The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19.
In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortenned, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. The passage only mentions her murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home.
As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.
Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.
Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.
In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines.
Ma malakat aymanukum, simplicticly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, are people from both genders, men or women, who were neither freed as a favor nor ransomed, but singled out from the rest of the captives and taken under a guardian's wing in his household because obviously not all captives were taken in. They also become sexually lawful outside wedlock to the guardian that has taken charge of them. It is to be noted here, although they can be treated as concubines, this however does not mean that they systematically were. The prophet had in his household several such women living side by side with his wives, to aid and assist for the daily and nightly tasks of receiving at anytime people seeking all kinds of advises and help. The right hand posessions are people from both genders as already pointed
24:33"And (as for) those (Walladheen) who ask (Yabtaghoona) for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess give them the writing (Fa Kaatibuuhum)"
Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum. This further proves that the expression, right hand posession does not automatically denote concubine relationship, and anyone claiming the opposite should be able to prove that it was accepted for male or female guardians to have sexual relations with their male right hand posession. Verses such as 24:33,58 speak of those MMA and how they should mingle with the rest of the household. 16:71 is a warning to those guardians who fail to live up to their moral and material responsibilities towards those categories under their care, stating that such failure ammounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.
That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30.
Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran again prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33. In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse
"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".
As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.
The poor believer who cannot sustain a free believing woman/muhsana is told to marry a chaste MMA -since some were forced into prostitution by their guardians- and after taking her guardian's consent 4:25. Such MMA must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency only half the punishment of the self sustained women may be inflicted on them due to their past hardships and difficult upbringing that may have affected their common sense and judgement. This means that even after marrying, the mulk yamin still have a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings compared to other women. The verse ends by recommending the poor believer that it would be better for him to refrain from such union with someone elses' mulk yamin. In practice, although providing a short term solution for someone desiring to stay away from fornication, it could eventually lead to tension with the former guardian. In addition the poor believer will not be able to provide for her in the long run despite her status as stated in 24:33 where a poor man is told to remain chaste until his financial situation improves. This is a situation where the Quran clearly allows an issue that could potentially be harmful, which is why it discourages it, in order to prevent the occurrence of a greater harm which is fornication. It is interesting that some commentators have seen, among the "difficulties" arising from such unions the fact that, should the guardian not manumit his slave girl upon her marriage, then the child born will as a fact be born in bondage. The reality is this situation would burden the guardian with maintaining a child, in addition to the servant who is now less disposed to household chores as she is now split between caring for her husband, serving her guardian's household, and own child. That is why in pre-Islamic times and early Islam, guardians were quick to sell off their female servants when they conceived of a child. And that is besides taking into consideration this servant being married to another. But because the prophet forbade selling off a servant who conceives of a child, then practically this left the guardian with either the most logical choice of manumitting the slave girl, or much less probably keeping her as a burden. This is the pragmatism of Islam, and the prophetic sunna in its approach to slavery.
The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry "only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum", meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between mutliple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession.
Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25 above, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.
4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221.
A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.
The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.
When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies.
There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she becomes sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter.
The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.
Here this youtuber is trying to mix up several issues and i will address them all.
Firstly as regards to the incident of Awtas.
In 8/630, 15 days after the conquest of Mecca, news came that the tribe of Hawazin allied with that of Thaqif with the purpose of launching a large assault on the Muslims in Mecca. The Messenger of God then immediately remobilized the 10000 men that had entered Mecca with him, in addition to 2000 men from the new Quraysh converts, including Abu Sufyan. The Hawazin were led by the old Durayd for his wise counseling and the fierce Ibn Awf who was so eager to finish the Muslims that he brought each of his soldier's women, children and wealth to the battle in order to stir them up and never retreat. The Muslims reached the valley of Hunayn by night where they got ambushed by a surprise attack from Ibn Awf jut before dawn, first with arrows and then with a general charge. Muslims had no choice but retreat and Muhammad moved to the right, protected by 9 horsemen. Ibn Awf rushed to the Prophet killing one of his guards, then spurred his horse on, but it would not advance. Others similarly charged against the prophet, taking advantage of that apparent moment of vulnerability, in order to avenge their past defeats and deaths at the hands of Muslims, but all suffered similar, unexplainable phenomenons. Muhammad then dismounted his mule, prayed Allah to grant him the promised victory and cursed the unbelievers, called back his retreating Companions with the help of Al Abbas' deep, far reaching voice and summoned them to fight. The Muslims regrouped and took control of the battlefield chasing away their enemies who split into two groups. One went in the direction of Awtas and the other to the stronghold of At-Ta'if where Ibn Awf found refuge and from whence they resumed their military preparations for a future confrontation. Knowing full well their intentions, the prophet postponed their case to another time
9:25-26"Certainly Allah helped you in many battlefields and on the day of Hunain, when your great numbers made you vain, but they availed you nothing and the earth became strait to you notwithstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating. Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers".
The families of the Hawazin, with all their flocks and herds, fell into the hands of the Muslims. Besides the enemy soldiers that were killed, others retreated, leaving them behind at the battlfield. Per the regulations of warfare, these prisoners were now under Muslim authority and could be disposed of in several ways, including their integration in Muslim households. Those that were managed in accordance with that option, were confronted to Muslims who were
"reluctant to have intercourse/HARAJ with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers".
What is interpolated as "sexual intercourse" is haraj/unease. In another version it says karah/dislike. And nowhere does the Arabic speak of "the presence" of the polytheist husbands causing that unease, rather it is the fact that they have disbelieving husbands that are still alive, although these husbands had cowardly abandoned them after bringing them at the battlefield. This battle occured at an advanced stage in the early history of Islam, after the conquest of Mecca. War prisoners, including women, had already fallen into Muslim hands before. Suras 70:30,23:6 allowing sexual relations with them had already been revealed. There is no issue of shamefulness or lack of justification for having sex with them. But by the time of this battle, Muslims had grown more self-conscious as a community. Having in a Muslim household women still attached to their polytheistic families via their surviving husbands, made the Muslims feel unease towards them. Maybe it would compromise the values that unite them as a community. This is what happened before when the Israelites intermarried with the conquered nations and adopted their pagan ways.
Under Islam however, there was no risk of such a thing happening; the manner in which these captives had to be treated favoured their acceptance of the new religion and their wilful assimilation in the Islamic society. 4:23-4 came to cancel that unease by the Muslims. It specified, contrary to the general wording of 70:30,23:6 all women lawful for intimacy, including those married captives of war. In theory therefore, Muslims had all the justification to have these captives within the privacy of their homes, and have sexual relation with them if they desired. In practice however something else happened;
The prophet freed his part of the booty, captives and material belongings. He could not compel the Muslims to do the same, but he nevertheless mediated for that outcome. He said
"To me, the most preferable speech is the most honest. So choose one of the two, either the property or the captives.’ ‘"O Messenger of God!’ they replied. ‘As far as we are concerned, if you force us to choose between property and honor, we shall choose honor.’ Or they said, ‘We esteem honor above all else.’ Thus they chose their women and children. Then the Prophet rose to address the Muslims. He first glorified God, as His due, and then proceeded to say: ‘As for the matter at hand, these men, your brethren, have come as Muslims’ – or ‘having surrendered ourselves (mustaslimin)’ – ‘and we have given them a choice between their offspring and their property. They regarded nothing as equal to their honor; this, I have seen it fit for you to return their women and children to them. Whoever wishes to act so magnanimously, let him do so; and whoever wishes to demand compensation for his share so that we may give him a portion of what God has granted us as spoils, let him do so.’ The Muslims answered God’s Messenger: ‘The judgement is good". The Prophet then said, ‘I do not know who has permitted that and who has not. So command your leaders to convey this information to us.’ Once the leaders had informed the Messenger of God that the people had acquiesced to the agreement and permitted it, God's messenger returned the women and children to the Hawazin clan. God's messenger also granted to the women whom he had given to several Qureshi men the choice between remaining in the households of these men or returning to their families".
This is an earlier report than the one of al-khudri quoted in ibn Khatir's tafsir, stating that eventually, some were kept as right hand possessions. If one accepts that report as true then it means it was marginal, and only could have happened after some of those women chose to remain among the Muslims. One cannot blame these women nor is it a surprising decision, seeing how their own male relatives, husbands and fathers, had irresponsibly brought them as hostages to the battlefield to galvanize their troops. This showed how little they valued their own
"When it was the day (of the battle) of Hunain, the tribes of Hawazin and Ghatafan and others, along with their animals and offspring (and wives) came to fight against the Prophet. The Prophet had with him, ten thousand men and some of the Tulaqa. The companions fled, leaving the Prophet alone. The Prophet then made two calls which were clearly distinguished from each other. He turned right and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik, O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" Then he turned left and said, "O the group of Ansar!" They said, "Labbaik! O Allah's Messenger! Rejoice, for we are with you!" The Prophet at that time, was riding on a white mule; then he dismounted and said, "I am Allah's Slave and His Apostle." The infidels then were defeated".
The prophet, after defeating them, waited for them on the spot for 10 days, signifying to them that he was willing to negotiate. The Muslims could have left with their defeated enemies' wealth and prisoners as soon as the battle was over. But the leaders of Hawazin expected the unconditional release of their families and belongings, hence the prophet patiently waiting for them to come forth. As time passed and they didnt get what they expected, the leaders among them thought they could succeed otherwise
"When the delegate of Hawazin came to Allah's Messenger declaring their conversion to Islam and asked him to return their properties and captives, Allah's Messenger got up and said to them, "There Is involved in this matter, the people whom you see with me, and the most beloved talk to me, is the true one. So choose one of two alternatives: Either the captives or the properties. I have been waiting for you (i.e. have not distributed the booty)." "Allah's Messenger had delayed the distribution of their booty over ten nights after his return from Ta'if. So when they came to know that Allah's Messenger was not going to return to them but one of the two, they said, "We prefer to have our captives".
When one's relatives are taken, the natural reaction is to immediately seek to negotiate to secure their release. Especially when the other side manifests willingness for compromise. The Hawazin not only failed in that regard, but even when they did, they still failed prioritizing their families until the prophet left them no choice but one of two options.
The case of such married war captives is discussed in 4:23-4.
This passage speaks of the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum/or right hand possessions.
Furthermore the early scholars, such as al Nawawi, commenting on the hadith of war captives said that sexual relations with polytheistic women were forbidden, and only could happen following their willful conversion, hence the connection with 60:10.
A contradiction occurs when 2 statements cannot coexist. This is not the case in the Quranic account of creation, nor in any other Quranic story.
The repetitions in the Quran do not contradict one another, but instead complement and elaborate on different facets that are relevant to the direct context in which the story is recounted. If we merge the different accounts of Iblis for example, we get a complete picture of what occured. As he was about to leave, in his hatred for the human race that caused his loss of glory, he requested a time of respite until the day of resurrection to show God that He was mistaken in honoring this new creation, and the request was granted
7:14-15,38:79-81,15:36-8,17:62"Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few".
Seeing that his demand was accepted, Iblis now laid out his detailed plan. He will lie in wait on the straight path, ensnaring those upon it from every possible angle, making their evil deeds alluring to them, all of them except God's purified servants 7:16-17,15:39-40,38:82-3. When he had finished stating his intentions, God, Who had previously demonstrated mankind's potential and Who created it with the inner ability to rise spiritualy, accepted. God further said that the authority of Iblis will be limited to those who follow him of the deviators, not His servants, and that hell will be his abode and that of those who follow him. Those that act according to their ingrained spiritual predisposition, that remain God-conscious will enter the secure and pleasurable dwelling place for eternity 38:84-5,15:41-8. The matter was now closed, God definately marked Iblis as one of lowly character and ordered him out once more and violently, augmenting the tone of His address while summing up the area of authority granted to him, the consequences for those he might succesfully deceive, and restricted means at his disposal for doing so
7:18"Get out of her, despised, driven away; whoever of them will follow you, I will certainly fill hell with you all"
17:63-5"And beguile whomsoever of them you can with your voice, and collect against them your forces riding and on foot, and share with them in wealth and children, and hold out promises to them; and the Shaitan makes not promises to them but to deceive. Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector".
On the day of Judgement, Iblis will recognize exactly that, he had no autority other than within the area granted to him by God. He is waswas ilkhannas/the whisperer that withdraws. Through these stealthy suggestions, he attracts unto him the deviators
14:22"Surely Allah promised you the promise of truth, and I gave you promises, then failed to keep them to you, and I had no authority over you, except that I called you and you obeyed me, therefore do not blame me but blame yourselves: I cannot be your aider (now) nor can you be my aiders; surely I disbelieved in your associating me with Allah before; surely it is the unjust that shall have the painful punishment."
The issue of apocrypha is a big can of worms in the turbulent history of the Christian texts. The apocryphal Gospels were rejected because of many reasons including doubtful authorship yet the canonized scriptures arent that much more authentic. Some books are considered apocrypha by the western church and scripture by the eastern church. When comparing the canonical and apocryphal writings, it isnt a case of first-hand versus second-hand information. It is merely a choice between doctrinal points of view, with the choice being made by men with a doctrinal bias. Some have been partially preserved such as the Gospel of Thomas. It is different than the infancy gospel of Thomas, and lacks any mention of crucifixion or resurrection. It is considered by some scholars to be the or one of the initial documents out of which developped the other more elaborate gospels. This Gospel of Thomas was for the first 2 centuries considered holy scriptures.
The same with the gospels of Matthaias or "The Twelve", Acts of Andrew or Acts of John, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas. The last 2 books were still included in the codex sinaiticus, which is the earliest complete copy of the NT that is dated to around the year 350. There is also the Didache and the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the 2nd and 3rd letters of John, the 2nd letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion.
Nobody ever found the books from which the writers of the NT are sometimes quoting, as in Jn7:38,Lk11:49 or James4:5,Jude1:14-15. The Book of Revelations was considered apocrypha for the first 200 years of the Christian Church until it became God-inspired. However even as late as the 4th-century, many Christians either rejected it in favor of the Apocalypse of Peter, or believed that they should both be included in the canon.
The Epistle of St James was ignored for centuries until the Council of Trent put it in the canon in 1563. That book received a cool reception, obviously as it appeals greatly to JEwish scriptures, rejects the Pauline concept of "faith alone".
In the 2nd century, Marcion who claimed to have known Paul, composed the first NT, calling it "Evangelicon" which he attributed to Paul himself, and appended ten of Paul's epistles to it. He rejected all of Jewish scriptures, based on YHWH's cruelty versus Paul's loving god. One can argue he was right in a sense, nothing could be further in terms of similarities than the Gods and their plan for creation than the Gods of the HB and the NT.
This youtuber here is appealing to candidate number 109 and trying to make a case for it being one of the umpteenth illusive sources of the Quran.
This Book of the cave of Treasures, is predated by another book the "conflict of Adam and Eve". Both works are based on an earlier unknown source, so right from the get go, there is a problem in claiming that the Quran finds its source in one of these 2 traditions. Simply because, the "source" could very well be the same lost one that inspired these 2 traditions or even an altogether different original source that gave birth to all potential later versions. That original might be the tradition directly connected to Adam himself and transmitted down through time. Or it might be the same divine source that inspired it to a prophet of God who transmitted it among his people, this same divine source later revived the story through another individual down the line of prophethood, the prophet Muhammad.
Another possibility is that this apocryphal writing was influenced by contact with Islamic teachings, because its textual boundaries was not closed until the 8th century. In the late 7th century, Anastasius of Sinai makes a deragotary reference to the Quranic story of Iblis refusing to prostrate to Adam as "the myth of the Hellenes and the Arabs". He makes no allusion to the Christian apocryphal tradition.
So in these non-canonical books we see a superficial parallel with the Quranic account of creation, more particularily on the issue of Satan (the Quran only says Iblis) refusal to prostrate to Adam. Although the Quranic intricacies, fully loaded with meaning, from sura to sura and verse to verse are absent from the apocryphal texts, the most prominent difference is that in the Quran, the divine command to prostrate to Adam was to demonstrate the addressees' obedience to God while in the Christian text it is to worship God's image, ie Christ. In fact the whole account in these Christian traditions revolve around typical Christological concepts, Jesus' divinity, his sonship, salvation from sin and humanity's cursed nature. These themes are so blatant, running throughout the whole storyline that one wonders how these stealthy Quran authors managed to create a parallel account with its peculiar ethical-spiritual implications, without erroneously integrating any of the corrupt christological notions, in all the places where the story is told and retold.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
