THERE IS NO FRAUD IN THE HEBREW WRITINGS.

Submitted by IamJoseph (Australia), May 7, 2010 at 23:00

For the readers: You will notice that our dear iam just did not address the most important part of my post and that is the Quranic evidence (eg: al-ayka or layka) we have in the text about other texts that pre-date the Qur'an by hundreds of years and these texts do not exist because they could have been destroyed or they are in a cave waiting to be discovered

And this was our dear iam's answer

># The Quran does not impact here at all -

Hello: The Qur'an is an Arabic language text that has a history too! and I can assure you that it did not drop from the sky and how many times do I have to tell you that?

# Hello to you also. That the Quran is Arabic is not in question. If the Quran contains references of older events only proves that was already recorded pre-Quran. It does not in any way prove there was Arabic writings pre-400 CE.

---------------------------------------------------------

># If the Quran contains pre-existing material,

Right

>it is hardly proof this came from the Quran.

Very true but they were inculded in the Qur'an.

# No dispute. It means the Quran did not tell humanity something new. The point. Its like the history of Abraham and Moses which is also mentioned in the Quran - this is older than the Quran and exclusively derived from the Hebrew writings.

----------------------------------------------------------

>E.g. The Quran contains descriptions of Abraham - this info is not available any place outside the Hebrew bible.

Sure

>You cannot say that one day in the future, that which is now contained in the Quran will be found - come back when it is found.

who knows and who would have imagined that the Nag Hammadi library or the Qumran library would be discovered.

# There has been no discovery the Qran gave humanity anything new - your Nag hammadi does not ensure this.

--------------------------------------------------------

In the case of the Nag Hammadi library we have the only extant copy of the Gospel of Thomas and we know that Athanathius of Alexandria (3rd century CE) told Christians to destroy heretic books and included here would be the Gospel of Thomas. But human nature what it is we are lucky that a Copt back then did not want to destroy a book and this is why we have it today. But what does this have to do with this little chat? Well the Qur'an tells us about little stories (eg: Jesus breathing life in clay birds) the sources of which is the Gospel of Thomas. This means that those that collected the Qur'an either had a copy of the Gospel of Thomas or it was transmitted orally which means that the Qur'an contains texts that are lost to us now but we were lucky enough that a copy of the Gospel of Thomas was discovered.

# If someone [one single source] says birds were breathed life into - it does not mean this occured or that it impacts with this debate. If the Quran says something about the Gospel era, it does not prove there was Arabic writings pre-400 CE. The writings of the Coptics, Thomas or the Quran have no impact here.

--------------------------------------------

Now do you get it? Let me guess you did not

> Nor can you call me a demagogue here - we are pursueing truth and accuracy, and the whole world knows that Muslims parade 1000's of falsehoods openly [Blood Libels, Protocols, Jewish temple is a myth, etc] - and not a single Muslim stands up to negate these falsehoods. I am not a demagogue here.

This is not about Jews it is about Arabic and the history of a language and it does not mean that I do not understand what Islam did to dhimmis but the truth has to be told or we would all be like them

# It does impact. One cannot condone falsehoods on one hand - them claim truth in the other. Check the law or go and enquire with a Judge if in doubt. 'CLEAN HANDS' is a judiciary term - the wtness must be reliable.

----------------------------------------------

And did you think for a minute how can the Arabs that did not have any literary tradition have a book like the Qur'an composed as we are told just like that?

# The Arabs had a literary tradition from 500 BCE onwards. They got it from the Greeks, Persians and Monotheism from the Jews. The Quran did not give us anything new - we do not have a single Islamic law which is accepted by humanity, while we have a vast array of Hebrew laws fully enshrined in the world's judiciary institutions. If the Quran cintains pre-dating laws and enlightenment - it does not mean this is from the Quran.

-----------------------------------------------

The answer to this: Muslims tell us that the Qur'an dropped from the sky. So did the Qur'an drop from the sky?

># No, it did not drop from the sky -

Right and it is a text that has a history too

>it was taken from pre-existing material.

Right now you are getting smart at last

# This was always my point. Islam is new - there was history before it. E.g. Hebrew history; Hebrew writings; Hebrew enlightenment.

--------------------------------------------------------

>Here, revelation or magic cannot apply, because that signifies something new - not what is already pre-existing. E.g. Christians follows the Hebrew bible - where do you think they got it from - the sky?

And where did the Hebrews got it from? Let me see the P tradition right? No books drop from the sky and they are all man made

# The Hebrew bible marks the first alphabetical books, with a host of new laws not seen before. It also cntains a host of new history [Abraham & Moses], and a host of new scientific premises introduced for the first time [DAY; WEEK; that the Universe is finite - it has a 'BEGINNING', etc]. Unlike the Quran, the Hebrew bible affirms pre-existing correct laws - and negated pre-existing incorrect laws - forbidding human sacrifice and ushering in Monotheism, Liberty and inalienable human rights

----------------------------------------------------.

Logic as well as texual criticism of the Qur'an reveal that the Qur'an is really a mish mash of older texts (eg: the Bible, the secular literature of the Syrians and the Greeks and the Jewish tradition or al-Isra'iliyat and it is even difficult at times to define what is really Arabic in the Qur'an) nontheless we have it written IN ARABIC or in Garshouni (and for this see: Q72:18 where the word ALMSJD was read by the ulama as masaajid and it must be from Syriac mesgod and in Q72:19 there is no Arabic word called LBDA and it must be the Syriac 3abada as the letter lam and 3ayn in Syriac can be misread and for this see Luxenberg) or oral texts and in the case of al-ayak layka it must have been several hundreds of years and some of it could be from al-shi3r al-jahili (and for this see Surat al-Nijm) and yes much of al-shi3r al-jahili was made up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of islam during the Muslim masora) nonetheless these were oral texts

># There is no logic in that statement. Pre-dating writing styles does not prove your case. Being so recent as the 6th Century, there is blatant logic this would be taken from the Hebrew or Christian bible.

Any book has a history the Qur'an included and this is what the historian has to work on

And here is another example: in the case of let us say the story of ahl al-kahf (The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus) it must have been 100 years prior to the date of Muhammad's mab3ath in 610CE as the story was written by a Syrian in Syriac who died about 515CE and more evidence that the ulama were dealing with a text and in this case the case the word al-raqeem (the name of the dog) that it must have been a misreading of the Syriac name of the Emperor Decuis which in Syriac would be DQS (DiQiS) and in this case there was a disconnect between the text of the story that must have been in Garshouni and the time the Qur'an was canonized and by then the Ulama had no clue what the word DQS really meansLet me guess: You did not get it right?

# No impact. The terms Arab was not included therein, but the term Syrian was. It cannot be allocated to Islam or Arab.

----------------------------------------------------------

># This is absurd.

What is absurd?

>If a document already exists 100 years pre-Quran, it proves my point: it is pre-existing material and cannot be allocated to the Quran.

Not really it only means that those that wrote the Qur'an included such story for what ever reason but they did not even get it because they were reading a text that we do not have anymore and they did not even know what it means. And the reality here is that with such example we can detach the Qur'an from Muhammad! Did you get it?

>it was written around 600 CE.

This is what Muslims tell us but the Islamic Historical Tradition is the biggest literary fraud in the history of mankind

# If they accuse Zionists of illegally Zionising Zion, then that statement has much merit.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".