Plagiarism revisited and Q112:1

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Aug 17, 2013 at 08:18

For the readers this is beyond our dear Submitter's poor eduaction and it is about Q112:1 and as I shall prove to you that the author of the Qur'an took such verse from the Hebrew Bible via the Syriac Bible

If we read Deuteronomy 6:4-9 we will find the שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל‎ or Sh'ma yisrael which in Arabic would be اسمع ياأسراءيل or Isma3 ya Israel or Listen O Israel and here is the verse in Hebrew שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יהוה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יהוה אֶחָד : Which can be transliterated as Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.

And translated as:

Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.

And this is the source of Q112:1 as Muhammad was not an original thinker or theologian

Now let us see where it came from: It must be the Syriac form of the Sh'ma which one would find in the New Testament Mark 12:29 ܐܳܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܩܰܕ݂ܡܳܝ ܡܶܢ ܟ݁ܽܠܗܽܘܢ ܦ݁ܽܘܩܕ݁ܳܢܶܐ ܫܡܰܥ ܐܺܝܣܪܳܝܶܠ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܐܰܠܳܗܰܢ ܡܳܪܝܳܐ ܚܰܕ݂ ܗ݈ܽܘ

And this is the transliteration of the Sh'ma in the Syriac NT:

Sh'ma Israel, MarYah Alahan, MarYah Khad Hu

And for those of you that know Arabic you will be able to know what it says and it is

Hear Israel the Lord our God (this is from the Syriac word Alaha which the Arabic word Allah is a loan word) the Lord is One

Now let us go back to the Quranic 112:1 and 2 and this is what it says قل هو الله احد الله الصمد and the masorites had no clue if this is one or two verses as in Q112:1 would be قل هو الله احد and Q112:2 would be الله الصمد and this is what we have in the Qur'an now but we have many problems here: The meaning of the word al-samad no one has a clue about what it means and in Q112:1 the grammar is very clumsy as all one would need in classical Arabic is an introductory clause as in Qul or say followed by Allahu Ahad (sic) or subject followed by the predicate or those of you that know Arabic garmmar المبتدأ والخبر but notice that the we also have the word HU or he or هو which is clumsy Arabic but it is there because the source of Q112:1 must be the Syriac Sh'ma where one finds the Syriac HU or he as you can see above

Now here is the real disaster and it was recognized by al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi that the Quranic word Ahad does not mean wahid or one and that the word ahad without the Arabic ال التعريف or al al-ta3reef means one of and not one and this is indeed a linguistic disaster

Now how could this have happened? we are left with two answers:

1. It is either that the author of the Qur'an made a mistake

2. Or that this is a loan word from the Syriac Sh'ma (and more evidence is the rasm of the word HU is هو which is edited by the ulama as هُوَ by adding a damma above the letter ha and a fatha above the letter waw and now we have HUWA

One must conclude that this is a loan word from Syriac had or one and here is the root ܝܚܕ

And here is the word one or the one ܐ݇ܝܼܚܝܼܕܵܐ

And for those of you interested in the vocalization of the word http://www.premiumwanadoo.com/cuneiform.languages/syriac/dosearch.php?searchkey=303&language=id

Achada which to me must be the source of the Quranic ahad

Now we know where the word comes from

Now let us turn to Christian Arabic because it can shed light on the meaning of the word one in Arabic as it pertians to the Sh'ma

The Copts translated the Bible to Arabic very early and here is the text of the Sh'ma in Coptic from Mark 12:29 s-shtm pisrael pjoeis pennoute pjoeis oua pe (credit goes to Father M. I) and here is the Arabic translation اسمع يا اسرائيل. الرب الهنا رب واحد

Or Isma3 ya Israel the Lord our God is ONE (WAHID) God

This translation is as early as one can get and this means the following

1. The Christians believe in one God so why is Allah so confused about what they believe in you tell us our dear Submitter

2. It also means that they got the correct translation of the word one as in Arabic it is wahid and not as the Qur'an tells us it is Ahad

For the readers: Our dear Submitter tells us that if Allah says in the Hebrew Sh'ma that the word is echad then it must be Ahad in Arabic which is plain stupid

Now you tell us what does this have to do with Paul? and why would the God of the Qur'an not even mention that one can find the Sh'ma in both NT and OT? this also means that Allah's diatribes about the Trinity are all bogus (and forget it that he did not not get the right Trinity) this also means that Allah does not know what he wrote in both the OT and NT as he told us that he is the author of both of them

Now i will leave it up to the readers to judge you our dear Submitter the wannabe Arab

---

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".