Look where mohammad took his stories from.

[inJESUS]

truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil4.html
Read all the article, very interesting :

a sample from this link :
There is another legend which cannot be traced to any particular source. The disciples of Jesus are recorded as saying to him:

O Jesus son of Mary! Can your Lord send down to us a table set from heaven? Surah 5.115

After Jesus had prayed for such a miracle Allah is said to have sent one down with dire warnings against any unbelief on their part thereafter. It is interesting to discover that the word used here for table, maidah maÿidah, is derived from a similar Ethiopic word used by the Abyssinian Christians for the Lord’s Table, the main sacrament of the Christian Church. The story is probably derived from a perversion of the story of the Last Supper and the challenge of the disciples for a table to be sent down from heaven is also most likely derived from these words of the Israelites during the exodus which are recorded in very similar terms:

They spoke against God, saying, “Can God spread a table in the wilderness?” Psalm 78.19

Just as Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been confused with Miriam, the sister of Moses in the quran QurŸan, so here likewise we find Jesus confused with Moses to whom the words were originally addressed.

Clearly Muhammad obtained much of his material for the quran QurŸan from apocryphal Christian sources even though these were obviously secondary and unreliable. Right from the start of his mission he had discoursed with Christians. Even his first wife Khadija had a Christian cousin and this record about him is most informative:

Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the pre-Islamic period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write.

(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.452).

It is far more probable that much of what he wrote was not the New Testament but mythical records retained in apocryphal Christian works circulating around Arabia. Muhammad shows only too often that his materials were identical to those floating around Arabia at his time, a coincidence which shows that the quran QurŸan is not the composition of the omniscient God but rather of a man who was restricted to the limited sources of information available to him.

 

[Neverland]

I believe your new thread has relationship with Rodrigo Bivar’s thread: Pararellism. So if you like, you can join there and share your idea, together with Rodrigo, Gonzales, Cyber, Rachel and I.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hola dear inJesus,
Though we haven’t reached the part of discussing specific examples of Quranic parallelism yet, you are more than welcome to join us at the Parallelism thread.

Muslims make the following explanations to the sort of parallelism example above:

1. Commonality of source.
2. There is no evidence that Muhammad borrowed as he could not read or write. Parallelism does not mean borrowing.
3. Define borrowing.
4. There is no surviving Arabic texts of the Judeo-Christian or apocryphal scriptures.
5. Mecca or the Hijaz was not a center of Christianity or Judaism.
6. Muhammad only met Waraqa once even though he was Khatidja’s uncle, and he died soon after that meeting episode in the hadiths.
7. The surviving earliest manuscripts of the apocrypha are later than the relevant surahs so it was the apocrypha that borrowed from the Quran and not vice versa.
8. The Bible is corrupted. Any similarities are due to point 1 but any differences are due to the Bible’s corruption.

I think r.gonzales has rather pre-empted the discussion by going to the last point. I rather hope we can exhaust that point of contention before we move on to specific examples of parallelism and the accompanying Muslim explanation.

Ciubate,
Rodrigo

 

[Cyber_Knight]

I would like to point out #8 of Bivars. Muslim claim bible is corrupted. Which parts are corrupted and which are not. I believe muslim sometimes use the bible verses to support their claim but in the other hand they say its corrupted. So anyone care to show which are and arent corrupted in the bible?

 

[inJESUS]

Guys its very easy…what is against mohammads teachings is corrupted, which means the whole bible lol…

i’ll look for Paralelism and see .
i wish you all another happy year with our beloved Lord Jesus Christ. May his love and power guide you everyday untill you see him again

 

[manualman]

Although I personally find the arguments for Islam highly unconvincing, arguments like this against it are not the right way to go.

There are plenty of ancient cultures with a devastating flood story. Atheists claim that this parallel means that the Hebrews just copied this story for their bible. Same line of argument. There are many similar kinds of attacks that can be made against christianity and catholicism in particular. They’re all cheap shots. Its not a valid means of reasoning.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

manualman:

Although I personally find the arguments for Islam highly unconvincing, arguments like this against it are not the right way to go.

There are plenty of ancient cultures with a devastating flood story. Atheists claim that this parallel means that the Hebrews just copied this story for their bible. Same line of argument. There are many similar kinds of attacks that can be made against christianity and catholicism in particular. They’re all cheap shots. Its not a valid means of reasoning.

I don’t share your sentiments. You have made two errors:

1. The Hebrews lived during the time and region of the great flood, so the flood story is one of common source.
2. It is not a cheap shot to examine how the Quran came about. Since Muslims claim Allah of Islam is the same as the Yehovah and Yahweh of the Christians and Jews, and that Muhammad was the last prophet of a line including the Judeo-Christian prophets one way to examine the truth of these claims is to examine the parallelism between the respective scriptures. If you’re not interested in this topic I suggest you look elsewhere.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Manualman just trying to be politically correct. Im sure he got plenty of information from the thread we share with fellow muslims.

 

[Shenango]

inJESUS,

The claims that Muhammad (PBUH) ‘borrowed’ Qur’anic revelations from earlier Scriptures, or that he was taught by someone are recorded in the Qur’an itself, so you’re going to have to try just a little bit harder to think about this.

Claims of ‘borrowing’ are not new to Muslims (as I’ve indicated, people made them to Muhammad (PBUH) to his face, during his lifetime), but what is amazing to me how the people who make them always tend of think of themselves as having made a huge discovery, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

The other thing is that these people hardly ever follow up on such shallow claims with real critical analysis. I mean, before accusing Muhammad (PBUH) of lifting earlier material, have you really stopped to ponder about how this could be possible logistically and philsophically? It’s a lot easier to blindly say somebody stole something than to have to prove it, or at least show it feasible, isn’t it?

Logistically, you’d have to reasonably account for several impediments to such theories, such as those that Rodrigo mentioned…and more.

Philosophically, you’d have to show why a man known for straight-edge honesty and trustworthiness would survive a dozen assassination attempts on his life, and all the humiliation and suffering that Muhammad (PBUH) did, all for a lie…so that he could leave the world behind heirless, penniless, with a donkey and a few articles of clothing as his sole possessions, and a few old, ailing widows.

Your task is a formidable one, but since you have casually made that 1,400 year-old shallowest of claims that Muhammad (PBUH) merely copied earlier writings to produce the Qur’an, I will let you put some meat on it by supporting it with an integrated, considered, start-to-finish theory about how Muhammad (PBUH) carried out this copying, from where and through whom, and how he could have lied about it and gotten away with it, and why he included such claims in the Qur’an itself.

I will expect to see your response in the next few days…

 

[inJESUS]

The claims that Muhammad (PBUH) ‘borrowed’ Qur’anic revelations from earlier Scriptures, or that he was taught by someone are recorded in the Qur’an itself, so you’re going to have to try just a little bit harder to think about this.

indeed. It would be stupid to say that he didnt borrow from others because he himself said he came “to continue” the Abrahamic faith. The point is that why would allah borrow fables, legends, rabbinical interpretations and apocryphal books is beyond me.

Claims of ‘borrowing’ are not new to Muslims (as I’ve indicated, people made them to Muhammad (PBUH) to his face, during his lifetime), but what is amazing to me how the people who make them always tend of think of themselves as having made a huge discovery, like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

people themselves back at mohammads time accused him :

Quran 25:5

And they say: “Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

Quran 16:103-104

“We know indeed that they say “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs will be a grievous Penalty.” (Yusef Ali’s translation) [1]

So clearly, he borrowed “tales” that people already knew about and he confused things. “When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read “Sister of Harun”, (i.e. Mary), in the Qur’an, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: “The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostle and pious persons who had gone before them.”” [Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Siddiqi].
This answer is totally wrong.

The other thing is that these people hardly ever follow up on such shallow claims with real critical analysis. I mean, before accusing Muhammad (PBUH) of lifting earlier material, have you really stopped to ponder about how this could be possible logistically and philsophically? It’s a lot easier to blindly say somebody stole something than to have to prove it, or at least show it feasible, isn’t it?

the examples i gave are more than enough to show CLEARLY what the origin of his stories is.

Philosophically, you’d have to show why a man known for straight-edge honesty and trustworthiness

not all of them considered him as such.

would survive a dozen assassination attempts on his life,

whats miraculous about that? many people throughout history survived such attempts.

and all the humiliation and suffering that Muhammad (PBUH) did, all for a lie…

humiliation and suffering??? it is him who killed those who mocked him…

so that he could leave the world behind heirless

nop. he didnt choose to be “heirless”…his sons “died”

,

penniless, with a donkey and a few articles of clothing as his sole possessions, and a few old, ailing widows.

penniless??? what about all the war booties?? old widows?? Aisha at least was 18 ! and he forbade them to remarry after him!! how merciful…dont try to give mohammad a"jesus" image…mohammad enjoyed all kinds of women, money ( he was a succesful trader+ war booties), power and slaves and he was “priviledged” by allah. He lived a fully material, lustful life. Good try.

start-to-finish theory about how Muhammad (PBUH) carried out this copying, from where and through whom,

the souces are clear; the exact person is irrelevant. Mohammad had 23 years of hearing christians, jews, pagans and other faiths.

and how he could have lied about it

Ghulam ahmad lied about being a messiah and he has 40 millions followers so what? human ignorance.

and gotten away with it,

in fact he was opposed as tales stealer and demon-possesses and died poisoned.

and why he included such claims in the Qur’an itself.

because it is his book obviously. He indeed thought these fables were true.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Hola Shenango,
The premise that Muhammad couldn’t have borrowed Judeo-Christian stories because he was a great, blameless, sinless man is merely the logical fallacy of the petition principii aka begging the question aka circular argument. We must put our pre-suppositions of Muhammad aside to examine his actions.

Muhammad himself claimed that Islam is the successor of the Judeo-Christian forerunners. What we’re merely doing is examining the truth or otherwise of this claim, particularly if one is a believer of the Judeo-Christian religions. To make a claim is to open that claim to examination, and that is what Muhammad did.

Secondly, we didn’t make these charges up. Like inJesus noted, these charges were made from the early days of Muhammad’s apostolic career in Mecca, and are actually in the Quran.

Thirdly, Muhammad’s companions admit themselves that they were among the sources of these Judeo-Christian stories. The evidence for these is from Islamic sources. A close examination will show up the names of some of these sources. One only has to look for them to find what they are.

The fact that these charges are ancient does not invalidate them at all. To claim otherwise would constitute the logical fallacy of the argumentum ad antiquitam.

Fourthly, we are not claiming we are making an novel or huge discovery. We are merely exercising the function of internet forums to discuss and disseminate knowledge, in this case rather ancient knowledge. Not everyone is as au fait with Islam as yourself. I’m sure there are one or two Catholics who may not know about the issue of Quranic Parallelism and would like an indepth intellectual discussion on the subject.

Fifthly, if you want to discuss Muhammad’s supposed “straight-edge honesty and trustworthiness” I would be happy to oblige you in another thread as this is outside of the parallelism topic. I should foreshadow however I would show quite the opposite, with evidence from the sahih hadiths and Muhammad’s own testimony; taqqiya and kitman, no less, and the breach of the treaty of Hudaibiyyah.

Ciubate,
Cid

 

[Shenango]

Greetings Rodrigo,

Looks like what I meant to say sailed wide of everybody’s head on this thread. I will discuss the issue of parallelisms in the Bible and the Qur’an for its own sake if you’d like, but to me the issue is moot. What you all seemingly ignore is that the issue of parallelisms concludes essentially that Muhammad (PBUH) was a liar, hands down.

It’s like you guys forget that the Qur’an claims it’s fully a revelation of God, not the work of Muhammad (PBUH). It doesn’t matter to me what Muhammad (PBUH) knew, or who he met, or what Jewish and Christian priests might have taught him, or what his Companions knew. At the end of the day, the accusations that Muhammad (PBUH) borrowed from earlier Scriptures to compose the Qur’an is necessarily saying that Muhammad (PBUH) authored the Qur’an…and this is what is unacceptable to Muslims, and what makes the discussion of parallelisms moot in my view.

But if Muhammad’s sincerity about the truth of his message as a revelation from God cannot be reasonably doubted, and it cannot in my view…then the whole discussion about parallelisms is a distraction and pointless waste of time.

And you will never convince me that at 2/3rds into his lifespan, Muhammad (PBUH) all of a sudden grew ambitious for power, women, wealth, land or any of the things skeptics claim motivated him to make up the world’s 2nd (soon to be 1st) largest religion by lying about receiving revelations from God, which he was actually composing himself from various sources he happened upon.

Typically, enduring a dozen assassination attempts (among the other multitude of hardships the Prophet (PBUH) underwent), while absolutely rejecting offers of power, money or women…or any of the other incentives that drive male ambition, is enough to prove that a man is sincere about a cause. That’s because nobody in his right mind would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for something he knows is a lie…unless he was crazy.

Add to that the personal hardship that ‘creating’ a religion that covers every facet of life, such as Islam, out of scratch…accusations of insincerity become mind-boggling. Everything from carrying around a book the size of the New Testament all in his head, to making elaborate rites of Pilgrimage, prayer, fasting and distribution of alms to the poor…to his personal devotion…creating supplications for every imaginable scenario and spending half or more of his nights in prayer to God…according to his Companions until his legs turned blue and numb…to teaching on every topic imaginable from war ethics to table manners…and so much more…and observing all this…

Nearly everything that Muslims do or say in regards to their religion can be traced directly back to the Prophet (PBUH) himself, or the Qur’an. The entire burden of the soon-to-be largest religion in the world lays squarely on the shoulders of this man. How the heck could anyone possibly believe he just made all of this up? It’s not humanly possible, much less likely, for a normal human being to do all this, and while being threatened with death at every turn, in order to gain any kind of material possession. I don’t care what it is that is desired…there are easier, and less risky ways (which Muhammad (PBUH) turned down) to do it than to create the voluminous, gigantic theology that is Islam out of thin air.

In other words, unless you believe him to be crazy, there’s no reasonable (and I emphasize that word) way to make Muhammad (PBUH) out to be an insincere fraud, that is if you accept the sources we have about his life to be authentic (and which if you don’t, there’s not much to discuss really).

As I see it, there are only four options (not three, as Lewis posited) people who believe in absolute religious truth have to choose from when deciding about all these religious figures, such as Muhammad, Jesus (PBUT), Buddha, Lao Tzu, Joseph Smith Jr. etc. Either the figure is:

A) lying.

B) crazy.

C) misrepresented (their teachings/lives are not presented accurately, either though outright misrepresentation or corruption of sources).

D) true.

Now you will notice that Muslims, with good justification documented by Biblical criticism, pick option C when it comes to Jesus (PBUH), but that Christians always seem to go for the jugular with option A about Muhammad (PBUH), even though when it comes to the Prophet (PBUH), option A is the hardest of the four to prove. Why this is so always fascinates me.

 

[inJESUS]

It’s like you guys forget that the Qur’an claims it’s fully a revelation of God,

only mohammad claimed so…and he was true until proven false.

It doesn’t matter to me what Muhammad (PBUH) knew, or who he met, or what Jewish and Christian priests might have taught him, or what his Companions knew.

it should matter when you see that what they told him is in the quran, and not Allah’s words.

But if Muhammad’s sincerity about the truth of his message as a revelation from God cannot be reasonably doubted, and it cannot in my view…then the whole discussion about parallelisms is a distraction and pointless waste of time.

you only need to refute the link.

And you will never convince me that at 2/3rds into his lifespan, Muhammad (PBUH) all of a sudden grew ambitious for power,

when Khadija proposed to him and he bacame wealthy, his greed grew. He was much better before a strange spirit told him he is a prophet.

women, wealth, land or any of the things skeptics claim motivated him to make up

after proclaiming himself a prophet, his lust and greed grew even more. He wasnt like this before do u agree?

the world’s 2nd (soon to be 1st) largest religion

muslims are 22 % on this planet according to recent statistics. Anyway, never was quantity what matters.

by lying about receiving revelations from God, which he was actually composing himself from various sources he happened upon.

thats the truth.

Typically, enduring a dozen assassination attempts (among the other multitude of hardships the Prophet (PBUH) underwent),

many people are assasinated today.

while absolutely rejecting offers of power, money or women…

u must be kidding? to whom do the booty and women slaves belong the most? to allah and his messager, & why allah needs booty is beyond me.

or any of the other incentives that drive male ambition, is enough to prove that a man is sincere about a cause.

or sincerly wrong.

That’s because nobody in his right mind would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for something he knows is a lie…unless he was crazy.

what sacrifices? he satisfied fully his carnal desires and strange sexual inclination and he had money, power, and respect. Arent these enough for a wordly man? he even promised a sexual heaven…do u really think it belongs to the most Holy God or is it a projection of mohammad’s mind?

Add to that the personal hardship that ‘creating’ a religion that covers every facet of life, such as Islam, out of scratch…

yes, raging wars to make people submit to him is indeed hardship.

accusations of insincerity become mind-boggling. Everything from carrying around a book the size of the New Testament all in his head, to making elaborate rites of Pilgrimage, prayer, fasting and distribution of alms to the poor…to his personal devotion…creating supplications for every imaginable scenario and spending half or more of his nights in prayer to God…according to his Companions until his legs turned blue and numb…to teaching on every topic imaginable from war ethics to table manners…and so much more…and observing all this…

he was disillusioned by a “different” god.

TEXT DELETED

As I see it, there are only four options (not three, as Lewis posited) people who believe in absolute religious truth have to choose from when deciding about all these religious figures

we analyse what the religious figure said, and how he lived, and how he applied his teachings. Looking at these, mohamad fails miserably.

Why this is so always fascinates me.

coz you only see it in islamic eyes. You were very sincere in your defence, but unfortunatly, when proven that the quran is not an eternal tablet in heaven, the quran trustworthiness goes with the wind and his writer as well.

 

[oat_soda]

Christians always seem to go for the jugular with option A about Muhammad (PBUH), even though when it comes to the Prophet (PBUH), option A is the hardest of the four to prove. Why this is so always fascinates me.

you forgot option F) diabolical inspiration. it is known that mohammed removed certain texts from the quran because they were inspired from devil, hence the satanic verses. muhammed was worried that some of the revelation he recieved wasn’t from God but from somewhere else. genies to muslims, or demons or fallen angels to christians.

TEXT DELETED

gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! 7

 

[r.gonzales]

oat soda:

it is known that mohammed removed certain texts from the quran because they were inspired from devil, hence the satanic verses.

perhaps if you did some research on this topic, you’d find that the alleged incident concerning the “satanic verses” never happened. all the narrations regarding it are weak and inauthentic.

there have already been a few posts with regard to it on this forum. using the search function would be pretty handy in this case…

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Is someone mentioning satanic verses around here?

 

[inJESUS]

r.gonzales:

perhaps if you did some research on this topic, you’d find that the alleged incident concerning the “satanic verses” never happened. all the narrations regarding it are weak and inauthentic.

there have already been a few posts with regard to it on this forum. using the search function would be pretty handy in this case…

am sorry but you are TOTALLY wrong. The incident of the satanic verses DID happen and the quran attests to it:

God revealed Surah 53 to Muhammad up to and including vss. 19, 20. These two verses read:

Have ye thought upon al-Lat and al-Uzza
And Manat, the third, the other? (53:19,20)

Then, originally, the verses (known today as the satanic verses) followed:

These are the exalted cranes (intermediaries)
Whose intercession is to be hoped for.

But Muhammad soon retracted the reconciliation—how soon is not clear. For the account continues that Jibril (Gabriel), the angel of revelation, informed Muhammad that Satan had used Muhammad’s desire for reconciliation with the pagan leaders to insert into the revelation of God the verses about the interceding cranes, otherwise called “the satanic verses”. The verses which follow, not the satanic verses, serve as the proper sequence to 53:19,20 (above):

Are yours the males and His the females?
That indeed were an unfair division! (53:21,22)

What about this?
**And they indeed strove to beguile thee (Muhammad) away from that wherewith We (God) have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.**And if We had not made thee wholly firm thou mightest almost have inclined unto them a little.
Then had We made thee taste a double (punishment) of living and a double (punishment) of dying, then hadst thou found no helper against Us. (17:73-75)

And this??
Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise;
That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened –Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism. (22:52,53)

I think the quran itself attests to the satanic verses. After all mohammad HAD to find an excuse and put in in quran.

 

[inJESUS]

But another question rises : if Mohammad did NOT distinguish between “divine” words and satanic verses, it means that satan’s words are equal to allah’s words in eloquence, hence the "BRING A SURA LIKE IT CHALLENGE WAS MET BY SATAN HIMSELF.INTERESTING.

 

[r.gonzales]

inJESUS:

am sorry but you are TOTALLY wrong.

how typical. the non-muslim (orientalist, christian missionary) is trying to impose his misinformation upon the muslim, since the muslim clearly doesn’t know his own religion.

i’d rather verify my beliefs from the reliable islamic sources rather than misinformed non-muslim individuals. see here and here.

 

[inJESUS]

r.gonzales:

how typical. the non-muslim (orientalist, christian missionary) is trying to impose his misinformation upon the muslim, since the muslim clearly doesn’t know his own religion.

i’d rather verify my beliefs from the reliable islamic sources rather than misinformed non-muslim individuals. see here and here.

Did i quote the hadith? nop, i quoted the quran care to refute that allah talked about satan talking to mohammad?