The challenge of the Quran

The Quran pronounces about itself that all of its words, phrases and sentences are God's speech. It makes clear that the Prophet was not its author; rather the Prophet only related whatever was brought to him by Jibril, with the permission of God.   

When Muhammad was challenged by his fellow countrymen to present a miracle, in keeping with the tradition of other prophets, he presented the Quran to them 

28:48"But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses?". 

The Quran tells its opponents 

4:82"Will they not then ponder on the Quran, Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy". 

The Quran is specifically meant in this verse, not books in general. It speaks of a wide variety of subjects spanning thousands of years, all having a profound bearing on every aspect of human life. One cannot claim errors in it unless as the verse says, following deep reflection. And just as nobody will try refuting theories in an advanced physics manual without mastering the tools needed to derive the proper conclusions, studying the Quran, especially with the purpose of finding flaws in it, necessitates a deep mastery of all areas of the Arabic language, let alone knowledge of the wide variety of fields the Quran uses in its argumentation. 

After acquiring these tools one may still encounter perceived contradictions in it. But these will always be a few. The statement "much discrepency" indicates that were one to study this Quran and find only a few errors, it would not negate it being from God. This is because the verse is addressing the human intellect, which is prone to change, mistakes and improvement. A student physicist may find a few perceived errors in his teacher's book, but it would not negate it being from the teacher. If the Quran aligns with the truth in all of its statements, then the few perceived contradictions must eventually resolve through further reflexion, until none remains and one inevitably concludes that only God could have woven this intricate discourse flawlessly.  

This Quran would not have escaped with only a few errors had it been the product of the human mind, hence the appropriateness of the statement "much discrepancy". For example in a similar category of writing, there is the current Bible. One with the complete tools to understand it, and who reflects upon it, will not find few, but many statements that, after further contemplation do not align with internal or external truths, leading to the conclusion that it is man-made. 

The verse does not give a point of reference to determine how many would be "much". Neither does it give an exact number. This is so as to widen the challenge to anyone. Had it given a specific number, it would inevitably have been a high one so as to keep it unfalsifiable, revealing a lack of confidence in its claim. The verse however, through its general wording, leaves it to every person's subjectivity to define how many would be "much". For example, the higher is a person's mastery of the fields required to understand the Quran, the less errors would constitute "much" to him. This Quranic method of throwing the gauntlet of challenge to include every type of intellect is remarkable in strength, baffling if one considers that it was uttered by someone known for everything except mastery of the fields that constitute this Quran. 

This all-inclusive style is similar to the challenge to produce a Book like it.

This challenge is directed to all humans and jinn to produce a similar book 17:88. It was then reduced to 10 Suras 11:13 and finally 1 Sura in 2:23. Some Suras are very short the shortest being al-Kawthar with only 3 sentences and about a total of 10 words. The Quran again, in all confidence, offers the possibility to every intellectual potential of choosing between various levels of difficulty 

52:34"Then let them bring a discourse like it if they are truthful". 

Sura is the feminine of sur meaning the wall that surrounds a valuable area for protection, that used to be built by kings and rulers. The particularity of that wall, besides being built by the king of the universe, is that instead of being raised from the foundations up like a regular fortress, was built from the sky down, it has descended/nazzalna from the far heaven, thus further stressing its impenetrability. The word sura was never used in a literary context, to describe a literary structure. Here the Quran challenges the masters of eloquence of the time by using a striking word in an innovative manner, loaded with implications at its onset.

Let us consider one who decides to produce 3 lines as in sura kawthar. For validation, he would need to additionally bring the testimony of his god(s) just as the Quran claims to come from God 

10:38,11:13"and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful". 

There are thus 2 conditions for validation. One is unfalsifiable as it relates to the unseen (calling upon other gods) and the other is falsifiable as it relates to the written text. It is interesting to note that, instead of making the falsifiable criteria difficult, the Quran actually makes it easy. It does not even define in what specific way the likeness to the Quran must be. It is left to the critic's choice. What is made explicit however is to bring the testimony of other gods. Yet the challenger (the Quran's Author) does not recognize them as true, in addition warns His addressees of certain failure should they try calling these other deities for support 

64:13,2:24"But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers".

There potentially existing other deities besides the one claiming authorship of the Quran isnt even an issue at this point since the challenger's premise is that anything worshipped besides Himself is a falsehood, a created "lie" that He will never consequently recognize.

To make it simpler, even if 3 lines are produced like those of sura kawthar, with this "likeness" criteria left to the author's own appreciation, and in addition alleged testimony of other gods is brought, it will still be rejected by the Quran's author. To simplify it further, it does not matter what the level of difficulty is because whether it is as hard as bringing a whole book like the Quran or bringing 3 lines like sura kawthar, the challenge cannot be completed due to the impossibility to falsify the condition related to the unseen.

The challenge is therefore a test, of what hatred does to one's reasoning skills. It exposes to the person itself and to the world, the extent at which one is ready to go to deny the One God.

This claim of the Quran that its God is the only True deity and that based on this, any claim of having completed the challenge will be rejected, is obviously something none will be able to verify in this world whether for the Quran's claim of Divine origin or the forged sura's. This will only become fact in the Hereafter, in accordance with the principle that the whole purpose of life is to have faith before seeing the facts. This is why Muslims are told to believe in the Quran's Divine authorship no matter what answer the critic gives to the challenge, whether he brings his suras (which the Quran says can never be true 2:24) or whether he remains silent 

11:14"But if they do not answer you, then know that it is revealed by Allah's knowledge and that there is no god but He".

This is similar to other instances where the Quran, to test if its addressees still have any sense, issues a simple challenge that a person can easily meet if he disbelieves and rejects the Quran. In 6:150 it asks those who have heavily innovated in religious regulations to bear witness, and bring others to testify with them that God Whom they claim ordained these laws, has effectively sanctioned their laws. At the same time, it tells the prophet that if they do bear witness it doesnt mean they have passed the challenge successfully, rather they have lied and exposed their degree of disbelief 

"then if they bear witness, do not bear witness with them; and follow not the low desires of those who reject Our communications and of those who do not believe in the hereafter, and they make (others) equal to their Lord". 

The challenge, like that of bringing a similar sura, is therefore one of faith, meant at exposing the extent at which one is willing to go in his rejection. Those with some integrity left in them realize that what they follow is without divine basis; God never sanctioned their innovations. And effectively, in the following verse, the Quran lays down Allah's basic regulations into which they have innovated. Like the sura challenge where God issues the challenge and explains at the same time that it is impossible to pass, here they are challenged to bear witness that God has sanctioned their innovation, while at the same time they are told what God has sanctioned in reality.

As stated earlier, the likeness to the Quran was not clearly defined. This allows for the challenge to remain accessible to any critic's subjectivity, and stay valid across time and space. 

In the time of the prophet for example, that likeness would have immediately been taken to be in terms of literary excellence. Those were people whose command of balagha was nothing short of perfection. They were regarded as masters of eloquence at a time when life of the desert was nothing but poetry. They were the only people who walked this earth with the linguistic capacity to challenge the Quran from that perspective. Every Arab in our time and before, admits to their being "puppets' compared to them. The force of this challenge becomes clear when we realize that it is issued by an unschooled orphan, unable to read or write. None among the prophet's critics could claim otherwise as he lived among them for 40 years prior to revelation. The Quran advances the argument that not only the most advanced in literary knowledge could not achieve something similar, but the medium of the text himself, was among the most unlikely persons of that time and place to do it.

Muhammad was known among his peers for many qualities, including trustworthiness, but not for eloquent speech, literary knowledge, poetic training. It was unthinkable for such an aspect of a person to be hidden from the public, especially when eloquence was a sought after quality of an individual in the desert life, one that could bring prestige and eminence. He in addition, given his lack of knowledge in that field, had no possibility to retract and edit, improve and correct any part of what he was conveying as God's revelations. Shakespeare for instance, was known long before his famous works for his training in his field, he improved and edited his masterpieces. Further, what he produced is not unanimously recognized as the climax of eloquence by experts of the english language. 

If according to the contention of the Arabs, someone like Muhammad can author such a discourse, then it should not be difficult for people of their caliber to do likewise. But they failed, not only failed but admitted it could not be done. They could not ascertain how something could outweigh their mastery. Every single word, both in its choice and form, is perfectly chosen and cannot be expressed any other way to produce the maximum effect that it does. This is something that the Arabs at the time understood immediately and is the reason why they often accepted Islam upon hearing a few verses or fled from hearing it, calling it madness, sorcery, jinn-inspired poetry. They knew and were tacitly admitting that someone like Muhammad, who was neither mad, magician, or possessed poet, and certainly not a deceitful liar, could not have authored it. Here it should be noted that "min mithlihi" may also be rendered "from like him". In that case the challenge would cover that the competing Quran should be brought, not by an educated critic in the field of eloquence but by someone with a similar "blank" background as the prophet. 

Another thing to note is that the literary challenge is not about beauty as often misunderstood by critics who then argue that the challenge is unfalsifiable due to subjective criteria. The parameters of the Arabic language are very intricate, they were known to the prophet's addressees and are still known and objectively testable today. 

Further reading;

- Acts17apologetics immitate the ancients; calumnies against Muhammad? The amazing trajectory of the prophet.

- Islam Critiqued praises the prophet; Muhammad's encyclopediac knowledge?

Jewish national revelation vs Quranic revelation

During the time of the prophet, those Jews that rejected him would object to his prophethood on several bases, all of which the Quran and ahadith quote, address and expose for their irrationality.

For instance they would claim that for a new revelation from God to supersede the Torah and depose them from being the torch-bearers of monotheism, it would be contingent upon God communicating His will collectively with them as was the case at Sinai. Yet that very day, they requested themselves not to hear God's voice directly anymore, and not to see such awesome manifestation fearing they would die. They further said that it was a miracle that such a thing happened, and no mortal could hear such a thing and survive, with the exception of certain people, like Moses. They then asked Moses to be their intermediary with God 

"Go near and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey". 

In Deut4:32-33 the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no such phenomenon will occur again. But as Moses states much later, despite all the miracles they witnessed, they still did not possess any certainty of faith. Those Israelites who were stubborn and persisted in disobedience, even after these miracles, only increased their own loss. Their viewing a miracle granted them no superiority and in fact the Quran says that when God chooses to manifest miracles it is to establish the tremendous responsibility of those that witness it, resulting in terrible punishment in case of disobedience as their own books amply recount 

44:33"And We gave them of the signs that in which there was an obvious trial". 

The Midrashic sources [Shab. 88a] say that when the Israelites stood at "the bottom" of Mt Sinai when God manifested Himself through the dreadful dark smoke Ex19:16-18, it means that the mountain was actually uprooted and raised above their heads. Although most translations say the Israelites were "at the bottom" or at the feet of the mountain, the literal meaning of "taht" is beneath something, both in Hebrew and Arabic. There are ample examples in the HB. The secondary meaning "at the bottom of" or the metaphorical "instead of" are all derived from the primary meaning "underneath". Being under something entails at the lowest point in relation to it, and something under another is hidden from view, ie metaphorically replacing it. Many times the commentators mention the primary meaning of the word when it appears in a context where the secondary or metaphorical meaning is used. See for example Rashi on Lev13:23. 

The mountain was literally raised above their heads when they were made to swear by the covenant. This is not a midrashic or metaphorical construct, rather what the words of the Torah literally entail.

But it is a very inconvenient, disturbing interpretation. The Talmud (shab. 88a) relates how this reading shocked the rabbis and students when first proposed by Rabbi Avdimi (3rd century), and it still causes much Rabbinic discussions due to the implications; did the Israelites enter willingly into the covenant, as the Torah depicts or were they compelled? The Quran equally states that the mountain was hovering like a dark shadow above their heads 2:63,93,4:154. The earliest statement occurs towards the end of the Meccan period, prior to the migration to Medina and in anticipation to Jewish polemics

 7:171"And [mention] when We raised the mountain/JABAL above them as if it was a dark cloud and they were certain that it would fall upon them, [and Allah said], "Take what We have given you with determination and remember what is in it that you might fear Allah". 

In the Quranic paradigm of the Israelites' rebelliousness, refusal to bend to God's will, this literal interpretation of the Torah makes ample sense, regardless of what is stated in the Talmud. Allah was demonstrating the responsibility that now rested on their shoulders for having witnessed such awesome miracle. The degree of punishment they will face for breaking the terms of the covenant will be at the height of the miracle they witnessed. History and the HB itself are testimony to the severity of their punishments because of their transgressions. 

The raising of the mountain in the context of the revelation of the Torah to the Israelites and their assignment to be the spiritual leaders of mankind was a forceful imposition. The whole experience of Sinai is the culmination of their stiff neckedness, refusal to follow the prophetic guidance, obsession with the ways of idolatry. The Torah contains remnants of that reality, as seen earlier with the words that describe their position in relation to the mountain when about to enter into the covenant. The Torah relates how their witnessing the various manifestations involving the mountain was so dreadful, that they thought they would die, and thus requested Moses to be their intermediary with God. The reality of the whole incident, as exposed in the Quran and as is apparent from various indications within the Torah, was a consequence of their poor spirituality. After numerous favours and miracles, they had to be terrorized, physically threatened so as to accept obedience to God. Far from being a mark of honor, or something by which Jews should boast about whenever contrasting their "national revelation" to individual prophecies, that whole part of their story following their Egyptian bondage and culminating with the covenant they reluctantly entered into actually is a stain to be ashamed of.

In 62:5 it says they were hummilu/burdened with that duty. The Torah in becoming whose recipients they feel pride today, was not accepted by them with zeal and enthusiasm in the earlier times when it had been given to them; the manner in which they displayed their arrogance and obduracy in accepting each and every directive of the Torah, from the very beginning and down throughout their history, and how sorrowfully Moses complained to God for this attitude of theirs is referred to in both their books and the Quran. 

The Quran gives a powerful insight into the events and exposes the reality of the matter to its audience, although, the prophet was not there when these things unfolded 

28:44"And you were not on the western side when We revealed to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses". 

In the context of the Sinai events, the Quran quotes what was truly being said in their deepest selves all the while they were made to swear by the terms of the covenant 

2:93"they said/qaloo: we heard and we resisted" 

whereas the HB reports the insincere uttering of their mouth 

Ex24:3"All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do". 

Somewhere else in the HB, their deception is reported with a very similar wording as in the Quran 

Deut5"You go near and hear all that the Lord our God may say, and tell us all that the Lord our God says to you, and we will hear and do it/shaminu wa asaynu.’ 

The last portion reads in the Hebrew "shaminu wa asaynu" while in the Quran it says "samina wa asayna". The Quran uses the same expression with a same sounding Arabic verb, but with an opposite meaning of what they verbally uttered in Hebrew, exposing the Arabic speaking Jewish audience. They knew exactly what the Quran meant and how right it was. This is just one of the Quran's surgical use of words. 

The Arabic QALA is derived from the root Qaf-W-L and it means saying in any way possible. When they uttered their verbal obedience, as related in the Hebrew of the Torah (shaminu wa asaynu), what was hidden and what the Quran revealed, was a staunch resistance (samina wa asayna) on account of their sinful hearts that were still imbibed with the love of the calf. In other words they were making their oath all the while thinking of idol worship

 2:93"they said: we heard and we resisted/samina wa asayna. And they were made to imbibe the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief". 

This resistance towards their prophets, the revelations, their laws and the divine covenant is one that initiated very early on as corroborated in their own scriptures and continued all throughout their history

 11:110"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it".

Some have attempted pointing to the Talmudic reference given earlier as a possible source for the Quranic depiction of the uprooted mountain. As has been shown, one doesnt need going to extra-biblical traditions to find that interpretation, and neither is its insertion in the Quran an oddity. It rather fits the overall paradigm of rebelliousness and forceful submission. 

On a general note, one is confronted here, as is the case whenever similarities are found with written and oral traditions preceding the Quran, to the question as to how, where and when did the alleged human author stealthily access, study and extract the relevant information from an unrealistically broad and wide array of sources, which in ancient times were most often kept within a restricted circle, then weave his independent account of those common stories, while sifting in the process the inconsistencies, whether in their external or internal details, as well as the theological insertions from centuries of retelling, losing, rewriting them.

These facts as regards the events of Sinai were known to the prophet's addressees, refuting their request for the experience to be repeated. 

Prophets have been around, before and after the Sinai national revelation, meaning the truthfulness of a prophet is independent of such criteria. That kind of miracle, as occurred at Sinai when the law was promulgated and the covenant established, even if true, remains frozen in time. It loses its value later to those that did not directly experience it. Those that come to know of it today only do so because a text tells them that their ancestors witnessed the events. Not because their parents tell them what their grand-parents said what their forefathers said they saw and so on, until the furthest ancestor that was present. It may even be outright rejected as a pious fabrication and legend, as is mostly the case today with Jesus' recorded miracles and life stories, allegedly witnessed by many. 

Any miracle that comes after the events of Sinai, supersedes it in credibility to its witnesses. Only a miracle that transcends time and retains its supernatural qualities today as it did when first introduced cannot be superseded in credibility and can be termed superior to others. Only the Quran possesses that quality.

As to the national revelation of Sinai, it becomes, to those that did not directly witness it even among the community, nothing more than a story, passed down like any folk tale, without proof for the claim other than an oral tradition, a tradition far from being reliable and unbroken. One may add a written account, the Torah, supposedly written by one of those that were present, unattested by multiple witnesses. Even the vast number of eye witnesses that experienced the exodus and were present at Sinai becomes, down the line, nothing but a tall claim without evidence, and actually against archaelogical and reasonable evidence. How credible is this tradition, when within 2 generations after Moses and receiving the Torah

"there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that he had done for Israel". 

This was due to several factors including passionate attachment to idolatry and their ancient polytheistic ways, intermarriages, envy and influence from their pagan neighbors as well as strategic alliances with them. Down the centuries their own books describe a point where there were reportedly only about 7000 remaining within the faith. Some reverted in their lifetime, others died apostates or neglected their religion, influenced by their alliances, marriages, successive years in exile, or in order not to compromise their worldly benefits acquired under foreign rule. Yet they had supposedly faithfully kept the memory of that vivid encounter with the divine? 

The fact is, that tremendous manifestation at the mountain of the covenant, is actually a stain that will follow them to the end of days. Contrary to other peoples and nations that believed in their messengers based on the reasonable evidence presented, they were so imbibed in idolatry and rebellion that God did not reason with them but rather compelled them, through dreadful and life-threatening manifestations, to enter into the covenant. This forceful awakening however came at a price, serving as an example for all people of how not to come to believe; disobedience would be answered with punishment like no other people were punished in history. As their history attests, neither these threats nor the warnings of the subsequent prophets prevented them from turning away. And when the prophecies of destruction did come to fruition, they returned soon after to their sinful ways and neglect. 

Such neglect even happened under Israelite kings, namely Josiah, to the point the ruler and the people had to be reintroduced to the Torah after it was accidentally found while undergoing renovations of the Temple. In the time of Ezra and following the return home from exile, the Torah had to be re-introduced to the vast majority of the nation. There were thus many occasions and intervals of time were no tradition was being transmitted, at least to some, if not the vast majority of people. They had to be re-educated and told in a vacuum what had happened to their own forefathers, either by a tiny righteous remnant or by reading the text on their own. This entirely undermines the notion of unbroken transmitted eyewitness tradition, and hence of superior credibility of "their" miracle. 

This is not even getting into the discussion of the proportion of descendants of converts to Judaism, and who were consequently also either introduced to the story by consulting the written document on their own, or were "told", by descendants of converts that couldnt have been eyewitnesses, how the nation they are now part of, began. Another interesting and rather revealing fact is that certain books within the HB, such as Samuel, completely lack reference to the events of Sinai when the history of the community is summarized. Had the reason been that the audience was already aware of the tradition and was therefore not in need of being reminded then one would expect a regressive number of references as one proceeds through the 3 chronologically written books (Samuel, Kings & Chronicles) however the opposite is true. Samuel has 0 references, Kings about 15 references, Chronicles about 45 references. This simply means, the tradition was vastly neglected and forgotten, then progressively and forcefully re-introduced. Another peculiarity within the book of Samuel is the apparent ignorance of the masses as to the promise of having kings rule over them at Sinai, and instead invoke other reasons to justify to their prophet the request for a king.

Also, if the Creator's aim was to express His universal will for all mankind through a chosen nation, by establishing the experience of Sinai as the blueprint of truth and falsehood from the point of view of its superiority and undeniability compared to any other claim of divine revelation, then foreign nations (or at least a few of them) that were NOT to be included within the covenant of Sinai had to be present as independent witnesses. Otherwise, the claim remains subjective, one-sided, tainted with communitarian pride and even prejudiced. That is not even getting into the issue of textual criticism and the reliability of the HB itself, the primary written source attesting to the event, and which is supposed to testify to those absent foreign nations. 

In a similar situation, looking no further than within the Bible, in the New Testament the unknown Greek authors describe several supernatural events surrounding Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension that must have been attested by independent witnesses. However contemporary writings by non-Christians fail to corroborate any of those claims. How convenient is it then that only the people concerned by the covenant happen to be the ones that witnessed the events of Sinai? To those that weren't there, the subsequent generations and today, the claim carries no more weight than personal claims of revelation by all the prophets in history.

The idea that it would be impossible to fabricate the myth of national revelation, because no nation is known to have refused to believe a similar proposition which was introduced to them as real history, is simply speculation, loaded with logical errors. Firstly, the lack of counterexample doesnt constitute proof, not in science and much less in history. It could simply be the Torah myth is somewhat different than others, and every myth is different, especially back in such ancient time where just about every culture told legends about its past, often ones involving supernatural events, in order to enhance their worth as a community. It is a mistake to transpose our modern minds and sense of deduction to such an entirely foreign mentality. Further, the Aztecs for example believed to have been led out from their homeland by their deity, experiencing miracles along the way which they recounted to their descendants. Christianity, as stated earlier, claims that those people who experienced the resurrected Jesus became Christians, and told the stories that eventually (within 40-80 years) became recorded in the NT.

The Quran alludes to this self-deceptive behavior of the People of the Book during the rise of Islam in many places, how they would raise irrelevant objections in light of their own scriptures in order to deny Muhammad's prophethood and Islam. None of these objections were related to the absence of prophecies speaking of him in their scriptures and in fact the Quran reinforces the notion that these predictions are so clear that 

6:20,2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons". 

The Quran would mention the reaction of such early converts among the Jews and Christians, when they 

5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)". 

The Quran speaks in sura Baqara of the predictions of the HB regarding Muhammad in the context of the covenant established with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, emphasizing that the context of the prophecy is the promulgation of a new law and the birth of a nation under God.

Sam Shamoun "The Garbled-Up Quran: Muhammad’s Confusion of Figures and Names"

Sam Shamoun "The Garbled-Up Quran: Muhammad’s Confusion of Figures and Names"

From a linguistic point of view, it is interesting to note the intricate manner in which the Quran places words in a context. 

The name of Ismail is missing from the list of Ibrahim's known, righteous descendants in some verses, such as 21:72. Each context has its own peculiar reason for omitting his name and in 19:49-50, the reason transpires even more. Ibrahim's progeny is followed by a mention of their honoring, elevating by their own people. This Meccan sura contrasts the Arabs' behavior towards their forefather Ismail with the behavior of the descendants of the Israelites towards their main prophetic figures. 

Although Ismail was known to the Arabs as their forefather, his spiritual path had been neglected and disfigured. He was only praised and recognized hundreds of years later when Muhammad came and restored his pure monotheistic way, honoring him. 

It is important noting that the stories of the biblical, and Arabian prophets are all already found in the Meccan suras. Had the prophet in Mecca, been extracting these stories from the previous traditions, he could not have passed over the central figure of Abraham and his progeny. Simply, in this period his primary addressees were the Arab pagans, who already knew of their Ishmaelite ancestry and the Kaaba's Abrahamic connection. The knowledge they lacked however was in regards to Ismail's eminence and righteousness, after centuries of baseless and prejudiced calumnies towards his character, as is amply found in Judeo-Christian traditions. The Quran thus in this earlier period focuses on honoring Ismail by mentioning him and his virtues aside from Abraham and his known descendants 38:48,21:85,19:54. During that earlier phase the Quran paves the way (through the implicit mention of Ismail as the near-sacrifice instead of Isaac in sura 37) for a revision, in Medina, of the traditional Judeo-Christian exclusivist spiritual worldview (through the Quran's emphatic connection of Abraham to the Kaaba and the change of qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca).

This textual separation of Ismail in the Meccan chapters also points to another reality; the lack of recognition of Ismail by his people and those that followed them, as compared to the others among Ibrahim's progeny, doesnt mean that God Himself is unappreciative of his merits

19:54-55"And mention Ismail in the Book; surely he was truthful in (his) promise, and he was an apostle, a prophet. And he enjoined on his family prayer and almsgiving, and was one in whom his Lord was well pleased". 

Herein lies a lesson for all times, the fact that God knows every humble person's worth regardless of that quality being exposed or not in this world, and He will manifest it and reward the person for it, sometimes in this world but always in the hereafter. It is also to be noted that the passage starting at 19:51 likewise mentions several prophets separately and prior to citing Ibrahim, including Moses, showing that the purpose isnt to establish a chronological descendency. This is further seen by the statement concluding the passage, that all previously mentioned names (Ismail, Musa, Harun etc) descend from one or more of the following 

19:58"These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, from among the prophets OF the seed of Adam, and OF those whom We carried with Nuh, and OF the seed of Ibrahim and Israel, and OF those whom We guided and chose". 

The same pattern occurs in 6:83-90. The passage starts with a series of prophets that post date the deluge (Ibrahim, Isaac, Jacob) then reverts to Nuh who is clearly said as coming before them, then mentions some of his descendants (David, Solomon) who actually came after the first series of prophets. Then again, the passage is injected with a statement that points to the former prophets and their descendants 

"And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren". 

The passage ends with the oft repeated statement that Allah guides into prophethood whoever He so pleases of His servants. Among the purposes of such statement is to reinforce the Quranic notion of continuity, indiscriminate obedience to all prophets of God equally. And by purposefully giving a non-chronological list, that idea is further emphasized; chronological hierarchy does not entail superiority. Neither is the first of them the most honored, nor the last of them of lesser merit. All should be equally followed and revered 

"These are they whom Allah guided, therefore follow their guidance".

In 29:27 it speaks of God bestowing prophethood and scripture among Abraham's Israelite descendants, hence the omission of Ishmael. The descendants of Abraham among the Ishmaelites did not have any scripture until the Quran 

"And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous".

Similarly in 38:45-8 Ishmael is mentioned apart from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is because the passage describes them with the particular divine favor of power and dominion, which wasnt Ishmael's case. Abraham was given wealth, dominion over his enemies and lands Gen14-15. Isaac was blessed by God to the point the Philistines saw him as a threat 

Gen26:16"And Abimelech said to Isaac "Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than we". 

The king of the Philistines together with his army chief eventually came to Isaac in submission, seeking an alliance with him. Isaac would later bless Jacob with a prayer of abundant wealth, children, prestige and power among the nations and his own family Gen27,Gen30:43,Gen35:11.

Further articles answering Sam Shamoun "The Garbled-Up Quran: Muhammad’s Confusion of Figures and Names"
-Acts17apologetics crack Islamic code; Quran is easy to understand?
-Divine revelations, through which medium? (prophets that are unheard of)
-Sam Shamoun "None Named John Before the Baptist?"(Arabic names of prophets)
-The story of a righteous King; Talut
-Islam Critiqued is no textual critic; incoherent, garbled quran?(Quranic chronology)
-The poetry of the Quran(Ilyasin)
-Sam Shamoun "The Farce of Quranic Abrogation"(uncreated Quran)
-Islam Critiqued wont renew his repertoire; borrowed words in the Quran?(foreign words in Quran)

The story of a righteous King; Talut

When the jihad verses were revealed, the believers were reassured that victory ultimately belongs to the faithful and pious even if they are few in number and that defeat and destruction is the fare of sin, even if its followers be numerous. 

This moral is explained through the story of Samuel , Talut/Saul, Dawud and Jalut/Goliath 2:246-251. 

Samuel himself isnt mentioned by name in the passage and this is due to several reasons. There are many examples in the Quran where in a story, names, places, numbers and other details are omitted when they are of minor importance to the message it wants to convey. Samuel, contrary to the other named characters in the passage plays no role in the events which were chosen to be highlighted, as will be seen later.

A time came in the history of the Israelites where, because of having strayed from God's comandements revealed to Moses, they lost the promise of divine immunity and thus lived in long periods of disgrace under various Canaanite nations. They were originally divinely ordered to exterminate these nations upon their entry into the land promised to their forefathers, but failed doing so due to their lack of spiritual resolve and in addition progressively adopted their ways. These periods were interrupted by times where their desperate cries caused God to rise for them a liberator/prophet (or what their scriptures often call a "judge") that would give them back the upper hand, but after whom they would fall back into spiritual degeneration and consequent submission to their pagan enemies.

Under Samuel's prophethood and leadership, after suffering initial defeats in battle 1Sam4, they began returning to the straight spiritual path and thus successfully repelled the enemy threat outside their borders, with the help of God 1Sam7. However, as their history has shown it only is a matter of time before they sin again and incur God's wrath at the hands of those very enemies. Fearing for such a day to come, instead of putting their trust in God who repeatedly protected them in the most dire situations, as He had just done with the Philistines that invaded them, they made a request to Samuel who had reached old age. His unrighteous sons were about to inherit leadership after him. To avoid this outcome the Israelites requested a king to rule over them, a respected figure like their neighbouring nations' kings. He would lead them in war and liberate them from this continuous cycle of invasion, destruction, subjugation and expulsion from their lands and homes. 

This is the reason the Quran gives for them wanting to fight these enemies. Those enemies being called kafirun/deniers of the truth in 2:250 who will be defeated by those who fight in God's way (fighting in God's way means defending one's God given rights as is proven from countless verses) isnt the reason for fighting them, it simply is a statement of fact and a label put on them. In the HB, such a label is put on them, along with other Canaanites by God Himself long before the Israelites had conquered this land. They are a sinful people whose sins have overstepped all limits and should therefore be forcefully expelled from the land Gen15:16,Deut9.

Astonishingly, this request for a worldly king meant they still did not understand that victory comes from God, especially in their state of inferiority and no matter who the earthly leader is, as seen in 1Sam4, they will never succeed if they themselves arent spiritually upright 

1Sam8:19-20,9:15-16,10:18-19,12:14,24-25"We want a king over us, then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles...Now the day before Saul came, the Lord had revealed this to Samuel. About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the tribe of Benjamine. Anoint him a ruler over my people Israel; he will deliver them from the hand of the Philistines. I have looked on my people for their cries have reached me...So said the Lord God of Israel; 'I brought Israel up from Egypt, and delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians, and from the hand of all the kingdoms which oppressed you. And today you have rejected your God, Who saves you from all your adversities and your troubles, and you have said to him 'But a king you shall set over us'...If you will fear the Lord and serve Him, and hearken to His voice, and you will not rebel against the commandements of the Lord, both you and the king who reigns over you, will be after the Lord your God. But if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord, and you will rebel against the commandements of the Lord, the Lord's hand will be against you and against your fathers...If you do wrong, both you and your king will be destroyed".

In addition to this direct affront to God and ingratitude, they were disrespectful to their prophet, requesting a non prophetic leader to free them and give them a decisive military victory over their oppressors. However even when that request was granted they could not escape the realm of divine authority and testing. Through a privation test, as will be seen in more details below, God provided Talut a means by which to reveal their level of spirituality and God-consciousness as well as their capacity to withstand physical hardships, both being important when engaging in battle in God's way.

God in the HB, accedes to their request in wrath and disdain Hos13:11, because of the arrogance and disrespect towards a prophet in their midst. 

When Allah appointed Talut/Saul as their king some of them still found a way to protest, just as Samuel had predicted 1Sam8:18 and others despised him because of his humble lineage. Coming from the small Benjamite tribe, and from among the poorest elements of that tribe 1Sam9:21,10:27,11:12. The Benjamites were nearly decimated by successive conflicts against the rest of the Israelites. These ethnical wars reduced their numbers to become the smallest Israelite tribe Judges20. The protest against Saul's appointment must have been quite vehement for others to call for the execution of the culprits, as related in the above verses. 

The Quran does not say that they all protested his designation -the Arabic "they said" does not point to all, but to a significant part, as is commonly used in the Quran itself- but does put that stain on the whole community. The Quran or the HB, all speak to the Israelites in this manner, as a monolith, including Jesus in the NT. This is because they were collectively bound by a covenant with God, whose breach would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress. This occurred countless times as reported in their own Books. Another reason for their address as a unit is that they are the first to lay claim as a single body to the rights and favors bestowed, conditionally, on their ancestors but yet conveniently skip the parts of their history that caused divine wrath to be poured upon them for their transgressions. Such monolithic address puts back their boastful claims in check.

They were once again proving their prejudiced mind-frame, and difficulty to bend to God's commands as so often pointed by their prophets. This attitude caused them not only to mistreat Moses through whom they were made to witness great miracles, but also reject and kill many prophets sent to them, even those from themselves who called them to adhere to their own books. 

2:247"Allah grants His Kingdom to whom He pleases". 

The word "kingdom" is qualified here by the possessive pronoun "His" because the kingdom belongs to Allah alone; nobody has any right in it therefore, the Israelites should not have asked why He transferred the kingdom from one family to another, or why He gave it to Saul who was neither from a noble family nor owned abundant wealth. The prophet Daniel in he HB eloquently reminds of this supreme reality thus 

Dan4:14"the Most High rules over the kingdom of man, and to whom He wishes He gives it, and the lowest of men He sets upon it". 

It was the decree of Allah who had strictly caused a distinction between them, based on His wisdom, and the righteousness of the chosen one

 1Sam10:24"Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see the man the LORD has chosen? There is no one like him among all the people". 

Quran2:247"Allah has chosen him over you and He has increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique". 

Kingship is establishment of supreme authority over a group of people to unite them under one will and create a relationship with all of them. Knowledge and physical aptitudes are both historically important, necessary aspects of a leader's effectiveness in implementing his policies 

1Sam10:23"And as he stood among the people he was a head taller than any of the others". 

Physical appearance has always and still does play an important role in creating a charismatic and powerfully authoritative aura of a leader in the eyes of his subjects. It is interesting to note here the miraculous nature of the Quran, that restores Talut's honour in the most intricate manner. The Arabic Talut is derived from t-w-l implying a high stature. This name was known since pre-islamic times as mentioned in a poem by al-samaw'al. It could have been one of the names by which that king was known to the Jews. But the name the Biblical scribes gave him was Sha'ul, implying "to ask". This retrospective appellation was aimed at negatively comparing Sha'ul/Saul to both David and Samuel. Samuel was asked of God 1Sam1 while Saul was asked of the people. Then God answers David while Saul is answered with silence 1Sam14:37,28:6. There is a clear play on the questioning motif by the Biblical writers, who, like their predecessors, frowned upon the election of a Benjamite as their king.

Other means by which God strengthened Talut/Saul's authority was that, in the words of their prophet 

2:248"Verily the sign of his kingship (is) that the chest comes to you, carried by the angels. In him, calm from your nurturing Lord, and remainder of what the people of Moses and the people of Aaron left behind. Verily, in that, a sign to you, if you would trust in God".

Aron haberit/Chest of the Covenant more commonly known as the Ark of the Covenant was originally built by Moses to transport the tablets and other relics, according to God's precise directives Ex25 and was carried by the Israelites, covered by a veil, during their 40 years wandering in the desert. It was then passed on to Joshua and was the means by which certain miracles were performed and their enemies had been annihilated from before them. It was thus an object of great pride, joy and reverence for them until a time when their spirituality degraded and it did not serve its purpose anymore. This above statement from their prophet in the Quran is very significant in that under his own leadership, as stated in the HB, the Ark was of no use to the Israelites who suffered a crushing defeat to the Philistines despite it being in their midst 1Sam4. The Philistines even captured it following the battle but returned it a few months later, because of the multiple curses that it brought upon them wherever it was stationed 1Sam5-6. After initially rejoicing at its return, the Israelites quickly learned to dread it because of the very strict rules that had to be taken into account when manipulating it and which they were unable to abide by. Even inappropriately gazing at it or touching it resulted in a horrible and painful death 1Sam6:19-21,Lev10:2,Num4:20.

Although the Ark of the Covenant was among them since before the coming of Talut/Saul, it had remained unused. It was isolated in a distant location for many years without anyone daring to manipulate it in a military context. Yet they were in constant fear of a possible invasion from those enemies that had subdued them in the past and who were at their doorsteps. The situation of the Ark remained so until Saul brought it back to make use of it again in battle 1Sam14:18 (it was present with his army prior to the incident in this verse). 

It is interesting to note here the conflicting traditions as to what was Saul's reaction to the imminent danger of enemies approaching the Hebrew camp. The Masoretic tradition states that he asked for the Ark, while the Septuagint says that he asked for the ephod, a priestly garment. One can clearly see the need of having a miraculous tool of war at that critical moment, while it makes little sense that Saul would ask for the ephod. The Israelites were hiding in holes and caves, fearing their enemies. The sight of the Ark coming to battle would've had the effect of seeing B52 bombers flying to the rescue of soldiers in the most dire situation, in addition to being a clear sign, as the Quran says, of Saul's capacity to lead the Israelites to victory. The manner in which this occured is described in the Quran as miraculous. As the ultimate divine confirmation of his kingship to his people, the Ark was brought before them carried by angels 

2:248"...carried by the angels. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers". 

The verse does not state that the angelic carriers were visible, and as a general rule, angels in their actual form are imperceptible to the human eye. The Ark in the Bible seems to have been at first a modest wooden chest made by Moses Deut10 but is described elsewhere as an elaborate item adorned with gold Ex25,31. Scholars see this discrepancy as a later embellishment as the story was retold. Noticing the problem, Rabbinic tradition, trying to harmonize the apparent tension in the text, states that there may have been 2 Arks (Tosefta Sotah 7:18). The most noteworthy addition to the simple Ark made by Moses, are the golden Cherubim on the cover Ex25:18. Whether the Ark was truly adorned with representations of those entities or not, the fact is that the tradition has maintained the memory of angelic connection with the Ark. What that connection truly is remains a mystery as the function and meaning of those adorning cherubim are not given in the text and are contested in Jewish tradition. Going by the intertextual meaning, cherubim are guarding angels. It could thus be inferred that those in connection with the Ark, instead of being simple adornments, were the unseen angels guarding the Ark, accompanying it wherever it was, and performing God's will in relation to it.

The Quran passingly alludes to the Ark's contents 

2:248"the chest will come to you in which is assurance from your Lord and a remnant of what the family of Moses and the family of Aaron had left". 

In the HB, the contents are said to be the tablets of the law, the manna, and Aaron's rod Ex16,25,Num17. Contrary to later Christological misappropriations and trinitarian symbolisms irrelevant to the Jewish context and Israelite history, these relics were simple reminders of some important moments to the Israelites' collective memory. The covenant they had entered into, the food that rained down from heaven during their wandering in the desert, the miraculous rod of Aaron that symbolized God's choice for the line of priesthood, which consequently put an end to the plagues God had sent to destroy the rebellious Israelites. These elements, as well as the Ark itself built by Moses their most prominent prophet and leader, were warm reminders of their rich history, divine favors and connection to God. The arrival of this container and its elements, in the miraculous manner as described in the Quran so as to ward off all fear they had from it, giving them an unequivocal green light to make use of it against their enemies, was the impact needed to uplift them spiritually and physically for the momentous task at hand.

It is hard not to see the tradition preserved in the Septuagint as but another attempt at discrediting Saul, painted as wavering and uncertain about how to react to the impending danger, and thus asking for the ephod so as to consult an oracle. It would have been out of place to begin a prayer ceremony while the enemy was all around and just about to attack, in fact we see in the next verse Saul interrupting the priest's prayers then throwing himself into battle. Details are obviously missing as to how the events unfolded and a full harmonization, as is so often the case with the Bible, can only be reached tentatively.

Bringing back the Ark was thus certainly an act of great courage and determination befitting of a ruler appointed by God, considering the level of dread this item inspired. Yet it was meant to help them, so long as they properly revered it and were themselves spiritually upright. Thanks to Saul returning the Ark to battle, a symbol of God's presence among them, they had the courage to provoke the Philistines for a decisive all-out war with the aim of repelling them far outside their borders. Such a move, which they did not dare attempting until now, would put an end to their permanent fear of invasion 1Sam13:1-4. 

It should be noted however that the Ark itself wasnt used in the way Joshua made use of it in battle, it simply emboldened them by its presence. This reassuring effect is encapsulated in the word sakina.

The word appears in different places in the Quran 9:26,40,48:4,18,26. It is something that Allah sends, as stated in the verse about the Ark 2:248. It is therefore separate from Allah. It is neither Allah, nor divine. The sakina may fill any receptacle, animate or inanimate so as to bring about calmness and reassurance. The Quran here is using an Arabic word analogous to the Hebrew shekhina, implying dwelling and settling, and clarifying its meaning. This is because the word shekhina, although absent from the HB, is interpolated at length in rabbinic writings, and is even given the feminine gender. The shekhina is the idea of "God's presence" at a particular point in creation, whether in the Ark, the pillar of clouds during the exodus, or the tabernacle of Moses. The concept is unbefitting of God's majesty and perfect monotheism. The Quran, through the description of the sakina/shekhina, dismisses the cultic exaggeration ascribed to the Ark.

No reference to the Ark is made afterwards until David ordered it removed from its place of seclusion amid great rejoicing, implying that it wasnt displaced and used for the nation's benefit since a while. What can also be inferred is that they must have been irreverent to it again sometime shortly following the battle, which caused them to be chastised and the Ark returned by Saul to the place specially sanctified for it 1Chron13,2Sam6. 

As stated earlier, the Israelites disliked Talut/Saul's appointment as their king. Despite the presence of the Ark with them, only a few stood up to fight in the way of Allah at the critical moment when, in response to the daring provocation, their enemies had gathered most of their forces for war, becoming "as numerous as the sand on the seashore" 1Sam13. 

They had cowardly fled in caves, mountains, or accross the Jordan river. Others that were already mobilized for previous battles, deserted. Some even went as far as joining the Philistines, either as a result of this debacle or before 1Sam14:21. This is, just at their prophet had predicted, as quoted in the Quran, before the appointment of a king to lead them in battle as per their own request 

2:246"May it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you?"

Only 600 valliant ones remained alongside Saul, and were in addition ill equipped due to the elimination of all the smiths among them by the Philistines when they had full reign over their lands 1Sam13:19-22,14:2. As Saul and his small band of followers were encamping, a group from among them decided to stealthily ambush a Philistines' nearby post, and succeeded in doing so, inflicting casualties as well as a psychological blow that invigorated the rest of the Israelites, even those that had fled. They subsequently all joined Saul in taking advantage of the situation, pursuing, routing and plundering the Philistines 1Sam14. Followed several successful battles with other neighbouring nations, as well as the Philistines, until another decisive meeting with their archfoes 1Sam15. 

It is during this above pursuit, that the Biblical account speaks of a privation test similar to that of the Quran in 2:249. It says in 1Sam14:24-33 that as the enemy was already drawing back in confusion, the fighters were told not to eat food until they are dealt the hardest blow, a device meant at not delaying the fleeing enemy's pursuit and not release the pressure until they are completely routed. In the Quran, the test consisted in not drinking (the one in the HB was of not eating) from a stream which the marching men of Saul/Talut encountered, prior to the decisive encounter with their enemies. A little observation shows that this was done in order to select the elite both physically and spiritually among all able men, to ascertain the true companions ready to accept one of the most difficult privation, that of thirst, demonstrating their discipline and eagerness in obeying a divine command and thus prove themselves worthy of being the bearers of the banner of truth and worthy of divine assistance in battle as per God's law. 

This law of the proportionality of divine help in relation to the level of spirituality of the fighters in battle is established several times over both in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible, even during the time of Samuel and hence one can understand why Saul resorted to that selection process at such a critical time. If this test were to be placed in the sequence of events as related in the Bible, then it must have happened at the selection of the 600, with the rejected others cowardly waiting for the outcome from their hiding places around.

Although most failed the test by drinking their fill and were thus eliminated from the group and sent back, others successfully passed it without even as much as tasting of it and were thus retained, along with others who were forgiven for taking only a handful.

That distinction in level of resolve reaffirmed itself among the selected group when, after crossing the river, some were fearful at the near prospect of meeting the superior enemy, while others had complete trust in God's promised assistance and boldly confronted the Philistines, repelling them. It was at that battle that they met Jalut/Goliath, a soldier since his youth, a prominent hero and warrior 1Sam17:4,33,51. Jewish tradition asserts he had won many battles against the Israelites, including capturing the Ark of the Covenant, although his name doesnt appear during the incident in 1Sam4, and neither during the previous battles. The Quran paints the additional image of Goliath being a warrior with soldiers under his orders "Jalut and his forces". This certainly isnt far-fetched if one considers that armies have always primarily raised their soldiers in hierarchy based on merits acquired on the field, as in Goliath's case. Besides, nowhere does it say in the Hebrew Scriptures, neither in their traditions, that he was a simple soldier, quite to the contrary.

The Hebrew scriptures, contrary to the Quran, do not say whether Goliath was among the ranks of the Philistines at this first major confrontation between them and Saul's ill equipped and vastly outnumbered men. It can however be inferred, given the aforementioned traditions depicting him as an experienced soldier, participating in many battles, including those battles spoken of in the HB in which he isnt explicitly named. Further the HB itself reports the amassing of Philistine soldiers and equipment for that encounter with Saul and his men. The battle was for them a momentous event, from which they could not have dismissed their most prominent warriors, like Goliath, from participating.

Despite their humiliating defeat and debacle, the Philistines did not give up their enmity with the Jews and constantly provoked them into battle 1Sam14:52. But their continuous defeats caused them at some point to change tactics and challenge the Israelites into a one on one combat that would determine the final outcome. Thinking they would inflict upon them a hard psychological blow, they designated their champion Goliath to represent them, knowing that on his own, no man by himself could overcome him. It was only David that stood up to Goliath's challenge while the rest of the Israelites turned away in fear despite him taunting them for 40 days. David, with the help of God, slew him with a single strike from his slingshot to his forehead, then severed his head. Upon seeing their hero's death, the rest of the Philistines drew back and fled while the Israelites plundered their camp 1Sam17.

The Quran doesnt list all the Israelites' battles and squirmishes under Saul/Talut, rather it is interested in highlighting certain landmarks that occured in a military context and with which the believers in the prophet Muhammad's time could identify:
- When the firm in faith were separated from the disbelievers and the hypocrites
- When they defeated a much more powerful enemy against all odds
- When David enters the scene in a decisive manner

If one looks closely at the wording of the verses, what transpires is that the first 2 incidents occured at one occasion, and the last involving David at another. This is because the Quran states clearly that there was first a victory in which Jalut/Goliath and his forces were routed with God's help. The word used stems from h-z-m which implies defeat, not necessarily through bloodshed or general slaughter, more so by putting to flight after disheartening the opponent, thus paralleling with the Biblical account of the Israelite victory against the Philistines in 1Sam14. It is after that hazm that comes the statement about Dawud killing Jalut. The wording doesnt negate it happening at another meeting and in fact strongly implies it.

Some have suggested an anachronism in the Quran's version of the events. Through superficial parallelisms, they have argued that the test of privation from water spoken of in the Quran must have been the similar test mentioned in the HB before the coming of Saul, in Judges7, and then misplaced it in the time of Saul. In the HB, during that test, Gideon directs a group of 10.000 to a fountain or well (all translations imply a kind of body of water different from a river) to see the manner in which they would drink, not whether they would drink or not. According to the Talmud, the Israelites that inclined to idolatry would perform their rituals by kneeling to the ground and bending forward. Gideon wanted to expose them by seeing who would naturally kneel and quench his thirst directly from the water source, and who would lap the water with their tongue from their hand Judges7:1-8. Clearly here, besides the fact that the soldiers were not already marching for war as in the Quran, they were not informed of the test and its conditions aforehand, because it would have cancelled the purpose which was in addition completely different. 

Since in the Quran, it is their level of disciple that determined their selection in Saul/Talut's army, they were told that only the ones that could control their thirst would be chosen, while in Gideon's case the object was not to see whether the soldiers would refrain from drinking but rather how they would drink. 

There are many other contextual and fine details, including the fact that the Quran speaks of a nahr that had to be crossed, a word used for a significant body of flowing water as in a river, that negate the attempted parallelism between the 2 accounts, which in reality boils down to one single common point; a test involving water. If one were to follow that line of thinking, countless similar claims can be raised and "parallelisms" be made, between anything and everything.

The Muslims were being tested in their resolve and discipline just as the Israelites under Saul/Talut were, so they were told to take lesson from this story and its outcome

 4:66"And if We had prescribed for them: Lay down your lives or go forth from your homes, they would not have done it except a few of them". 

Just like the Jews, some of the followers of the prophet used to back out of the battles whenever commanded to lay down their lives and go forth from their homes. The battles of Badr, Uhud and Khandaq bear testimony to this fact.

The poetry of the Quran

At one point during the prophet's mission, particularly after the events of the night journey/israa' and mi'raaj, the Meccans intensified their pressure on Muhammad, his followers and supporters. Instead of attacking him upfront they agreed to ostracise completely the Bani Hashim and Muttalib by organizing a severe social and economic blocade on them, until they hand them over Muhammad. They also commissioned the most eloquent of their poets to ridicule him, his followers and his message and propagate false rumors on him to all pilgrims coming in and out of the city who were his main audience, as well as in the markets. They maintained that the reason why the Quran appealed to people was not that it was revealed by God but because Muhammad possessed such a strong eloquent expression he could charm the people 21:3. They held that he fabricated the verses of the Quran with the help of some Satanic Jinn and presented these before the people in the garb of divine inspirations. The Quran mentions these charges at various places and then answers them 

26:210-212"And the Shaitans have not come down with it. And it behoves them not, and they have not the power to do (it). Most surely they are far removed from the hearing of it". 

The words "it behoves them not" imply that Satan would not do something against his own mission. This is the same kind of argument, as was adopted by Jesus in response to the Pharisees in Lk11. Evil forces have no power over it and it shows from the idolators and their jinns' failure to the Quran's repeated challenges to come up with 3 sentences like it. And on the accusations of him being an eloquent and demon possessed poet, the Quran would use simple observation to refute their claims, firstly by pointing to the well known and undisputed upright character of Muhammad 

36:69-70"And We have not taught him poetry, nor is it meet for him; it is nothing but a reminder and a plain Quran. That it may warn him who would have life, and (that) the word may prove true against the unbelievers". 

The Quran would also contrast those who followed the prophet and those who listened to and followed these kinds of mad, demon possessed poets 

26:224-226"And those who are strayed follow the poets. Did you not notice that they wander everywhere? And they say what they practice not". 

Not every poet is condemned in this passage. A group is singled out, those who use such powerful media as an instruments of evil and wickedness. Before and during the advent if Islam some of them posted their sexually explicit verses on the walls of the Kaaba. They were highly revered and believed to be under the power of jinns. This type of poetry darkened the people's emotions and intellects, instigated wars and hatred among different parties who otherwise would not have even fought eachother on the battlefield. 

During Islam's early battles, these blood thirsty propaganda machines were rightfully considered combatants like any soldier in a time where threats and treason were coming from all side against the nascent Muslim community, aiming at its extinction. The verse raises also the point that those who followed these poets had a sinful nature, because of the nature of the poems the likes of those of Imrul-Qays, and what these poems incited in their hearts. Those who were captivated by the Quran's eloquence on the other hand, were a different kind of people. What the prophet was reciting was obviously more than poetic lofty thoughts, and some predictions like those of the sooth-sayers, and those who will keep opposing him will be deprived of its wisdom 10:1-2.

As a side note, demon possession, a calumny among many others that the prophet Muhammad and prophets before him, including Jesus, were charged with was unrelated to the satanic verses polemic. It was in relation to what his opponents perceived as the Quran's supernatural eloquence. They werent ready to accept that it could come from a human, much less from God, so they settled for demonic agents.

In a similar situation, Moses who was accused of being a magician with the motive of 

20:57"turn us out of our land by your magic" 

as he came to them with the "truth", pointed to the absurdity of their charge; a sorcerer or magician can never come, as he did, to a bloody tyrant the like of Pharao with the bold truth, effective arguments and speech, use his set of skills (which they believed was magic while they were manifest miracles) against the tyrant, humiliating him to such an extent that he was condemned to be executed 

10:76-7"Musa said: Do you say (this) of the truth when it has come to you? Is it magic? And the magicians are not successful". 

Such accusation was all the more absurd considering that Pharao, and the Quraysh who accused Muhammad of sorcery and magic, knew it had never happened in history that a magician had conquered a country through such means. Magicians were common in ancient Egypt. They boasted of their feats all over the empire so as to acquire wealth and esteem. But what distinguished Moses with the magicians above all was their demand for worldly reward in contrast to Moses' moral, selfless stance. He embodied courage and confidence, was not seeking any reward in spite of belonging to an enslaved nation. Neither was the murder accusation against him a reason for his bold move, he had been living for long beyond Egyptian territory where he had established himself and his family. Yet he came back to Pharaoh's court to proclaim that he had been sent by the Lord of all Creation, boldly demanding the release of the Israelites 26:18-51. Such an individual couldnt be internally animated by evil intentions or demonic agents.  

Seeing that their smearing campaign was failing against Muhammad, the Quraysh appealed to the services of Nadr ibn al Harith. He did not rise up by himself and begin his public defamation. He was learned in the history, religion, wisdom, theories of good and evil, cosmology, and other literature of the Persians and he would rise after Muhammad's speeches calling the people to the Persian religions. He convinced the Quraysh this was the only way they could try defeating his purpose in public. Just as with Moses before, their villification campaign stood no ground considering the nature of the message and the message bearer himself, him being known for his moral integrity prior to beginning his mission. Some historians say Nadr ibn al Harith was captured and executed following the battle of badr in which he personally participated in, among other pagan and Quraysh notables. A wide range of reasons are given for his execution including defamation and incitement to assassination attempts against the prophet, persecution through appeals to boycott, and torturing of Muslims. Not much certainty can be established surrounding the circumstances of his death. Other reports even show him present among the defeated delegation of the battle of ta'if which occured later than Badr, even accepting Islam among other notables who then were gifted with camels as a sign of peace and good will. 

What was being recited by Muhammad, the illiterate man living among them for 40 years without them ever noticing any poetry skills, did not use confounding words or phrases, neither did it employ strange Arabic dialects. Its choice of words produced the maximum impact in the hearts and intellects of those that heard it. Its content was far from the decadent depictions of various common themes of Preislamic poetry. Arab poetry varied from vivid lustful language, to history, soothsaying, propaganda, incitements against other tribes, to epic tales of honor, mentions of Abraham and the sacrifice, praise of the holy sanctuary etc. Yet when the Quran addressed each of those themes, it did so with refinement and a meaningful choice of words and structure that gave a multifaceted, intricate moral and spiritual dimension to the issue. The masters of eloquence of the time could not classify it in any genre due to many factors, including contents and form. The many intricate types and subtypes of the Jahiliyya poetry are well known, and it is the Quran's particular structure, not belonging to any of the established pattern, that made them unable to counter it. This baffled its audience, compelling the opponents to find nothing better to say than to call it magic, inspired by demons and so forth. 

Thomas Bauer "There is yet another reason why scholars of the Quran are deterred from looking more closely at contemporary literature  even the briefest of examinations of the two bodies of texts reveals that they share little in common  so different are the Quran and contemporary poetic literature that one can hardly come up with a better example of difference if one tried  From their different ways of using language to their notable differences in content, hardly any similarities are to be found  This distinction is so marked that it might well seem virtually pointless to claim that Arabic poetry can make any serious contribution to an understanding of the Quran".

Ibn Ishaq recorded al-Walid bin Mugira's reaction to the Quran: 

"They said, "He is a kahin." He said, "By God, he is not that, for we have seen the kahins, and his (speech) is not unintelligible murmuring (zamzama) and rhymed prose (sajc) of a kahin." "Then he is possessed (majnun)," they said. "No, he is not that," he said. "We have seen and known the possessed state, and here is no choking, spasmodic movements, and whispering." "Then he is a poet," they said. "He is not that," he replied. "We have known poetry in all its forms and meters, and this is not poetry." "Then he is a sorcerer," they said. "No, he is not that," he said, "for we have seen sorcerers and their sorcery, and here is no spitting and no knots." 

Rhymes do appear in the Quran, but the establishment of a rhyming scheme is absolutely not the objective nor one of the purposes of Quran syntax. There are reports even of the prophet warning against the attitude of being concerned in trying to make one's prayers and supplications fit a certain rhythmic or rhyming pattern. 

As a side note, some critics have asserted that the Quran in places, in order to preserve a rhyming pattern, spells the same word differently. For example the prophet Elias that becomes Ilyasin 6:86,37:130 or Mt Sinai/sayna that becomes sinin 23:20,95:2, or the Arabicized names Harun and Qarun (Aaron/Korah). A simple observation however will demonstrate that this isnt necessarily the case for in the Quran itself people and places have been given different names regardless of the rhyming pattern. The prophet Yunus is also called dhunnun and even Mt sinai is sometimes just referred to as Tur or Tur sayna. It isnt uncommon in any language or culture for people or places to be known by several names. Ilyasin has in addition been said to be the name given to the followers of the prophet Ilyas. A peculiarity of Elijah in the HB is that he had a following of prophets 2Kings2. There is no sensible reason for a text to introduce a new, unknown name and confuse the audience for the sake of prose, while it would be easier to make an already well established name rhyme with a convenient word instead. Also if one looks at the verses in question, they are surrounded by verses unconcerned with establishing a rhyming scheme, even when ending with a prophet's name.

The poets of Quraysh, failing to classify Muhammad and what he was reciting in any of the known mystical, demonic or oral phenomena, thus agreed on calling him a magician whose craft was eloquence that by means of eloquent words he was capable of dividing the man against his father, his brother, his spouse and his own tribe 46:7,21:3,34:43,54:2,74:24,10:76,11:7,37:15. The fact is that truth always causes a separation ultimately as seen in the nations and families of the prophets of old, from Nuh who had to abandon his own disbelieving son to be taken by the deluge, to Ibrahim who left his disbelieving father, Lut who left his wife behind him as the town was about to be destroyed etc, and the same is related in the scriptures of old, from the HB to the NT 

Micah7:6,Matt30:21-36"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved..Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household". 

Just as the moral reforms brought by Jesus and Muhammad were met with the staunchest opposition, so was the Book given to Musa 

11:110-112"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it. And your Lord will most surely pay back to all their deeds in full; surely He is aware of what they do. Continue then in the right way as you are commanded.."