Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 1
SILAS778
Since Islam began, people have charged Muhammad with borrowing stories and
religious materials and repeating them as the Quran. Muhammad's contemporaries
had heard those stories before. And, during the last two hundred years or so,
modern Islamic scholars continued the assertion. These scholars come from
Atheist, Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim backgrounds. They've all agreed
that Muhammad borrowed other religion's material. Primarily Muhammad borrowed
from Judaism and Christianity. Secondarily he borrowed from Arabic paganism.
Additionally, they state that he injected quite a bit of his own concepts,
desires, and philosophy, into the Quran.
On the other hand, fundamentalist Muslims claim, as Muhammad claimed, that he
received pure revelations from a spirit he identified as the angel "Gabriel".
They believe that this spirit, "Gabriel" had previously received these words
from God and repeated them to Muhammad. Muhammad then recited them as the
Quran.
The Quran records this same charge leveled against Muhammad by his
contemporaries:
Quran 25:5
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and
they are dictated before him morning and evening."
Quran 16:103-104
"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him
they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.
Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and
theirs will be a grievous Penalty." (Yusef Ali's translation) [1]
Why did Muhammad's contemporaries say that Muhammad borrowed from other
religions or fables? Why do these Modern scholars make the same exact charge?
What is the basis of their accusations and statements? Do they have ground to
stand on?
Further, if they do have evidence that Muhammad borrowed other religious
material doesn't that invalidate the Quran as being pure revelation from God?
Doesn't that make the Quran a deception and Muhammad an impostor?
(I'll point out that when Muhammad first encountered this "spirit", the
experience drove him to attempt suicide. Oddly enough, it was this same spirit
that prevented him from killing himself. Below is a link to a paper on
Muhammad's interaction with spirits.
http://members.tripod.com/~Islam_Unveiled/MoDem/html )
These scholars and Muhammad's contemporaries believed that Muhammad borrowed
material from various religious writings because the Quran, Hadith, and Sirat
all contain quotes, near-quotes, and misconstrued quotes from them.
Supporting their assertions are Islamic source materials show that Jews and
Christians were in contact with Muhammad from his childhood onward, and that
they lived in areas near Mecca. It was not only material from their Holy Books
that Muhammad borrowed from, he also borrowed material from secondary sources
such as New Testament Apocrypha, Mishnah, Talmud, etc. Either by direct
association, or through word of mouth, Muhammad learned their religious
stories.
Let me quote just a few scholars and the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Caps
are mine).
>From the Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Islam", page 6.
"Thus the Quran often gives the impression of having been produced by a rather
haphazard method of composition, an impression that is further heightened by
the fact that certain favorite phrases such as "but God is forgiving,
compassionate," "God is knowing, wise," "most of them know nothing" often have
little or no apparent connection with the immediate context. In fact, some
skeptics claim that these additions served only to produce a needed rhyme.
..... Also the vocabulary of the Quran is overwhelmingly of Arabic origin, but
there are, nevertheless, borrowed words, mostly from Hebrew and Syriac, bearing
witness to Muhammad's debt to Judaism and Christianity. These loan words are
primarily technical terms such as injil, "gospel", (Greek evangelion); taurat,
"the law", or Torah", of Judaism, Iblis, "the Devil" (Greek diabolos); or
translations or adaptations of theological terms such as amana, "to believe"
(Hebrew or Aramaic); salat, "prayer" (probably Syriac). Such explanations are
usually regarded with suspicion by Muslims, since orthodox doctrine holds that
the language of the Quran is the purest Arabic."
The Encyclopedia continues on page 9....
"Western Scholars who have analyzed the contents of the various revelation
have shown that much of the narrative material concerning biblical persona and
events differs from the biblical account and seems to have come from later
Christian and above all, from Jewish sources, (e.g. Midrash). Other motifs,
such as the idea of the impending judgment and the descriptions of paradise
agree with standard topics in the missionary preaching of the contemporary
Syriac church fathers. THE DEPENDENCE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, BE OF A LITERARY
KIND, BUT MIGHT BE DUE TO INFLUENCE FROM ORAL TRADITIONS." [2]
NOTE: at the end it notes that Muhammad could have learned not only from a
manuscript, (being taught from a Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, or Greek religious
writing), but from oral teachings as well, i.e., from listening to others
relating Jewish, Christian, and other stories.
==============================================================
THE SCHOLAR'S WRITINGS
Ignaz Goldziher writes in "Muslim Studies", page 346:
"The fact that Islam regarded Christianity as a religion from which something
could be learnt, and did not disdain to borrow from it, is acknowledged by the
Muslim theologians themselves, (1) and the early elements of Hadith literature
offer us a great wealth of examples which show how readily the founders of
Islam borrowed from Christianity. We do not here allude to those vague
borrowings which in the earliest times of Islam, through verbal communications
with Christian monks or half-educated converts, helped in building up the form
and content of the faith, and which appear in the form of isolated technical
expressions, Bible legends, and so forth; but we mean those borrowings which
are presented in a more definite shape, and evince a certain, if not a very
extensive, knowledge of the Christian Scriptures."
(1) This note says, "Thus Ibn Hajar, I, p. 372, quotes ancient authorities who
acknowledge the share which the communication of the Christian proselyte Tamin
al-Dari had in the formation of Muhammad's eschatology. [Cf. Tamin al-Dari in
the EI (Ency. of Islam)] [3]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Jeffery writes in "The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran", in the
forward, page vii:
"Emphasis has been placed in recent years on the too long forgotten fact that
Arabia at the time of Muhammad as not isolated from the rest of the world, as
Muslim authors would have us believe. There was at that time, as indeed for
long before, full and constant contact with the surrounding peoples of Syria,
Persia, and Abyssinia, and through intercourse there was a natural interchange
of vocabulary. Where the Arabs came in contact with higher religion and higher
civilization, they borrowed religious and cultural terms. This fact was fully
recognized by the earliest circle of Muslim exegetes, who show no hesitation in
noting words as of Jewish, Christian, or Iranian origin. Later, under the
influence of the great divines, especially as ash-Shafi'i, this was pushed into
the background, and an orthodox doctrine was elaborated to the effect that the
Quran was a unique production of the Arabic language. The modern Muslim
savant, indeed, is as a rule seriously distressed by any discussion of the
foreign origin of words in the Quran.
Jeffery continues on page 1 of the introduction:
"One of the few distinct impression gleaned from a first perusal of the
bewildering confusion of the Quran, is that of the amount of material therein
which is borrowed from the great religion that were active in Arabia at the
time when the Quran was in process of formation. From the fact that Muhammad
was an Arab, brought up in the midst of Arabian paganism and practicing its
rites himself until well on into manhood, (1) one would naturally have expected
to find that Islam had its roots deep down in this old Arabian paganism. It
comes, therefore, as no little surprise, to find how little of the religious
life of this Arabian paganism is reflected in the pages of the Quran. ....
....it is plain that Muhammad drew his inspiration not from the religious life
and experiences of his own land and his own people, but from the great
monotheistic religions which were pressing down into Arabia in his day (6).
Note 1 says: "Convincing proof of this is found in the statement of the
Prophet quoted in Yaqut, Mu'jam, iii, 664, to the effect that on a certain
occasion he sacrificed a ewe to Uzza, which he excuses on the ground that at
that time he was following the religion of his people.
Note 6 says: "Noldeke-Schwally, ii, 121, Buhl, EI (Ency. of Islam) ii 1066;
Ahrens, Muhammed als Relligiouns-stifter, 22 ff." [4]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D. S. Margoliouth writes in "Muhammad and the Rise of Islam", page 106:
[comments in ( ) brackets are mine]
"The needs of his (Muhammad's) profession do not appear to have made him
actually a student - yet there is no question that as the Koran grew in bulk,
its knowledge of biblical stories became somewhat more accurate: and thought
this greater degree of accuracy may have at times been due to the Prophet's
memory, it is more likely that he took such opportunities as offered of
acquiring more information. The following story gives us an idea of his
method. Jabr, a client of the Banu ' Abd al Dar, was a Jew (1) who worked as a
smith in Meccah. He and Yasr (also a Jew) used to sit together at their trade
and in the course of their work read out their sacred book the Prophet used to
pass by and listen. Presently Jabr was converted by hearing the Prophet read
the Surah of Joseph (2). It has been suggested that some of the Christian
matter in the Koran may have been learned from an early follower named Suhaib,
who was a Greek from Mosul (3). The tradition names more than one person who
was thought by the Meccans to be the Prophet's mentor, and the Koran even
refutes this charge by stating that the person to whom they allude had a
foreign tongue, and could not therefore be the author of an Arabic Koran.
Perhaps that reply is unconvincing; but the impression which the Koran leaves
is that of information picked up casually rather than acquired by any sort of
methodical study (4). In a Surah delivered at Medinah in which the story of
Saul should be told, Saul's name is mutilated to Talut, clearly a jingle with
Galut, the nearest that the Prophet could get to Goliath: the name of Samuel
is forgotten, he is confused with Gideon, and the story of Gideon is told
wrongly. This phenomenon almost disposes of the theory of a mentor, for no
mentor could be so ignorant of the Bible. Moreover the sources of the Koran
are very numerous - Abyssinian, and Syriac, as was as Hebrew and Greek (5) So
far then as the biblical tales of the Koran were not reproductions of matter
heard by Muhammad on his early travels, they are likely to have been all picked
up by listening when services or Bible readings were going on.
Margoliouth's notes:
(1) Or a Christian; the Moslems are careless about distinguishing.
(2) Isabah, i., 452; Wakidi (W.), 349
(3) Loth in Z. D. M. G., xxxv., 621
(4) Noldeke, Sketches, c. ii
(5) The best evidence for this is the form assumed by the proper names. Syc,
Die Eigennamen im Koran, 1903, does scant justice to this theme. [5]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
J. S. Trimingham notes the existence of New Testament apocrypha writings in
the Quran by saying in "Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times",
page 211, note 5:
"The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, derived from Aramaean versions, shows Jesus
declaring his divinity from the cradle. This story was among the legends
transmitted to Arab Christians, and a form of it appears in the Quran."
Trimingham implies that Muhammad had contact with people who were Christian,
or knew Christian or Christian related teachings.
Further, he wrote on page 266:
"The reason why the forms of Arabic words for the Hebrew prophets derive from
Syriac and not directly from Hebrew is due to the influence of Christian Arabs
on Arab folklore. Not only were Christian apocryphal stories relayed, but even
Old Testament patriarchal stories, which Christians did not associate with Jews
but with Aramaean religious history." [6]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the Muslim scholar Ali Dashti in "23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic
Career of Mohammad", notes Muhammad's interactions with people who were
Christian, Jewish, or other. On pages 21, 22 he writes:
"A process of this kind had begun in Mohammad's mind during his childhood and
had prompted him to meet and talk with Christian monks and priests on his
Syrian journey instead of spending all his time on commercial business. On his
way back, through the lands of Medyan and the Ad and Thamud, he had heard the
legends of the local people. In Mecca itself he had exchanges visits with
followers of the scriptural religions. He had sat for hours in Jabr's shop
near the hill of Marwa, and had been in constant touch with Khadija's cousin
Waraqa b. Nawfal, who is said to have translated a part of the New Testament
into Arabic. All these experiences are likely to have turned the ever-present
disquiet in his inner mind into turmoil.
There is a reference in the Qoran to Mohammad's long and frequent talks with
Jabr. The Qorayshites alleged that Mohammad had learned the words of the Qoran
from Jabr, who was a foreigner. The answer is given in verse 105 of sura 16
(on-Nalh): "And We know that they say, "It is only a human who is teaching
him." The speech of the person at whom they hint is outlandish whereas this is
clear Arabic speech." The biographies of the Prophet mention several other
followers of the scriptures and possessors of knowledge with whom he exchanged
visits before the start of his mission, e.g. Aesh, the sage of the Howayteb
tribe, Salman ol-Farsi, and Belal the Abyssinian. Abu Bakr also had
discussions with him at that time and agreed with him." [7]
---------------------------------------------
Theodor Noldeke writes in "Geschichte des Qorans", quoted by Ibn Warraq in
"The Origins of the Quran", page 43 writes: ( [ ] brackets are mine)
"But the deviations [in the Quran] from the biblical narratives are very
marked. Many of the alterations are found in the legendary anecdotes of the
Jewish Haggada and the New Testament Apocrypha; but many more are due to
misconceptions such as only a listener (not the reader of a book) could fall
into. The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of
Ahasuerus) for the minister of Pharaoh, or identified Miriam the sister of
Moses with Mary (=Miriam) the mother of Christ.
Below is a link to Muhammad's error concerning Mary being Aaron's sister. This
error is in the Quran
http://members.tripod.com/~Islam_Unveiled/mary/html
(NOLDEKE CONTINUED)
In addition to such misconceptions there are sundry capricious alterations,
some of them very grotesque, due to Muhammad himself. For instance, in his
ignorance of everything out of Arabia, he makes the fertility of Egypt - where
rain is almost never seen and never missed - depend on rain instead of the
inundation of the Nile (xii 490. The strange tale of "the horned" (i.e.,
Alexander the Great, xviii. 82 sqq.) reflects, as has been lately discovered, a
rather absurd story, written by a Syrian in the beginning of the sixth century;
we may believe that the substance of it was related to the Prophet by some
Christian. Beside Jewish and Christian histories, there are a few about old
Arabian prophets. In there he seems to have handled his materials even more
freely than in the others.
The opinion has already been expressed that Muhammad did not make use of
written sources. Coincidences and divergence alike can always be accounted for
by oral communications from Jews who knew a little and Christians who knew next
to nothing. Even in the rare passages where we can trace direct resemblance to
the test of the Old Testament (comp. Xx1.105 with Ps. xxxvii. 29; i.5 with Ps.
xxvii. 11) or the New (comp. Vii.48 with Luke xvi.24; xlvi. 19 with Luke
xvi.25), there is nothing more than might readily have been picked up in
conversation with any Jew or Christian. In Medina, where he had the
opportunity of becoming acquainted with Jews of some culture, he learned some
things out of the Mishna; e.g. v.35 corresponds almost word for word with
Mishna Sanh. iv.5; compare also ii.183 with Mishna Ber. i. 2. That these are
only cases of oral communication will be admitted by anyone with the slightest
knowledge of the circumstances." [8]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Geiger documents in "Judaism and Islam" that Muhammad wanted to borrow
from Judaism, that he had opportunity to borrow from Judaism, and that it was
compatible with his plans to borrow from Judaism. Thereafter Geiger lists and
comments upon dozens of themes that Muhammad borrowed form Judaism.
One quote from Geiger is presented here from page 17:
"The possibility of borrowing from Judaism lay for Muhammad, partly in the
knowledge which might be imparted to him by word of mouth through intercourse
with the Jews, and partly in personal knowledge of their Scriptures; while
allowing him the first source of information, we must deny him the second."
[9]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Jones writes in his introduction to Rodwell's translation of the Quran in
"The Koran", on page xxv:
"Orthodox doctrine renders discussion of the sources of the Quran irrelevant
for Muslims: the Quran is the word of God. They are also able to dismiss
discrepancies between the Bible and the Quran by recourse to the doctrine that
if there are differences between the Jewish, Christian and Muslims versions of
the Scripture the Jews and the Christians have mangled the message and Muslims
have not. This doctrinal stance is, however, not without its problems. It is
difficult to reconcile the very specific references to, for example, Muhammad's
family (cf., for example, Q. 33:28-33) with the belief that each prophet has
received the same message.
For non-Muslims the Muslim standpoint is untenable, and non-Muslim scholars
have given much thought to the question of how Muhammad might have acquired his
knowledge of the Bible. The most commonly accepted view is that Muhammad
received most of his information about biblical stories through informants who
talked to him; that this material was digested, meditated on and then absorbed
into what became the text. There are two passages in the Quran itself that
support this view. The first is Q. 16:103: "We also know that they say,
"Surely, a certain person teacheth him". But the tongue of him at whom they
hint is foreign while this is in plain Arabic." Secondly, Q. 25:4 reads: "And
the infidels say "This is a mere fraud of his own devising, and others have
helped him with it, who had come hither with outrage and lie"." The allegation
of fraud is strongly denied in Q. 25:6: "Say, "He hath set it down Who knoweth
the secrets of Heaven and Earth.""; but the question of help is ignored. It
should be added that there is some corroboration in Hadith that Muhammad
received stories and information from various individuals, including Jews and
Christians, and that the material he received from them found its way into
Quranic form." [10]
1borrow1.txt
Mr Mahdi
Oh my goodness:
>MUHAMMAD THE BORROWER
What else is new? Heard the same old baseless claim for the past 1400 years
now. Everything I read in your "papers" were just "borrowings" from other
orientalists and other anti-Muslim missionaries. From the beginning people
tried to discredit Islam and 1400 years later they are still at it. People
need to defend their Bible and the integrity of Christianity, so what do many
of them do, attack Islam of course trying to be the "Christian hope."
Before I get down to the "nitty-gritty" so to say I must point out the obvious
facts. Islam is on the rise, Islamic awareness is all over the world, and many
people are converting to Islam. Christian missionaries are feeling the heat of
Islam, and they realized drastic measures were needed to curb this phenomenon.
So the rehashing of centuries old REFUTED arguments were needed because there
are no other arguments to put forth, so they redressed the old arguments and
gave it a new look and attitude hoping people will buy it this time.
Now to the nitty-gritty. I have written several posts here that showed the
difference between the Quranic and Biblical versions of certain stories. I
have even written a few posts to Jochen Katz, and I have yet to receive a
response. The 1400-year-old baseless claim that Muhammad (saaw) "borrowed"
from the Bible brings up an interesting point. Why would Muhammad (saaw) give
a scientifically and logically accurate account of a story he supposed to have
borrowed, especially in a time where myths and superstitions were widely
accepted?
Let's take the story of Pharaoh and his magicians. According to the Bible,
Pharaoh's magicians threw down their sticks and it turned into snakes. While
in the Quran it said that magicians used their ropes and sticks and made them
appear to be like snakes. Why would the Quran say that if the Quran according
to the enemies of Islam was a "borrowing" of the Bible, and why would the Quran
say that it was a magicians' trick in a time where myths and superstitions were
widely accepted? Was Muhammad (saaw) a good guesser? People back then
believed that magicians can really turn things like sticks into snakes, and it
is clear that the Bible was agreeing with this misconception. While the Quran
also coming from a time were myths and superstitions were widely accepted
didn't say what the Bible said, it refuted what the Bible said and gave the
true account of what happened with scientific and logical accuracy.
Also, the Flood of Noah brings another interesting point. Why did the Bible
say the Flood covered the whole earth while the Quran said that only Noah's
people were flooded? I have written a post about it showing the logical and
scientific inaccuracy of the Biblical version, so please refer to that.
And of course the scientific remarks in the Quran. Why would Muhammad (saaw)
make statements that were not in agreement to the commonly accepted beliefs at
that time? Again, was he (saaw) just a good guesser?
Since refuting your "papers" is always something easy to do, I would to suggest
that you bring some new and original arguments. Everything you said has been
refuted centuries ago and even now Muslims are refuting the same old refuted
arguments with ease. Like I said before, people since the beginning of Islam
tried their utmost best to discredit Islam and they realized later on it was
all in vain because Islam is on the rise not the decline. Many people naively
think that someday they might be the "one" that "did it," or be the "Christian
Hope." I know of a person on AOL who spent believe it or not 4 years trying to
discredit Islam, and till this day he has not converted one person! Some
people will go to any extremes just to discredit Islam, and in the end realize
it was all in vain.
Many people I take as a grain of salt. Some people are wannabe scholars,
academics, and even intellectuals trying their best to be the "hope" or the
"one." But that doesn't mean that they are not serious enemies of Islam
because of their lack of intellectual skills and sincerity. We as Muslims must
be aware of what people are trying to do to attack Islam, whether they are
serious academics and scholars or wannabes.
I am not here to get in back-and-forth "my religion is better than your
debate," especially with people whom I take as a grain of salt. I am here just
to remind people of the issues, and even raise points that can clarify a few
things. I will always talk about the plots and MO of the enemies of Islam, and
call for the return of the Islamic system of life. Muslims are being killed,
oppressed, exploited, etc., and last thing we need to do is get into vain
debates, especially with people who are just out to defend their religion and
attack Islam.
Mahdi
http://members.aol.com/mrmahdi/opinions/index.htm
AltWay
wrote:
Since Islam began, people have charged Muhammad with borrowing stories
and religious materials and repeating them as the Quran. Muhammad's
contemporaries had heard those stories before. And, during the last two
hundred years or so, modern Islamic scholars continued the assertion.
These scholars come from Atheist, Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim
backgrounds. They've all agreed that Muhammad borrowed other religion's
material.
Comment :-
These assertions have been made and answered on this site several times
before.
1. If people (a) do not believe in God, or/and (b) do not believe that
revelation is possible, or/and (c) do not believe that Muhammad (saw)
received revelation then they must come up with all kinds of speculations
about the origin of the Quran. These are speculations and not facts.
2. It is necessary to know what is meant by revelation and how it occurs.
One way of looking at it is that a person who receives it is in a hightened
state of consciousness so that he is in greater contact with reality, with
the underlying causal world. But he has to translate his experiences into
terms which his ordinary consciousness can understand and again into terms
which other people can understand. To do this he must use the current
language including its imagery, legends, stories etc, and there are also
what may called neo-logisms - new words or novel use of old words because
some extra-ordinary experiences have to be described. But it is also
possible that this heightened consciousness has penetrated into his sub- or
unconscious mind where the synthesis of experiences produces what have been
called Archetypes. These arise into the consciousness as myths and stories
and can be found throughout the world. This is because they relate to
something which is common to all human beings and to the world they live in.
They refer to certain truths. It is not necessary, therefore, that these
myths should be transferred from one person to another or from one culture
to another. But there will be variations in the way they are formulated
because of differences in culture.
3. There is no doubt that some of the stories in the Quran are to be found
in the New and Old Testaments and even in much more ancient literature. But
the point of interest is not so much that they are there but (a) why just
these have been selected (b) how and why they vary from other versions (c)
their context, arrangement and what use have been made of them. (d) Does it
also contain any new insights (e) Is it true or not.
One could pick up any book, novel or text book and find that it contains
the same words, phrases, ideas and stories which are contained in many other
books. This does not invalidate them. Some of these are regarded as great
literature, some convey the same truth better than others, some correct
errors or misunderstandings. Does one discard a text book because it contains
the same truths as other books? If a person in the U.S.A sees the moon is the
person in China who claims to have seen the moon lying because it is only
possible for a person to receive the information from someone else. But then
how did the person in the U.S.A get his information?
There is a great amount more in the Quran and in a most compact and economical
form than exists in any other scripture of the world. This has been
demonstrated numerous times, for instance, by the series of articles called
"Views of Islam".
4. The Quran itself tells us that it contains things which were contained in
previous scriptures and came to confirm the truth in them, rectify the
accumulated misunderstandings and stand as guard to preserve the truth. It
should not, therefore, be surprising that it contains what seems to be the
same things. But it is necessary to examine these things more closely to see
where the amendmend or rectification has been made.
5. No one can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book. It was originally
a recitation. The rhythm and sound of it are an integral part of it. The
claim of the Quran that it is a part of the Preserved Tablet must also be
taken seriously. The implication is that the Quran is not the book of paper
and ink, and not even the recitation, but refers to a certain basic
universal force which affects people and transforms some of them. This is an
idea not understood by the mundane mind including scholars and is,
therefore, unacceptable to them. But what is more obvious is that the Quran
is a completely different form of Art from all others. People who criticise
it do so from the standpoint of the art forms they are familiar with and
owing to the tendency of the mind for rigidity, cannot accept or recognise
unfamiliar forms. This, of course, has been a difficulty throughout human
history in all fields including religion, politics, commerce, culture and
even sciences and art.
6. Although some of those who study the Quran are called scholars, the fact
is that they are not trying to understand the Quran and they ignore
everything said about the Quran in the Quran itself, and by those who have
made a study of it in order to undestand it. These scholars have certain
(a) pre-suppositions, (b) motives and (c) procedures which are quite alien
to the Quran and its purposes. Whereas they want to study things like the
structure of words and sentences, grammar and the antecedents to the
stories, the purpose of the Quran is to convey certain meanings, values and
motives and to transform man. This scholarship is, therefore, totally
irrelevant. It is like an examination of the wrapping paper around some
highly nutritious food, food which is itself totally ignored and discarded.
Hardly a sign of intelligence. Even monkeys do not keep the peel and throw
away the banana.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on www.altway.freeuk.com
______________________/ .............
SILAS778
<<<4. The Quran itself tells us that it contains things which were contained in
previous scriptures and came to confirm the truth in them, rectify the
accumulated misunderstandings and stand as guard to preserve the truth. It
should not, therefore, be surprising that it contains what seems to be the same
things. But it is necessary to examine these things more closely to see where
the amendmend or rectification has been made.>>>
If you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what the Quran
contains is not found in previous scriptures, but in Mishnah and NT apocrypha.
These are the words of man. Some of these are just myths. They were never
recognized as scripture by the Jews or Christians.
Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known myths is
another.
<<<5. No one can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book.>>>
Unique? Sure, okay, big deal. Impressive or outstanding? No. Not at all.
The Far Side was a unique comic strip. Mein Kampf (sp?) is a unique book. So
is the Gita. Being unique does not mean it is from God.
Mr Mahdi
I noticed "Silas" didnt respond to my post. He has yet to prove to the readers
here on SRI that Muhammad (saaw) made up the differences (that are
scientifically and logically accurate) concerning stories like Pharaoh's
Magicians, the Flood, etc. His "papers" are always somehow BORROWING ideas
>from orientalists whose past allegations were throughly refuted.
It is easy to attack Islam. But it is hard to refute Islam because Islam can't
be refuted and second opinions can not be taken as proof for anything.
I wonder where did Muhammad (saaw) borrow the system of life that is contained
in Islam? I guess he went in a time travel machine to the 20th century and
"borrowed" ideas from Capitalism and Communism (a'oodhu billah, just trying to
play the "devil's advocate).
>They were never
>recognized as scripture by the Jews or Christians.
LOL, so the whole earth was flooded is not a myth while Allah said only Noah's
people were flooded is? Pharaoh's magicians making their sticks into snakes is
not a myth while Allah said that it was nothing more than a magic is? How do
you explain that, that is, if you decide to respond. Sixty percent of
scientists are atheists in Judeo-Christian Christians, I wonder why didnt the
Bible help them believe in God, is it because these scientists believe that the
Bible is a masterpiece of scientific inaccuracy or accuracy?
I will be shocked if I recieve a response, but in the rare case I do get a
response from him, I would be glad to refute anything he says.
>Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known myths is
>another.
Now prove to me that the Bible is not a myth and the Quran is, that is, if you
decide to respond.
Mahdi
AltWay
wrote:
If you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what the Quran
contains is not found in previous scriptures, but in Mishnah and NT
apocrypha. These are the words of man. Some of these are just myths.
Comment :-
The point is: are they true, and do they have value?
Because some authorities banned or excluded some books from the NT does it
mean that they were not as genuine?
Silas :-
re: No one can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book.
Unique? Sure, okay, big deal. Impressive or outstanding? No. Not at
all.
Comment :-
So you do not think it is impressive or outstanding. O.K Big deal!
What you see depends on your powers of perception and comprehension.
There are many who do think it is impressive, outstanding and from God.
So why are you mistaking your subjective impression for an objective truth.
If you have read the Quran then you will know that the Quran itself
recognises that people will read and understand it differently and will
benefit or not from it accordingly. One would have thought that you would
have learnt that at least if nothing else.
But why study the Quran if there is no intention of learning anything? It is
a mystery? Or is it an obsession?
As for the consensus of scholars, it all depends on whom you call scholars
and which of them you select to prove your point.
Some one else can define scholars in some other way e.g those who study the
meaning of the Quran and understand and select only such people and reach
the diagonally opposite conclusion, and many do.
Saqib Virk
> Mr. Aziz wrote:
>
> <<<4. The Quran itself tells us that it contains things which
> were contained in previous scriptures and came to confirm the
> truth in them, rectify the accumulated misunderstandings and
> stand as guard to preserve the truth. It should not,
> therefore, be surprising that it contains what seems to be
> the same things. But it is necessary to examine these things
> more closely to see where the amendmend or rectification has
> been made.>>>
SILAS
> If you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what
> the Quran contains is not found in previous scriptures, but
> in Mishnah and NT apocrypha. These are the words of man.
> Some of these are just myths. They were never recognized as
> scripture by the Jews or Christians.
>
> Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well
> known myths is another.
SV
Who are you to declare what is myth and not myth? What
difference does it make if you consider Jewish and Christian
scriptures as myth or not?
What do Christians know about the life of Jesus(pbuh) before
he began preaching? The NT tells us next to nothing but some
information can be found in the apocrypha. As far as I know
some of it agrees with the Quran. Do you declare that any such
information is false and if so, by what right? Do you have
any logical reason to declare Christian sources outside of
the Bible as nothing but myth?
The NT apocrypha is liable to contain at least some truth and
maybe as much as some of the books that the Church fathers
allowed into the NT canon. Myths almost always arise out of
the truth. For example Christians turned Jesus(pbuh) into God.
Jesus as God is a myth created out of the fact that Jesus was
a Messenger of God. The apocrypha may contain truths or do you
argue that they are completely false and pure myth? If a part
of the apocrypha or Mishna is verified by the Quran then we
can safely assume that part is true.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> If you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what the Quran
>contains is not found in previous scriptures, but in Mishnah and NT
>apocrypha.
>These are the words of man. Some of these are just myths. They were never
>recognized as scripture by the Jews or Christians.
>
So, essentially the argument of the Christian missionary is simply that
similarity implies borrowing. This is because some of the stories in
Mishnah and NT apocrypha match with the Qur'an; the conclusion is that
Muhammad(P) copied these stories from the above mentioned books into the
Bible.
Firstly, one has to understand what is meant by a proof and an explanation.
If one claims that Muhammad(P) borrowed the Judeo-Christian literature then
where is the evidence that his contemporaries saying that he really did
even once in the pre- and post-Hijrah period? Sure, one can say that the
Bible existed at that time but what is that supposed to prove? Copying? One
can also say that Japan existed at that time too but does that
automatically conclude that Muhammad(P) knew about that?
As far as the scriptures of Jews and Christians are concerned, it is well
recognized that they had disagreements about it. As far as the Christianity
is concerned, it is not even united upon a single canon. For more
information please see:
http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/Bible/Text/BibleTex.html#Bible
So, to claim that some story is 'apocrypha' simply aggravates the problem
for the Christian canon.
> Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known
>myths > is another.
Sure, we have also heard about the parallel stories which the Old Testament
contains. We have heard about Ugaritic sources incorporated in the Bible
which show some striking parallels such as notion of Yahweh as an aged
diety, his dwelling place and his heavenly court. Should I also point the
principal parallels between the Adapa Epic and the account of Adam in Gen.
2-3? How about the striking parallels between the Flood narrative in
Genesis and the Mesopotamian parallels which is rather well studied? How
about the parallels between code of Hammurabi and Israelite Laws? Ever
heard about the parallels between Mithraism and Christian doctrines? May be
the missionary is too ignorant about them.
And many Orientalists consider these stories in the Bible to be myths. May
be we should invoke the blessings of the Jesus Seminar who have basically
said that much of the New Testament is a myth built around Jesus(P).
We should perhaps now conclude that containing parallel stories is one
thing and containing well known myths another.
><<<5. No one can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book.>>>
>
>Unique? Sure, okay, big deal. Impressive or outstanding? No. Not at all.
>The Far Side was a unique comic strip. Mein Kampf (sp?) is a unique book. So
>is the Gita. Being unique does not mean it is from God.
So, one can even apply the same logic to the Bible and say that it is not a
word of God.
--
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
'Islamic Awareness' http://salam.muslimsonline.com/~islamawe/
Gilberto Simpson
This approach is ultimately unconvincing. According to Islamic
teachings, God sent revelations to Moses, Jesus, David and other prophets
who were part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some of this revelation
(presumably) survived in the Bible in some form. And it is not
unreasonable to suggest that some of this revelation survived in the
apocryphal writings. And so the fact that some of the stories and
teachings of the Quran can also be found in these others text is not
troubling at all. God is certainly entitled to say something more than
once.
(I wonder if you are troubled when the Old Testament is repeated in the
New or when one gospel repeats the content of another?)
But another relevant point is the question of truth. If these stories are
true, then the question of whether one copied from the other isn't all
that relevant. If the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune reported
on the same story giving essentially the same facts, I wouldn't be
troubled or bothered by that fact. (One would even expect this to happen
often). And in our case, if if what the rabbis taught or if what the
apocryphal writers said was actually true, it is no problem that such
accounts are also found in the Quran. A story doesn't become any less true
by being told a second time.
Peace
Gilberto
Andy Bannister
news:7olle7$29j$1...@waltz.rahul.net...
> As salaamu 'ala man ittiba'a al-huda,
>
> Oh my goodness:
>
> >MUHAMMAD THE BORROWER
Before I get to the crux of my point, I would like to make a few
observations ...
> What else is new? Heard the same old baseless claim for the past 1400
years
> now.
I think you mean the same claim has "been around" for 1400 years, rather
than you have "heard". Unless you are very, very, old indeed, then you need
to rephrase your opening sentence.
> Everything I read in your "papers" were just "borrowings" from other
> orientalists and other anti-Muslim missionaries.
Now hold on just one moment. Are you claiming that because this gentleman's
post has been borrowed, it must therefore be incorrect? In this same thread,
Gilberto Simpson has made the following point in his post dated 16-Aug-99:
"But another relevant point is the question of truth. If these stories are
true, then the question of whether one copied from the other isn't all that
relevant. If the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune reported on the
same story giving essentially the same facts, I wouldn't be troubled or
bothered by that fact. (One would even expect this to happen often). And in
our case, if if what the rabbis taught or if what the apocryphal writers
said was actually true, it is no problem that such accounts are also found
in the Quran. A story doesn't become any less true by being told a second
time."
Gilberto has a good point here. Just because something has been borrowed
does not mean it is not true. If you believe that uniqueness is the only
thing that gives something credibility, then you ought to follow that belief
to its logical extent and see what you are left with.
> From the beginning people
> tried to discredit Islam and 1400 years later they are still at it.
People
> need to defend their Bible and the integrity of Christianity, so what do
many
> of them do, attack Islam of course trying to be the "Christian hope."
An interesting exercise for you. Have a look at the average Christian
web-site (there are tens of thousands to choose from on somewhere like
www.yahoo.com). See if it devotes much space to attacking Islam. Chances are
probably not. Now do the same thing for Islam. My experience is that the
majority of Islamic web sites I have seen spend considerable time attacking
Christianity, whereas the average Christian web-site does not even mention
Islam.
My main point is this: that your statement could equally well be applied to
Islam. In trying to defend Islam, many Muslims attack Christianity in order
to try to prove their religion "right".
At the end of the day, I know we will both agree on this; pluralism is
illogical. Either Christianity is true, or Islam is true, or they are both
false. It is only natural, therefore, that proponents of both faiths would
wish to debate with one another.
> Before I get down to the "nitty-gritty" so to say I must point out the
obvious
> facts. Islam is on the rise, Islamic awareness is all over the world, and
many
> people are converting to Islam.
Same is true of Christianity. Incidentally, did you know that Islam is no
longer the fastest growing religion in the world? It's been pipped to the
post by something else ...
> Christian missionaries are feeling the heat of
> Islam, and they realized drastic measures were needed to curb this
phenomenon.
> So the rehashing of centuries old REFUTED arguments were needed because
there
> are no other arguments to put forth, so they redressed the old arguments
and
> gave it a new look and attitude hoping people will buy it this time.
And the same applies to Islam, my friend. Like the "Bible has been changed"
polemic, which basically emerged as soon as the new Islamic faith spread and
came across people who actually had Bibles who were able to take issue with
the Qu'ran.
> Now to the nitty-gritty.
Good. This was what I wanted to get to, also.
> I have written several posts here that showed the
> difference between the Quranic and Biblical versions of certain stories.
I
> have even written a few posts to Jochen Katz, and I have yet to receive a
> response.
I cannot speak for Jochen. However, having looked at what you have written,
I will happily contribute some thoughts of my own.
> The 1400-year-old baseless claim that Muhammad (saaw) "borrowed"
> from the Bible brings up an interesting point. Why would Muhammad (saaw)
give
> a scientifically and logically accurate account of a story he supposed to
have
> borrowed, especially in a time where myths and superstitions were widely
> accepted?
You need to be careful here. Your above paragraph displays a somewhat
dangerous anti-supernaturalistic leaning; you are arguing that the version
of a story given in the Qu'ran (in the example below, that of Pharoah and
his magicians) must be the true one - rather than the Bible - because the
version in the Qu'ran is "scientifically and logically accurate." I am
afraid you are guilty of invoking "science" and "logic" where they suit you
and dropping them where they don't. I agree that a scientist would say that
the idea of rods becoming snakes is illogical and unscientific. The
scientist would agree with you. But then, the same scientist would have a
great problem with the idea of, for example:
* A man wandering into a cave and seeing an angel who dictates to him words
>from God.
So can I assume that you discount Muhammad's revelation because it does not
make logical or scientific sense?
* A woman being miraculously supplied with food.
So can I assume that you reject Sura 3:37?
* Moses' rod becoming a serpent?
So can I assume that you reject Sura 7:107?
Do you see the problem? You have really only two positions here. One, you
need to reject miracles completely, in which case you cannot be a Muslim! Or
two, you can admit that you're wrong, and that logic and science cannot be
invoked like you have done to try to resolve this contradiction between the
Qu'ran and the Torah.
> Let's take the story of Pharaoh and his magicians. According to the
Bible,
> Pharaoh's magicians threw down their sticks and it turned into snakes.
While
> in the Quran it said that magicians used their ropes and sticks and made
them
> appear to be like snakes.
Actually, that's not quite what the Qu'ran says. Let us read Sura 20:66 -
"[Moses] said: "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes and their
rods--so it seemed to him on account of their magic--began to be in lively
motion!"
Now the Qu'ran does not refer to "logic" or "science" here -- it says
"magic". Interesting, eh?
> Why would the Quran say that if the Quran according
> to the enemies of Islam was a "borrowing" of the Bible
I have not read much about the Bible borrowing theories about the Qu'ran.
However, what I am aware of is that Muhammad probably did not have access to
a Bible but heard the stories second or third hand. Anyone who has ever
played the game "Chinese Whispers" can testify as to the problems with this
kind of casual oral transmission.
> and why would the Quran
> say that it was a magicians' trick in a time where myths and superstitions
were
> widely accepted?
But it doesn't say what you want it to say. It says "magic". What would be
nice for you would be if it said "they jiggled their ropes and made it look
like they were snakes." The verse says "magic". Which means any appeals to
"science" or "logic" are pointless.
> Was Muhammad (saaw) a good guesser? People back then
> believed that magicians can really turn things like sticks into snakes
People including Muhammad obviously believed this, because elsewhere the
Qu'ran says:
"Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! It was a serpent, plain (for all to
see)!" (Sura 7:107)
So then, according to the Qu'ran: can rods become serpents, or can't they?
> is clear that the Bible was agreeing with this misconception. While the
Quran
> also coming from a time were myths and superstitions were widely accepted
> didn't say what the Bible said, it refuted what the Bible said and gave
the
> true account of what happened with scientific and logical accuracy.
"Scientific and logic accuracy"? Oh dear. Let's look at what the Qu'ran has
to say about this run-in between Moses and the magicians of Pharoah:
1) The magicians used "magic" to make their rods move (Sura 20:66) --- ask
your average scientist if he believes in magic.
2) Moses' rod became a serpent (Sura 7:107) --- when was the last time you
saw a rod turn into a snake?
3) Moses' snake ate the rods of the magicians (Sura 20:6) --- check out an
encyclopedia to find out for yourself the dietary habits of serpents.
4) Moses' hand turned white and amazed those watching (Sura 26:32) --- how
often do hands change colour instantly?
If you trying to suggest that the Qu'ran is LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC then
please enlighten us how to how points 1-4 above can be reconciled to the
physical world of science in a manner that is both logical and consistent.
> Also, the Flood of Noah brings another interesting point. Why did the
Bible
> say the Flood covered the whole earth while the Quran said that only
Noah's
> people were flooded?
Oh dear, I think you're about to fall into a similar trap again. If the ONLY
interpretation of the Biblical account of Noah was a world-wide flood, and
the ONLY interpretation of the Qu'ran's account was a local flood, then you
would have a point. But does the Qu'ran talk about a local or world-wide
flood? Consider:
"At length, behold! There came Our Command, and the fountains of the earth
gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female,
and your family--except those against whom the Word has already gone
forth, --and the Believers." But only a few believed with him." (Sura 11:4)
This verse raises a number of problems for your theory, including:
1) Why did Noah need to take on the Ark two of each kind of animal if the
flood was only local? This would be a pointless exercise.
2) Why need an Ark at all if it was a local flood? Noah would have been
better off wandering up a nearby mountain than engaging in large scale
ship-building exercises.
And then there is this verse:
"And Noah said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on
earth! For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy
devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones."" (Sura
71:26-27)
This poses the problem that Noah clearly believed in a world-wide flood,
even if you don't. How could a local flood not leave a single unbeliever?
You need also to bear in mind that many Christians believe the flood in
Genesis to be a local flood. The difficulties of intepretation for that
position are no more than for your trying to argue for a local flood in the
Qu'ran given the verses above.
> And of course the scientific remarks in the Quran. Why would Muhammad
(saaw)
> make statements that were not in agreement to the commonly accepted
beliefs at
> that time? Again, was he (saaw) just a good guesser?
I am assuming by this paragraph that you believe the Qu'ran to contain
modern science within its pages, which therefore demonstrates it is from
God. This is a viewpoint commonly expressed by many Muslims on SRI but it
runs into two problems:
1) The failure by advocates of this position to put forward any evidence of
this (most examples quoted from the Qu'ran are of reading science IN to the
Qu'ran, not reading science OUT of it).
2) The fact that the argument concerning modern scientific truths in the
pages of Qu'ran cuts both ways. Because, if they are undeniable there, then
the Qu'ran is proved. But by the same count, if there are any scientific
errors - statements that appear to be incompatible with modern science, then
the Qu'ran falls. You cannot have it both ways if you are to be consistent
with your logic. And I am afraid that there are some severe scientific
problems in the Qu'ran. One example alone is all it takes:
'"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring
of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zulqarnain! (Thou
hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."'
(Sura 18:86)
Now modern scientific thought would have problems with the concept of the
sun setting in a spring of murky water, or indeed the sun setting in a place
that a human being could reach. If you would use science to prove the
Qu'ran, then in the same stroke it can disprove it, and Sura 18:86 alone
must demonstrate the Qu'ran to be a false revelation. This is the kind of
problem you are faced with if you try to use a literalistic and mechanistic
interpretation of the Qu'ran.
<snipped>
> I am not here to get in back-and-forth "my religion is better than your
> debate,"
Good --- this is pointless. The issue is not which is "better" but which is
"true".
> especially with people whom I take as a grain of salt. I am here just
> to remind people of the issues, and even raise points that can clarify a
few
> things.
I believe that your last post actually clouded rather than clarified. I hope
I have managed to highlight the internal contradictions within your
arguments, and I look forward to you posting a duly revised version. The
issue of why the Qu'ran and the Torah differ on certain stories is important
and very interesting; where you have become unstuck is that both the Torah
and the Qu'ran are documents that, per se, assume the supernatural, and
trying to remove it from either of them in the name of "science" or "logic"
means neither make sense.
> I will always talk about the plots and MO of the enemies of Islam, and
> call for the return of the Islamic system of life. Muslims are being
killed,
> oppressed, exploited, etc.
As are Christians and people of all faiths and none. An interesting question
to ask is when a killing is done in the name of religion, what does the
Qu'ran (if a "Muslim" has done the killing in the name of Allah) or the
Bible (if a "Christian" has done the killing in the name of Jesus) got to
say about the matter? I think examing the behaviour of people in this kind
of context would tell you quite a lot about the religion they claim to
practice.
Peace.
Andy Bannister
an...@bannister.screaming.net
Mr Mahdi
>An interesting exercise for you. Have a look at the average Christian
>web-site (there are tens of thousands to choose from on somewhere like
>www.yahoo.com).
A somewhat naive statement. You must realize that Christians are busy as it is
of trying to bring people who are "non-practicing" Christians back to being
practicing Christians. That is why you see "thousands" of sites that are not
open about their hatred for Islam. FYI, Christian missionaries are desperately
trying to convert Muslims, but you don't see the missionaries go into a Muslim
country in a time of crisis saying how much they hate Islam. No, it is more
deceptive than that. Go to "Answering Islam" and see the site describe itself
as a "Christian-Muslim 'dialog'," but do not describe itself of what it really
is, an anti-Muslim debate site.
It is ironic that a person who is Christian that is trying refute Islam (will
never happen, at any rate...) will give the impression that Christians aren't
trying their best to refute Islam. What do you think you are doing right now
in a MUSLIM Newgroup?
>Incidentally, did you know that Islam is no
>longer the fastest growing religion in the world?
Of course you provide no evidence for what you said. It is ironic that I heard
that Islam is the fastest growing religion from Christians mostly. I wonder
why will they say that and yet be "ignorant" of the facts, i.e., if you are
correct.
> I am
>afraid you are guilty of invoking "science" and "logic" where they suit you
>and dropping them where they don't.
No I am not. I am invoking truth, because Moses threw down his stick and it
really became a snake, because Moses was a person inpsired by God, and God made
the stick to actually turn into a snake. Magicians are not inspired by God,
therefore, they can not transmute a stick in a snake.
>* A man wandering into a cave and seeing an angel who dictates to him words
>>from God.
>
>So can I assume that you discount Muhammad's revelation because it does not
>make logical or scientific sense?
Why are you misquoting me? I never denied miracles, but yet for some strange
reason you inferred that I did because I rejected myths and falsehoods.
>Do you see the problem?
I see the problem is that you misquote me, and I am kinda feeling that it was
more than an innocent mistake on your part.
>"[Moses] said: "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes and their
>rods--so it seemed to him on account of their magic--began to be in lively
>motion!"
>
>Now the Qu'ran does not refer to "logic" or "science" here -- it says
>"magic". Interesting, eh?
>
This is getting ridiculous. First, you accuse me of denying miracles which I
dont, and second, you try to give the impression that myths are not really
myths because prophets can do miracles. Prophets doing miracles and myths such
as magicians turning sticks into snakes are two different things.
> Which means any appeals to
>"science" or "logic" are pointless.
>
LOL, okay. I guess Allah saying it was a trick of making the sticks and ropes
to make it appear to be snakes has no connection to truth, right? I guess the
magicians really turned the sticks into snakes, and the Quran is just wrong.
Whatever...
I must say that I do not appreciate you misquoting me and accusing me of things
that I never said or even implied. I believe that Allah can make anything
happen. I believe in truth, not "science" or "logic," unless these things are
based solely of truth. Islam is Guidance from Allah, and it can not be
refuted. Allah gave prophets the ability to perform miracles, and as I muslim,
I must believe in the LITERAL meaning of these events as described in the
Quran.
>1) Why did Noah need to take on the Ark two of each kind of animal if the
>flood was only local? This would be a pointless exercise.
LOL, did the verse say that Noah had to take EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH?
>2) Why need an Ark at all if it was a local flood? Noah would have been
>better off wandering up a nearby mountain than engaging in large scale
>ship-building exercises.
This is a very peculiar statement. Have you ever seen a flood? Have you ever
seen people go in a boat, particulary a big one? You don't need to a
"universal flood" to have an ark, all you need is just a flood period.
>This poses the problem that Noah clearly believed in a world-wide flood,
>even if you don't. How could a local flood not leave a single unbeliever?
Allah said in that verse "arD" which means various things, including "earth,"
land, ground, etc. "ArD" doesn't always mean the whole earth, it can mean a
particular land or country.
>'"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring
>of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zulqarnain! (Thou
>hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."'
>(Sura 18:86)
>
>Now modern scientific thought would have problems with the concept of the
>sun setting in a spring of murky water, or indeed the sun setting in a place
>that a human being could reach.
This argument has been refuted so many times that it becomes routine for some
people. First, common sense will tell you that the verse is talking about
DIRECTION of where the sun is setting, second, if you knew Arabic, the meaning
will be even clearer.
>If you would use science to prove the
>Qu'ran, then in the same stroke it can disprove it, and Sura 18:86 alone
>must demonstrate the Qu'ran to be a false revelation.
This is quite odd that you are trying to vindicate the scientific and logical
errors of the Bible by pointing out an alleged "error" in the Quran. This is
somewhat circular, because you are defeating you own purpose by implying "Hey
look, if the Bible has scientific errors, so does the Quran, but that doesn't
make these books false based on scientifc evidence alone."
>Good --- this is pointless. The issue is not which is "better" but which is
>"true".
I guess that explains the high apostasy rate in Judeo-Christian societies, 60
percent of scientists being atheists, etc, and of course, who could forget the
legacy of Christianity, Christians, and the Bible.
Mahdi
Bollywood Anwar
> Gilberto has a good point here. Just because something has been borrowed
> does not mean it is not true. If you believe that uniqueness is the only
> thing that gives something credibility, then you ought to follow that belief
> to its logical extent and see what you are left with.
I agree also. Muhammad "knowing" about Jesus and Moses and Abraham and
their stories from Jews and Christians would not discredit his claim to
have a Revelation about them. Afterall, even from a faithful Muslim
standpoint, it makes perfect sense to me that Muhammad would have to be
familiar with the tales that God reminds him of. If Muhammad had never
even heard the *names* of Abraham, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc., or
if he had never heard of Jewish or Christian beliefs, he would be in a
rather poor position to be receiving Revelations about them, since he
would be clueless as to what God is talking about. Imagine the following
conversation, God forbid:
God-- "And remember Noah..."
Muhammad-- "Huh? Noah who? Who's that?"
God-- "And remember Our favours on Moses.."
Muhammad-- "Wait wait.. rewind a bit... can you give me a short intro on
this Moses fellow? Who is he?"
God-- "They did not kill Jesus, nor crucify him.."
Muhammad-- "Wha??? Who's Jesus? And who said that he was killed??"
God-- "Do not say three! Your Lord is One!"
Muhammad-- "Who said God is one of three? I never did. The pagan Arabs
never did. Who are these Christians? Never heard of 'em. My God, WHAT
are you talking about here??? Aaaagh!!"
This would obviously be a ridiculous situation. Common sense suggests
that Muhammad should at the very least have been familiar with the
subject-matter being dealt with, or else he wouldn't really know or
understand what God is revealing, would he? Take a look at Sir Muhammad
Iqbal's "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" in which I
believe he briefly but sufficiently deals with this issue. This really
shouldn't be such a big bone of contention between Christians and Muslims.
If Muhammad knowing a bit about Judaism/Torah/Christianity/Gospel
discredits his claims to Revelation in the mind of the Christian, then
what about Jesus who lived as a Jew in Jewish culture? Do we say Jesus
"borrowed" from Judaism? Do we hear Jews saying-- "Well he only *claimed*
to be Jehovah because he *learned* about Jehovah through his Jewish
upbringing and exposure to Jehovah in the Torah!"? Or-- "He only
fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament because he took a
`sneak-peek' at the Torah at his local synagogue and knew what the
prophecies were. In other words, he cheated on the test!"? No, this is
silly. Jesus was part of a continuing tradition. What he brought was not
something new. Similarly, Muhammad never claimed to bring anything new.
The fact that Jews and Christians recognize the names and stories told in
the Qur'an supports the claim of Muhammad that Islam is nothing new. Now
if the only reason this point is still being brought up over and over
again is because there's some Muslims out there who want to try to argue
that Muhammad had NO exposure to Jews or Christians, or NO exposure to
their beliefs, then that argument is admittedly a bit silly and runs
against common sense, as I tried to demonstrate above. I don't agree with
Muslims who take that sort of an extreme stance on this issue... no more
than I agree with Muslims who believe that Muhammad was 100% illiterate.
I think that Muhammad was probably "street-level" literate... In today's
society, that might mean knowing how to sign one's name, distinguish
between the men and women's public washrooms, and reading of common and
easy words, and perhaps elementary sentence construction. But no, I don't
believe Muhammad was literate or educated enough to compose the eloquent
ayah of a Book that left his contemporaries speechless and won over the
hearts of an entire nation within his lifetime. Even if the most educated
and famous poet of Arabia had composed the Qur'an, I would STILL consider
it a miracle. Similarly, based on all the evidence that is put on the
table, I would argue that Muhammad did have contact with Jews and
Christians and was generally aware of their beliefs and Prophets, as was
most of the rest of pagan Arabia. No, I *don't* believe Muhammad
possessed a mind smart enough, on his own, to "copy" biblical stories but
mysteriously omit those sections which today prove to be the most
scientifically incompatible and have forced an entire generation of young
Christians to become skeptical about the entire book as a whole. That
simply doesn't seem reasonable. Nor do I think Muhammad had the ability
to travel into the future and witness the Romans defeat the Persians in
nine years' time, Pharaoh's mummified body to be recovered, the orbit of
the planets, and other various prophecies/scientific facts which seem to
be stated quite clearly (a little bit more on this issue below) in the
Qur'an.
> An interesting exercise for you. Have a look at the average Christian
> web-site (there are tens of thousands to choose from on somewhere lik
> www.yahoo.com). See if it devotes much space to attacking Islam. Chances are
> probably not. Now do the same thing for Islam. My experience is that the
> majority of Islamic web sites I have seen spend considerable time attacking
> Christianity, whereas the average Christian web-site does not even mention
> Islam.
> My main point is this: that your statement could equally well be applied to
> Islam. In trying to defend Islam, many Muslims attack Christianity in order
> to try to prove their religion "right".
Islam starts where Jesus (ie. "true Christianity") left off, and so it
only makes sense, due to its chronological position, that it would speak
more about Jesus and Christians than Christianity speaks about Muhammad
and Muslims. And the end result of this is, Muslims generally speak more
about Jesus when discussing Islam than Christians speak about Muhammad
when discussing Christianity. This only makes sense. In the same way,
Jewish websites rarely discuss Jesus, Paul, or Christianity, yet a large
number (if not the majority) of Christian websites dedicate time to the
Torah, supposed prophecies of Jesus in Isaiah, etc, etc. Implicit in
these writings/discussions is the idea that the Jews were basically too
stupid to "get it". Can we now say that "In trying to defend
Christianity, many Christians attack Judaism in order to try to prove
their religion "right"? Sure we can. But hey, I don't blame you.. it
makes sense!
This issue of Jesus and Christians in Islam and the Qur'an leads to
another interesting issue for me, pointed about by Jeffrey Lang in one of
his books. Is it not interesting that the Qur'an dedicates sufficient
time to addressing the issue of Jesus and Christians? It's really
something to think about. Muhammad and his followers were surrounded by
pagan Arabs, not Christians. Their main "obstacle", their main enemy, was
always pagans. Yet mysteriously, the Qur'an does not address any of their
beliefs *directly*... and I believe it only mentions one (or perhaps two?)
of the pagan Arab "gods" by name. Otherwise, the Qur'an addresses and
criticizes the pagans in a very general way. When criticizing their
beliefs in plural gods and statues, the Qur'an is speaking as efficiently
to the Hindus of today as it is to the pagan Arabs of the 7th century,
since it is addressing them in a very general way. But when discussing
Christians, a force that was NOT Muhammad's immediate problem, obstacle,
or enemy, the Qur'an goes into comparative detail, correcting the
misunderstood issues of the crucifixion, Jesus' divinity, and even the
doctrine of the Trinity. Now for *those who reflect*, I think this is
truly a sign! If Muhammad authored the Qur'an, using *his limited human
mind*, would he not dedicate more time and space to attacking and
criticizing the beliefs of the pagan Arabs? Would he not write more about
an issue that he was more familiar with? Moreover, at this point in time
(and indeed, throughout his life), the pagan "gods" of Arabia were still
more of a hindrance and obstacle to his movement than the "Christian God"?
Why then does Muhammad waste time writing about the Christian God more
than the pagan Arab gods that he can write more as a first-hand authority
on? Why does the Qur'an not address the pagan Arab beliefs of the day in
as much detail as it discusses broader problems in Christian doctrine?
For those who reflect, there are two possibilities:
(1) Muhammad, despite some extremely trying and despairing moments in his
mission, KNEW, for a FACT, that his false and innovated religion would
actually become a "superhit" and spread like water on the earth one day,
and thus Christianity would *become* its biggest obstacle on the global
level ONE DAY...
(2) The Divine Author (ie. God, not Muhammad) of the Qur'an knew in His
Infinite Wisdowm that the pagan Arabs, despite their force and
overwhelming numbers, really didn't deserve to be bothered with too
much... because their time was almost up... and in the future, the *real*
"battle" would be an ideological confrontation between the Christian and
Islamic civilizations.
I'm voting for number (2) above. Again, this one point by itself does not
"prove" the Qur'an to be the Word of God... but hundreds of such points
and arguments, piling one above the other, deserve a more reasonable
explanation than just-- "Muhammad was a liar prophet with a really really
really really clever brain and the occasional gift to look into the
future." This explanation simply can't cut it, and it certainly shouldn't
satisfy the thinking Christian.
> Same is true of Christianity. Incidentally, did you know that Islam is no
> longer the fastest growing religion in the world? It's been pipped to the
> post by something else ...
I can say with honesty that "Islam is the fastest growing religion on the
planet" has never been my argument for proving Islam's truthfulness. If
that were the case, I think we would all have to admit that atheism is
growing faster than both Islam and Christianity! And that certainly
shouldn't convince us that atheism is correct. But nonetheless, as a side
issue of interest, I'd like to know what your reference for the above
claim is. I take it that you're claiming that Christianity is growing
faster? (certainly not in my part of the world!)
> And the same applies to Islam, my friend. Like the "Bible has been changed"
> polemic, which basically emerged as soon as the new Islamic faith spread and
> came across people who actually had Bibles who were able to take issue with
> the Qu'ran.
Not true. The Qur'an itself seems to indicate the charge that Christians
have either lost, changed, wrote, or covered up important pieces of
their Revelation. In other words, this allegation against Christians by
Muslims is not the result of "smart Christians who fought back", but it
stems from the Qur'an itself.
> You need to be careful here. Your above paragraph displays a somewhat
> dangerous anti-supernaturalistic leaning; you are arguing that the version
> of a story given in the Qu'ran (in the example below, that of Pharoah and
> his magicians) must be the true one - rather than the Bible - because the
> version in the Qu'ran is "scientifically and logically accurate." I am
> afraid you are guilty of invoking "science" and "logic" where they suit you
> and dropping them where they don't. I agree that a scientist would say that
> the idea of rods becoming snakes is illogical and unscientific. The
> scientist would agree with you. But then, the same scientist would have a
> great problem with the idea of, for example:
> * A man wandering into a cave and seeing an angel who dictates to him words
> >from God.
Let me, for one, explain where I believe the inclusion of science should
be allowed in religion, the discussion of miracles, etc. I can do this
best through the use of a couple of examples....
If Moses turned a stick into a snake... we can neither "prove" nor
"disprove" this story. Certainly, it runs against our knowledge of the
principles of science that such an act would be possible, but as believers
in God, we can accept that the One who created the natural laws that we
are subject to can also suspend them or modify them if and when He wills.
So we believers in God, both Muslim and Christian, can accept this. The
atheist of course cannot, because he has "anti-supernaturalistic
leanings", as you would put it. But let's look at another type of miracle
now. Let's say, Muhammad got mad one day and stamped his foot on the
ground and, as a result, the Spanish King had a heart attack on
his throne back in Spain. This is the type of story that has allowed us
some means of verifying its claim. We can actually look into history
books, and see what the recorders of history have to say about Spain
during the Prophet's lifetime, and if any such sudden death of a king was
recorded. If so, then a *Muslim* believer can certainly use this as
empirical/historical proof that Muhammad performed a miracle. If no such
event is recorded in Spanish history, however, then we'd be forced to
accept that such a miracle did not occur. There must be an error, or
perhaps an overimaginative exagerration in the hadith that recorded such a
"miracle" (this is only a theorical example, of course... not a real one).
Now try to understand our grounds for the rejection of this hadith. It is
NOT because we have an anti-supernaturalistic leaning... it is simply
because, even while acknowledging the possibility of divinely-sparked
supernatural events that are beyond our five senses, it is still
reasonable that we except that such an important and landmark event in
world history would be recorded... that there would be *some* recorded
sign of it in the annals of history. Now if the Spanish history books are
simply silent about that period of time, then we can still speculate and
entertain the possibility of the accuracy of the hadith that the Prophet
magically caused the death of a Spanish King. But if what we find are
Spanish history books that are joyously talking about a prosperous time in
Spain (at the time at which Muhammad's miracle was supposed to have
occured!), then we would simply be playing blind if we insisted that the
miracle occured. It would be stretching it to say-- "Well the miracle did
still occur." In this case, it's not a matter of us having
anti-supernaturalistic leanings.. it's a matter of us being *reasonable*
and 'fessing up to reality.
Atheists reject the biblical narration of Noah's flood for generally two
main reasons:
(1) It is a supernatural event... it is an event directed by God.... and
such things are simply not possible or proveable (*this* reason is
certainly anti-supernaturalistic).
(2) There is no scientific or historical evidence that proves a
*worldwide* flood. To the contrary, at the time that Noah's flood was
*supposed* to have occured (which can be calculated using the
a-little-more-than-necessary-and-might-cause-quite-a-few-problems-later-on
geneologies of the relevent biblical characters in the Bible), what we
ACTUALLY find is that there were many civilizations FLOURISHING at that
time, such as ancient Egypt.
In summary, as a Muslim and as a reasonable human being, I reject the
biblical narration of the flood for reason (2) above, and not reason (1).
In doing so, I am not being anti-supernaturalistic, but I am simply being
reasonable and open-minded. So let's face it. Noah's Flood, as reported
in the Bible, did not happen.
> I have not read much about the Bible borrowing theories about the Qu'ran.
> However, what I am aware of is that Muhammad probably did not have access to
> a Bible but heard the stories second or third hand. Anyone who has ever
> played the game "Chinese Whispers" can testify as to the problems with this
> kind of casual oral transmission.
Is "Chinese Whispers" anything like "Broken Telephone"? If it is, you'll
realize that the KEY feature of such a game is that the re-teller of the
story has a tendancy to create and add elaborate and imaginative new
details. Does the Qur'an do this with the story of Noah's Flood? Think
about it. It doesn't matter whether the Bible allows a "local flood"
interpretation of the Noah story or whether the Qur'an allows a "worldwide
flood" interpretation of it. But just looking at the two different
narratives, what do you see? Do you find a narrative in the Qur'an which
is overblown or over imaginative? No. You find a narrative that, while
*perhaps* leaving the door open to the possibility of a worldwide flood,
generally tends to strip away (some of the most preposterous) details of
the Flood instead of adding new and more imaginative ones. Again, the key
feature of "Broken Telephone" is that each person in the chain tends to
ADD to the story, not delete from it. Consider that the people that
Muhammad recited the Qur'an to in 7th century Arabian society were not
about to investigate the scientific plausibility of a historical worldwide
flood. Why then does Muhammad leave out details which tend push the story
in this direction, rather than pushing it in this direction even further
to excite and scare his listeners?
> Oh dear, I think you're about to fall into a similar trap again. If the ONLY
> interpretation of the Biblical account of Noah was a world-wide flood, and
> the ONLY interpretation of the Qu'ran's account was a local flood, then you
> would have a point. But does the Qu'ran talk about a local or world-wide
> flood? Consider:
>
> "At length, behold! There came Our Command, and the fountains of the earth
> gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female,
> and your family--except those against whom the Word has already gone
> forth, --and the Believers." But only a few believed with him." (Sura 11:4)
> This verse raises a number of problems for your theory, including:
>
> 1) Why did Noah need to take on the Ark two of each kind of animal if the
> flood was only local? This would be a pointless exercise.
The Flood was local, but obviously not conventional, or else it wouldn't
earn a place in either the Bible or the Qur'an, would it? It was
obviously a Flood big enough that it demanded that Noah construct an Ark
in the firstplace... or else God could have simply instructed Noah to hike
to another nearby village for safety. So it appears that Noah and his
followers expected to be on the Ark for a while... and this provides the
answer to your question above. They probably took two animals of every
kind so that they could reproduce them... most of them probably for food.
God knows.
> And then there is this verse:
>
> "And Noah said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on
> earth! For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy
> devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones."" (Sura
> 71:26-27)
>
> This poses the problem that Noah clearly believed in a world-wide flood,
> even if you don't. How could a local flood not leave a single unbeliever?
The Qur'an does not say that this prayer was answered. When God created
mankind, according to the Qur'an, even the angels warned Him against it
because they (humans) would undoubtedly create evil and turmoil. Allah's
response was: "I know what YOU DON'T KNOW." So it appears clear that the
existence of evil/unbelief somehow serves God's Ultimate Plan in the end.
It is part of Allah's will that this cancer is given a limited time to
exist in this world. So certainly, God destroying all the unbelievers
(only to let them come back again) makes little sense. It paints the
picture of a God fighting an uphill battle that He just can't win.
Contrary to that picture, the God of the Qur'an completely understands
what He is doing when He is creating human beings. So I don't see why God
would suddenly succumb in Surah 71 and suddenly want to destroy all the
believers.
Noah, like the angels who suggest that God should not make humans,
perhaps does not understand God's broader goal through this event. That
goal was to *make them a SIGN FOR MANKIND*. This is what Surah 25:37
says, and it certainly doesn't seem to imply a worldwide flood, does it?
"And the people of Noah,
When they rejected the messengers,
We (God) drowned them,
And We made them
As a SIGN FOR MANKIND..."
Now they could only be a "sign for mankind" if mankind still existed! In
other words, the implication is that the Flood was a particular punishment
for a particular people, serving as a sign and example to other people as
well.
In any case, you'll be hard-pressed to find an explicit statement in the
Qur'an that the Flood destroyed the entire earth... yet this is what we
find in the Bible.
> You need also to bear in mind that many Christians believe the flood in
> Genesis to be a local flood. The difficulties of intepretation for that
> position are no more than for your trying to argue for a local flood in the
> Qu'ran given the verses above.
No, there's no comparison between the difficulties in the Bible and the
difficulties in the Qur'an. If "many Christians" today believe in the
Flood in Genesis to be only a local event, they are clearly doing this IN
OPPOSITION to EXPLICIT statements to the contrary made in the biblical
text. What more can I say? Let us look at a few verses from
Genesis which support the traditional "worldwide" interpretation. These
verses will be hard to shrug off or explain, no matter WHAT context you
try to interpret them in!
6:5-- And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...
6:6-- And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth...
6:7-- (God says): "I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the
earth... both man and beast... for it repenteth me that I have made
them..."
6:13-- "I will destroy them with the earth"...
6:17-- "I do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ALL FLESH,
wherein is the breath of life, FROM UNDER HEAVEN; and EVERY THING THAT IS
IN THE EARTH SHALL DIE.
7:21-- And all flesh died that moved upon the earth... and of every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22-- All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in
the dry land, died.
7:23-- And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of
the ground, both man, and cattle.... and they were destroyed from the
earth...
Now my question is-- Can you find any such explicit statements about the
Flood in the Qur'an? If not, then I ask you-- Why did Muhammad leave the
BEST details of the Flood out? Why did he exclude the most exciting and
illustrious part of it? Is this just a coincidence?
Try to understand what I'm saying here. Yes, the Qur'an may allow for the
possibility of a worldwide Flood, and not just a local one. But you won't
find explicit statements that compel the reader to believe in it as a
universal flood, the way you do with the Bible. Now if "many Christians"
believe that the Flood in Genesis was just local, I suggest they read the
above quoted verses. You CAN'T get around it. And if you somehow manage
to get around THAT, then you can surely manage to get around Jesus being
God too! ;) (as some "Christians" certainly have!)
Lastly, even if you do manage to get around the above issues and argue for
a local Flood in Genesis, the main points and questions raised here still
remain... the most important being:
- Why does Muhammad leave out the most fantastic details of the Flood...
precisely those details which would be called into serious scientific
question 1400 years later? Why are Muslims less embarassed about the
Qur'an's narration of the Flood than Christians are of the Bible? How
many Christians have left Christianity because of the biblical narrations
of the Flood, Creation, etc., versus how many Muslims have left Islam
because of the Qur'anic narrations of the Flood, Creation, etc.?
What I'm getting at is-- Even IF I accept your argument that Genesis
leaves the possibility of a local Flood open and the Qur'an leaves the
possibility of a universal flood open (which I am NOT convinced of), which
version do you *honestly* leans MORE in the direction of "universal
Flood", and which version leans MORE in the direction of "local Flood"?
If you answer yourself honestly, you'll see that it's quite simply the
Qur'an which leans more in the direction of "local Flood." The Qur'anic
description is quite simply the "better" one. And as a Christian, this
should worry you. Did a devious Arab in the 7th century come up with a
better narration of the Flood than God's Inspired Word in the Bible? Did
God not have enough foresight to "inspire" more accurate and less
embarassing writing in Genesis? God, with his foresight and Infinite
Knowledge, knew that a Qur'an would later be composed by Muhammad and
would "compete" with the Bible. This should have made God even more
sensitive about the accuracy and truthfulness of His "inspired" words in
Genesis... yet they sadly fall short of what we would expect. God forbid
it!-- This is a sign from your Lord that Genesis has been tampered with,
as have other parts of the Bible. A true story was taken and put through
a game of "broken telephone" through Jewish high-priests, and the
above-quoted Genesis verses are the end result! On the other hand, the
clear and simple verses regarding the Flood in the Qur'an are the result
of direct Divine Revelation, and NOT the over-active imagination of a man
who got too much sun in the desert!
Allah-hu-Akbar!!
*What* is stopping the Christians from declaring, with their mouths and
hearts, "La-illaha-illallah, Muhammad-ar-Rasool-ullah"? Have they become
victims of the same close-mindedness and blind arrogance that they accuse
the Pharisees of??
> '"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring
> of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zulqarnain! (Thou
> hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."'
> (Sura 18:86)
For the past five years, the above verse from the Qur'an has served as the
Christians' argument against the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an!
Allah-hu-Akbar! Far from hurting our faith in Islam, it is only
INCREASING it! We print entire books on the scientific inaccuracies in
the Bible... they respond with a charge that basically amounts to:
"The Qur'an says `The sun sets'".
The last time I checked, this is a *figure of speech* used even in the
most advanced and modern English-speaking country in the world!! Even
today, with all our knowledge, we use common figure of speeches and
metaphorical terms such as "sunset" and "sunrise." And by God, we'll be
saying this for many more years to come! If using such language was taken
literally and thus interpreted as a "scientific mistake", I think all my
high school teachers should have been relieved of their posts a long time
ago! ;-)
Peace,
- Sadat
Check out: www.muslim-answers.org
Andy Bannister
news:7qv56e$fll$1...@waltz.rahul.net...
> On 3 Sep 1999, Andy Bannister wrote:
>
> > Gilberto has a good point here. Just because something has been borrowed
> > does not mean it is not true. If you believe that uniqueness is the only
> > thing that gives something credibility, then you ought to follow that
belief
> > to its logical extent and see what you are left with.
>
>
> I agree also. Muhammad "knowing" about Jesus and Moses and Abraham and
> their stories from Jews and Christians would not discredit his claim to
> have a Revelation about them. Afterall, even from a faithful Muslim
> standpoint, it makes perfect sense to me that Muhammad would have to be
> familiar with the tales that God reminds him of. If Muhammad had never
> even heard the *names* of Abraham, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc., or
> if he had never heard of Jewish or Christian beliefs, he would be in a
> rather poor position to be receiving Revelations about them, since he
> would be clueless as to what God is talking about. Imagine the following
> conversation, God forbid:
A good point --- as I said in my post in Mr. Mahdi, I have not read much
about the "borrowing" theories; but certainly he would have known these
stories. I found your point about Muhammad needing to know what he was
receiving revelations about interesting --- it also causes problems for any
Muslims who wish to use the "Qur'an contains modern science" proof; Muhammad
would have not have known what on earth he was being told. Just a thought.
<highly amusing little skit snipped>
<opening sentences snipped>
> This really
> shouldn't be such a big bone of contention between Christians and Muslims.
> If Muhammad knowing a bit about Judaism/Torah/Christianity/Gospel
> discredits his claims to Revelation in the mind of the Christian, then
> what about Jesus who lived as a Jew in Jewish culture?
The question is did Muhammad bring anything that was actually new? ---
especially in terms of law or moral teaching. That is the kind of area which
we expect any new revelation (like the one Muhammad claimed to have) to
address.
> Do we say Jesus
> "borrowed" from Judaism? Do we hear Jews saying-- "Well he only *claimed*
> to be Jehovah because he *learned* about Jehovah through his Jewish
> upbringing and exposure to Jehovah in the Torah!"?
Not really. The "new teaching" argument I used above does apply to Jesus ---
he brought a radically new approach to the law and to morality to that which
the Jews at the time were used to --- one centred on a relationship with God
and the attitude of the heart rather than the simple rote following of
ceremonial laws.
> Or-- "He only
> fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament because he took a
> `sneak-peek' at the Torah at his local synagogue and knew what the
> prophecies were.
Variations of this theory have been used by some critics. Although
fulfilling many of the Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Old Testament
would be pretty hard to engineer --- such as being born in Bethlehem and
growing up in Nazareth, for example.
> In other words, he cheated on the test!"? No, this is
> silly. Jesus was part of a continuing tradition. What he brought was not
> something new.
"Not something new"? I can debate that one with you if like. Jesus turned
the understanding of its time upside down and brought much that was new. And
logically, if you believe in a prophetic line, then you need to need to
believe in something new coming at some point, otherwise there would be
nothing for future prophets to "affirm".
> Similarly, Muhammad never claimed to bring anything new.
I would agree --- I cannot see that he brought anything new. This is one
area in which he does differ to Jesus. The other major one was that Jesus
fulfilled the law in that he was sinless. Whatever you believe about
Jesus --- prophet or divine --- his life was a moral miracle that no prophet
before him managed to achieve.
> The fact that Jews and Christians recognize the names and stories told in
> the Qur'an supports the claim of Muhammad that Islam is nothing new.
I personally would say nothing new and one or two odd twist on that which is
old --- such as minor differences in stories like the Flood (which we will
come to later) and the life of Moses, to quote just two examples.
> Now
> if the only reason this point is still being brought up over and over
> again is because there's some Muslims out there who want to try to argue
> that Muhammad had NO exposure to Jews or Christians, or NO exposure to
> their beliefs, then that argument is admittedly a bit silly and runs
> against common sense, as I tried to demonstrate above.
I agree with you. The Qur'an suggests that there were plenty of Jews and
Christians around and the Hadith is full of references. Common sense also
dictates that as Muhammad worked as a merchant, he would have traded with
Jews, Christians, and people of many other cultures and beliefs. Those who
argue for "zero exposure" struggle.
> I don't agree with
> Muslims who take that sort of an extreme stance on this issue... no more
> than I agree with Muslims who believe that Muhammad was 100% illiterate.
> I think that Muhammad was probably "street-level" literate... In today's
> society, that might mean knowing how to sign one's name, distinguish
> between the men and women's public washrooms, and reading of common and
> easy words, and perhaps elementary sentence construction. But no, I don't
> believe Muhammad was literate or educated enough to compose the eloquent
> ayah of a Book that left his contemporaries speechless and won over the
> hearts of an entire nation within his lifetime.
The Hadith witnesses to the fact that Muhammad was literate. The Hadith of
Ibn Sa'd alludes to the fact that he wrote:
"The prophet, may Allah bless him, fell ill on Thursday. Thereupon he, i.e.,
Ibn 'Abbas began to weep and say: 'Woe be to this Thursday! What a
Thursday.' The illness of the prophet, may Allah bless him, became severe:
he said: 'Bring an ink-pot and something [paper or papyrus or any material
used for writing] to write on. I shall [write for you] a document and you
will never be misguided." (Ibn Sa'd, p.302)
Muhammad must have been educated/literate enough to convince Khadijah that
he was the man to run her business affairs for her. We also need to ask how
much of the Qur'an is in the form that Muhammad "received" it, and how much
is due the careful and thoughtful editing/compilation of his secretary ---
Zaid ibn Thabit --- 14 years after Muhammad's death, during the reign of
Caliph Uthman.
<snipped>
> No, I *don't* believe Muhammad
> possessed a mind smart enough, on his own, to "copy" biblical stories but
> mysteriously omit those sections which today prove to be the most
> scientifically incompatible
Your arguments would be valid if you could prove that this what Muhammad had
done. But one only has to compare stories that occur in both the Qur'an and
the Bible to see that --- whilst they may differ --- there are still things
in or common to both accounts that are most certainly scientifically
incompatible. Now I won't bore you with too many details, as for the Flood
and the encounter between Moses and the Pharoah's magicians I have dealt
with in a previous post on this thread (dated 3-Sept-99). However, consider
the following:
MOSES ENCOUNTERS THE MAGICIANS OF PHAROAH
Bible / Qur'an - Moses' rod becomes a serpent (scientifically
"incompatible")
Bible - magicians rods become serpents (scientifically "incompatible")
Qur'an - magicians use magic to make their rods move (scientifically
"incompatible")
Qur'an - Moses' serpent eats wooden rods (scientifically "incompatible")
MOSES AND THE EXODUS
Bible / Qur'an - God parts the sea for Moses and closes it upon the
Egyptians (scientifically "incompatible")
etc. etc.
There are also plenty of examples of stories unique to Islam and the Qur'an
that are entirely scientifically "incompatible". For example, the way in
which Muslims believe the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad by the angel
Gabriel. Angels, revelations, visions --- all of these would be classed by a
scientist as scientifically "incompatible".
Do you see the problem? It is very easy to call upon "science" as a Muslim
to try to disprove the Bible, and then happily put it back in the cupboard
again when it comes to your own book. But science cannot be used like
that --- it needs to be applied consistently, unemotionally, and
indiscriminately.
At the end of the day I believe that neither the Bible nor the Qur'an were
written as scientific textbooks. Hence "science" is not the way to judge
between them. But if you insist on judging the Bible by science then you
must also admit that the Qur'an is at odds with modern scientific thinking.
Otherwise you are guilty of double standards.
<snip>
> Nor do I think Muhammad had the ability
> to travel into the future and witness the Romans defeat the Persians in
> nine years' time, Pharaoh's mummified body to be recovered, the orbit of
> the planets, and other various prophecies/scientific facts which seem to
> be stated quite clearly (a little bit more on this issue below) in the
> Qur'an.
What you seem to be saying is this --- that the Qur'an contains modern
scientific thought (i.e. the orbit of the planets and other "scientific
facts"). There is no way that Muhammad could --- as a human being living
1,400 years ago --- have known these things. Therefore, the Qur'an must be
>from God. There is a major, major, major problem with line of thinking, and
it revolves around the fact that --- as I explained above --- science is
neutral. What this means is that your argument CUTS BOTH WAYS. If modern
science being in the Qur'an can prove it is divine, then if there is any
bad/wrong science in the Qur'an then --- by your same reasoning --- the
Qur'an CANNOT be from God. Because, simply put, a revelation from God cannot
contain bad science --- can it?
So, the question is, can we find any dubious science in the Qur'an. Well,
the answer is "yes, we can." Here is my first example:
Sura 18:86 -> Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set
in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O
Zulqarnain! (Thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them
with kindness."
Now I know you have objections with my claiming this as bad science (because
a) the sun does not set in murky water, b) because the sun sets on an
east-west line it is possible to "reach the setting of the sun", even were
you to travel for an infinite length of time.) I will deal with this
particular ayah further down at the appropriate point in the post.
Since you mentioned "orbits" as an example of good science you allege is in
the Qur'an, I thought that would be a perfect example for my next
illustration:
Sura 36:40 -> "It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can
the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit
(according to Law)."
Leaving aside the fact that the references to the sun catching the moon
reflect a 7th century mindset that has simply watched them track across the
sky, but not realised that the sun is millions upon millions of miles away
>from the moon, there is another problem. This verse states that the sun
"swims along" in its "own orbit". As any astronomer can tell you, the sun
does not "orbit"! Again, 36:40 seems to have been written after looking up
the sky, watching the sun and moon track across it and then assuming a) they
are both in close proximity to each other (the "catch up" phrase) and that
b) both are flying in an orbit.
If we apply your theories about science logically, uniformly, and
consistently, then these two verses alone (there are plenty of others),
cause great difficulty for the Qur'an. Science is a dangerous bedfellow.
<Discussion about web-sites snipped. Suffice to say the point was that Mr.
Mahdi seemed to think Christians were out to get poor, defenceless Islam. My
point was that there is dialogue, apologetics, and attack on both sides>
> This issue of Jesus and Christians in Islam and the Qur'an leads to
> another interesting issue for me, pointed about by Jeffrey Lang in one of
> his books. Is it not interesting that the Qur'an dedicates sufficient
> time to addressing the issue of Jesus and Christians? It's really
> something to think about. Muhammad and his followers were surrounded by
> pagan Arabs, not Christians.
Can I quote back to you what you said above. These are your words, note, not
mine:
" ... there's some Muslims out there who want to try to argue that Muhammad
had NO exposure to Jews or Christians, or NO exposure to their beliefs, then
that argument is admittedly a bit silly and runs against common sense ..."
Muhammad had plenty of Christians (and Jews) around to worry about. Hence
why the Qur'an makes plenty of reference to them. The Hadith is also full of
material. And common sense also dictates that if Mecca was the major trade
centre that it was supposed to have been, then it would have been full of
Christians, Jews, Arab pagans, and people of all faiths and none.
> Their main "obstacle", their main enemy, was
> always pagans. Yet mysteriously, the Qur'an does not address any of their
> beliefs *directly*... and I believe it only mentions one (or perhaps two?)
> of the pagan Arab "gods" by name. Otherwise, the Qur'an addresses and
> criticizes the pagans in a very general way. When criticizing their
> beliefs in plural gods and statues, the Qur'an is speaking as efficiently
> to the Hindus of today as it is to the pagan Arabs of the 7th century,
> since it is addressing them in a very general way. But when discussing
> Christians, a force that was NOT Muhammad's immediate problem, obstacle,
> or enemy,
Again, not true. Given the sorts of things he was claiming for himself and
for his "revelations" it was not surprising that he ran into opposition with
the Jews and Christians --- precisely because it was their Scriptures he was
claiming to supersede/confirm/whatever. It is only natural that he had to
come up with some convenient revelations as a polemic against them; the
pagan Arabs would not have cared what he wrote about Moses, Noah, or Jesus.
> the Qur'an goes into comparative detail, correcting the
> misunderstood issues of the crucifixion
Not really. It simply denies that it happens (rather than explains what did
happen) --- and in the process has had Muslim scholars debating for over a
thousand years as to what happened to Jesus and who took his place on the
cross. Sura 4:157 contradicts not only the Gospel accounts, but also those
of non-biased historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian.
>, Jesus' divinity, and even the
> doctrine of the Trinity.
Again, not true. The Qur'an actually fudges the doctrine of the trinity when
it says that:
'And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst say unto men,
'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say:
"Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said
such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my
heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that
is hidden."' (Sura 5:119)
Mary is not and never has been part of the "Trinity" (in quote-marks because
the Bible never actually uses this phrase to describe the tri-une God.)
<rest of this line of argument snipped - we can discuss this in a separate
post if you like (time is short at present)>
> I can say with honesty that "Islam is the fastest growing religion on the
> planet" has never been my argument for proving Islam's truthfulness. If
> that were the case, I think we would all have to admit that atheism is
> growing faster than both Islam and Christianity! And that certainly
> shouldn't convince us that atheism is correct. But nonetheless, as a side
> issue of interest, I'd like to know what your reference for the above
> claim is. I take it that you're claiming that Christianity is growing
> faster? (certainly not in my part of the world!)
Atheism is not growing fastest --- probably secular humanism is growing the
fastest, both here in the west and in much of the Muslim world amongst the
young. Nor was I claiming that Christianity is growing the fastest. Just for
reference , there is a new Chinese quasi-religious practice called Falung
Gong that, despite the claims of its leaders to be an exercise movement
rather than a religion, borrows extensively from Buddhism and Taoism. Both
Muslims and Christians would disagree with most of what it
teaches. It is displaying astronimical growth rates at present --- mainly in
China.
> > And the same applies to Islam, my friend. Like the "Bible has been
changed"
> > polemic, which basically emerged as soon as the new Islamic faith spread
and
> > came across people who actually had Bibles who were able to take issue
with
> > the Qu'ran.
>
> Not true. The Qur'an itself seems to indicate the charge that Christians
> have either lost, changed, wrote, or covered up important pieces of
> their Revelation. In other words, this allegation against Christians by
> Muslims is not the result of "smart Christians who fought back", but it
> stems from the Qur'an itself.
I would disagree with you there. The Qur'an affirms the Torah, the Gospels,
and also "the book" which may have been the Bible --- remember that "Bible"
means "Book". The main charge that the Qur'an makes is against
Jews/Christians who do not know the Bible, and therefore cannot correct
those who say false things and claim that they are Scripture. The sheer
global operation needed to change the Bible by the time of Muhammad would
have required mind boggling effort, as well as a unique partnership between
the Jews and Christians.
<discussion about the verification of miracles snipped - your introduction
set up the argument that there could not have been a world-wide flood
because of lack of, for example, geological evidence>
> Atheists reject the biblical narration of Noah's flood for generally two
> main reasons:
> (1) It is a supernatural event... it is an event directed by God.... and
> such things are simply not possible or proveable (*this* reason is
> certainly anti-supernaturalistic).
>
> (2) There is no scientific or historical evidence that proves a
> *worldwide* flood. To the contrary, at the time that Noah's flood was
> *supposed* to have occured (which can be calculated using the
> a-little-more-than-necessary-and-might-cause-quite-a-few-problems-later-on
> geneologies of the relevent biblical characters in the Bible), what we
> ACTUALLY find is that there were many civilizations FLOURISHING at that
> time, such as ancient Egypt.
Agreed --- this is a problem, although trying to date the flood is virtually
impossible. Any student of Biblical history knows that the problem with
adding up geneaologies is a) how do the years correlate to our calender?, b)
the problem with great ages (same problem occurs in the Qur'an, which also
claims Noah lived to 950), and c) that Hebrew genealogies often skipped
people --- they weren't meant to be read as wholly inclusive. Noah's
flood --- global or local --- belongs in the dawn of human history, not much
more can said than that. The Bible also claims that the nations spread out
over the earth from Noah's sons' descendants after the flood --- which may
well place the flood long before the rise of the great Egyptian
civilisation. Anyway, I pontificate ...
> In summary, as a Muslim and as a reasonable human being, I reject the
> biblical narration of the flood for reason (2) above, and not reason (1).
> In doing so, I am not being anti-supernaturalistic, but I am simply being
> reasonable and open-minded. So let's face it. Noah's Flood, as reported
> in the Bible, did not happen.
You need to rephrase your statement to "I believe that my interpretation of
Noah's flood, as recorded in the Bible, did not happen." You can never be
certain --- if nothing else, a God who made the heavens and the earth from
nothing could flood the entire world and leave no evidence; small scale
miracle in comparism. Now I don't hold that position. But you cannot rule it
out as a possibility.
> > I have not read much about the Bible borrowing theories about the
Qu'ran.
> > However, what I am aware of is that Muhammad probably did not have
access to
> > a Bible but heard the stories second or third hand. Anyone who has ever
> > played the game "Chinese Whispers" can testify as to the problems with
this
> > kind of casual oral transmission.
>
>
> Is "Chinese Whispers" anything like "Broken Telephone"? If it is, you'll
> realize that the KEY feature of such a game is that the re-teller of the
> story has a tendancy to create and add elaborate and imaginative new
> details.
In "Chinese Whispers" the original message gets bits dropped, slightly
altered, or garbled as well as well as bits sometimes added. The aim of the
game is to pass the message intact. It was only an illustration anyway
(what's "Broken Telephone" incidentally?)
> Does the Qur'an do this with the story of Noah's Flood?
And the answer would be "yes". For example the narrative about one of Noah's
sons not being saved with the rest of his family is a complete addition.
The Qur'an certainly implies a global flood in its narrative; I have made
reference to this in my other postings, together with the verses from the
Qur'an to support it. I am sure you are also aware that conventional Islamic
thought has always been of a global flood, and the traditions have reflected
this.
One final thought occurred to me this afternoon in terms of the Qur'an
talking about a global flood. Now this is only a thought, so please don't
subject it to theological scrutiny. But I think it is a fascinating idea to
explore. Consider where the Qur'an claims the Ark of Noah came to rest:
Sura 11:44 Then the word went forth: "O earth! Swallow up thy water, and O
sky! Withhold (thy rain)!" And the water abated, and the matter was ended.
THE ARK RESTED ON MOUNT JUDI, and the word went forth: "Away with those who
do wrong!"
Now Mount Judi lies somewhere in the "mountains of Ararat" to which the
Bible refers --- a highly mountainous area in South-East Turkey, most of
which (even the lower land) is hundreds if not thousands of feet above sea
level. Here is my point; I am a mountain climber by hobby, I have climbed
well over 100 mountains here in the UK (small on the global stage, but
technical none the less). Consider the UK's highest mountain (Scafell Pike @
3,120 feet). Now Scafell Pike does not begin at sea level. You cannot really
claim you are standing on it until you are well past the 2,000 foot line
(lower down you would be in such and such a valley). The same is true of
most mountains --- and if Mount Judi is in the mountainous region of Turkey
between Mount Ararat (approx 16,000 feet) and Lake Van, then one could
probably not claim to be on Mount Judi until one was several thousand feet
up. And yet the Qur'an states "the Ark rested on Mount Judi". We are talking
several hundred (if not thousand) feet of flood water here --- more than
usual local flood (20-30 feet of water at most).
Just a thought to add to my comments in my previous post. Oh, and there was
another verse I came across when I was flicking through my Qur'an this
afternoon:
Sura 54:11-12 -> "So We opened the gates of heaven, with water pouring
forth. And We caused the earth to gush forth with springs. So the waters met
(and rose) to the extent decreed."
The whole imagery here ... of the waters falling from the sky meeting the
waters gushing from the ground (actually floods are NEVER caused by waters
gushing from the ground unless a cloudburst has raised the water table)
suggests a flood covering the whole land. (Note as well that Noah pointed
out to his son elsewhere the futility of trying to find a mountain to flee
too).
At the end of the day, I think you are interpreting the Qur'an to suit your
scientific viewpoint; it doesn't actually say GLOBAL or LOCAL flood, but it
implies the former. The Bible does not say GLOBAL or LOCAL either --- but
more strongly implies the former.
<snipped - perhaps we ought to discuss the flood issue at length in a
separate post ... this is already looking very lengthy>
>
> > You need also to bear in mind that many Christians believe the flood in
> > Genesis to be a local flood. The difficulties of intepretation for that
> > position are no more than for your trying to argue for a local flood in
the
> > Qu'ran given the verses above.
>
>
> No, there's no comparison between the difficulties in the Bible and the
> difficulties in the Qur'an.
The main interpretation issue is the use of the word "earth" in the Bible.
Like Arabic, Hebrew words can have a variety of meanings ... "eretz" can
also mean "land" and is used in this local context elsewhere in the Hebrew
Scriptures.
<rest of flood debate snipped for now>
>
> > '"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a
spring
> > of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zulqarnain! (Thou
> > hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."'
> > (Sura 18:86)
>
> For the past five years, the above verse from the Qur'an has served as the
> Christians' argument against the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an!
Nope --- I have a truckload of other verses that are, to use your phrase,
"scientifically incompatible". I have given one example above, and can
provide you with some more if you wish.
> Allah-hu-Akbar! Far from hurting our faith in Islam, it is only
> INCREASING it! We print entire books on the scientific inaccuracies in
> the Bible...
I have seen some of them, and they don't really interest me. If you try to
make the Bible into a science textbook then, good grief, the whole book
falls apart. However God did not give us the Bible to tell us how the earth
works, but how to get to heaven. You need to address the issue of genre.
99.9% of the "scientific errors in the Bible" amount to misreading the genre
of the Bible, and trying to make something like a Psalm of praise explain
the inner workings of the atom. I have also come across some scientific
howlers in some of these polemics --- like the Muslim who claimed the Bible
was scientifically erroneous because it claimed that hares chewed the cud
(Levitixus 11:6). A simple glance at a reference book will tell you that
hares are ruminants.
However, the issue with the Qur'an IS different. Because many Muslims try to
make it into a science textbook. You yourself did this at the beginning of
your post. If Muslims want to try to prove the Qur'an is divine by finding
within the pages modern science, then at the same stroke they create its
downfall if non-science/wrong science is found there. And Sura 18:86 is just
that. Let us examine your defence:
> they respond with a charge that basically amounts to:
> "The Qur'an says `The sun sets'".
> The last time I checked, this is a *figure of speech* used even in the
> most advanced and modern English-speaking country in the world!!
A strawman, I'm afraid. Sura 18:86 says much, much more than that. It says:
'"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring
of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zulqarnain! (Thou
hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."'
This verse states that:
1) The sun was found setting in a spring of murky water. This is not a
figure of speech. "He travelled until the sun had set" would be. I use the
phrase "the sun set" often ... but I have never added "in a pool of murky
water".
2) 18:86 claims that the traveller REACHED the setting of the sun. As any
school-boy knows, the sun sets on an east-west line. It is not possible to
reach the extreme east or west, however far you set. And of course, there is
no place of the sun setting, it simply drops below the horizon. In fact this
error is compounded four verses later when we read: "Until, when he came to
the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had
provided no covering protection against the sun." (Sura 18:90) Again, one
can not reach the place of the rising of the sun.
If only it were as easy as "figures of speech."
Thank you for a fascinating discussion. I do apologise for having to snip
and not take up much of your post --- it was long and well thought out,
something quite rare on SRI. I would love to debate the Flood story and
surrounding issues with you sometime soon, but I expect that will need a
separate post.
May God bless you and guide you into all truth.
Andy Bannister
an...@bannister.screaming.net
Xanthic777
>
ed
>> does not mean it is not true. If you believe that uniqueness is the on=
ly
>> thing that gives something credibility, then you ought to follow that
>belief
>> to its logical extent and see what you are left with.
>
>
>I agree also. Muhammad "knowing" about Jesus and Moses and Abraham and
>their stories from Jews and Christians would not discredit his claim to
>have a Revelation about them. Afterall, even from a faithful Muslim
>standpoint, it makes perfect sense to me that Muhammad would have to be
>familiar with the tales that God reminds him of. If Muhammad had never
>even heard the *names* of Abraham, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc., or
>if he had never heard of Jewish or Christian beliefs, he would be in a
>rather poor position to be receiving Revelations about them, since he
g
>conversation, God forbid:
XAN
What you say is agreeable, but we have to keep in mind the nature of the
Qur'an. What are the claims it is making and very importantly, how does =
it
teach us that Muhammad relates to the Qur'an. I find it very agreeable =
that
Muhammad could have an extensive knowledge even to the extent of eruditio=
n and
God, who is all-powerful, could use him to reveal His message to humanity=
. =20
Christians know the large extent that New Testament text depends upon the=
Old
Testament text for imagery, symbollism, vocabulary, etc. Yet never would=
we
ever think of saying this shows falsity. We would say, "Ahh, I can see
continuity here."
The Qur'an claims continuity with Judaism and Christianity, though a prop=
hetic
one that is not all-embracing. Does this continuity work, however? That=
is
what I think is the question, and the paper which is being discussed stau=
nchly
says, "NO!" Is the argument plausible? Let's not get ahead of ourselves=
. ...
> [snipped examples, though good and necessary to the previous post]
>
>This would obviously be a ridiculous situation. Common sense suggests
>that Muhammad should at the very least have been familiar with the
>subject-matter being dealt with, or else he wouldn't really know or
>understand what God is revealing, would he? Take a look at Sir Muhammad
>Iqbal's "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" in which I
>believe he briefly but sufficiently deals with this issue. This really
>shouldn't be such a big bone of contention between Christians and Muslim=
s.
>If Muhammad knowing a bit about Judaism/Torah/Christianity/Gospel
>discredits his claims to Revelation in the mind of the Christian, then
>what about Jesus who lived as a Jew in Jewish culture? =20
XAN
I think a problem does arise when we see that we have a founder in Islam =
whose
culture and message is much more incongruous with the past he seeks to co=
nnect
to. If the Qur'an is suppossed to be purely Divine and its composition t=
otally
unaided by human creativity or thought, then we have a problem. It is
suppossed to be Allah's words, and not Muhammad's WHATSOEVER. The first
problem we run into is that Qur'an is in Arabic, Muhammad's language. Th=
e
Qur'an addresses this problem,=20
And most surely this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. The Fai=
thful
Servant [i.e. Gabriel] has descended with it. Upon your heart that you ma=
y be
of the warners, in plain Arabic language.=20
Sura 26:192-195
Of course it is necessary that the Qur'an be revealed in SOME language. =
Since
Allah's will is to effect the guidance of humanity via Islam, it would be
logical to at least start the revelation in Muhammad's native tongue. Th=
e
Qur=92an is purely an objective revelation, and Muhammad merely a passing=
medium
of communication. According to the Qur=92an, the only source is Allah Him=
self. It
is neither human nor a mixture of both the human and the divine. Muhammad=
=92s
will and desires, in the spectrum of Quranic teachings, has no influence =
on the
revelation. Sura 10:15 makes this clear:
And when Our clear communications are recited to them, those who hope not=
for
Our meeting say: Bring a Qur=92an other that this or change it. Say: It d=
oes no
beseem me that I should change it of myself; I follow naught but what is
revealed to me; surely I fear, if I disobey my Lord the punishment of a m=
ight
day.
Above this, the Qur'an has a heavenly source, Sura 43:4.7:
And verily, it is in the Mother of the Book, in Our Presence, high (in
dignity), full of wisdom.
I won't go into the exact nature of this, because I recognize it is
controversial. I will give a quote of Ahmad ibn Hanbal on the issue; "Th=
e
Qur=92an is the Word of God and it is not created. It is not wrong to say=
, "It is
not created," for God=92s Word is not separate from Him, and there is not=
hing of
him that is created."
>Do we say Jesus
>"borrowed" from Judaism? Do we hear Jews saying-- "Well he only *claime=
d*
>to be Jehovah because he *learned* about Jehovah through his Jewish
>upbringing and exposure to Jehovah in the Torah!"? Or-- "He only
>fulfilled the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament because he took =
a
>`sneak-peek' at the Torah at his local synagogue and knew what the
>prophecies were. In other words, he cheated on the test!"? No, this is
>silly. Jesus was part of a continuing tradition. What he brought was n=
ot
>something new. Similarly, Muhammad never claimed to bring anything new.
XAN
Interestingly enough, he did bring many things new to Christians and Jews=
!
>The fact that Jews and Christians recognize the names and stories told i=
n
>the Qur'an supports the claim of Muhammad that Islam is nothing new. No=
w
>if the only reason this point is still being brought up over and over
>again is because there's some Muslims out there who want to try to argue
>that Muhammad had NO exposure to Jews or Christians, or NO exposure to
>their beliefs, then that argument is admittedly a bit silly and runs
>against common sense, as I tried to demonstrate above. I don't agree wi=
th
>Muslims who take that sort of an extreme stance on this issue... no more
>than I agree with Muslims who believe that Muhammad was 100% illiterate.
>I think that Muhammad was probably "street-level" literate... In today's
>society, that might mean knowing how to sign one's name, distinguish
>between the men and women's public washrooms, and reading of common and
>easy words, and perhaps elementary sentence construction. But no, I don=
't
>believe Muhammad was literate or educated enough to compose the eloquent
>ayah of a Book that left his contemporaries speechless and won over the
>hearts of an entire nation within his lifetime. Even if the most educat=
ed
>and famous poet of Arabia had composed the Qur'an, I would STILL conside=
r
>it a miracle. =20
XAN
I think Muhammad had to be a little literate, otherwise, he would face ex=
treme
difficulty in managing and organizing things for Khadijah! "Won their he=
arts"
isn't exactly an accurate depiction of the spread of Islam throughout Ara=
bia or
even during Muhammad's lifetime. He made many enemies, though he also ma=
de
many allies.
>Similarly, based on all the evidence that is put on the
>table, I would argue that Muhammad did have contact with Jews and
>Christians and was generally aware of their beliefs and Prophets, as was
>most of the rest of pagan Arabia.
XAN
Yes, but did he reconstruct them? Obviously they are reconstructed in the
Qur'an because they are quite different. Did he distortt the stories or
reform them? The evidence given has overwhelming shown that he distorted=
them,
and those emendations made in the Qur'an often travel farther away from
hisotoricity than toward it filling them ridiculous fables and anachronis=
ms.
> No, I *don't* believe Muhammad
>possessed a mind smart enough, on his own, to "copy" biblical stories bu=
t
>mysteriously omit those sections which today prove to be the most
>scientifically incompatible
XAN
So Solomon having a bird who can have conversations with kings (much more
beyond the capabilities of any parrot!), talking with insects and animals=
, and
possessing an army of jinn at his command as in the sure " the Ant" is mo=
re
scientifically probable?!
> and have forced an entire generation of young
>Christians to become skeptical about the entire book as a whole. That
>simply doesn't seem reasonable. Nor do I think Muhammad had the ability
>to travel into the future and witness the Romans defeat the Persians in
>nine years' time, Pharaoh's mummified body to be recovered, the orbit of
>the planets, and other various prophecies/scientific facts which seem to
>be stated quite clearly (a little bit more on this issue below) in the
>Qur'an.
XAN
Are Christians becoming skeptical? YES. Skeptical towards what? I would =
say
the truly scholarly adherents become skeptical of traditional interpretat=
ions
of the Christian faith, and not of revelation as a whole. I would discus=
s
these "amazing proofs" you briefly went over, but he purpose of me writin=
g this
is not to debunk such things.
>
>> An interesting exercise for you. Have a look at the average Christian
>> web-site (there are tens of thousands to choose from on somewhere lik
>> www.yahoo.com). See if it devotes much space to attacking Islam. Chanc=
es
>are
>> probably not. Now do the same thing for Islam. My experience is that t=
he
>> majority of Islamic web sites I have seen spend considerable time atta=
cking
>> Christianity, whereas the average Christian web-site does not even men=
tion
>> Islam.
>> My main point is this: that your statement could equally well be appli=
ed to
>> Islam. In trying to defend Islam, many Muslims attack Christianity in =
order
>> to try to prove their religion "right".
>
>Islam starts where Jesus (ie. "true Christianity") left off, and so it
>only makes sense, due to its chronological position, that it would speak
>more about Jesus and Christians than Christianity speaks about Muhammad
>and Muslims. And the end result of this is, Muslims generally speak mor=
e
>about Jesus when discussing Islam than Christians speak about Muhammad
>when discussing Christianity. This only makes sense.=20
XAN
Islam is itself strongly a polemic against everything unique and substant=
ial to
the Christian faith. I am not surprise that this struggle against the es=
sence
of Christianity has not died down because the zeal of Muslims has not dec=
reased
either.
>This issue of Jesus and Christians in Islam and the Qur'an leads to
>another interesting issue for me, pointed about by Jeffrey Lang in one o=
f
>his books. Is it not interesting that the Qur'an dedicates sufficient
>time to addressing the issue of Jesus and Christians? It's really
>something to think about. Muhammad and his followers were surrounded by
>pagan Arabs, not Christians. Their main "obstacle", their main enemy, w=
as
>always pagans. Yet mysteriously, the Qur'an does not address any of the=
ir
>beliefs *directly*... and I believe it only mentions one (or perhaps two=
?)
>of the pagan Arab "gods" by name. Otherwise, the Qur'an addresses and
>criticizes the pagans in a very general way. When criticizing their
>beliefs in plural gods and statues, the Qur'an is speaking as efficientl=
y
>to the Hindus of today as it is to the pagan Arabs of the 7th century,
>since it is addressing them in a very general way. But when discussing
>Christians, a force that was NOT Muhammad's immediate problem, obstacle,
>or enemy, the Qur'an goes into comparative detail, correcting the
>misunderstood issues of the crucifixion, Jesus' divinity, and even the
>doctrine of the Trinity. Now for *those who reflect*, I think this is
>truly a sign! If Muhammad authored the Qur'an, using *his limited human
>mind*, would he not dedicate more time and space to attacking and
>criticizing the beliefs of the pagan Arabs? Would he not write more abo=
ut
>an issue that he was more familiar with? Moreover, at this point in tim=
e
>(and indeed, throughout his life), the pagan "gods" of Arabia were still
>more of a hindrance and obstacle to his movement than the "Christian God=
"?
>Why then does Muhammad waste time writing about the Christian God more
>than the pagan Arab gods that he can write more as a first-hand authorit=
y
>on? Why does the Qur'an not address the pagan Arab beliefs of the day i=
n
>as much detail as it discusses broader problems in Christian doctrine?
>For those who reflect, there are two possibilities:
>
>(1) Muhammad, despite some extremely trying and despairing moments in h=
is
>mission, KNEW, for a FACT, that his false and innovated religion would
>actually become a "superhit" and spread like water on the earth one day,
>and thus Christianity would *become* its biggest obstacle on the global
>level ONE DAY...
>
>(2) The Divine Author (ie. God, not Muhammad) of the Qur'an knew in His
>Infinite Wisdowm that the pagan Arabs, despite their force and
>overwhelming numbers, really didn't deserve to be bothered with too
>much... because their time was almost up... and in the future, the *real=
*
>"battle" would be an ideological confrontation between the Christian and
>Islamic civilizations.
>
You forgot the most plausibe option:
(3) Muhammad must have had his first contacts with Jews and Christians du=
ring
his travels to Syria with Abu Talib [his uncle]. The monotheistic faith o=
f
these peoples must have been a great contrast for Muhammad to observe bei=
ng
that he was raised in a polytheistic culture. Perhaps conversations with =
Jews
and Christians strengthened his doubts about the usefulness of idol worsh=
ip.
There amongst the camels he would most likely ponder these ideas. There [=
Syria]
he saw a different and brighter world with no signs of the ignorance,
superstition, and rudeness prevalent among the Meccans. The people whom h=
e met
were politer, the social atmosphere was happier, and the accepted customs=
were
of a higher order. These observations must have added to the turmoil in h=
is
inner soul. It was probably there that he first perceived how primitive a=
nd
rough and superstitious his own people were; perhaps there also that he b=
egan
to wish that they might have a better ordered, less superstitious, and mo=
re
human society. Soon he experienced things beyond his understanding, the =
nature
of which he even doubted himself. These experiences he associated with
prophetic stories he heard. Muhammad then began to see Himself as divine=
ly
called, the marker of this being his intense fits of esoteric, mystical n=
ature
which he himself could not explain. He had uncertainties nevertheless, a=
nd he
sought most the recognition of his prophethood by others. When this did =
not
happen he doubted himself when without power. When in power, he responde=
d in
bloodthisty rage. He took the traditions of Jews and Christians and mold=
ed
them to make them applicable to his own situations. Where his knowledge
lacked, he inserted innovations. The Qur'an is the product of not only
Muhammad's mind but also his culture and experiene; thus, we have a text =
that
is similar to the Bible yet very incongruous with it.
Muhammad had a strong desire to just simply be recognized as prophet. I =
think
he was insecure in his feelings about his prophethood. For instance, wha=
t was
the one condition of amnesty? What would cause Muhammad to pardon any off=
ense?=20
Say to Muhammad, "Inta ar-Rasullah. That is all for this post is already=
too
long!!
peace and grace to you and your households,
-xan
SILAS778
<<<Muhammad "knowing" about Jesus and Moses and Abraham and their stories from
Jews and Christians would not discredit his claim to have a Revelation about
sense to me that Muhammad would have to be familiar with the tales that God
reminds him of. If Muhammad had never even heard the *names* of Abraham,
Ishmael, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc., or if he had never heard of Jewish or
Christian beliefs, he would be in a rather poor position to be receiving
Revelations about them, since he would be clueless as to what God is talking
about. Imagine the following conversation, God forbid:
God-- "And remember Noah..."
Muhammad-- "Huh? Noah who? Who's that?"
God-- "And remember Our favours on Moses.."
Muhammad-- "Wait wait.. rewind a bit... can you give me a short intro on
this Moses fellow? Who is he?"
.. ..
This would obviously be a ridiculous situation. Common sense suggests
that Muhammad should at the very least have been familiar with the
subject-matter being dealt with, or else he wouldn't really know or understand
what God is revealing, would he? >>>
I agree. This type of common sense is lacking in some Muslims who try to
portray Muhammad as having little or no exposure to these religions. Of course
Muhammad knew something of them. He could not have gone through the Hijaz
without having learned of Christianity and Judaism. The Quran, Hadith, and
Sira are full of such examples.
--------------------------------
Bollywood wrote:
<<<Take a look at Sir Muhammad Iqbal's "The Reconstruction of Religious Thought
in Islam" in which I believe he briefly but sufficiently deals with this issue.
This really shouldn't be such a big bone of contention between Christians and
Muslims. If Muhammad knowing a bit about Judaism/Torah/Christianity/Gospel
discredits his claims to Revelation in the mind of the Christian, then
what about Jesus who lived as a Jew in Jewish culture? Do we say Jesus
"borrowed" from Judaism? Do we hear Jews saying-- "Well he only *claimed*
to be Jehovah because he *learned* about Jehovah through his Jewish
upbringing and exposure to Jehovah in the Torah .. .. No, this is
silly. Jesus was part of a continuing tradition. What he brought was not
something new. Similarly, Muhammad never claimed to bring anything new.>>>
I don't think that merely knowing about other religions would disqualify
Muhammad. On the other hand, to claim pure revelation, and then repeat in
sufficient detail, as to show plagiarism, then that would disqualify him. And,
to repeat known myths, and to say they were true, that would also disqualify
him. And this is the case.
BTW Jesus did bring something new. And Muhammad also brought something new.
----------------------------------
Bollywood wrote:
<<<The fact that Jews and Christians recognize the names and stories told in
the Qur'an supports the claim of Muhammad that Islam is nothing new. Now if
the only reason this point is still being brought up over and over again is
because there's some Muslims out there who want to try to argue that Muhammad
had NO exposure to Jews or Christians, or NO exposure to their beliefs, then
that argument is admittedly a bit silly and runs against common sense, as I
tried to demonstrate above.>>>
I disagree with the statement about Islam having nothing new. Islam definitely
contradicts the OT in many places, thus it does bring something quite new. I
do agree with your point concerning "those that claim Muhammad had little or no
exposure to their beliefs are silly", especially since it goes against the
testimony of the Islamic sources.
Bollywood wrote:
<<<I don't agree with Muslims who take that sort of an extreme stance on this
issue... no more than I agree with Muslims who believe that Muhammad was 100%
illiterate. .. ... But no, I don't believe Muhammad was literate or educated
enough to compose the eloquent ayah of a Book that left his contemporaries
speechless and won over the hearts of an entire nation within his lifetime.>>>
I think his followers swords had more to do with taking Mecca, and the rest of
the Hijaz than the Quran did. In fact, most tribes that accepted Islam did so
because of the threat of the sword.
Bollywood wrote:
<<<If Muhammad authored the Qur'an, using *his limited human mind*, would he
not dedicate more time and space to attacking and criticizing the beliefs of
the pagan Arabs? Would he not write more about an issue that he was more
familiar with?>>>
Muhammad was familiar with Judaism and Christianity. Please read parts 3 and 4
of my six parter, or visit:
http://members.tripod.com/~Islam_Unveiled/borrow3.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Islam_Unveiled/borrow4.html
You statement about Muhammad not dealing with paganism is misleading. If you
read the Sirat, you find that Muhammad spent a great deal of time attacking and
even insulting the pagan's faith. At one point, the pagans said that if he
would stop insulting their faith, they would stop harassing him. He refused.
Additionally, I think that there was more Christian and Jewish influence in the
Hijaz then many realize. As I read the Sirat, I find that Christianity and
Judaism are frequently recognized over and over by the people as respected
religions. Since Muhammad rejected paganism, and claimed to be of the
monotheistic vein, it follows he would appeal to and quote from the faiths he
respected, to establish his own credibility.
Bollywood wrote:
<<<Why does the Qur'an not address the pagan Arab beliefs of the day in as much
detail as it discusses broader problems in Christian doctrine? For those who
reflect, there are two possibilities:
(1) Muhammad, despite some extremely trying and despairing moments in his
mission, KNEW, for a FACT, that his false and innovated religion would
actually become a "superhit" and spread like water on the earth one day,
and thus Christianity would *become* its biggest obstacle on the global
level ONE DAY...
(2) The Divine Author (ie. God, not Muhammad) of the Qur'an knew in His
Infinite Wisdowm that the pagan Arabs, despite their force and
overwhelming numbers, really didn't deserve to be bothered with too
much... because their time was almost up... and in the future, the *real*
"battle" would be an ideological confrontation between the Christian and
Islamic civilizations.
I'm voting for number (2) above. Again, this one point by itself does not
"prove" the Qur'an to be the Word of God... but hundreds of such points
and arguments, piling one above the other, deserve a more reasonable
explanation than just-- "Muhammad was a liar prophet with a really really
really really clever brain and the occasional gift to look into the
future." This explanation simply can't cut it, and it certainly shouldn't
satisfy the thinking Christian.>>>
You are making much ado about nothing. You are missing the big picture of the
sum of Muhammad's words. Much of what he said dealt with paganism or other
topics. Read the Sira and Hadith.
Your question, "Why does the Qur'an not address the pagan Arab beliefs of the
day in as much detail as it discusses broader problems in Christian doctrine?",
is interesting. "Detail"? Detail on what subject? The Quran confuses itself
with Christ's death. The Quran is confused about the "trinity", or, if you
will, with the Christian concept of the nature of God. Most of Muhammad's words
in the Quran contain scant reference to the details in the Biblical stories.
The details about Christ's birth are repeated myths. So then, what detail does
the Quran actually discuss? Nothing. The Quran lacks details. The real
question is why does the Quran lack actual detail concerning the tenants of
Christianity? That in an of itself is a proof that it is not from God.
How much do we really know about Jesus and Moses, etc. just based upon the
Quran? Not much. Frequently repeated glib references to miracles, hell,
paradise (filled with beautiful women!), judgment day, Satan, etc. don't really
qualify as concrete details of the faiths. This was general knowledge in the
Hijaz. Anyone in the Hijaz with a little interest in those faiths could have
come up with the same info. On the other hand, the story of David's repenting
of his sins is missing information, Saul and Gideon are confused, Abraham's
story is embellished with Mishnah writings, Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah and Isaiah
are who?, Gog and Magog are what?, etc.. Actual detail is missing, and then
other details are known to be the works of man and myth.
So, let me offer choice #3: Muhammad accepted the faiths of
Christianity and Judaism as valid, at least for their time. He accepted their
Scriptures as the word of God. He claimed that he was a prophet like their
prophets before. Therefore, he referenced what he believed were their stories
to validate his own thoughts and desires. (Much has already been written on
this by others). Did God destroy the Egyptians because of their oppression of
the Jews? Likewise Allah will destroy the Quraysh because they oppressed the
Muslims. Did Jesus bring the message of the Gospel, as Moses brought the Law?
Likewise Muhammad brought his message of Islam. Did God punish the Jews who
disobeyed Moses? Likewise, Allah will destroy those that oppose and disobey
Muhammad. Etc.
-------------------------------------------
Bollywood wrote:
<<<Is "Chinese Whispers" anything like "Broken Telephone"? If it is, you'll
realize that the KEY feature of such a game is that the re-teller of the
story has a tendency to create and add elaborate and imaginative new
details.>>>
Precisely. This is exactly what happened to the Infancy Gospels that Muhammad
quoted from. One story was copied and embellished. This story was later
copied and embellished, and so on and so forth. Muhammad heard some of these
"Broken Telephone" stories and repeated them. Perhaps he threw in his own two
cents from time to time.
The lack of relevant detail and the use of spurious detail shows that Muhammad
used men as the source of the Quran.
Silas778
SILAS778
<<< This approach is ultimately unconvincing. According to Islamic
teachings, God sent revelations to Moses, Jesus, David and other prophets
who were part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Some of this revelation
(presumably) survived in the Bible in some form. And it is not
unreasonable to suggest that some of this revelation survived in the
apocryphal writings. And so the fact that some of the stories and
teachings of the Quran can also be found in these others text is not
troubling at all. God is certainly entitled to say something more than
once.>>>
Tico errs when he says "Some of this revelation (presumably) survived in the
Bible in some form". Muhammad, in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira certainly
testifies to the validity of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.
Second, Tico makes a vague statement in saying "And it is not unreasonable to
suggest that some of this revelation survived in the apocryphal writings". The
"Apocrypha writings" cover a great amount of material spanning hundreds of
years. What we are specifically talking about are the "Infancy Gospel"
Apocrypha.
Without going into too much detail, I'll note that none of the Infancy Gospels
were ever accepted as canon. Their history is of one man inventing a story,
and then later, another man taking that story and building upon it, and than
later another man doing the same, and so on and so forth. You have myths built
upon myths compiled over hundreds of years. Some of these myths were quoted by
Muhammad. Similarly, Muhammad's plagiarism from the Mishnah reflect the works
of man's wisdom, not revelation.
Gilberto makes a good point: "God is certainly entitled to say something more
than once". I agree. But we are not talking about what God said in the past,
we are talking about man's words. Some of these words are known to be man made
myths. Muhammad heard these stories and repeated them. Muhammad repeated
myths, not God's words, when he quoted from NT Apocrypha stories.
--------------------
Tico wrote:
<<<(I wonder if you are troubled when the Old Testament is repeated in the
New or when one gospel repeats the content of another?)>>>
No, I am not troubled at all. The OT and NT have continuity, whereas the
Quran frequently contradicts the Bible on many non-theological details, like
Abraham's father's name, Noah's son surviving the flood, etc. The NT writers
frequently acknowledge quoting from the OT. On the other hand, Islam has a
major problem because it recognizes the NT and OT as Scripture yet it
contradicts them both.
Tico wrote:
<<<But another relevant point is the question of truth. If these stories are
true, then the question of whether one copied from the other isn't all
that relevant. If the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune reported
on the same story giving essentially the same facts, I wouldn't be
troubled or bothered by that fact. (One would even expect this to happen
often). And in our case, if what the rabbis taught or if what the
apocryphal writers said was actually true, it is no problem that such
accounts are also found in the Quran. A story doesn't become any less true
by being told a second time.>>>
I agree. On the other hand, if the Chicago Sun-Times reported a lie, and it
was later reported by the Tribune, it would still be false. The NT apocrypha
contained many myths and some of these myths were repeated by Muhammad.
Finally, I don't think that any reasonable person would deny Muhammad's
exposure to the various teachings of Christianity and Judaism. Despite Sai's
posturing that it wasn't so, Muhammad could not escape this exposure. To live
in the Hijaz during his time would mean a person would have some exposure to
these religions. If Muhammad heard these stories, borrowed from them, and
repeated them as the Quran, can Islam make a valid claim that the Quran is the
pure word of God? Of course not. The level of detail of the borrowing is such
that any reasonable person would conclude that Muhammad was repeating stories
he heard before. Call it borrowing, plagiarism, (copyright infringement?), or
whatever, Muhammad learned these stories from various people, and repeated them
as the Quran.
Silas778