By intertextuality I don’t mean presenting a Biblical story with maybe some small details altered, but taking ideas of some sort and reworking them in a major way so they fit in the Quran.
Is this messenger that they pray for Mohammed? Does this seem to hint at Mohammed’s lineage being traced back to Ishmael maybe?
If Mohammed gave an ordering of the Quran, I see no reason as to why companions would diverge from this order.
My logic being that if you take the Warsh Quran and recite all of the elements from Fatihah, you would technically end up with 8 repeated statements (which would contradict Quran 15:87). Was this bypassed by simply not reciting the basmala?
It seems like the Warsh Quran was given an additional verse break in order to make it so that it has 7 numbered verses (not counting the basmala). What did they do with the basmala?
Does it mean something along the lines that they’ll be seen as believers, therefore helping them avoid harassment? I don’t really get it.
This parallel, in how it’s written, seems to closely parallel this Quranic verse. Something I also noticed is how Devarim 32:2 seems to resemble, almost word-for-word in the English translation in some places, verses in the Quran that challenge humankind to come together and make something like the Quran.
Quran 17:88 states:
“Say, ‘If mankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even if they were to help one another.’”
Lastly, I’d like to say how many hidden gems there are on this subreddit that are seemingly buried away and need to be converted into a post.
Original post in which the comment is found (you can click on the sources to read them):
Quoting the relevant verses:
And Lot was indeed one of the messengers.
when We delivered him and all of his family,
except an old woman,1 who was one of the doomed.
Then We ˹utterly˺ destroyed the rest.
You ˹Meccans˺ certainly pass by their ruins day
and night. Will you not then understand?
In this one Hadith it shows the Jews confirming that there are in fact 19 angels in Hell (after Mohammed asks them).
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:3327
On this website, 3 of the 4 Tafsirs identify this belief, that Hell has 19 angels overseeing it, as being something that Jews believed in.
https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/74.31
>"for it is written in the Torah that the number of the keepers of the Fire is nineteen (hath been given may have certainty, and that believers may increase in faith) when they know that what is in their Scripture is similar to that which is in the Torah"
>"they then say ‘Why are there nineteen of them?’ so that those who were given the Scripture namely the Jews may be certain of the sincerity of the Prophet(s)in saying that they are nineteen for this concords with what is in their Scripture"
>"(In order that the People of the Scripture may arrive at a certainty) meaning, so that they may know that this Messenger is true. For he speaks according to the same thing that they have with them of heavenly revealed Scriptures that came to the Prophets before him. Concerning Allah's statement,"
As for this last Tafsir, it mentions: "First, we have not been able to see anywhere in the existing scriptures of the Jews and Christians in spite of search that the number of the angels appointed over Hell is 19."
This is simply untrue. As mentioned in the title of this post, 1 Enoch 6:7 mentions the existence of 19 angels.
As a result of all of this, it's something very interesting that must be noted. Obviously the author of this Hadith or of these Tafsirs didn't randomly get the idea that Jews had a belief of 19 angels in their scripture. Instead, I believe there's a historical kernel to all of this where the Jews (maybe even the Christians as well), at one point or another, believed in such an idea.
It says:
“We relate to you their story in truth. They were youths who truly believed in their Lord, and We increased them in guidance”
When using the phrase “we relate to you their story in truth,” doesn’t that seem to indicate some level of this being a historical and true story? Using a phrase like “in truth,” to me, seems especially strong and like a statement of fact, not opinion.
On the other hand, I think one could maybe see these verses as revealing the true meaning of this story to Mohammed. However, this depends on who the “you” is in reference to (Mohammed or the general community).
Interested to hear your guys’ thoughts.
Sorry for the ping, but I also am interested to see what you think of this. I know you’re academics who have spoken on this topic before (on this subreddit specifically, as well).
From what I can remember, it’s either one or both of you who believe that whenever the Quran recounts the destruction of a past civilization (and even says to go visit these spots), these are set places where the Quranic author believes an event to have been historical.
Page 184
91:1 — “By the sun and its brightness”
91:2 — “By the moon when it follows it”
91:3 — “By the day when it reveals it”
91:4 — “By the night when it covers it”
On one hand it seems intuitive to me that the sun is the cause for daylight. On the other hand, I can see how this verse can be interpreted as describing how daylight reveals the sun in the sky, and how night covers the sun (and if I’m not mistaken some tafsirs interpreted it this way?).
Interested to see your guys’ thoughts.
My question above is also linked to the fact that scholars seem to doubt that a figure like Joseph even existed in the first place. So, why does it make sense to place this legendary figure in the 1700's? Wouldn't it make more sense to place this figure closer in time to when Genesis was actually being written, especially if we don't consider this figure to be historical?
In Genesis 37-50 it has been pointed out to me that the wordchoice used is theologically charged but in mundane contexts. In other words, although this story has God working behind the veil, and this Joseph novella mainly relates Joseph's interactions with other people, it still uses theologically charged language at a high rate.
The reason why Genesis 37-50 uses theologically charged language, even in contexts where God isn't present, is in order to drive home to the reader's mind subconciously that God is still present behind the scenes and involved, even if he can't be seen.
Some of these word choices that were highlighted to me are as follows:
The argument made is that these theologically charged words appear in Genesis 37-50 at such a high concentration that this can't be coincidence and is instead intentionally done by the author(s). The author(s) implemented this feature into the text of Genesis on purpose.
I was initally made aware of this argument in the field of Quranic studies, where Chapter Yusuf (Joseph) of the Quran contains theologically charged words at a high rate. Then, this very same person made the argument that Gensis 37-50 does a similar thing with its "specific" word choice. As a result, the Quranic author was paralleling this narrative from Joseph.
Anyways, I would be very grateful to anyone who could help me on this topic. The resources on this are very limited and I don't seem to have an answer that can satisfy me yet.
In Genesis 37-50 it has been pointed out to me that the wordchoice used is theologically charged but in mundane contexts. In other words, although this story has God working behind the veil, and this Joseph novella mainly relates Joseph's interactions with other people, it still uses theologically charged language at a high rate.
The reason why Genesis 37-50 uses theologically charged language, even in contexts where God isn't present, is in order to drive home to the reader's mind subconciously that God is still present behind the scenes and involved, even if he can't be seen.
Some of these word choices that were highlighted to me are as follows:
The argument made is that these theologically charged words appear in Genesis 37-50 at such a high concentration that this can't be coincidence and is instead intentionally done by the author(s). The author(s) implemented this feature into the text of Genesis on purpose.
I was initally made aware of this argument in the field of Quranic studies, where Chapter Yusuf (Joseph) of the Quran contains theologically charged words at a high rate. Then, this very same person made the argument that Gensis 37-50 does a similar thing with its "specific" word choice. As a result, the Quranic author was paralleling this narrative from Joseph.
Anyways, I would be very grateful to anyone who could help me on this topic. The resources on this are very limited and I don't seem to have an answer that can satisfy me yet.
In Genesis 37-50 it has been pointed out to me that the wordchoice used is theologically charged but in mundane contexts. In other words, although this story has God working behind the veil, and this Joseph novella mainly relates Joseph's interactions with other people, it still uses theologically charged language at a high rate.
The reason why Genesis 37-50 uses theologically charged language, even in contexts where God isn't present, is in order to drive home to the reader's mind subconciously that God is still present behind the scenes and involved, even if he can't be seen.
Some of these word choices that were highlighted to me are as follows:
The argument made is that these theologically charged words appear in Genesis 37-50 at such a high concentration that this can't be coincidence and is instead intentionally done by the author(s). The author(s) implemented this feature into the text of Genesis on purpose.
I was initally made aware of this argument in the field of Quranic studies, where Chapter Yusuf (Joseph) of the Quran contains theologically charged words at a high rate. Then, this very same person made the argument that Gensis 37-50 does a similar thing with its "specific" word choice. As a result, the Quranic author was paralleling this narrative from Joseph.
Anyways, I would be very grateful to anyone who could help me on this topic. The resources on this are very limited and I don't seem to have an answer that can satisfy me yet.
In Genesis 37-50 it has been pointed out to me that the wordchoice used is theologically charged but in mundane contexts. In other words, although this story has God working behind the veil, and this Joseph novella mainly relates Joseph's interactions with other people, it still uses theologically charged language at a high rate.
The reason why Genesis 37-50 uses theologically charged language, even in contexts where God isn't present, is in order to drive home to the reader's mind subconciously that God is still present behind the scenes and involved, even if he can't be seen.
Some of these word choices that were highlighted to me are as follows:
The argument made is that these theologically charged words appear in Genesis 37-50 at such a high concentration that this can't be coincidence and is instead intentionally done by the author(s). The author(s) implemented this feature into the text of Genesis on purpose.
I was initally made aware of this argument in the field of Quranic studies, where Chapter Yusuf (Joseph) of the Quran contains theologically charged words at a high rate. Then, this very same person made the argument that Gensis 37-50 does a similar thing with its "specific" word choice. As a result, the Quranic author was paralleling this narrative from Joseph.
Anyways, I would be very grateful to anyone who could help me on this topic. The resources on this are very limited and I don't seem to have an answer that can satisfy me yet.
