|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{parallelism_qjcs}} | | {{parallelism_qjcs}} |
| As had been stated in the introduction, similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. However, the Judeo-Christian tales and their Qur'anic counterparts do not always match. There are three possible explanations for this:
| | For the full article with many more examples than are included in this series, see {{Main|Parallelism Between the Qur'an and Judeo-Christian Scriptures}} |
|
| |
|
| # The original Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted (as Muslims like to claim).
| | As had been stated in the introduction, similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. These Quranic narratives, however, often do not always follow their Judeo-Christian forebearers. Three possible explanations are usually offered for this: |
| # Muhammad imperfectly borrowed from the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
| |
| # The Qur'an was corrupted.
| |
|
| |
|
| Muslims typically focus on translational variations. In most of the examples of Muslim charges, they curiously deride variation in modern English translations of the Bible. This is merely them seeing Christianity through Islamic eyeglasses. Muslims like to claim their Qur'an is immutable and thus deride any variations as proof of the corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Some of the more intelligent Muslims have homed in on transcriptional variations as well. To them, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are self-evidently corrupt. Hence, there is no need to actually provide any tangible evidence to support their assertions.
| | #The original Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted (common Muslim apologetic claim). |
| | #The Qur'an imperfectly borrowed from the Judeo-Christian scriptures and/or used extra-Biblical sources. |
| | #The Qur'an was corrupted. |
|
| |
|
| None of the early Christian texts support the Muslim contention of corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, as Muslims fail to distinguish between apocryphal and canonical works. They fail to see the difference between mainstream texts and cultic/Gnostic texts. | | None of the apocryphal and exegetical Judeo-Christian texts support the Muslim contention of corruption of the earlier Judeo-Christian scriptures. Such arguments fail to distinguish between between older mainstream texts and others which are self evidently late and whose development can be traced over the centuries leading up to Islam. Moreover, there do not exist any earlier Christian texts which accord with the orthodox Sunni Muslim view of Jesus and early Christianity. |
|
| |
|
| One really needs either the original manuscripts or a succession of early manuscripts to show how the alleged corruption has occurred. However, since the original manuscripts are long lost, this avenue is unavailable to Muslims. The next possibility is to examine the change in the succession of early manuscripts – the historical approach. However, as far as is known, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are remarkably similar to historical manuscripts. The next possibility is to examine the extra-scriptural writings of the early Rabbis and early Church fathers. Alas, no irrefutable evidence has yet surfaced that would lead one to conclude the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted.
| | The charge of a scheme to corrupt the Christian and Jewish scriptures in just such a way as to hide the true versions of events, which are later correctly recounted in the Qur'an, would have required a conspiracy of hundreds of different individuals working across immense distances of time and space in different linguistic and religious traditions; it can be dismissed prima facia as a groundless conspiracy theory. |
| | |
| Since Muslims have been unable to produce even any tangible evidence of corruption in the original Judeo-Christian scriptures, one must conclude that the charge of corruption is ''unproven''.
| |
| | |
| However, the parallelism between the Qur'an and the Judeo-Christian scriptures is undeniable. The main parallelisms have been mentioned in this set of articles. I have ignored other charges such as the [[Seven Sleepers of Ephesus in the Quran|seven sleepers in the cave]] {{Quran|18|8-26}} (as per the seven sleepers of Ephesus); the story of the angels Harut and Marut {{Quran|2|102}} (as per Midrash Yalkut chapter 44 with the angels Shamhazai and Azael: for further details, click [http://www.truthnet.org/islam/src-chp3.htm here]); and God holding Mt Sinai over the Israelites {{Quran|7|171}} (as per the second century Jewish apocrypha Abodah Sarah).
| |
| | |
| Robert Morey has also listed some other interesting parallelisms (for further details, click [http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-koran-fairy-tales-dr-morey.htm here.])
| |
| | |
| To reiterate, the main parallelisms are: Talking baby Jesus; Mary daughter of Amran & sister of Aaron; Sanhedrin 37a; the raven and the burial of Abel; Mary, Jesus and the Trinity; Jesus and the clay birds; Mary’s upbringing & her relationship with Zachariah; Mary, Jesus & the palm tree; Satan’s refusal to prostrate to Adam; the Queen of Sheba; the wealth of Korah; and Abraham & the idols.
| |
| | |
| Upon reading these articles, the point that becomes apparent is that these parallelisms are either apocryphal, heretical, commentaries by religious figures, or mere folk tales. Or, in the case of the Trinity, a clear misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.
| |
| | |
| Now, one must stress that the charge is not that Muhammad copied from previous scripture, but that he incorporated stories he heard from other people. Some of these tales he probably heard from the Christian slave of {{Bukhari|4|56|814}} whom Ibn Ishaq named as Jabr for which {{Quran|16|101-104}} was probably revealed. Waqidi names this Christian as Ibn Qumta. Ibn Ishaq also recounts the story of how three Christians, Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id, spoke to Muhammad regarding such Christian subjects as the Trinity, Jesus speaking in infancy, and Jesus animating clay birds. Ibn Ishaq also claimed that as a result of these discussions, the Qur'an was revealed addressing all these arguments – leading to the conclusion that Muhammad incorporated Judeo-Christian tales he had heard from other people.
| |
| | |
| Thus, it is quite conclusive that the parallelism, particularly the imperfect parallelisms, point to Muhammad and not any divine source as being the originator of the Qur'an.
| |
| | |
| So, is the Qur'an corrupted? Strictly speaking, no. The Qur'an was not corrupted, but it was false from the start.
| |
|
| |
|
| | The parallelism, however, between the Qur'an and late antique Judeo-Christian literature is undeniable. These parallelisms are either apocryphal, heretical, commentaries by religious figures, or mere folk tales. As such, and even on the basis of evidence in the Islamic tradition itself, the parallelisms between the Qur'an and Judeao-Christian seem to stem not from divine revelation, but from mundane religious contact. |
|
| |
|
| {{pn|prev=Parallelism: Wealth of Korah|prevtitle=Wealth of Korah}} | | {{pn|prev=Parallelism: Wealth of Korah|prevtitle=Wealth of Korah}} |