Islam Critiqued is still soaked with NT Greek fables; Alexander in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

There is no character called Alexander or resembling this ancient figure in the Quran. Dhul Qarnayn's story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8. He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys, as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45.

Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his

"being established in the land"

to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementionned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power.

Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus. In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn.

The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it. It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III.

The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk. The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.

This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. The Talmud states in Bava Batra 75a and Kedushat Levi, Numbers/Beha'alotcha

Kedushat Levi that in the next world, the righteous will be rewarded with a meal consisting of shor ha-bor and livyatan – wild ox and leviathan, a sea creature, just as the prophet answered (Sahih-Muslim 315a). The resemblance to the parents alluded to in the hadith is in terms of gender, as discussed in the Babylonian Talmud Niddah 31a. The response to gender determination given in the hadith is different than that given in the Talmud but does not contradict it. Although the Talmud connects gender determination to which parent discharges first, in the hadith it is about the discharge  itself.

The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions 

"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that". 

To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge 

"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".

The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet 

25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".

Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;

- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.

- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?

- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.

Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with

"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".

The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels;

- it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures

- it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness

As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head.

 Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on. This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf.

Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.

The story also speaks about the limitations man can achieve in dominion, even when explicitly divinely favored. Dhul Qarnayn, despite being a noble and pious person and being blessed by God in his dominion, was also limited in the extent of his conquests. In one conquest, he was halted by a geographical limitation, that of an abundance of water/aynin, although he asserted his dominion over the local population in a just and fair manner, despite that people being at his entire mercy. In another conquest, he reached an unforgiving location battered by the sun, probably a desert, and the people encountered there although without natural shelters against it, remained in it. Contrary to the former location, he did not have the resources or need to maintain a presence in such a harsh climate and thus left that particular land and its people without seeking to interact with them. His dominion in this area was essentially useless, despite him having power over the people. As far as Gog and Magog, Dhul Qarnayn could only establish a barrier to prevent their assaults ie he could not maintain an army in that region, and that barrier too, as Dhul Qarnayn pointed out, would ultimately collapse despite being built with the most formidable of materials.

Despite the lack of surviving information on Cyrus' life, in light of what is known of him from the Hebrew bible and the historical records, there exists no other conquerer of the ancient world whose details given in the Quran are as applicable as they are to him. Cyrus led several military campaigns, starting West then heading East as described in the Quran, instead of Alexander who never went West but only East and took back another route on his way back. He led his campaigns against the most powerful kingdoms of the time, including Media, Lydia, and Babylonia ultimately defeating them all and founding the Achaemenian empire, centred on Persia and comprising the Near East from the Aegean Sea eastward to the Indus River. He encountered many nomadic tribes all throughout his expeditions. Those of Central Asia were the most rebellious.

Cyrus built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against their assaults. He is in fact said to have been finally killed by one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes among whom he was trying to expand his influence. Although the lack of inscriptions left behind do not indicate precisely what were Cyrus' beliefs, because among other reasons Persia was comprised of many nomadic cultures and languages and record-keeping was not a priority, it can be inferred that he was Zoroastrian or at least a theist, as seen from his monotheistic proclamation in the book of Ezra and the way he is spoken of by God in Isaiah, that had a leaning for Zoroastrianism. Several people in his closest family and entourage, including among his children had names of Zoroastrian characters. Although he never forced his beliefs upon conquered people, he is said to have sent emissaries peacefully preaching his religion around his empire or territories he was about to conquer. Influence of Zoroastrian teachings can be seen in writings related to him, including in the Bible in certain Isaiah passages, that are thought to have been penned during the Jewish Babylonian captivity. The Medes vastly supported him in his battle against their own king who wasnt Zoroastrian. Cyrus was buried according to Zoroastrian rituals.

His heroic, magnanimous, humanitarian qualities, religious tolerance, as a ruler greatly influenced his portrayal by the Greek writers who were easily tempted to embellish his biography, and the Romans too who transmitted the traditions about him to Europe.

Alexander the great was known, from an early age among his contemporaries as having been in literal "loving" infatuation for Cyrus as presented in Greek works, restoring and visiting his tomb several times later on. It is only natural then that many aspects from Alexander, as portrayed by contemporaries and others, sometimes accurately and at other times with additions, will parallel with Cyrus. This is the common thread of truth that is found between the Quran and the various Alexander traditions. To a Muslim, the whole borrowing charge often levelled by the misleading critics could be dismissed right here. But let us delve further into the issue to burry it deeper that what it already is.

These Cyrus/Alexander similarities are the reasons why some among the earlier Quran commentators, without any basis in the prophetic traditions, have confusedly identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander. They were misinformed due to a weak and unreliable narration by Tabari in his tafsir, and by Muhammad bin Rabee’ Jaizi in his “Book of the companions” where Dhul-Qarnayn has been mentioned as Roman and founder of Alexandria. Other Commentators like ibn Kathir and ibn Taymiyya did not subscribe to that view.

Orientalists and recent critics of course jumped on the Alexander bandwagon, grasping upon superficial similarities, between some versions of the Alexander legends (there are different versions) and the Quran.

This story is part of a larger picture, teaching mankind through several parables (the sleepers, the owners of the gardens, Moses' encounter with one of God's messengers, Dhul Qarnayn and his conquests) what is the true God-conscious and God-ordained way for mankind to deal with the issues of TIME (ie how life is in God's hands with the story of the sleepers), WEALTH (the owners of the gardens), KNOWLEDGE (Moses' encounter), POWER (Dhul Qarnayn).

Islam Critiqued plays an old song; the prophet's hidden knowledge?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The prophet Muhammad lived among his people for 40 years before the start of his prophetic mission, without anything from his speech foretelling either fully or partly a knowledge of the information and principles provided within the book

12:3,102,28:44,11:49"These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them-- (neither) you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).".

The only thing distinguishing him from the majority of his people was his pure conduct and detachment from their ungodly habits

10:16"Say: If Allah had desired (otherwise) I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have taught it to you; indeed I have lived a lifetime among you before it; do you not then understand?".

As stated in 42:52, before his appointment to prophethood, he never had any idea that he was going to receive a Book, or that he should receive one. He was wholly unaware of the heavenly Books and the subjects they treated.

Likewise, although he believed in Allah, intellectually he was not aware of the requirements of the Faith.

In addition, from a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed.

Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood.

This teacher of his, from the mass of informants proposed throughout the ages by the critics of Islam, from Waraqa b. Nawfal to ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, to the anonymous hanif communities or other monotheists such as Zayd ibn Amr, the hermit Bahira, some unnamed foreign slaves knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian oral and written traditions, to Zayd ibn Thabit's crucial role in originating the Quranic text, none of them could have done what is alleged that they did without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against that student or plagiarist who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity.

Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.

The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. That is why the prophet's critics, even as reported in the Quran, would point to various suspects that were living in everyone's plain sight, although they could not prove any of their claims and neither did these individuals ever agree with these calumnies. And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire.

The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. What insignificant Judeo-Christian community was the prophet interested in appeasing at point, as sometimes suggested by the mischievious critics? His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.

His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. The intricate manner in which his followers, in and out of the household, observed, memorized and safeguarded every aspect of his life, everyday and in all situations further dwarfs this already untenable proposition. So, because that idea of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed.

The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. But the rest is history. To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier.

What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.

It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was

 "Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".

Islam critiqued doesnt know for sure; Becca in Psalms?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

In Psalms84, David speaks in his prayers to the Lord of hosts -the Lord of all nations-, of pilgrims frequently going through the valley of Beca to pray at the altar. Some attribute this psalm to David, others to Korah's 3 sons who lived in Moses' time. Jewish oral tradition states that the book is entirely David's who took the earlier works and melded them with his own ideas. In that passage Becca is identified by a definite article meaning a specific place. That place could not be the Jerusalem Temple, which was not even constructed at the time (neither in Moses' time).

Of course, later in Jewish history Zion became affiliated with Jerusalem, but it couldnt have been during the time of David, or Moses for that matter. Jerusalem in the sense of the Holy City and place of pilgrimage was not built yet in David's days who was in addition referring to a place far away that required strenuous effort. The context of Ps84 is that of difficulty as one engages in a dry and barren valley then gaining spiritual strength upon strength. Clearly the meaning as noted by all commentators cannot be anything than the "valley of lamentation/weeping". The root word, bacca is used for types of trees that grow in arid places, like balsam, mulberry, or aspen that drip resin like tears. The balsam tree itself is found in southern Arabia, as well as on the mountains of Mecca and Medina.

So then which valley in Jerusalem is the ground so hard that the rain collects in pools? The valley of Becca has this particularity and the passage is meant to demonstrate its aridity. A valley of trees and lush vegetation doesnt fit this description. Which valley in or around Jerusalem do people take rest in and make it a well, when they go through to "Zion"? The fact that they make it a well, show that they take their rest there as well, another specificity of the place.

David laments that this place is far from the people and much hardship has to be taken to get there and despite the hardship, as they proceed to it and get closer to the court of the Lord in 'Zion", they move with strength upon strength. So where is that arid valley that pilgrims ever took on their way to Zion?

None of this was applicable to Jerusalem, nor is any valley affiliated with the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, besides the fact that the Temple didnt even exist then.

David speaks of Becca as a frequently journeyed site by pilgrims and there was no place in his days nor before, to the point that certain commentators argue that what David is referring to is a place in heaven. This is ruled out by the fact it is refered to as a geographical location which Bible scholars have not been able to identify until now. Since pre-islamic times, Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran.

One of the BEcca's defining characteristics, per the Psalms is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, which isnt Jerusalem's case, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools".

Mecca is enclosed between valleys and Jerusalem, which is on a small range of mountain tops in no way can be said to fulfill these qualities. The Zamzam well is what made the location hospitable to the pilgrims. This is where the HB states that God openned Hagar's eyes to a well, in answer to her supplications

Gen21:18-9"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink".

This was God's gift to her, a means of sustenance for her settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to make a great nation out of Ismail. As a side note, none of the wells of Beerseba or anywhere near it are mentionned as God-given. They are very distinctly described as the work of human hand. Nor is there any local tradition pointing to the existence there, now or in the past, of any divinely caused well. The only well made to gush miraculously in connection to Hagar and Ismail is in Mecca.

It is interesting to note also that by the time of the great rabbinic scholar and Torah commentator ibn Ezra, when every historian and religious scholarly authority agreed that the inhabitants of hijaz are descendants of Ishmael, he comments that the well which Hagar was miraculously pointed to prior to Ishmael's birth in Gen16:14 was originally called Beer Lahai, meaning 

"the well of him who will be alive next year..The well was so called because the Ishmaelites held annual festivities at this well. It is still in existence and is called the well of zamum". 

This well, present in his time and known accross cultures, is mispronounced as Zamum. Obviously no other well than that of Zamzam exists, where Ishmaelites ever held festivities prior to Islam.

Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/ Weeping", and Beca means "crying" in Arabic as a reference to Hagar crying for Allah's help in the wilderness fearing for her son Ismail's life, as related in both the Torah and Islamic tradition.

Islam Critiqued plays the sceptic; no reason to link becca and mecca?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran in addition that it is the first monument of worship of the One God and that it will remain so 3:95-99. 

When asked 

"which mosque was set up first on the earth? He said: Al-Masjid al-Haram".

The name itself "kaaba" is attested in ancient south Arabian epigraphy as a word used to describe a shrine for divinities. 

It is also mentionned several times as the Ancient/Atiq House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125. The word Atiq conveys also the meaning of honor and reverance since it had been made sacred by God 27:91. The root word rataqa conveys also the deeper sense of freedom from bondage and the Kaaba effectively has always been free from the bond of ownership of the mortals and in no time it had a possessor, save Allah. It is to be noted, had there been any doubt as to Becca being a synonym for Mecca, one would have seen a variant interpretative reading replacing the B with M. Exegetical readings are known among the accepted qira'at. Given the importance Becca is given, one would have at least seen interpretive glosses inserted into the text, clarifying its meaning. And yet, just as with other geographical synonyms, we see none of all that in the Quran. This is because the location it refers to has never been disputed. Besides, Arab historians have recorded other names to the holy city than Mecca and Becca, each describing come of its characteristics. For example because of its position between valleys, causing it to be prone to flash floods, it was called Sayl meaning heavy rain (Al-Zahraniy). It was also called Tihama because it lies between Hijaz and Yemen.

Only one location is said to be dedicated to those performing the ritual prayers, as well as the pilgrimage and it is the Kaaba, Becca, the Ancient House and al masjid al haram, all names referring to one same place with the definite article and with almost identical wording 2:125,158,196,3:96-7,9:19,22:26,29, all connecting the Abrahamic legacy to one and the same place. This unquestionably links the Kaaba, Becca, Mecca with some of the most important rituals of Islam.

The revisionist argument that these locations are disconnected and unrelated is based upon the faulty mehtodology of isolating statements out of their direct and wider context. The requirement that a particular Quranic statement needs to be fully detailed in each context is unnecessary. Any type of literary research, especially historical, is done by piecing together related information. Conjecture is stripping statements out of their direct and larger context and ignoring surrounding indicators, then drawing clumsy conclusions.

Interestingly, when Moses had fled Egypt where he was wanted for man slaughter, and hid in Midian/Madyan, which is nowhere else than in the Arabian Peninsula, a "foreign land" in Moses' own words, from where he had to "return to Egypt" to free the Israelites Ex2:22,4:18, the Quran mentions his encounter with a righteous man in that land of Arabia, saying to him

28:27"I desire to marry one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you should serve me for eight hijaj/pilgrimages; but if you complete ten, it will be of your own free will, and I do not wish to be hard to you; if Allah please, you will find me one of the good".

This righteous Arabian man, whom tradition identifies with Shuayb, is quoted as counting the years in terms of pilgrimage, as it happened every year. Also, the valley where God first spoke to Moses is called Tuwa 20:12. The word tuwa means to fold, from the root ta-waw-ya, it is used as a name of the valley because a valley is by definition folded between higher ground, and in this case, figuratively folded with holiness. Dhi tuwa, which is near Mecca might very well be this same Tuwa of Moses where he had been dwelling with his Madian or Arab family prior to his return to Egypt and confrontation with Pharao.

Another interesting observation, linguistically is that Makka and bakka are used once in the Quran, and not randomly; in the context of hajj which involves the mass ingathering of populations, bakka is used since it stems from a word meaning crowd, while makka is employed outside that context.

Islam Critiqued wont renew his repertoire; borrowed words in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

Polemicists have misconstrued a known linguistic phenomenon so as to try another weak attack against the Quran. To enforce their obsessive claims of borrowing, they have scavenged the book for supposedly "foreign" words. These words betray the Quran's adoption of foreing concepts, as well as the fact it needed additional vocabulary to express new ideas.

Firstly, all languages, including Arabic, have eventually adopted foreign words as people have interracted. Sometimes these words retain their implicit cultural or theological baggage. At other times a completely new meaning is assumed.

In the Quran's case, foreign words do not even amount to a fraction of the totality. In addition, many of those words pointed to by the critics either are in fact Arabic, with well established triliteral Arabic roots, or have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to other Semitic cognate languages of the region, thus rendering their tracing very difficult.
Recently for instance, Wolf Leslau refuted Nöldeke's identification of certain Arabic words in the Quran as Ethiopic, like shaytan or jahannam, proving that the direction of borrowing was actually the opposite. The words that entered the Arabic language prior to revelation cannot be termed foreign. They are now Arabic words.

Onus is on the critics to prove that these words were borrowed post Islam. Another case is that of the Aramaic "qeryana" meaning "recitation", which supposedly became the Arabic "Quran" which also is, by its very nature a recitation. Being cognate languages, both Aramaic and Arabic share the same triliteral root for qeryana/quran, qa-ra-a meaning to read/recite. It is thus difficult to ascertain which came from which. It has been however recently suggested that Aramaic had penetrated deep within the peninsula, until Yathrib/Medina, as far back as during the 500s BC through king Nabonidus. Thus, there must have been intra-cultural and linguistic exchanges, between Aramaic speakers and Arabs, one way or the other. Even if one were to grant the adoption by Arabs of Aramaic loanwords, then by the rise of Islam these words had become Arabic words far detached from their full technical implications.

As to the idea of Arabic having a poor vocabulary, anyone familiar with pre-islamic literature and poems knows how rich and expressive the language of the time already was. There was no need to express any of its ideas by borrowing foreign words. In fact none of the supposed words or expression do not have their synonym, either in other passages of the Quran, or in the well established Arabic language. 

In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use, it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.

In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.

Islam Critiqued needs updating to recent scholarship; Original Syriac Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

A strange claim by Christoph Luxenberg (later repeated by Sawma) is that, despite early documentary evidence of Arabic Qurans, and without providing a single piece of proof, he believes the “proto-Koran” and the “original Koranic text” were written by Arab Christians in Garshuni, meaning the transcription of the Arabic language using the Syrio-Aramaic script. It was not until 150 years after the advent of Islam that the Arabic script was used instead for the Quran. All earlier inscriptions were in fact made by Christians and had nothing to do with Islam.

For example he states that the dome of the rock inscription about Muhammad is actually a mistransltation and is speaking of Jesus. Yet the same phrase

"muhammadun abdullahi wa rasuluhu"

is translated in 1st century Arabic-Greek bilingual papyri as

"maamet apostolos theou" ie "Muhammad is the Messenger of God".

There are Christian Syriac apocalyptic texts contemporaneous with the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, mentioning its construction along with its "anti-Christian" Arabic inscriptions.

That is besides the known fact that we have nearly the entire Quran in the Arabic script, in scattered manuscripts all dated to the 1st century hijra, including hijazi manuscripts from the 1st half of the 1st century of hijra. This makes the time period between Uthman's codification of the Quran and the appearance of one of the earliest manuscript of the Quran, at most 20 years. How could this shifting of script occur so fast?

More recently, the university of Birmingham UK revealed the existence of a Quran manuscript, written in the early Hijazi script and containing suras 18 to 20, dated to between 568AD and 645AD which is at most 13 years after the prophet Muhammad's death. Only the parchment was dated, not the ink, so as to safeguard the manuscript. Some have used the occasion to claim the parchment was kept, its content erased so that it could be reused at a much later time. However, as noted by Bart Ehrman

"It is very difficult to test the ink on such documents, because to do so requires you to destroy the ink! And it takes a good bit of it to be enough to be checked. So in theory the parchment could be from the 7th century, but the ink from, say, the 14th. But in the judgment of most experts that would be highly unlikely. The only real reason for someone to use ancient parchment for a modern writing (when modern parchment would be in much better shape and easier to access and easier to use) is to make the writing look older than it was. That is something you might expect a modern forger to do, someone who knew that the parchment could be scientifically dated. But it’s not something that would be expected to be done in the Middle Ages. So more than likely the date of the parchment is pretty close to the date of the writing on it. As with all history, of course, this is simply a matter of probabilities, not certainties".

Scholars of the field, know that the Quran was closed text very early on in Islam. This fragment only confirmed what they already knew

(Shady Hekmat Nasser, university of Cambridge) "We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources".

And as corroborated by Nicolai Sinai

"To be sure, one may well hold that the gamut of viable hypotheses about the date of the Quran has now shrunk to the seventh century, 9 thereby defusing some of the issue’s long-standing contentiousness".

Furthermore, a vast array of the Quran’s religious vocabulary is attested in old southern as well as sometimes northern Arabian epigraphy, without any linguistic and theological connection with the languages of the Christian Levant. 

Sulayman Dost "As we have seen, some of the most central concepts for the Qur’ān’s theological outlook have their solitary parallels in the religious, social and political idiom of the Arabian inscriptions. In some cases, there are exact lexical overlaps between the two sets of texts, i.e. the Qur’ān and the epigraphy, and, in some cases, the qur’anic equivalents of certain pre-Islamic concepts are given new semantic dimensions in line with the Qur’ān’s doctrinal stance. It is also worth noting that the Qur’ān’s description, albeit very short and elliptical, of pre-Islamic religious milieu can be largely followed through epigraphic evidence".

A very simple observation is that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, then its tumultuous historical context would have surely reflected within it. We would have seen anachronisms, traces, names, allusions to events and passionate Muslim debates, on laws and theology, the inter religious wars and other major events that had occured. The massive and fulgurant expansion of Muslim territories by that time would have surely been rewritten as retrospective prophecies. None of that is found in the Quran, unlike what happened with the Bible; from the successive destructions and rehabilitation of the Israelites, re-written as prophecies of punishment/reward, to Jesus' crucifixion re-cast as a divine suicide plan since the beginning of creation.

(Nicolai Sinai)"Hence, the argument that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, it somehow ought to reflect the historical context from which it supposedly emerged (albeit not necessarily by virtue of explicit name-dropping) still stands. As long as scholars have not managed to demonstrate that certain Quranic passages – and preferably, passages with a distinct stylistic and terminological profile! – are only intelligible, or best intelligible, when placed in a post-conquest context, a dating of the standard rasmto before 650 therefore seems heuristically preferable...the Quran lacks even the most editorially minimalist techniques of biographical contextualization, such as the insertion of superscriptions tying specific scriptural passages to certain events in Muḥammad’s life (see Isaiah 1:1, Jeremiah 1:1–3, and the various Psalmic superscriptions associating the following text with the life of David).136 The fact that the Quranic corpus as we have it is remarkably uncontaminated not only by fully-fledged sīra narratives but also by such minor redactional accretions is most easily accounted for by a mid-seventh century date for the standard rasm’s closure."

To further expound upon Luxenberg's theories. Christoph Luxenberg states that the Syro-Aramaic used in Edessa and its environs is the original language of the Quran, not Arabic, despite the Quran itself repeatedly saying about itself it is evident Arabic, in the language of the messenger's people 12:2,13:37,26:195,46:12,16:103,19:97,44:58,14:4. Neither does Luxenberg explain how this language might have come to dominate in far away Hijaz to such an extent that it would form the basis of the sacred writings of its inhabitants, nor does he present the slightest evidence that there existed in Mecca and its surroundings an Arab community under intense Christian influence.

These claims run along the same lines as those of the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling who theorized in the 1960 that this area was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and Mecca was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.

There are no Arabic inscriptions written in the Syriac script whereas there are quite a number of them written in Nabataean Aramaic script, the recognized origin of the Arabic script. Arabic was widely spoken in the Middle East by the 7th century CE, particularly in the region of the former Nabataean kingdom. This very evolution presumes frequent writing of Arabic in the Nabataean script. Some inscriptions prove that Arabic had already long been used for sacred expression, such as the Oboda inscription, and possibly also the ones found in the Madaba area. There is also Epiphanius of Salamis’ testimony as to the praises to a virgin deity sung in Arabic by the inhabitants of Petra and Elusa.

A well known Meccan inscription date to AH 98/717 CE is variously attributed to a bishop of Najran in southwest Arabia named Quss ibn Sa‘ida, or else to one of the pre-Islamic kings of Yemen.

Regardless of the authenticity of that attribution, the accumulation of pre-islamic evidence, including a vast wealth of poetry, does point to them belonging to that period. The pre-Islamic Arabic texts are nothing but the visible tip of the iceberg. Most of the hidden material is lost through the effect of time or in the process of being discovered. The point is that there is a substantial tradition of writing and speaking Arabic. Why would then the Quran's supposed authors need to express their sacred traditions in a far away foreign language?

As to methodology, Luxenberg starts by selecting Quranic passages with multiple layered meanings. HE then forces the consonantal Uthmanic text into parallel Syriac words he chooses based on what he deems is a more appropriate meaning of the passage. His whole point being to expose the Arab compilers of the text that came some century and half after Muhammad, as disconnected from the original Syriac substratum of the Quran. But this exercize wasnt unique to Luxenberg.

The background of other scholars engaged in a similar process is reflects in their findings. Thus those studying northwestern semitic languages will see Ugaritic behind obscure Quranic words, while those inclined to see Islam coming out of a Christian background would prefer syriac etymologies; those favoring a Jewish matrix would see Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic as the sources of many Quranic terms.

Islam Critiqued pleads for mercy; Quranic forgiving depiction of Jews?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

As alluded to in the former post, the manner which the Quran treats the Jewish history of failures can be paralleled with the account of the prophet Joseph and his treatment of his sinful brothers. When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt

"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"

Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to.

Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person. Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself

"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".

One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers. Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because

"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".

Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence

"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".

This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inappropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past.

This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time. Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings.

The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. Throughout time, they were a fringe among the masses, and remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led some of them, from the times of the prophet where they “recognized him like their sons” to our own times, to inevitably believe and enter the fold of Islam 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.

That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944).

Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.

The principle that God judges men individually, and not in groups does not negate the infliction of collective suffering even because of the misdeeds of a few, and this is an objective reality.  Such reality may repeat itself with any community, including the Muslims 8:25 which is why believers of all times have been urged by their prophets to purge evil from their communities, hasten each other to good deeds and guard one another from evil. Muslims are warned, through examples of the past, to choose very carefully their leaders because when such elite and rulers begin their mischief, they drag most of the community with them in corruption and lead it to destruction

17:16"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction".

As happened in the past, the Almighty may punish a whole nation for the crime of a single individual if that whole nation sanctions it, directly or passively. As stated by Ezekiel in his warnings to Israel, the righteousness of the few will not deliver the guilty when the time comes Ezek14:20, although it may delay it Prov28:2. If the efforts of those few righteous remnants fall on deaf ear and that the decreed punishment is if such a scale that even the righteous cannot escape it, their reckoning will be with God, as the prophet stated 

"If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. "

Islam Critiqued the defender of Jews; quranic anti-semitism?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

The Quran doesnt hate anybody, it states facts. The reason why Jews are addressed as monolith, whether in the Quran or their own books and prophets following Moses is that because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles. The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress.

However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience  (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.

Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.

The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.

Islam Critiqued is no textual critic; incoherent, garbled quran?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

A note on the Quranic style. In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anecdotes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters. The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environment.

Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture across time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. We thus find in the Quran that most of the characters recognizable through their Biblical counterparts have their stories retold without necessary links and in disconnected episodes. As a result, they largely lose their temporal and spatial dimensions, thus perfectly fitting into the Quranic moral style of narrative. The Quran therefore is not a story book in a beginning to end format, it is a never ending cyclical experience. Like the word or speech of God, it has no beginning or end.

Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occurred, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran. Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.

Those unable to appreciate that Quranic style speak of contradictory, or incomplete repetitions. This is because first and foremost they approach the Quranic text with the above Biblical paradigm in mind; the Quran, instead of being read on its own is seen as a garbled version of multiple Judeo-Christian sources. If, however, the text is approached according to its own thematic unities, its lack of historical detail and absence of chronological order become unproblematic. And this is the prevalent approach among western scholarship nowadays.

The second common problem for those reading the text occurs when they are unable to connect the different repetitions properly among one another and fail to grasp the manner in which each repetition fits in the context of a particular sura. This a side note isnt circular reasoning as it doesnt presume the notion of textual coherence. It is textual coherence that objectively establishes itself, through consistent repetitions, recurrence of similar themes and notions in different contexts.

These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".

What is remarkable from a linguistic perspective is that the Quran was uttered publicly, live and as a speech, which prevents any type of editing and yet it forms one incredibly well knit whole, from verse to verse, paragraph to paragraph, sura to sura. If we take the example of sura baqara, the longest of all and revealed over the course of 10 years while other suras were being simultaneously revealed, it is structured in an interconnected manner allowing it to be thematically structured in many different ways.

This is a vast field of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together. The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance. That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries.

For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, elusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. Here is just one of the thematical structuring of sura Baqara, in a symmetrical construction called ring structure;
- 1st subject from v1-20 faith vs unbelief/Last subject v285-6 dua about belief-hypocrisy-disbelief.
- 2nd subject from v21-39 God's creation and knowledge/2nd subject from down God's creation and knowledge v254-284
- 3rd topic v40-103 the Israelites receive the law/3rd subject from down from down about the laws given to Muslims v178-253
- 4th subject Ibrahim faces tests v104-141/4th one from down Ibrahim's nation, the Ishmaelites are tested v153-177
- middle section culminates with the new direction of prayer, the Kaaba symbolizing that new nation and its new law

And all this symetrical ring structure leads to the statement of the Muslims having been made the ummatan wasata/balanced nation, a statement located in the center of a sura composed of 286 verses, at exactly verse 143. Every single Quranic sura on its own forms, like baqara, a cohesive argument.

Also, because many of its passages can be read through the lens of another passage from within the sura, other analysts have approached its structuring in a pericope. For example, the story of Adam in sura Baqara pericopes throughout the sura. The Israelites were told to enter a town and enjoy its sustenance v58 similarily to the instructions previously given to Adam and his spouse upon entering the garden v35. But just as Adam and his spouse werent content with what they were given, the Israelites began grumbling for the sustenance they had in captivity v61. And just as Adam and his spouse found their Lord forgiving once they repented, some of the Israelites were eventually forgiven for their worshipping the calf and desisting prior to Moses' return v54.