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

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [3]

[67:21]Or who is he that can be an army for you to help you against the GraciousGod? The disbelievers are only in deception.
[67:22]Or who is he that will provide for you, if He should withhold His provision? Nay, but they obstinately persist in rebellion and aversion.
[67:23]What! is he who walks grovelling upon his face better guided or he who walks upright on the straight path?
[67:24]Say, ‘He it is Who brought you into being, and made for you ears and eyes and hearts;butlittle thanks do you give.’
[67:25]Say, ‘He it is Who multiplied you in the earth, and unto Him will you be gathered.’
[67:26]And they say, ‘When will this promisecome to pass, ifindeedyou are truthful?’
[67:27]Say, ‘The knowledgeof itis with Allah, and I am only a plain Warner.’
[67:28]But when they see it near, the faces of those who disbelieve will become grief-stricken, and it will be said, ‘This is what you used to ask for.’
[67:29]Say, ‘Tell me, if Allah should destroy me and those who are with me, or have mercy on us, who will protect the disbelievers from a painful punishment?’
[67:30]Say, ‘He is the GraciousGod; in Him have we believed and in Him have we put our trust. And you will soon know who is in manifest error.’

ww.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=21

Please prove that the above verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious revealed scripture in the world by quoting from that book, the reference and providing the link.
Just impossible to do it.
Quran is authored by G-d, it is the reality.

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

Regards

 

[firedragon]

Yes, because the name was found on a door post.

But you said that it was found on the Rosetta stone first. Then you changed the story.

The image I posted is an entry from Leopold von Ranke's hieroglyphic dictionary. You can find the image posted on other sites as well.

Your image has its root. ITs from the answering Islam site. Just click on it. Yes it is found on other sites. But your source was Answering Islam. Thats alright, but we dont have to lie about it brother. Its okay.

It is the same name because we can verify that its the same name. One of the Jewish kings of Judea was named Asa. Another king of Israel was named Yehu. How do you know they are not the same names? They are very similar. Maybe Iesous (pronounced yesu) in Greek is Yehu in Hebrew? How do you know its not?

Thats a hypocritical question. I said its the same person.

No, I brought four H's to further prove that the dot under the h in Ranke's dictionary is meant to be there in the name ḥmn-ḥ and that it represents exactly what it should: the phonetic pronunciation of the letter.
Probably the article you read in Arabic, didn't realize that there was such a thing and just saw the h so automatically assumed it was a /ه/. But when you read it in the language the dictionary entry was written in, you can see that this is not the case.
So maybe you should stop making conclusions and arrogantly sticking to them.

Rankes Dictionary is in German. And I didnt read an article.

That's not a logical reason. That's just what you want to believe. I didn't say he picked it up, I said he forgot the original story and confused it with the Pharaoh story. On fact, there is a Midrash that Job, Jethro and Bil'am were all advisers to Pharaoh. Maybe he heard that Midrash remembered that Pharaoh had advisers but thought it was Haman. Very simple.

So your point is, Muhammed picked up the Pharaohs story from Exodus, or heard it from some guy, Then heard the Esthers episode from another, Haman the agagite. Picked only that name, forgot the whole story, everything. jumbled them up and wrote the Quran with 114 chapters and entered that Jumbled up story.

Not so simple. It has to be a brain disorder.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Strangely enough, I consider writing off the idea out of hand as being pretty shallow. Given that there is very little recorded Arabic from the pre-Islamic era and much of Arabic was standardised around religious needs, the etymology of Quran is uncertain.

Also remember that this is not a word being interpreted in isolation, there are other pieces of information that need to be taken into account when assessing possibility/probability.

Given that it is untenable in terms of the historical methodology to believe that the material in the Quran was entirely uninfluenced by any existing tradition, we need to look at the influences to understand its evolution.

We know that specifically religious vocabulary (names, etc) is often Arabicised Syriac. We know that some stories in the Quran share a very close similarity (often bordering on word-for-word) with Syriac texts. We know that many Arabic words have Syrio-Arameaic origins.

Qeryana (reading of scripture in divine service) reflects a religious practice of the times. The Quran obviously served a religious purpose. It often seems to read as homily, discourse or criticism of existing religious narratives rather than actually telling the stories itself. In short, it seems to match the meaning of qeryana pretty well.

I'd say there is enough reason to consider it highly plausible without being 'shallow'.

Of course.

You are presenting an extreme position that I have never supported and arguing against this.

Luxenburg suffered from the same problem that affected Crone and Cook with Hagarism, they all went too far. Depite the fact that their conclusions were mostly wrong, they were correct in their approach. Crone and Cook because they linked Islam to the religious environment of the late antique ME, and Luxenburg because some words semm to make more sense when viewed through a Syriac lens. He then took this idea too far though and started clumsily trying to force Syriac into everything in a not very persuasive manner.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

Given that medieval exegetes clearly did not understand parts of the Quran, why should one assume that there are no cases in which knowledge of the Syriac literary tradition could increase understanding?

Yep

The 'scientific miracles' were invented in1980s Saudi Arabia based on reinterpreting scripture and a shallow and specious logic. They show far more about the flexibility of language than anything amazing. I could go and find 'miracles' in any poetic and allusive text. It's basically about as persuasive as the prophecies of Nostradamus.

"In the Beginning how the Heav'ns and Earth Rose out of Chaos" Milton Paradise lost

This miraculous text shows how Milton was aware of the big bang. Both heaven and earth are given as having a common origin, and the moments after the bang would certainly be chaotic. No man could have known this in Milton's time therefore it must have a Divine origin. It's a miracle!

That took me about 25 seconds to find and come up with. That's how easy it is to find 'scientific miracles' if you want

Seeing as I can create 'miracles' in seconds based on a random text, forgive me if I remain unimpressed as regards plant sexes and egg shaped earths based on interpreting verses in a way that nobody did for 1400 years.

Did I try in this case prove a MIracle? No, I tried to show you that Muhammed did not pick up the errors of the bible.

Peace bro.

 

[firedragon]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [3]

[67:21]Or who is he that can be an army for you to help you against the GraciousGod? The disbelievers are only in deception.
[67:22]Or who is he that will provide for you, if He should withhold His provision? Nay, but they obstinately persist in rebellion and aversion.
[67:23]What! is he who walks grovelling upon his face better guided or he who walks upright on the straight path?
[67:24]Say, ‘He it is Who brought you into being, and made for you ears and eyes and hearts;butlittle thanks do you give.’
[67:25]Say, ‘He it is Who multiplied you in the earth, and unto Him will you be gathered.’
[67:26]And they say, ‘When will this promisecome to pass, ifindeedyou are truthful?’
[67:27]Say, ‘The knowledgeof itis with Allah, and I am only a plain Warner.’
[67:28]But when they see it near, the faces of those who disbelieve will become grief-stricken, and it will be said, ‘This is what you used to ask for.’
[67:29]Say, ‘Tell me, if Allah should destroy me and those who are with me, or have mercy on us, who will protect the disbelievers from a painful punishment?’
[67:30]Say, ‘He is the GraciousGod; in Him have we believed and in Him have we put our trust. And you will soon know who is in manifest error.’

ww.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=21

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

Brother, just for my knowledge. I remember you saying that prophets including Muhammed and Ahamed Ghulam (HOpe I got the name right) was given the message by GOd and indicated in the Quran. Did you mean that Ahamed was mentioned in the Quran? Is it the verse that says Ahamed or are there any other verses? You can PM me if you dont wanna comment here.

Really appreciate if you could.

Peace.

 

[Augustus]

Did I try in this case prove a MIracle? No, I tried to show you that Muhammed did not pick up the errors of the bible.

Sorry, misunderstood as you were specifically highlighting radical reinterpretations of Quranic passages that are usually used to promote the 'miracle' hypothesis and don't really have anything to do with the Bible.

The way the Quran is written means almost anything that is supposedly an "error" can be explained by saying it is a metaphor. This gives the text such flexibility that Muslim apologists and anti-Muslims sometimes use the same passage to claim either a miracle or an error.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. That a human author couldn't possibly have done this so it must be Divine?


Is this accurate in terms of what we agree and disagree on? (apologies if any errors)

Agree:
There are many clear similarities with a wide range of sources that predate or are contemporary to 7th C.
There is no consistent similarity with any identifiable single source.
Similarities are not best explained with words like 'copying/plagiarism'.
Most Biblical names and religious vocabulary came to Arabic via Syriac.
Without an understanding of older Biblical traditions some passages of the Quran could not be understood properly.
Knowledge of Syriac literary traditions can help people understand some parts of the Quran.
The Quran appeared in a mostly Abrahamic not a mostly pagan environment.

Disagree:
It is very impressive that the 'errors' of the bible weren't repeated and would required very advanced scientific knowledge difficult for a human to possess.This suggests Divine inspiration was necessary.
Similarities are best explained as being remnants of the true message of God before it was corrupted.
Quran is an etymon of qeryana.

 

[firedragon]

Agree:
There are many clear similarities with a wide range of sources that predate or are contemporary to 7th C.
There is no consistent similarity with any identifiable single source.
Similarities are not best explained with words like 'copying/plagiarism'.
Most Biblical names and religious vocabulary came to Arabic via Syriac.
Without an understanding of older Biblical traditions some passages of the Quran could not be understood properly.
Knowledge of Syriac literary traditions can help people understand some parts of the Quran.
The Quran appeared in a mostly Abrahamic not a mostly pagan environment.

Agree with all. Except it is not definite that the peninsula the Quran arose from is mostly Abrahamic. Thats an argument based on the Quranic stories where you need some explanation for them. Thats from your point of view. Hope you understand. Thats not a definite conclusion. But could be.

Also, the biblical implications are always looked at, although there are trivial occasions like the case of Sarahs laugh where we analyse the biblical background.

Disagree:
It is very impressive that the 'errors' of the bible weren't repeated and would required very advanced scientific knowledge difficult for a human to possess.This suggests Divine inspiration was necessary.
Similarities are best explained as being remnants of the true message of God before it was corrupted.
Quran is an etymon of qeryana.

I am not saying that its impressive or anything like that. Or that Divine inspiration was necessary. That did not enter this dialogue. Although that is my view as a Muslim, that did not come up. That is not my argument.

You are missing the point. The point is, even from a Historical point of view, or a textual point of view, it is impossible to say that the Quran was completely constructed based on the biblical background.

I agree with your point on reinterpreting Quranic verses for scientific alignment, I personally believe we should. Thats not the only thing.

But there are things in the bible no poet or sage can reinterpret to align it with science or sanity.

BTW, the word Quran can be thought as an Etymon of Qeryana. But Quran comes from the Arabic root. Qeryana comes from the Siriac root. Arabic itself could be coming from the Siriac language. Both could have the same source. Nothing is certain. Also, does not make a difference. Many languages come from Pali. But they are languages of their own. Whats the difference it makes. Its an academic study.

Anyway, Quran is not a record of history like the bible though it records some history, you might consider some of them mythology. However, as a whole the Quran is not. It does not even record Mahammeds life, not at all. It does not have full stories about anyone. Just what it needs. I understand your points.

Peace.

Peace.

 

[Augustus]

You are missing the point. The point is, even from a Historical point of view, or a textual point of view, it is impossible to say that the Quran was completely constructed based on the biblical background.

I haven't argued that it was. It is certainly built on Biblical (and para-Biblical) foundations but also reconceptualised, added to and made relevant for a particular time and place. It was a new movement [apocalyptic imho] with a new prophet, with some degree of unique teachings and it was not simply an Arabicised Judaism or Christianity. An evolution rather than simply an adaptation.

I do believe that a specifically Muslim identity evolved over time though, rather than emerging 'fully formed' as per the traditional narrative.

Both could have the same source. Nothing is certain. Also, does not make a difference. Many languages come from Pali. But they are languages of their own. Whats the difference it makes. Its an academic study.

For me, the 'difference' is that it offers an insight into the sitz-im-leben of the Quran in the 7th C and its connection to the broader religious environment of the era. It is interesting from a historical perspective and relevant to the thread topic.

It's not really about philology, it's about history.

 

[firedragon]

I haven't argued that it was. It is certainly built on Biblical (and para-Biblical) foundations but also reconceptualised, added to and made relevant for a particular time and place. It was a new movement [apocalyptic imho] with a new prophet, with some degree of unique teachings and it was not simply an Arabicised Judaism or Christianity. An evolution rather than simply an adaptation.

I do believe that a specifically Muslim identity evolved over time though, rather than emerging 'fully formed' as per the traditional narrative.



For me, the 'difference' is that it offers an insight into the sitz-im-leben of the Quran in the 7th C and its connection to the broader religious environment of the era. It is interesting from a historical perspective and relevant to the thread topic.

It's not really about philology, it's about history.

From an academic perspective you are abolutely straight and logical. I have to agree with you. Lol. And you dont lie.

Sitz im leben is a big part of even a doctorate programme. I wish you all the very best in whatever your line is.

Alles Gut.
Peace.

 

[Shad]

Thanks for the info.

Yes information that people omit since it destroys their miracle making argument.

 

[Shad]

In that case, you also made a convenient assumption that the arabic name and missing vowels. The arabic and the hieroglyphics are exactly similar in that case.

Ancient Egyptian is not a Semitic language. Merely injecting vowels does not work.

 

[Shad]

4. But the Haman in found after the discovery of the Rosetta stone, though it talks of the Pharaoh, the name is there, the context is similar, but you wanna negate it.

The Rosetta stone is not a source for any of your claims at all. You seem to have no idea what it covers nor the languages it uses. None are Semitic

 

[firedragon]

Ancient Egyptian is not a Semitic language. Merely injecting vowels does not work.

Oh I really appreciate your input. Thanks a lot.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 67: Al-Mulk [4]

[67:31]Say, ‘Tell me, if all your water were to disappear in the earth, who then will bring you clear flowing water?’

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=67&verse=31

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

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 66: Al-Tahrim [1]

[66:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[66:2]O Prophet! why dost thou forbidthyselfthat which Allah has made lawful to thee, seeking the pleasure of thy wives? And Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[66:3]Allah has indeed allowed to you the dissolution of your oaths, and Allah is your Friend; and He is All-Knowing, Wise.
[66:4]And when the Prophet confided a matter unto one of his wives and she then divulged it, and Allah informed him of it, he made knownto herpart thereof, and avoidedmentioningpartof it. And when he informed her of it, she said, ‘Who has informed thee of it?’ He said, ‘The All-Knowing, the All-AwareGodhas informed me.’
[66:5]Nowif you two turn unto Allah repentant,it will be better for you, and your hearts arealready soinclined. But if you back up each other against him, surely Allah is his Helper and Gabriel and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore,all otherangelstooarehishelpers.
[66:6]It may be that, if he divorce you, his Lord will give him instead wives better than you — resigned, believing, obedient, always turning to God, devout in worship, given to fasting,bothwidows and virgins.
[66:7]O ye who believe! save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones, over which are appointed angels, sternandsevere, who disobey not Allah in what He commands them and do as they are commanded.
[66:8]O ye who disbelieve! make no excuses this day. You are requited for what you did.
[66:9]O ye who believe! turn to Allah in sincere repentance. It may be that your Lord will remove the evilconsequencesof your deeds and make you enter Gardens through which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet nor those who have believed with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands. They will say, ‘Our Lord, perfect our light for us and forgive us; surely Thou hast power over all things.’
[66:10]O Prophet! strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites; and be strict against them. Their home is Hell, and an evil destination it is!

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=66

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

 

[Tumah]

But you said that it was found on the Rosetta stone first. Then you changed the story.

Yes, I'm sorry for my mistake which I corrected. That hardly takes away anything from my point...

Your image has its root. ITs from the answering Islam site. Just click on it. Yes it is found on other sites. But your source was Answering Islam. Thats alright, but we dont have to lie about it brother. Its okay.

I'm not denying that the image came from that site. I am saying that site posted the image from the the German guy's dictionary. Just because the site is against your religion, doesn't automatically make it wrong or make everything they post, a lie.

Thats a hypocritical question. I said its the same person.

And the point being, that similar names do not automatically mean the same people...

Rankes Dictionary is in German. And I didnt read an article.

Yes, it is.

So your point is, Muhammed picked up the Pharaohs story from Exodus, or heard it from some guy, Then heard the Esthers episode from another, Haman the agagite. Picked only that name, forgot the whole story, everything. jumbled them up and wrote the Quran with 114 chapters and entered that Jumbled up story.

Not so simple. It has to be a brain disorder.

Peace.

You would like it to sound crazy so that you can dismiss it. But the truth is that people do this all the time, only with less significant things. People forget the specific details of stories all the time. They remember things that didn't happen, or not the way it happened. Especially as the years pass. Its so obvious to everyone who isn't Muslim, that you have to ask yourself if you're really being honest with yourself when you dismiss it out of hand. I don't think you are.

 

[Augustus]

You would like it to sound crazy so that you can dismiss it. But the truth is that people do this all the time, only with less significant things. People forget the specific details of stories all the time. They remember things that didn't happen, or not the way it happened. Especially as the years pass. Its so obvious to everyone who isn't Muslim, that you have to ask yourself if you're really being honest with yourself when you dismiss it out of hand. I don't think you are.

Might be of interest, perhaps a 'missing link':

Spoiler: Quranic Pharoah - A Silvestein [from New perspectives on the Quran]

In brief, the idea that Pharaoh asked Haman to build a tower that would reach the heavens was widely known from a pre-Islamic Near Eastern story. The story is that of Ahiqar the Sage, a tale that was extremely influential and widespread in the Near East, from the Achaemenid period32 until the Middle Ages, leaving its mark on Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures and cultures along the way.33 The episode ofthis tale that is pivotal for our purposes concerns a challenge that the Egyptian Pharaoh presented to the Assyrian ruler. Having received an untrue letter from Ahiqar's treacherous nephew Nadan34 saying that the famous sage had died, Pharaoh chal- lenged the Assyrian Esarhaddon to send him a man who could build for him a tower between the heavens and the earth, confident that they would no longer be able to find a suitable person. As even the Assyrian ruler believed Ahiqar to be dead, he nominated Nadan to undertake the challenge. Eventually, it emerged that Ahiqar actually was alive and well; he was sent to Egypt, where he successfully passed the Pharaoh's tests, and his villainous nephew was rebuked.35

The story of Ahiqar is alluded to in the Book ofTobit (second century BCE), where Tobit tells his son: "Remember my son how [H]arnan treated Achiacharus36 who exalted him - how out of light he brought him into darkness, and how he rewarded him again; yet Achiacharus was saved but the other had his reward, for he went down into darkness" (Tobit 14:10).37 That Ahiqar "exalted" his nephew recalls the language of the Book ofEsther, where Ahasuerus "exalted" Haman (Esther 3: 1), and the fact that a few verses later Ahasuerus himself is mentioned (Tobit 14:15) suggests that Tobit's author has Esther's Haman in mind. The. problem is that in most versions ofthe Ahiqar story, his nephew is called ''Nadan," not "Haman." This "mistake" on the part of Tobit's author is an understandable one; the CHiC2aC3 pattern of ''Nadan" easily lends itself to a corruption in the form of "Haman" and the other similarities between Ahiqar's nephew and Ahasuerus's vizier, as discussed above, explain the confusion.

Thus, in the pre-Islamic Near East, certain versions of the Ahiqar story substi- tuted Haman for as Ahiqar's nephew is the one who was initially summoned by Pharaoh to build a tower between the heavens and the earth, we can begin to understand why in the Qur'an Haman is ordered to build Pharaoh's sarh 38 Moreover, the method by which Ahiqar managed to build the tower is a compelling detail for our purposes: Ahiqar commissioned rope-weavers to produce two ropes of cotton, each two thousand cubits long, that would lift boys borne by eagles high into the air, from where the summit of the tower could be built. The role played in the Ahiqar story by these overlong ropes strikingly prefigures that which is played in Fir'awn's sarh by the asbab. Presumably, the version of the Ahiqar story that was familiar in seventh-century Arabia is the version known to Tobit's author. That Ahiqar was known in Muhammad's Arabia is indicated by the parallels between some ofhis maxims and those that are attrib- uted to Luqman in the Qur'an.39 What Ahiqar and Luqman have in common, of course, is that they are both paradigmatic "sages" in the Near East, the adjective hakim being. applied to both ofthem.

Ahiqar was fabled for wisdom in Late Antique monotheistic circles more than any other person - with one possible exception: Solomon. Interestingly, Solomon (or Sulayman) is the only other person in the Qur' an to build a sarh, and he does so in a context that closely parallels the Ahiqar and Fir' awn episodes.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I'm sorry for my mistake which I corrected. That hardly takes away anything from my point...


I'm not denying that the image came from that site. I am saying that site posted the image from the the German guy's dictionary. Just because the site is against your religion, doesn't automatically make it wrong or make everything they post, a lie.


And the point being, that similar names do not automatically mean the same people...


Yes, it is.


You would like it to sound crazy so that you can dismiss it. But the truth is that people do this all the time, only with less significant things. People forget the specific details of stories all the time. They remember things that didn't happen, or not the way it happened. Especially as the years pass. Its so obvious to everyone who isn't Muslim, that you have to ask yourself if you're really being honest with yourself when you dismiss it out of hand. I don't think you are.

Haman in Bible
A millennium apart. Different country. But Muhammed got the story from there.

Haman in Egyptian antique
Same country. Exact time not cited in the Quran. But cant be the same person.

Et tu brute.

 

[Tumah]

Haman in Bible
A millennium apart. Different country. But Muhammed got the story from there.

Haman in Egyptian antique
Same country. Exact time not cited in the Quran. But cant be the same person.

Et tu brute.

I'm not sure why you think rehashing the same points will get a different response.
Yes. Muhammad heard a story when he was driving his camel about Haman. Then sometime later a story about the tower of Babylon. Then some time later, the story of Pharaoh in Egypt. 5 or 10 or 20 or whatever years years later, he couldn't recall the stories well anymore and he mixed them up and put them all together into one story.
Very simple. Very easy.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure why you think rehashing the same points will get a different response.
Yes. Muhammad heard a story when he was driving his camel about Haman. Then sometime later a story about the tower of Babylon. Then some time later, the story of Pharaoh in Egypt. 5 or 10 or 20 or whatever years years later, he couldn't recall the stories well anymore and he mixed them up and put them all together into one story.
Very simple. Very easy.

Alright mate. I got your point.

Peace bro.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

I have so far quoted following 50 full chapters from Quran in these threads:[Summary]

67. Al-Mulk 68. Al-Qalam 69. Al-Haqqah 70. Al-Ma`arij 71. Nooh 72. Al-Jinn 73. Al-Muzzammil 74. Al-Muddaththir 75. Al-Qiyamah 76. Al-Dahr 77. Al-Mursalat 78. Al-Naba' 79. Al-Nazi`at 80. `Abasa 81. Al-Takwir 82. Al-Infitar 83. Al-Tatfif 84. Al-Inshiqaq 85. Al-Buruj 86. Al-Tariq 87. Al-A`la 88. Al-Ghashiyah 89. Al-Fajr 90. Al-Balad

91. Al-Shams 92. Al-Lail 93. Al-Duha 94. Al-Inshirah 95. Al-Tin 96. Al-`Alaq 97. Al-Qadr 98. Al-Bayyinah 99. Al-Zilzal 100. Al-`Adiyat 101. Al-Qari`ah 102. Al-Takathur 103. Al-`Asr 104. Al-Humazah 105. Al-Fil 106. Al-Quraish 107. Al-Ma`un 108. Al-Kauthar 109. Al-Kafirun 110. Al-Nasr 111. Al-Lahab 112. Al-Ikhlas 113. Al-Falaq 114. Al-Nas 1. Al-Fatihah. 3. Aal-e-`Imran 14. Ibrahim

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

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

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

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

Regards