as Gilgamesh where it didnt happen in 650. According to the language.

So, Noahs story could be much older than that.

What people say is that the bible writers could have sopied that story because there are parallels much later and included it in a book called the bible. But you cannot in any way say that the "Story of Noah is newer than GIlgamesh of Uruk". Thats not what the scholars say.

Hope you understand.

Even if the stories are similar, that cannot deem one story is a lie or a concoction.

I personally dont believe in the timelines of these stories as I believe that the earth is more than some 5k years old. So the story could be old, and the writers of Gilgamesh could have been newer. Even at the same time.

Utnapishtim could have been Noah himself.

1) It doesn't matter when I think the flood happened.
2) It doesn't matter how old I think the world is.
3) It doesn't matter when the setting for the Noah story takes place.

You seem to think I'm some wacko fundie who takes the bible literalistically.

What matters is when the stories were first told. No, we don't have specific dates. But scholars speculate that Gilgamesh is older than the Noah tradition, by virtue of the fact that the Sumerian religion is almost undoubtedly older than the Hebraic. It's certainly more primitive in its mythos than the Hebraic.

 

[firedragon]

Given that this is the main source of the idea of the Quran's revelation happening in a polytheistic pagan environment, and seems to be incongruent with the nature of the Quranic text and also contemporary understanding of the late antique ME, why should we trust the 'pagan Arabs' narrative?

Why do you find it so absurd to believe that the Quran was revealed in/grew out of an environment that was already mostly Abrahamic and integrated with the broader ME rather than an isolated pagan backwater?

I did not say otherwise.

What do you mean 'which Bible?' I'm not saying he copied a Bible, I'm saying the Quran reflects an Abrahamic environment, specifically the Syriac Christian traditions. Many of these individual texts and traditions can be identified. Syriac Gospel of Matthew, Protoevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the neshana, Didascalia Apostletorum, etc.

These weren't "a Bible", but there are clear similarities between these and certain Quranic passages. You might disagree why there are similarities, but do you agree that such close similarities exist?

again. Did I say that there no similarities?

This is why I sometimes include quotes

Guillaume Dye - Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur’ānic Arabic


From a literary point of view, we should talk of Qur’ānic PsalmsĪ as well as Qur’ānic madrā ē, memrē, and soḡiyāthā72. ν don’t mean that the texts I am inclined to call Qur’ānic Psalms, madrā ē, and so on, are a servile borrowing of Syriac literary traditions – far from that: they are adapted, not without creativity, to the context of Arabic language and literature (e.g. Syriac verse is based on syllabic count, contrary to Arabic poetry and Arabic sa ‘). But – and this is crucial –, they share compositional features with their Syriac/Aramaic homologs, they draw from them a good part of their verbal, phraseological and thematic repertoire, and, also, they play a similar role: they are suited for narrative or paraenetic compositions, and they are used in homiletic or liturgical settings. Indeed, 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 Scripture73.

Bro. I have studied this in depth.

No one says that Quran is from a Aramaic or siriac origini definitely. And again, all three languages are brothers. Arabic has for sure taken enough words from all languages. Especially Siriac. Tur is one definitely.

It is a simple fact. But when one language takes a word from another, that becomes the language.

Indians call their father Appa. Koreans also call em Appa. Dont you the similarity in Pithar and Vidar? Or Vader and Father? Or Mother and Matha.

That does not make a difference. Siriac, Aramaic, Hebrew all have so many similarities. And all have the same root.
Hell, the English language is made up of so many borrowings. Obviously.

I think you didnt understand what I said. I didnt want you to quote me a source. But any source is worth looking at so I dont tell you not to. What I said was that "Quran" was not a Siriac word. It is an Arabic word. No one says that it is not an Arabic word. You could also read many many other scholars on this. You expect me to bank on your assessment based on this work?

They have built on Luxenburgs work. Also Becks.

But your assessment that Quran is taken from a Siriac word is not true. It may be derived from another language like any other language. What does that prove?

Arabic is Arabic. And the discussion is
Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Tora.

I can see that you have gone and gathered all kinds of information against theological standpoints of the Quran and the bible. Mainly the Quran. BUt this is a question of Scripture vs Scripture. If one book was copied from another. When you say copied, it means nothing but.

I know that that is not your view, but thats the thread. If you wanna discuss one subject after another, like historicity of the Quran, Muhammed, linguistic duality and veracity etc, they are different subjects. Even if Muhammed used Siriac to write the Quran completely, so what? The Question still remains, did he copy from the bible? Is that all he did? Which would make Muhammed a scientist.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

1) It doesn't matter when I think the flood happened.
2) It doesn't matter how old I think the world is.
3) It doesn't matter when the setting for the Noah story takes place.

You seem to think I'm some wacko fundie who takes the bible literalistically.

What matters is when the stories were first told. No, we don't have specific dates. But scholars speculate that Gilgamesh is older than the Noah tradition, by virtue of the fact that the Sumerian religion is almost undoubtedly older than the Hebraic. It's certainly more primitive in its mythos than the Hebraic.

Can you quote me the scholar who thinks Gilgamesh Epic is older than the Noahs story, Noahs being about 3350 BC.

 

[sojourner]

Can you quote me the scholar who thinks Gilgamesh Epic is older than the Noahs story, Noahs being about 3350 BC.

Primarily Victor H. Matthews. But there are others.

 

[firedragon]

Primarily Victor H. Matthews. But there are others.

Lol. Okay.

On what basis? Whats the theory?

 

[sojourner]

Lol. Okay.

On what basis? Whats the theory?

Asked and answered. And why is it so funny as to elicit a "lol?" Matthews is well-respected in his field.

 

[firedragon]

Asked and answered. And why is it so funny as to elicit a "lol?" Matthews is well-respected in his field.

Of course. But Matthews says that the Gilgamesh story could be dated max or oldest 3300 (3300 to 2300). In his book Old testament Parallels. He co authored it.

Brother, these are scholars. I didnt 'lol' at them. Just that you said Matthews says that Gilgamesh is older than Noah. Thats why. You misquoted him.

 

[sojourner]

Of course. But Matthews says that the Gilgamesh story could be dated max or oldest 3300 (3300 to 2300). In his book Old testament Parallels. He co authored it.

Brother, these are scholars. I didnt 'lol' at them. Just that you said Matthews says that Gilgamesh is older than Noah. Thats why. You misquoted him.

I know Victor personally. He's a friend of mine. He doesn't think the Noah story is that old.
I've got two signed copies of that book -- among others he authored. I've attended classes he has taught. I read that book in graduate school. I can't imagine I've misquoted him.