Midrash in the Qur'an (and Gospels)? Towards a theory of borrowing...

David Ehrens

unread,

Feb 1, 2002, 11:00:05 PM2/1/02

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in
news:a3e95o$p6n$1...@samba.rahul.net:

....
> http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html

Thanks for these URL's. I have often wondered why there are such
striking similarities between halakha/sharia and legends in the
Talmud and the Q'uran. It always seemed logical that, especially
in the case of the Babylonian Talmud, there would have been many
influences. This stuff is quite interesting.

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 3, 2002, 6:41:12 AM2/3/02

On 2 Feb 2002, David Ehrens wrote:

> > http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html
>
> Thanks for these URL's. I have often wondered why there are such
> striking similarities between halakha/sharia and legends in the
> Talmud and the Q'uran. It always seemed logical that, especially
> in the case of the Babylonian Talmud, there would have been many
> influences. This stuff is quite interesting.

The other way to look at things is that Islam does not claim to be a new
religion. It is simply the continuation of the past revealed religions
where the command was to worship one God and obey the Messenger(s). Muslim
is a term used in the Qur'an for those who submitted to God: the Prophets
of the past such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Jacob etc. as well as their
followers. In this sense Islam is not a new religion. So, any similarity
between the religions and religious rituals is expected. Moreover there
was a tendency to use Judeo-Christian material for Qur'anic exegesis by
Muslims and the Islamic material went into Judeo-Christian exegetical
texts. This was after the establishment of Islam and increased interaction
between the Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html

Denis Giron

unread,

Feb 4, 2002, 7:11:33 AM2/4/02

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a3e95o$p6n$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> The missionaries' claim of copying of the midrashic stories in the
> Qur'an is not based on solid evidence; it is based on the anti-Islamic
> polemics of Tisdall who lifted much of his material from Geiger.
> Almost all of the Midrashic sources have undergone changes and are
> dated late, i.e., after the advent of Islam. That itself is a good
> enough refutation of the missionaries' claims.

Well, I think this really depends on which claims of the
"missionaries" you're referring to. For my own part, my own article
only dealt with a single claim:

That claim being the issue of Abraham and the idols being taken from
B'reishit Rabbah. Indeed, the vast majority of the Jewish sources have
gone through redactions, editing, or what have you. However, the fact
still remains that they often include a number of older traditions
which are strung together with a loose narrative of sorts. For the
issue of Abraham and the idols, B'reishit Rabbah (or "Genesis Rabbah,"
or "Midrash Rabbah for Genesis") had its last significant editing
around the early fifth century, thus the story definitely predates
Islam.

Did the author(s) of the Qur'an consult Midrash Rabbah before writing
Soorat al-Anbiya? I think such an idea is absurd. However, the fact
remains that this tradition was floating around the Jewish community
just prior to the time traditionally given for the advent of Islam.
While we could assume the rough story fell indepently from the sky for
each community, but I think we could postulate a theory of borrowing
that is not an abuse of Occam's razor.

To me, it is no surprise that Islam appeared in a place that had only
a century or two earlier been the home of a rather zealous Jewish
missionary campaign. Newby mentioned in passing the conversion of
large groups of Arabs to Judaism, and I think we should not forget Dhu
Nuwas, who forced many Arabs to accept Judaism under the sword. Now,
when you have large numbers of people accepting a new religion, there
are going to be those who follow it to the tee, those who pretty much
don't follow it at all, and a whole spectrum in between.

The result is the appearance of variants of the original religion.
Religious traditions are not born in a vacuum. I think it is no
surprise that every religion is an obvious product of its time.
Christianity has obvious Jewish elements, Islam has obvious Jewish and
Christian elements, the Bahai faith has obvious Islamic elements, and
the Sikh faith shows obvious signs of pulling together Islamic and
Hindu elements. Both Christianity and Islam appeared after big
missionary campaigns, and both, I think, can be seen as what Patricia
Crone once called the "outcome of a syncretic bargain between Jewish
missionaries and gentile proselytes" [from JSAI, 1980, p. 62, she
meant it solely for Christianity].

Some loose thoughts on pre-Islamic Arab Jews can be found here:

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/menj.html#jahl

And some analogous thoughts for the dawn of Christianity can be seen
here:

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/mathmidrash.html#proselyte

> Now as far as the issue of Matthew and Talmud is concerned, the

> similarities are quite superficial. [...] [O]ne should also remember

> that the Talmud that we see today reached its final state around
> 6th century CE post-dating Matthew in its final form.

While I agree that the Talmud reached its final form some time around
the fifth or sixth century, it should be mentioned that parts of it
predate Christianity. I recently saw a lecture by Lawrence Shiffman of
NYU, who touched on how scholars are really starting to debate the
date of many Talmudic traditions. Apparently the scrolls of the Qumran
sect(s) (the "Dead Sea Scrolls") retain criticisms of traditions that
later appear in the Talmud, showing just how old many of these
traditions may be.

The article didn't rest on the Talmud alone. The basic idea was that
the gospel of Matthew shows signs of being part of the literary genre
>from which Rabbinic writings come from. The way that scripture is
quoted (in what seem like blatantly misquoted passages), and the way
every step is an allusion to a previous hero's life, hint at the
parallels. Furthermore, the strikingly similarities between the
Gospels and portions of the Rabbinic literature hint at how much
Christianity is a product of its time.

-Denis Giron

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 9:12:48 AM2/5/02

On 4 Feb 2002, Denis Giron wrote:

> That claim being the issue of Abraham and the idols being taken from
> B'reishit Rabbah. Indeed, the vast majority of the Jewish sources have
> gone through redactions, editing, or what have you. However, the fact
> still remains that they often include a number of older traditions
> which are strung together with a loose narrative of sorts. For the
> issue of Abraham and the idols, B'reishit Rabbah (or "Genesis Rabbah,"
> or "Midrash Rabbah for Genesis") had its last significant editing
> around the early fifth century, thus the story definitely predates
> Islam.

Is that dating an etching on the stone?

"It is difficult to ascertain the exact date of actual editing of the
Bereshit Rabbah; it was probably undertaken not much later than that of
the Jerusalem Talmud. But even then the text was probably not closed, for
longer or shorter passages could always be added, the number of prefatory
passages to a parashah be increased, and those existing be enlarged by
accretion. Thus, beginning with the sidra Wayishlah, extensive passages
are found that bear the marks of later Haggadah..."

"Bereshit Rabbah", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Vol. III, p. 64.

The earliest that the scholars are willing to date is the sixth century
dating and is based on Zunz's work. I wonder where did Dajjal get around
early fifth century? Making up stories as we go along?

In other words, the dating of Genesis Rabbah (or Bereshit Rabbah) is
uncertain. Zunz has dated it to 6th century CE but it is conceded that
this Midrash contains passages which were added at a later date. And
indeed some of the text of this Midrash can't be construct with sufficient
ceertainity. Hence it is misleading to claim that Genesis Rabbah is the
source of Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols without establishing the
facts about what was redacted and what was not!

Talking about the stories of Abraham in the Qur'an such as arguments
between Abraham and Nimrod, story of sacrifice of Abraham's son and the
sojourn in Makkah of Hagar and Ismael, Rudi Paret says:

"In some cases the Islamic legend of Abraham has even influenced the later
Jewish traditions".

"Ibrahim", Encyclopaedia of Islam (NI), 1971, Volume III, p. 981.

The Christian missionaries' sources of such claims are Geiger and Tisdall.
Tisdall himself says that he has no evidence to prove the charge of
plagiarization. This is because he himself was unsure of whether this
story was available in Arabia during the advent of Islam.

> Did the author(s) of the Qur'an consult Midrash Rabbah before writing
> Soorat al-Anbiya? I think such an idea is absurd. However, the fact
> remains that this tradition was floating around the Jewish community
> just prior to the time traditionally given for the advent of Islam.
> While we could assume the rough story fell indepently from the sky for
> each community, but I think we could postulate a theory of borrowing
> that is not an abuse of Occam's razor.

One can build up nice bedtime stories here, but what is proof of Dajjal?
His word, of course!

Wassalam
Saifullah

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 10:06:02 AM2/5/02

In article <a3ltpl$bmv$1...@samba.rahul.net>, kaa...@godisdead.com (Denis Giron)
writes:

>For my own part, my own article
>only dealt with a single claim:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html

And a very good article which exposes the methods of apologists who have
nothing material to say except to speculate or bore the reader with nothing of
real substance.

>That claim being the issue of Abraham and the idols being taken from
>B'reishit Rabbah. Indeed, the vast majority of the Jewish sources have
>gone through redactions, editing, or what have you. However, the fact
>still remains that they often include a number of older traditions
>which are strung together with a loose narrative of sorts. For the
>issue of Abraham and the idols, B'reishit Rabbah (or "Genesis Rabbah,"
>or "Midrash Rabbah for Genesis") had its last significant editing
>around the early fifth century, thus the story definitely predates
>Islam.

Absolutely and a stark point which the apologist who wrote earlier cannot bring
himself to admit - because it would destroy the "absolute truth" which so many
romantics and mystics claim to in the face of reason and rationality.

But stories about Abraham destroying idols is far older than B'reishit Rabbah
and one Muslim defense of this myth appearing in the Qur'an has been the
existence of earlier similar stories in, what some would like to try to make
out are, "Jewish Scriptures" thereby valaditing the Islamic claim to be a
"Confirmer" of the previous Scriptures. But what is one to make of a
"confirmer" of Jewish myths and legends?

However this only compounds the problem as it is one thing a Rabbinical Myth
appearing in the Qur'an and another far more damaging one of a "developed" myth
appearing in the Qur'an, a myth, which has a history of many hundrends of years
of telling and retelling in various forms until it reaches the state of
development seen in the Midrash.

Two other issues are.

1. No one has provided any solid evidence that the Qur'an at the time of
Muhammad was indeed 114 Suras long. All that the earliest records claim is
that those reciters who knew the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad, the best only
knew "more than 70 Suras"

Since no definitive proof or evidence exists that the Qur'an at the time of
Muhammad was 114 Suras there was plenty of time for bits and peices to be
cobbled together, (as was indeed the case under Uthman before he burnt the
"original") and for those who engaged in this act to believe, in error, that
they were putting in place stories from the Torah.

2. Another interesting factor is that Sura Al-Anbiyáa (21) is no where to be
found in the oldest Sana'a Qur'an currently being investigated in Germany.

>From information released to date Sura 19 runs directly to Sura 22 with the
division line between the Suras appearing in the middle of the page thereby
destroying any notion that they may have been "missing" because the pages were
not there.

Similarly Suras 27 to 36 are not to be found in the oldest Qur'an and, as sri
readers will know, Sura 27 contains the very important Jewish myth of Solomon
and the Queen of Sheba which also appears in the 2nd Targum of Esther. The
defense for this myth appearing in the Qur'an has in the main been that the
final redaction of the Targum is post Qur'anic - but now this is very much in
Question and even that does not prove that the Qur'anic writers did not come
accross stories they heard form the Jews who lived arround them.

Jameel

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html#3

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 6:27:14 PM2/5/02

On 5 Feb 2002, M.S.M. Saifullah wrote:

> In other words, the dating of Genesis Rabbah (or Bereshit Rabbah) is
> uncertain. Zunz has dated it to 6th century CE but it is conceded that
> this Midrash contains passages which were added at a later date. And
> indeed some of the text of this Midrash can't be construct with sufficient
> ceertainity. Hence it is misleading to claim that Genesis Rabbah is the
> source of Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols without establishing the
> facts about what was redacted and what was not!

Just a few comments before I board the plane for my trip abroad,
insha'allah... It will mostly on the issue of dating of Bereshit or
Genesis Rabbah and what are its implication to the borrowing theories of
the Qur'an. I do not have enough time to look into the issue in great
detail but here are some of the comments concerning Zunz's dating and
redaction every after 6th century CE.

"Genesis Rabbah is a Palestinian work,... its editing took place sometime
after the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud. Zunz holds that it was
collected and edited in the 6th century CE. But even then the text was
subject to accretions, and from Vayyishlach we find extensive passages
bearing marks of the later day Haggadah. In Vayyigash the commentary is no
longer verse by verse, while much of Vayechi was probably drawn from the
Tanhuma homilies."

Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon, "Midrash Rabbah", 1961, Volume I
(Genesis), The Soncino Press: London (UK), p. xxix.

The Tanhuma homiles as mentioned above are dated to second half of the 9th
century CE. What do these comprise of are discussed at:

In other words, Genesis Rabbah was in the process of edition even during
9th century CE.

Dajjal has claimed that Genesis Rabbah was dated to early fifth century
CE. Now we know the complete truth about the redaction of Genesis Rabbah.
This is point #1.

Dajjal might say that Genesis Rabbah contains older traditions. Fair
enough! But he has to show that the story of Abraham and idols is from
those older traditions older than that of Qur'an. No such evidence is
forthcoming from Dajjal and it is highly unlikely he would be able to show
it. Complicating the issue is also the late manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah
which post-date Islam by 300 years at least. Interestingly Genesis Rabbah
comes in two different recensions. This is point #2.

Now comes the core of the issue. Existence of Midrash Rabbah in Makkah
because the verses related to this issue were revealed in Makkah. There
was no seat of Judaism in Makkah very much like Christianity. The Jews
were in Madinah up in north. This is point #3.

Dajjal might say, "well, it was an oral tradition and it was passed over
to the Prophet, SAW, through story telling." Well, it would certainly make
a nice bedtime story. The study by Hechame Camille in his "Louis Cheikho
et son livre le Christianisme et la Littrature Chretienne en Arabie avant
l'Islam: Etude Critique" lead Trimingham to conclude that:

"The testimony of poets to the influence of Christianity in a spiritual
and a sociological sense is negative."

J S Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times, 1971,
Longman Publishers, p. 247.

What about Judaism and its books? There was no Arabic Bible available
and it is much more unlikely that Genesis Rabbah book still undergoing
edition would be available in Arabic. This is point #4.

Hence it is not surprising that Rudi Paret while discussing the stories of

Abraham in the Qur'an such as arguments between Abraham and Nimrod, story
of sacrifice of Abraham's son and the sojourn in Makkah of Hagar and

Ismael say:

"In some cases the Islamic legend of Abraham has even influenced the later
Jewish traditions".

"Ibrahim", Encyclopaedia of Islam (NE), 1971, Volume III, p. 981.

Further Tisdall himself is unconvinced by the issue of plagiarism:

"Our object in quoting the story as it is contained in the Midrash Rabba
is not to prove that Muhammad plagiarized from that work in this matter,
but to show that the story in its main details was current among the Jews
at an earlier time still, and that either this or some similar form of the
fable must have been the source from which the Arabs derived their
knowledge of it."

Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, 1905,
Society For The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge, London, p. 76.

As usual Tisdall does not provide evidence to support his claim that the
story in its main details was current among the Jews among other things.
Tisdall's being unconvinced by the issue of plagiarism from Genesis Rabbah
is quite easy to understand. The Qur'anic story is vastly different in
theme as well as wording.

Well, that is before my trip...

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.sunnah.org/history/memorizers.htm

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 5, 2002, 6:27:38 PM2/5/02

On 5 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> And a very good article which exposes the methods of apologists who have
> nothing material to say except to speculate or bore the reader with nothing of
> real substance.

Since this guy is talking about speculation of "apologists", let us remind
the readers about his own stance when he was asked to produce the proof
that the Qur'anic story of Solomon and Sheba is from Jewish Targum Sheni.
He said on soc.religion.islam.

"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof."

It is not a good idea to expose oneself as hypocrite. Unfortunately,
people like "MyTajMahal" do not learn from their own mistakes.

Now we go on the issue of Abraham and the idols.

> Absolutely and a stark point which the apologist who wrote earlier cannot bring
> himself to admit - because it would destroy the "absolute truth" which so many
> romantics and mystics claim to in the face of reason and rationality.

Well, well, well. Keep patting each others back.

Dajjal is much cleverer than Christian missionary like "MyTajMahal".
Dajjal would at least admit if there is a valid point. But missionaries
like you are all the same; just like to make noise and create confusion.

Coming to the reason and rationality we have already shown the
untenability of various "sources" of the Qur'an such as Pirke De-Rabbi
Eli'ezer, Midrash Tanhuma, Targum Sheni, "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua
ben Levi and Elijah et al. because they post-date Islam when they reached
the final redaction. What is interesting is that even the Western scholars
have admitted and refuted much of the polemical material from Geiger and
Tisdall. But missionaries like you who still like to live in the past
and not paying any attention to the modern day scholarship and then talk
about reason and rationality. You yourself should do some soul-searching
about your hypocritical attitude.

> However this only compounds the problem as it is one thing a Rabbinical Myth
> appearing in the Qur'an and another far more damaging one of a "developed" myth
> appearing in the Qur'an, a myth, which has a history of many hundrends of years
> of telling and retelling in various forms until it reaches the state of
> development seen in the Midrash.

Rabbinical Myth? Sure. If Rabbis can invent myth in their Midrashic books
there is no reason to doubt that they did the same in the Hebrew Bible. We
should thank "MyTajMahal" to for such a brilliant argument.

> 1. No one has provided any solid evidence that the Qur'an at the time of
> Muhammad was indeed 114 Suras long. All that the earliest records claim is
> that those reciters who knew the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad, the best only
> knew "more than 70 Suras"

This issue has been refuted on this newsgroup so many times. I wonder why
"MyTajMahal" thinks that we do not have a good memory at all! Please see:

A very typical of a Christian missionary repetition about the Qur'an
memorizers. Shall we proof by repetition?

Further we should also add that the well-known riwayah of Hafs is
transmitted through Zayd Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Masud, Ubayy Ibn Ka'b,
Uthman and 'Ali, all of them heard from the Prophet, SAW, and memorized
the Qur'an.

> Since no definitive proof or evidence exists that the Qur'an at the time of
> Muhammad was 114 Suras there was plenty of time for bits and peices to be
> cobbled together, (as was indeed the case under Uthman before he burnt the
> "original") and for those who engaged in this act to believe, in error, that
> they were putting in place stories from the Torah.

What is "MyTajMahal" proof? His words, of course! Let us remind ourselves
of what he said on soc.religion.islam.

"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof."

> 2. Another interesting factor is that Sura Al-Anbiyáa (21) is no where to be
> found in the oldest Sana'a Qur'an currently being investigated in Germany.
>
> >From information released to date Sura 19 runs directly to Sura 22 with the
> division line between the Suras appearing in the middle of the page thereby
> destroying any notion that they may have been "missing" because the pages were
> not there.

References please! You statement is as good as what you have said before
"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof".

The oldest datable Sana'a Qur'an is from the time of al-Waleed (86-96
AH) as Dr. von Bothmer has said and confirmed by Dr. Y. Dutton in a
personal communication (as well as a passing mention in one of his
publications that appeared in the JQS, III, 2001). Rest of the manuscripts
are dated from 1st century of hijra onwards by studying the ink, writing
and the parchment.

The oldest dated and *complete* Qur'an is from 68 AH in the Egyptian
National Library. It is written on the parchment made up of gazelle skin.
This clearly pre-dates al-Waleed time by some 18 odd years. Further, we
have the well-known al-Hussein Mss which is believed to be one of the
Uthmanic Qur'ans. Again it is a complete copy as far as I know. It can be
seen at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/hussein.html

This Mss is written on the parchment made from deer/gazelle skin.

Next comes to the issue of order of the surahs. The different order of the
surahs in the personal codices of Ubayy and Ibn Masud is well known from
Islamic sources. There is also a slight disagreement on the order of
surahs in these two personal codices, again as stated in the Islamic
sources. I wonder who is "MyTajMahal" trying to fool about the "order" of
the Qur'anic surahs in the early codices.

> Similarly Suras 27 to 36 are not to be found in the oldest Qur'an and, as sri
> readers will know, Sura 27 contains the very important Jewish myth of Solomon
> and the Queen of Sheba which also appears in the 2nd Targum of Esther. The
> defense for this myth appearing in the Qur'an has in the main been that the
> final redaction of the Targum is post Qur'anic - but now this is very much in
> Question and even that does not prove that the Qur'anic writers did not come
> accross stories they heard form the Jews who lived arround them.

Sorry, which is this oldest Qur'an? What is its date? Kindly enlighten the
readers of soc.religion.islam on this issue. Or is it another story being
made up as you pat your buddy Dajjal?

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 7, 2002, 11:07:57 AM2/7/02

In article <a3ppoi$5ce$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

Calls to his witness:

>Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon, "Midrash Rabbah", 1961, Volume I
>(Genesis), The Soncino Press: London (UK), p. xxix.
>
>The Tanhuma homiles as mentioned above are dated to second half of the 9th
>century CE. What do these comprise of are discussed at:

Claiming:

>Dajjal might say that Genesis Rabbah contains older traditions. Fair
>enough! But he has to show that the story of Abraham and idols is from
>those older traditions older than that of Qur'an.

Now it is news to me that SRI allows such blatent namecalling - but One
suspects it is the desperation of the disposessed to engage in such un
scholarly and childish ways.

However what the destorter of truth failed to point out (or chose to hide from
the readers) is that his very own witnes quoted above states:

The testimony Of Rabbi Dr I Epstein BA, PhD, D.Lit from the work which contains
the Midrash on Abraham breaking idols which Muhammad retold in his own words.
"The considerable indebtidness of Mahommed to the midrash for the legendary and
other material which he incorporated in the Koran has already been proved over
a century ago by Abraham Geiger in his work..." (Foreword to the Midrash Rabbah
Genesis Page XX - Soncino edition 1961 translated by Rabbi H Freidman BA, PhD
and Maurice Simon MA)

Furthermore the mythical legend of Abraham breaking Idols which appears in the
Qur'an) is acknowledged by these authorities as having originated with the 2nd
century Rabbi Hiyya whose life details appear in the Talmud. Something which
neither the destorters of truth or the earlier researchers may have known.

>Dajjal might say that Genesis Rabbah contains older traditions. Fair
>enough! But he has to show that the story of Abraham and idols is from
>those older traditions older than that of Qur'an.

This has been demonstrated over an over again. The traditional myths of
Abraham destroying idols is far older than the Qur'an and is to be found in
various versions in different items of Jewish religious literature long befor
the writers and compliers of the Qur'an every heard it and believed it to be
>from the "former Scrriptures"

http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham2.htm

Peace to all those whose faith is in the Character of the true and living God
revealed within every person.

Jameel

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/sheba.htm

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 7, 2002, 8:28:47 PM2/7/02

In article <a3pppa$5cj$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>On 5 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:
>
>> And a very good article which exposes the methods of apologists who have
>> nothing material to say except to speculate or bore the reader with nothing
>of
>> real substance.
>
>Since this guy is talking about speculation of "apologists", let us remind
>the readers about his own stance when he was asked to produce the proof
>that the Qur'anic story of Solomon and Sheba is from Jewish Targum Sheni.
>He said on soc.religion.islam.
>
>"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof."
>
>It is not a good idea to expose oneself as hypocrite. Unfortunately,
>people like "MyTajMahal" do not learn from their own mistakes.

Then one wonders why MSMS chooses to give an opportunity to expose hypocrisy?

In the heart of his conclusion on the subject of the mythical account of
Solomon and Sheba which apperas int he Qur'an the Islamic-awareness team
concluded with great triumph.

"Quite the contrary, the very "source" he had identified has been acknowledged
by Judaic scholarship as borrowing from the Qur'an instead."

The hypocrisy of this statement from MSMS was exposed here so effectively:

That it resulted in MSMS compounding the hypocrisy by saying:

First of all I apologize for the editorial slip:

"Quite the contrary, the very "source" he had identified has been acknowledged
by Judaic scholarship as borrowing from the Qur'an instead."

For that I take the personal responsibility as I was the last person to go
through the document before posting it on the web.

The heart of MSMS's claims were debunked and it is he who offers nothing except
megabytes of waffle.

Coming to the topic of the developed myths and legends concerning Abraham
breaking the idols (Sura 21) MSMS has this to say:

>Coming to the reason and rationality we have already shown the
>untenability of various "sources" of the Qur'an such as Pirke De-Rabbi
>Eli'ezer, Midrash Tanhuma, Targum Sheni, "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua
>ben Levi and Elijah et al.

Wild sweeping generalisations. The fact is MSMS has never dealt with the real
issues of the myth of Rabbi Hiyya who was a 2nd century Rabbi and acknowledged
as such by all Jewish scholarship.

There wild statements from MSMS are a means to brush the truth about the
falseness fo the Qur'an aside.

>Rabbinical Myth? Sure. If Rabbis can invent myth in their Midrashic books
>there is no reason to doubt that they did the same in the Hebrew Bible. We
>should thank "MyTajMahal" to for such a brilliant argument.

Yes Rabbinical myths - why the surprise? Yet these pre-Qur'anic myths are in
the Qur'an and testimony to it's falseness. Yet MSMS tries to change the
subject because he is unable to face the truth. Nothing said about any other
book - even if it were Harry Potter will restore credibility to the Qur'an and
it's collection of Rabbinical myths and legends.

>> 1. No one has provided any solid evidence that the Qur'an at the time of
>> Muhammad was indeed 114 Suras long. All that the earliest records claim is
>> that those reciters who knew the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad, the best
>only
>> knew "more than 70 Suras"
>
>This issue has been refuted on this newsgroup so many times. I wonder why
>"MyTajMahal" thinks that we do not have a good memory at all! Please see:
>
>http://www.sunnah.org/history/memorizers.htm

A quick search of this article shows that it never claims that the Qur'an at
the time of Muhammad was 114 Suras long. Neither does it provide any
contemporary evidence that it was.

This article deals in fairy tales and Hadithic myths from the 9th and 10th
centuries (if in deed they were that early) which constitute absolute authority
in matter pertaining to early islam. It never deals with extant manuscript
evidence of the hadithic myths or their dating either. It is a complete waste
of time.

>> Since no definitive proof or evidence exists that the Qur'an at the time of
>> Muhammad was 114 Suras there was plenty of time for bits and peices to be
>> cobbled together, (as was indeed the case under Uthman before he burnt the
>> "original") and for those who engaged in this act to believe, in error,
>that
>> they were putting in place stories from the Torah.
>
>What is "MyTajMahal" proof? His words, of course! Let us remind ourselves
>of what he said on soc.religion.islam.
>
>"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof."

Apparently what MSMS believes to be proof is found in fairy tales and Hadithic
legends which are at best from the 10th century - and he never deals in issues
of manuscript integrity concerning these matters but willy niilly expects the
reader to believe that he has some real authority for the present day
collections of Hadithic legends which he would have us believe are "gospel
truth" and perfectly preserved by his God from the days of Muhammad until now.

>> 2. Another interesting factor is that Sura Al-Anbiyáa (21) is no where to be
>> found in the oldest Sana'a Qur'an currently being investigated in Germany.
>>
>> >From information released to date Sura 19 runs directly to Sura 22 with the
>> division line between the Suras appearing in the middle of the page thereby
>> destroying any notion that they may have been "missing" because the pages
>> were not there.
>
>References please! You statement is as good as what you have said before
>"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof".

This is pre-published information provided to a friend by Dr Puin. It will be
published in due course one hopes - and the microfiches prove the claim.

>The oldest datable Sana'a Qur'an is from the time of al-Waleed (86-96
>AH) as Dr. von Bothmer has said and confirmed by Dr. Y. Dutton in a
>personal communication (as well as a passing mention in one of his
>publications that appeared in the JQS, III, 2001). Rest of the manuscripts
>are dated from 1st century of hijra onwards by studying the ink, writing
>and the parchment.

And what has this to do with the integrity of the text of these particular
Qur'ans? Nothing! Why does MSMS waste his time when he can't address the
other issue of the many fake Uthmanic versions for the Qur'an complete with
blood stains which are in various libraries and which are patent fakes? The
sand always shifts under the feet of those not on the solid rock.

For years it was the Topkapi and Samarkand manuscripts which were the authentic
Uthmanic versions of the Qur'an - it is all change today - maybe time for some
to get off that train now before it's too late.

>Sorry, which is this oldest Qur'an? What is its date?

Sorry? Can you tell me where I can find a copy? Can you point me to a copy of
the complete text of any of those ancient manuscripts? Can you explain why the
Arabic 1924 Royal Cairo Version which is the basis for the majority of printed
Qur'ans today does not rely on any ancient manuscript? And of you think it
does then which one? And can you privide copies of both so that we can make a
comparison? No!

http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/Part2-index.htm#Part2

MENJ

unread,

Feb 7, 2002, 10:29:12 PM2/7/02

Greetings;

Eventually, you will see the Christian missionaries rehashing their
arguments over and over again and at the end, incriminate themselves
badly....

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a3u8ot$2nf$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> This has been demonstrated over an over again. The traditional myths of
> Abraham destroying idols is far older than the Qur'an and is to be found in
> various versions in different items of Jewish religious literature long befor
> the writers and compliers of the Qur'an every heard it and believed it to be
> >from the "former Scrriptures"
>
> http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm
>
> http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham2.htm
>

As usual, the rebuttals to the above urls can be seen at:

http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/abraham.html

http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/abraham2.html

*NOTE: No response from "Jameel" on the second url. I wonder why?

> Peace to all those whose faith is in the Character of the true and living God
> revealed within every person.

Certainly, one can hardly consider it "peace" when you are worshipping
God-men, instead of the One True God, the Creator of the very same
person which "Jameel" implores us to 'worship', and also cried out on
the cross "Eli, Eli lama sabachtani" (_My_ God, _My_ God, why hast
thou forsaken me?). Does "God" has a higher "God"?

Wassalamu ala' man ittaba'a al-huda.

MENJ
me...@maxis.net.my
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org

Johnny

unread,

Feb 8, 2002, 9:48:02 AM2/8/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a3v9kf$8pb$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> In article <a3pppa$5cj$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
> <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >On 5 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:
>
> >> 1. No one has provided any solid evidence that the Qur'an at the time of
> >> Muhammad was indeed 114 Suras long. All that the earliest records claim is
> >> that those reciters who knew the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad, the best
> only
> >> knew "more than 70 Suras"
> >
> >This issue has been refuted on this newsgroup so many times. I wonder why
> >"MyTajMahal" thinks that we do not have a good memory at all! Please see:
> >
> >http://www.sunnah.org/history/memorizers.htm
>
> A quick search of this article shows that it never claims that the Qur'an at
> the time of Muhammad was 114 Suras long. Neither does it provide any
> contemporary evidence that it was.

Stop playing the word games. You said: "All that the earliest records

claim is
that those reciters who knew the Qur'an at the time of Muhammad, the
best only

knew "more than 70 Suras". This is obviously a lie which is exposed
in by Dr. Haddad in his excellent article, where he lists those who
had memorised the Quran. Instead of jumping around every where as
your doing, you should stop thumbsucking misinformation. Secondly
Muslims are united upon the 114 surah's of the Quran, which is more
than one could say about the Christian unity upon the Bible!

>
> This article deals in fairy tales and Hadithic myths from the 9th and 10th
> centuries (if in deed they were that early) which constitute absolute authority
> in matter pertaining to early islam.

It seems that anything and everything you do not like or disagree with
you instantly label as "myth". Not a very good approach. And all
this nonsense about 9th and 10th century etc., has already been very
successfully refuted by Br Ghali in another thread, maybe you should
get into the habit of reading recent material instead of thumbsucking
old fairy tale myths ;) Early Hadeeths can be viewed here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

Dr. Haddad's article in question first of all refutes your lie that
there were no complete Quranic memorizers, secondly it exposes the
distortion of sources by the missionaries. You cannot hide behind
"fairy tale" and "myth" labels forever, its the missionaries, your
brethern, who are distorting the Hadeeths, so it does not matter if
you consider them "myths" or "fairy tales", distoring any material, be
it "myth" or "fairy tale" is WRONG! You cannot justify using deception
because you consider the item in question "myth" and "fairy tale"!

> It never deals with extant manuscript
> evidence of the hadithic myths or their dating either. It is a complete waste
> of time.

No, it is not a waste of time, you see YOU ARE a WASTE OF TIME. Lets
get that straight first. You tell a lie and say "no memorizers of the
Quran", Dr. Haddad refutes this by citing more than dozens of complete
memorizers of the Quran. Next you folks DISTORT Hadeeths, and you
seem to justify that because you consider them "myth" and "fairy
tale", hence you seem to argue its ok to distort them. Dr. Haddad
exposes your deception. And now when you have been exposed completely
you cry like a baby yelling out "its a waste of time!" Just making
noise upon noise upon noise! As far as the early Hadeeth MSS are
concerned, then you check out the above link and follow the recent
discussion in SRI.

deleting some of your cries..

> >
> >References please! You statement is as good as what you have said before
> >"The object of my paper was not to offer any proof".
>
> This is pre-published information provided to a friend by Dr Puin. It will be
> published in due course one hopes - and the microfiches prove the claim.

Yup, so until that time arrives I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

>Why does MSMS waste his time when he can't address the..

Well, I think anyone having a discussion with you is wasting time.
Since you admit you have no proof to offer for your outlandish claims,
and you really don't have any proof for your equally outlandish claims
about the sanaa mss, then really we are wasting our time with you, you
are wasting our time!

> For years it was the Topkapi and Samarkand manuscripts which were the authentic
> Uthmanic versions of the Qur'an - it is all change today - maybe time for some
> to get off that train now before it's too late.

I don't know about the topkapi MSS, but Br Lomax is the chap who knows
a lot about the Samarkand MSS, it is thought to be the earliest copy
of the original, and anyhow, so what if it is not? It does not prove
anything. There are other OLDER MSS dating from the 1st century, here
is one of them:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/hussein.html

MSS from the 1st century onwards here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

Lastly, we do not rely upon any manuscript, the oral mutawattir
transmission of the Quran is enough!

>
> Sorry? Can you tell me where I can find a copy?

This info is also to be found here ie., the names of museums etc:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 10, 2002, 12:49:30 PM2/10/02

On 8 Feb 2002, MENJ wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Certainly, one can hardly consider it "peace" when you are worshipping
> God-men, instead of the One True God, the Creator of the very same
> person which "Jameel" implores us to 'worship', and also cried out on
> the cross "Eli, Eli lama sabachtani" (_My_ God, _My_ God, why hast
> thou forsaken me?). Does "God" has a higher "God"?

Well, looking from another angle how will a "God" who could not save
himself from the clutches of cross would save us in any other way? You can
give people only what you have!

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 10, 2002, 1:04:46 PM2/10/02

On 7 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> Now it is news to me that SRI allows such blatent namecalling - but One
> suspects it is the desperation of the disposessed to engage in such un
> scholarly and childish ways.

Dispossessed and childish? Perhaps we are hearing your descriptions from
your own self. When we asked you to produce the evidence, it ends up that
you have no evidence to produce. Shall we redraw the list again?

> The testimony Of Rabbi Dr I Epstein BA, PhD, D.Lit from the work which contains
> the Midrash on Abraham breaking idols which Muhammad retold in his own words.
> "The considerable indebtidness of Mahommed to the midrash for the legendary and
> other material which he incorporated in the Koran has already been proved over
> a century ago by Abraham Geiger in his work..." (Foreword to the Midrash Rabbah
> Genesis Page XX - Soncino edition 1961 translated by Rabbi H Freidman BA, PhD
> and Maurice Simon MA)

The key issue here is not whether one takes sides of Geiger or not; it is
actually the chronology of rabbanical literature. We have already seen
that the Midrash scholars consider that Genesis Rabbah has undergone
redactions even after Islamic times even though Zunz had dated it to the
sixth century.

Commenting on Abraham Geiger's book "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume
aufgenommen?" Stillman says:

"... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to
the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian
as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbinic
literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim,
Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this
we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish
haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The
Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally
redacted after the advent of Islam."

Norman A. Stillman, "The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'an And The Muslim
Commentators: Some Observations", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume
19, p. 231.

Similarly, Wheeler says:

"It is unclear whether, today, one should accept Obermann's statement that
the Qur'an "as a rule" is dependent upon the earlier Jewish and Christian
sources. A more wide-ranging and discerning study, with particular
attention to the dates of the so-called "sources," is needed before
concluding that all Jewish or Christian sources, especially those
posterior to the Islamic sources they are supposed to have informed, are
prior to and therefore influence, but are not influenced, by Islam."

Brannon M Wheeler, "The Jewish Origins Of Qur'an 18:65-82? Reexamining
Arent Jan Wensinck's Theory", Journal Of The American Oriental Society,
1998, Volume 118, p. 157.

In gist, the issue here is the dating of Midrashic and other rabbanical
sources. If one can't prove the final redaction of Genesis Rabbah before
the Islamic times then there is to point claiming that being a "source".
What is intersting is that although Rabbi Epstein has said in "Midrash
Rabbah" about the "proof" Geiger, Geiger himself does not offer any proof
of:

1. Redaction criticism of Genesis Rabbah. We already know now that it has
been redacted aroung the 9th/10th century CE.

2. Existence of Genesis Rabbah during the time of Prophet, SAW, and in
particular in Makkah. The story of Abraham and the idols is a Makkan
verse. We have already pointed out that the Mss of Genesis Rabbah dates
>from post-Islamic times and comes in two recensions.

In other words, Geiger's proof is no proof. Just in case if somebody of
trying to get a little smart here, I would remind that I have Geiger's
book with me.

> Furthermore the mythical legend of Abraham breaking Idols which appears in the
> Qur'an) is acknowledged by these authorities as having originated with the 2nd
> century Rabbi Hiyya whose life details appear in the Talmud. Something which
> neither the destorters of truth or the earlier researchers may have known.

What is the evidence that the story of Abraham and idols "originated with
the 2nd century Rabbi Hiyya"? As one can nicely put that "MyTajMahal"'s
aim is not to provide any evidence: he said it an we believe. His word is
his evidence!

> >Dajjal might say that Genesis Rabbah contains older traditions. Fair
> >enough! But he has to show that the story of Abraham and idols is from
> >those older traditions older than that of Qur'an.
>
> This has been demonstrated over an over again. The traditional myths of
> Abraham destroying idols is far older than the Qur'an and is to be found in
> various versions in different items of Jewish religious literature long befor
> the writers and compliers of the Qur'an every heard it and believed it to be
> >from the "former Scrriptures"

We asked Dajjal to show that the story of Abraham and idols in Genesis
Rabbah are those older traditions older than that of Qur'an. This guy
"MyTajMahal" breaks into the discourse by saying that it has been
"demonstrated over an over again". The link provided is:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/abraham2.htm

What is interesting is that there is nothing that is discussed about
redaction criticism of Genesis Rabbah which is the crux of the issue. What
is discussed is pedantic issues like Midrash, "opinions" of a few rabbis
etc. What has this "demonstrated"? Does the opinion of rabbis
"demonstrate" in anyway that Genesis Rabbah appeared in its final form in
pre-Islamic times? Or does it "demonstrate" the redaction criticm of
Genesis Rabbah? Or does that "demonstrate" the existence of Genesis
Rabbah in Makkah during the advent of Islam? It "demonstrate" nothing over
and over again. It is interesting that he blames us being "deserters of
truth" but when we look into his claim and the lack of it it is precisely
him who is far away from the truth.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 10, 2002, 1:04:48 PM2/10/02

On 8 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> For that I take the personal responsibility as I was the last person to go
> through the document before posting it on the web.
>
> The heart of MSMS's claims were debunked and it is he who offers nothing except
> megabytes of waffle.

Your megabytes of waffle concerning the Qur'anic story of Solomon and
Sheba being derived from Targum Sheni has been refuted anyway. You have no
evidence to offer so that is it. Your case about Targum Sheni is closed.
As far as our issue is concerned about the reverse issue of "sources", i.e.,
the Qur'anic story of Solomon and Sheba being the source of Targum Sheni,
there is a certain opinion that the combined work of the Qur'an and its
commentators is indeed its source. But we will save that for a later date
when our research is complete.

> >Coming to the reason and rationality we have already shown the
> >untenability of various "sources" of the Qur'an such as Pirke De-Rabbi
> >Eli'ezer, Midrash Tanhuma, Targum Sheni, "Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua
> >ben Levi and Elijah et al.
>
> Wild sweeping generalisations. The fact is MSMS has never dealt with the real
> issues of the myth of Rabbi Hiyya who was a 2nd century Rabbi and acknowledged
> as such by all Jewish scholarship.

Well, we are talking about Genesis Rabbah, whose author is certain not
Rabbi Hiyyah. Instead of waffling too much why do not you get to the
point? Further the claim of "sweeping generalisations" is nothing but
hollow claim. The dating of:

Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer, Midrash Tanhuma are at:

Targum Sheni is at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html

"Jewish legend" of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Elijah is at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBarent.html

These are not "sweeping generalisations" but published works in scholarly
literature, just in case if you ignorant about it.

> There wild statements from MSMS are a means to brush the truth about the
> falseness fo the Qur'an aside.

Keep talking. You are only good at that. Afterall your aim is "not to
offer any proof" anyway!

> This article deals in fairy tales and Hadithic myths from the 9th and 10th
> centuries (if in deed they were that early) which constitute absolute authority
> in matter pertaining to early islam. It never deals with extant manuscript
> evidence of the hadithic myths or their dating either. It is a complete waste
> of time.

The issue of "9th and 10th centuries" of "fairy tales and Hadithic myths"
is refuted at:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

Since you are ignorant of the presence of earliest hadith compilations, we
have to take upon ourselves to educate you.

> This is pre-published information provided to a friend by Dr Puin. It will be
> published in due course one hopes - and the microfiches prove the claim.

You mean Joseph Smith? Btw, Smith argued with the well known contributors
of this group Ghali Adi on the issue of Puin and his "finds" at Hyde Park
Speakers' corner a few days ago. Ghadi would be the best person to discuss
the information on the issue Puin.

> And what has this to do with the integrity of the text of these particular
> Qur'ans? Nothing! Why does MSMS waste his time when he can't address the
> other issue of the many fake Uthmanic versions for the Qur'an complete with
> blood stains which are in various libraries and which are patent fakes? The
> sand always shifts under the feet of those not on the solid rock.

Sorry! You were talking about how the Surah dealing with the story of
Solomon and Sheba was not that there in the "earliest" Qur'anic Mss of
San'a'. We just pointed out that the earliest Mss from San'a' is dated to
the time of al-Waleed by von Bothmer et al., much after the mss of 68 AH
in the Egyptian National Library. What happened to that claim of yours?
Refuted, shall we say? This 68 AH mss is not an 'Uthmanic Mss, btw. And
instead, very understandly, you spent your time on 'Uthmanic Qur'ans
instead of that from San'a'. A very familiar tricks of those missionaries
who have nothing to discuss but shift the argument from one to another. By
the way, this thread is about Abraham and idols not about the Qur'anic mss.

If you want to read more about the Mss, their publications, their
locations etc. please go through:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

It also deals with the Qiraa'aat of the Qur'an found in the Mss from 1st
century of hijra.

Wassalam
Saifullah

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 11, 2002, 11:55:40 AM2/11/02

On 8 Feb 2002, Johnny wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> your doing, you should stop thumbsucking misinformation. Secondly

> Muslims are united upon the 114 surah's of the Quran, which is more
> than one could say about the Christian unity upon the Bible!

The problem with these missionaries is that they never bother to look at
their own scripture and its integrity. Instead they would go around
attacking other peoples scripture. This has always been the common
denominator of Christian missionaries' gameplan. But these missionaries do
not understand that attacking the Qur'an would not make their case for the
integrity of the Bible any stronger. This newsgroup has already witnessed
these missionaries when challenged about the "inspiration" of their
scripture and its extent run away without replying.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.answering-islam.de/Responses/Saifullah/sheba.htm

Message has been deleted

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 15, 2002, 11:02:24 AM2/15/02

In article <a46cnu$l3t$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes -

concerning Midrashic and targumic myths and legends found in the Qur'an.

>What
>is discussed is pedantic issues like Midrash, "opinions" of a few rabbis
>etc. What has this "demonstrated"?

This demonstrates that Saifullah's earlier assertion to be worthless when he
claimed with great pomp to have Jewish scholarship supporting his conclusions
on the Qur'anic myth of Solomon and Sheba (Sura 26):

""Quite the contrary, the very "source" he had identified has been acknowledged
by Judaic scholarship as borrowing from the Qur'an instead."

So Saifullah himself was demonstrating that the "opionons of a few Rabbis" -
(which included some of the most knowledable Jewish sources) were in support of
his baseless assertions. This was demonstrated to be the case when his claims
of support from "Judaic scholarship" were shown to be false and he then tries
to excuse himself by suggesting he had made a "mistake" and writing:

"First of all I apologize for the editorial slip:"

Editorial slip???? It was the blowing away of all the support that Saifullah
claimed, from what he now refers to as; "opinions" of a few rabbis"

What a U turn - once claiming support from the Rabbis and now that his claims
have been debunked concerning the Qur'anic myth of Solomon and Sheba he turns
on them and dismisses them!. Where is the accademic scholarship and integrity
in anything that Saifullah writes or claims if he treats sources in this
arbitary way?

The article below demonstrates that the Qur'anic myth of Solomon and Sheba has
roots going back to Josephus and Abyssinian fables.

The non-sense argument from "redaction in final form" dismisses the real issues
and is one one would expect from a goatheard and not someone claiming
association with one of the foremost universities in England

> Does the opinion of rabbis
>"demonstrate" in anyway that Genesis Rabbah appeared in its final form in
>pre-Islamic times? Or does it "demonstrate" the redaction criticm of
>Genesis Rabbah?

Now Saifullah tries another trick to dismiss the Qur'anic myth of Abraham
breaking idols. He tries the "redaction in final form" nonsense agrgument
totally ignoring the specifics of the pre Qur'anic myths and legends which were
incorporated into the Qur'an during it's compilation.

Long before Muhammad ever lived there has been a legendary tradition of Abraham
as the wrecker of idols which a former Chief Rabbi of the UK made absolutely
clear:

"The fight against idolatry begun by the Prophets (Biblical Prophets) was
continued by the Pharisees. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, they
taught, started on his career as an idol wrecker. In legends, parables and
discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship..."
(Former Chief Rabbi J H Hertz from the "Book of Jewish Thoughts" 1942 - Pub -
The office of the Chief Rabbi London)"

The developed myth of Abraham being a wrecker of idols in various forms can be
traced back as far as the Book of Jubilees through the Midrash of Rabbi Hiyya
(one of the Greatest 2nd century Rabbis) and also the Babylonian Talmud.

All that Saifullah's argument from "redaction in final form" proves is that the
Qur'an contains the "latest" version of the myth which is certainly pre
Qur'anic (according to all Judaic scholarship - an evidence which Saifullah
also appealed to - before he lost the argument)

Jameel

The words of a wise Rabbi:

"If their purpose or activity (the followers of Yeshua Ha Moshiach - Jesus the
Messiah) is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will
not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourself fighting against
God"

(Rabbi Gamaliel about 1,967 years ago)

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 16, 2002, 10:58:17 AM2/16/02

In article <a4aa9k$et7$1...@samba.rahul.net>, anj...@msn.com (Anjum) writes:

Saifullah

>> The problem with these missionaries is that they never bother to look at
>> their own scripture and its integrity. Instead they would go around
>> attacking other peoples scripture.

Ignoring the whining "missionary" tag - Saifullah is wrong to think that people
don't look critically at the Qur'an or the Bible - But one thing they don't do
is try to make an idolatrous "god" out of a book, with all the "divine
perfection" that God possesses. The Qur'an, as argued by some
non-rationalists, has to be "absolute truth" otherwise it is insufficient to be
the basis for their dogmatic belief system - and the kind of belief system that
the non-rationalists needs requires a book which must not be falsifiable. In
their minds there is absolutely no doubt - there is no room for doubt - and so
their belief system does not derive from rational faith but "dogmatic belief"
in a book.

Anjum writes
>Could there be a simple 'human' reason for that?

Sura 5:101. O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made
plain to you, may cause you trouble...."

Yes there is a simple reason - and that simple reason is "rationality" which
causes Anjum apoplexy . But there is a system of reasonable faith which is the
antithesis of the irrational belief system of the mystics whose initiation into
their "belief system" is by means of an existential religious experience termed
the "final realisation" by Anjum.

Sadly these mystics live in a dichotomy, on one hand having to live their lives
as if they are reasonable - but with a belief system which has absolutely no
content because it is irrational.

In other words these people, whose insecurities are met by dogmatic and
romantic belief in a "book" of divine perfection are mystics whose words have
no content or significance. They have no rational definitions for "truth" or
for "transcendental reality" - just statements and words which have no
substance or content.

Kind regards
Jameel.

Message has been deleted

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 17, 2002, 11:33:57 AM2/17/02

On 15 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> >What
> >is discussed is pedantic issues like Midrash, "opinions" of a few rabbis
> >etc. What has this "demonstrated"?
>
> This demonstrates that Saifullah's earlier assertion to be worthless when he
> claimed with great pomp to have Jewish scholarship supporting his conclusions
> on the Qur'anic myth of Solomon and Sheba (Sura 26):

We are discussing about Abraham and the idols in the Qur'an and in the
Genesis Rabbah. We are not talking about Solomon and Sheba of which you
have already given your kind verdict long time ago that your aim is not be
produce any proof. Instead of waffling why not show us some proof?

> > Does the opinion of rabbis
> >"demonstrate" in anyway that Genesis Rabbah appeared in its final form in
> >pre-Islamic times? Or does it "demonstrate" the redaction criticm of
> >Genesis Rabbah?
>
> Now Saifullah tries another trick to dismiss the Qur'anic myth of Abraham
> breaking idols. He tries the "redaction in final form" nonsense agrgument
> totally ignoring the specifics of the pre Qur'anic myths and legends which were
> incorporated into the Qur'an during it's compilation.

Redaction in final form is not a "nonsense" argument. It has absorbed
scholars such as Neusner (a very well-known writer on Judaism) and
Burger for example, even today. Are these scholars fools? Or has
"MyTajMahal" assume the mantle of "true scholarship" which does not
deal with the issues of historical and redaction criticism. Some
arrogance and ignorance!

This "MyTajMahal" guy wants to dismiss the argument as "nonsense" hoping
that he would not have to deal. If somebody can't even show the existence
of Midrash Genesis Rabbah in the form that we have today during the time of
advent of Islam, what is the point claiming it to be the source?
Obviously "MyTajMahal" has well understood this problem, but the main
problem is that he is unwilling to admit it. Further, he simply can't show
a Mss which has been pre-dated to Islamic times which contains the story
of Abraham and idols. The reality being that no such Mss exists. The
critical edition of Genesis Rabbah prepared by Albeck is from a London Mss
dated to some 500 years after the advent of Islam. And there are Vatican
30 and 60 Mss which have considerable differences between them (they are
post-Islamic).

> Long before Muhammad ever lived there has been a legendary tradition of Abraham
> as the wrecker of idols which a former Chief Rabbi of the UK made absolutely
> clear:
>
> "The fight against idolatry begun by the Prophets (Biblical Prophets) was
> continued by the Pharisees. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, they
> taught, started on his career as an idol wrecker. In legends, parables and
> discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship..."
> (Former Chief Rabbi J H Hertz from the "Book of Jewish Thoughts" 1942 - Pub -
> The office of the Chief Rabbi London)"

Well, the quote from Rabbi Hertz does not prove that:

1. The story of Abraham and idols as mentioned in Genesis Rabbah existed
during the advent of Islam. Remember that we are talking about Genesis
Rabbah and the Qur'an.

2. Genesis Rabbah existed in Arabia and in particular Makkah. The story of
Abraham and idols in the Qur'an which is different (as even Tisdall admits
it and says in the effect that it is not plagiarization) from Midrash
Genesis Rabbah, is a Makkan verse.

3. the Genesis Rabbah of today is same as that when it was conceived.

It is easier to claim something as a "legend" or its "existence". Proving
it is another matter. Produce your proof if you are indeed truthful!

> The developed myth of Abraham being a wrecker of idols in various forms can be
> traced back as far as the Book of Jubilees through the Midrash of Rabbi Hiyya
> (one of the Greatest 2nd century Rabbis) and also the Babylonian Talmud.

Now all of sudden Genesis Rabbah is out of the scene. The argument is
about the Book of Jubilees and Babylonian Talmud being the possible
sources. I have not had a chance to look at it but it is pretty certain
that if this was the case Geiger would have been the first guy to point
out. He was a well-known scholar of Jewish books at his time albeit with
some fault as has been discussed by other scholars.

> All that Saifullah's argument from "redaction in final form" proves is that the
> Qur'an contains the "latest" version of the myth which is certainly pre
> Qur'anic (according to all Judaic scholarship - an evidence which Saifullah
> also appealed to - before he lost the argument)

Sorry how did you "prove" that?

Did you show that Genesis Rabbah which contains the story of Abraham and
idols existed at the time of advent of Islam? No.

Did you show the presence of Genesis Rabbah during the advent of Islam in
Arabia? No.

Did you show any Mss evidence to back up your claim that the Genesis
Rabbah of today is the same as that of what it was conceived? No.

Did you say your "proved" something?

Wassalam
Saifullah

asimm...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 18, 2002, 3:29:18 AM2/18/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a4lvip$prn$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> In article <a4aa9k$et7$1...@samba.rahul.net>, anj...@msn.com (Anjum) writes:
>
> In article <a4aa9k$et7$1...@samba.rahul.net>, anj...@msn.com (Anjum) writes:
>
> Saifullah
> >> The problem with these missionaries is that they never bother to look at
> >> their own scripture and its integrity. Instead they would go around
> >> attacking other peoples scripture.
>
> Ignoring the whining "missionary" tag - Saifullah is wrong to think that people
> don't look critically at the Qur'an or the Bible - But one thing they don't do
> is try to make an idolatrous "god" out of a book, with all the "divine
> perfection" that God possesses. The Qur'an, as argued by some
> non-rationalists, has to be "absolute truth" otherwise it is insufficient to be
> the basis for their dogmatic belief system - and the kind of belief system that
> the non-rationalists needs requires a book which must not be falsifiable. In
> their minds there is absolutely no doubt - there is no room for doubt - and so
> their belief system does not derive from rational faith but "dogmatic belief"
> in a book.
>
> Anjum writes
> >Could there be a simple 'human' reason for that?
>
> Sura 5:101. O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made
> plain to you, may cause you trouble...."
>

Wa salaam

This verse has NOTHING to do with verifying one's belief system. The
verse, as the context demonstrates, deals directly with the
injunctions of shareeah. The point of these verses is to create a
certain attitude with respect to the Quran. To ask questions while
the Quran is being revealed is actually an attitude contradicting the
essential nature of revelaton. When God Almighty is revealing a
certain a verse that deals with a specific situation He knows what to
reveal, and best understands the situation being addressed. If a
person starts asking questions about a subject while the Quran is
being revealed, than this attitude actually exemplifies an attitude
that God is not taking into account the situation accordingly. The
Prophet said to the effect that God has not mentioned certain things
not out of forgetfulness, so do not be inquisitive about them.

God Almighty then relates that he has forgiven the believers that have
done this in the past, but they are then told not to commit the same
mistakes in the future. This type of attitude was also exemplified by
the Jews. They were told to sacrifice any cow, but they continued
asking questions about the type of cow to be slaughtered, and the
flexibility and ease of the command was repleaced with something more
difficult. Because of this type of attitude, as the next verse
illustrates, the injunctions of their shareeah became very narrow and
rigid, and through this many could not fulfill the commandments
because of the above fault of theirs.

This attitude is actually reflected in the books of fiqh. One finds
various insignificant and trivial questions that find absolutely no
relevance to the Quran. The authors draw rulings through 'analogical'
deductions that are totally baseless, as our critic has drawn from the
above verse, and created a very rigid and inflexible code which they
perceived as Islam. They then title their books "The falcons descent
upon the snake of the Hanafi school', or some other flashy name as if
they are giving credibility to their book through such a name.

As far as the claim that the Quran does not appeal to intellect, it is
absurd. The Quran draws attention to God through the various signs as
manifest in creation, history and man's own self on almost every
single page of its book. Issues that deal with the religious
experience, including the moral-ethical values that are a result of
it, cover the majority of its pages, while the Book itself is devoted
to approximatly less than one-tenth law. Even then, the Quran does
not relate the law without the intellectual reasoning behind it.
"Don't do this, because ..." "Do this, because ..." The Quran is
full of questions "do they not use their reason" "Do they not think"
"In the creation of the heavens and earth and the alternation of the
Night and Dya there are signs for those who reflect." There is
nothing irrational about the Islamic belief system, and the concept of
iman is strengthened through rational thinking. The ayah of surah of
ayatul Noor actually demonstrates the relationship between revelation
and intellect.

> Sadly these mystics live in a dichotomy, on one hand having to live their lives
> as if they are reasonable - but with a belief system which has absolutely no
> content because it is irrational.
>

Totally baselss assertions that our friend Taj Mahal has been
repeating continuousl since his time one here.

> In other words these people, whose insecurities are met by dogmatic and
> romantic belief in a "book" of divine perfection are mystics whose words have
> no content or significance. They have no rational definitions for "truth" or
> for "transcendental reality" - just statements and words which have no
> substance or content.
>

By the mere fact that it is a Book, means the use of intellect. One
uses his eyes to see the words, uses the voice to sing the words,
listens to the melodious recitation as it is sung, and uses the
intellect to understand. All of this subtley penetrates and
transforms the heart of the individual, for it comes from the one "Who
is the Subtle, and Aware." "Allah is the Light of the Heavens and the
Earth." The light of God causes the pure oil, i.e the heart of the
human being, to catch on fire, though it does not even touch it.
"Light upon LIght." With the revelation, comes the manifest key such
that the truth becomes manifest to the sound nature of man. It is
astounding indeed that the final miracle and proof of revelation
throughout the whole drama of human civilization, ended with a Book.
And it is astounding indeed, that its first revelation was "READ, in
the name of thy Lord." And it is astounding indeed that the One God
Almighty chose to reveal this Book, was an unlettered beduoin.
Miracle indeed.

As far as the last statement, it is very clear which statement have no
subtsance or content, thus words such as emanations and the like. The
vagueness of the philosophers manifest. Just dramatizing and
theorizing in an imaginary world, where the unicorns fly and the
fairies throw their old dust. Click your red shoes three times, and
repeat after me "There's no place like, there's no place like home,
there's no place like home." Talk about words which have no substance
or content, than one only has to enter into the world of platonism and
emanations and pontentializing and the like.

Peace

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 18, 2002, 3:50:02 AM2/18/02

In article <a4lvj0$prv$1...@samba.rahul.net>, anj...@msn.com (Anjum) writes:

Concerning investigations into the Qur'an

>[ **End of story** -- The rest is merely an intellectual exercise,
>which hardens hearts one way or the other.

This is very curious - how does intellectual exercise and investigation into
the object of Islamic Belief cause the heart to harden? Is it really not
because it is dogmatic belief system lwithout any possible means of
verification? Do no Muslims investigate the Qur'an? Are they not allowed to
because if they do it will cause them problems?

Sura 5:101. O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made
plain to you, may cause you trouble...."

Is this the real reason? That one is not allowed to question and reason because
the real truth will come out?

> The Qur`an shall remain a
>"closed" book, unless one has certain characteristics, as outlined in
>these ayaat.

How can the "word of God" be a closed book? How can the "word of God" not be
open to verification.? Is the belief system it spawns really so irrational by
denying people the freedom and right to make investigation?

Kind regards
Jameel

Message has been deleted

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 9:51:14 PM2/20/02

In article <a4slah$68f$1...@samba.rahul.net>, anj...@msn.com (Anjum) writes:

I asked in connection with investigations into the Qur'an and Islam:

>> This is very curious - how does intellectual exercise and investigation
>> into the object of Islamic Belief cause the heart to harden?
>

>Because it's not an intellectual exercise and investigation....(...)

Oh! I see - just because you decide to impose your own criteria? Unfortunately
for Islam we live in a free world. Man is free he is not some kind of
automaton though Islam would like to impose that kind of regime. God created
man to use his God given common sense but I can see that there are many here
who deny God by trying to impose their own criteria upon what man can and
cannot do, think, read, and decide. We are free as God created us to be free.

(....)

>There is a huge difference between an objective intellectual
>investigation and a conscious attempt to find holes in it.

(....)

So what does one do when one finds holes in Islam, the Qur'an and the Hadis?
Bury one's head? or go off into some mystic mind numbing oblivion loosing touch
with reality? How sad for those who suppress the truth of what God has
revealed of Himself within every person and instead submit to a book.

>> Is it really not
>> because it is dogmatic belief system without any possible means of
>> verification?

>How can you verify the existence of the Reality that encompasses all
>existential realities?

"Existential reality" doesn't live in closed system or a room with no exist.
But even a child can know something of reality (both existential and
transcendental) - God loves everyone he created and doesn't leave anyone
without a testimony to the truth and reality (something denied in the Qur'an).
Love, communication and reason are reality which infuses all existential
realities and transcendental realities too (whoever denies that has branded
himself a biomechanical machine and denies a personal God who can be known - he
at the least, agnostic) - children live in the reality of that even if they
can't articulate the reasoning on which it is founded. But man suppresses this
truth and imposes his own "gods" upon himself and commits spiritual suicide.
That truth is consistent with the statement made by the son of God "Suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the
kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:14). The Kingdom of Heaven and of God is
something unknown in the Qur'an - It is the inner realm within those who submit
to the authority of God and not to a book or some other "god" which they seek
to raise to "divine status"

>> > The Qur`an shall remain a
>> >"closed" book, unless one has certain characteristics, as outlined in
>> >these ayaat.
>>
>> How can the "word of God" be a closed book?
>
>

>It's a closed book for those who approach it with a negative attitude.

I asked how? I didn't ask for statements.

>This divine writ is a transformational writ.

Really - transformational in what way? Does reading it transform one from
spiritual death to spiritual life? where is that claim in the Qur'an? Or is
this again some phantastic "idea" which has not means of verification? Anyway
is is not "divine writ" nothing encompases "absolute truth"

> It goes deeper than one's
>intellect and touches on the soul within the person.

That is a hocus pocus mystical fantasy

>Which is why,
>some people are guided by it while others are not.

That is why rational thinkers dismiss fantasy statements of those who have
surrendered reason for mystical "ideas" which use empty connotations words.
Anyone can make themselves believe anything once they surrender their reason.

> Some benefit from
>it, while others do not. Then there are many levels of meanings
>because of the richness of the Arabic language used in the Qur`an.

Using "levels" is simply a connotation which has no content - using words in
this way allows one to invent what ever meaning they want.

>> How can the "word of God" not be
>> open to verification.?
>

>We already know your position on the Qur`an.

True you do - but I am asking a question....

>We already know what you
>have stated about the Prophet in the past.

True I have quoted the ridiculous Hadis which apparently came form the mouth of
Muhammad - but that still doesn't deal with my question

> We are too familiar with
>your tactics and your attitudes towards the Qur`an and the Prophet,
>and the Muslims at large.

So you are evading the question? but I don't mind because I pray that you will
come to the truth even though your birth may be painful for you. In the
absence of any answer I understand that you refuse to consider the Qur'an to be
falsifiable and therefore you prove my point that your belief system (founded
on a text) is not open to reasonable verification but is utterly dogmatic.

That is all we need to know about it because such a stance condemns man to be
unthinking when it comes to spiritual truth. All one has to do is surrender
reason for uncompromising belief in a book.

But God who exists is He who created man with a free will and with freedom to
come to the knowledge of Him by means of reason and God given intellect and
common sense. May you come to know the truth and may God continue to bless you
and show you His love

Kind regards
Jameel

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 10:46:02 PM2/20/02

In article <a4qe0u$m7m$1...@samba.rahul.net>, asimm...@yahoo.com writes:

I quoted:

>> Sura 5:101. O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made
>> plain to you, may cause you trouble...."
>>
>Wa salaam

And to you

>This verse has NOTHING to do with verifying one's belief system.

It seems very general in it's claim and is addressed to the "believers" not to
ask questions which were being asked of Muhammad.

>The
>verse, as the context demonstrates, deals directly with the
>injunctions of shareeah. The point of these verses is to create a

>certain attitude with respect to the Quran. (....)

Not at all - It has nothing to do with that. The context of the verse has to
do with some people who were asking question of Muhammad to test if he was
psychic or could know things that others could not. They asked him questions
he couldn't answer (not that he wouldn't answer - but he couldn't and was
embarassed) and so "apparently" Allah "revealed" this verse to him!!!

It was a warning plain and simple to his followers not to question Muhammad
since if he had no answers it would cause doubt in who they might think he was
- and doubt in Islam is unbelief and for those who display unbelief there is a
future abode is the fire with all kinds of vile and horrible torments inflicted
personally by a vindictive "god",

Kind regards
Jameel.

MyTajMahal

unread,

Feb 20, 2002, 10:46:13 PM2/20/02

In article <a4om1l$c7p$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>Redaction in final form is not a "nonsense" argument.

Yes it is and this is demonstrated by your continuing to ignore Jewish
Scholarship which you once would have us believe was "Qur'anic truth"

>> "The fight against idolatry begun by the Prophets (Biblical Prophets) was
>> continued by the Pharisees. Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people, they
>> taught, started on his career as an idol wrecker. In legends, parables and
>> discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship..."
>> (Former Chief Rabbi J H Hertz from the "Book of Jewish Thoughts" 1942 - Pub

>> The office of the Chief Rabbi London)"
>
>Well, the quote from Rabbi Hertz does not prove that:
>
>1. The story of Abraham and idols as mentioned in Genesis Rabbah existed
>during the advent of Islam. Remember that we are talking about Genesis
>Rabbah and the Qur'an.

So the Prophets and Pharisees are post Qur'anic are they? Or have you
misunderstood what the Rabbi was claiming - that in Jewish traditions Abraham
was presented as an idol wrecker in *** legends, parables and discourses*** not
only in written documents but in stories and oral traditions long before
Muhammad was ever a gleam in his fathers eye.

>2. Genesis Rabbah existed in Arabia and in particular Makkah. The story of
>Abraham and idols in the Qur'an which is different (as even Tisdall admits
>it and says in the effect that it is not plagiarization) from Midrash
>Genesis Rabbah, is a Makkan verse.

Of course the story has differences - yet the weight of Jewish scholarship
places it formly in the 2nd century and pre-Qur'anic irrespective of what
Tisdall might claim. And do you believe everything that Tisdall says - or are
you joking? - you called him a "missionary bigot! What kind of warped
intellectual dependency is this?

>3. the Genesis Rabbah of today is same as that when it was conceived.

It's irrelevant and the reason why the claims form the "Redaction in final
form" is a nonsense argument. What Saifullah is trying to do is whitewash every
other argument and evidence by means of this one method. It doesn;t work.

>It is easier to claim something as a "legend" or its "existence". Proving
>it is another matter. Produce your proof if you are indeed truthful!

Look at the evidence already provided and give us a break from the nonsense
agrument from "redaction in final form" It says nothing of the substance and
contents.

Just to show how silly this argument can be would be a justifiable claim that
since the Hebrew Bible in "final form" (ie. the masoretic text) only dated from
915 CE (before the DSS were discovered) - That it was post Qur'anic !!!!
Therefore using Saifullah's methods he could claim that the stories in the
Bible had been plagarised from the Qur'an !!!!

What a nonsense way to go about any kind of serious investigation - yet this is
the method of Saifullah.

Buit Saifullah rushes on to engage in rhetoric:

>Did you show that Genesis Rabbah which contains the story of Abraham and
>idols existed at the time of advent of Islam? No.

I showed the evidence that the story did exist in various forms including the
Qur'anic form (irrespective of the nonsense "redaction in final form argument)
- All Jewish scholarship says so - they claim it is 2nd century - Saifullah
wanted us to believe the Rabbis once - Then he want's us to believe the
Encyclopedia Judaica (until it refutes him) Nnow he want's us to belief the
"missionary bigot " Rev Tisdall. What next? Find a method to dispense with
all scholarly opinion on the matter? Find a method of white washing away all
the evidence contianed in Jewish sources?

>Did you show the presence of Genesis Rabbah during the advent of Islam in
>Arabia? No.

Red herring

I never claimed this but rather demonstrated that serious Jewish scholarship
holds to the view that the story is pre-Qur'anic and existed within the Jewish
community in the form of legends, parables and discourses - and of course who
is to say that it wasn't written down during the pre Qur'anic period?

>Did you show any Mss evidence to back up your claim that the Genesis
>Rabbah of today is the same as that of what it was conceived? No.

More red herring. Saifullah simply dismisses all the evidence that this fable
is pre Qur'anic by trying to whitewash the evidence and scholarly opinion
earlier presented in my articles.

Blessings
Jameel

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 8:32:53 AM2/22/02

On 21 Feb 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

The story so far. It was claimed that the Qur'anic story of Abraham and
idols was borrowed from a Jewish source called Genesis Rabbah. This claim
was made by Abraham Geiger and later by Tisdall. In Tisdall's own words:

[Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, 1905,

Society For The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge, London, p. 76.]

So, Tisdall's aim was not to show that the Prophet, SAW, plagiarised the
Qur'anic story from Midrash; rather he wanted to "show" [where did he
show that?] that the details of the story were current in Arabia. It is
not really surprising to see that Tisdall was not interested in showing
the plagiarization because the Qur'anic details are different from
Midrashic details. Tisdall used a later day commentary called "Araisu'l
Majalis" and that of Abul Fida [b. 672 AH] "Historia Ante-Islamica" to
show the similarties *between them* and the Midrashic story. As one can
see it is not suppose to prove the earlier case of plagiarization of the
Midrashic story.

But the problem with these missionaries is that of a horse. You can take
them to the water but you can't make them drink. Tisdall did not show
and make the case of plagiarization but the missionaries quote Tisdall to
show the claim of plagiarization. Strange indeed!

In my earlier post, I had asked "MyTajMahal" to show the *evidences* for
the following:

1. Existence of Genesis Rabbah which contains the story of Abraham and
idols existed at the time of advent of Islam.

2. Presence of Genesis Rabbah during the advent of Islam in
Arabia?

3. Any Mss evidence to back up your claim that the Genesis

Rabbah of today is the same as that of what it was conceived?

And as one can see there is more of a talk by "MyTajMahal" than
actual evidence. This is because if he had some he would have shown it
long time ago. Instead, he spent his time calling our arguments
"nonsense", "irrelevent" and "red-herring".

> >Redaction in final form is not a "nonsense" argument.
>
> Yes it is and this is demonstrated by your continuing to ignore Jewish
> Scholarship which you once would have us believe was "Qur'anic truth"

The Jewish scholarship in the year 2000 published a book called "The
Synoptic Problem In Rabbanic Literature" 2000, Brown Judaic Studies:
Providence (RI). It deals with precisely the issue of redaction of
rabbanical literature such as Talmud, Midrash and Targums. As you will see
we did not "ignore" the Jewish scholarship to prove something else true.
We are simply stating what the Jewish scholarship time and again has said;
the Jewish literature is a produce of redaction over a long period of time
until it went to the press between 16th-19th centuries CE.

The book also shows that the issue of redaction as not being a "nonsense"
argument. It is "MyTajMahal" who himself is churning out nonsense. The
scholarship is still coming in grips to the fact of instability of Talmud,
Midrash and Targums. Unless one establishes the certainity of the text of
Talmud, Midrash and Targums, there is no point even claiming that the
Qur'an was borrowed from these peices of literature.

> >Well, the quote from Rabbi Hertz does not prove that:
> >
> >1. The story of Abraham and idols as mentioned in Genesis Rabbah existed
> >during the advent of Islam. Remember that we are talking about Genesis
> >Rabbah and the Qur'an.
>
> So the Prophets and Pharisees are post Qur'anic are they? Or have you
> misunderstood what the Rabbi was claiming - that in Jewish traditions Abraham
> was presented as an idol wrecker in *** legends, parables and discourses*** not
> only in written documents but in stories and oral traditions long before
> Muhammad was ever a gleam in his fathers eye.

The issue was to show that story of Abraham and idols as mentioned in
Genesis Rabbah existed during the advent of Islam. Instead of
showing what was asked, "MyTajMahal" argues whether the Prophets and
Pharisees are post Qur'anic and then adds that the Jewish "legends,
parables and discourses" existed in written as well as oral
traditions. Well, we agree that oral tradition is something which nobody
can prove, whether it existed or not, unless there is also a parallel
written tradition. What about written tradition? Mss? So, "MyTajMahal" any
Mss to back up your claim of existence of "written" tradition during the
advent of Islam?

Do not worry, we can assure you that there is none and as expected you
will only talk on this newsgroup with no evidence and create some noise.

> >2. Genesis Rabbah existed in Arabia and in particular Makkah. The story of
> >Abraham and idols in the Qur'an which is different (as even Tisdall admits
> >it and says in the effect that it is not plagiarization) from Midrash
> >Genesis Rabbah, is a Makkan verse.
>
> Of course the story has differences - yet the weight of Jewish scholarship
> places it formly in the 2nd century and pre-Qur'anic irrespective of what
> Tisdall might claim. And do you believe everything that Tisdall says - or are
> you joking? - you called him a "missionary bigot! What kind of warped
> intellectual dependency is this?

"MyTajMahal"'s claim is that the "weight of Jewish scholarship" places
Midrash Genesis Rabbah firmly "in the 2nd century". The "weight of Jewish
scholarship" which he claims to have placed it firmly "in the 2nd century"
itself denies it. Above all which "weight of Jewish scholarship" is
"MyTajMahal" refering to? Any quotes? Evidences? So far none and this is
what we expected.

Concerning the actual date of conception of Bereshit (or Genesis) Rabbah
in 1905 (around the same time as Tisdall wrote his book) "The Jewish
Encyclopaedia" said:

"It is difficult to ascertain the exact date of the actual editing of the

Bereshit Rabbah; it was probably undertaken not much later than that of

the Jerusalem Talmud. But even then the text was probably not finally

closed, for longer or shorter passages could always be added, the number
of prefatory passages to a parashah be increased, and those existing be
enlarged by accretion. Thus, beginning with the sidra Wayishlah, extensive

passages are found that bear the mark of the later Haggadah, and have
points of connection with the Tanhuma homilies... In the concluding
chapters the Bereshit Rabbah seems to have remained defective." ["Bereshit
Rabbah", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume III, Funk & Wagnalls
Company, p. 64.]

Further:

Tanhuma homilies." [Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman & M. Simon, Midrash Rabbah,
1961, Volume I (Genesis), The Soncino Press: London (UK), p. xxix.]

In other words, the "weight of Jewish scholarship" suggests the dating
between 4th and 6th centuries for the inception of Bereshit Rabbah; they
also say that the additions and deletions went on even in the Middle ages.
The dating is based on the names of the rabbis and alleged events. But it
has been pointed out that such a dating does not provide any accuracy
because the text could have been added at a much later date along with the
name of Rabbi to prop up its "authencticity". Further the dating of
Genesis Rabbah using Talmud Yerushalmi (i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud) has
come under increased criticism:

"The problem of relative chronology this exist for these sources, as well
as for the collective works. This is the fundamental problem because the
"dating" of the documents in relation to one another assumes,
theoratically, a definite point in time when one work was completed and
could be used by the others. Such a moment is unascertainable, however,
because the documents did not undergo a comprehensive, "once and for all"
final treatment. Instead, they (or, mostly, only parts of them)
materialized as texts through the independent work of many scribes and
editors over a long period of time. Accordingly, the earliest text
witnesses known to us (usually manuscripts and editions from the Middle
Ages) are different in scope, deviate considerably from one another, and
above all, do not fit into a linear redaction process. For this reason, it
appears arbitrary to place Yerushalmi or Genesis Rabbah as entire edited
works at, say, the end of the fourth century. Such a dating is not
securable on the basis of form- or redaction-critical analysis, but only
on the basis of texts' contents (i.e., through the names of the rabbis, or
the allusion to historical events or personalities).

The contents of the texts, however, upon which the generally accepted
dating supports itself, remains questionable criteria and are burdened by
uncertain factors so long as the impression which they give cannot be
verified through literary-critical observations." [Hans-Jurgen Becker,
"Texts And History: The Dynamic Relationship Between Talmud Yerushalmi And
Genesis Rabbah", in Shaye J. D. Cohen (ed.) The Synoptic Problem In
Rabbanic Literature, 2000, Brown Judaic Studies: Providence (RI), pp.
152-154 for complete discussion.]

Further:

"It can be said with certainity that the tradition histories of both
collective works were closely interwoven. In fact, they developed in such
close proximity to one another that MS Vatican 30, one of the oldest and
the most important of Genesis Rabbah textual witnesses, explicitly
indicates in three places that text material "from the Yerushalmi" should
be inserted. B. M. Bokser has shown that in one of these cases the
manuscript refers to a Yerushalmi text whose redaction differs from the
redactions of all Yerushalmi manuscripts and editions known to us. From
this, one may conclude that the document "Yerushalmi" was still in a
period of growth when, according to common opinion, it should already have
undergone its final redaction long ago." [Ibid., pp. 150-151.]

In other words, Talmud Yerushalmi was still undergoing redaction in the
Middle Ages when it was assumed to have reached its final redaction. This
is true for Genesis Rabbah. A dating of fourth century for Genesis
Rabbah and Talmud Yerushalmi is not securable. If such is the case then
the burden of proof lies on those who claim that the story of Abraham and
idols as mentioned in the Qur'an was present in the Genesis Rabbah.

> >3. the Genesis Rabbah of today is same as that when it was conceived.
>
> It's irrelevant and the reason why the claims form the "Redaction in final
> form" is a nonsense argument. What Saifullah is trying to do is whitewash every
> other argument and evidence by means of this one method. It doesn;t work.

Nonsense? We quoted the material on the issue of synoptic problems of
rabbanic literature published not even two years ago. Are all these
scholars engaged in nonsense arguments? Or have you assume the mantle of
"true scholarship" where criticism is not entertained.

Further, we should add that the "text" of Genesis Rabbah that Theodor and
Albeck claimed as being the "archetype" [or "original"] is different from
what it was. They themselves brought up a copy of the "text" which was
"corrected"; another redaction indeed!

"The Genesis Rabbah text of Theodor and Albeck (1929), which is today
widely used for research, is based upon the London manuscript of Genesis
Rabbah and Levicticus Rabbah (probably twelfth century). This text was
emended ("corrected") by the editors based on the manuscripts and was
supplemented according to MS Vatican 30. The end-product is a Genesis
Rabbah text which never before existed. Albeck, the redactor, clearly
expressed his intention to present the final, conclusive version of
Genesis Rabbah. Relevent evidence of the traditional history of Genesis
Rabbah and Yerushalmi includes datable manuscripts and archeological
findings. Such evidence does not attest to "the work" Genesis Rabbah or
Yerushalmi, however, but only to specific textual shapes of (mostly only
parts of) these works, shapes whose redactional characteristics sometimes
deviate considerable from each other. They therefore do not assist with
the establishment of a literary-critical dating of the works, but rather
attest to their instability." [Ibid., pp. 154-155.]

Actually the issue of instability of the text of Genesis Rabbah has
already been dealt in connexion with the study of Mss Vatican 30 and
constructing the "original" text of Genesis Rabbah.

"The task of reconstructing "a text as close as possible" to be the
original Bereshit Rabba, however, is exceedingly difficult. We do not have
basic information about the origin of the document. Who produced it? Was
it a man or a group of men? Was this man (or men) a creative author or a
mere mechanical compiler, or was he a combination of both? Without such
information, statements concerning the intention of the author-compiler or
the purpose of the document must remain speculative... The second
difficulty in establishing the "original" stems from the flexibility of
scribes in copying the text of Bereshit Rabba. In contrast to the rigidly
prescribed rules for copying the Bible, no standards existed for copying
rabbanic documents. Scribes changed or added to the text almost at will.
In addition, the scribes of some manuscripts other than Vat. 30 alternated
>from one exemplar to another while copying (contamination). Contamination
of the textual tradition makes it nearly impossible to construct a
reliable pedigree for the manuscripts of Bereshit Rabba." [L. M. Barth, An
Analysis Of Vatican 30, 1973, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College No.
1, Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute Of Religion, pp. 81-82.]

No wonder "MyTajMahal" would like to dismiss the issue of redaction in the
final form as a "nonsense" and "irrelevent" as it provides devastating
rebuttal to his claims.

First of all, he can't show the state of Genesis Rabbah in the form that
we have today is the same as it was during the advent of Islam. The
scholars of rabbanic literature themselves attribute to the instability of
the text of Genesis Rabbah and its extensive redaction. So, we know for
sure that the text of Gensis Rabbah is not the same as what existed even
in the Middle ages, not to mention during the advent of Islam.

Secondly, the manuscripts of Genesis Rabbah are from middle ages. Some
five to six centuries intervened between the alleged "creation" of
Genesis Rabbah and the composition of Mss Vat. 30 or Vat. 60. What
happened to Genesis Rabbah in that period? What was its state? Becker
says:

"The difference in degree between the so-called text "recensions" of
Genesis Rabbah in MS Vatican 60 and MS Vatican 30, or in the case of the
Yerushalmi, between the glossed and unglossed Leiden manuscript Or. 4720,
cannot be explained one-sidedly as partial losses of text material; rather
they are the result of extensive expansions at various stages of the
text's transmission." [Ibid. pp. 150.]

> Just to show how silly this argument can be would be a justifiable claim that
> since the Hebrew Bible in "final form" (ie. the masoretic text) only dated from
> 915 CE (before the DSS were discovered) - That it was post Qur'anic !!!!
> Therefore using Saifullah's methods he could claim that the stories in the
> Bible had been plagarised from the Qur'an !!!!

What a silly argument. The rules for writing the Hebrew Bible are
different from the rules of writing Targums, Midrash and Talmuds. Let me
reproduce what was said earlier.

"In contrast to the rigidly prescribed rules for copying the Bible, no
standards existed for copying rabbanic documents. Scribes changed or added
to the text almost at will." [Barth, Ibid., pp. 81]

Since the Hebrew Bible was transmitted both orally and in written form
with rigid rules, it is quite expected that they would have a greater
degree of textual stability. And rabbanic documents such as Targums,
Midrash and Talmuds, no such rules existed and hence there was a free
addition and subtraction of the material [very much similar to that of
"inspired" New Testament]. Therefore, we see the issue of redaction in
these literatures. Please get your facts right before you argue.

To refute the silly argument one should also point out that the Old
Testament existed in the Greek before the advent of Islam.

> I never claimed this but rather demonstrated that serious Jewish scholarship
> holds to the view that the story is pre-Qur'anic and existed within the Jewish
> community in the form of legends, parables and discourses - and of course who
> is to say that it wasn't written down during the pre Qur'anic period?

Which "serious Jewish scholarship" claims that the story of Abraham and
idols mentioned in Genesis Rabbah is "pre-Qur'anic"? References please!

Wassalam
Saifullah

thebit

unread,

Feb 22, 2002, 8:33:08 AM2/22/02

MyTajMahal wrote:

> >This verse has NOTHING to do with verifying one's belief system.
>
> It seems very general in it's claim and is addressed to the "believers" not to
> ask questions which were being asked of Muhammad.

No. It is addressing the kind of foolish questioning that led the Israelites to
bring the wrath of God upon them. Have you not read the story of the Israelites and
the Cow?

The Truth of God is manifested through a Messenger to such an extent that one has
no way of denying God, except through arrogance and blatent "Kufr". Moses, Jesus
and Muhammad (peace upon them all) were such Messengers.

> Not at all - It has nothing to do with that.

I am sorry. But this is coming from a person who could (or would) not comprehend
the use of "begotten" in the Qur'an.

> The context of the verse has to
> do with some people who were asking question of Muhammad to test if he was
> psychic or could know things that others could not. They asked him questions
> he couldn't answer (not that he wouldn't answer - but he couldn't and was
> embarassed) and so "apparently" Allah "revealed" this verse to him!!!

All this is nonsense and shows you have never bothered reading the Qur'an to learn.
You only want to be negative and make wild accusations.

Numerous verses point out the signs within man, nature, the signs of the advent of
a Messenger. "Asking questions" does not involve persual of questions like: how
many fingers do I put on my wrist during prayer? how long should my beard be? when
do I cut my nails? and the like.
These are questions, IMO, akin to the questions asked of Moses (p) by the
Israelites.

Veryfying ones beliefs and value system is given in the verses below.

"O man! follow not that whereof you have no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the
sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked ( to give an account )."
Qur'an 17: 36

"Most of them follow naught but conjecture. Assuredly conjecture can by no means
take the place of truth." Qur'an 10: 37

> Kind regards
> Jameel.

I doubt that.

asimm...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 7:56:04 AM2/23/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a51qhq$7in$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> In article <a4qe0u$m7m$1...@samba.rahul.net>, asimm...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> I quoted:
> >> Sura 5:101. O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made
> >> plain to you, may cause you trouble...."
> >>
> >Wa salaam
>
> And to you
>
> >This verse has NOTHING to do with verifying one's belief system.
>
> It seems very general in it's claim and is addressed to the "believers" not to
> ask questions which were being asked of Muhammad.
>

No matter how much you insist on perpetuating this notion, we are not
going to accept it. You have not givien any evidence to support your
assertion. The Quran, when it refers to principles of belief, on
almost EVERY single page of its book calls for thinking, reflecting,
observing, and so on.

> >The
> >verse, as the context demonstrates, deals directly with the
> >injunctions of shareeah. The point of these verses is to create a
> >certain attitude with respect to the Quran. (....)
>
> Not at all - It has nothing to do with that.

Because TajMahal says so, it must be true. I know it must be hard for
you to accept that such a Book is perfect, but that is your problem.
The intepretation that you were flouting is wrong, plain and simple.
Not only that, when somebody gives you the proper intepretation, you
were probably dazed at the perfection of this Book.

Surah Maidah itself revolves around the injunctions of shareeah, let
alone the context of these verses.

One only has to reread the previous verses, and they refer directly to
the injunctions as related towards the sacrifice at the Kaaba, about
which animals are lawful for sacrifice and which ones are not. The
surah then goes on about how the disbelivers fabricated their own
customs and rituals, that have no basis in Divine law. Is it mere
coincidence the similarity between the sacrificing of the cow among
the Jews in surah Baqarah and the mentioning of this verse immediately
after the injunctions of sacrifice at hajj? Can you see the
connection?

The context of the verse has to
> do with some people who were asking question of Muhammad to test if he was
> psychic or could know things that others could not. They asked him questions
> he couldn't answer (not that he wouldn't answer - but he couldn't and was
> embarassed) and so "apparently" Allah "revealed" this verse to him!!!
>

Oh really. Do the two exclamation points make us swallow such
rhetoric. You haven't given a shred of evidence to support your
assertion, and when you are hit with the proper response, it must have
dazed you.

"Wow! This book is perfect. Now what can I say to respond to that,
but with a mere insult."

But we won't accept it, and your actions and responses on this post
prove nothing more than animosity and spite. But that is your bit and
is trivial childish behaviour not to be proud of. Does it make you
feel a little bit better?

We still won't swallow your rhetoric.

ghali

unread,

Feb 23, 2002, 7:56:36 AM2/23/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a51qi5$7iq$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

>
> >3. the Genesis Rabbah of today is same as that when it was conceived.
>
> It's irrelevant and the reason why the claims form the "Redaction in final
> form" is a nonsense argument. What Saifullah is trying to do is whitewash every
> other argument and evidence by means of this one method. It doesn;t work.

To tell you the truth mytajmahal I think Saifullah has finished off
this issue. You are just repeating yourself with the substance of the
argument being, these Rabbi's have big long white beards , they are
over 550 years old in terms of wisdom, they walk using a stick to lean
on, and they exude enlightened thought from Jeruaslem to Mecca.
Really! Grow up!

The Redaction in its final form is a deadly argument. Something the
like of brainwashed missionaries like you used on the Quran when
relying on Wansborough, Norman Calder and Rippen. But hey one rule for
you and one rule for us. The problem is that in the end it dosen't
work on the Quran but it works on the Genesis Rabbah.

Any comments?

MyBarbarimasjid!

Message has been deleted

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Feb 25, 2002, 4:10:16 PM2/25/02

On 23 Feb 2002, ghali wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> The Redaction in its final form is a deadly argument. Something the

> like of brainwashed missionaries like you used on the Quran when
> relying on Wansborough, Norman Calder and Rippen. But hey one rule for
> you and one rule for us. The problem is that in the end it dosen't
> work on the Quran but it works on the Genesis Rabbah.
> Any comments?

To be honest, I was waiting somebody to use the double standards that you
had mentioned. When it comes to the Qur'an and hadith these missionaries
have no problem using the methodology of Wansbrough and used by Calder and
Rippin. The methodology being that the Qur'an and hadith are later
compilations (or redactions) of a later date unlike as claimed by Muslims.
But then it has been refuted for both the Qur'an [see Whelans's article
"Forgotton Witnesses..." in JAOS] and hadith [Motzki, "The hadith of Abd
al-Razzaq..." in JNES].

The redaction of Jewish scriptures and rabbanic literature is discussed by
Neusner and in one instance Wansbrough also comments on it. So, it is not
an "irrelevent" argument.

> MyBarbarimasjid!

<LOL>

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://members.aol.com/jameelzero/messiah/god.htm

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 1, 2002, 8:39:17 AM3/1/02

In article <a583i4$fkf$1...@samba.rahul.net>, ghal...@yahoo.co.uk (ghali) writes:

On the subject of Qur'anmic myths and legends such as Abraham breaking idols
and the Solomon and Sheba story.

>The Redaction in its final form is a deadly argument.

It is for those who care not about the substance or the detail contained in the
manuscripts - Saifullah this argument for one purpose only and that is to
whitewash away the historical evidence that long before the Qur'an was written
there were these traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols.

What Saifullah fails to do is prove that the Qur'an is the origin of such myths
and legends - because they are indeed pre-Qur'anic.

>Something the
>like of brainwashed missionaries like you used on the Quran when
>relying on Wansborough, Norman Calder and Rippen. But hey one rule for
>you and one rule for us. The problem is that in the end it dosen't
>work on the Quran but it works on the Genesis Rabbah.

I never refered to any of the above - seems that you must have immagined it.

Jameel

Message has been deleted

Johnny

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:23:52 AM3/2/02

>
> On the subject of Qur'anmic myths and legends such as Abraham breaking idols
> and the Solomon and Sheba story.
>

How do you know its a "myth"?

Johnny

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 7:24:00 AM3/2/02

On 1 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> It is for those who care not about the substance or the detail contained in the
> manuscripts - Saifullah this argument for one purpose only and that is to
> whitewash away the historical evidence that long before the Qur'an was written
> there were these traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols.

The "substance or the detail contained in the manuscripts" can be shown
only if you have contemporary mss around the advent of Islam in Arabia and
in particular Makkah. But unfortunately you do not seem to get the fact
that the mss do not have linear redaction processes and neither do you
have any evidence to show the existence of such mss; honestly there are
none!

Well, nobody is whitewashing the "historical evidence". If you have any
"historical evidence" that you keep repeating, you would have shown us.
We do understand you can't show want you don't have.

> What Saifullah fails to do is prove that the Qur'an is the origin of such myths
> and legends - because they are indeed pre-Qur'anic.

Well, well, well... now we are on a very familiar territory. You claimed
that Genesis Rabbah is indeed the source of the Qur'anic story but so far
no evidence; just beating around the bush. We are not surprised!

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 1:37:51 PM3/2/02

In article <a5qg90$80j$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>On 1 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:
>
>> It is for those who care not about the substance or the detail contained in
>the
>> manuscripts - Saifullah this argument for one purpose only and that is to
>> whitewash away the historical evidence that long before the Qur'an was
>written
>> there were these traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols.
>
>The "substance or the detail contained in the manuscripts" can be shown
>only if you have contemporary mss around the advent of Islam in Arabia and
>in particular Makkah.

Again Saifullah evades the issue of story telling within the Jewish community
over thousands of years. Muhammad was illiterate right? Then what relevance
have manuscripts? None at all. As Rabbi Hertxzsaid "In legends, parables and

discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship.."

The issue of manuscripts is irrelevant to the historicity and detail of the
tradition within Judaism

The above link deals the death blow to Saifullah claims for the necessity of
manuscripts.

>But unfortunately you do not seem to get the fact
>that the mss do not have linear redaction processes and neither do you
>have any evidence to show the existence of such mss; honestly there are
>none!

Still harping on about the mss - when the argument of Saifullah doesn;t address
the issue that the tradition of legends and myths about Abraham being an idol
wrecker is pre-Qur'anic. Even other Muslims agree on this which can be seen at
this webpage:

http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm

>Well, nobody is whitewashing the "historical evidence". If you have any
>"historical evidence" that you keep repeating, you would have shown us.
>We do understand you can't show want you don't have.

I have already presented it even in this thread so he can scroll back and find
it. But Saifullah can go to the Muslim page above if he wants and tell them
they are wrong.

>> What Saifullah fails to do is prove that the Qur'an is the origin of such
>myths and legends - because they are indeed pre-Qur'anic.
>
>Well, well, well... now we are on a very familiar territory. You claimed
>that Genesis Rabbah is indeed the source of the Qur'anic story but so far
>no evidence; just beating around the bush. We are not surprised!

I claimed that there were many pre-Qur'anic traditions of Abraham being an idol
wrecker and the "version" which appeears in the Qur'an is the same as is
recorded in the Midrash.

Now all Saifullah has to tell us is that the Qur'anic version of the myth is
the "true" one and that the Midrash actually, according to all Jesish
scholarship, borrowed it from the Qur'an.

This is the same as he did when he dealt with the myth of Solomon and Sheba
when he claimed at the heart of his conclusion:

"Quite the contrary, the very "source" he had identified has been acknowledged
by Judaic scholarship as borrowing from the Qur'an instead."

Quickly followed by the following admission when his claim was shown to be
without substance or foundation.

"First of all I apologize for the editorial slip:....For that I take the

personal responsibility as I was the last person to go through the document
before posting it on the web."

Regards
Jameel

http://www.answering-islam.de/Quran/Sources/abraham2.htm

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 2, 2002, 9:44:13 PM3/2/02

On 2 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> >The "substance or the detail contained in the manuscripts" can be shown

> >only if you have contemporary mss around the advent of Islam in Arabia and
> >in particular Makkah.
>
> Again Saifullah evades the issue of story telling within the Jewish community
> over thousands of years. Muhammad was illiterate right? Then what relevance
> have manuscripts? None at all. As Rabbi Hertxzsaid "In legends, parables and
> discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship.."

Well, it was your claim that the Qur'anic story was from Genesis Rabbah.
So, we asked you toproduce a mss of Genesis Rabbah from the time of advent
of Islam that it indeed was. Not surprisingly you really do not have the
evidence to show and hence the argument is slowly being drifted into the
oral tradition. The problem actually is not solved. The core of the
problem is the instability of text of Genesis Rabbah whether it is from
mss or oral. Here again you have to show that the oral tradition of
Genesis Rabbah existed in Arabia during the advent of Islam and that it
contained the story of Abraham and the idols as it is seen in today's
critical edition of midrash. Please provide us proof if you have one or
else do not waste our time and other readers' time. And do not quote this
Rabbi Hertz. We know that he himself has not got any reference to claim
that the stories are "legends".

It was shown earlier that the research has shown that the influence of
Christianity on Arabian culture was negative. If you look at the same
research it would be shown that the influence of Judaism is also negative.
So, you have another problem.

> The issue of manuscripts is irrelevant to the historicity and detail of the
> tradition within Judaism
>
> http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html

I am sorry to say that there is nothing about the issue of manuscripts of
Genesis Rabbah being "irrelevent" in the above link. The only
discussion about manuscript is that of Qur'an. Who are you trying to
make a fool of? If one even bothers to read that link it has no discussion
on the stability of the text of Genesis Rabbah. It simply assumes the
stability for no good reason; contrary to the research of the scholars who
have said that Genesis Rabbah was in the process of redaction even after
the advent of Islam as late as 16th century CE. Sorry! try something
better next time. As for Mr. Dajjal, we also have to deal with him on this
issue since he was the first to claim and you were the first to pat his
back. You have been dealt with and I do not see any reason why I should
continue wasting my time on you who when asked to produce evidence simply
talks more and more. Talk is cheap. Come up with some evidence which we
can look into.

> I claimed that there were many pre-Qur'anic traditions of Abraham being an idol
> wrecker and the "version" which appeears in the Qur'an is the same as is
> recorded in the Midrash.

We are again asking you to show the evidence either written or oral
tradition about the existence of this story in Midrash Genesis Rabbah
during the advent of Islam but still none forthcoming. And as usual more
and more of empty talk.

As a side issue please provide us the references of these "pre-Qur'anic
traditions of Abraham being an idol wrecker". We would like to check the
truthfulness of your claim.

> Now all Saifullah has to tell us is that the Qur'anic version of the myth is
> the "true" one and that the Midrash actually, according to all Jesish
> scholarship, borrowed it from the Qur'an.

Earlier it was the "weight of Jewish scholarship" that dated Genesis
Rabbah to 2nd century CE. It was refuted with one blow [there is more
if "MyTajMahal" is interested]. Now it is all "Jesish [i.e., Jewish]
scholarship" that says that it is borrowed into the Qur'an. References of
such Jewish scholarship please! We know that you are very good at talking
about not good at providing evidence.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/borrow.htm

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 4, 2002, 3:32:14 AM3/4/02

In article <a5s2lt$gu6$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>> Again Saifullah evades the issue of story telling within the Jewish
>community
>> over thousands of years. Muhammad was illiterate right? Then what
>relevance

>> have manuscripts? None at all. As Rabbi Hertz said "In legends, parables

>and
>> discourses, they showed forth the folly and futility of idol worship.."
>
>Well, it was your claim that the Qur'anic story was from Genesis Rabbah.
>So, we asked you toproduce a mss of Genesis Rabbah from the time of advent
>of Islam that it indeed was.

And Saifullah will go harping on because he has no other option than to attempt
to whitewash the issues refered to previously brushing aside the ancient
traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols (refered to by the Rabbis) which
are also mentioned in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud.

So if Saifullah wants to claim that the myths in the Qur'an were plagiarised by
Jews then he is free to go ahead and provide the evidence demonstrating that
all Jewish scholarly and accademic support is on his side (like he famously
tried to do over the Solomon and Sheba myth - and then had to claim it was an
"Editorial slip"). In which case Saifullah will have to admit that it is a myth
which no historical basis beyond the inventing of the Qur'an.

>Not surprisingly you really do not have the
>evidence to show and hence the argument is slowly being drifted into the
>oral tradition.

The arguments from the beginning have been from the oral transmission as anyone
reading these articles will note:

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/borrow.html

All that has been claimed in connection with the Midrash Rabbah is that it
contains the same myth. I have written:

" However it may come as a surprise to discover that many stories in the Qur'an
which appear to be historical facts do not come from any scriptures held as
divine by the Jews and Christians"

And:

"However this story is a well known illustration invented by Rabbi Hiyya in the
2nd century CE; it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis and all
authorities agree that it was never mean't to be considered historical."

And:

"A comparison of the stories reveals unique similarities in the Qur'an and the
Midrash which appear nowhere else in Biblical or other ancient literature."

Although there are ancient traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols -
there are unique similarities in the stories recorded in the Qur'an and the
Midrash

Now the burden of proof lies with Saifullah to prove that this is not an
invented myth *** but an actual hstorical story with evidence going back to
Pre-Qur'anic times and earlier**** - and accepted as "Holy Scripture" by Jews
and Christians (or anyone else he cares to choose)

This is exactly what the Muslim writers of this page have sought to do:

(...)

> The core of the
>problem is the instability of text of Genesis Rabbah whether it is from
>mss or oral.

Saifullah tries to make a problem out of nothing else to say on the tradition
of myths about Abraham being a wrecker of idols is found in outher Jewish
pre-Qur'anic literature.

>As a side issue please provide us the references of these "pre-Qur'anic
>traditions of Abraham being an idol wrecker". We would like to check the
>truthfulness of your claim.

Just go to the above Muslim website - Better still here it is again:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm

I wonder how long it will take Saifullah to convince these people to pull their
webpage off the internet?

(....)

Jameel

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/abraham2.htm

http://members.aol.com/jameelzero/messaih/god.htm

Message has been deleted

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 5, 2002, 2:02:28 PM3/5/02

On 4 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> And Saifullah will go harping on because he has no other option than to attempt
> to whitewash the issues refered to previously brushing aside the ancient
> traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols (refered to by the Rabbis) which
> are also mentioned in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud.

The argument first started off by saying that the Qur'anic story of
Abraham and idols is borrowed from Genesis Rabbah. It was shown by us that
in order to prove such a case the first thing to do is to establish the
textual stability of Genesis Rabbah. The scholars of midrash agree that
there is no way of establishing a "genuine" and "original" text of the
Genesis Rabbah. If this can't be done then we are not sure what was in
there and what was not during the advent of Islam. Obviously "MyTajMahal"
understood what was said but then he has a tendency to divert away from
the issues. So, the scene has moved from Genesis Rabbah to Book of
Jubilees and Talmud being the sources or shall we say possible sources of
the Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols. We can now conveniently assume
that "MyTajMahal" has no evidence to show:

1. Existence of Genesis Rabbah which contains the story of Abraham and
idols existed at the time of advent of Islam.

2. Presence of Genesis Rabbah during the advent of Islam in
Arabia?

3. Any Mss evidence to back up your claim that the Genesis
Rabbah of today is the same as that of what it was conceived?

Now over to Talmud and Book of Jubilees as the possible "sources" of the
Qur'anic story. This outrageous claim has not been endorsed by learned
Abraham Geiger nor Christian missionaries' other "God" Tisdall.

Further, is it not that Book of Jubilees is also an "inspired" book of
Ethiopic Jews and Christians and forms a part of their canon? So, we have
to believe that there exists a possibility that "legends" can be part of
"inspired" book of God. As for Talmud, which one is it: Babylonian or
Palestinian? And again references please! I have checked Babylonian Talmud
but I did not find anything which "MyTajMahal" is trying to claim about
the Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols. Again it is quite easy to believe
that he is telling us nice bedtime stories hoping nobody would check his
claims.

> So if Saifullah wants to claim that the myths in the Qur'an were plagiarised by
> Jews then he is free to go ahead and provide the evidence demonstrating that
> all Jewish scholarly and accademic support is on his side (like he famously
> tried to do over the Solomon and Sheba myth - and then had to claim it was an
> "Editorial slip"). In which case Saifullah will have to admit that it is a myth
> which no historical basis beyond the inventing of the Qur'an.

No, we have not claimed anything about the historicity of the story of
Abraham and idols whether in the Qur'an or in Genesis Rabbah. It was you
who said it was a "legend" because a rabbi told something of that sort.
What was the evidence of that Rabbi? None. Because he has none to show as
much as you have none to produce. The other assumption is that you went
on a time machine to find out which story is a "myth" and which one is a
"legend". Unless you let us borrow that time machine there is no way to
verifying your claims.

It is very easy to understand why you are clutching to the straws and
create red herrings.As for Solomon and Sheba you are being refuted. So, do
not humiliate yourself anymore on that issue. Sometime ago you were asked
to produce the evidence and you said rather proundly that you have no
evidence to produce. That is it. The case is closed unless of course you
have some evidence to come up with.

> Now the burden of proof lies with Saifullah to prove that this is not an
> invented myth *** but an actual hstorical story with evidence going back to
> Pre-Qur'anic times and earlier**** - and accepted as "Holy Scripture" by Jews
> and Christians (or anyone else he cares to choose)

I thought you claimed it as a legend but provided no proof that it is
indeed a legend. Quoting Jewish Rabbis who say that it is a legend does
not prove it to be a legend. Do you want me to quote a few Jewish Rabbis
to show that this story is historical?

> This is exactly what the Muslim writers of this page have sought to do:
>
> http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-077a.htm

Well, the Jews believe that this story is historical as various links
from that site suggest; so, there you go. As for your claim of "legend"
please produce your evidence.

> > The core of the
> >problem is the instability of text of Genesis Rabbah whether it is from
> >mss or oral.
>
> Saifullah tries to make a problem out of nothing else to say on the tradition
> of myths about Abraham being a wrecker of idols is found in outher Jewish
> pre-Qur'anic literature.

What happened to the earlier claim of yours that Genesis Rabbah was the
source of Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols? Refuted, is it not? Now the
argument is moved to Jewish pre-Qur'anic literature. Sorry, did you say
literature? Can you quote me the references of this literature? No Book of
Jubilees and Babylonian Talmud please.

> >As a side issue please provide us the references of these "pre-Qur'anic
> >traditions of Abraham being an idol wrecker". We would like to check the
> >truthfulness of your claim.
>
> Just go to the above Muslim website - Better still here it is again:
>
> http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-077a.htm

But these references prove precisely opposite of what you are claiming.
The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
Ethiopic Jews and Christians. And the Jewish rabbis think that the story
of Abraham being the idol wrecker is historical even so that every Jewish
child knows it. Where does that leave you to?

> I wonder how long it will take Saifullah to convince these people to pull their
> webpage off the internet?

When we can convince you to produce the proof of Genesis Rabbah being a
"2nd century" compilation, and that Genesis Rabbah existed in the form
that we see today during the advent of Islam, and that you can let us
borrow your time machine that can check out the stories of the past being
"legend", then we will be able to convince others about something
related to this issue.

So, even in this post as expected, there is no proof.

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5vbee%246nc%241%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain

Jameel

unread,

Mar 8, 2002, 12:09:43 AM3/8/02

"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a634o4$36$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> On 4 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:
>
> > And Saifullah will go harping on because he has no other option than to attempt
> > to whitewash the issues refered to previously brushing aside the ancient
> > traditions of Abraham being a wrecker of idols (refered to by the Rabbis) which
> > are also mentioned in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud.
>
> The argument first started off by saying that the Qur'anic story of
> Abraham and idols is borrowed from Genesis Rabbah.

In my last post I already quoted from my article (s) - Nowhere in
them have I stated that the myth was borrowed from the Genesis Rabbah
as a book at the time that the Qur'an was being compiled.

I have clarified that position here:

We can now dispense with saifullah's defense since he persists in
arguing against something I never claimed in my articles. (it's
called a red herring)

(......)

> > So if Saifullah wants to claim that the myths in the Qur'an were plagiarised by
> > Jews then he is free to go ahead and provide the evidence demonstrating that
> > all Jewish scholarly and accademic support is on his side (like he famously
> > tried to do over the Solomon and Sheba myth - and then had to claim it was an
> > "Editorial slip"). In which case Saifullah will have to admit that it is a myth
> > which no historical basis beyond the inventing of the Qur'an.
>
> No, we have not claimed anything about the historicity of the story of
> Abraham and idols whether in the Qur'an or in Genesis Rabbah.

So it's not historically true? It is a myth?

> It was you
> who said it was a "legend" because a rabbi told something of that sort.
> What was the evidence of that Rabbi? None.

Look at all the Jewish links regarding the story - also look at MENJ's
articles on it and the comments by JosephG - one one claims it is
historical.

If no one makes any claim for the story to have any real basis in
history - then by definition it is a myth and a legend. Jews
(including the Chief Rabbi)are not afraid to claim this as I have
demonstrated in my earlier posts - but apparently Saifuallh has some
reason for why he won't agree.

> The other assumption is that you went
> on a time machine to find out which story is a "myth" and which one is a
> "legend". Unless you let us borrow that time machine there is no way to
> verifying your claims.

Well maybe Saifullah can claim that the Qur'an is a "time machine" -
that it contains stories which are historically and factually true
about Abraham when he lived - even though for 1,000's of years there
is no such claim to corroborate his position.

(....)

> > Now the burden of proof lies with Saifullah to prove that this is not an
> > invented myth *** but an actual hstorical story with evidence going back to
> > Pre-Qur'anic times and earlier**** - and accepted as "Holy Scripture" by
> > Jews and Christians (or anyone else he cares to choose)
>
> I thought you claimed it as a legend but provided no proof that it is
> indeed a legend.

There is absolutely no proof - nor is there any body of scholarly
opinion which claims that the story is historically and factually true
of Abraham.

> Quoting Jewish Rabbis who say that it is a legend does
> not prove it to be a legend. Do you want me to quote a few Jewish Rabbis
> to show that this story is historical?

Saifullah may attempt to provide evidence (as Menj sought to do) that
all Jewish scholarly authority claims this myth to be historically and
factually true about Abraham when he lived

> > This is exactly what the Muslim writers of this page have sought to do:
> >
> > http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-077a.htm
>
> Well, the Jews believe that this story is historical as various links
> from that site suggest; so, there you go. As for your claim of "legend"
> please produce your evidence.

Of course the story is "historical" - so is my last post !!! - but
where are the claims from any serious body of Jewish scholarship which
states that the story is historically and factually true about Abraham
when he lived?

The evidence in the Jubilees and the Talmud all points to a
"tradition" which evolved over centuries that Abraham was an idol
wrecker - it is a "developed myth"

> > Saifullah tries to make a problem out of nothing else to say on the tradition
> > of myths about Abraham being a wrecker of idols is found in outher Jewish
> > pre-Qur'anic literature.
>
> What happened to the earlier claim of yours that Genesis Rabbah was the
> source of Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols? Refuted, is it not?

My claims are stated here at the link below and in my articles - of
course Saifullah will try to tilt at wind mills and seek to "refute"
that which was never claimed - one reason why he is so desperate not
to let go of the argument from "Redaction in latest form"

But he has not refuted what I stated here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5vbee%246nc%241%40samba.rahul.net&output=gplain

> Now the
> argument is moved to Jewish pre-Qur'anic literature. Sorry, did you say
> literature? Can you quote me the references of this literature? No Book of
> Jubilees and Babylonian Talmud please.

That is what I am referring to - it is evidence that the tradition, in
various forms, existed that Abraham was an idol wrecker - there is no
consistency in the stories over hundreds of years in pre-Qur'anic
times - the myth was "developed" - changed and altered until we find
it turning up in the Qur'an in the form that it also appears in the
Midrash.

> > >As a side issue please provide us the references of these "pre-Qur'anic
> > >traditions of Abraham being an idol wrecker". We would like to check the
> > >truthfulness of your claim.
> >
> > Just go to the above Muslim website - Better still here it is again:
> >
> > http://www.understanding-islam.com/rq/q-077a.htm
>
> But these references prove precisely opposite of what you are claiming.

They prove exactly what I am claiming.

> The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
> Ethiopic Jews and Christians.

It is not in the Hebrew Bible - It is not considered Inspired
scripture by Jews and is not in the Tanak. But does Saifullah
consider the book of Jubilees to be "inspired" scripture? Does Islam?
No! Does the Qur'an list the book of Jubilees as being "former
Scripture"? No!

It proves exactly what I am claiming. That no serious body of Jewish
scholarship claims that the story is historically or factually true in
relation to the historical Abraham.

> And the Jewish rabbis think that the story
> of Abraham being the idol wrecker is historical even so that every Jewish
> child knows it. Where does that leave you to?

Very clever - but every child knows the story and knows that it is
historical in the sense that it wasn't written today - what they also
know is that it is not historical and factually true in relation to
the historical Abraham - they know it is a **midrashic legend**.

Saifuallh doesn't provide a single shred of evidence to support a
notion that the story is historical and factually true in relation to
the actual life of Abraham.

> > I wonder how long it will take Saifullah to convince these people to pull
> > their webpage off the internet?
>
> When we can convince you to produce the proof of Genesis Rabbah being a
> "2nd century" compilation, and that Genesis Rabbah existed in the form
> that we see today during the advent of Islam, and that you can let us
> borrow your time machine that can check out the stories of the past being
> "legend", then we will be able to convince others about something
> related to this issue.

Saifullah just needs to prove that the story is historically and
factually true about Abraham - providing historical and scholarly
evidence to support that any serious body of accademic opinion holds
to this view.

> So, even in this post as expected, there is no proof.

No proof that this mythical legend is factually or historically true
about the life of Abraham

Kind regards
Jameel

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 10, 2002, 11:35:28 PM3/10/02

On 8 Mar 2002, Jameel wrote:

> In my last post I already quoted from my article (s) - Nowhere in
> them have I stated that the myth was borrowed from the Genesis Rabbah
> as a book at the time that the Qur'an was being compiled.

That is indeed a dramatic U-turn on the issue of Qur'anic story of Abraham
and idols and the one in Genesis Rabbah. Finally you have come back to
your senses after seeing the futility and lack of any patting on your back
by Mr. Dajjal. We are not finished yet with it just in case if you have
other ideas...

> > No, we have not claimed anything about the historicity of the story of
> > Abraham and idols whether in the Qur'an or in Genesis Rabbah.
>
> So it's not historically true? It is a myth?

Now the issue is that of historicity. "MyTajMahal" said that it is a
legend because a Jewish rabbi called it a "legend". Now what we had asked
him to show is the evidence which Jewish rabbi used to show that it is
indeed a "legend". "MyTajMahal", of course, would not show it because the
Jewish rabbi has no evidence with himself to show it. You can only show
what you have!

> If no one makes any claim for the story to have any real basis in
> history - then by definition it is a myth and a legend. Jews
> (including the Chief Rabbi)are not afraid to claim this as I have
> demonstrated in my earlier posts - but apparently Saifuallh has some
> reason for why he won't agree.

The reason is that this Chief Rabbi of yours has no evidence to show for
his claim of the story of Abraham and idols in the Qur'an and in the
Midrash is a "legend". Merely calling it a legend does not make it a
legend. The Jews are neither afraid of claiming that the story of Esther
in the Hebrew Bible is a legend and the recorded history does not fit with
the story. The Jewish Encyclopaedia asserts that:

"Comparatively few modern scholars of note consider the narrative of
Esther to rest on a historical foundation..... The vast majority of modern
expositors have reached the conclusion that the book is a piece of pure
fiction, although some writers qualify their criticism by an attempt to
treat it as a historical romance."

The Jewish Encyclopaedia: 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company, pp.
235-236.

So, where does your Bible go from here then?

> > I thought you claimed it as a legend but provided no proof that it is
> > indeed a legend.
>
> There is absolutely no proof - nor is there any body of scholarly
> opinion which claims that the story is historically and factually true
> of Abraham.

Well, yes, absolutely, you have no evidence to show that the story is
a legend. You are only good at repeating what the Chief Rabbi has said
without evidence. And that magically gets transformed into the "body of
scholarly opinion." We have already experience the miracle of the "weight
of Jewish scholarship" dating the Genesis Rabbah to 2nd century CE.

> Saifullah may attempt to provide evidence (as Menj sought to do) that
> all Jewish scholarly authority claims this myth to be historically and
> factually true about Abraham when he lived

Well, from your side there is no evidence anyway. As from our side we can
only say that the matters dealing with history especially without any
parallel historical sources are hard to confirm or deny. Lack of evidence
is no evidence!

> Of course the story is "historical" - so is my last post !!! - but
> where are the claims from any serious body of Jewish scholarship which
> states that the story is historically and factually true about Abraham
> when he lived?

What we had asked you to produce is an evidence used by your favourite
Jewish Rabbi to show that the story of Abraham and idols as mentioned in
the Qur'an and Genesis Rabbah is a "myth" and a "legend". Well, we know
that your favourite Jewish rabbi has nothing to show and by default you
had nothing to show.

> The evidence in the Jubilees and the Talmud all points to a
> "tradition" which evolved over centuries that Abraham was an idol
> wrecker - it is a "developed myth"

What is your evidence? Oh by the way, the stories in the book of Gensis
are also considered as various "traditions" evolved over the centuries -
shall we say that it is "developed myth"?

> That is what I am referring to - it is evidence that the tradition, in
> various forms, existed that Abraham was an idol wrecker - there is no
> consistency in the stories over hundreds of years in pre-Qur'anic
> times - the myth was "developed" - changed and altered until we find
> it turning up in the Qur'an in the form that it also appears in the
> Midrash.

If you produce the evidence of the story being a "myth" we can move ahead.
So, far no evidence. Surely, your favourite Jewish rabbi has none. Why do
not you try Holy Spirit? He might suggest you something as he has
"suggested" many of your brethren from time to time about various issues.

> > The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
> > Ethiopic Jews and Christians.
>
> It is not in the Hebrew Bible - It is not considered Inspired
> scripture by Jews and is not in the Tanak. But does Saifullah
> consider the book of Jubilees to be "inspired" scripture? Does Islam?
> No! Does the Qur'an list the book of Jubilees as being "former
> Scripture"? No!

It is interesting to see this missionary running around so confusingly.
His argument is that if a book is not there in "Tanak" it is not
"inspired". The canonization of Hebrew scripture came after the advent of
Jesus, peace be upon him. The rabbi had a chat about it in Council of
Jamnia where they agreed upon a canon of the Hebrew Bible. The issue
spilled over into 5th century CE. Jews before the canonization of their
scripture followed the Septuagint a book that is followed by the Greek
Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. The Septuagint, as almost
everybody who has read the history of Old Testament knows, contain
different number of books than the masoretic Hebrew Bible. The tradition
of the Septuagint is also about 300 hundred years older than the masoretic
text. The chief witnesses of the Septuagint are the Codex Sinaiticus,
Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus. This missionary wants us to
believe that his version of Old Testament is "inspired". Rest all are
"fakes". Of course, he has no evidence to show the inspiration of his
version of Old Testament. The Ethiopic Jews and Christians have an Old
Testament that has different books than the Christian missionary's "Hebrew
Bible". And as expected, by default, he even denies that the Ethiopic Jews
and Christians consider this to be an "inspired" scripture.

> Very clever - but every child knows the story and knows that it is
> historical in the sense that it wasn't written today - what they also
> know is that it is not historical and factually true in relation to
> the historical Abraham - they know it is a **midrashic legend**.

I am sorry! You just said that the story of Abraham and idol also occurs
in the Book of Jubilees. That is no midrash! That is an "inspired"
scripture of Ethiopic Jews and Christians and it pre-dates Genesis Rabbah.
You can't even get some of the basic facts right!

Wassalam
Saifullah

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=midrash+genesis+rabbah+group:soc.religion.islam&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=8256bq%246gs%241%40samba.rahul.net&rnum=4

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 13, 2002, 8:10:39 PM3/13/02

In article <a6hc6g$2rf$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>> In my last post I already quoted from my article (s) - Nowhere in
>> them have I stated that the myth was borrowed from the Genesis Rabbah
>> as a book at the time that the Qur'an was being compiled.
>
>That is indeed a dramatic U-turn on the issue of Qur'anic story of Abraham
>and idols and the one in Genesis Rabbah.

There was no dramatic U turn - all that happened is that Saifullah's red
herrings were exposed and he couldn't bring himself to admit that he was
arguing against something I never claimed. In my last post I already quoted

>from my article (s) - Nowhere in them have I stated that the myth was borrowed
>from the Genesis Rabbah as a book at the time that the Qur'an was being
compiled.

But let's make it easy for Saifullah because he hasn't answered anything.

(....)

I asked Saifullah concerning the Qur'anic myth of Abraham breaking the idols.

>> So it's not historically true? It is a myth?
>
>Now the issue is that of historicity. "MyTajMahal" said that it is a
>legend because a Jewish rabbi called it a "legend".

True - Not only a Chief Rabbi but the vast majority of Jewish scholarship
claimes the same - If Saifullah can find that "Jewish Scholarship" claims that
the myth is historically true of Abraham then why can't he quote from them? Is
it because when he tried it over the Solomon and Sheba myth he was refuted.
Did he not claim:

"Quite the contrary, the very "source" he had identified has been

acknowledgedby Judaic scholarship as borrowing from the Qur'an instead."

Can't Saifullah get "Judaic scholarship" to state that the myth of Abraham is
"historically" true of Abraham? Can't he get Judaic scholarship to state that
it was the Midrash Rabbah which borrowed the myth from the Qur'an?

Are we going to be treated to more of Saifullah's prevarication?

> Now what we had asked
>him to show is the evidence which Jewish rabbi used to show that it is

>indeed a "legend".(....)

But Saifullah hadn't read the whole post or he would have seen the answer -
which is that this myth of Abraham is a "develioped" myth which is found in
various guises in pre-Qur'anic Jewish literature - the Jubilees and the Talmud.
So Saifullah's complaint that he wasn't answered is baseless.

But Saifullah still continues on with his prevarications when I already
stated.:

>> The evidence in the Jubilees and the Talmud all points to a
>> "tradition" which evolved over centuries that Abraham was an idol
>> wrecker - it is a "developed myth"
>

>What is your evidence? (....)

For goodness sakes can't Saifullah go and read the Talmud and the book of
Jubilees for himself? - is he claiming that both these books are historically
accurate concerning the myths of Abraham being a wrecker of idols? There is no
consistency in the myths and Saifullah can't get any body of Judaic scholarship
to say anything other than they are myths.

But if Saifullah want's to prove otherwise then why hasn't he been able to do
it up to now?

>> If no one makes any claim for the story to have any real basis in
>> history - then by definition it is a myth and a legend. Jews
>> (including the Chief Rabbi)are not afraid to claim this as I have
>> demonstrated in my earlier posts - but apparently Saifuallh has some
>> reason for why he won't agree.
>
>The reason is that this Chief Rabbi of yours has no evidence to show for
>his claim of the story of Abraham and idols in the Qur'an and in the
>Midrash is a "legend".

I have already provided the evidence that the tradition of Abraham being a
wrecker of idols is pre Qur'anic - and various myths on this subject are found
in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud - they are "developed" There is no body
of Jewish scholarship who claims that they are historically true of Abraham.

Saifullah can only go around in circles.

(snip irrelevant reference to Esther)

>Well, yes, absolutely, you have no evidence to show that the story is
>a legend. You are only good at repeating what the Chief Rabbi has said
>without evidence.

The evidence is above in the "developed myths" from pre-Qur'anic times in the
Jubilees and Talmud. There is no body of Jewish scholarship who would dare to
claim that these myths in their various goises are historical fact regarding
Abraham - thet fact that they are all different and were "developed" with
differing characteristics is proof enought that there is no consistency by
which which anyone could make a claim that they are anything other than
mythical fabrications.

(...)

So let's see what Saifullah has to say in response to my question concerning

the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud.

He had claimed:

>> > The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
>> > Ethiopic Jews and Christians.
>>
>> It is not in the Hebrew Bible - It is not considered Inspired
>> scripture by Jews and is not in the Tanak. But does Saifullah
>> consider the book of Jubilees to be "inspired" scripture? Does Islam?
>> No! Does the Qur'an list the book of Jubilees as being "former
>> Scripture"? No!
>
>It is interesting to see this missionary running around so confusingly.

Really? What is astounding is that Saifullah can't answer a simple YES/NO
question concerning the Divine inspiration of the Book of Jubilees and the
Talmud.

(.....)

>I am sorry! You just said that the story of Abraham and idol also occurs
>in the Book of Jubilees. That is no midrash! That is an "inspired"
>scripture of Ethiopic Jews and Christians and it pre-dates Genesis Rabbah.
>You can't even get some of the basic facts right!

Saifullah's lack of understanding shows in his comment since all Jewish
religious literature contains midrash and rushing on he pins his faith in the
"true religion" of the Ethiopic Jews and Christians who, no doubt, Saifullah
wishes to claim are the "true believers" in posession of the real pre-Qur'anic
"divine scriptures" mentioned int he Qur'an - well they must be Saifullah eh?

So can Saifullah answer? Does Islam claim that the Book of Jubilees and the
Talmud to be inspired Scripture - historically accurate in what they claim of
Abraham being a wrecker of idols?

If not then Saifullah has no case and the Qur'anic/Midrashic myth of Abraham
breaking the idols reduces the Qur'an to a book of human origin, compilation
and editing.

Jameel

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 18, 2002, 5:14:02 AM3/18/02

On 14 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> There was no dramatic U turn - all that happened is that Saifullah's red
> herrings were exposed and he couldn't bring himself to admit that he was
> arguing against something I never claimed. In my last post I already quoted
> >from my article (s) - Nowhere in them have I stated that the myth was borrowed
> >from the Genesis Rabbah as a book at the time that the Qur'an was being
> compiled.

Well, that is interesting. This missionary, to our great surprise, denies
that he ever claimed that the Qur'an borrowed the story of Abraham and
idols from the book of Genesis Rabbah. Throughout his carrier on this
newsgroup he had his two favourite items; the story of Solomon and Sheba
and Abraham and idols being borrowed into the Qur'an from Jewish sources.
As for the Qur'anic story of Solomon and Sheba, we will leave it as it has
been refuted here on this newsgroup + his denial of lack of proof to show
his viewpoint. This is not the object of our discussion here. We will move
over to his other hobby-horse Abraham and the idols. He denies that he
ever claimed that the Qur'anic story was borrowed from Genesis Rabbah. Let
us look back in the history of soc.religion.islam in the years 1999 and
2000. We already know the story in 2002.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=midrash+genesis+rabbah+group:soc.religion.islam&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=85k0gv%242do%241%40samba.rahul.net&rnum=3

In one of the above he said:

"Go and read the claim properly and understand. Yes many of the stories
do come from writings which pre-existed Muhammad such as the one about
Abraham breaking idols which comes from the Midrash Rabbah Genesis."

As for the citation in his articles:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/abraham.htm

"It will no doubt come as a shock for some to discover that the Qur'an
which claims to be "divine revelation" contains one such Jewish legend and
presents it as being an historical fact concerning the life of Abraham.

However this story is a well known illustration invented by Rabbi Hiyya in
the 2nd century CE; it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis and all
authorities agree that it was never mean't to be considered historical. "

This missionary said "Nowhere in them have I stated that the myth was
borrowed" from Genesis Rabbah. Well, that is nothing but a poor bluff.
Earlier this guy was confronted when he bluffed that the "weight of Jewish
scholarship" dated Genesis Rabbah to 2nd century CE. He thought that
he would get away with it and when asked to produce evidence there was
none.

> >> So it's not historically true? It is a myth?
> >
> >Now the issue is that of historicity. "MyTajMahal" said that it is a
> >legend because a Jewish rabbi called it a "legend".
>
> True - Not only a Chief Rabbi but the vast majority of Jewish scholarship
> claimes the same - If Saifullah can find that "Jewish Scholarship" claims that
> the myth is historically true of Abraham then why can't he quote from them? Is

Well, please provide the references of your "vast majority of Jewish
scholarship" that claims this story being a legend. So far, we have to
assume that your Mr. Chief rabbi represent the "vast majority of Jewish
scholarship". The other thing that we had asked you is the evidence which
your Mr. Chief rabbi provides to prove (we are *not* asking for a
statement!) that the story of Abraham and idols is a legend.

To make the matters simple for you, we know that the Rabbi only made a
statement which you have faithfully reproduced here on this newsgroup. He
has no evidence to show about the claim as much as your have no evidence
to show the claim. It is like a tape-recorder that faithfully reproduces
whatever is there on the tape and nothing more.

But here is the curious deflection when asked about the evidence which his
Chief Rabbi used to show that the story is a "myth"...

> But Saifullah hadn't read the whole post or he would have seen the answer -
> which is that this myth of Abraham is a "develioped" myth which is found in
> various guises in pre-Qur'anic Jewish literature - the Jubilees and the Talmud.
> So Saifullah's complaint that he wasn't answered is baseless.

We have read your whole post but there is no sign of evidence which your
Chief Rabbi used. So, it is clear that your weight of Jewish scholarship
here is confined to this rabbi. Further, why this change of topic all of a
sudden from showing the evidence of Chief Rabbi to going for Talmud and
Book of Jubilees? We can now perfectly be clear that you have no evidence
to show concerning the evidence which the Rabbi presented to show that the
story is a myth. Shall we say it was another one of your bluffs?

Let us now go over to Talmud. Which Talmud are you talking about being
the "source" of Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols: Babylonian or
Jerusalem? We had asked you repeatedly before to produce the evidence from
the Talmud about the existence of this story and as expected none. From
what I have read in the Babylonian Talmud (and other sources that
discuss the issue of Abraham in Talmud) the story of Abraham and Nimrod
is only alluded in briefest possible way. I do not have the proper
references now as I am on a holiday. But I know for sure that it exists in
Pesachim and also in Baba Batra or Abod Zarah (I am not sure of either of
these two as I am recalling it from my memory). The story deals with how
Abraham was saved from the fire into which he was thrown by Nimrod. There
is absolutely no connexion at all between the Qur'anic story of Abraham
and idols and the one related in Babylonian Talmud.

If the Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols was indeed from Babylonian
Talmud, Geiger would have been the first to mention it. Ditto for the Book
of Jubilees. The Book of Jubilees mention the story of Abraham and his
father's discourse about the making of the idols. It does not discuss the
story of Abraham and idols. Please check the below link and chapter 12.

http://www.bible2000.org/lostbooks/jubilees.htm

> >> The evidence in the Jubilees and the Talmud all points to a
> >> "tradition" which evolved over centuries that Abraham was an idol
> >> wrecker - it is a "developed myth"
> >
> >What is your evidence? (....)
>
> For goodness sakes can't Saifullah go and read the Talmud and the book of
> Jubilees for himself? - is he claiming that both these books are historically
> accurate concerning the myths of Abraham being a wrecker of idols? There is no
> consistency in the myths and Saifullah can't get any body of Judaic scholarship
> to say anything other than they are myths.

Well, we have been there and read that. May be it is time you *read*
some stuff before saying whatever you want on this newsgroup. There is no
mention of the story of Abraham and idols as narrated in Genesis Rabbah in
either Babylonian Talmud and the Book of Jubilees. The stories in the
latter books do not even remotely compare with the one in the Qur'an. This
is the reason why we are asking you to produce the evidence. But so far,
you are good at repeating "Talmud and the book of Jubilees" and no
evidence forthcoming.

As for the "evidence" that the story is "legend" we have seen only a
statement with no proof dangling. You claimed that the story is a legend
so you prove it.

> >The reason is that this Chief Rabbi of yours has no evidence to show for
> >his claim of the story of Abraham and idols in the Qur'an and in the
> >Midrash is a "legend".
>
>
> I have already provided the evidence that the tradition of Abraham being a
> wrecker of idols is pre Qur'anic - and various myths on this subject are found
> in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud - they are "developed" There is no body
> of Jewish scholarship who claims that they are historically true of Abraham.

We have already mentioned to you that the tradition of Abraham and his
wrecking of idols is not present in Babylonian Talmud and neither it is
present in the Book of Jubilees. You are simply inventing a story which is
not at all there in any of these two books mentioned. Another bluff on
your part for sure.

There is nobody in Jewish scholarship that shows an evidence to claim
that the story of Abraham and idols is a myth either. What is your point?

> (snip irrelevant reference to Esther)

Irrelevent? To prove a point we showed that the Jewish scholars consider
the Book of Esther to be a myth in the Hebrew Bible and there it is. The
Qur'an has myth but the Hebrew Bible has not. One standards for us and one
for you!

> He had claimed:
>
> >> > The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
> >> > Ethiopic Jews and Christians.
> >>
> >> It is not in the Hebrew Bible - It is not considered Inspired
> >> scripture by Jews and is not in the Tanak. But does Saifullah
> >> consider the book of Jubilees to be "inspired" scripture? Does Islam?
> >> No! Does the Qur'an list the book of Jubilees as being "former
> >> Scripture"? No!
> >
> >It is interesting to see this missionary running around so confusingly.
>
>
> Really? What is astounding is that Saifullah can't answer a simple YES/NO
> question concerning the Divine inspiration of the Book of Jubilees and the
> Talmud.

It is not our job to answer for the "inspiration" of Book of Jubilees as
well as Talmud. These are not our scriptures and we are least bothered
about them except when there is a discussion about it. As for Talmud, the
Jews believe in oral Torah revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. Now, if you
want to disprove the Jews, you take the matters to soc.religion.jewish. I
am sure there are many people who would provide you a fitting answer. As
for the Book of Jubilees it is the part of the canon of Ethiopic Jews and
Christians, who have a longer tradition than you Protestants whose came
into being in 16th century CE. It is interesting that the Protestant are
the ones who make lots of noise about the "inspiration" of the canon
attacking every other Christian sect.

During the Reformation, the Canon of the Bible, both Old and New
Testaments, was even called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal decree
or by the action of Church councils. No one had defined the limits of the
Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546. From this time, the
Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old and New Testaments, plus the
Apocrypha, were scripture. Generally, Protestants have accepted the 66
books of the Old and New Testaments, but have rejected the Apocrypha. So,
even 900 years after the advent of Islam, the Christians were bickering
about which books should go into the canon. So, please tell us what is
meant by "inspiration" of the scriptures and why should we consider your
canon as "inspired" and other not? Ditto for Ethiopic Canon or the Coptic
Canon or the Syriac Canon or the Anglican Canon or the Greek Orthodox
Canon.

> >I am sorry! You just said that the story of Abraham and idol also occurs
> >in the Book of Jubilees. That is no midrash! That is an "inspired"
> >scripture of Ethiopic Jews and Christians and it pre-dates Genesis Rabbah.
> >You can't even get some of the basic facts right!
>
> Saifullah's lack of understanding shows in his comment since all Jewish
> religious literature contains midrash and rushing on he pins his faith in the
> "true religion" of the Ethiopic Jews and Christians who, no doubt, Saifullah
> wishes to claim are the "true believers" in posession of the real pre-Qur'anic
> "divine scriptures" mentioned int he Qur'an - well they must be Saifullah eh?

According to Islamic standards the Qur'an is a "muhyamin" over the
previous scriptures. Ibn Kathir said in his exegesis that Ibn Jarir
[al-Tabari] said: The Qur'an is a custodian over the previous Books,
whatever they contain in conformity with the Qur'an is true and whatever
they differ from it is false. Al-Tabari also said: "wa muhayminan `alayhi"
means [that the Qur'an is] a custodian over them and that it judges the
Books that came before it. For us it is the Qur'an that would judge the
previous scriptures. We all know that you Christians do not have a "true"
canon. It depends upon which Church one goes and that Church has its own
ideas about what is meant by "inspired" scripture. Please if you can fight
among yourselves and decide on the issue of scripture and its extent then
we will deal with you.

We are not pinning our hopes on the "true religion" of the Ethiopic Jews
and Christians" and neither do we pin the hope that the "true" Christian
religion is Protestant who originated not even 600 years ago. Do not get
us wrong and at the same time do not delude yourself about what we
believe. And get some evidence next time when you write. You have wasted
enough of my precious time and of others just talking.

Wassalam
Saifullah

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 19, 2002, 3:10:35 PM3/19/02

In article <a74ela$t3r$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:

>> I have already provided the evidence that the tradition of Abraham being a
>> wrecker of idols is pre Qur'anic - and various myths on this subject are
>found
>> in the Book of Jubilees and the Talmud - they are "developed" There is no
>body
>> of Jewish scholarship who claims that they are historically true of
>Abraham.
>
>We have already mentioned to you that the tradition of Abraham and his
>wrecking of idols is not present in Babylonian Talmud and neither it is
>present in the Book of Jubilees.

Saifullah's whole defense of the Qur'an rests on this false assertion. First
he brought up the Book of Jubilees claiming it to be "inspired" and tries to
use this as justification for the mythical tradition of Abraham being a wrecker
of idols and then he backtracks making the false claim above.

The mythical and legedary stories of Abraham being a wrecker of idols or not
being an idolater is indeed pre-Qur'anic and the Qur'an continues this
legendary tale in it's own fashion. The Book of Jubilees does indeed include a
myth of Abraham being a wrecker of idols in Jubilees Chapter 12.

Now Saifullah's claim must be that the myth found in Book of Jubilees (which he
claims is "inspired scripture) myst have been corrupted (like the Bible).
Therefore the Qur'an came along to give the "true" version of this myth
therefore "protecting" the former "scripture" which is the Book of Jubilees.

However the Qur'an never lists the Book of Jubilees as being a "former
Scripture" and so Saifullah's whole argument amounts to absolutely nothing.

Not as far as the Talmudic references to Abraham and idols is concerned:

Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (otherwise known as menj) in his defense of the
Qur'an obtained the services of a retired Jew called JosephG and together they
discussed the issue of Abraham and idols being mentuioned int he Talmud.

Menj asked:

"I am made to understand that the story of "Abraham and the Idols" is in the
part of the Talmud called Agada, right? A Jewish person told me that in the
Agada, the stories may be truth or false. Your comment?

To which JosephG responded:

"The Hebrew word “agada” means ‘legend’ or ‘fable’. So, right from
the definition you get the impression that it represents something which may or
may not be true.

I realize now that I never addressed your mention of the story of our Patriarch
Abraham and the idols. I did a quick search of the Talmud and, indeed, I found
one reference in the Gemara, which is the larger portion of the Talmud and
which contains the Agada. Here is the specific passage."

He then quotes from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah, 3a.

To which Menj responds:

"Joseph, thanks for quoting that passage about Abraham (P) and the idols. This
story is also in the Qur'an, albeit differently rendered"

When menj mentioned the Midrash to JosephG - this is what JosephG had to say:

"The Midrash Rabbah contains homiletic, ethical, and moral interpretations
(exegesis) of the Hebrew Bible, as expounded by the Jewish sages
(Rabbis) during Talmudic times (mid-2nd century CE to end of 5th century CE).
The Midrash Rabbah is ordered according to the Books in the Hebrew Bible"

So far Saifullah has failed to demonstrate that these claims of Jews are
incorrect - and it is something that his argument from "redaction in final
form" utterly fails to do - it only provides Saifullah space to prevaricate on
the whole issue.

Jameel

http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/abraham2.html

MENJ

unread,

Mar 21, 2002, 2:19:45 AM3/21/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a785vr$m8v$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

> Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (otherwise known as menj) in his defense of the
> Qur'an obtained the services of a retired Jew called JosephG and together they
> discussed the issue of Abraham and idols being mentuioned int he Talmud.
>

The full response to this nonsense of "Jameel" in his
pseudo-reconstruction of my dialogue with JosephG can be reviewed at:

It is always the nature of the missionaries to twist, turn and maim
other people's words. We do not say what "Jameel" wants it to say. So
should we apply this nature to "Jameel" also?

Regards,

MENJ
me...@maxis.net.my

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org

Johnny

unread,

Mar 21, 2002, 4:19:02 AM3/21/02

mytaj...@aol.com (MyTajMahal) wrote in message news:<a785vr$m8v$1...@samba.rahul.net>...

>First

> he brought up the Book of Jubilees claiming it to be "inspired" and tries to

> use this as justification....

He did not say that the Book of Jubilees is inspired, but only that it
is in the Ethiopic canon and thus considered inspired by THEM.

>
> Now Saifullah's claim must be that the myth found in Book of Jubilees (which >he
> claims is "inspired scripture)

No, which the EHIOPIACS claim is "inspired scripture"! As Muslims, it
is none of our business which one of your books are inspired or not,
we don't care. The question however is, how do you CHRISTIANS know
which scriptures are inspired and which are not inspired??

> myst have been corrupted (like the Bible).

The Quran does not mention the Bible either!

>
> However the Qur'an never lists the Book of Jubilees as being a "former
> Scripture" and so Saifullah's whole argument amounts to absolutely nothing.

Um...the Quran does not list the BIBLE as being "former" scripture,
neither does the Quran list mathew, mark, luke, john, genesis, numbers
etc., as being "former scriptures". But sure, these scriptures may
contain some truth in them together with myths and legends. Now, how
do you know which one of these scriptures is "inspired" and which is
appocrypha? Don't ask us which scriptures are inspired since they are
NOT our scriptures, these are your scriptures and it is you guys who
need to answer.

Johnny

Mr Mahdi

unread,

Mar 21, 2002, 11:34:08 AM3/21/02

As-salaamu `alaikum,

This is my *Naseeha* (Islamic advice) to those debating people like
"MyTajMahal":

Don't get trapped into any situation where it would lead to a tit-for-tat
debate. That is to say, a person who criterion for truth is not evidence but a
belief he holds on to despite what the facts say. In other words, people like
"MyTajMahal" already made up their minds to attack Islam and to promote
Christianity because of a patriotic bond they have to their beliefs. So
refuting their claims is not what makes them stop; their goal is to convert
Muslims to their religion or at least make Muslims doubt Islam and leave it.

As a reminder, "MyTajMahal" believes that places like Heaven and Hell are not
real places but 'metaphors' (even this contradict what most Christians
believe), that the place "Taj Mahal" is actually a Hindu building that Muslims
stole and made it into an Islamic shrine (despite facts proving other wise --
go figure); and when asked why would he named himself after an alleged Hindu
building that is now seen as Muslim instead of a Christian building, he never
responded (wise thing to do). As to top it all off, he swears up and down that
he is NOT a Christian missionary!

So my advice to the Muslims debating people like "MyTajMahal" is to make sure
you make your points and leave it at that. We Muslims should not waste our
times in vain discussions when we can be doing da`wah and working for the
re-establishment of the Islamic system and stop the oppression, killing, rape,
etc. of the Muslims and our land.

was-salaam,

Mahdi Muhammad

http://brothermahdi.tripod.com/index.html

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 22, 2002, 2:24:36 AM3/22/02

On 19 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> >We have already mentioned to you that the tradition of Abraham and his
> >wrecking of idols is not present in Babylonian Talmud and neither it is
> >present in the Book of Jubilees.
>
> Saifullah's whole defense of the Qur'an rests on this false assertion. First
> he brought up the Book of Jubilees claiming it to be "inspired" and tries to
> use this as justification for the mythical tradition of Abraham being a wrecker
> of idols and then he backtracks making the false claim above.

It is precisely your assertion which is false that I claimed that the Book
of Jubilees is an "inspired" scripture. In the earlier post I had already
made a categorical statement that we are not pinning our hopes on the

"true religion" of the Ethiopic Jews and Christians and neither do we pin

the hope that the "true" Christian religion is Protestant which originated

not even 600 years ago. Do not get us wrong and at the same time do not

delude yourself about what we believe. To this I should also add that our
job is not to conlude which canon of the Christian sects is "inspired".
Frankly speaking, the Christians themselves do not agree on anything
called an "inspired" set of scriptures and we Muslims have no business to
enter into the Christians' quarrel. Your quarrel is with Ethiopic
Christians and Jews who consider the Book of Jubilees as a scripture. If
you dispute it you dispute with them. You do not dispute this with us as
we have told you many times; we are least concerned with the "inspiration"
of Christian canons. It is *your* headache to prove the "inspiration" of
your canon and why! Simply calling other Christian sects as "heretics" is
a trick that you can use among like-minded people in the Church to brush
the issue under the expensive carpet. This is a newsgroup.

We are happy with our scripture: the Qur'an. It is a "muhyamin" over the

previous scriptures. Ibn Kathir said in his exegesis that Ibn Jarir
[al-Tabari] said: The Qur'an is a custodian over the previous Books,
whatever they contain in conformity with the Qur'an is true and whatever
they differ from it is false. Al-Tabari also said: "wa muhayminan `alayhi"
means [that the Qur'an is] a custodian over them and that it judges the
Books that came before it. For us it is the Qur'an that would judge the

previous scriptures. With this standard, we assert which one is a true
revelation from God and which is is false. So, to take an exercise, the
Pauline writings are all false from the point of view of Muslims
and so are bits 'n pieces of four so-called Gospels (e.g., alleged
crucifixion of Jesus).

> The mythical and legedary stories of Abraham being a wrecker of idols or not
> being an idolater is indeed pre-Qur'anic and the Qur'an continues this
> legendary tale in it's own fashion. The Book of Jubilees does indeed include a
> myth of Abraham being a wrecker of idols in Jubilees Chapter 12.

The fact that Abraham was not an idolator is endorsed by the
Biblical Prophets who came after him. He is the Patriarch of the three
revealed religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So, there is nothing
"mythical" about it, unless of course a special "Tanak" is sent to you by
your Holy Spirit that claims otherwise.

As for your claim of the story being a "myth" or a "legend" let us see the
evidence. Why is it so hard for you to produce the evidence for your
claim?

As for the Book of Jubilees, Chapter 12, there is no story of Abraham
being an idol-wrecker. Abraham only advises his father against
idol-worship and it futility. In that story there is no wrecking of idols
by Abraham. Please read it once again.

> However the Qur'an never lists the Book of Jubilees as being a "former
> Scripture" and so Saifullah's whole argument amounts to absolutely nothing.

The Qur'an does not list four Gospels and Pauline writings as "former"
scriptures. So what is your point? Perhaps you want to say that the set of
books that I have in my Protestant Bible are "inspired" and "endorsed" by
the Qur'an. Your "inspired" Protestant Bible is 600 hundred years old and
the tradition of Ethiopic Church's canon is much older than that. Which
one do you think we should "believe" in and why?

What is wrong with using the services or "retired" or "unretired" Jew? I
ask people about their scriptures or read their literature if I do not
understand something. It is a learning process and everybody who does it
benefits from it.

> He then quotes from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah, 3a.

Avaodah Zarah 3a says about Abraham and idols:

"Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham did not (consent to) worship
idols;"

This is *all* that is mentioned about Abraham and the idols in
this tractate of Babylonian Talmud. A similar line of though is used in
either Bava Batra or Bava Mezia, which I do not recall correctly. Now
this guy wants to tell us how the story of Abraham wrecking the idols is
mentioned in Babylonian Talmud just as the one mentioned in the Qur'an!
One of the reasons why I had asked this missionary about complete
quotation from the Babylonian Talmud is just to see if he has done his
research or not and whether he can furnish the evidence of what he is
claiming concerning the Qur'an. Now the truth is out!

If the story of Abraham wrecking the idols had been in either the Book of
Jubilees or Talmud, Geiger would have been first to point it out them
being the "sources" of the Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols, as he was
very learned about his own scriptures as well as religious literature. But
surprisingly, we do not see it and we now know why.

> So far Saifullah has failed to demonstrate that these claims of Jews are
> incorrect - and it is something that his argument from "redaction in final
> form" utterly fails to do - it only provides Saifullah space to prevaricate on
> the whole issue.

By the way, the "retired Jew" did not even discuss the issue of redaction.
So, there is no argument against it. Rather we have already shown earlier
that all the Jewish Encyclopaedias and references dealing specifically
with Midrash Rabbah say that this book has undergone redaction even after
the advent of Islam. It comes in two redactions as evident from the Mss
that are post-Islamic. Did I utterly fail to demonstrate? Please do not
bluff on something that we discussed not too long ago!

As Mahdi has correctly pointed out, discussing with you Christian
missionaries is simply waste of time. You have everything to claim but
nothing to show.

Wassalam
Saifullah

Message has been deleted

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 23, 2002, 2:37:21 AM3/23/02

On 22 Mar 2002, Anjum wrote:

Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> Then why can't the Qur`an be a "muhyamin" over Hadith? Why can't it be
> a custodian over quotations and actions that have been attrbuted to
> the Prophet?

The verse is clearly stating "muhaymin" over the previous scriptures. It
is not talking about hadith at all. And all the exegetes we consulted are
uanimous on this issue.

Wassalam
Saifullah

MyTajMahal

unread,

Mar 23, 2002, 2:39:25 AM3/23/02

In article <a7em7k$2ee$1...@samba.rahul.net>, "M.S.M. Saifullah"
<ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> writes:

I wrote

>> Saifullah's whole defense of the Qur'an rests on this false assertion.
>First
>> he brought up the Book of Jubilees claiming it to be "inspired" and tries
>to
>> use this as justification for the mythical tradition of Abraham being a
>wrecker
>> of idols and then he backtracks making the false claim above.

Saifullah

>It is precisely your assertion which is false that I claimed that the Book
>of Jubilees is an "inspired" scripture.

Saifullah was the one who raised the issue of the inspiration of the Book of
Jubilees in his defense of the Qur'an. I should like to know what the point
was in raising the issue of inspiration?

When faced with a Muslim article calling upon the evidence of a tradition of
Abraham breaking idols in the Jubilees as being an historically true account of
Abraham (in support of the Qur'an) here:

http://members.aol.com/jameelzero/messiah/god.htm#abraham

He responded

> The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
> Ethiopic Jews and Christians.

Why? is this some way to validate the Qur'an as being ""muhyamin" over the
previous scriptures"

Would Saifullah have us believe that previous scriptures can be any Book by
claiming:

"Ibn Kathir said in his exegesis that Ibn Jarir
[al-Tabari] said: The Qur'an is a custodian over the previous Books,
whatever they contain in conformity with the Qur'an is true and whatever
they differ from it is false"

Previous Books? What books? The Greek Injeel included? or just books which
were considered divine revelation? Will Saifullah have us believe that any
book can be considered "divine revelation" as long as it contains a story with
some similarity to something in the Qur'an. Shall we consider Josephus to be a
prophet with a book which was "muhyamin" over the Hebrew Bible? (or, God
forbid, even Rabbi Hiyya?)

But it was Saifuallh who raised the issue of the inspiration of the Book of
Jubilees as some kind of defense for the Qur'an:

The discussion continues:

(......)

>> The mythical and legedary stories of Abraham being a wrecker of idols or
>> not being an idolater is indeed pre-Qur'anic and the Qur'an continues this
>> legendary tale in it's own fashion. The Book of Jubilees does indeed
>> include a myth of Abraham being a wrecker of idols in Jubilees Chapter 12.
>
>The fact that Abraham was not an idolator is endorsed by the
>Biblical Prophets who came after him.

Endorsed? - but they never said anything specific - again Saifullah is
suggesting something which is not at all clear. There were those before
Abraham who were not Idolaters either - this is no big deal.

>He is the Patriarch of the three
>revealed religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So, there is nothing
>"mythical" about it, unless of course a special "Tanak" is sent to you by
>your Holy Spirit that claims otherwise.

Anyone can do a word search to see if Saifullah is simply "trying it on" -
there is no mention in the Bible (Tanak) that Abraham was a wrecker of the
Idols of his father.

(....)

>As for the Book of Jubilees, Chapter 12, there is no story of Abraham
>being an idol-wrecker. Abraham only advises his father against
>idol-worship and it futility. In that story there is no wrecking of idols
>by Abraham. Please read it once again.

I don't think that Saifullah read the whole chapter - In Chapter 12 Abraham did
indeed wreck the idols - he destroyed them by setting them on fire and also
burnt the idol house. That is evidence that there are such pre-Qur'anic
legends.

In verse 2 Abraham says to Terah his father:

"'What help and profit have we from those idols which thou dost worship,

And before which thou dost bow thyself?"

Verses 6 and 7

"And his father said unto him, I also know it, my son, but what shall I do with
a people who have made me to serve before them? And if I tell them the truth,
they will slay me; for their soul cleaves to them to worship them and honour
them. Keep silent, my son, lest they slay thee.'

Verses 12 13 and 14

"And in the sixtieth year of the life of Abram, that is in the fourth week, in
the fourth year thereof, [1936 A.M.] Abram arose
by night, and burned the house of the idols, and he burned all that was in the
house and no man knew it. And they arose in the night and sought to save their
gods from the midst of the fire. And Haran hasted to save them, but the fire
flamed
over him, and he was burnt in the fire, and he died in Ur of the Chaldees
before Terah his father"

>> However the Qur'an never lists the Book of Jubilees as being a "former
>> Scripture" and so Saifullah's whole argument amounts to absolutely nothing.
>
>The Qur'an does not list four Gospels and Pauline writings as "former"
>scriptures. So what is your point? Perhaps you want to say that the set of
>books that I have in my Protestant Bible are "inspired" and "endorsed" by
>the Qur'an. Your "inspired" Protestant Bible is 600 hundred years old and
>the tradition of Ethiopic Church's canon is much older than that. Which
>one do you think we should "believe" in and why?

I have no idea which one Saifullah want's to believe in - From what he is
suggesting it seems to be the Book of Jubilees. But I would rather that he
deals with the issue of knowing God personally and entering into a relationship
with God who exists rather than trying to suggest that all that can be known of
God is tied to a book or books.

(......)

>> He then quotes from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Avodah Zarah, 3a.
>
>Avaodah Zarah 3a says about Abraham and idols:
>
>"Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham did not (consent to) worship
>idols;"
>
>This is *all* that is mentioned about Abraham and the idols in
>this tractate of Babylonian Talmud. A similar line of though is used in
>either Bava Batra or Bava Mezia, which I do not recall correctly.

That is enough to link Abraham with idols and enought for people to begin
making up stories which have no basis in their Scripture. There is absolutely
nothing linking Abraham or Terah with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible. But
Saifullah will not deny me the opportunity of further research I am sure.....

(....)

>If the story of Abraham wrecking the idols had been in either the Book of
>Jubilees or Talmud, Geiger would have been first to point it out them
>being the "sources" of the Qur'anic story of Abraham and idols, as he was
>very learned about his own scriptures as well as religious literature. But
>surprisingly, we do not see it and we now know why.

I don't think so. Abraham is indeed described as a wrecker of idols in the
Book of Jubilees. It is a pre-Qur'anic legendary invention which sees further
development in Judaism and which also appears in the Qur'an.

It is legend which was developed over time and is not mentioned in the "former
scriptures"

>By the way, the "retired Jew" did not even discuss the issue of redaction.
>So, there is no argument against it.

Yes I know. It is an issue which I should like to see discussed in Jewish
circles with regard to the specific legend of Abraham breaking idols which
"version" appears in the Midrash and Qur'an.

>Rather we have already shown earlier
>that all the Jewish Encyclopaedias and references dealing specifically
>with Midrash Rabbah say that this book has undergone redaction even after
>the advent of Islam. It comes in two redactions as evident from the Mss
>that are post-Islamic. Did I utterly fail to demonstrate?

No. I never said Saifuallh failed to argue generalities from his latest
redaction argument - it was a good argument. But what Saifullah failed to
demonstrate is that the specific story of Abraham wrecking idols is not
pre-Qur'anic despite all the claims in Judaism that it is.

>Please do not
>bluff on something that we discussed not too long ago!

What was that? That all Jewish scholarship supports the notion that the Targum
borrowed a myth about Solomon and Sheba from the Qur'an when the myth can be
traced back to Abyssinian origins?

Kind regards
Jameel

M.S.M. Saifullah

unread,

Mar 25, 2002, 2:40:16 AM3/25/02

On 23 Mar 2002, MyTajMahal wrote:

> >It is precisely your assertion which is false that I claimed that the Book
> >of Jubilees is an "inspired" scripture.
>
> Saifullah was the one who raised the issue of the inspiration of the Book of
> Jubilees in his defense of the Qur'an. I should like to know what the point
> was in raising the issue of inspiration?

I did not "raise" the issue of "inspiration" of the Book of Jubilees. I
simply pointed out that the Ethiopic Jews and Christians consider this
book to be part of their "inspired" canon.

So, the question now is what is the point in raising the issue of
"inspiration" of this Book. Well, the Ethiopic Jews and Christians
consider this Book to be a part of their "inspired" canon. If you want to
dispute about its "inspiration" by calling it an "apocrypha", you have to
produce the evidence. The history of Ethiopic Canon is one of the oldest
among all the Christian canons, the Protestant Canon being the latest in
the race for "inspiration".

As we have already said our job is not to prove the "inspiration" of
Ethiopic Canon or your Protestant Canon. We are least bothered about it.
Our job was to simply point out the disputatious nature of the Canon of
Christian Bible. If you can't agree on the length of your canon, you have
no business of calling somebody else's canon by names such as "apocrypha".

> > The Book of Jubilees is considered as "inspired" scripture by both
> > Ethiopic Jews and Christians.
>
> Why? is this some way to validate the Qur'an as being ""muhyamin" over the
> previous scriptures"

What do mean by "Why?"? It is like asking why the Protestants consider
their canon as "inspired"? Is there a way to validate this claim? Surely,
the earliest manuscript of the Bible which contains the number of books
that match the ones in the Protestant canon comes some three hundred years
after the advent of Islam. What is point?

The Qur'an is the "muhaymin" over the previous scriptures and that is its
claim. The Qur'an validates what is correct in the previous scriptures and
rejects what is false in the previous scriptures. So, for us Muslims it is
like a quality control tool to test the veracity of previous scriptures.

> Previous Books? What books? The Greek Injeel included? or just books which
> were considered divine revelation? Will Saifullah have us believe that any
> book can be considered "divine revelation" as long as it contains a story with
> some similarity to something in the Qur'an. Shall we consider Josephus to be a
> prophet with a book which was "muhyamin" over the Hebrew Bible? (or, God
> forbid, even Rabbi Hiyya?)

The Qur'an clearly states the previously revealed scriptures Torah given
to Moses, Gospel given to Jesus, Zabur, Suhuf of Ibrahim were from God. It
also states that the people of the previous scriptures have added some
material into it calling it from God. That additions are certainly not
divine revelation. And we have no way to identify what is divine and what
is not by just using the scriptures of previous people. We have our own
scripture which is a standard for us to judge the rest. I hope it is
clear to you now.

As for the differences between the "extent" of what constitutes "the
scripture" in Judaism and Christianity, we can only say that it is not
our headache to deal with this issue. In fact, you should be asking what
exactly is meant by "divine revelation" when you Christians can't even
agree on what constitutes a "divine" and "revealed" and "inspired"
scripture.

As for Josephus, he is not a Prophet because there was no Prophet between
Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both. You can consider whatever you
want but our position is clear and well-stated. As for the book of
Josephus, it does not even claim itself to be "muhaymin" over anything. We
only consider those issues that are defined and leave the matters that are
doubtful.

> But it was Saifuallh who raised the issue of the inspiration of the Book of
> Jubilees as some kind of defense for the Qur'an:

We did not "raise" the issue; we simply pointed it out what the Ethiopic
Jews and Christians think about their scripture. If you have a dispute
about this, you take the matter to them not to us. We have told you many
times but you do not seem to get it.

> >The fact that Abraham was not an idolator is endorsed by the
> >Biblical Prophets who came after him.
>
> Endorsed? - but they never said anything specific - again Saifullah is
> suggesting something which is not at all clear. There were those before
> Abraham who were not Idolaters either - this is no big deal.

Well, we are talking about Abraham not the people before him. The high
status of Abraham among all the three revealed religions is perhaps best
summed up in Genesis 12:3 where God says:

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

So, tell us who blesses Abraham and for what reason? The reason is quite
clear that Abraham was not a incense burning idolator. You should read
your Bible and see why the Biblical Prophets held Abraham in such a high
regard.

> >He is the Patriarch of the three
> >revealed religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So, there is nothing
> >"mythical" about it, unless of course a special "Tanak" is sent to you by
> >your Holy Spirit that claims otherwise.
>
> Anyone can do a word search to see if Saifullah is simply "trying it on" -
> there is no mention in the Bible (Tanak) that Abraham was a wrecker of the
> Idols of his father.

I did not even claim that the story of Abraham being a wrecker of idols
mentioned in the Bible. But that is not supposed to prove that such an
event did not happen.

> I don't think that Saifullah read the whole chapter - In Chapter 12 Abraham did
> indeed wreck the idols - he destroyed them by setting them on fire and also
> burnt the idol house. That is evidence that there are such pre-Qur'anic
> legends.

But then our point was simply to show that the story is different from
what the Qur'an is saying. In the Qur'an the depiction of Abraham wrecking
the idols is graphic whereas in the Book of Jubilees it only makes a
passing mention. So, there is no issue of borrowing here.

As for your claim of being a legend, you did not answer our point. What is
your evidence for calling this story as a legend? Any historical dig? Any
proof? Oh! the Jewich rabbi said so. Sure, the Jewish scholars also call
the Book of Esther as a legend by comparing it with the historical data.
You can claim that the story of Abraham and idols is a legend with no
evidence but when we point out to you the Book of Esther being a legend
you surprisingly keep your silence. One rule for us and one rule you,
huh!

> I have no idea which one Saifullah want's to believe in - From what he is
> suggesting it seems to be the Book of Jubilees. But I would rather that he
> deals with the issue of knowing God personally and entering into a relationship
> with God who exists rather than trying to suggest that all that can be known of
> God is tied to a book or books.

That is indeed interesting. Since you can't show the evidence for the
"inspiration" of your "divine" "scripture" the story now takes a very
familiar trend: Of knowing God "personally". How do you know God
"personally" when you do not even know whether you have an "inspired"
scripture. It seems to me that a cart has been put before the horse. And
you know you can't make a cart like that run. Sorry! try a different
argument next time. This is good enough to conclude that you simply do not
have evidence to show the "inspiration" of your scripture. You may call
somebody else's scripture as a "legend" but that does not prove the
"inspiration" of your scripture.

> >Avaodah Zarah 3a says about Abraham and idols:
> >
> >"Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham did not (consent to) worship
> >idols;"
> >
> >This is *all* that is mentioned about Abraham and the idols in
> >this tractate of Babylonian Talmud. A similar line of though is used in
> >either Bava Batra or Bava Mezia, which I do not recall correctly.
>
> That is enough to link Abraham with idols and enought for people to begin
> making up stories which have no basis in their Scripture. There is absolutely
> nothing linking Abraham or Terah with idolatry in the Hebrew Bible. But
> Saifullah will not deny me the opportunity of further research I am sure.....

There is no evidence that your "scripture" is "inspired" anyway. So, you
might as well stop arguing foolishly. If it not in Hebrew Bible then it is
not true. Interesting argument, but let us analyze.

2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1
Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.

Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to
rule over Jerusalem?

This is from your Hebrew Bible. On the basis of your Hebrew Bible please
tell us which one is historical and which one is a legend? We are making
it easier for you because it is from the Hebrew Bible not from Talmud or
Midrash. This would at least stop you from calling other people's
scriptures names. We are also giving you a wonderful opportunity to come
up with some original research.

> I don't think so. Abraham is indeed described as a wrecker of idols in the
> Book of Jubilees. It is a pre-Qur'anic legendary invention which sees further
> development in Judaism and which also appears in the Qur'an.

The Ethiopic Jews and Christians consider this to be the part of their
"inspired" scripture. Since you do not consider it to be the part of
*your* scripture it does not automatically become a legend. We have been
asking you for an evidence to prove it a legend but you do not seem to
have one just such your Mr. Chief Rabbi does not have one. It would be
better if you can stop acting shamefully and provide some hard facts
instead of claims.

> It is legend which was developed over time and is not mentioned in the "former
> scriptures"

You mean it is not mentioned in *your* scriptures. But your *scriptures*
were canonized after the advent of Islam in 16th century CE. So, how do
you expect something that is canonized some 1000 years after the advent of
Islam to be in the Qur'an!

We already ask you to produce the evidence that it is a "legend" and so
far none from you.

> No. I never said Saifuallh failed to argue generalities from his latest
> redaction argument - it was a good argument. But what Saifullah failed to
> demonstrate is that the specific story of Abraham wrecking idols is not
> pre-Qur'anic despite all the claims in Judaism that it is.

About the historical issues we have already said that if we argue using
the Qur'an it would be a circular argument and hence we believe that the
best way out is that it should be looked in the secular or independent
sources so as to verify the authenticity. Lack of evidence is no evidence.

Wassalam
Saifullah