Let's say much of Islam and Quran is "bad" even then...

[ApplePie7]

Anyway, I do not agree with ApplePie7 in at least one part. I do not think that the authors of the Qur'an were all Trinitarian as he states. Maybe some were, but I think that at least some, if not most, were unitarian. Just as in modern Islam.

Why do you think that some were unitarian, brother?

 

[alhamdullilah]

Oh, I have spend several hours reading the threads. After a while it became tiresome because it descended into rhetoric and name calling. Both sides are guilty. So, I am not singling out anyone.

Show me where i have called ApplePie7 names

Your wrote "some translations with wrong Arabic". That does not make any sense. You mean "wrong English"?

yes both, he wrote wrong arabic and then translated it wrong. Let me explain

* He translated some text where it (according to him) says the book which you write like this الكتاب but he wrote it like this الكتب which means the books
* he has translations from the quranic arabic to english which I have never seen in my life, even the arabic speaking christian friends I have never seen this before in their life. He (mis)translates it so much that it will look like a christian message (text)

I know that you disagree on the translation, but I never read that his was shown to be in error.

Then you haven't read my posts or from others. There is so much to quote, that's why i asked you to just read up on his threads

Nobody agrees with his translation, there is no scholar that agrees with him, he only has his lexicon that litterly translates the words, that can't be the right way, you should know if you speak more then 1 language (english)

Of course, my Arabic is minimal, so I could have missed a lot. If I have the chance I will show it to a professor of Arabic and get back here.

yes let me know

 

[alhamdullilah]

Sorry, but that is self-contradictory. If ApplePie7 wrote that it "is about Jesus" he did _not_ ignore it. He disagrees, that is different from ignoring.

no he ignores my proof from more then 4 different scholars, well known and respected scholars.
He has stated none, there is no scholar he has mentioned that back his claims up.
any normal arabic speaking person can see his faulty translations

If one agrees with somethin, he should make his argument clear shouldn't he? He should also try and proof his case with evidence from different scholars. On the other hand I have proven him that his translations have been faulty and quoted so many scholars to show him

Im sorry this is not disagreeing but ignoring

I think that he gave you a list of scholars that supported his translation. I could be wrong, but that is what I remember. I wish I had time to learn classical Arabic to be able to form my own opinion.

Please show me, then you would have done something that applepie7 couldn't over these past few years

 

[AveRegina]

Show me where i have called ApplePie7 names

I never wrote that it was you specifically. My comment was about the low level of respect that all parts showed at the end of the thread.

yes both, he wrote wrong arabic and then translated it wrong. Let me explain

* He translated some text where it (according to him) says the book which you write like this الكتاب but he wrote it like this الكتب which means the books
* he has translations from the quranic arabic to english which I have never seen in my life, even the arabic speaking christian friends I have never seen this before in their life. He (mis)translates it so much that it will look like a christian message (text)

Thanks for giving me a concrete example. I see that the difference is the addition of an Alif. It is not clear to me whether he added it to the traditional text of the Qur'an or he removed it. If you would be so kind to give me the link or number of the posting, I would like to read it.

In any case that is yes "changing the text". At least the traditional text. Of course we would have to go back to the manuscripts to check these things.

Is is disturbing that the Islamic authorities in Yemen have hidden these old manuscripts. Why would you hide something like that? This raises all sorts of suspicions. Christians do not hide Bible manuscripts but display them in museums and library and allow all scholars to examine them. Why would Muslims not do the same? What is there to hide?

As a note, the Catholic Church has done the same with the Dea Sea Scrolls. So, again, I am not singling out Muslims.

Then you haven't read my posts or from others. There is so much to quote, that's why i asked you to just read up on his threads

I have read, but the amount is voluminous and I have not had the time to check all the references. Yes, I know it is my fault, but I simply do not have enough time. I both work and study.

Nobody agrees with his translation, there is no scholar that agrees with him, he only has his lexicon that litterly translates the words, that can't be the right way, you should know if you speak more then 1 language (english)

That no one agrees with his translation is an argument from authority that I do not accept as valid. I subscribe to the Christ Myth Hypothesis which most scholars consider to be ridiculous. I think that in religious scholarship there is a lot of inertia, party line, and "do not rock the boat" attitude. After all scholars can loose their employment, funding, or worse if they come up with non-traditional ideas.

I agree, that just using a lexicon is not enough. However, just knowing contemporary Arabic is not enough either to study the Qur'an. You need to know both Classical Arabic and Aramaic to do so.

 

[AveRegina]

no he ignores my proof from more then 4 different scholars, well known and respected scholars.

We are going around and around here, but I would like to point out that quoting different scholars is _not_ a proof. It is an argument from authority.

I agree however, that ApplePie7 has not presented a clear, complete exposition of his ideas. Probably that is because you can not do so on a forum. Probably he would have to write a (e)book or at least set up a web site.

Again, I do not agree with ApplePie7, but one thing I am pretty sure about is that the historical origin of the Qur'an is not according to what traditional Islam presents.

Again, I believe the same about the New Testament. This also originated in a way that is quite different from how the Church traditionally teaches, so I am not singling out Muslims.

 

[AveRegina]

Which Christian sect would that be, knowing that no one Christian sect would agree to all three points (i) to (iii)?

Remember that we have imperfect knowledge of the past. What I know is that points i,ii, and iii were present in that time and in that place. There is no need to have them all be present in a single church. They could have come into the Qur'an from different streams of belief.

(i) was believed by Gnostics from the 2nd century on. Mani the Persian prophet who claimed to be the seal of the prophets and the paraclete of the Gospel of John claimed the same.

(ii) and (iii) are typical Nazarene/Ebionite beliefs of that time and that place.

So, summarizing all these points existed among various Christian and Gnostic groups at that time and that place. That we do not know about a _single_ church that believed all three at the same time is not an issue because (1) it may have existed and we (I) do not know about it, and (2) it could have come from different sources together in the Qur'an. There is a precedent, the New Testament has side by side all sorts of different beliefs.

 

[ApplePie7]

* he has translations from the quranic arabic to english which I have never seen in my life, even the arabic speaking christian friends I have never seen this before in their life. He (mis)translates it so much that it will look like a christian message (text)

Merely uncovering the original intent behind your book of faith, brother...

 

[AveRegina]

Why do you think that some were unitarian, brother?

This is a tentative understanding of the situation. I could very well change my mind based on further information and thinking.

This is how I see it at the moment. At the beginning of Islam we had in the ANE all sorts of belief systems: Christian, Jewish, Gnostic-Manichean, Mandean, Zoroastrian, and Pagan/Sabean.

Among the Christians we could divide the churches into: (1) Chalcedonian trinitarian, (2) non-Chalcedonian trinitarian, (3) Unitarian, (4) other trinitarian.

(1) Catholic-Orthodox patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople
(2) Syrian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox, patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch
(3) Nazoreans, Ebionites
(4) Nestorians.

I think that the Qur'an was not written by 1 person, or even 1 group of people. I think that (just like the NT) it was the compilation from many sources. Basically from all the above listed ones, including Manichean and Gnostics.

I also think that the parts of the Qur'an have widely different ages. The non-crucifixion belief is very old. At least from Basilides (2nd century). The seal of the prophets is from the Persian prophet Mani (3rd century).

We also know that about 20% of the Qur'an is unintelligible. Because of Aramaic (per Luxenberg)? Because misunderstood (per ApplePie7)? Probably a bit of both.

Maybe some of the sources were unitarian and others were trinitarian. What I perceive is a historical affinity between non-Chalcedonian and Ebionite/Nazorean churches.

We know that the Ghassanian Christian Arabs turned against the Catholic-Orthodox Christians during the Battle of Yarmuk. I think that the Ghassanians were Syrian Orthodox.

Anyway, I think that the situation is more complex than you _and_ your opponents portray it to be.

 

[ApplePie7]

This is a tentative understanding of the situation. I could very well change my mind based on further information and thinking.

This is how I see it at the moment. At the beginning of Islam we had in the ANE all sorts of belief systems: Christian, Jewish, Gnostic-Manichean, Mandean, Zoroastrian, and Pagan/Sabean.

Among the Christians we could divide the churches into: (1) Chalcedonian trinitarian, (2) non-Chalcedonian trinitarian, (3) Unitarian, (4) other trinitarian.

(1) Catholic-Orthodox patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople
(2) Syrian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox, patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch
(3) Nazoreans, Ebionites
(4) Nestorians.

I think that the Qur'an was not written by 1 person, or even 1 group of people. I think that (just like the NT) it was the compilation from many sources. Basically from all the above listed ones, including Manichean and Gnostics.

I also think that the parts of the Qur'an have widely different ages. The non-crucifixion belief is very old. At least from Basilides (2nd century). The seal of the prophets is from the Persian prophet Mani (3rd century).

We also know that about 20% of the Qur'an is unintelligible. Because of Aramaic (per Luxenberg)? Because misunderstood (per ApplePie7)? Probably a bit of both.

Maybe some of the sources were unitarian and others were trinitarian. What I perceive is a historical affinity between non-Chalcedonian and Ebionite/Nazorean churches.

We know that the Ghassanian Christian Arabs turned against the Catholic-Orthodox Christians during the Battle of Yarmuk. I think that the Ghassanians were Syrian Orthodox.

Anyway, I think that the situation is more complex than you _and_ your opponents portray it to be.

Thanks for sharing your comments...

According to the Koran, it repeatedly mentions a singular male as 'composing' its contents. Whether or not this is the same singular male in each case, I have not yet determined.

That the Koranic material represents mainstream Christianity is simply undeniable from my research.

Actually, I have yet to come across any portion of the Koran which I have not been able to relate to its Biblical counterpart. Some passages are very difficult to be sure - but they can always be found to be paraphrased from somewhere in the Holy Bible...most notably, the Book of Revelation.

Thus...I would not say that some 20% of the Koran is 'unintelligible', as a persistent exegesis will cause the scripture to confess its' true meaning...

 

[Islam_mulia]

Remember that we have imperfect knowledge of the past.

It is funny because you then make some absurd speculations.

What I know is that points i,ii, and iii were present in that time and in that place. There is no need to have them all be present in a single church. They could have come into the Qur'an from different streams of belief.

But you believed the Quran was written by Christians - unitarians or not. Which unitarian christian group was that? It was made more improabbale when Point i, ii and iii conflict with one or many beliefs of the Christian groups you quoted. It just does not add up.

(i) was believed by Gnostics from the 2nd century on. Mani the Persian prophet who claimed to be the seal of the prophets and the paraclete of the Gospel of John claimed the same.

While the Paraclete was interpreted as a human being, and Mani was one who thought he was a Paraclete, there is no historical evidence that the belief was prevalent in the Hijaz at that time. Maybe you can prove to me otherwise.

(ii) and (iii) are typical Nazarene/Ebionite beliefs of that time and that place.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites have different core beliefs and the verses of the Quran disapproved or nullified their beliefs. It will be silly to think it was an Ebionite who wrote teh Quran when the Quran clearly claim that Jesus was born without a father.

So, summarizing all these points existed among various Christian and Gnostic groups at that time and that place. That we do not know about a _single_ church that believed all three at the same time is not an issue because (1) it may have existed and we (I) do not know about it, and (2) it could have come from different sources together in the Qur'an. There is a precedent, the New Testament has side by side all sorts of different beliefs.

One other thing that you missed, other than placing incredible suggestions, is the MOTIVE of such an exercise. Why would a Christian want to write a Quran and then have all the cards against each and every Christian denominations?

 

[Islam_mulia]

I think that the Qur'an was not written by 1 person, or even 1 group of people. I think that (just like the NT) it was the compilation from many sources. Basically from all the above listed ones, including Manichean and Gnostics.

Who were the sources. Name them.

We often have Christians here providing every small detail of the Prophet's movements and actions. One poster went on to describe every small detail of the Prophet's preference for using the Right hand. Muhammad's (pbuh) every action was being monitored and the hadith does not seem to hide anything. Having said that, we do not see any narration of a "group of people" discussing what to write on the Quran, or referring to the bible to write something. Maybe that is something you shoudl also consider.

 

[AveRegina]

Thanks for sharing your comments...

According to the Koran, it repeatedly mentions a singular male as 'composing' its contents. Whether or not this is the same singular male in each case, I have not yet determined.

Right. This is an import point for historical research. My understanding is that the Qur'an has multiple, even contradictory, sources just like the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

That the Koranic material represents mainstream Christianity is simply undeniable from my research.

At the moment I do not agree, but I am open to a different understanding. Anyway, you would need an exhaustive exegesis of the Qur'an to show this.

Actually, I have yet to come across any portion of the Koran which I have not been able to relate to its Biblical counterpart. Some passages are very difficult to be sure - but they can always be found to be paraphrased from somewhere in the Holy Bible...most notably, the Book of Revelation.

Here I disagree with you. Please look at the following 2 examples:

1. "The people of the cave" Qur'an 18:9-26. The previous Christian tale was narrated by Gregory of Tours (b. 538 - d. 594), and in Paul the Deacon's (b. 720 - d. 799) History of the Lombards. This story was narrated by the Syriac Church in Aramaic. This is clearly non-Biblical

2. "Alexander Romance" Qur'an 18:83-99. The are pre-existing Syriac Christian Aramaic manuscripts of the story. Again, non-Biblical.

Still that does not negate your hypothesis in its entirely. The Bible comes into play through the Christian Syriac Lectionary on which the Qur'an was based. After all the Lectionary was a paraphrase of the Bible.

Thus...I would not say that some 20% of the Koran is 'unintelligible', as a persistent exegesis will cause the scripture to confess its' true meaning...

Well, Luxenberg is pretty confident that you really need to use also Aramaic in addition to classical Arabic to do a proper exegesis of the Qur'an.

 

[AveRegina]

It is funny because you then make some absurd speculations.

Please stop using rhetorical trickery. Calling something "funny" and "absurd" does not mean anything except that you disagree. Please stick to the facts and logic.

But you believed the Quran was written by Christians - unitarians or not. Which unitarian christian group was that? It was made more improabbale when Point i, ii and iii conflict with one or many beliefs of the Christian groups you quoted. It just does not add up.

Sigh! As I have written previously, you are making the assumption that the Qur'an was written by a single person. We do not have evidence for that. I assume that is had multiple sources. Nothing strange, because both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have multiple sources.

While the Paraclete was interpreted as a human being, and Mani was one who thought he was a Paraclete, there is no historical evidence that the belief was prevalent in the Hijaz at that time. Maybe you can prove to me otherwise.

I do not need to prove any such thing. The only thing that I need to prove, and have, is that this belief existed in that time and place in the ANE. You are making the assumption that only beliefs in the Hijaz are relevant. I do not. Who knows how and when the final version of the Qur'an was put together? There is no reason to believe that this happened in Hijaz. I consider Iraq, Egypt, or Syria more likely places.

The Nazarenes and Ebionites have different core beliefs and the verses of the Quran disapproved or nullified their beliefs. It will be silly to think it was an Ebionite who wrote teh Quran when the Quran clearly claim that Jesus was born without a father.

I never stated that an Ebionite wrote the whole of the Qur'an. I belief that there are a plurality of sources of the Qur'an, just like to Bible. Some are Ebionite, others are not.

One other thing that you missed, other than placing incredible suggestions, is the MOTIVE of such an exercise. Why would a Christian want to write a Quran and then have all the cards against each and every Christian denominations?

I see that you are back to using rhetoric with this "incredible". The motive for the compilation of the Qur'an is the same motive of most (all) sacred scriptures: politics. That the people who compiled the Qur'an incorporated contrasting beliefs did not matter. Maybe they were not aware, maybe they did not care, maybe it was an accident of events. Same happened with the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

 

[AveRegina]

Who were the sources. Name them.

I did, repeatedly I did. I suggest that the bulk came from the Syriac Orthodox Church with Gnostic, Manichean, Mandean, Ebionite, and Nazarene influences. There is probably also a Zoroastrian influence.

We often have Christians here providing every small detail of the Prophet's movements and actions. One poster went on to describe every small detail of the Prophet's preference for using the Right hand. Muhammad's (pbuh) every action was being monitored and the hadith does not seem to hide anything. Having said that, we do not see any narration of a "group of people" discussing what to write on the Quran, or referring to the bible to write something. Maybe that is something you shoudl also consider.

I am not responsible for what Christian write on this Forum. Anyway, some are just mining the Ahadith and biographies of the Prophet to look for objectionable material. Personally I give the Ahadith and the biographies at best minimal historical value. I think that most of it is hagiography and legends. Mostly to support some political or legal need by creating a fictitious precedent.

 

[ApplePie7]

Here I disagree with you. Please look at the following 2 examples:

1. "The people of the cave" Qur'an 18:9-26. The previous Christian tale was narrated by Gregory of Tours (b. 538 - d. 594), and in Paul the Deacon's (b. 720 - d. 799) History of the Lombards. This story was narrated by the Syriac Church in Aramaic. This is clearly non-Biblical

I have not studied this portion of scripture enough to say exactly what part of the Holy Bible that it came from, however, it definitely did, as confirmed in the opening verse which states that it was descended in ‘The Book’ (alkitaba) – of which, always refers to the Holy Bible when used in the Koran.

2. "Alexander Romance" Qur'an 18:83-99. The are pre-existing Syriac Christian Aramaic manuscripts of the story. Again, non-Biblical.

I have performed some work in this area over the years, and it definitely is paraphrased Book of Revelation material, as thus:

18.83… ‘The two Horned One’ refers to the Second Beast from the earth…

القرنين=“alqarnayni”

“alqarnayni” definition:

The two horned one.

It comes from the root “qarana”, which means the part of the head of a human being which in an animal is the place whence the horn grows; or the side, or upper side, of the head; or more exactly the temporal ridge which is the middle and main part of the head (i.e. of the cranium), on the right and on the left. One who opposes or contends with another in science or in fight, an opponent; a competitor; an adversary; an antagonist; or ones equal or match or fellow. Ones equal in age. To join on thing to another, couple. People of one time succeeding another among whom is a prophet, or class of learned men, whether its years be many or few. Of a desert, the most elevated part. A pod like that of the locust tree. An issue of sweat. A cord of twisted bark which is bound upon the neck of each of the plowing bulls.


References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, pp. 2987 - 2988
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 452 - 453


18.84… ‘makkanna lahu fee al-ardi’ authority is given to him in the earth…

18.85… ‘atbaAAa’ he followed the woman…

18.86… ‘The two Horned One’ …

18.89… ‘atbaAAa’ he followed the woman…

18.92… ‘atbaAAa’ he followed the woman…

18.93… ‘ssaddayni’ … a swarm of locusts obstructing the horizon…

18.94… ‘The two Horned One’ … ‘Gog & Magog’…

18.99… ‘wanufikha fee alssoori’…and the horn was blown into…

18.100… ‘jahannama yawma-ithin’ …then on that day, Hell…


It’s pretty clear to me that this material has been lifted directly off the pages of Revelation.

I would love to see the supposed preexisting Syriac/Aramaic Christian manuscripts which people think that this was taken from.

 

[Islam_mulia]

I did, repeatedly I did. I suggest that the bulk came from the Syriac Orthodox Church with Gnostic, Manichean, Mandean, Ebionite, and Nazarene influences. There is probably also a Zoroastrian influence.

I was asking for names. You indicated a number of 'sources' and I would think you could at least name a person. That will not be too difficult?

I am not responsible for what Christian write on this Forum. Anyway, some are just mining the Ahadith and biographies of the Prophet to look for objectionable material. Personally I give the Ahadith and the biographies at best minimal historical value. I think that most of it is hagiography and legends. Mostly to support some political or legal need by creating a fictitious precedent.

I believe your theory of Quranic sources is even more mysterious when you could not mention a name, citing several 'Christian' sects whose core belief was attacked by the Quran itself (as well as the Bible, in some cases) and whose historical influence in the Hijaz is unknown.

 

[AveRegina]

I have not studied this portion of scripture enough to say exactly what part of the Holy Bible that it came from, however, it definitely did, as confirmed in the opening verse which states that it was descended in ‘The Book’ (alkitaba) – of which, always refers to the Holy Bible when used in the Koran.

Well, maybe you have to revise your hypothesis, here is why:

This is the outline of the legend taken from Wikipedia:

*************************************************
The outline of the story is that during the persecutions of the Roman emperor Decius, around 250, seven young men were accused of Christianity. They were given some time to recant their faith, but instead gave their worldly goods to the poor and retired to a mountain to pray, where they fell asleep. The emperor, seeing that their attitude towards paganism had not improved, ordered the mouth of the cave to be sealed.
Decius died in 251 and many years passed during which Christianity went from being persecuted to being the major religion of the Roman Empire. At some later time — usually, during the reign of Theodosius II (408 - 450) — the landowner decided to open up the sealed mouth of the cave, thinking to use it as a cattle pen. He opened it and found the sleepers inside. They awoke, imagining that they had slept but one day. One of their number returned to Ephesus. He was astounded to find buildings with crosses attached; the townspeople were astounded to find a man trying to spend old coins from the reign of Decius. The bishop was summoned to interview the sleepers; they told him their miracle story, and died praising God.
*****************************************************

You will notice that the legend historical framework is about 250-450 CE. Just this precludes it to be part of the Bible. The parallels in the Qur'an are also very, very close to the legend. Also the legend circulated in Aramaic in the ANE. I do not see any other plausible explanation other than this story, part of Syriac Aramaic Christian literature, was incorporated into the Qur'an.

I have performed some work in this area over the years, and it definitely is paraphrased Book of Revelation material, as thus:

Yes and no

The legend of Alexandre, which did not have any Biblical origin of course, was combined with material from the Book of Revelation (God & Magog).

Again, we have very, very close material in Aramaic that circulated in the Syriac Church. There are still Aramaic manuscripts in existence.

I think that your hypothesis of a single source (i.e. the Bible) for the Qur'an is as wrong as the traditional Muslim hypothesis of a single source (i.e. a single prophet).

Recent scholarship has shown, I think beyond any shade of doubt, that the most likely scenario is of multiple sources, the bulk of them from the Syriac Church. The Bible was probably only an indirect source of the Qur'an. I think that there are only few direct quotations from the Bible and those could still be explained as coming from Syriac lectionaries.

 

[ApplePie7]

Well, maybe you have to revise your hypothesis, here is why:

This is the outline of the legend taken from Wikipedia:

*************************************************
The outline of the story is that during the persecutions of the Roman emperor Decius, around 250, seven young men were accused of Christianity. They were given some time to recant their faith, but instead gave their worldly goods to the poor and retired to a mountain to pray, where they fell asleep. The emperor, seeing that their attitude towards paganism had not improved, ordered the mouth of the cave to be sealed.
Decius died in 251 and many years passed during which Christianity went from being persecuted to being the major religion of the Roman Empire. At some later time — usually, during the reign of Theodosius II (408 - 450) — the landowner decided to open up the sealed mouth of the cave, thinking to use it as a cattle pen. He opened it and found the sleepers inside. They awoke, imagining that they had slept but one day. One of their number returned to Ephesus. He was astounded to find buildings with crosses attached; the townspeople were astounded to find a man trying to spend old coins from the reign of Decius. The bishop was summoned to interview the sleepers; they told him their miracle story, and died praising God.
*****************************************************

You will notice that the legend historical framework is about 250-450 CE. Just this precludes it to be part of the Bible. The parallels in the Qur'an are also very, very close to the legend. Also the legend circulated in Aramaic in the ANE. I do not see any other plausible explanation other than this story, part of Syriac Aramaic Christian literature, was incorporated into the Qur'an.




Yes and no

The legend of Alexandre, which did not have any Biblical origin of course, was combined with material from the Book of Revelation (God & Magog).

Again, we have very, very close material in Aramaic that circulated in the Syriac Church. There are still Aramaic manuscripts in existence.

I think that your hypothesis of a single source (i.e. the Bible) for the Qur'an is as wrong as the traditional Muslim hypothesis of a single source (i.e. a single prophet).

Recent scholarship has shown, I think beyond any shade of doubt, that the most likely scenario is of multiple sources, the bulk of them from the Syriac Church. The Bible was probably only an indirect source of the Qur'an. I think that there are only few direct quotations from the Bible and those could still be explained as coming from Syriac lectionaries.

If you could produce some of these lectionaries to review and exegete, then we might have something to directly reference....however, I have never seen one...have you?

The big difference between what one can easily locate on the web, and what I am doing, is simple verifiable exegesis with known pre-existing scriptures.

I need to see and verify the original languages.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Sigh! As I have written previously, you are making the assumption that the Qur'an was written by a single person. We do not have evidence for that. I assume that is had multiple sources. Nothing strange, because both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have multiple sources.

I asked several times - who do you think wrote the Quran? I would seem you think it was a committee. Tell us then who were in the Committee? I cannot imagine an Ebionite, a Nazarene, a Jew, a follower of Mani, an Orthodox Chriistoan and a Zoroastrian sitting together discussing what to write. Not to forget. the pagan Meccans who were in control at the beginning, were always monitoring the actions of Muhammad (pbuh) and this committee would be left unknown?

I do not need to prove any such thing. The only thing that I need to prove, and have, is that this belief existed in that time and place in the ANE. You are making the assumption that only beliefs in the Hijaz are relevant. I do not. Who knows how and when the final version of the Qur'an was put together? There is no reason to believe that this happened in Hijaz. I consider Iraq, Egypt, or Syria more likely places.

Now, you are extending the border. I am not sure the influence of Mani, which we happen to be discussing here, was prevalent in Iraq, Egypt, or Syria. Even if it was, you need to prove to us how the belief was so important that you think it would get into the Quran. Where in the Quran is the influence of Mani?

I never stated that an Ebionite wrote the whole of the Qur'an. I belief that there are a plurality of sources of the Qur'an, just like to Bible. Some are Ebionite, others are not.

Why then is the Quran against the belief of Ebionites, Nazarenes, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism and the other groups you mentioned? It is a defeatist purpose, I must say.

I see that you are back to using rhetoric with this "incredible". The motive for the compilation of the Qur'an is the same motive of most (all) sacred scriptures: politics. That the people who compiled the Qur'an incorporated contrasting beliefs did not matter. Maybe they were not aware, maybe they did not care, maybe it was an accident of events. Same happened with the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

I see to may "maybes" in your ideas. If it was the Ebionites, Nazarenes, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism who designed the Quran, then I would think the Quran and the Muslims would follow the belief of these people. History has shown that the early Muslims were not accomodating to these groups or other Christian groups. It is a strange 'politics', to start with.

 

[ApplePie7]

I asked several times - who do you think wrote the Quran?

Well...we know for sure that no one named "Muhammad" had anything at all to do with the Koran, according to the Koran, itself.

So...we can rule this possibility out.

Since the Koran claims no eye-witnesses, this then leaves the reader to play Sherlock Holmes.