Challenging the Divinity of Qur'an

[9-18-1]

Arguably.

Would you say someone like Patricia Crone was overly concerned about implications and sensitivity in her appraisal?

Yes and no - in her actual discourse(s), no. She is extremely thorough, to-the-point and (admirably) gives little to no regard for how might others receive her work. This is owing to her meticulousness and deservedly she can adopt an in-your-face approach.

However she most certainly has in some cases yielded to backlash: especially regarding the historicity of Muhammad. It is clear she doesn't buy the notion that there was an historical Muhammad (a notion I likewise reject outright) and at least at one point held that the Qur'an was not written anywhere near Mecca/Medina, but when confronted she essentially caved - probably to protect herself.

You are claiming a particular origin for much of the Quranic material which is very debatable.

It would be a grave error to claim that all scholarship on the impact of Syriac—or Aramaic more generally—on the Qur’ān argues the text is derivative of a Biblical text (i.e. urtext). The scholarship, rather, demonstrates a spectrum of positions. On one end of the spectrum is the Luxenberg school, which despite its marginalization, still has a small following who argue the Qur’ān we posses today was originally a Syriac Christian liturgical text.13 This claim is hotly contested, if not rejected outright by most Qur’ān specialists.

On the other end of the spectrum is Angelika Neuwirth, Der Koran: Band 1, which examines the early Meccan Suras according to the chronology established in Islamic tradition and accepted by Nöldeke’s Geschichte des Qorans. For Neuwirth, the Qur’ān is fundamentally a text of late antiquity and belonging to the Arabian context illustrated in Islamic tradition. The relationship between Qur’ānic passages and Syriac Christian literature are only part of a wider intertextual dialogue between the Qur’ān and religious works of late antiquity.14

In the middle of the spectrum is The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext by Gabriel Reynolds, who neither accepts the traditional qur’ānic chronology, nor an explicit urtext. Reynolds argues that qur’ānic passages are best understood when read solely through the lens of late antique Syriac Christian homiletic literature. The utility of Islamic tradition (especially Tafsir) is diminished significantly given the mufassirūn’s unawareness of the subtexts behind the passages they examine. For Reynolds, it is more fruitful to understand the Qur’ān by reading it “as homily.”15

There is quite evidently a lack of consensus about the contribution of Aramaic (especially Syriac) Christian literature to the Qur’ān. There is equally a lack of consensus about whom the audience of the Qur’ān were in light of the impact of Aramaic.


The Impact of Aramaic (especially Syriac) on the Qur’ān - Emran El-badawi






There are many alternatives to the orthodox Islamic traditions and: "i. The Qur'an is, rather than being divinely inspired, a collection/assortment of Jewish mythical traditions, mixed with (what were originally) Christian strophic hymns derived from Syro-Aramaic liturgical compositions scattered about the region(s) within which Islam arose, and is (as such) erroneously imbued with 'divine authority/authorship' (knowingly or unknowingly) by Muhammad, thereby Muslims."




As has been noted, there aren't that many Muslims who post here regularly (as they tend to get bullied, even the super friendly and unassuming ones) and fewer who are interested in debating such issues.

Where there though, your arguments would not be problematic from within the Islamic hermeneutical framework, as similarities with existing texts will be interpreted as confirming the idea that the key messages of the Quran had been sent to all the prophets.

Equally, arguments in favour of the Divinity of the Quran are unpersuasive towards non-Muslims, for reasons you understand.

Your references to scholarship on the issue of Quranic origin are somewhat misleading though, so it is fair to point this out.

I'm not claiming anything: I am referencing existing claim(s) which is sufficiently backed with detailed analysis. Whether or not one accepts this analysis as "sufficient" has more to do with how one is able to analyze and deduct the obvious. It is certainly true that at least some portion of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns - even a weak analysis of this notion must at a minimum yield that the plausibility of such a thing to be true far outweighs the notion that it is the perfect word of god delivered by an angel. Let us not discount the fact that Muhammad never even gave a single instruction to write down these revelations and compile into book form. This was a decision made by Uthman and, had it not been for this decision, we wouldn't even have a written Qur'an. This fact alone, along with the circus of collecting the fragments/remnants of these "revelations" and compiling them starts to bring us into a zone of absurdity regarding whether or not the delivery of the Qur'an to humanity was guided by a divine hand.

Once again it reduces into the obvious: there are only two possibilities regarding whether or not the Qur'an is "divine": it is, or it is not. What the Qur'an actually is (where/what it is derived from) is rather irrelevant when it comes to the big question. The answer is clear: it is most certainly not of divine origin, as dubious as such a claim is (as you already alluded to).

 

[Augustus]

However she most certainly has in some cases yielded to backlash: especially regarding the historicity of Muhammad. It is clear she doesn't buy the notion that there was an historical Muhammad (a notion I likewise reject outright) and at least at one point held that the Qur'an was not written anywhere near Mecca/Medina, but when confronted she essentially caved - probably to protect herself.

Not sure where you got that from, she very much believes in a historical Muhammad (iirc she said there is a bit more evidence for him than for Jesus), as do almost all scholars as there are near contemporary references to him (See Holland: Seeing Islam as others saw it).

Also, she died of cancer so I don't see why she would need to keep her true thoughts secret to protect herself. It would make no sense to hide your life's work when you know you are going to die.

It is certainly true that at least some portion of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns - even a weak analysis of this notion must at a minimum yield that the plausibility of such a thing to be true far outweighs the notion that it is the perfect word of god delivered by an angel.

False dichotomy. As noted in the quote I provided, there are numerous perspectives on the actuality of the Quran's intertextual relationship with Late Antique Biblical and para-Biblical sources and traditions.

Let us not discount the fact that Muhammad never even gave a single instruction to write down these revelations and compile into book form.

On the Quran you adopt a highly revisionist perspective, yet here you take the Islamic tradition at face value, seems a bit incongruent.

Once again it reduces into the obvious: there are only two possibilities regarding whether or not the Qur'an is "divine": it is, or it is not. What the Qur'an actually is (where/what it is derived from) is rather irrelevant when it comes to the big question. The answer is clear: it is most certainly not of divine origin, as dubious as such a claim is (as you already alluded to).

Again, your line of argument either means you are preaching to the non-Muslim choir who already disbelieve for other reasons, or presenting a challenge to Muslims that is completely unproblematic from their perspective.

Something like this is really more relevant due to what is now known about Alexander the Great:

"The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus". Miscellanea arabica 2013–2014: 273-90.

van Bladel 2008 The Alexander Legend in the Qur'an 18:83-102

but you end up with a counter-argument like this:

https://alfinlandi.wordpress.com/20...s-the-alexander-legend-in-the-quran-1883-102/

Ultimately, both sides argue from different axioms and using differing methodological frameworks so it's not like you can actually achieve anything anyway.

 

[DustyFeet]

**ahem** post #61... i didn't say that..

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Greetings to all,
i. The Qur'an is, rather than being divinely inspired, a collection/assortment of Jewish mythical traditions, mixed with (what were originally) Christian strophic hymns derived from Syro-Aramaic liturgical compositions scattered about the region(s) within which Islam arose, and is (as such) erroneously imbued with 'divine authority/authorship' (knowingly or unknowingly) by Muhammad, thereby Muslims.
ii. Muhammad's sexual behavior (penetrating a nine-year-old A'isha along with the numerous wives (polygamy) and assorted concubines) establishes a precedent (imitated/emulated by Muslim men) of behavioral infidelity, and
iii. As a result of i. and ii. Islam, as a cohesive entity, actively (forcibly) provokes division, conflict, intolerance, enmity and exceeding war and bloodshed rather than delivering any means toward a true and lasting 'peace'.

Clearly your stance will lead no where. Every sentence that you have uttered needs proof to back it up. You have mostly provided nothing just your own opinion or what you've heard here and there in cyberspace. So let's analyze your claims:

"The Qur'an is, rather than being divinely inspired, a collection/assortment of Jewish mythical traditions"
You have no way of proving this except by relying on currently available Jewish texts that are similar to what is in the Quran. A closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points.

"mixed with (what were originally) Christian strophic hymns derived from Syro-Aramaic liturgical compositions scattered about the region(s) within which Islam arose"
Again you have no way to prove this, unless you are again relying on current Christian texts that are available today. Again, a closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points.

"and is (as such) erroneously imbued with 'divine authority/authorship' (knowingly or unknowingly) by Muhammad, thereby Muslim"
Your conclusion has nothing to do with your per-assumptions.

"Muhammad's sexual behavior (penetrating a nine-year-old A'isha"
Fairy tales made up by Aisha.

"along with the numerous wives (polygamy) and assorted concubines)"
A custom prevalent throughout the world at those times and scientifically proven to be a norm of human life:

""In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a "huge majority" of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives.""
​

"establishes a precedent (imitated/emulated by Muslim men) of behavioral infidelity"
"Behavioral infidelity" I wish I knew what you mean by this term, but I'm guessing you are grossly misinformed about the rules of polygamous marriage in Islam and are equating polygamy to some form of regular nightly orgy.

 

[9-18-1]

Clearly your stance will lead no where. Every sentence that you have uttered needs proof to back it up. You have mostly provided nothing just your own opinion or what you've heard here and there in cyberspace. So let's analyze your claims:

Hello to you too!

"The Qur'an is, rather than being divinely inspired, a collection/assortment of Jewish mythical traditions"
You have no way of proving this except by relying on currently available Jewish texts that are similar to what is in the Quran. A closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points.

I actually don't need to "prove" anything - I am not the one with the opening claim. The opening claim is held by the House of Islam: that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of God. That's the claim - and the burden of proof is obviously on the House of Islam.

However I need not even prove that the Qur'an contains fragmented Jewish oral traditions: this is already proven/obvious to anyone/everyone that has not a bias and/or aversion to the subject. Many of these traditions are found in the Talmud.

"mixed with (what were originally) Christian strophic hymns derived from Syro-Aramaic liturgical compositions scattered about the region(s) within which Islam arose"
Again you have no way to prove this, unless you are again relying on current Christian texts that are available today. Again, a closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points.

Again, I don't need to prove this - it is already proven. Between the works of Luxenberg and Luling it is already demonstrated that when the text is reduced back into its original Syro-Aramaic language, approx. 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns.

The latter author provides his method by which he goes about this and produces approx. 500 pages of analysis using this method wherein he uncovers the original text. The entire treatise by Luling is found in:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...6&sr=8-2&keywords=challenge+reformation+islam

And Luxenberg is available for free at:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...6&sr=8-2&keywords=challenge+reformation+islam

In these texts it is already proven that, at least part of the Qur'an is derived from the Syriac language (which explains the many loan/non-Arabic words found throughout the Qur'an). If you have any specific contentions with anything in these works (I have a hard copy of both here) without attempting to produce a sweeping dismissal based in nothing, I am happy to meet any such contention.

"and is (as such) erroneously imbued with 'divine authority/authorship' (knowingly or unknowingly) by Muhammad, thereby Muslim"
Your conclusion has nothing to do with your per-assumptions.

It actually has everything to do with it: Muhammad claimed to his followers that he was receiving revelations from an angel. If false (as per above, it is false), he and/or Muslims are themselves imbuing a man-made book with an authority it does not actually have; hence "erroneously imbued with 'divine authorship'".

"Muhammad's sexual behavior (penetrating a nine-year-old A'isha"
Fairy tales made up by Aisha.

That's a new one - never heard it before. Not even Islamic orthodoxy denies that Muhammad married A'isha at six and consummated (intercourse) the marriage when she was nine. In fact, there is a global effort to suppress this fact by the House of Islam as it is both factually true and too damning to the character of Muhammad:

Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile is not protected by free speech, court rules

As I already stated, that Muslims can not tolerate criticisms of Muhammad (even if true) is wholly indicative of their worship/reverence of him which, if we are to take their own claim that Moses is a prophet of God as true, they are violating the commandment regarding taking up idols. This is not even to mention the false testimony (another commandment) Muslims must necessarily take in order to join Islam - by virtue of the fact that the Qur'an is man-made rendering Muhammad's own claim (to prophecy) false.

"along with the numerous wives (polygamy) and assorted concubines)"
A custom prevalent throughout the world at those times and scientifically proven to be a norm of human life:

""In his 1994 book The Moral Animal: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, Robert Wright notes that a "huge majority" of the human societies for which anthropologists have data have been polygamous. Virtually all of those have been polygynous: that is, one husband, multiple wives.""​

​

Just because something is prevalent does not mean it is good and/or right. Cannibalism was prevalent in many cultures: that does not mean it is not a degeneracy. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "scientifically proven to be a norm of life" as you provided no reference(s) to any such "scientific proof" so I'll disregard it.

"establishes a precedent (imitated/emulated by Muslim men) of behavioral infidelity"
"Behavioral infidelity" I wish I knew what you mean by this term, but I'm guessing you are grossly misinformed about the rules of polygamous marriage in Islam and are equating polygamy to some form of regular nightly orgy.

The principle premise of Islam, as with any idolatrous institution, is to imitate/emulate Muhammad's pattern of conduct 'sunnah'. As such, any behavior he engaged in is considered "right" and adopted/accepted (to be taken as example) by adherents.

Muhammad's behavior was of infidel nature: fidelity is a relationship between one man and one woman, in accordance with the general dispersion of males/females on the planet. Further, according to the first book of Moses (whom Muslims hypocritically claim was a prophet of 'Allah'), Elohim (not 'Allah') created the heavens and the earth. Elohim is a composite singular word which is a combination of 'el' (masc. god) and 'elah' (fem. goddess) to produce 'Elohim'. It is as such Adam is created male and female even before Eve is derived from Adam. As such, man/woman is naturally situated to be in a 1:1 relationship with one another, which is preserving fidelity and related to the commandment 'honor thy mother and father'.

Muhammad not only profusely violated this, his (man-made) doctrine violently upset the balance between man and woman such that he took to himself 11 wives and instructed his followers to take up to 4 wives (so-called "concubines" discluded, which are essentially slaves intended to serve as sources of sexual gratification and/or general servitude).

So when I say "behavioral infidelity", by virtue of the fact that Muhammad's behavior was of 'infidel' nature, followers of his doctrines likewise adopt this behavior. This, in conjunction with the fact that the Qur'an is man-made, leaves me to care little to nothing about "rules of polygamous marriage in Islam". By the way, Muhammad actually did engage in nightly orgies. He used the acquisition of women as a primary incentive for jihadists to take up the "cause of Allah" (which is actually Muhammad's own cause) and plunder surrounding tribes/states/nations - a practice which continues today.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Hello to you too!



I actually don't need to "prove" anything - I am not the one with the opening claim. The opening claim is held by the House of Islam: that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of God. That's the claim - and the burden of proof is obviously on the House of Islam.

However I need not even prove that the Qur'an contains fragmented Jewish oral traditions: this is already proven/obvious to anyone/everyone that has not a bias and/or aversion to the subject. Many of these traditions are found in the Talmud.



Again, I don't need to prove this - it is already proven. Between the works of Luxenberg and Luling it is already demonstrated that when the text is reduced back into its original Syro-Aramaic language, approx. 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns.

The latter author provides his method by which he goes about this and produces approx. 500 pages of analysis using this method wherein he uncovers the original text. The entire treatise by Luling is found in:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...6&sr=8-2&keywords=challenge+reformation+islam

And Luxenberg is available for free at:

https://www.amazon.com/Challenge-Is...6&sr=8-2&keywords=challenge+reformation+islam

In these texts it is already proven that, at least part of the Qur'an is derived from the Syriac language (which explains the many loan/non-Arabic words found throughout the Qur'an). If you have any specific contentions with anything in these works (I have a hard copy of both here) without attempting to produce a sweeping dismissal based in nothing, I am happy to meet any such contention.



It actually has everything to do with it: Muhammad claimed to his followers that he was receiving revelations from an angel. If false (as per above, it is false), he and/or Muslims are themselves imbuing a man-made book with an authority it does not actually have; hence "erroneously imbued with 'divine authorship'".



That's a new one - never heard it before. Not even Islamic orthodoxy denies that Muhammad married A'isha at six and consummated (intercourse) the marriage when she was nine. In fact, there is a global effort to suppress this fact by the House of Islam as it is both factually true and too damning to the character of Muhammad:

Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile is not protected by free speech, court rules

As I already stated, that Muslims can not tolerate criticisms of Muhammad (even if true) is wholly indicative of their worship/reverence of him which, if we are to take their own claim that Moses is a prophet of God as true, they are violating the commandment regarding taking up idols. This is not even to mention the false testimony (another commandment) Muslims must necessarily take in order to join Islam - by virtue of the fact that the Qur'an is man-made rendering Muhammad's own claim (to prophecy) false.

​

Just because something is prevalent does not mean it is good and/or right. Cannibalism was prevalent in many cultures: that does not mean it is not a degeneracy. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "scientifically proven to be a norm of life" as you provided no reference(s) to any such "scientific proof" so I'll disregard it.



The principle premise of Islam, as with any idolatrous institution, is to imitate/emulate Muhammad's pattern of conduct 'sunnah'. As such, any behavior he engaged in is considered "right" and adopted/accepted (to be taken as example) by adherents.

Muhammad's behavior was of infidel nature: fidelity is a relationship between one man and one woman, in accordance with the general dispersion of males/females on the planet. Further, according to the first book of Moses (whom Muslims hypocritically claim was a prophet of 'Allah'), Elohim (not 'Allah') created the heavens and the earth. Elohim is a composite singular word which is a combination of 'el' (masc. god) and 'elah' (fem. goddess) to produce 'Elohim'. It is as such Adam is created male and female even before Eve is derived from Adam. As such, man/woman is naturally situated to be in a 1:1 relationship with one another, which is preserving fidelity and related to the commandment 'honor thy mother and father'.

Muhammad not only profusely violated this, his (man-made) doctrine violently upset the balance between man and woman such that he took to himself 11 wives and instructed his followers to take up to 4 wives (so-called "concubines" discluded, which are essentially slaves intended to serve as sources of sexual gratification and/or general servitude).

So when I say "behavioral infidelity", by virtue of the fact that Muhammad's behavior was of 'infidel' nature, followers of his doctrines likewise adopt this behavior. This, in conjunction with the fact that the Qur'an is man-made, leaves me to care little to nothing about "rules of polygamous marriage in Islam". By the way, Muhammad actually did engage in nightly orgies. He used the acquisition of women as a primary incentive for jihadists to take up the "cause of Allah" (which is actually Muhammad's own cause) and plunder surrounding tribes/states/nations - a practice which continues today.

A debate with 15 points being argued at the same time will lead nowhere. I'll only respond to the first section for now:

You very conveniently ignored the main point of my argument: "A closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points"

Contrary to those Judo/Christian texts that you claim were lying around in Arabia in those times that were subsequently allegedly copied by Muhammad, the Quran makes claims that are radically different from those texts.

For example: The Quran agrees that Jesus existed however, it denies the fundamental basis of Christianity namely the trinity. You are basically claiming: since the Quran also mentions the Jesus, then the Quran copied some Christian text. Two accounts of the same person/story does not mean one account was copied from the other. You simply fail to understand this obvious fact.

 

[Augustus]

Again, I don't need to prove this - it is already proven.

It really hasn't been 'proven' by any stretch of the imagination. It is a theory that has been proposed and is hotly contested, even among revisionists let alone other schools of thought.

That's a new one - never heard it before. Not even Islamic orthodoxy denies that Muhammad married A'isha at six and consummated (intercourse) the marriage when she was nine.

It also says he split the moon in half, do you consider that factually accurate?

 

[9-18-1]

A debate with 15 points being argued at the same time will lead nowhere. I'll only respond to the first section for now:

Only one need be examined/understood: if even there is a single imperfection, a single alteration, a single edit etc. is enough to undermine the principle claim made by the House of Islam that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. If someone does not like one, there are fourteen others to indulge.

You very conveniently ignored the main point of my argument: "A closer look at these texts shows that the Quran is radically different in key points"

This is not a point/argument against my position. One should expect to find them altered - that is part of the point. You are not arguing against my position, but rather for it (which I obviously welcome).

For example, Muhammad's Night Journey (Surah XVII, Al-Asra) is not a new story. Aside from the fact that Islamic orthodoxy still entertains different interpretations of this (Muhammad literally flew on a winged hose; Muhammad's body remained but traveled in spirit; Muhammad had a dream etc.) there exists not one, but many traditions which utilize the same 'Night Journey' narrative: the principle of which is derived from a Zoroastrian source. It is derived from the ascension of Arta Viraf which is contained in a Pahlavi book called 'The Book of Arta Viraf' which was composed in the days of Ardashir Babagan who was the King of Persia approx. 400 years prior to the Muhammadan account.

The ascension of Arta Viraf was constructed in response to Zoroastrianism losing its hold on people. It is related that when a young Arta Viraf was in a trance, his spirit ascended into the heavens under the guidance of an angel named Sarosh (the Muhammadan account uses the angel Jabriel) wherein Arta (Muhammad) passes from one heaven to the next. Many of the details contained in the original remain, while some are modified.

In the Arta Viraf Namak we read: "And I take the first step unto the Storey of the Stars, in Humat... And I see the souls of those holy ones, from whom light spreads out like a bright star. And there is a throne and a seat, very brightly and lofty and exhalted. Then I inquired of the holy Sarosh and the angel Adhar, 'What is this place, and who are these persons?'.

Muhammad, having derived the fundamental structure/framework of his own ascension from this work must necessarily change details in order to i. not be accused of copying older stories (which he was rightly accused of) and ii. stay consistent and in accordance to the Judeo-Christian teachings.

As such, whatever point you are trying to make regarding "radically different" is not an argument for you, but rather for me.

Contrary to those Judo/Christian texts that you claim were lying around in Arabia in those times that were subsequently allegedly copied by Muhammad, the Quran makes claims that are radically different from those texts.

It must necessarily be so: the point being Muhammad was constantly being accused of taking from older traditions. As such it is essential to modify them to a point they may be seen as wholly independent from the original sources. Had Muhammad copied things directly (in some cases he actually did) it would have been obvious even to the people of his day that he was indeed copying it from elsewhere.

For example: The Quran agrees that Jesus existed however, it denies the fundamental basis of Christianity namely the trinity.

That's because Muhammad was never exposed to the canonical (accepted) accounts and teachings of Trinitarian Christianity. Almost all interactions he had with Christian teachings were of apocryphal nature: indeed consistent with the Qur'an utilizing Christian strophic hymns from apocrypha.

The Trinity (to put it in modern terms) is very simple: Head/Heart/Sex / Father/Son/Spirit / Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva etc. How one thinks is how one feels, and how one feels guides their motor-instinctual behavior. These three centers, while independent, require an integrated cooperation: hence 3-in-1. This is also the fundamental framework of even non-living phenomena: Proton/Neutron/Electron ((+)/(n)/(-)), cyclical Generation/Operation/Dissolution etc.

Muhammad denied the trinity not for any other reason/cause than he did not understand the non-heretical (canonical) teachings as he was never exposed to them. He took most all of his information from assorted oral "teachers" and apocryphal works.

You are basically claiming: since the Quran also mentions the Jesus, then the Quran copied some Christian text. Two accounts of the same person/story does not mean one account was copied from the other. You simply fail to understand this obvious fact.

No - that two or more accounts exist of the same person/story only means that they share the same "bed" and/or "source" (foundation). In 7th century Arabia there were accepted (canonical) Christian writings such as the gospels, and there were numerous apocrypha which were not accepted by the Church. Muhammad derived much of his "understanding" of Christianity not from the former, but rather the latter.

 

[9-18-1]

It really hasn't been 'proven' by any stretch of the imagination. It is a theory that has been proposed and is hotly contested, even among revisionists let alone other schools of thought.

A theory is the highest standard in all science, necessarily because it rests on a bed of evidence. The evidence itself indicates that the Qur'an is, in at least 1/3 part, derived from Christian strophic hymns. There are many people that don't "like" that, but that does not change the fact it is true - if nothing else far superior (and far more supported by actual analysis) to the suggestion that Muhammad received revelations from god via an angel Jabriel. To argue for the former in face of the latter places one in a similar (and ultimately dishonest) ground (bed) of ignorance that Muslims suffer regarding the Qur'an and Islam.

I once again appeal to the following reduction: regarding the so-called "divinity" of the Qur'an - either it is, or it is not. That it is, is propounded by Muslims based on a wholly "belief"-based assertion. That it is not has a great deal of analysis to support it far removed from mere "belief".

By attempting to dismiss/undermine the latter leaves the former as the only alternative consistent with the reduction: it is, or it is not.

This relates to another point I hold regarding how/why Islam is actually backwards:

AUTHORITY as TRUTH is what derives belief-based systems (such as religion). "it is"
TRUTH as AUTHORITY is what derives evolving systems (such as secularism). "it is not"

It also says he split the moon in half, do you consider that factually accurate?

Of course not: the moon has two phases - waxing and waning. It may be the case that Muhammad learned this science and relayed it to his followers such that the notion of "splitting the moon in two" is something attributed to Muhammad by way of his explaining the two phases to his followers. As all things erode over time, this notion may have begun to take on a "literal" interpretation by otherwise ignorant people which would explain why we have Muslims believing Muhammad physically split the physical moon in two parts. It need not be stated that such a "belief" is preposterous and can not / should not be entertained with any serious consideration.

 

[Augustus]

A theory is the highest standard in all science, necessarily because it rests on a bed of evidence.

Were this a scientific theory that might be relevant. Alas, 'tis not.

The evidence itself indicates that the Qur'an is, in at least 1/3 part, derived from Christian strophic hymns. There are many people that don't "like" that, but that does not change the fact it is true - if nothing else far superior (and far more supported by actual analysis) to the suggestion that Muhammad received revelations from god via an angel Jabriel. To argue the latter in the face of the former places one in a similar (and ultimately dishonest) ground (bed) of ignorance.

Why do you keep coming back to such an obviously fallacious false dichotomy? "Either one particular highly disputed theory (out of many competing ones) is correct, or it came from an angel."

Such overconfidence in a field like this tends to be the result of a lack of knowledge, rather than an abundance of it (or an agenda driven approach to the issue).

You can't just state 'it's been proven' and assume everyone should just take your word for it.

Of course not: the moon has two phases - waxing and waning. It may be the case that Muhammad learned this science and relayed it to his followers such that the notion of "splitting the moon in two" is something attributed to Muhammad by way of his explaining the two phases to his followers. As all things erode over time, this notion may have begun to take on a "literal" interpretation by otherwise ignorant people which would explain why we have Muslims believing Muhammad physically split the physical moon in two parts. It need not be stated that such a "belief" is preposterous and can not / should not be entertained with any serious consideration.

Or it is derivative of attempting to explain Q54:1-2, but that's beside the point.

Aisha's age is only known from the Muslim tradition, the same source that talks about the moon being split. The latter is actually far better attested to in the tradition as it is mutawatir.

Why assume the weaker tradition is accurate and the stronger one inaccurate though? Shouldn't you be sceptical about both? In contrast to today's norms, it's quite possible that Islamic theologians/historians made her younger than she actually was to ensure her purity, given other aspects of Islamic history and sectarian politics. We simply don't know with any degree of certainty though.

Many details of the Sira took a long time to become canonised:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

 

[9-18-1]

Were this a scientific theory that might be relevant. Alas, 'tis not.

That is precisely what the notion that the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns is: 'tis a theory which rests on a bed of evidence. Whether or not one fails to (mis)treat the evidence and essentially render it null (likely owing to a personal bias) has no bearing on the quality of the evidence itself. Which is why...

Why do you keep coming back to such an obviously fallacious false dichotomy? "Either one particular highly disputed theory (out of many competing ones) is correct, or it came from an angel."

framing the problem in "either it is (the perfect word of god) or it is not" is necessary. Whereas the former has only a psychologically/emotionally/instinctually belief-based foundation, the latter is actually supported by a bed of evidence. It is not "an obviously fallacious false dichotomy"; if anything is to be true, the notion (assertion without evidence) in favor of the so-called divinity of the Qur'an suits your charge much better.

Such overconfidence in a field like this tends to be the result of a lack of knowledge, rather than an abundance of it (or an agenda driven approach to the issue).

You can't just state 'it's been proven' and assume everyone should just take your word for it.

I can, have, and will continue to state it. That approx. 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns is "proven", and any such lack of confidence in this result (often) results from a lack of knowledge/understanding of the work(s) defending this position. As indicated, the works actually prove the position to a degree far exceeding the alternative of importance as held by the House of Islam: that the Qur'an is divine and delivered by an angel.

It actually doesn't matter what proof/evidence and subsequent "alternative" one brings in the place of the position offered by the House of Islam: the only thing that matters is being able to advance a "theory" (supported by a bed of evidence) that rather than the claim Islam makes as being true, there are at least one (many) other explanations that actually have substantive support which contest it.

Once again, the initial claim(s) are being made by Islam. One need not even "prove" anything to contest this, but merely produce an alternative(s) which negates the claim Islam is making without any foundation whatsoever. This is what makes Islam a "belief"-based institution. I don't care about what Muslims "believe", I care about what is (or is not) true, and it is obviously true that the Qur'an is man-made by virtue of the fact that at least 1/3 of it is derived from Christian strophic hymns. Whether or not people "like" that has nothing to do with whether or not its true.

Or it is derivative of attempting to explain Q54:1-2, but that's beside the point.

Aisha's age is only known from the Muslim tradition, the same source that talks about the moon being split. The latter is actually far better attested to in the tradition as it is mutawatir.

Why assume the weaker tradition is accurate and the stronger one inaccurate though? Shouldn't you be sceptical about both? In contrast to today's norms, it's quite possible that Islamic theologians/historians made her younger than she actually was to ensure her purity, given other aspects of Islamic history and sectarian politics. We simply don't know with any degree of certainty though.

I hardly know what you are driving at here: I don't care about "tradition". That there are Muslims (and Islamic sources) that believe/understand Muhammad to have penetrated a child wife is not my claim or interpretation - it is their own. By virtue of this, because Islam is essentially based in using the idol of Muhammad to ascertain what is and/or is not "okay", any/all that accept such tradition as true use it to justify things like pedophilia. That's what I care about because pedophilia is a product of sexual degeneracy (whether or not Muhammad was a pedophile or not) and exploitation of young vulnerable people results merely to satiate the sexual lust of another. If one examines the life of Muhammad, this general sexual degeneracy is prevalent in his own character even if the whole situation of A'isha is not taken into consideration.

Of course this escapes the purview of the typical "believing" Muslim because he/she has constructed an idol-based impression of Muhammad that actually has nothing to do with the historical Muhammad. This relates all back into the taking of (false) testimony in the shahada and why god/Moses (whom Muslims claim is a prophet of god which for the sake of argument I will accept) incorporated the bearing of false testimony as something one must not do 'thou shalt not'. This in part is another reason why I reduce Islam back into the taking of that fundamental testimony: the shahada. Once again, if it is false (which by virtue of the fact that the Qur'an is at least partially man-made and/or contains much copied traditions, it is) then there is not a single Muslim who has ever lived, is living now, or will ever live that is essentially in contention with the 'god' which issued the ten commandments rendering Muhammad a false prophet and Islam a wholly man-made religion.

Qur'an (divinity of) is either true or untrue (which leads to)
Shahada is either true or untrue (which leads to)
Islam is either true (of god) or untrue (of man).

Whereas Islam/Muslims adopt all former as correct, I adopt all latter as correct. Reducing all "problems" in the framework of true or untrue is precisely the symbol given on the second day of creation relating to dividing superior waters from inferior waters. Of course this is only apparent with an approach to the Torah (books of Moses) that is not (mis)guided by false institutions such as Christianity/Islam which don't even respect the original Hebrew language of the Torah. As much as I wished it weren't so, I knew I had to study the Hebrew language and read the books of Moses in its original language in order to assess if/how the institutions of Christianity/Islam are in accordance with, or in contention with. To exceeding degree, the latter is true and can be captured by the fact that both testimonies made by Christians/Muslims upon joining their respective institutions are actually violating one of the ten commandments in order to join them. Had they understood the depth/meaning of the ten commandments as originally issued, they would not have (fallen victim to) joining a false institution. This is the difference between placing truth as authority rather than authority as truth. Truth is sovereign in its own right.

Many details of the Sira took a long time to become canonised:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

I'm not sure what point you are making here: this is just yet more indication to me that Islam is essentially rooted in much nonsense. I'm sorry if that "offends" people but taking offense is a form of idol worship (of ones own identity/ego) and is thus an immutable telltale sign of an idol worshiper.

This is what renders Muslims essentially idol worshipers: by virtue of the fact that they take "offense" to criticisms of Muhammad is precisely indicative and revelatory of their worship of Muhammad. This attachment can come in one of three ways:
1. Psychological (image) - treated as "heaven" that is above
2. Emotional (likeness) - treated as "earth" beneath the heaven
3. Instinctual (carved) - treated as "water" beneath the earth

And here is:

Exodus 20:4
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth."

heaven above = psychological
earth beneath = emotional
water under the earth = instinctual

Muslims can't understand this because they, like Muhammad, denied the Trinity (relationship between head/heart/sex) despite even Moses invoking it in the ten commandments in his own language.

Muhammad is thus an idol (carved image) whose image/likeness is utilized by Muslims that serve themselves "for yourself". Islam directly and necessarily relies on the image/likeness of Muhammad in order to function.

Now given this, observe the Aasia Bibi conflict wherein her rather benign criticisms of Muhammad have enraged the Muslim world such that they are calling for the spilling of her blood. This is Canaanite / animal nature as a product of violating at least one of the commandments.

Generally Muhammad/Islam, when looked at carefully, actually violate all ten commandments ad absurdum. One could write an entire book outlining this line of argument, but for the time being it need only be understood that every Muslim carries with them a false testimony which is precisely how/why they are not following the "same god" as Moses: contrary to what they themselves claim.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

Only one need be examined/understood: if even there is a single imperfection, a single alteration, a single edit etc. is enough to undermine the principle claim made by the House of Islam that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. If someone does not like one, there are fourteen others to indulge.



This is not a point/argument against my position. One should expect to find them altered - that is part of the point. You are not arguing against my position, but rather for it (which I obviously welcome).

For example, Muhammad's Night Journey (Surah XVII, Al-Asra) is not a new story. Aside from the fact that Islamic orthodoxy still entertains different interpretations of this (Muhammad literally flew on a winged hose; Muhammad's body remained but traveled in spirit; Muhammad had a dream etc.) there exists not one, but many traditions which utilize the same 'Night Journey' narrative: the principle of which is derived from a Zoroastrian source. It is derived from the ascension of Arta Viraf which is contained in a Pahlavi book called 'The Book of Arta Viraf' which was composed in the days of Ardashir Babagan who was the King of Persia approx. 400 years prior to the Muhammadan account.

The ascension of Arta Viraf was constructed in response to Zoroastrianism losing its hold on people. It is related that when a young Arta Viraf was in a trance, his spirit ascended into the heavens under the guidance of an angel named Sarosh (the Muhammadan account uses the angel Jabriel) wherein Arta (Muhammad) passes from one heaven to the next. Many of the details contained in the original remain, while some are modified.

In the Arta Viraf Namak we read: "And I take the first step unto the Storey of the Stars, in Humat... And I see the souls of those holy ones, from whom light spreads out like a bright star. And there is a throne and a seat, very brightly and lofty and exhalted. Then I inquired of the holy Sarosh and the angel Adhar, 'What is this place, and who are these persons?'.

Muhammad, having derived the fundamental structure/framework of his own ascension from this work must necessarily change details in order to i. not be accused of copying older stories (which he was rightly accused of) and ii. stay consistent and in accordance to the Judeo-Christian teachings.

As such, whatever point you are trying to make regarding "radically different" is not an argument for you, but rather for me.



It must necessarily be so: the point being Muhammad was constantly being accused of taking from older traditions. As such it is essential to modify them to a point they may be seen as wholly independent from the original sources. Had Muhammad copied things directly (in some cases he actually did) it would have been obvious even to the people of his day that he was indeed copying it from elsewhere.



That's because Muhammad was never exposed to the canonical (accepted) accounts and teachings of Trinitarian Christianity. Almost all interactions he had with Christian teachings were of apocryphal nature: indeed consistent with the Qur'an utilizing Christian strophic hymns from apocrypha.

The Trinity (to put it in modern terms) is very simple: Head/Heart/Sex / Father/Son/Spirit / Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva etc. How one thinks is how one feels, and how one feels guides their motor-instinctual behavior. These three centers, while independent, require an integrated cooperation: hence 3-in-1. This is also the fundamental framework of even non-living phenomena: Proton/Neutron/Electron ((+)/(n)/(-)), cyclical Generation/Operation/Dissolution etc.

Muhammad denied the trinity not for any other reason/cause than he did not understand the non-heretical (canonical) teachings as he was never exposed to them. He took most all of his information from assorted oral "teachers" and apocryphal works.



No - that two or more accounts exist of the same person/story only means that they share the same "bed" and/or "source" (foundation). In 7th century Arabia there were accepted (canonical) Christian writings such as the gospels, and there were numerous apocrypha which were not accepted by the Church. Muhammad derived much of his "understanding" of Christianity not from the former, but rather the latter.

You keep repeating the same argument again and again: You claim that since the Quran describes an event that has also been described elsewhere, thus the Quran was copied from sources that also mention those events. This is not an argument. It is merely a claim.

You claim Muhammad took from apocryphal works. Prove it! Show us those works.

You claim he was not exposed to canonical teachings: prove it!

You claim he changed the text of the judo/Christian works that he had read. Prove it.

You claim he took from a Zoroastrian work written 400 years prior to Islam while in reality it is not known when the book was authored and according to Encyclopedia Iranica the book that we currently posses was probably authored around 400 years after the advent of Islam: "The Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag, like many of the Zoroastrian works, underwent successive redactions. It assumed its definitive form in the 9th-10th centuries A.D."

 

[Augustus]

That is precisely what the notion that the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns is: 'tis a theory which rests on a bed of evidence. Whether or not one fails to (mis)treat the evidence and essentially render it null (likely owing to a personal bias) has no bearing on the quality of the evidence itself.

A 'bed of evidence' so overwhelming that it remains a fringe theory, presumably because everyone else holds a deep personal bias that causes them to deny that which has clearly been objectively 'proved'.

framing the problem in "either it is (the perfect word of god) or it is not" is necessary. Whereas the former has only a psychologically/emotionally/instinctually belief-based foundation, the latter is actually supported by a bed of evidence. It is not "an obviously fallacious false dichotomy"; if anything is to be true, the notion (assertion without evidence) in favor of the so-called divinity of the Qur'an suits your charge much better.

Framing it as either 'my particular theory is right' or it's from an angel is the false dichotomy you were using.

I can, have, and will continue to state it. That approx. 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns is "proven", and any such lack of confidence in this result (often) results from a lack of knowledge/understanding of the work(s) defending this position. As indicated, the works actually prove the position to a degree far exceeding the alternative of importance as held by the House of Islam: that the Qur'an is divine and delivered by an angel.

You could state the moon is made of green cheese, yet unless you provided any evidence to back up your assertion it's not worth a great deal.

Other than saying 'Gunter Luling said it which means it's been proved', what is your evidence?

Over 270 000 000 people have been killed as a result of Islamic jihad. That's simply the truth (fact) of the matter and need not become polarized.

Your definition of 'proved' and 'fact' don't seem to match the conventional usage of the terms.

That would mean 'jihad' is responsible for around 1/3 of all deaths from warfare in human history. That's nonsense.

 

[9-18-1]

You keep repeating the same argument again and again: You claim that since the Quran describes an event that has also been described elsewhere, thus the Quran was copied from sources that also mention those events. This is not an argument. It is merely a claim.

None of my "claims" are important: what is important is the claim being made by Islam that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god.

This is either true or untrue. Are you willing to argue it is true? If so: support that claim. If not, you are on my side by default. It can't be neither. It can't be both.

I argue it is not, and it is not my "job" to prove what the Qur'an definitely is. That's not my responsibility. It's the responsibility of Muslims to "prove" their own claim first.

I can point to areas of inquiry that (I argue definitively) deny the claim being made by Islam if only given enough attention. That the Qur'an is approx. 1/3 comprised of Christian strophic hymns is part of the reason (because it actually is true), and I don't personally care who does or does not "agree" with this. If they had read the texts thoroughly and understood them, there too would be no room left for doubt.

Please stop trying to place the burden to prove anything on me as if I'm the one needing to prove something: the burden to "prove" anything first rests with Islam which, so far, it has involved spilling the blood of approx. 270 000 000 people. I propose the reason is Muslims believe something that is not true: the Qur'an is most definitely NOT the perfect word of god.

What is next, are you going to ask me to prove that the Qur'an is NOT the perfect word of god? If so, your thinking is backwards precisely in the same way as the Muhammadan's is and we would be moving into an entirely different topic which involves the fundamental illness of Islam: projection. It is another topic I could (and will if needed) use to argue against the divinity of the Qur'an.

You claim Muhammad took from apocryphal works. Prove it! Show us those works.

Go read authors that have already discussed it. It's not my job to prove anything: I can point in a direction which supports a "theory" vastly superior to the notion that Muhammad received revelations from an angel.

You claim he was not exposed to canonical teachings: prove it!

(Try to) prove the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, inerrant, unaltered word of god.

You claim he changed the text of the judo/Christian works that he had read. Prove it.

You seem not to understand that I need not even make a claim: Islam is the one making the claim. Do not project the burden of proof outward: the burden of proof will always first be with Islam to "prove" their own claim. To deny their claim does not require me to "prove" anything to a certainty. It is the job of Islam to prove theirs to a certainty.

You claim he took from a Zoroastrian work written 400 years prior to Islam while in reality it is not known when the book was authored and according to Encyclopedia Iranica the book that we currently posses was probably authored around 400 years after the advent of Islam: "The Ardā Wīrāz-nāmag, like many of the Zoroastrian works, underwent successive redactions. It assumed its definitive form in the 9th-10th centuries A.D."

All books undergo successive redaction. The Qur'an itself went through successive modifications and redactions. These redactions occurred through the 7th 8th and 9th century yet Muslims are still told that the Qur'an is the same as when it was first revealed. It is nowhere close to what was first "revealed" as Uthman (not Muhammad/Allah) instructed that a book be made containing the suras in written form. Much of the original Qur'an was lost and what we have is essentially Uthman's own creation/compilation.

 

[9-18-1]

A 'bed of evidence' so overwhelming that it remains a fringe theory, presumably because everyone else holds a deep personal bias that causes them to deny that which has clearly been objectively 'proved'.

I'm sorry but I don't accept/agree with you use of the rhetoric "fringe theory" neither your presumptions as to reasons. If anything you seem to be describing yourself here which is a typical example of projection.

"Framing it as either 'my particular theory is right' or it's from an angel is the false dichotomy you were using.

I don't think you understand what a "false dichotomy" actually is. I never offered anything as "my particular theory". This is more what Muslims do when they state the claim that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. That is a "particular theory" which Muslims believe is "right" yet has absolutely no foundation. I only need come and undermine that claim, not replace it with my own. While I do personally claim that obviously the Qur'an is man-made, the only other position is that it is divine.

Are you willing to argue it is divine? If so, list the reasons.

"You could state the moon is made of green cheese, yet unless you provided any evidence to back up your assertion it's not worth a great deal.

Just like how Muslims state the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god, without providing any evidence to back up that assertion, rendering it not worth a great deal?

"Other than saying 'Gunter Luling said it which means it's been proved', what is your evidence?

What is your evidence that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god?

"Your definition of 'proved' and 'fact' don't seem to match the conventional usage of the terms.

That's fine: I don't mind being unconventional. I find people are overly loose with language anyways.

"That would mean 'jihad' is responsible for around 1/3 of all deaths from warfare in human history. That's nonsense.

It's actually true: Tears of Jihad - Political Islam

That's why I state: it all boils down to Muslims believing something that is not true. That something that is not true is precisely their fundamental claim that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. On the topic of claims, they are the ones making the claim. I need not claim anything (though I do because there are some things that are just obviously true, such as the Qur'an being derived from works originally written in the language of Syro-Aramaic) but I need not "prove" them at all. If people want proof of such things, they should read the books written by people that "prove" it.[/QUOTE]

 

[Augustus]

I'm sorry but I don't accept/agree with you use of the rhetoric "fringe theory" neither your presumptions as to reasons. If anything you seem to be describing yourself here which is a typical example of projection.

How would you prefer it expressed? An academic theory which is widely considered oversimplistic and poorly reasoned?

For example:

...Günter Lüling believes that the pre-Islamic monotheists of the Qur’ān’s milieu were “central Arabian Christians.”119 He further argues that the ur-Qur’ān, marked by an anti-Trinitarian angel-Christology, was originally composed of ancient Arabian Christian strophic hymns that went through progressive stages of Islamization by later exegetes.... It is true that such theories, like all those that seek to find a hidden and meanwhile convenient “source” for Islamic origins, are either short sighted or have within them the polemical tendency to rob Islam of its creative force and reduce it to heretical—that is, illegitimate—beginnings.126 However, in recent years more nuanced studies have searched within the verses of the Qur’ān themselves to guide their search for neighboring textual or religious impulses that might shed some light on the Qur’ān’s “legal culture,” and its place between “Rabbinic Judaism and Ecclesiastical Christianity.” The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel traditions - E El-Badawi

I don't think you understand what a "false dichotomy" actually is.

This is one:

The evidence itself indicates that the Qur'an is, in at least 1/3 part, derived from Christian strophic hymns. There are many people that don't "like" that, but that does not change the fact it is true - if nothing else far superior (and far more supported by actual analysis) to the suggestion that Muhammad received revelations from god via an angel Jabriel. To argue the latter in the face of the former places one in a similar (and ultimately dishonest) ground (bed) of ignorance.

If you said ether it's divine or it's not then it wouldn't be one, but that's not what you said.

Just like how Muslims state the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god, without providing any evidence to back up that assertion, rendering it not worth a great deal?

If you believe an unsupported claim is without merit, then why make one?

If a Muslim started the thread and said 'Agree with me that it's Divine' you would expect them to make an argument in support of their position.

Seeing as you started the thread, people expect you to make a reasoned argument in support of your position. If you are unable to, then why start the thread in the first place? Might as well just say Muslims believe it's divine, but non-Muslims don't so we disagree.

What is your evidence that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god?

I'm not a Muslim.

That's fine: I don't mind being unconventional. I find people are overly loose with language anyways.

So because people are overly loose with language, you decided it would be logical to replace 'widely disputed' with 'fact' and 'suggested' with 'proved' to make a weak argument seem much stronger?

It's actually true: Tears of Jihad - Political Islam

It's not true. There is a big difference between credulous, agneda driven history and critical history.

2 major problems:

1. Saying that the slave trade = 'jihad' is vapid. Slavery existed long before Islam, at some point, those running some parts of the slave trade became Muslims and all of a sudden it magically turns into 'jihad'. It's like saying when the Romans became Christians that the slave trade magically turned into a holy war. Pagans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, animists and whatever else all contributed to slavery.

2. The other numbers are impossibly large, as are all numbers in ancient sources. The easiest way to see this is numbers of soldiers that were claimed to be involved in major battles which are often 10 or more times more than could have been involved. Herodotus claimed the Persians invaded Greece with over 2 million troops and double that including non-fighting support. Some Islamic sources claim they defeated 400,000 soldiers at Yarmouk, when it was probably 10% of that at most.

Yet we are supposed to believe that they magically became far more accurate when reporting numbers which are far harder to establish like numbers of death over 400 years in a very large area of land like India.

There was no way to accurately know things like deaths, so people just made up numbers out of thin air, usually exaggerated for propaganda purposes (by either side). This is true of all pre-modern sources no matter which empire or religion they relate to.

Cherry-picking the highest numbers claimed in historical sources does not make them representative of what actually happened in reality.

I need not claim anything (though I do because there are some things that are just obviously true, such as the Qur'an being derived from works originally written in the language of Syro-Aramaic) but I need not "prove" them at all. If people want proof of such things, they should read the books written by people that "prove" it.

I have. They didn't 'prove' what you are claiming they did.

If you are familiar with the material it isn't hard to provide some of it and doesn't take much time. You claim familiarity with a wide range of sources, yet never refer to any of them which seems strange to me given you are willing to put in the effort to write long posts. It's usually quicker to copy/paste some quotes than writing out your own thoughts.

So far your argument is: 'I'm right, but if you want to see why I'm right then you can invest several hundred hours of your time reading a wide range of sources that deal with the issue from multiple perspectives and then reach your own conclusions'

And if anyone had invested the time in reading a wide range of sources that deal with the issue from multiple perspectives then they would realise you were wrong, and it has been far from proved, and your theory is one of the more naive ones as noted in the source I quoted above.

 

[9-18-1]

How would you prefer it expressed? An academic theory which is widely considered oversimplistic and poorly reasoned?

For example:

...Günter Lüling believes that the pre-Islamic monotheists of the Qur’ān’s milieu were “central Arabian Christians.”119 He further argues that the ur-Qur’ān, marked by an anti-Trinitarian angel-Christology, was originally composed of ancient Arabian Christian strophic hymns that went through progressive stages of Islamization by later exegetes.... It is true that such theories, like all those that seek to find a hidden and meanwhile convenient “source” for Islamic origins, are either short sighted or have within them the polemical tendency to rob Islam of its creative force and reduce it to heretical—that is, illegitimate—beginnings.126 However, in recent years more nuanced studies have searched within the verses of the Qur’ān themselves to guide their search for neighboring textual or religious impulses that might shed some light on the Qur’ān’s “legal culture,” and its place between “Rabbinic Judaism and Ecclesiastical Christianity.” The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel traditions - E El-Badawi

This quote is saying nothing - it sounds more like an opinion piece than anything.

This is one:

The evidence itself indicates that the Qur'an is, in at least 1/3 part, derived from Christian strophic hymns. There are many people that don't "like" that, but that does not change the fact it is true - if nothing else far superior (and far more supported by actual analysis) to the suggestion that Muhammad received revelations from god via an angel Jabriel. To argue the latter in the face of the former places one in a similar (and ultimately dishonest) ground (bed) of ignorance.

If you said ether it's divine or it's not then it wouldn't be one, but that's not what you said.

I did state there is only two possibilities: either it is, or it is not. That is how one can succinctly frame the problem: yay/nay. And that it is not...

If you believe an unsupported claim is without merit, then why make one?

...is a supported claim with merit which far surpasses the notion it is.

If a Muslim started the thread and said 'Agree with me that it's Divine' you would expect them to make an argument in support of their position.

Correct.

Seeing as you started the thread, people expect you to make a reasoned argument in support of your position. If you are unable to, then why start the thread in the first place? Might as well just say Muslims believe it's divine, but non-Muslims don't so we disagree.

No see I'm not the one with the opening position. The House of Islam holds (without any evidence) that the Qur'an is the perfect word of god. This is the default (active) claim. I don't have to come along and prove it is not - non-Muslims already take this as default. All I need to do is cast doubt that it is - and this doesn't require me to "prove" to a certainty what the Qur'an *is*. However, I do take liberty to state that it is true at least 1/3 of the Qur'an is derived from Christian strophic hymns and Christian apocrypha.

I'm not a Muslim.

You have a lot in common with them.

So because people are overly loose with language, you decided it would be logical to replace 'widely disputed' with 'fact' and 'suggested' with 'proved' to make a weak argument seem much stronger?

That something is 'widely disputed' does not make something not a fact. Children can dispute the notion of Santa Clause because they are emotionally/psychologically attached to what they want to be true instead of what is true. I don't care about what one wants to be true. I care about what is true. If the Qur'an were something other than forged from Christian strophic hymns, I would be indicating/arguing in favor of that. The reason I state it is forged from Christian strophic hymns is because it is true given the evidence. If others are unable to discern this for themselves that does not change the fact it is true.

It's not true. There is a big difference between credulous, agneda driven history and critical history.

I don't take the citation as "credulous, agneda (sic) driven history" - the work was performed by a statistician and is confirmed by other authors. That 270 000 000 are dead as a result of Islamic jihad is about as close to reality as one can get.

2 major problems:

1. Saying that the slave trade = 'jihad' is vapid. Slavery existed long before Islam, at some point, those running some parts of the slave trade became Muslims and all of a sudden it magically turns into 'jihad'. It's like saying when the Romans became Christians that the slave trade magically turned into a holy war. Pagans, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, animists and whatever else all contributed to slavery.

This is not even a point. Of course slavery existed before Islam but that does not alter the fact that one of the core components of Islamic jihad is incentive for men to fight based on the notion they are entitled to war booty including captive women. Women were (are) the main currency when it comes to Islamic jihad.

2. The other numbers are impossibly large, as are all numbers in ancient sources. The easiest way to see this is numbers of soldiers that were claimed to be involved in major battles which are often 10 or more times more than could have been involved. Herodotus claimed the Persians invaded Greece with over 2 million troops and double that including non-fighting support. Some Islamic sources claim they defeated 400,000 soldiers at Yarmouk, when it was probably 10% of that at most.

This is another non-point. I personally wouldn't care if it were 270 000 people. It is still 270 000 people dead based on one forged book, one false testimony and the imitation/emulation of a psychologically ill and sexually degenerated man.

Yet we are supposed to believe that they magically became far more accurate when reporting numbers which are far harder to establish like numbers of death over 400 years in a very large area of land like India.

There was no way to accurately know things like deaths, so people just made up numbers out of thin air, usually exaggerated for propaganda purposes (by either side). This is true of all pre-modern sources no matter which empire or religion they relate to.

Cherry-picking the highest numbers claimed in historical sources does not make them representative of what actually happened in reality.

It seems you can't see the forest for the trees.

I have. They didn't 'prove' what you are claiming they did.

To you they may not have - which is fine, to each their own. Again, I need not "prove" anything to anyone.

If you are familiar with the material it isn't hard to provide some of it and doesn't take much time. You claim familiarity with a wide range of sources, yet never refer to any of them which seems strange to me given you are willing to put in the effort to write long posts. It's usually quicker to copy/paste some quotes than writing out your own thoughts.

So far your argument is: 'I'm right, but if you want to see why I'm right then you can invest several hundred hours of your time reading a wide range of sources that deal with the issue from multiple perspectives and then reach your own conclusions'

This is not about me being right. I have absolutely no interest in being "right" about anything. I care about what is right. I'm not here to be right about anything - but that the Qur'an is a man-made book is (obviously) right and I can point to works which indicate as much.

And if anyone had invested the time in reading a wide range of sources that deal with the issue from multiple perspectives then they would realise you were wrong, and it has been far from proved, and your theory is one of the more naive ones as noted in the source I quoted above.

This comment is as empty as the source you quoted - if anyone had done as you suggested they too would realize that that the Qur'an is derived at least in part from Christian strophic hymns is right. The theory is not mine, it is by others, but they happen to be right.

Now I'm not sure what you intend with all of this: fundamentally this problem always collapses down into "it is" or "it is not". You are arguing against arguments which indicate "it is not" and taking issue to suggestions as to what it is / could be. I'm actually not interested in what it *actually* is outside of the problem of "it is divine" or "it is not divine". However that it is in part forged from Christian strophic hymns is obvious to me; especially when considered in conjunction with the fact that much is derived from Christian apocrypha as Tisdall points out: borrowing from numerous apocryphal works. If one can not put two and two together, that one has bigger issues to deal with than arguing in favor of "divine" books.

 

[Augustus]

This quote is saying nothing - it sounds more like an opinion piece than anything.

It says that the 'facts' that you think have been 'proved' are not considered 'facts' or 'proved' within the field.

You'd be vastly better informed if you read the 'sources and method' section of that text, it is easily the best overview of the state of the field written recently. It would be the easiest way to find out why you are wrong

If you would prefer specific rather than general refutations, then you would have to actually present your own evidence, but you don't seem to have any.

You have a lot in common with them.

Such as?

No see I'm not the one with the opening position. The House of Islam holds (without any evidence) that the Qur'an is the perfect word of god. This is the default (active) claim. I don't have to come along and prove it is not - non-Muslims already take this as default.

In a debate thread which you started you are.

The reason I state it is forged from Christian strophic hymns is because it is true given the evidence. If others are unable to discern this for themselves that does not change the fact it is true.

As I said, sometimes we are overconfident simply because we don't know enough to understand why we could be wrong.

This is not about me being right. I have absolutely no interest in being "right" about anything. I care about what is right.

Then I suggest reading more on the topic so you can find out for yourself why your view is considered to be naive and oversimplistic with all the supporting evidence you need to see why this is the case.

You mostly rely on very old sources and the field has advanced significantly since they were written.

This is not even a point. Of course slavery existed before Islam but that does not alter the fact that one of the core components of Islamic jihad is incentive for men to fight based on the notion they are entitled to war booty including captive women. Women were (are) the main currency when it comes to Islamic jihad.

No more than they were before hand.

This is another non-point. I personally wouldn't care if it were 270 000 people. It is still 270 000 people dead based on one forged book, one false testimony and the imitation/emulation of a psychologically ill and sexually degenerated man.

If it were 270,000 in 1400 years that would be remarkably peaceful compared to the alternatives.

A smarter question is 'have Islamic societies been unusually violent over the course of history'? But nuance seems not to be your thing.

For example, the Mongols had a warlike and violent society, after conquering 'Islamic territory' some of them converted to Islam from Tengriism. Did that suddenly make Islam the reason they were warlike and violent (at times)?

The Seljuks had a violent and warlike society, after conquering 'Islamic' territory they converted from Judaism or Christianity to Islam. Did that suddenly make Islam the reason they were warlike and violent (at times)?

This comment is as empty as the source you quoted - if anyone had done as you suggested they too would realize that that the Qur'an is derived at least in part from Christian strophic hymns is right. The theory is not mine, it is by others, but they happen to be right.

You only think this has been proved because you lack sufficient knowledge of the full range of scholarship to understand why it certainly hasn't been 'proved'. Nobody can pinpoint a single source that could be claimed as the precursor text to the Quran, although they can find traces of numerous traditions reflected in the Quran.

What you can say is that the Quran reflects the milieu of the Late Antique Middle East and derives aspects of its religious content from a wide range of Biblical and para-Biblical traditions.

You don't seem to understand Islamic tradition to now that this is unproblematic from within their theology as it is acknowledged that the message of the Quran had been previously revealed before being 'corrupted'. What similarities exist are the remnant of this pre-existing message.

All your argument does is use an unsupported and false claim to preach to a non-Islamic choir that doesn't think it is divine anyway while assuming they don't know enough about the issue to identify your errors. It also raises a challenge to Muslims who don't see this issue as being problematic as it has been dealt with for centuries.

So what is your purpose? Convincing those that already agree with you, or raising non-existent challenges to Muslims?

 

[9-18-1]

It says that the 'facts' that you think have been 'proved' are not considered 'facts' or 'proved' within the field.

I don't actually care what is considered "within the field" - I care about what is true and untrue. The first article of Luling's preface is titled 'Keeping alive liberal Dogma-Criticism despite Suppression'. Now why would he open with this?

Obviously there was, is, and ever will be an all-out assault on such academic endeavors pertaining to a critical analysis of the Qur'an. It is precisely why I don't care about what is "considered 'facts' or 'proven'" within the field: within the field would be the last place I would look for a definitive answer as there will always be dogma-based resistance that, rather than altruistically pursuing what is true, attempting to suppress it.

I'm sorry you yield so much of your consideration(s) to such "fields".

You'd be vastly better informed if you read the 'sources and method' section of that text, it is easily the best overview of the state of the field written recently. It would be the easiest way to find out why you are wrong

Reading it I actually found it to support my position rather than undermine. Just a few examples:

...As a result of imperial sponsorship Zoroastrian and Christian practices and religious texts became especially widespread throughout the region.

...which is precisely what the Qur'an is: a mixture of such texts.

...In this region, traditions of popular Christian lore and piety flourished in the Aramaic dialects of Syria-Mesopotamia—Syriac—and that of Palestine, Transjordan, and the Sinai—Christian Palestinian Aramaic.

...which explains the Syriac found in the Qur'an.

...Theodor Nöldeke recognizes the frequent use of—among other things—Christian and Rabbinical Aramaic formulae in the Qur’ān,

...which brings us into the work of Luling.

I stopped reading after the author went on to profess how Muhammad was receiving revelations from an angel. Please do us a favor: don't post references by people that have a vested interest in defending Islam, this is precisely the problem Gunter Luling foresaw. At the least let it be from a neutral source.

However, thank you for suggesting I read the sources and methods, it not only confirmed my position but reminded me how dishonestly biased Muslim "scholars" can be given their incessant need to glorify Muhammad and his military endeavors as the author you linked to did. It added an extra bite to Luling's warning - more relevant than ever.

If you would prefer specific rather than general refutations, then you would have to actually present your own evidence, but you don't seem to have any.

The evidence is already compiled in the works I noted - I am happy to defend anything in them. I'm not interested in bringing out specific arguments with you because you're not even arguing in favor of the Qur'an being divine, which is all I'm interested in. You're going on and on trying to start an argument with someone (allegedly) on the same side as you; though given your obsession I start to wonder.

Such as?

I'll leave it to you to think about - I don't want to get into ad hominem.

In a debate thread which you started you are.

In search of people arguing in favor of the divinity of the Qur'an. If you are unwilling to argue in favor of the divinity of the Qur'an, you're really just wasting your time.

As I said, sometimes we are overconfident simply because we don't know enough to understand why we could be wrong.

Mirror.

Then I suggest reading more on the topic so you can find out for yourself why your view is considered to be naive and oversimplistic with all the supporting evidence you need to see why this is the case.

Considered by who? You? You sound like you are describing yourself here.

You mostly rely on very old sources and the field has advanced significantly since they were written.

I don't agree with this - and neither do I care if it were true. The work of Luling alone is sufficient unto itself even if advances have been made.

If it were 270,000 in 1400 years that would be remarkably peaceful compared to the alternatives.

I think you missed the point.

A smarter question is 'have Islamic societies been unusually violent over the course of history'? But nuance seems not to be your thing.

That's actually not a smart question - it's an obvious one that takes all of about 20 minutes of research to find in the affirmative. The reason simplified is: Muhammad was a warlord and the Qur'an is a war manual. It is designed to perpetually wage jihad (holy war) until the entire planet is conquered. The entire assault against the West (presently) is based in Islam (UN migration crisis, "Islamophobia" campaign, destruction of Christian churches/holidays etc). Being "nuanced" has nothing to do with it: knowing what is true and untrue has everything to do with it.

For example, the Mongols had a warlike and violent society, after conquering 'Islamic territory' some of them converted to Islam from Tengriism. Did that suddenly make Islam the reason they were warlike and violent (at times)?

The Seljuks had a violent and warlike society, after conquering 'Islamic' territory they converted from Judaism or Christianity to Islam. Did that suddenly make Islam the reason they were warlike and violent (at times)?

None of this matters - Islam as an institution regardless of all else is inherently warlike by design. It has been for 1400 years and continues to be. No other consideration need be made.

You only think this has been proved because you lack sufficient knowledge of the full range of scholarship to understand why it certainly hasn't been 'proved'. Nobody can pinpoint a single source that could be claimed as the precursor text to the Quran, although they can find traces of numerous traditions reflected in the Quran.

Tisdall did so in his work. He listed nearly a dozen apocryphal texts and compared them to the Qur'an side-by-side. I'm sorry if it is not obvious to you.

What you can say is that the Quran reflects the milieu of the Late Antique Middle East and derives aspects of its religious content from a wide range of Biblical and para-Biblical traditions.

There is actually very, very little of the Bible in the Qur'an. Of what does exist, it is heavily modified into near absurdity. If I hadn't known it came from you, I'd label that statement as insufferably apologetic and of no real substance.

You don't seem to understand Islamic tradition to now that this is unproblematic from within their theology as it is acknowledged that the message of the Quran had been previously revealed before being 'corrupted'. What similarities exist are the remnant of this pre-existing message.

The problem is the Qur'an was not 'revealed', it was composed. I don't care how someone from within the "Islamic tradition" attempts to play gymnastics and sweep problems under the rug - again, I care about what is actually true.

All your argument does is use an unsupported and false claim to preach to a non-Islamic choir that doesn't think it is divine anyway while assuming they don't know enough about the issue to identify your errors. It also raises a challenge to Muslims who don't see this issue as being problematic as it has been dealt with for centuries.

It is supported and true - there are no errors (on my end) and I really have little interest in debating someone that is not arguing in favor of the divinity of the Qur'an.

So what is your purpose? Convincing those that already agree with you, or raising non-existent challenges to Muslims?

Why would I wish to convince people that don't hold the Qur'an is divine? Good for them - they got the right answer. I'm interested in debating people that have the wrong answer. As such I give you your own question back: what is your purpose? Are you going to keep throwing a fit that I am willing to defend a position you don't personally like and/or agree with despite (allegedly) agreeing the Qur'an is man-made? What exactly is it that you yourself are doing here?

 

[Augustus]

I don't actually care what is considered "within the field" - I care about what is true and untrue. The first article of Luling's preface is titled 'Keeping alive liberal Dogma-Criticism despite Suppression'. Now why would he open with this?

Obviously there was, is, and ever will be an all-out assault on such academic endeavors pertaining to a critical analysis of the Qur'an. It is precisely why I don't care about what is "considered 'facts' or 'proven'" within the field: within the field would be the last place I would look for a definitive answer as there will always be dogma-based resistance that, rather than altruistically pursuing what is true, attempting to suppress it.

I'm sorry you yield so much of your consideration(s) to such "fields".

This proves you are are unfamiliar with the scholarship on the issue.

There is an absolute wealth of critical scholarship on this issue, much of which very much contradicts the Islamic narrative and comes from people with no incentive to partake in 'dogma based resistance'. You could spend years simply reading the revisionist literature, let alone the other areas of critical scholarship. The idea that Western non-Muslim revisionists are partaking in 'dogma based resistance' and attempting to suppress the truth is tin foil hat level ludicrous.

Critical scholarship literally starts with the axiomatic assumption that the Quran is not Divine, yet you are representing it as a branch of Islamic apologetics.

Admitting that 'the last place you would look' is among experts publishing peer-reviewed articles containing evidence and logical reasoning in support of claims which you can evaluate on their merits might be a reason you lack critical insight

There is actually very, very little of the Bible in the Qur'an. Of what does exist, it is heavily modified into near absurdity. If it hadn't known it came from you, I'd label that statement as insufferably apologetic and of no real substance.

You claimed you had read GS Reynolds previously, do you consider him 'insufferably apologetic'? Most of his scholarship is on reading parts of the Quran as homily regarding a Biblical subtext.

That's actually not a smart question - it's an obvious one that takes all of about 20 minutes of research to find in the affirmative.

You could provide evidence then of course...

How do you factor in that Christians would likely win a 'body count' competition. How do they compare to Romans? Persians? Mongols? Chinese? etc.

Tisdall did so in his work. He listed nearly a dozen apocryphal texts and compared them to the Qur'an side-by-side. I'm sorry if it is not obvious to you.

No one doubts there is significant intertextuality between the Quran and Judaeo-Christian texts and traditions. What is disputed is the nature of this relationship.

As I've said before, the work you cite is naive and oversimplistic, the field of critical Islamic studies has moved on considerably in the last 30 years, let alone 100. For example, Tisdall assumes a rudimentary copying of sources ad that the Quran contains basic errors in relation to its intertextual references. This view is no longer tenable.

Some views:

Indeed, a good number of Qur’ānic pericopes look like Arabic ingenious patchworks of Biblical and para- Biblical texts, designed to comment passages or aspects of the Scripture, whereas others look like Arabic translations of liturgical formulas.

This is not unexpected if we have in mind some Late Antique religious practices, namely the well-known fact that Christian Churches followed the Jewish custom of reading publicly the Scriptures, according to the lectionary principle. In other words, people did not read the whole of the Scripture to the assembly, but lectionaries (Syriac qǝryānā, Ǧreading of Scripture in Divine Service”, etymon of Arabic qur’ān), containing selected passages of the Scripture, to be read in the community. Therefore, many of the texts which constitute the Qur’ān should not be seen (at least if we are interested in their original Sitz im Leben) as substitutes for the (Jewish or Christian) Scripture, but rather as a (putatively divinely inspired) commentary of Scripture.

Traces of Bilingualism/Multilingualism in Qur'anic Arabic

The Qur’ān’s complex manipulation of the Aramaic Gospel Traditions is,
furthermore, neither accidental nor haphazard. It is rather, quite deliberate and
sophisticated. It wood behoove readers to realize a basic fact concerning dogmatic
re-articulation as we have laid it out herein, namely that the Qur’ān excercises
complete control over its challenging or re-appropriation of passages from the
Aramaic Gospels—not vice versa. This is evident both implicitly and explicitly
within the text... Finally, consider that the text skillfully translates or interprets
Hebrew and Aramaic terminology and seamlessly integrates them into the overall
literary, rhetorical, and theological coherence of the particular passage or Surah
wherin they occur, which is the unmistakable intention behind zakariyyā in Q 19:2
and s.arrah in Q 51:29 for example.

Dispensing with hasty and superficial readings of the text—which may incorrectly
yield ‘mistakes’ or ‘contraditions’ in the qur’ānic re-telling of Biblical narratives
or post-Biblical controversies—is the first step in truly appreciating its
linguistic, structural, and thematic integrity... The point is that such a dexterous command
of Biblical and post-Biblical literature as a whole, and such strong volition on the
part of the Qur’ān’s authorship, is central to our understanding of its dogmatic rearticulation
of the Aramaic Gospels Tradition. (The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions. - E El-Badawi)

Even a brief perusal of the Arabic Qurʾān is sufficient to convince the first-time reader that the text presumes a high degree of scriptural literacy on the part of its audience. In it there are frequent references to biblical patriarchs, prophets, and other gures of Late Antique, Jewish, and Christian religious lore. One hears of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, Job, and Jonah, among others from the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, one reads of Jesus, Mary, Zecharaiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus’ disciples from the New Testament, but no mention of Paul and his epistles. What is more, there are numerous echoes in the Qurʾān of non- biblical, Jewish and Christian traditions, some of them otherwise found in so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphic biblical texts. So prominent is this scriptural material in the body of the Islamic scripture that one twentieth- century Western scholar of Islam was prompted to speak of the Qurʾān as “a truncated, Arabic edition of the Bible.” But in fact the Qurʾān is much more than just an evocation of earlier biblical narratives; it incorporates the recollection of those earlier scriptures into its own call to belief, to Islam and its proper observance, as it says, in good, clarifying Arabic"S. Griffiths - The Bible in Arabic

Also

Mapping the Sources of the Qur'anic Jesus

Are you going to keep throwing a fit that I am willing to defend a position you don't personally like and/or agree with despite (allegedly) agreeing the Qur'an is man-made? What exactly is it that you yourself are doing here?

Passing the time by correcting your basic errors for anyone reading who might be interested in the issue.