Borrowings from Earlier Texts — Cultural Echoes, Not Unique Revelation

Part 4 of the series: “Ten Evidence-Based Reasons to Doubt the Divine Origin of the Qur’an”

---

Introduction: Does originality prove divinity?

Muslim apologetics claim the Qur’an’s content is uniquely original, transcending human sources.
Yet historical evidence shows the opposite: it draws heavily on older Jewish, Christian, and apocryphal traditions circulating in late antiquity.

These borrowings are not hidden — they appear openly in narratives, vocabulary, and themes. Instead of unique divine revelation, what emerges is a tapestry woven from the religious culture of Muhammad’s environment.

The most logical explanation is not a direct voice from God, but a text shaped by local oral lore, scripture, and apocrypha known in Arabia.

---

1. The cultural crossroads of Arabia: why this matters

Mecca and Medina were not isolated deserts.
Arabia sat between Byzantium and Persia, bordering Jewish communities in Yathrib (Medina), Christian Arabs in Najran, and trade routes carrying ideas and texts.

Historical evidence:

• Jewish tribes like Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir lived near Medina.

• Hanifs and others explored Jewish and Christian monotheism.

• Oral storytelling (Qassas) kept biblical and extra-biblical tales alive.

Scholarly consensus:
The Qur’an emerged inside this environment, not apart from it.

“The Qur'an bears unmistakable marks of a milieu saturated with biblical legends and apocrypha.”
— John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)

---

2. Abraham destroys the idols: Midrash, not Torah

The Qur’an (21:51–67) tells how Abraham smashed his tribe’s idols, leaving only the largest so people would blame it.

Key point:

• This story does not appear in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis).

• It comes from Jewish Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (38:13), a rabbinic commentary written centuries before Islam.

The Qur’an retells the story in its own style, but the narrative core predates Muhammad.

Logical implication:

If God revealed the Qur’an independently, why does it reuse a Jewish parable absent from the canonical Torah?

---

3. Jesus speaks from the cradle: echo of the Arabic Infancy Gospel

The Qur’an (19:29–30; 3:46) has baby Jesus speaking from the cradle to defend his mother Mary.

Key point:

• Absent from canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).

• Found in apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel (6th century), widely known in Christian Near East.

Example text:
“And Jesus spoke, saying: ‘Lo, Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God…’”

Scholars:

• Sidney Griffith, “Christian Lore and the Arabic Qurʾan” (2008)

• Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext (2010)

The Qur’an’s version is stylistically different, but the motif — infant Jesus speaking — comes from outside the canonical Bible.

---

4. The Seven Sleepers: a Christian legend retold

Qur’an 18:9–26 recounts youths who fled persecution, slept in a cave for centuries, then awoke.

Origin:

• Known as the Legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, popular in Syriac, Greek, and Latin before Islam.

• Celebrated by Christians as proof of bodily resurrection.

Key point:

• Qur’an localises the story (al-Raqim) and disputes details (how many sleepers, how long).

• But the core narrative is not original.

Scholarly view:
The Qur’an's version reflects oral transmission, with embellishments.

Sources:

• Andrew Palmer, “The Seven Sleepers in Christian and Muslim Tradition” (1990)

---

5. Alexander the Great as Dhul-Qarnayn: Greek romance turned scripture

Qur’an 18:83–98 describes Dhul-Qarnayn (the “two-horned one”) traveling to the ends of the earth, building a barrier against Gog and Magog.

Origin:

• Mirrors the Alexander Romance, a popular Greek text translated into Syriac and Arabic.

Key points:

• Alexander depicted with horns (symbol of divine power).

• The Qur’an retells the wall-building against Gog and Magog.

Problems:

• Alexander was a pagan; the Qur’an casts him as a righteous monotheist, likely from Syriac Christian reinterpretation.

Scholars:

• Kevin Van Bladel, The “Alexander Legend” in the Qur’an (2008)

---

6. The confusion of Mary (Maryam) with Miriam (sister of Moses): inherited from pious legend

Qur’an 19 and 3:35–36 call Mary “sister of Aaron” (ukht Harun) and her father “Imran” (Amram).

Problem:

• In the Bible, Miriam (Moses’ sister) is daughter of Amram; Mary, mother of Jesus, is centuries later.

Apologetic claim:

• “Sister of Aaron” is an honorific title.

Historical explanation:

• The confusion likely comes from oral blending of Old and New Testament figures in Syriac Christian storytelling.

Scholars:

• Sidney Griffith (2008)

• Christoph Luxenberg, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (2007)

---

7. Pre-Islamic monotheist language and prayer forms

Phrases:

• Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim (“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful”) predates the Qur’an.

• Meccan Arabs used “Rahman” (the Merciful) before Islam.

Ka‘ba:

• Already known as a sanctuary dedicated to Allah, alongside other gods.

Evidence:

• Inscriptions from South Arabia (5th–6th century) invoke Rahmanan.

Sources:

• Garth Fowden, Empire to Commonwealth (1993)

• Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)

---

8. Common theological ideas: Judgment, paradise, and hell

Qur’anic descriptions of:

• Houris in paradise.

• Scales weighing deeds.

• Fire torment for unbelievers.

All appear in earlier Jewish apocalyptic texts and Christian apocrypha (e.g., Apocalypse of Peter, Testament of Abraham).

These themes are not unique but part of late antique monotheistic worldview.

---

9. Why it matters: divine originality vs. cultural borrowing

A truly divine revelation, independent of human culture, should:

• Transcend known local myths and apocrypha.

• Introduce radically new theological ideas.

Instead, the Qur’an:

• Reuses familiar stories from Jewish, Christian, and Arabian lore.

• Localises them with Arabic style, but keeps the narrative frame.

Scholarly view:

“The Qur’an is best understood not in isolation, but as part of a continuum of late antique monotheist literature.”
— Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur'an and Its Biblical Subtext (2010)

---

10. The apologetic fallback: “It confirms earlier scriptures”

Muslim apologists argue:

• The Qur’an borrows because it confirms prior revelation.

• Borrowing shows continuity, not human authorship.

Problems:

• Qur’an corrects, changes, and sometimes contradicts the originals.

• Includes apocryphal tales unknown to the canonical Bible.

• The doctrine of tahrif claims Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures — yet the Qur’an repeats content from those same “corrupted” texts.

Logical problem:

How can a divine revelation depend on, yet accuse of corruption, the same texts?

---

11. Intellectual honesty: what does the evidence suggest?

Historical evidence shows:

• Widespread oral and written circulation of these legends.

• Muhammad lived amid Jews, Christians, and storytellers.

Simplest explanation:

• Muhammad retold stories he heard, adapting them to his preaching.

• The Qur’an reflects the religious culture of 6th–7th century Arabia.

Not an isolated, miraculous revelation beyond human reach.

---

12. Conclusion: echoes, not invention

The Qur’an is not “plagiarised.”
It reflects:

• Cultural borrowing.

• Oral transformation.

• Unique Arabic style.

But:

• These are signs of human composition, not divine isolation.

• The text’s originality is in rhetorical arrangement, not theological novelty.

“The Qur’an’s real historical interest lies in how it reworked known traditions, not in transcending them.”
— John Wansbrough (1977)

Thus, the Qur’an looks like a product of its time and place — not the timeless word of an omniscient God.

---

📚 References & further reading:

• John Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (1977)

• Sidney Griffith, “Christian Lore and the Arabic Qurʾan” (2008)

• Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'an and its Biblical Subtext (2010)

• Kevin Van Bladel, The “Alexander Legend” in the Qur’an (2008)

• Christoph Luxenberg, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran (2007)

• Andrew Palmer, “The Seven Sleepers” (1990)

• Patricia Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (1987)

---

💡 Next in the series:

Part 5 — Contradictions Within the Text: Clues of Human Editing, Not Divine Unity