Talk:Legends and the Quran

General criticism
I have doubts that this is page represents a truly encyclopedic topic, at least as it stands now. I won't call it a POV fork, but it seems most of the material here could be merged into Qur'an or Quranic criticism (wherever we have that). Statements like "Almost unanimously, modern Jews and Christians believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib" are just bad - and the quote that follows is not actually from the Quran, but from the Hadith, and is not literal.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your contributions. I moved the rib content, as you said. I only wanted it here temporarily anyway. --Ephilei 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I react to Wikipedia article and I somehow put my comment both in assessments and here. I'm sorry.

I am having trouble calming down after reading some of this article :(

When comparing the Qur'an to the Bible, it should be mentioned that the Qur'an states that both books came from the same Author! We who believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, also believe that it is confirming what was said in the Bible and the books that came before it, as the Qur'an itself instructs us:

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety..." (Qur'an, 5:47) Vekaz (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"The content is usually Jewish folklore rejected by Jewish scholars."

This whole article is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with illustrating legends shared by Islam and Jewish/Christian folklore, but this entry is little more than Christian polemic. I don't know of any Orthodox Jew that rejects a jot of the Mishna or any aggada with legit mesora. When your only external link is a reference to a messageboard thread titled Unholy Quran, it's time to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.19.165.203 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

there should be a Legends and the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.25.146 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Legends and hadith
I've started User:Ephilei/Legends and hadith as a partner to this article. Feel free to contribute. --Ephilei 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

non NPOV
Sure. It is written as if only where the Qur'an disagrees with Bible, it is myth. (originally written in an edit comment by Aminz)

It's written from the point of view of Source criticism which would say that anything in common with the Bible was taken from the Bible - unless its also in common with a legend, then it could have been taken from either. You're implying it has a Christian bias, yes? Any non-Muslim would write the article exactly the same. If Legends and the Bible is written, I'll welcome it. A lot of work has been done there already. It would be easy. What suggestions are there to make this NPOV, if it isn't already. --Ephilei 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest we move this article to "Myth, Legends and the Qur'an".
 * Ephilei, My point is that according to historians, one source of the myth in the Qur'an is the Bible. The article seems to imply that the sources of myth are only unorthodox texts. For example,


 * "Most of this literature was created long after the events they documents, after orthodox accounts had been written, therefore they are not considered to have any historical accuracy."
 * This seems to imply that the Biblical accounts have historical accuracy. --Aminz 06:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Aminz. Let me first clarify the background of the article: People who don't think the Qur'an was divinely revealed wonder where its content came from. If, they hypothesize, it's not from God, then obviously large portions are from the Bible, which is common knowledge among those familiar with the Qur'an. That's covered thoroughly in Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an. Then what about the rest of the Qur'an's content? That is what this article covers. An article covering both sources would be 1) very long and more confusing 2) redundant with the Similarities article 3) avoids the issue that these documents are folklore and not accepted by Jews and Christians. There's no Jewish or Christian bias here. It's all about source criticism. An anti-semitic atheist would have the same view.


 * There is a reason to separate the content from the Muslim perspective also: Muslims gladly say that parts of the Bible are/were from God so that's all fine. Parts of the Qur'an are new to humankind, and that's fine. But what about these parts of the Qur'an? Whatever the Muslim view, it's markedly different from the biblical content. I'd love if you could include the Muslim view or reaction to this material because I don't know what it is. Muhammad Asad embraces it, but I don't want to assume most Muslims agree with him. What do you think personally?


 * Using the word "myth" opens a huge can of worms so I don't think it should be used without very strong motivation. Skim through the vast debate over page moves for Myth and related pages. I've made sure to avoid that word here. See also User:Ephilei/POV. I agree that legend isn't an ideal word. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated." A more fitting word would be fable, but that seems non-NPOV because fables are always false which (I think) many Muslims would strongly disagree. Perhaps a better name is Non-cannonical documents and the Qur'an? That's a mouthful and only a religion nerd (like me) would ever read it. --Ephilei 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ephilei, I am not objecting to what is already included here. I am not disagreeing that this article should cover the question of "People who don't think the Qur'an was divinely revealed wonder where its content came from."
 * My point is that this article shouldn't be restricted to this question. This article is about "Legends and the Qur'an". What are the sources of legend: 1. The Bible 2. Jewish folklore, Christian folklore, Alexander Romance etc etc.
 * The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an has an article on this topic. It covers "myth" and "legends" together. That was why I asked to cover both these in this article. --Aminz 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How, do you suggest, does the definition of "myth" differ from "legend"? I'm open to it, but I don't understand how the word "myth" would improve the title. --Ephilei 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, "Myths are narratives that serve to explain and describe the experienced world by laying bare its archetypal patterns; they are often staged in a cosmic or supernatural framework so as to manifest binding truths, to generate meaning and provide guidance. Legends, raising no such universal claim, may be understood as narratives of pious imagination celebrating an exemplary figure."
 * The source continues: "Are there myths and legends in the Qur'an? Even today, this is a controversial question, since the term "myth," in particular, is sometimes thought to be irreconcilable with the concept of revelation. The reasons for such hyper-sensitivity are historical; to quote Jarsolav Stetkvych..." --Aminz 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are great definitions! So what makes any of these elements? I think the story of the Cave and Abraham the idol smasher are myths because they are complete stories, but nothing else because they are only elements. What do you think? I think the "killing all mankind" section isn't a myth or legend, just a straight-out teaching. Perhaps then the best name of the article is really Folklore and the Qur'an? I didn't want to use it before because I thought "legend" was more NPOV than "folklore." However, since the whole article could be considered a subset of Criticism of the Qur'an, and the POV (the good kind of POV) of the article is of folklore anyway, perhaps that title is fair. What do you think? --Ephilei 23:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't make a decision until there's an agreement. --Ephilei 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why this article should be a subarticle of Criticism of the Qur'an? It can be written NPOV and if it criticizes, so it does. Anything related to the story of Abraham is considered to be legend (please check the entry of Columbia Encyclopedia on Isaac). Ephilei, I prefer that we find a couple of academic articles on this and summerize them. I have already got one but haven't gone through it yet. Cheers, --Aminz 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather "Myths and legends" most simply because Encyclopedia of the Qur'an follows this pattern. --Aminz 07:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because some paper encyclopedia does? I don't think that's a good enough reason. Many authors would not combine myth with legend, Joseph Campbell for one. I hope you do contribute. I've been the only one so far so there's been no one to double check my work - unless it's already perfect! which I can't believe! Yes, Abraham is legend and myth. So what do you think about the title Folklore and the Qur'an? --Ephilei 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article seems to essentially single out the Qu'ran. I think it is a legitimate article, and although the title could be seen as a knock on Islam, the fact is, there is no alternative way to describe it. Perhaps "Borrowed scripture/Apocryphal Christian scripture in the Qu'ran?" That seems far too wordy. With that said, the article still appears to single Islam out, and doesn't come off entirely scholarly. I could just as easily point to the parallels between Zoroastrianism and the entire Messianic tradition (in fact, the Messiah is virgin born in Zoroastrianism as well), dualism, the concept of Satan, the personification of Angels following the Jewish exile, etc. in order to justify that Judaism, and through Judaism, both Islam and Christianity are essentially "legends" themselves. That wouldn't exactly be a scholarly article, and it would be difficult to prove or verify from an academic perspective. -MadarB 06:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe "Derivative scripture in the Qur'an"? I don't know, but "borrowed" seems to weak of a statement for the charges, and "Apocryphal Christian scripture" doesn't seem to cover all of the info-bits. I think that the most urgent problem here is the quotefarming, really, but you do bring up a good point.--C.Logan 06:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My 2c would be for Pre-existing traditions and the Qur'an. I don't see the "quotefarming" as something that can be avoided, really. An article like this, which definitely passes WP:N and WP:V, needs by its nature to be grounded in the text, to make it comprehensible why reliable sources have said what they have said.   Jheald 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Resonse

this page is full of wrong information. although Mishnah is written by humans and contain commentories but it is actully a trial to write the spoken word of God. it is clearly known ( by Jew scholars)that the parts of text which did not suffer from dout was written as it is, and some text was edited or commented on. so it is not strange to find parts of it matshing the spoken words of God

Also About the story of Ibrahim, Book of Jubilees was found to gether with some books of the old testemony in the red sea scrolls, The fragments span at least 800 texts that represent many diverse viewpoints, ranging from beliefs resembling those anciently attributed to the Essenes, to ideas which would appear to represent the tenets of other sects. About 30% are fragments from the Hebrew Bible, from all the books except the Book of Esther and the Book of Nehemiah (Abegg et al 2002). About 25% are traditional Israelite religious texts that are not in the canonical Hebrew Bible, such as the Book of 1 Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, and the Testament of Levi. Another 30% contain Biblical commentaries or other texts such as the Community Rule (1QS/4QSa-j, also known as "Discipline Scroll" or "Manual of Discipline"), The Rule of the Congregation, The Rule of the Blessing and the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness (1QM, also known as the "War Scroll") related to the beliefs, regulations, and membership requirements of a Jewish sect, which some researchers continue to believe lived in the Qumran area. The rest of the fragments (about 15%) remain unidentified.

if these are written in this time and only 30% resemblance do this mean that the rest is not of the same conical nature, so why trust the source? and if we trusted it why specific books of the current bible is not there even small portions of it? and why we judge the Book of Jubilees as non canonical which contains the story of Ibraham destroying the Idols ( as mentioned in Quraan)? This is a clear evidence of what it clearly stated in Quraan (the bible is Neglected, forgotten or changed) some other books are douted to be canonical might be refused by church or Jews like the book of Knoch

The early Christian father Tertullian wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.[6] The Greek language text was known to, and quoted by nearly all, Church Fathers. A number of the Church Fathers thought it to be an inspired work, particularly Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian[citation needed], based on its quotation in Jude. However, some later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an "apocryphal" work (Cf. Gerome, Catal. Script. Eccles. 4.). By the fourth century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception). Some excerpts are given by the 8th century monk George Syncellus in his chronography, which are published in August Dillmann's translation, pp. 82-86. In the 9th century it is listed as an apocryphon of the New Testament by Patriarch Nicephorus Cf. Niceph. (ed. Dindorf), I. 787.

same thing may apply to the other claims, especially we all new that Quraan and the bible both mention the mircles of jesus ( revival of the dead and the cure of diffrent illness...

regarding the relation to Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ or An Arabic text, Injilu 't Tufuliyyah translated from a Coptic original gives some parallels to the episodes, "recorded in the book of Josephus the Chief Priest, who was in the time of Christ" so, this Chief priest lived during the whole life of jesus and he mantioned this happenings. so it is not fiction

this two mircles ( talking baby, mud to bird) is not present in any Greek culture. the connection between native American culture is not valid because it is also not mentioned and the link to these culture was abscent at the time

The Qur'ān retells stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Tanakh, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details.

many other stories are events like but differ from than in the bible or Tanakh. So it is a proof of that it came from God. why Mohammed change any stories. if you asume he have all these detailed books and Gospels ?

Why there other stories not mentioned in all these books?

This article could really do with a better title. The Qur'ān and pre-existing traditions maybe? ʄ! •¿talk?  01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this a bad topic because it attacks Islam and we as moslims gets angry whensomeone relate the legends to the holy quran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.144.44.68 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This just appears to be more similarities, not differences. Why not merge with Similarities section?
If this is a criticism page, I don't see any criticism. It just says that the Quran agrees with older religious texts... which are similarities, not contradictions or anything of that sort. It doesn't list any parallels with any non-Judaic or Christian tradition so how is this a criticism page? I say merge with Similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.67.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this article
I've read the entire article and the talk page, yet remain puzzled: What is this article really for? What purpose does it serve?

If I understood editor Ephilei's comments correctly, it provides several points in which the Qur'an agrees with earlier scriptures, both canonical and apocryphal, both Christian and Jewish; and in so doing, for those who don't accept that the Qur'an was divinely inspired, provides some possible other sources for its content.

Now, trying to be logical here:
 * 1) One either does or doesn't accept that the Qur'an was divinely inspired.
 * 2) In the first case, it is interesting to see that the Qur'an confirms earlier teachings of Abrahamic faiths - exactly as Muslims believe, based on the Qur'an itself.
 * 3) In the second case, no amount of evidence of agreement between the Qur'an and earlier sources will convince the sceptic that the Qur'an is divinely inspired. Nor will it enable him to claim the contrary.
 * 4) Supposing the sceptic right, every idea and text in the Qur'an must come from some earlier divine source or some human source. Those sources may be classified as:
 * 5) *Earlier scriptures (whether divinely inspired or not)
 * 6) *Earlier exegetical texts of religions practiced in the region, including homiletics and parables
 * 7) *Fictions in common circulation in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, including legends and myths
 * 8) *Fictions invented by Muhammad
 * 9) In each of these classes, we have the possibility that a source (or a closely related version of it) used by Muhammad still exists; failing which, that source is lost without trace. Respectively, we will have identified a possible source - or failed to.
 * 10) Without showing the origin of each and every text in the Qur'an, the sceptic will not have proven that the Qur'an contains only texts which Muhammad either copied or invented.
 * 11) Even Muhammad's enemies trusted him and so highly respected his integrity that they left valuables with him for safe-keeping. So, there's no point in trying to prove that Muhammad was a liar, plagiarist or cheat; historically, it won't wash.
 * 12) A better way for the sceptic to diminish the Qur'an's contribution to humankind's ethical maturity, in the tradition of Abrahamic monotheism, would rather be to show that the Qur'an is wrong, self-contradictory or nonsensical, or that the way it teaches does not advance human responsibility, reflection and religion. If you can.  Perhaps those who wish to detract from the Qur'an have another text that is clearer to them?  Well, let them use it, and use it well.  "Say: 'To you be your way, and to me be mine.'", as the Qur'an commands Muhammad.
 * 13) There was an historic contest between the Qur'an (not Muhammad) and four acclaimed poets, who accepted the challenge, but failed to produce even one Sura of equal value to one in the Qur'an, as adjudged by their peers.
 * 14) The Qur'an had earlier superseded the famous poems previously hung in the sanctuary of the Ka'aba, which had been the best work of generations of famous poets.
 * 15) Any legendary or scriptural sources available to Muhammad were also available to all those poets, so it's a wonder they failed so signally.

By the way, it would be intriguing (but of no practical use) to uncover the sources of the canonical scriptural texts of other major religions as well. Does Wikipedia have any such, or do religious scholars, such as Ephilei, plan to write any soon? yoyo (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=52&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=39&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)