The Qur’an Is Not Divine
A Four-Part Exposé
Introduction
For centuries, Muslims have proclaimed that the Qur’an is the literal, unaltered word of God — a book revealed from the heavens, untouched by human influence. It is claimed to be perfect, original, and inimitable. However, a thorough examination of the Qur’an in light of available historical, religious, and literary sources reveals a very different picture. Rather than being a divine text descending from a metaphysical realm, the Qur’an appears to be a patchwork of earlier materials, religious folklore, local mythologies, and pre-Islamic pagan practices.
This exposé brings together the findings of four parts that systematically deconstruct the claim of divine origin by identifying the unmistakable fingerprints of human sources in the Qur’an. These four categories are:
Gnostic Influences
Christian Legends
Jewish Folklore
Pagan and Pre-Islamic Beliefs
Part 1: Gnostic Influences on the Crucifixion Narrative
One of the Qur’an’s most radical theological deviations from mainstream Christianity is its denial of the crucifixion of Jesus:
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them.” (Qur’an 4:157)
This denial is not an invention of Islam. It is a theological idea lifted directly from Gnostic sects, particularly those like the Basilidians. Gnostic texts such as the Second Treatise of the Great Seth and the Gospel of Judas contain accounts where Jesus avoids death, either by switching places with someone else (such as Simon of Cyrene) or by never incarnating as a physical being at all.
The Qur’an borrows this same idea, rephrased for a monotheistic Arab audience. What this proves is that the Qur’an is not reporting a historical or heavenly truth but recycling a rejected Christian heresy. Moreover, the passage reflects the same elitist tone as Gnostic texts: those who believe Jesus was crucified are described as being in doubt, possessing no certain knowledge, and following mere conjecture.
These features suggest the Qur’anic author was exposed to Gnostic materials, either orally via heretical Christian communities in Arabia or through travel and trade routes connecting Mecca to Syria and Egypt. Regardless of the mechanism, the claim to divine originality collapses once it is shown that this idea already existed in human texts centuries earlier.
Part 2: Christian Legends in the Qur’an
If one scratches beneath the surface of the Qur’an’s Jesus narratives, one finds a range of stories not found in the canonical Bible, but preserved in Christian apocryphal writings. These include:
Jesus speaking from the cradle (Qur’an 19:29-30)
Jesus creating birds from clay (Qur’an 3:49)
Mary receiving food from angels in the temple (Qur’an 3:37)
The story of the palm tree providing dates during Mary’s childbirth (Qur’an 19:22-26)
Each of these stories originates from non-canonical sources:
The Arabic Infancy Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas contain stories of Jesus animating clay birds and speaking while still in the cradle.
The Protoevangelium of James details Mary being fed by angels in the temple and the casting of lots to decide her guardian.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew provides the palm tree narrative.
Additionally, the Qur’an echoes the story of the Seven Sleepers (Qur’an 18:9-26), which appears in Christian legends and was made popular by Theodore of Tarsus.
The question then becomes obvious: Why are these tales, which were already considered apocryphal and legendary by mainstream Christians, suddenly elevated to divine revelation in the Qur’an? The answer is clear: the Qur’anic author was exposed to these legends, found them useful, and incorporated them. There is no originality, no divine inspiration — only adaptation.
The most baffling example is the Qur’anic misunderstanding of the Trinity in 5:116, where Mary is mistaken as a member of the Godhead. This likely stems from a fringe sect known as the Collyridians, who worshipped Mary as a deity. Instead of correcting this false doctrine, the Qur’an wrongly attributes it to mainstream Christianity, proving the author’s poor understanding of basic Christian theology.
Part 3: Jewish Legends in the Qur’an
The Qur’an does not only borrow from Christian apocrypha but also lifts extensively from Jewish folklore, especially rabbinical Midrash and Talmudic stories that were circulating widely in oral and written forms.
One clear example is the story of Abraham smashing idols (Qur’an 21:57-67). This event is not found in the Hebrew Bible but appears in Midrash Bereishit Rabbah, where a young Abraham smashes his father’s idols and is brought before King Nimrod. Similarly, the story of Solomon speaking to animals and commanding the wind (Qur’an 27:16-17) is straight from Jewish lore, not scripture.
Even the story of Cain and Abel (Qur’an 5:27-31) includes a strange addition: a raven showing Cain how to bury Abel. This peculiar detail appears in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, a Jewish text likely written before Islam.
These parallels demonstrate that Muhammad (or the Qur’anic authors) had access to the folklore and interpretive traditions of nearby Jewish communities. These were not divinely revealed truths but local legends that had been circulating for centuries.
The Qur’an often misrepresents the original Jewish texts. The exodus narrative is recast in simplistic and often contradictory terms. The golden calf incident is retold with Samiri (Qur’an 20:85-88) being named as the one who misled the Israelites — even though Samiri didn’t exist in Moses' time. Again, this points to a storyteller trying to retrofit fragments of Jewish tradition into a new religious context without understanding them fully.
Part 4: Pagan and Pre-Islamic Beliefs in the Qur’an
Perhaps the most damning blow to the Qur’an’s claim of divine originality comes from its incorporation of pagan Arabian beliefs and rituals. The Qur’an not only acknowledges these but, in many cases, retains and redefines them.
The Kaaba and Black Stone: Before Islam, the Kaaba was a shrine housing 360 idols. The Qur’an retains the Kaaba and its associated pilgrimage (Hajj) while claiming that Abraham originally built it for Allah (Qur’an 2:125). This is a clear act of religious rebranding.
The Jinn (Qur’an 15:27, 72:6): Belief in jinn predates Islam and is rooted in Arabian animism. Instead of dispelling this pagan concept, the Qur’an adopts it, giving jinn roles in moral accountability and revelation.
Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat (Qur’an 53:19-20): These were three goddesses worshipped by pre-Islamic Arabs. The Qur’an references them and denounces their worship, yet the acknowledgment shows they were significant and known to Muhammad and his audience.
Astrology and celestial worship: The story of Abraham rejecting the stars, moon, and sun as deities (Qur’an 6:76-79) presumes an environment where these were objects of worship — exactly what we know of Arabian tribal religion.
Fasting, Sacrifices, and Vows: Fasting during Ramadan (Qur’an 2:183) is not unique to Islam. Pagan Arabs also observed fasts. Animal sacrifice was common and was co-opted by Islam as part of Eid al-Adha. Even vows of silence (like Mary’s in Qur’an 19:26) echo existing ascetic practices.
These examples confirm that Islam did not emerge ex nihilo. It absorbed and reformulated existing religious practices, giving them a monotheistic interpretation. But at its core, these elements remain unmistakably human and cultural in origin.
Conclusion: Human, Not Divine
The weight of evidence from all four parts is undeniable: the Qur’an is not a stand-alone divine revelation, but a religious compilation drawing from surrounding Gnostic heresies, Christian legends, Jewish folktales, and pagan rituals.
Each story, each ritual, and each theological point can be traced back to existing sources that predate Islam. What the Qur’an claims as divinely revealed truth is often a repurposed myth, an adapted legend, or a localized retelling of much older material.
In the absence of these earlier texts, one might have entertained the possibility of originality. But with the documentation, parallels, and historical context available today, we are left with only one rational conclusion:
The Qur’an is not divine. It is derivative.
Its authority collapses under the weight of its human sources. Its mythology crumbles when placed under historical scrutiny. And its claim to divine origin is exposed as nothing more than an inherited echo of the very traditions it pretends to supersede.
No comments:
Post a Comment