How the Koran's Parallels in Various Traditions Actually Validates It

The most common argument I hear from non-Muslims against Islam is that the Koran bears the mark of variant traditions, suggesting that it was compiled from various sources into a single religion to unite the people of Arabia. The Koran does indeed has parallels in Jewish legend (or "midrash") as well as the Gospel of the Nativity. And there are other things, like the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. Why do these allegations never look convincing to Muslims? Is it just because we're hardheaded, shackled to our blind faiths and therefore in denial? Well I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I for one am actually more convinced of the Koran's truthfulness and inspiration because of these facts, and in this article I will show why.

Both nontheists and People of the Bible point out the alleged influence of variant traditions on the Koran, seemingly having an idea that the Koran was under some kind of influence from various traditions, apparently just because it doesn’t copy all of its sources word for word from a single scripture. I guess this means that if it had plagiarized the Bible, word for word, in every chapter, making itself just a sort of second edition of the Bible, or if its stories had all been from Jewish legend, or whatever, they would be less convinced it was a compilation, although I don't see why. But the fact is, in the old days, before the written word became popular, and especially before it became known as the only reliable way to record history, it was common for variant versions of a single story to arise when something happened at the advent of a religion.

You got differing versions of the same story. Some of them were canonized into official scriptures, and others were considered non-canonical, apocryphal or "midrashic". But this was because of the arbitrary decisions of whatever scriptures, whatever versions of stories, some elders or counsels said were or were not genuine. The four Gospels are a prime example: there were dozens, if not hundreds of Gospels. Why did those four become the only ones anyone can trust? Because they were written early on? In that case you’d think the Gospel of Thomas would have been added to the Bible by now, since it was just as early as the others (although, to be fair, some Christians do unofficially use it as a fifth Gospel). But this Gospel remains apocryphal, and why? As far as I can tell, it’s for no reason other than tradition. Sure its ideas appear to be a little more mystical than those of the other Gospels, but look closely and you’ll see that the blessed Jesus maintains a very mystical attitude in those too, particularly in John.

Now, I would think that if a God-inspired scripture were to come along and be a consummation of all previous true religion, it would contain a combination of canonical and non-canonical parallels--it would have both stories that the religions in vogue considered official and apocryphal "legends" that were somewhat variant. I conclude this simply from the fact that no one who decides what's official and what's legend or apocrypha or midrash, is infallible. It's only to be expected that some of the true events of a prophet's life or teachings would end up being considered "legends," or even "heresies," while some real legends about his life and teachings end up canonized and considered "the truth". Thus I would expect it the real truth to be a mix of canonical and non-canonical tellings of the life and teachings of the prophets--along with some things here and there that have never been recorded before.

And that is exactly what the Koran is--the Koran parallels the Bible itself as well as the Christian apocrypha and the Jewish midrash, and even a little bit of Christian mythology in the case of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. Consider the Gospel of the Nativity: it has exactly two parallels with the Koran, and the parallels end there. Those parallels are the accounts of two miracles, the speaking from the cradle and the making of clay birds (or one clay bird, in the Koran's version) and bringing them to life. Now the Gospel of the Nativity was written one hundred to two hundred years after the events it records. When oral tradition (the likely source) is passed down from generation to generation over that span of time, what I would expect is that one or two details of what actually happened in the stories would remain, and the rest of the details would be distorted beyond recognition. This fits exactly what the Koran contains: two details that match the Gospel, nothing else.

And what about the fact that this Gospel had the blessed Jesus saying from the cradle, "I am the servant of God," while the Koran has him say, "I am the son of God?" Does this not indicate that the blessed Muhammad plagiarized the Gospel's text while changing it around to fit his own idea of it being blasphemy to speak of God having a son? Not really, when you consider that the two terms actually meant the same thing to the Hebrews, as you can see from their Tanakh (or, to be precise, the Revised Standard Version's translation of the Old Testament, which is what I always use, as I state on the homepage):

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'" (Exodus 4:21-23)

I have also noticed that when the Koran makes changes in the details of parallel biblical stories, the changes turn out to be much less legendary other otherwise make more sense in some way. Consider the famous Isaac/Ishmael distinction (peace be upon them both). In the book of Genesis, God commands the blessed Abraham to sacrifice his "only son" Isaac (peace be upon him), even though he had two sons, and of the two, Ishmael (peace be upon him) was the older one, and so it is only logical to conclude either that the Bible's account of the story gets the chronology of events mixed up, or that "only son" just means "firstborn son" and the name was copied incorrectly from the original manuscript. Either one of those options or you have a very strange sort of contradiction on your hands, anyway. And in the Koran, it is Ishmael (peace be upon him) whom God asks his father (peace be upon him) to sacrifice as a test.

Or take the example of the story of the blessed Noah's ark. There have been a lot of enormous but still local floods in the Middle East, but there is no evidence of any worldwide flood occuring at any time. This fits what the Koran says, that the blessed Noah preached to his own civilization, and when the people rejected him he took his family and the few people who didn't reject him onto the ark with him. He also did not have to squeeze two of every kind of animal on earth onto the ark somehow or another, and manage to take care of them all.

According to Islamic belief, the Koran is the consummation of all previous revelations from God, two of which are unidentified or lost: a scroll by the hand of the blessed Abraham, and a Gospel that was in all likelihood the long lost Gospel According to the Hebrews. Everything from these revelations that we need to know is in the Koran (Koran 5:15). A prophet was sent by God to every civilization (Koran 10:47), and the teachings of the prophets, whenever relevant, are contained in the Koran as well (Koran 40:78).

Now if the Book is right about these things, would you not expect the stories contained in it to bear resemblance to those of varying traditions? And would the truth about the stories not be canonical at times and non-canonical or "midrashic" at others? And would its stories which parallel the Bible not be more realistic? And would the Book not otherwise have the details of stories from other scriptures be different here and there, rather than just plagiarize them word for word? And would it not consider only a few details true from a book written one century to two centuries after the events it records? I think the verdict is clear: the Koran being what some people dub "a compilation of various traditions" does not falsify it but instead actually confirms its truthfulness and makes its divine inspiration all the likelier.