Steefen said
Omar6741:

… there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca …

 

Steefen:

No plausible way, Omar6741?

Waraqa: paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad

Muslim tradition maintains that Waraka studied the Bible under Jews and Christians.

Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad, p. 107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

He read an Arabic translation of the New Testament. He also “wrote the New Testament in Arabic,” but it is not clear whether this means that he translated it from the Greek or merely wrote out someone else’s translation so that he would have his own copy.

Good point, Steefen!

The problem is that those same traditions about Waraqa that were recorded by Ibn Ishaq show that he had not taught anything to the Prophet (s) before the latter’s first revelatory experience, and died soon after. For example, the Prophet(s) was not even aware of the general principle, of which Waraqa informed him, that prophets tend to be driven out by their own people when they come with divine messages.

As further confirmation, we can see that nobody among the opponents of Islam pointed to Waraqa as a possible source of the teachings of Islam — and they were in the best position to find out something like this if it were true, and would have surely made use of it just as they did with other matters.

For these reasons, the “Waraqa hypothesis”, among others, is often not found satisfactory by modern secular scholars, who feel obliged to try to move the origins of Islam out of the Arabia peninsula altogether — and this causes even bigger problems than before.

Stephen said
Omar6741 wrote:

I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.

Well the “evidence” is in the Quran itself which is full of characters and stories similar if not identical to written Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts that predate it by centuries.  Why would you seriously deny this? No “assumption” is necessary. Read the texts.

And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.

Well it’s YOUR assumption that the Prophet was a “lone unlettered individual” and that the entirety of the text could have come from him (or through him).  Just like the Bible, textual and critical analysis of the text shows it could not have originated as a single unaltered work.  We have copies of the Quran that differ from one another like the NT and in some sections scholars note the presence of Persian loan words that are consistent with the ninth century rather than the seventh. Not to mention the contradictions and discrepancies  in the teachings.

Islamic fundamentalism is just as insupportable as Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.

       That is quite right; there are indeed similarities between the Quranic versions of certain stories and the Biblical versions of those same stories. There are also some very serious differences. What we need is an explanation of both similarities and differences. My claim is that the hypothesis “Quran borrowed from the Bible” does not do a good job at explaining the patterns of similarities and differences.

        The other way of explaining similarities between texts is to postulate a common cause. This approach has not been pursued far enough, since people assume that the Quran is not a divine revelation, and they have no other ideas a to how a common cause could have resulted in these similarities. Again, there are prior assumptions at work that guide the ways in which people explain the similarities between Quranic and Biblical narratives.

         The Quran is in fact later than the Bibles, yes; but I think that Western scholars should explore the possibility that the Quran preserves traditions that are older than the traditions preserved in the Bible.  There was, after all, a migration of Judahites south into Arabia when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple around 587BC, since memories of this are preserved in both the Jerusalem Talmud and in Arabian folk tradition. So it would make sense to explore the possibility that very early traditions of the Judahite kingdom were preserved in Arabia, and that the Quran accurately reflects these traditions.

          My proposal makes no theological assumptions. The Quran is later than the Bible, though the traditions preserved in the Quran may well be older than those preserved in the Bible. This possibility has been ruled out in advance by Western scholars.

Stephen said
Judith wrote

Stephen: “Interesting argument. The NT’s imperfections used as evidence of its PERFECTION.” NO. It’s evidence of its authenticity is what was said.

Well I was being ironical but I would be interested in what you mean by “authentic”.

 

Omar6741 wrote

The other way of explaining similarities between texts is to postulate a common cause. This approach has not been pursued far enough, since people assume that the Quran is not a divine revelation, and they have no other ideas a to how a common cause could have resulted in these similarities. Again, there are prior assumptions at work that guide the ways in which people explain the similarities between Quranic and Biblical narratives.

To clarify, I do not “assume that the Quran is not a divine revelation“.  It is a conclusion I’ve reached because I don’t see any reason to think it is a divine revelation. 

Fair enough. Then can I ask what would count as evidence, for you, that the Quran is a divine revelation? What is it that you have not found, that would convince you of its Divine origin if it were there?

Thanks!

MMahmud said
You deny the signs because you are a disbeliever.

We don’t need to label people or call them names, do we? Our dialogue partners on these boards are well meaning people seeking the truth. They are not the equivalent of Pharaoh. And even with Pharaoh, Moses, peace be upon him was told:

“But speak; to him with gentle speech (Arabic: Qawlan Layyinan), perhaps he (la’allahu) may take heed of the reminder or fear God'”

** you do not have permission to see this link **