Are There Historical Inaccuracies In The Quran?

[Thunderian]

I posted this on another thread, but in the interest of giving it the attention it surely deserves, as well as a place where Muslims can come and defend their faith, I am starting this separate thread.

I did not get this from Answering Islam or WikIslam. I have linked directly to the English and Arabic translation of the relevant verses and passages in the Quran. If the Quran is perfect, as Muslims claim it is, I am looking forward to their explanation for these apparent historical inaccuracies.

Today I learned that the Quran says that Joseph was sold by his brothers for "a few dirhams". The problem is that the dirham was not in use as a currency until about 700 years after Joseph was sold. Why does the Quran say Joseph was sold for a currency that didn't exist?

I also learned that the Quran tells us that King David made coats of chain mail, even though that type of armour wasn't invented until the Celts started making it 500 years after David died. Why would the Quran say David was manufacturing a type of armour that didn't exist during his lifetime?

I learned that the Egyptians of Joseph's time supposedly practiced crucifixion, even though there is no historical record of this. Why would the Quran say the Egyptians crucified people when there is no evidence of this?

I learned from the Quran that it was a Samaritan who led the children of Israel to form and worship a golden calf, even though the Samaritans weren't a people until several hundred years later. Why would the Quran credit the golden calf to a people who didn't even exist?

I learned that Haman was actually a minister of the Pharoah during the time of Moses, and not, as the book of Esther tells us, a minister in the court of the Persian king Ahasuerus, a thousand years later. How could the Quran get this so mixed up?​

Now, we're going to hear that only the Quran in original Arabic can be trusted, and that the English translations are twisted to suit the lies I am supposedly telling, and that is why I have linked to the Arabic as well as the English. If I have it all wrong, it should be pretty easy for anyone to prove to us that the Quran doesn't say Joseph was sold for dirhams, but for another form of money that was available at the time, and that the Quran doesn't say Samaritans existed hundreds of years before they actually did, and so on.

 

[Armas]

Dirham in Arabic means silver. From this Arabic word they called the currency dirham used today. Paper money is a new phenomenon and was not widely used in the old times since the currency must have an intrinsic value of some sort. The verse in Arabic does not mention 700 silver coins or how many exactly. It just says "Darahima maadoodat" which means for a bit of silver. Just to add: The word Dinar means gold. Does it ring a bell? Yes, Dinar is also used to describe some paper currencies in the Arab world today.

 

[Thunderian]

Dirham in Arabic means silver. From this Arabic word they called the currency dirham used today.

Can you link to an etymology for the word silver in Arabic that confirms this? I did a search and came up with this:

Arabic words for silver

طبق فضي للمائدة
tubiq fadiun lilmayida
طلى بالفضة
talaa bialfida
فضة
fida
فضض
fadad
فضي
fadi
فضي الرنة
fadi alrana
قطع نقدية
qate naqdia
نقود
naqud

Arabic is not my language but none of them look like dirham to me.

Edit to add:

I've found that the word dirham is derived from the Greek drachma, a unit of currency. The etymology of that word is not related to silver in any way, and the use as a word for currency itself only goes back to about 1100 BC, while Joseph was sold into slavery about 600 years before that.

Edit to add, part 2:

It occurs to me that the Quran is a strange place to find a word of Greek origin. Anyone care to tackle that one?

 

[Armas]

Fida means silver. Basically, your search gave you results for the following: the color silver, silver pots, the sound of silver, etc. The search did not give you what you want which is silver as currency. When you speak about silver currency, Dirham is the word used. Just do a quick search on google with the following search term "silver dirhams and gold dinar". Throughout Arab history, Dirham was silver and Dinar was gold. Are they the paper currency you think they are? No.

 

[grateful servant]

There are no inaccuracies, historical or otherwise, in the Quran.

Why does the Quran say Joseph was sold for a currency that didn't exist?

Alimghty God says in the Quran "bakhsin darahima ma'dudatin" meaning "a few pieces of silver counted out." "Dirham”, as is well known, is not only a type of currency but also a unit of mass/weight for silver (both pre-Islam and after) which is how it would be understood here because, like you said, the actual currency known as “dirham” was not in circulation at that time.

Spoiler: jews used dirham for measurement of silver too

Dirham in Jewish orthodox law
The dirham is frequently mentioned in Jewish orthodox law as a unit of weight used to measure various requirements in religious functions, such as the weight in silver specie pledged in Marriage Contracts (Ketubbah)

Why would the Quran say David was manufacturing a type of armour that didn't exist during his lifetime?

How do you know that it didn’t exist during his lifetime? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The verse before the one you quoted shows that God made the iron pliable for David and taught him how to make the chain mail - as a special blessing and bounty from Him. Maybe you should have a look at @polymoog thread here before you start claiming that something didn’t exist just because there is no record of it.

Why would the Quran say the Egyptians crucified people when there is no evidence of this?

There’s plenty of evidence.

Why would the Quran credit the golden calf to a people who didn't even exist?

Samaritans didn’t exist?

Spoiler: tell that to the Samaritans

In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.

I learned that Haman was actually a minister of the Pharoah during the time of Moses, and not, as the book of Esther tells us, a minister in the court of the Persian king Ahasuerus, a thousand years later. How could the Quran get this so mixed up?

I’m sorry to say that you have no integrity. As I already replied in the other thread. #75

 

[Armas]

The Quran uses the same names of the Prophets in the Bible and in the Torah like Moses (Moosa), Jesus (Eesa), and Abraham (Ibrahim). Does this mean these words are not Arabic? They are Arabic words.

 

[Thunderian]

Fida means silver. Basically, your search gave you results for the following: the color silver, silver pots, the sound of silver, etc. The search did not give you what you want which is silver as currency. When you speak about silver currency, Dirham is the word used. Just do a quick search on google with the following search term "silver dirhams and gold dinar". Throughout Arab history, Dirham was silver and Dinar was gold. Are they the paper currency you think they are? No.

There's been a misunderstanding on your part, I think. I have not said that dirham is paper currency, or that the Quran is implying it is. The problem is that the Quran says Joseph was sold for a currency -- dirham, whether paper or coin -- that didn't exist. You say that dirham means silver, and that's fine, except for the fact that the root of the word dirham is Greek, based on drachma, which wasn't itself in use until about 600 years after Joseph was sold.

So we have the Quran telling us that Joseph was sold for an Arabic currency that didn't exist at the time.

 

[grateful servant]

So we have the Quran telling us that Joseph was sold for an Arabic currency that didn't exist at the time.

No we don't. We have the Quran telling us that Joseph was sold for a unit of measurement of silver not an Arabic currency as you wrongfully claim. Repeating your lie over and over doesn't make it true. sorry.

 

[Armas]

Quran is using the language to convey a message. The word Dirham, regardless of its origin, which is an Arabice word was used to describe silver. Again, that does not mean that Joseph was sold for the Greek currency of drachma. It means linguistically speaking, Quran used the word Dirham for us to understand that Joseph was sold for silver.

 

[Thunderian]

There are no inaccuracies, historical or otherwise, in the Quran.

Prove it then.

Alimghty God says in the Quran "bakhsin darahima ma'dudatin" meaning "a few pieces of silver counted out." "Dirham”, as is well known, is not only a type of currency but also a unit of mass/weight for silver (both pre-Islam and after) which is how it would be understood here because, like you said, the actual currency known as “dirham” was not in circulation at that time.
Dirham in Jewish orthodox law
The dirham is frequently mentioned in Jewish orthodox law as a unit of weight used to measure various requirements in religious functions, such as the weight in silver specie pledged in Marriage Contracts (Ketubbah)

None of that accounts for the apparent use of dirhams as a unit of currency during the time of Joseph. The name itself is based on the Greek word drachma, which did not mean silver and was not a unit of currency for another 600 years. If something doesn't exist, no one -- not even a Jew -- can use it for currency.

How do you know that it didn’t exist during his lifetime? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The verse before the one you quoted shows that God made the iron pliable for David and taught him how to make the chain mail - as a special blessing and bounty from Him. Maybe you should have a look at @polymoog thread here before you start claiming that something didn’t exist just because there is no record of it.

Out of place artifacts have nothing to do with imaginary ones. Sorry, but there's no evidence of any chain mail being used in Israel during the time of David. If God had blessed David with the knowledge of how to make it -- odd in itself, since he wasn't a metal worker at all -- it would have been put into pretty massive production, don't you think? Or do you think that David would have made just one suit of chain mail for himself?

There’s plenty of evidence.

It says the Egyptians impaled people as a method of crucifixion. Not the same as the crucifixion we are all used to, but I'm willing to concede it.

Samaritans didn’t exist? In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.

The Samaritans could not have become a people until the nation of Israel entered the promised land, while the episode with the golden calf occurred when they were still in the desert. No matter how you slice it, there was no such thing as a Samaritan at the time of the golden calf.

I’m sorry to say that you have no integrity. As I already replied in the other thread.

I didn't see that. It doesn't mean I have no integrity. I hate watching videos, though, so for the sake of the thread would you mind summarizing that argument?

 

[Armas]

I feel like you are listening to yourself and repeating things over and over. Read our comments again - carefully this time. This is it for me, peace.

 

[Thunderian]

The Quran uses the same names of the Prophets in the Bible and in the Torah like Moses (Moosa), Jesus (Eesa), and Abraham (Ibrahim). Does this mean these words are not Arabic? They are Arabic words.

I was under the impression that Arabic was God's holy language. Why does it need to borrow words from the Greek? I understand when it comes to place names and such that a form of the word is used, but for money? There's no word in Arabic for that?

 

[Thunderian]

Quran is using the language to convey a message. The word Dirham, regardless of its origin, which is an Arabice word was used to describe silver. Again, that does not mean that Joseph was sold for the Greek currency of drachma. It means linguistically speaking, Quran used the word Dirham for us to understand that Joseph was sold for silver.

If by "a few dirhams" the Quran was using an expression meaning a few silver coins, of whatever currency, then why not save us the trouble and explain it right off the bat? Why make me pull it out of you like this?

 

[rainerann]

Can you link to an etymology for the word silver in Arabic that confirms this? I did a search and came up with this:

Arabic words for silver

طبق فضي للمائدة
tubiq fadiun lilmayida
طلى بالفضة
talaa bialfida
فضة
fida
فضض
fadad
فضي
fadi
فضي الرنة
fadi alrana
قطع نقدية
qate naqdia
نقود
naqud

Arabic is not my language but none of them look like dirham to me.

Edit to add:

I've found that the word dirham is derived from the Greek drachma, a unit of currency. The etymology of that word is not related to silver in any way, and the use as a word for currency itself only goes back to about 1100 BC, while Joseph was sold into slavery about 600 years before that.

Edit to add, part 2:

It occurs to me that the Quran is a strange place to find a word of Greek origin. Anyone care to tackle that one?

My guess is that the Quran was actually originally written in Syriac Aramaic. The Greek Drachma was in use as early as 1100 bc and the Syriac Aramaic language was used between the 4th and the 8th century AD which is when the Quran is said to have been written and is derived from Old Aramaic which would have been used by the Assyrians as early as 911 BC.

It is likely that these two empires would have shared a common term for currency and would indicate that the Quran was not originally written in Arabic like many people claim. However, more and more people are starting to question this and are researching the subject. Arabic doesn't even exist as a real language until the time the Quran is said to have been written, making it even more likely that the Quran was originally written in a different language.

Old Arabic is said to go back to the 9th century and is also said to have been used by the Assyrians and is considered a Semitic language. Meaning that Old Arabic is more than likely Old Aramaic used in a unique way that some consider as possible evidence of the presence of Arabic before the Quran was written. This gives Arabic a history that doesn't begin with the writing of the Quran.

 

[rainerann]

picture of earliest Quran taken from http://www.muslimworldjournal.com/2015/07/oldest-quran-found-in-birmingham/

Picture of Syriac Aramaic.

Picture of classical Arabic

Just by looking at it, the page the lady in the picture is holding does not look like the classical Arabic alphabet that is used today. So either way, this would prove that there were many changes to the Quran and that it does not exist in its original form because Arabic has clearly changed so much since then.

 

[Thunderian]

My guess is that the Quran was actually originally written in Syriac Aramaic. The Greek Drachma was in use as early as 1100 bc and the Syriac Aramaic language was used between the 4th and the 8th century AD which is when the Quran is said to have been written and is derived from Old Aramaic which would have been used by the Assyrians as early as 911 BC.

It is likely that these two empires would have shared a common term for currency and would indicate that the Quran was not originally written in Arabic like many people claim. However, more and more people are starting to question this and are researching the subject. Arabic doesn't even exist as a real language until the time the Quran is said to have been written, making it even more likely that the Quran was originally written in a different language.

Old Arabic is said to go back to the 9th century and is also said to have been used by the Assyrians and is considered a Semitic language. Meaning that Old Arabic is more than likely Old Aramaic used in a unique way that some consider as possible evidence of the presence of Arabic before the Quran was written. This gives Arabic a history that doesn't begin with the writing of the Quran.

It's well established that the Quran is just plagiarized Christian, Jewish, Persian and Indian religious texts, but this ties it into the Syriac lectionaries that would have been contemporary at the time the Quran began to be assembled. Very interesting.

 

[Thunderian]

picture of earliest Quran taken from http://www.muslimworldjournal.com/2015/07/oldest-quran-found-in-birmingham/

Picture of Syriac Aramaic.

Picture of classical Arabic

Just by looking at it, the page the lady in the picture is holding does not look like the classical Arabic alphabet that is used today. So either way, this would prove that there were many changes to the Quran and that it does not exist in its original form because Arabic has clearly changed so much since then.

They're saying that Quran in the picture predates Muhammad, which might create a bit of a timeline problem.

 

[Armas]

It's well established that the Quran is just plagiarized Christian, Jewish, Persian and Indian religious texts, but this ties it into the Syriac lectionaries that would have been contemporary at the time the Quran began to be assembled. Very interesting.

It was plagiarized from four different sources with four different languages from a person who does not know how to read or write.

 

[Thunderian]

It was plagiarized from four different sources with four different languages from a person who does not know how to read or write.

Could he hear and talk?

 

[rainerann]

It's well established that the Quran is just plagiarized Christian, Jewish, Persian and Indian religious texts, but this ties it into the Syriac lectionaries that would have been contemporary at the time the Quran began to be assembled. Very interesting.

Yes, because this passage starts to make sense from a Syriac Aramaic perspective. This was an interesting discussion about how the story of the crucifixion of Christ changes when viewed through the lens of Syriac Aramaic. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.religion.islam/9Aa6rIavbNg/3BSPghkytjoJ

Many more things might make a lot more sense if we were looking at the Quran from a Syriac Aramaic perspective.