Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodrigo_Bivar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Most other ancient books are not so well authenticated. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT …” (Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 532-533)
I said this in another thread already, but I wouldn’t be too quick to trust anything Norm Geisler writes. In what I think is the same book (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics) he leaves out the facts about the Ecumenical Councils to make it look like the deuterocanonical books were never part of the Bible. It’s not a good idea to read polemics as research.
 
Thanks discipleofJesus,
This supports my contention that translational and transcriptional variations do not prove the Bible to be corrupted.

I will now move on to the specific examples of parallelism. Due to some members already discussing these in other threads I have to re-write what I had already written to summarize the for and against arguments for each example. Please bear with me for a couple of days.

Nos vemos después
Cid
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
Thanks discipleofJesus,
This supports my contention that translational and transcriptional variations do not prove the Bible to be corrupted.
You’re welcome 👍
40.png
exoflare:
I said this in another thread already, but I wouldn’t be too quick to trust anything Norm Geisler writes. In what I think is the same book (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics) he leaves out the facts about the Ecumenical Councils to make it look like the deuterocanonical books were never part of the Bible. It’s not a good idea to read polemics as research.
Just to be clear, in the actual passage that you quoted of Norman Geisler’s book from my post

“Most other ancient books are not so well authenticated. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT …” (Geisler, Encyclopedia, pp. 532-533)

Norman Geisler is saying that this is what New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger is saying, not what he is saying i.e.

New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT”

not

Norman Geisler "estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT

You said
40.png
exoflare:
In what I think is the same book (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics) he leaves out the facts about the Ecumenical Councils to make it look like the deuterocanonical books were never part of the Bible.
What exactly are these facts that he left out?

Also, leaving out facts is not the same as making up facts.

Sorry, I don’t want to go off topic on this thread and start discussing Norman Geisler. But I felt I should respond to this.

If you think we will end up writing several posts about Norman Geisler, maybe you should start another thread on Norman Geisler. If you want.
 
I’ll try to reply to that one quickly and painlessly. It’s true that leaving out facts is not as bad as making up facts, but sometimes leaving out some smaller facts is done to mislead the reader in the big picture.

To be fair, I haven’t read the book myself but here is another thread where it kind of ends up getting discussed. This is how I formed whatever impression (granted, a vague impression) I have of the book so far.

Debate with anti-catholic bigot… help appreciated

If you want to discuss it further, I guess you can make another thread. But I doubt there’s really a whole lot to discuss.
 
DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF PARALLELISM

I will examine some of the examples of parallelism. Some of these have already been covered by interested parties and I will merely summarize. discipleofJesus has made an excellent thread on the topic of Mary, sister of Aaron, daughter of Amram. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93834

Here are the points I think are salient;
  1. The Quranic Mary was the sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram, just like the Biblical Miriam.
  2. Muhammad claimed that this was because people of old named their children after pious people. This rules out Mary having a brother named Aaron. The question was not put to Muhammad about ‘daughter of Amram’, so who was Amram?
  3. Amram is clearly the father of Moses, Aaron and Miriam because 3:33 states that ‘Allah chose Adam and Noah, the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all worlds.’ The House of Amram refers to Moses and Aaron. Otherwise, this list of patriarchs would have Adam, Noah, Abraham and Mary’s father and leave out the most important Jewish prophet of all – Moses. This Amram is clearly Mary’s father as the context suggests – the story of Mary begins only two verses down with Amram’s wife. The people chosen by Allah in 3:33 are patriarchs.
Thus, taking all these into consideration, it is clear that Muhammad confused the story of Mary, mother of Jesus, with the Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron. There is no other plausible explanation.

Here are the difficulties with the Muslim explanation, i.e. Mary was called after pious people of the past:

A. It stretches credulity that so many coincidences have occurred. Not only is Mary called after Miriam as the Sister of Aaron, even though the Hebrew names are different the Arabic is identical, but that Mary’s father should be coincidentally called Amram.

B. We know that the Quranic Mary’s father, Amram, is the Biblical Amram, father of Moses and Aaron, due to verse 3:33.

C. Some Muslims claim ‘sister of Aaron’ means a distant blood relationship – this is disproved by Muhammad himself according to the sahih hadith.

D. Some Muslims claim ‘sister of Aaron’ means that Mary was a Levite. This is untrue as she was of the tribe of Judah.

Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Muhammad made an error in confusing Mary, mother of Jesus, with Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron.

Cont.

Next topic – the Talmud by Cyber Knight
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93657
 
40.png
exoflare:
I’ll try to reply to that one quickly and painlessly. It’s true that leaving out facts is not as bad as making up facts, but sometimes leaving out some smaller facts is done to mislead the reader in the big picture.

To be fair, I haven’t read the book myself but here is another thread where it kind of ends up getting discussed. This is how I formed whatever impression (granted, a vague impression) I have of the book so far.

Debate with anti-catholic bigot… help appreciated

If you want to discuss it further, I guess you can make another thread. But I doubt there’s really a whole lot to discuss.
i don’t want to discuss it further, but i do want to point out that you said
40.png
exoflare:
he leaves out the facts about the Ecumenical Councils to make it look like the deuterocanonical books were never part of the Bible.
but you haven’t proven that he done so. you didn’t even show one fact that he left out about the Ecumenical Councils, let alone ‘the facts’ about the Ecumenical Councils.

also, even if you did show this, that doesn’t mean that he did so intentionally.

also on this bringyou.to/apologetics/ Catholic website you can read the following regarding his book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Books 1995) co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie

“**Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences ** by Norman Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie (Baker Books 1995)
Probably the best modern work on the Catholic-Protestant debate, written from an Evangelical “baptistic” perspective, divided into two major sections – the agreements that Catholics have with Evangelicals (Christ, the Creed, the Bible, salvation by grace), and the differences that (some) Evangelicals have with the Catholic Church, a third section contains the issues of common moral cause”
bringyou.to/apologetics/books.htm (underline emphasis mine)

you can see more positive comments by Catholics about of the book ‘Roman Catholics and Evangelicals…’ on the back cover of the book i.e. Richard John Neuhaus, John Hitchcock and James Akin. ( you should be able to view the back cover by looking inside the book here amazon.com/gp/product/0801038758/qid=1137497534/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/102-6017630-6237714?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 )

i’ll leave it at that.
if you do wish to respond, please start a new thread and leave this thread for the topic 'Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures’

again, sorry everyone for going off the main topic of ‘Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures’ but i felt i should respond to what exoflare said. remember exoflare, if you want to respond, please do so on a new thread.
 
40.png
exoflare:
I’ll try to reply to that one quickly and painlessly. It’s true that leaving out facts is not as bad as making up facts, but sometimes leaving out some smaller facts is done to mislead the reader in the big picture.

To be fair, I haven’t read the book myself but here is another thread where it kind of ends up getting discussed. This is how I formed whatever impression (granted, a vague impression) I have of the book so far.

Debate with anti-catholic bigot… help appreciated

If you want to discuss it further, I guess you can make another thread. But I doubt there’s really a whole lot to discuss.
i don’t want to discuss it further, but i do want to point out that you said
40.png
exoflare:
he leaves out the facts about the Ecumenical Councils to make it look like the deuterocanonical books were never part of the Bible.
but you haven’t proven that he done so. you didn’t even show one fact that he left out about the Ecumenical Councils, let alone ‘the facts’ about the Ecumenical Councils.

also, even if you did show this, that doesn’t mean that he did so intentionally.

also on this bringyou.to/apologetics/ Catholic website you can read the following regarding his book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Baker Books 1995) co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie

“**Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences ** by Norman Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie (Baker Books 1995)
Probably the best modern work on the Catholic-Protestant debate, written from an Evangelical “baptistic” perspective, divided into two major sections – the agreements that Catholics have with Evangelicals (Christ, the Creed, the Bible, salvation by grace), and the differences that (some) Evangelicals have with the Catholic Church, a third section contains the issues of common moral cause”
bringyou.to/apologetics/books.htm (underline emphasis mine)

you can see more positive comments by Catholics about of the book ‘Roman Catholics and Evangelicals…’ on the back cover of the book i.e. comments by Richard John Neuhaus, John Hitchcock and James Akin. ( you should be able to view the back cover by looking inside the book here amazon.com/gp/product/0801038758/qid=1137497534/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/102-6017630-6237714?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 )

i’ll leave it at that.
if you, or anyone else, wish to respond to what I wrote about Norman Geisler, please start a new thread and leave this thread for the topic 'Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures’

again, sorry everyone for going off the main topic of ‘Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures’ but i felt i should respond to what exoflare said. remember exoflare and everyone else, if you want to respond to what i said about Norman Geisler, please do so on a new thread and leave this thread for the topic ‘Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures’.
 
40.png
discipleofJesus:
you can see more positive comments by Catholics about of the book ‘Roman Catholics and Evangelicals…’ on the back cover of the book i.e. comments by Richard John Neuhaus, John Hitchcock and James Akin.
I meant James Hitchcock not John Hitchcock.
 
more please…I would love to bring this to another forum. Can I?

Neverland
 
Dear Neverland,
You’re welcome to take any research I write to discuss it in any other forums.

Ciubate,
Mata Moro
 
Dear Matamoto,

Thanks a lot. I will take and translate it.

Neverland
 
Where are the Muslim guests? Are they not going to attempt to respond to what Rodrigo Bivar has written on this thread?
 
The Talmud in the Quran

Cyber Knight has made an excellent thread that discusses how ‘Sanhedrin 37a’ is paralleled in the Quran. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93657

“For this reason was man created alone, to teach that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a”

“Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. --Quran, Surah 5:32”

The salient points are:
a. The Quran itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, ‘we DECREED/ordained/prescribed/made binding (katabna) for the Children of Israel…’
b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel. It is a mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.

Some Muslims (e.g. Dr Saifullah) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul OF ISRAEL’. They claim that since the Quran lacks this reference to the single soul of Israel but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed. See: islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html

Dr Saifullah has made two logical errors here:
  1. Nobody claims the parallelism means ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By imply thus, Dr Saifullah has created a straw man argument.
  2. The Jerusalem Talmud omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument.
Prima facie, this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Quran. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘we katabna…’ in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding for the Children of Israel where is the corresponding verse in the Torah? The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage.

Thus, it seems strange that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / made binding something that is a commentary written by a Jewish rabbi.

Cont. The next topic: The Raven. No, not Edgar Allan Poe’s famous work.

Chau,
Mata Moro
 
THE RAVEN AND THE BURIAL OF ABEL

The Quran tells the story of how Allah sent a raven to show Cain how to bury Abel.

al-Ma’idah 005:031
‏5:31 فبعث الله غرابا يبحث في الارض ليريه كيف يواري سوءة اخيه قال ياويلتي اعجزت ان اكون مثل هذا الغراب فاوارى سوءة اخي فاصبح من النادمين

FabaAAatha Allahu ghuraban yabhathu fee al-ardi liyuriyahu kayfa yuwaree saw-ata akheehi qala ya waylata aAAajaztu an akoona mithla hatha alghurabi faowariya saw-ata akhee faasbaha mina alnnadimeena.

Maulana Ali Then Allah sent a crow scratching the ground to show him how to cover the dead body of his brother. He said: Woe is me! Am I not able to be as this crow and cover the dead body of my brother? So he became of those who regret.
kavalec.com/Quran/005.qmt.quran.aspx

This story of the raven and the burial of Abel has led critics to charge that Muhammad borrowed Jewish folklore because this account is not in the Old Testament or the Torah. In the Jewish folklore it was Adam who noticed the raven burying a dead bird and that gave him the idea to bury Abel. Thus, the parallelism isn’t with the person who did the burying but with the bit about the raven providing the idea of burial in the ground.

Critics point out four sources of this Jewish folklore; the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targum Yerushalmi I (aka Targum Jonathan or the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan), the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer, and the Midrash Tanhuma. Only two are true. The Targums do not carry this story and the claim that they do is a misreading of Tisdall.

It would have been more correct to claim that the raven burial story in the Quran has its predecessor in Jewish folklore, which has also been preserved in the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer, and the Midrash Tanhuma. This is because there is no evidence that Muhammad copied from these texts. The claim should be that he probably heard the story from Jewish folklore. It is the dating of this Jewish folklore that critics should introduce those texts as evidence.

“Adam and his help mate were sitting weeping and lamenting over him [Abel], and they did not know what to do with Abel, for they were not acquainted with burial. A raven, one of whose companions had died, came. He took him and dug in the earth and buried him before his eyes. Adam said, ‘I shall do as this raven.’ Immediately, he took Abel’s corpse and dug in the earth and buried it.” (Jewish legend related by Pirqey Rabbi Eliezer, chapter XXI, quoted by Abdiyah Akbar Adul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim.)

Tisdall quotes from the same source in a slightly different translation:
So also in the book Pirke Rabbi Eleazer, we find the source of the burying of Abel as described in the Coran, there being no difference excepting that the raven indicates the mode to Adam instead of to Cain, as follows:- Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven coming up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched up the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, Let us follow the example of the raven, and so taking up Abel’s body buried it at once. (W. St-Clair-Tisdall, Souces of Islam)
answering-islam.org.uk/Index/C/cain_and_abel.html
muhammadanism.com/Tisdall/sources_quran/p062.htm

Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer
Saifullah, Ahmed and Karim of Islamic-Awareness claim that Jewish scholars have known for quite some time that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer is post-Islamic and that it cannot possibly be attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, quoting as evidence:

“The Jewish Encyclopedia published in 1905 (same year as the publication of Tisdall’s book) under “Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer” informs us that: Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishamel, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. xxxvi, two brother reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the nineth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm… In no case this work be ascribed to R. Eliezer (80-118 CE), since he was a tanna, while the book itself the Pirke Abot is quoted.[21]”
islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBCandA.html

cont.
 
They claim that since the final redaction occurred after the advent of Islam, it cannot be the source of the raven burial story. There are two difficulties with this claim: i) final redaction does not mean the stories contained in the Pirke were composed after the advent of Islam. Redaction means ‘making something suitable for publication – including editing, compilation etc.’ or the act of putting something in writing (i.e. that had already existed prior to the writing); and ii) new evidence suggests the original dating of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer is erroneous.

According to Andrew Vargo of answering-islam:
“They (i.e. Saifullah and co) also omitted a point that was made in another response to “Islamic Awareness” - that there are at least two ancient manuscripts of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer. The ancient Vienna manuscript, which has only in recent years been translated into English, shows every evidence of being pre-Islamic.”
answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/cain-abel2.htm

Midrash Tanhuma
The general scholastic view is that Midrash Tanhuma is also known as Tanhuma Yalamdenu, although some scholars believe they are different manuscripts.

In an effort to discredit the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer, the Islamic-awareness team introduced the work of Norman A. Stillman, published in the Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19. However, Stillman proved inconvenient to Saifullah and co:
“Sidersky has rightly pointed out that the qur’anic version should be traced back to Midrash Tamhuma which reads:
“When Cain killed Abel, the latter’s body lay cast aside for Cain did not know what to do. Then the Holy One (Blessed be He) sent him two pure birds, and one of them killed the other. Then he dug with his claws and buried him, and from him Cain learned. So he dug and buried Abel.” “
answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/cain-abel.htm

Saifullah and co then challenged the dating of a version of the Midrash Tanhuma known as the Buber’s recension.

“There are a number of serious problems with the theory that Midrash Tanhuma is the source of the Qur’anic Cain and Abel narration. There is a much uncertainty concerning the first half of Midrash Tanhuma (which includes the story of Cain and Abel) coupled with the late date of its compilation in post-Islamic times (ninth century CE).

Are we to believe that a problematic text of the ninth century is the source of Qur’anic story? Such a theory is untenable. It may very well be the case that the Qur’anic story is the source of the Cain and Abel story in Midrash Tanhuma. Perhaps Stillman himself put it best:

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.”

Does recension mean origin or composition? No. The date of recension is only the date of compilation of older stories. It is generally believed that the contents of Midrash Tanhuma pre-date Islam:

“The Midrash Tanhuma exists in several recensions, the most famous of which was edited by Shelomo Buber (grandfather of Martin Buber) in 1885. The date and provenance of this commentary on the Torah remains a mystery, though rabbinic authorities cited therein are mostly fourth century or earlier, and in general the scholarly community locates this compilation in southern Italy around the mid-eighth century.”
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199807/ai_n8803696

cont.
 
Vargo introduced the fact that there are versions of the Midrash Tanhuma older than the Buber recension.

From Meyer Waxman in “A History of Jewish Literature”:
“Besides the cycle of Rabba, i.e. Large Midrashim on the Pentateuch, there exists another Midrashic cycle on these books known as the Tanhuma-Yelamdenu-Midrashim. The first name given to it because of the numerous homiletic interpretations of verses quoted in the name of Tanhuma, the son of Abba, a famous Palestinian Agadist who lived towards the end of the fourth century. The second name of this cycle arises from the fact that a very large number of homilies open with the formula Yelamdénu Rabénu i.e. may our master teach us. It begins with a question in Halakah, and while the Halakic matter is dispensed with in a few words, the discussion turns to Agada and homiletic interpretation.

Of this kind of Midrashim, we have several versions: (1) An older Midrash which was known to the early scholars of Italy and France by the name Yelamdénu, but which is now practically lost except for a few fragments; (2) the printed Tanhuma; (3) the manuscript Tanhuma which was edited and published in 1883 by the late Solomon Buber. All three belong to one Midrashic cycle, and the Yelamdénu seems to have been the earliest, as collections of such homilies where the Halakah was joined to the Agada, inasmuch as the preacher was a teacher of both, existed in large numbers. It is these collections which served as the background and source books for the late Midrashim, the compilers of which drew upon them in abundance. For this reason, we find the homilies beginning with the formula, “May our master teach us,” scattered through all Midrashic cycles such as the Tanhuma, Pesiktu (Sec. 84) and in the books of the Rabba (Sec. 82). The date of the Yelamdénu collection is, therefore, an early one and is probably contemporaneous with the Genesis Rabba, about the beginning of the sixth century C.E., and the place of origin, Palestine.”

Thus, it is likely that the raven burial story in the Midrash Tanhuma (or the Tanhuma Yalemdenu) pre-date the advent of Islam. Buber’s version of the Midrash Tanhuma, although compiled in the mid-eighth century is generally believed to have sourced material from the fourth-century or earlier, while the Tanhuma Yalemdenu dates to the beginning of the sixth century.

Conclusion
The pre-Islamic Jewish folklore of the raven burial story is paralleled in the Quran.

Hasta Luego,
Rodrigo

Next topic: The Trinity
 
No; I am not responding.
40.png
discipleofJesus:
Where are the Muslim guests? Are they not going to attempt to respond to what Rodrigo Bivar has written on this thread?
Salaam DoJ;
The Muslim guests are here brother; they read what is written but do not respond. What would change for you or for Rodrigo if we do?Nothing.

The team at islamic-awareness.org has discussed the question of similarities and answered many of the claims, and I am not going to bring the whole content of their site here, it is against the rules of the forum anyway.

What Rodrigo is writing here is nothing new; Ibn Warraq, St. Clair Tisdall, Abraham Geiger and others are the true originators of such claims.

Except a possible common source explanation (which is the case here), similarities do not prove borrowing. Alhamdu’lillah (praises be to Allah); every day people from all around the world are finding guidance in the holy Qur’an and the attacks on the book are not going to change that.

The end result of the message Muhammad (PBUH) was charged to deliver is a one to one relationship with Allah (SWT), the creator of heaven and earth. If it was not the blessings we send him when his name is mentioned, even Muhammad (PBUH) is transparent in that relationship. Whether we pray, fast, give alms, or do good works, all is done having Allah (SWT) in mind and solely him, Muhammad (PBUH) is out of the picture. But why am I saying this? I know you already studied Islam and know this, don’t you?.

Please do not feel obliged to answer this post.

Salaam.
Joseph.
 
40.png
Joseph_Alison:
No; I am not responding.
Salaam DoJ;
The Muslim guests are here brother; they read what is written but do not respond. What would change for you or for Rodrigo if we do?Nothing.

The team at islamic-awareness.org has discussed the question of similarities and answered many of the claims, and I am not going to bring the whole content of their site here, it is against the rules of the forum anyway.

What Rodrigo is writing here is nothing new; Ibn Warraq, St. Clair Tisdall, Abraham Geiger and others are the true originators of such claims.

Except a possible common source explanation (which is the case here), similarities do not prove borrowing. Alhamdu’lillah (praises be to Allah); every day people from all around the world are finding guidance in the holy Qur’an and the attacks on the book are not going to change that.

The end result of the message Muhammad (PBUH) was charged to deliver is a one to one relationship with Allah (SWT), the creator of heaven and earth. If it was not the blessings we send him when his name is mentioned, even Muhammad (PBUH) is transparent in that relationship. Whether we pray, fast, give alms, or do good works, all is done having Allah (SWT) in mind and solely him, Muhammad (PBUH) is out of the picture. But why am I saying this? I know you already studied Islam and know this, don’t you?.

Please do not feel obliged to answer this post.

Salaam.
Joseph.
Dear Joseph_Alison,
You will note that I do reference Dr Saifullah and his team at islamic-awareness. I am more than happy to discuss Quranic parallelism with him or anyone of a similar intellectual capability.

Please do note that I do not claim to ‘originate’ any claims of Muhammad’s borrowing or Quranic parallelism. This claim has been promulgated since the very early days of Islam. I also note I have discussed the works of other critics - including the answering-islam team.

I’m merely making a critical analysis of both sides of the issue.

Similarities do point to borrowing. One or two cases you might consider as coincidence. But a multitude of parallelisms, particularly imperfect or erroneous ones, can only lead to the conclusion of borrowing. A true god wouldn’t make some of the mistakes Muhammad made - like the Mary, sister of Aaron, daughter of Amran, story.

Nos vemos despues,
Rodrigo
 
discipleof jesus has pointed out that I made an error in post #82. I said that Miriam and Mary were names different in Hebrew but identical in Arabic. This is of course, untrue, and obviously so.

Mary and Miriam are names different in English but identical in Hebrew or Arabic. The reason why the English translators translated them differently is not important to this discussion. What is important is that Mariyah, mother of Jesus, was mistaken for Mariyah, sister of Aaron.

Thanks to doj.

Chau,
Rodrigo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top