A marvel in the Qur’an disclosed on twitter from IQSA17 Conference

This tweet from a participant at the ongoing International Qur’anic Studies Association conference in the USA. Do the scholars there realise the implications of this observation? Consider this: an illiterate uneducated Arab trader from an obscure backwater of the Arabian peninsula could read ancient Hebrew well enough to appreciate a pun in Genesis 18?! I don’t think so. The implications are very suggestive.

Advertisements


Categories: Quran, Scholarship

57 replies

  1. Which is why secular scholars think the Quran is too complex to have been composed by an ignorant, illiterate Arab businessman.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Does he mean the meaning of the name Issac in Hebrew?

    Like

  3. So mohammed was not illiterate?

    Also, is the quran a person since it apparently has the capacity for awareness?

    Like

    • Muslims believe it’s the words of God revealed to the prophet Muhammad not his own words

      Like

    • T

      Thanks for the clarification.

      My response was to the insinuation that this idea of isaac/laughter in the quran is somehow indicative of divine authorship. It isn’t – at most it shows that whoever wrote the quran had some familiarity with jewish texts.

      Like

  4. An illiterate trader (Muhammad) cannot plausibly be expected to have read and understood the Hebrew word play in Genesis 18.

    Dr Devin Stewart is a professor of Islamic studies and Arabic language and literature. His research interests include Islamic law, the Qur’an, Islamic schools and branches and varieties of Arabic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_J._Stewart

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Paul,

      If you found this information interesting , you will love Quran 14:39.

      Abraham (as) thanks God for Ishmael (as) and Isaac (as) and then says that God is the one who hears the supplications.

      See the Hebrew meaning of Ishmael embedded in the text.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paul

      Not everyone is as gullible as you appear to be. Either mohammed was not illiterate, or he was intelligent enough to understand the isaac/laughter wordplay explained to him.

      There is no evidence of divine authorship here.

      Like

    • You may also like this.

      It is generally agreed in academia that Moses is an Egyptian name.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joel,

      we know from multiple historical sources that Muhammad was illiterate. There is no evidence that he understood Hebrew and spoke the language. He was far from endorsing what the Jews told him about the Torah.

      Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460:
      Narrated Abu Huraira:

      The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.’ “

      In fact Muhammad’s senior companions were clear that the Torah had been corrupted and was thus unreliable:

      Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:
      Narrated Ubaidullah:

      Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah’s Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”

      Like

    • Paul

      Why do refer to historically dubious traditions to support your claims about the corruption of the bible? This is merely another case of muslims abandoning the word of their god in favour of the traditions of their human prophet and his band of merry men.

      The quran is confused about the previous scriptures it both states explicitly that the torah and gospel are legitimate revelation – muslims disagree with their god and disobey him by claiming that the quran says the bible is corrupt. This is found nowhere in the quran.

      Following mohammed turns muslims against allah.

      Like

    • The Quran, Sunnah, and testimony of the Companions are clear that the original Revelations given to the People of the Book have been either lost, corrupted, or forgotten.

      See the mass of evidence here:

      http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not interested in human religious traditions that were condemned by out Lord jesus. Where does the quran say that the previous scriptures are corrupted? It doesn’t.

      Like

    • It does. Click on the link and read the evidence. Don’t be a donkey.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul

      None of those links are convincing. Go on, be a devil, make a convincing argument.

      Like

    • Don’t be a liar. You could not possibly have read them. I’m not going to try and educate a donkey. I have better things to do.

      Like

    • Joel: The quran is confused about the previous scriptures…

      Not really. As noted by Prof.Walid Saleh, the vast majority of secular academic scholars believe the Quran considers previous scriptures corrupted.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Brother Paul, get Coco’s classification right. He is a monkey, not a donkey. Please keep that in mind.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I am so sorry. I fear I have just insulted donkeys.

      Like

    • Paul

      “Don’t be a liar. You could not possibly have read them. I’m not going to try and educate a donkey. I have better things to do.”

      I’ve read that website a long time ago – it isn’t convincing.

      kamak


      As noted by Prof.Walid Saleh, the vast majority of secular academic scholars believe the Quran considers previous scriptures corrupted.”

      Appeal to authority fallacy. Where does the quran clearly state that the previous scriptures are corrupted? It doesn’t.

      Like

    • Evidence That Islam Teaches That There Was Textual Corruption of The Christian and Jewish Scriptures by Bassam Zawadi

      One of the most common arguments that Christian missionaries pose to the Muslims is that Islamic teachings allegedly affirm the authenticity and divine nature of the Bible that Christians follow today (I’m not sure if they are referring to the Protestant or Catholic version or both. I guess it depends on with which Christian you are debating.).

      There seems to be a misconception amongst Christians. They think that Islam teaches that there once was an original Bible and then the Bible got corrupted. This is not what Islam teaches.

      We don’t believe that there was an original book of Philippians or Corinthians, which then later on got corrupted. We don’t even believe that these books are divine in the first place.

      What we believe is that parts of the original revelations sent down to Moses (Torah) and Jesus (Gospel) peace be upon them both still exist in the Bible today. We believe that people came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them.

      The Arabic word most commonly used in the Qur’an and Hadith to state that the Christians and Jews distorted their books is Tahreef.

      The original meaning of the word Tahreef is “to lean from the pen in a certain direction” or ‘to twist words to correspond to one’s own desire.” (Ar-Raghib Al-Isfahani, Al-Mufradat Fi Gharib Al-Qur’an, ed., by M. Ahmad Khalaf Allah, (Cairo, al-Anjilo al-Misriyya, 1965), vol. 1, pp.122f, cited here))

      Ash Shahrastani remarked that Tahreef means “changing the written word to an alternative to give it a corrupted meaning.” (Ash-Shahrastani, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 11; Mujahid, op. cit., pp. 140; see also Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtida’ As-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Aj-Jahim, ed. by Muhammad ‘Ali as-Sabuni (Saudi Arabia, Matabi al-Majd, 1390 A.H.), p. 8 and ‘Abd as-Salam Harun, op. cit., pp. 262 and 360., cited here))

      Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah elaborates on the different usages of the word as well as its definition…

      3.6.1 AT-TAHREEF

      3.6.1.1 In the Language – to change or alter.

      3.6.1.2 Technically here – to change the texts in wording or meaning. This is of 3 kinds.

      3.6.1.2.1 Altering the words so the meaning changes: e.g. What some innovators do to the Saying of Allaah in (4):164 – changing the Dammah on the last letter of “Allaah” with a Fathah, in order to change the meaning to “Moosaa spoke to Allaah…”

      3.6.1.2.2 Altering the words with no change of meaning: e.g. changing the Dammah on the last letter of “al Hamd” in (1):2, to a Fathah. This usually occurs out of ignorance.

      3.6.1.2.3 Altering the Meaning: taking the meaning of the words away from their most apparent meaning without any proof. e.g. Saying Allaah’s Two Hands means “His Power” or “His Blessing”. (Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, Creed of Hamawiyyah – Chapter 3: The Way of Ahl us-Sunnah Concerning Allaah’s Attributes, Source)

      Note how Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah in the first two kinds of Tahreef shows that the Tahreef could mean changing the letters of the statement (textual corruption) and in the third kind it is misinterpreting the meaning of the statement.

      Al Baji says in his commentary on Muwatta’ Maalik.

      íÑíÏ Ãäåã íÍÑÝæä Çáßáã Úä ãæÇÖÚå ßãÇ æÕÝåã Çááå ÓÈÍÇäå ÝíÞæáæä ãßÇä ” ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã ” ÇáÓÇã

      They (the Jews) wanted to distort (yuharrifoon) the words out of their places just as Allah the Most High described them, so instead of saying Assalamu Alaykum’ (peace be upon you), they say Assaam’ (poison) (Abû al-Walîd Sulaymân ibn Khalaf al-Bâjî, Al Muntaqaa Sharh Muwata’ Maalik, Kitab: Al Jaami’, Bab: Ma Jaa’a fi Al Salaam A’ala Al Yahoodi wal Nasraani, Commentary on Hadith no. 1514, Source)

      Here we see that Imam Baji is speaking about how the Jews used to say ‘Assaamu Alaykum’ (may poison be upon you) to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and then states that their changing of the letters is a kind of tahreef or distortion. So its not simply a matter of just misinterpreting a statement but actually changing the letters around by either deletion or addition.

      So as we can see, the distortion could either be by interpretation or textual corruption.

      What I will be doing in this article is presenting evidence from the Qur’an, authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), statements of the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him, the early Muslims and prominent Muslim scholars to show that Islam does teach that the Christians and the Jews textually corrupted the revelations of God.

      I urge the readers to remember that this is not about whether the Islamic claim of textual corruption is true or not, but whether Islam makes this claim or not.

      The outline of my article will be as follows….

      Evidence from the Qur’an

      – Surah 2:79

      – Surah 4:157

      Evidence from the Statements of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him

      – The Prophet’s Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books

      – Evidence From The Prophet’s Conversation With The Jews

      – The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel

      Evidence from the statements of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him

      – The View of Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)

      – The View of Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (d. 34 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the conversation of Umar ibn Al Khattab (d. 22 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (d. 32 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the statement of Abdullah ibn Salam (d. 43 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the statement of Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn al-‘Aass (d. 63 A.H.)

      Evidence From The Statements of The Early Muslims

      – Evidence from the statements of Ka’b al-Ahbar (d. 14 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the statement of Abul-`Aaliyah (d. 90 A.H.)

      – The View of Muqatil bin Sulaiman (d. 150 A.H.)

      – The View of Muhammad ibn Mansur al-Mahdi (d. 169 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the conversation of Abu Jafar al-Ma’mun ibn Harun (d. 218 A.H.)

      – The View of Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr b. Bahr al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.)

      – Evidence from the Statement of Sahl (d. ? A.H.)

      Evidence From The Statements of The Muslim Scholars

      – The View of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.)

      – The View of Az-Zajjaj (d. 311 A.H.)

      – The View of Al- Hasan ibn Ayyub (d. 378 A.H.)

      – The View of Abu Raihan Muhammad Al-Biruni (d. 440 A.H.)

      – The View of Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H.)

      – The View of Abu Muhammad Husayn b. Mas’ud ibn Muhammad al-Farra’ al-Baghawi (d. 516 A.H.)

      – The View of Az-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.)

      – The View of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 A.H.)

      – The View of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.)

      – The View of al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.)

      – The View of Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (d. 716 A.H.)

      – The View of Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.)

      – The View of Jalalayn (al-Mahilli d. 864 A.H.; as-Suyuti 911 A.H.)

      Evidence from the Qur’an

      The greatest source of religious authority in Islam is the glorious Qur’an, the verbatim Word of God. In this section I will only pose two verses as evidence. The reason for this is because it is clear from the verses themselves without need of interpretation that the Qur’an endorses textual corruption of the Christian and Jewish scriptures, while the other verses would need us to appeal to commentaries and see how the early Muslims understood those verses (will be discussed later on in the article). As for now, we will only look at the apparent meaning of the verses.

      Surah 2:79

      Allah says in the glorious Qur’an…

      Surah 2:79

      Therefore woe be unto those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.

      Here we clearly see that Allah is warning those (Jews) who wrote the scripture from their own selves and then claimed that it was from God. A clear charge of TEXTUAL corruption. The verse is clear is clearly stating that whatever the Jews wrote, they claimed it was from God.

      Some Christians say that the Qur’an is only talking about a specific group of people and that else where in the Qur’an it speaks about the People of the Book positively…

      Surah 3:113-114:

      “Not all of them are alike. Some of the People of the Book are an upright people. They recite the signs (or verses) of God in the night season and they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day. They command what is just, and forbid what is wrong and they hasten in good works, and they are of the righteous.

      Surah 3:199

      “And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and that which has been revealed to you, in that which has been revealed to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the signs of God for miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account.”

      The People of the Book being spoken about in Surah 3:113-114 are referring to those that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him and they recite the Qur’an at night. (See Tafsir ibn Kathir)

      The People of the Book being spoken about in Surah 3:199 are referring to those that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him and were not afraid to speak up about his descriptions in their scriptures for some material gain. (See Tafsir ibn Kathir and Tafsir Jalalayn)

      In no way, do these verses suggest that the People of the Book that believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad peace be upon him had the complete correct text of the Torah with them. For all it shows is that they understood the text properly or were aware of what the true Torah contained by oral traditions (e.g. their rightly guided parents). The Qur’an is not stating that there was a Torah corrupted textually and a Torah not corrupted textually. Nor does it say that the righteous people of the People of the Book ever participated in the corruption of the Torah. It does not require that ALL of the People of the Book come to corrupt it. A few people with great authority and power (we will see this later under the Ibn Abbaas’s section) can achieve this task.

      We can summarize the points as follows :-

      – The Qur’an states that the Jews wrote ‘The Book’ with their own hands.

      – ‘The Book’ referred to in the verse is ‘The Book’ being mentioned throughout several verses in the Qur’an in the possession of the Jews.

      – The Qur’an states that the Jews after writing ‘The Book’ from their own selves, then claimed it was from God.

      – Some try to argue back that the Jews only wrote their interpretations of the Torah such as the Talmud and then followed it. However, the Jews never claimed that the Talmud is scripture from God but is used to understand scripture. Rachmiel Frydland, a Talmudic scholar said…

      We do not believe that the TALMUD is inspired by the RUACH HA KODESH (the Holy Spirit of God), or that it is the Word of God. The Talmud does not claim to be the Word of God, but rather an interpretation and an explanation of the Law of God, the TORAH. (Rachmiel Frydland, When Talmud is Right, Source)

      – ‘The Book’ is clearly then referring to the Jewish scriptures that Jews state are from God (i.e. Old Testament).

      Even if someone wants to go against the clear meaning of the verse, then the reader should continue reading this article and will see the various comments of the scholars regarding this verse and how they understood it to refer to textual corruption of the Torah.

      Surah 4:157

      Allah says in the glorious Qur’an…

      Surah 4:157

      And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

      The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur’an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

      It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur’an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.

      Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet’s time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn’t the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don’t we have any of these accusations from the Prophet’s enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.

      Evidence from the Statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

      The Qur’an gives authority to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to teach (3:164) and make clear (16:44) the Qur’an to us. To know more about the importance of the Sunnah in Islam, please refer to my section here.

      We will look at some authentic Prophetic hadith that would attempt to shed some light regarding the topic.

      The Prophet’s Accusation of the Jews and Christians Distorting Their Books

      Al-Hakim related in Al-Mustadrak the following Hadith…

      Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu’azh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn ‘Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu’azh Ibn Jabal – radiya Allahu ‘anhu – told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars. He said, “Why do you do this?” they answered, “This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)”. I said, “We better do this to our Prophet”. Allah’s Prophet – salla Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam – said, “They lied about their Prophets just as they distorted their Book. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband’s rights even if he asks herself while she is on a Qutub” (Al-Hakim commented, “This hadith is authentic according to standards of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, but they did not relate it” This hadith was also related by At-Tabarani in “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabir” vol. 8, p.31 but it includes An-Nahhas Ibn Fahm who is a weak narrator. Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal related it with a sound chain of transmission in his Musnad vol. 4, p. 381 (online source) with the following chain: ‘Abdullah told us: my father (Ibn Hanbal) told me: Mu’azh Ibn Hisham told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn ‘Awf – a man from Al-Kufa, one of Bani Murra Ibn Hammam – told me: Mu’azh Ibn Jabal – radiya Allahu ‘anhu – told us that .. and mentioned the hadith. This hadith has been authenticated by Ibn Hajar Al Haytami in his Majma’ Al Zawaaid, Volume 4, page 312. He said of the narrators in the chain ‘their men are men of authenticity’ )

      Notice that the Prophet peace be upon him is saying that the Christians and Jews distorted their books JUST AS they lied about their Prophets. The context of the situation is that the Christians and Jews said that bowing down to their priests and rabbis was the greeting of the Prophets. This is a forgery and a lie. Thus if they were to corrupt their books in the same way they would have made up lies in the Torah and Gospel by introducing false statements into it.

      The Prophet peace be upon him elaborates more…

      The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani’s Al Mu’jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

      The Prophet peace be upon him also said…

      The Bani Israel as a long time passed and their hearts became hardened, they invented a book from themselves. It took over their hearts and their tongues. (This hadith was reported in Al Bayhaqi’s Shu’b Al Eemaan, Volume 2, no.439. Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani has authenticated this hadith in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2694.)

      So here we see that the Prophet peace be upon him is saying that the Israelites wrote their own book and started following it. Possible objections and responses to them are…

      Objection: The Prophet was only referring to a certain group of the Israelites.

      Response: The hadiths do not imply this, the Prophet peace be upon him made a general statement. If you want to limit the scope of the meaning of the statement then please provide objective evidence.

      Objection: The Prophet only said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it, he doesn’t say that the Torah was corrupted.

      Response: But what does the hadith imply? It implies that the Jews have stopped following the true revelation sent down to Moses and that is the Torah. Instead they followed their own books. Don’t the Jews of today follow the Pentateuch? Wouldn’t that therefore mean that according to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him most of the Pentateuch is what was written from the Jews themselves?

      Objection: It is possible that Prophet Muhammad intended the term ‘Torah’ to mean Pentateuch and the book that the Jews wrote was the Talmud and it was possible that Prophet Muhammad intended to say that the Jews stopped following the Pentateuch and started following the Talmud only.

      Response: That argument would be possible if it were true. The Jews refer to the Talmud in order to better understand the Pentateuch. They haven’t abandoned their Pentateuch. They still follow it. If the Prophet said that the Jews wrote a book and followed it along with the Torah, then you might be able to possibly argue that it is referring to the Talmud and Pentateuch in this hadith. However, that is not the case.

      Evidence From The Prophet’s Conversation With The Jews

      Let us read the following narration…

      The Jews brought [to the Prophet peace be upon him] a man and a woman among them who committed adultery. The Prophet peace be upon him said, “Bring the two most knowledgeable men from amongst you.” The Jews brought the two sons of Suriyya, and the Prophet peace be upon him asked them, “What punishment do you find in the Torah regarding these two?” They said, “In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned.” The Prophet peace be upon him said, “What made you stop stoning?” They said, “Our kingship (meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing.” The Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two [adulterers] are stoned. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 3862, Source. Sheikh Albani declared this hadith authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, hadith no.4452)

      Indeed, we do find in the Old Testament today that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10). But nowhere do we find anything about four witnesses (interestingly Islam teaches this) or any eyeliner.

      This is indirect proof that this section of the Torah has been distorted with.

      The Description of the Prophet In The Torah and Gospel

      Narrated by Al Fultaan ibn A’asim:

      Do you bear witness that I am the Messenger of Allah? He said: No. The Prophet peace be upon him said: Do you read the Torah? He replied back: Yes. Then the Prophet peace be upon him asked: and the Gospel? The man replied: Yes. The Prophet peace be upon him then asked: The Qur’an? The man replied back: No. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back: By He Whose Hand my soul lies, if I willed I would read it. Then the Prophet peace be upon him pulled the man and asked: Don’t you find me in the Torah and Gospel? The man replied back and said: We find someone who is similar to you and your Ummah (community) and from the place where you were brought up and we were hoping that you would be from amongst us. When you rose up (as a Prophet) we were afraid that it would be you. However, we looked and saw that it wasn’t you. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back asking: Why is that? The man said: From him will be 70,000 of his followers from his community who will have no judgment passed on them nor punishment but you have a simple number of men following you. The Prophet peace be upon him replied back: By He Whose Hand my soul lies it is me and it is referring to my Ummah (community). And they are more than 70 thousand, 70 thousand, 70 thousand. (This hadith has been declared authentic by Sheikh Albani in Saheeh Al Muwaarid, page or hadith no. 1765)

      Note how the man informed the Prophet peace be upon him that one of the signs of the Prophet to come according to the Torah or Gospel is that the Prophet will have 70,000 followers who will enter paradise with no judgment passed on them. Where do we see this in today’s Torah or Gospel? Nowhere. Thus indicating that it has been removed from the text, which in turn implies textual corruption.

      Evidence from the Statements of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

      Muslims believe that no one understood Allah and His Messenger better than the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him. The companions of the Prophet peace be upon him were promised paradise in the Qur’an…

      æÇáÓÇÈÞæä ÇáÇæáæä ãä ÇáãåÇÌÑíä æÇáÇäÕÇÑ æÇáÐíä ÇÊÈÚæåã ÈÇÍÓÇä ÑÖí Çááå Úäåã æÑÖæÇ Úäå æÇÚÏ áåã ÌäÇÊ ÊÌÑí ÊÍÊåÇ ÇáÇäåÇÑ ÎÇáÏíä ÝíåÇ ÇÈÏÇ Ðáß ÇáÝæÒ ÇáÚÙíã

      Surah 9:100

      And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them forever; that is the mighty achievement.

      The Muhajirs refer to the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him that migrated to Madina. The Ansar refer to those Muslims in Medina that welcomed the Muhajirs to come to their city.

      The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also said:

      “Indeed the people of the Book before you split into seventy-two sects. And this nation will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two are in the Fire and one in Paradise”. And in another narration, “All are in the Fire except one.” It was asked: Who is that one? He replied, “That which I and my Companions are upon” (Related by at-Tirmidhi (5/62) and al-Haakim (1/128). It has been authenticated by al-Haafidh al-Iraaqee in Takhreejul-Ihyaa (3/199) and al-Albaanee in as-Saheehah (no.204), cited here)

      So here we see that Islam teaches that the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him are the saved sect and were promised paradise. This is clearly because they understood and practiced Islam better than anyone else. They are a great authority to refer to. Obviously, this does not mean that the companions were individually infallible, however their consensus on a matter is.

      Here, we will see some of the perspectives of the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him towards to the Christian and Jewish scriptures.

      The View of Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)

      Ibn Abbaas is one of the greatest companions of the Prophet peace be upon him. He holds much authority as a Quranic interpreter, for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prayed to Allah to make Ibn Abbaas a great commentator of the Qur’an and scholar of Islam in general…

      Saheeh Bukhari

      Volume 001, Book 003, Hadith Number 075.

      Narated By Ibn ‘Abbaas : Once the Prophet embraced me and said, “O Allah! Bestow on him the knowledge of the Book (Qur’an).”

      Volume 1, Book 4, Number 145:

      Narrated Ibn ‘Abbaas:

      Once the Prophet entered a lavatory and I placed water for his ablution. He asked, “Who placed it?” He was informed accordingly and so he said, “O Allah! Make him (Ibn ‘Abbaas) a learned scholar in religion (Islam).” (See also Volume 005, Book 057, Hadith Numbers 100 & 101A)

      Saheeh Muslim

      Book 031, Hadith Number 6055.

      Chapter : The merits of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbaas (Allah be pleased with him).

      Ibn ‘Abbaas reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to privy and I placed for him water for ablution, When he came out he said: Who placed it here? And in a version of Zuhair they (the Companions) said, and in the version of Abu Bakr (the words are): I said: It is Ibn ‘Abbaas (who has done that), whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: May Allah grant him deep understanding of religion.

      Based on this, we can clearly see that Ibn Abbaas holds much authority when he speaks about religion. Therefore, it would be interesting to see what Ibn Abbaas had to say regarding the scriptures of the Christians and Jews…

      Saheeh Bukhari

      Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:

      Narrated ‘Ikrima:

      Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”

      Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:

      Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:

      ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.

      Ibn Hazm describes the above narrations as…

      The soundest Isnad (chain of transmission) or ascription to Ibn Abbaas, which is exactly our view. There is no difference between the companions on this matter. (Ibn Hazm, Al-Fasl fi’l Milal, Volume 2, p. 3, cited here)

      Here we see that Ibn Hazm reinforces the fact that Ibn Abbaas truly held this position and that even the companions of the Prophet peace be upon him held the same position as well. Thus, there was a consensus amongst the companions that the Christians and the Jews had textually corrupted their scriptures.

      Ibn Abbaas said in his commentary on Surah 2:79…

      (Therefore woe) severe punishment, and it is said this means: a valley in Hell (be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands) change the description and traits of Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book (and then say, ” This is) in the Book that has come (from Allah ” , that they may purchase) through changing and altering it (a small gain therewith) a small gain in terms of means of subsistence and surplus of property. (Woe unto them) theirs is a severe punishment (for what their hands have written) have altered (and woe unto them) and theirs is a severe punishment (for what they earn thereby) of unlawful earnings and bribes. (Ibn Abbaas, Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)

      Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib al-Mawardi (d. 450 A.H.) says in his commentary of the Qur’an An-Nukatu wal-‘Uyoon on Surah 2, Verse 79…

      ÃÍÏåãÇ: Ãä ÇáÃõãøí: ÇáÐí áÇ íßÊÈ æáÇ íÞÑá æåæ Þæá ãÌÇåÏ æÃÙåÑõ ÊÃæíáå.

      æÇáËÇäí: Ãäøó ÇáÃõãøííä: Þæã áã íÕÏÞæÇ ÑÓæáÇð ÃÑÓáå Çááå¡ æáÇ ßÊÇÈÇð ÃäÒáå Çááå¡ æßÊÈæÇ ßÊÇÈÇð ÈÃíÏíåã¡ æÞÇá ÇáÌåÇá áÞæãåã: åÐÇ ãä ÚäÏ Çááå¡ æåÐÇ Þæá ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ

      Firstly: The word Ummi in the verse could refer to someone who does not know how to read or write, and this is the statement of Mujaahid and the more apparent interpretation.

      Secondly: The word Ummi in the verse could refer to a people who did not believe in a Messenger that Allah has sent, and they also don’t believe in a book that Allah has sent, and they wrote a book with their own hands and told the ignorant people “This is from Allah”, and this is the view of Ibn Abbaas. (Source)

      Imam Tabari elaborates on Ibn Abbaas’s position in his commentary on Surah 2:42…

      { æóáóÇ ÊóáúÈöÓõæÇ ÇáúÍóÞø ÈöÇáúÈóÇØöáö } ÞóÇáó : ÇáúÍóÞø : ÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉ ÇáøóÐöí ÃóäóÒóáó Çááøóå Úóáóì ãõæÓóì , æóÇáúÈóÇØöá : ÇáøóÐöí ßóÊóÈõæåõ ÈöÃóíúÏöíåöãú

      ÝóÑõæöíó Úóäú ÇöÈúä ÚóÈøóÇÓ æóÛóíúÑå áóÇ ÊóÎúáöØõæÇ ãóÇ ÚöäúÏßõãú ãöäú ÇáúÍóÞø Ýöí ÇáúßöÊóÇÈ ÈöÇáúÈóÇØöáö æóåõæó ÇáÊøóÛúíöíÑ æóÇáÊøóÈúÏöíá

      Regarding the verse ‘Confound not truth with falsehood’: The truth: it is the Torah that Allah revealed to Moses. Falsehood: it is what they have written from their own hands…. It was reported that Ibn Abbaas and others said ‘Do not mix the truth of what you have in the Book with falsehood’ and that is the changing and substituting. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 2:42, Source)

      In his commentary on Surah 2:75 Imam Ar Razi quotes al-Qadi ‘Abd Al Jabbar (d. 415 A.H.) as affirming that Ibn Abbaas’s opinion towards the Christian and Jewish scriptures is that there have been additions and subtractions made to and from them. (Source) Again, clearly indicating that Ibn Abbas’s position is that the scriptures have been textually corrupted.

      Another narration regarding Ibn Abbaas…

      ßÇäÊ ãáæß ÈÚÏ ÚíÓì Èä ãÑíã Úáíå ÇáÕáÇÉ æÇáÓáÇã ÈÏáæÇ ÇáÊæÑÇÉ æÇáÅäÌíá æßÇä Ýíåã ãÄãäæä íÞÑÄæä ÇáÊæÑÇÉ Þíá áãáæßåã ãÇ äÌÏ ÔÊãÇ ÃÔÏ ãä ÔÊã íÔÊãæäÇ åÄáÇÁ Åäåã íÞÑÄæä { æãä áã íÍßã ÈãÇ ÃäÒá Çááå ÝÃæáÆß åã ÇáßÇÝÑæä } æåÄáÇÁ ÇáÂíÇÊ ãÚ ãÇ íÚíÈæäÇ Èå Ýí ÃÚãÇáäÇ Ýí ÞÑÇÁÊåã ÝÇÏÚåã ÝáíÞÑÄæÇ ßãÇ äÞÑà æáíÄãäæÇ ßãÇ ÂãäÇ ÝÏÚÇåã ÝÌãÚåã æÚÑÖ Úáíåã ÇáÞÊá Ãæ íÊÑßæÇ ÞÑÇÁÉ ÇáÊæÑÇÉ æÇáÅäÌíá ÅáÇ ãÇ ÈÏáæÇ ãäåÇ

      Narrated by Sa’eed ibn Juabair: Ibn Abbaas said: The kings after the time of Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon him substituted the Torah and Gospel and there used to be amongst them believers who were reading the Torah. It was said to the kings: We do not find an insult greater than the insult of those that read “And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers” and their recitation of these similar kind of verses which they shame us with in our daily activities. So tell them to read just as what we read and let them believe just as we believe.’ So the king summoned them and gathered them together. He proposed either death to them or that they leave the recitation of the Torah and Gospel except what they substitute in place of it. [(Sunan Al Nisaa’i, hadith no. 5305), Source, Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani authenticated this narration in Sunan Al Nisaa’i, hadith no. 5400]

      So here we see that Ibn Abbaas talks about how the kings of the past used to force people to switch to their corrupted version of the scriptures. Clearly indicating that their scriptures contained writings, which were false, thus the scriptures that the masses were using were textually corrupted. Since the kings forced the people to switch to their scriptures or had them killed, this meant that the true uncorrupted scriptures became lost or possibly remained safe with a very few number of people, but it seems clear that the corrupted copies were distributed more widely.

      Some Christians try to distort the position of Ibn Abbaas by quoting the following narration from him…

      “By the Mount and an Inscribed Book” (52:1-2): Qatada said that “mastur” means “written”. “Yasturun” (68:1) means, “they inscribe”, and the Umm al-Kitab (43:4) is the whole of the Qur’an and its source. [He said that] “ma talfizu” (50:18) means: “He does not say anything but that it is written against him.” Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “Both good and evil are recorded,” and “yuharrufuna” (4:46) means, “they remove”. NO ONE REMOVES THE WORKS OF ONE OF THE BOOKS OF ALLAH ALMIGHTY, BUT THEY TWIST THEM, INTERPRETING THEM IMPROPERLY. “Dirasatihim: (6:156) means “their recitation” “Wa’iyya” (69:12) is preserving, “ta’iha” (69:12) means to “preserve it”. “This Qur’an has been revealed to me by inspiration that I may warn you,” meaning the people of Makka, “and all whom it reaches”(6:19) meaning this Qur’an, so he is its warner.

      This could be answered in more than one way.

      First of all, WHERE IS THE FULL CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION? We can’t find any full chain of transmission for this statement attributed to Ibn Abbaas. Famous hadith scholar Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said regarding this narration…

      I did not find it with continuous chain of reporters (mawsoul) on authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas in spite of the fact that what is said before it is from his words as well as that is after it….

      Many of our folks (ashabena) have explicitly declared that the Torah and the Gospel has been corrupted (hurrifat) in contradiction with what Al-Bukhari mentions here [on authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas] (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fath-ul-Bari fe Sharh Sahih-el-Bukhari, Book of “Oneness of God”, Chapter 55, Number 6223)

      and all scholars of hadith have agreed that you cannot judge a narration to be authentic unless you have the complete chain of transmission to examine and then conclude if it is authentic or not (unless it is mursal and has specific conditions being applied to it or if it has other corroborating evidence). Imam Tabari in his commentary just simply quotes Mujahid ibn Jabr Al Makhzumi (d. 104 A.H.) who then quotes the statement. However, there is a 200 hundred-year gap between Imam Tabari and Mujaahid! Where are the two or three people who should have come in the middle of the chain?

      Secondly, it contradicts the authentic narrations and well-known position of Ibn Abbaas on the matter and that is that he believed that the Jews and Christians textually corrupted their scriptures.

      Imam Al-Badr al-‘Aini notes in his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari…

      Al-Bukhari frequently relates reports and sayings of Sahaba and others without isnad (chain of transmission) (Al-Badr Al-‘Aini, Umdat-ul-Qari, Volume 1, page 9)

      Here we can see that this alleged statement from Ibn Abbaas is one of those examples, therefore it must be rejected.

      Thirdly, Ibn Abbaas’s statement could be reinterpreted in order to be reconciled with the other statements that he has made. And that is that Ibn Abbaas intended to say that they changed what was in their hands of the text which was with them, but they could not change the original true text which is with Allah on al-Lawh al-Mahfudh (preserved tablet) since the speech of Allah is uncreated and no one can ever make it go lost completely and removing the words from the books here on earth does not mean that God’s words have become totally lost but lost here on earth only.

      Ibn Kathir says in his commentary of Surah 85, Verse 22…

      (Nay! This is a Glorious Qur’an.) meaning, magnificent and noble.

      (In Al-Lawh Al-Mahfuz!) meaning, among the most high gathering, guarded from any increase, decrease, distortion, or change. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)

      Here we see that the Qur’an is also preserved in the Preserved Tablet from being corrupted and this strongly raises the possibility that this is what Ibn Abbaas was referring to when he made (assuming that he did) that statement. His intention was to say that the speech of God is in the Preserved Tablet (including the original Torah and Gospel) and cannot be changed.

      We must conclude by saying that the authentic narrations clearly indicate that Ibn Abbaas supported textual corruption and that one narration whose chain of transmission we cannot even examine should not be a cause for us to doubt that position of Ibn Abbaas.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yawn!

      There are no explicit verses in any of those quranic quotes that say the gospel and torah are corrupted. I don’t adhere to the authority of the traditions or tafsirs – if allah cannot express himself clearly, why should I trust the opinions of scholars who worship such an inept being?

      All I am asking for is simple – quote the quran verses that support your claim that the quran teaches biblical corruption.

      You won’t because you can’t.

      Your wall of text (that has not intimidated me in the least, LOL!!) can only come up with two verses that offer absolutely no support for your claim.

      Do better.

      Like

    • The evidence is actually very clear and detailed. Surah 2:79 & Surah 4:157. Many authentic hadith confirm this too. You fail to see it because you are a monkey. But even most western specialists in the Quran agree with the Muslim view. Just consult the detailed analysis in the prestigious Encyclopedia of the Quran. I have. But of course you will not. That speaks volumes about your weak mind and stubborn heart.

      Like

    • Joel: Appeal to authority fallacy. Where does the quran clearly state that the previous scriptures are corrupted? It doesn’t.

      If the vast majority of scholars agree the Quran says previous scriptures are corrupted, then it is highly likely that the Quran does say previous scriptures are corrupted.

      Let me bring some Bayesian reasoning into this. Let A be the event, “The Quran doesn’t teach the bible is textually corrupted”; let B be the event, “Scholars believe the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible”. Let P(A)= 0.5 and P(B)=0.7 where P(.) denotes a probability function. So I’m assuming there’s a 50% chance event A is true. I’m also assuming that 7 out of 10 scholars support event B. Assume P(B|A)=0.3 so there’s only a 30% chance scholars would believe the Quran teaches textual corruption of the bible if the Quran actually says otherwise.

      What is the probability that the Quran doesn’t actually teach textual corruption of the bible given that scholars believe the Quran does teach textual corruption of the bible i.e. what is P(A|B)?

      P(A|B)= P(B|A). P(A)/P(B) = 0.3*0.5/0.7 = 21%

      So there’s only a 21% chance that the Quran does not actually teach something that scholars say the Quran teaches!

      Case closed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • kmak

      So what you are saying is that there are no quranic verses that support the contention that the bible is corrupted.

      Like

  5. “A marvel in the Qur’an”

    or just some form of plagiarism?.

    Like

    • LOL, in order to it to be plagiarism, the author would have to have known a Hebrew pun and included it in the Arabic text. Did you even read the comment by Devin Stuart. You guys are waaaaay out of your league here! ROTFL!! I love seeing ignorant buffoons trying to pretend like they know what they are talking about!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Plagiarism would be referring to Jesus “coming with the clouds”, which was how Baal was described by the Canaanites. He was known as “storm rider”. Also, referring to God as an old man who gives authority to the “son of man” is borrowed from the Canaanite myths about El.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Something copied from the bible appears in the Koran. Big deal. So what? What do you expect?

    What is there to marvel at?

    Like

  7. Of course it doesn’t copy word for word but just re-writes the biblical stories with a view to stereotyping Mohammed’s prophetical characteristics and giving Mohammed him some historical roots to legitimize his message and person..

    Like

  8. Perhaps qb clevercloggs can explain what I am supposed to find marvellous?

    Like

    • Ignoramus, you buffoon!

      Why does an bArabic book, renowned for its literary prowess, refer to a Hebrew literary device? The author would have had to have a sophisticated understanding of both languages. So that could not be Muhammad (pbuh). Who else could it be?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Here is an excellent book and written in a polite manner.

    How the Qur’an Corrects the Bible
    200+ ways Islam unites Judaism & Christianity

    https://www.amazon.com/How-Quran-Corrects-Bible-Christianity/dp/0972851887

    Liked by 2 people

  10. So where do we find this “marvel” in the Koran?

    Like

  11. All I can see is a statement of fact.

    I still don’t see any reason to marvel.

    Copied from the bible.

    Like

    • LOL, and all I can see is denial from you clowns.

      Like I said, the only plagiarism is in your Bible. You worship Baal, the “storm rider” and El, an aging god seated on his throne. We should call you Ignoramus the Canaanite, because you worship Canaanite gods!

      Like

  12. Paul,

    > An illiterate trader (Muhammad) cannot plausibly be expected to have read and understood the Hebrew word play in Genesis 18.

    Where does the Qur’an actually show this understanding? It the post is referring to:

    His wife was standing there and she laughed. And we gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob. (Qur’an 11:71)

    If so, I cannot see anything surprising here.

    Like

    • An in depth study of the Quran by Raouf Abou Seida, former senior translator in the United Nations demonstrates that this feature abounds in the Qur’an for virtually every non-Arabic names in the Qur’an and there are many non-Arabic names in the Qur’an such as Hebrew Prophets, etc.

      The study can be read in a book entitled the The Onomastic Miracle in the Koran.

      It can be purchased at

      https://dsbooks.com.au/the-onomastic-miracle-in-the-koran.html.html

      This is a miracle that very few people are aware of. I hope people can read the book which is very well written.

      Below is a brief description.

      The book substantiates that the Koran, which has been revealed in Arabic, explains precisely, within its context, the literal meaning of every non-Arabic proper names cited in the Koranic verses, irrespective of the particular language from which the particular proper name was derived, even if the language in question, such as the Old Egyptian, had been extinct for several centuries before the time of revelation. The book is a great endeavor to explore a new miraculous feature of the Noble Koran that has ever been veiled.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Omer. Ok, but I am still waiting for some evidence that Qur’an 11:71 states anything other that what is obvious to the story.

      Like

  13. Guys, could you further explain the whole thing about the line “And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob” (11:71). I just don’t understand what is the pun here and which Bible’s line does this refer to. Please.

    Like

    • Ramin,
      The etymology of the Hebrew name Yitzhaq (Isaac) means “Laughter” or “laughing” or “he laughs.”

      Read Gen. 18 which describes how Sarah, the elderly wife of Abraham, laughed when God and/or his Angels told Abraham that Sarah would give birth to a son. Later when Sarah does give birth to a son, Abraham names him Isaac means “Laughter” or “laughing” thus the pun.

      The Qur’an mentions Sarah Laughed (faDaHikat) in the same line as Isaac’s name is mentioned, “Ishaaq” (in Arabic), (Qur’an 11:71) thus recognizing the wordplay or pun in the Torah, even though it doesn’t work in Arabic because the Arabic name “Ishaaq” does not mean laughter in Arabic.

      The Arabic word “yaDhak” (laughing) which comes from the rootword “DaHak” (Laughter) sounds a little more similar to the Hebrew name “Yitzhaq.” The question is why didn’t the Qur’an use “YaDhak” as the name for Isaac as that would have helped the pun make more sense in Arabic language?

      It must be remembered that Yitzhaq is a Hebrew name. However, Hebrew was not an existing language in the time of Abraham, as he himself spoke either Chaldean, Akkadian, or possibly some other related Semitic language in which he received revelations from God. The Hebrew language developed long after the birth of Jacob (Israel). So the original name of Isaac was not a Hebrew name to begin with. In the ancient language that Abraham spoke Isaac’s name may or may NOT have meant laughter. Furthermore, it could be theorized that the wordplay between Yitzhaq and Sarah laughing could have been subsequently inserted or embedded into the text by Hebrew scribes long after the original events had occurred.

      It is interesting that the Qur’an does not specify that Isaac’s name means “laughter,” but only mentions of Sarah that, “she laughed.” Likewise, the Qur’an does not indicate that Abraham named his son any derivative of the word “laugh.” Therefore, it is not required that the Arabic name used in the Qur’an, “Ishaaq,” necessarily reflect the meaning of laughter, since that may have not even been the original meaning of the name in whichever revelatory language that God communed with Abraham in.

      It could be possible that the Arabic name “Ishaaq” may have its etymological root in the Arabic word “YaDhak.” Some have argued this way in the past, but I don’t think it is absolutely necessary.

      What is interesting is that the divine author of the Qur’an, forgoes the Hebrew linguistic expectations, and gives indication of the proper original Semitic name as “Ishaaq.” The divinely revealed Qur’an refuses to allude to the Hebrew “Yitzhaq,” by using the Arabic cognate, “Yadhak,” like any mere human author might have done in order to linguistically force the pun to work in Arabic. By rejecting such an approach, the Qur’an remains true to the original revelation that Abraham received, and the actual original (non-Hebrew) name that he, himself, gave to his son in his own language – “Ishaaq.”

      Thus, the Qur’an implicitly recognizes the later Hebrew wordplay; and simultaneously communicates Sarahs incredulous demeanor; as well as the birth of Isaac; without resorting to any etymological name changes like a human author might have. The fact that the Qur’an does all of this, while setting the record straight by staying true to the original revelation sent down to Abraham is highly remarkable.

      This, all combined, lends further credence to the divine authorship of the Qur’an.

      Wa Allahu Alim.

      Like

    • Ibn Issam

      His wife was standing there and she laughed. And we gave her the good news of Isaac, and after Isaac, Jacob. (Qur’an 11:71)

      > The Qur’an mentions Sarah Laughed (faDaHikat) in the same line as Isaac’s name is mentioned, “Ishaaq” (in Arabic), (Qur’an 11:71) thus recognizing the wordplay or pun in the Torah, even though it doesn’t work in Arabic because the Arabic name “Ishaaq” does not mean laughter in Arabic.

      This does not show that the Qur’an recognised the wordplay or pun at all. The verse does not connect Sarah laughing to the choice of name. It is simply giving a summary of the story from the Bible. There is nothing miraculous about this.

      Like

    • SG,
      This phenomenon (i.e. the fact that meanings of the names are embedded in the verses) is not restricted to the name Issac. It , also, happned with the name Jacob in the same verse. Also, the name Zakariah ( ذكر رحمة ) and Yahya ( حنانا من لدنا ) in surat Maryam. Moreover, the meanings of names Ishmael & Musa as the brotheres mentioned above. It’s quite interesting, and it’s definitely something capturing the attention.

      You’re so fundamental guy to see that , it seems . :/

      Like

    • Abdullah1423

      > This phenomenon (i.e. the fact that meanings of the names are embedded in the verses) is not restricted to the name Issac. It , also, happned with the name Jacob in the same verse. Also, the name Zakariah ( ذكر رحمة ) and Yahya ( حنانا من لدنا ) in surat Maryam. Moreover, the meanings of names Ishmael & Musa as the brotheres mentioned above. It’s quite interesting, and it’s definitely something capturing the attention.

      Ok, then please back up your claim with some evidence. There has been no evidence offered at all to date.

      Like

    • Man, this phenomenon is just there. You can see/read it within verses themselves, and that why seemingly those non muslims scholars have concluded that Qur’an is ware of the pun in Genesis 18.

      Like

    • It’s weird that this pun is supposedly in the Koran except it doesn’t work in Arabic and no one listening to muhammad would have understood it.

      It’s only by reading the Koran in light of the Bible that one discovers this miracle. So I guess the bible is there to interpret the Koran?

      Like

    • I guess your stupidity is out of limit. This’s the result when you worship a human being, christians.

      Like

    • Well brother Abdullah, to be fair, Cerbie isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. Give the guy a break.

      Like

    • Salaam Samuel,
      It depends on how you understand the verse and the name.

      As I alluded to above (and sorry if I wasn’t more clear on this) if you take the understanding that the etymology of the name Ishaaq is related to the word Yadhak then the Qur’an is clearly aware of the wordplay/pun in 11:71.

      Again: Hebrew “Yitzhaq/Isaac = Arabic Yadhaq/Ishaaq. Therefore, Yitzhaq = Ishaaq with both carrying a derivative meaning of laugh.

      However, as I also previously stated there is another view which I outlined above that I think addresses Paulus’s comment above. One can understand 11:71 in relation to the Torah verse….or NOT!!

      Whichever way one chooses to understand the verse, exactly or more flexibly, there is still an awareness of the wordplay/pun.

      One can adopt either approach optionally or possibly even both understandings simultaneously at once.

      Therefore the Ayat in 11:71 is DOUBLY miraculous! Alhamdullillah!!

      Wa Allahu Alim.

      Like

  14. “It is simply giving a summary of the story from the Bible”
    If you studied Qur’an carefully, you would not say that. In that very story Qur’an empathized that angels did not eat.

    Liked by 1 person

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: