Authenticity of Religious Books

[dauer]

Tao,

It's alright. I could have probably been a little more clear in my first post.

You are right and I did overstep with my words in making a generalization. I should have said that generally attempts have been made by religious communities to understand references to the death penalty as not currently valid for one reason or another, or to interpret them differently, even though there are still others who use religious texts as justification for the death penalty.

Dauer

[Muslimwoman]

as salaam aleykum TE

My apologies to everyone, I asked Tao to start this thread so we could continue a conversation that had gone off topic and I then couldn't get to the computer because of work commitments. Hence, the beginning of the thread seeming a little vague. Sorry TE, my fault I shall stand on the naughty spot for 10 minutes.

It is getting late so I shall try to formulate a reply TE but if I don't have time to post it tonight I will certainly do so tomorrow. Looking forward to continuing our talk.

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Apologies to everyone that it is such a long post but it is a contiuation of a discussion, that started this thread.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I managed to trace one of my sources down...see link below.

Legacy of Abu Bakr: Compilation of the Qur'an « IBN AL HYDERABADEE

As you can see here what I stated before is plainly a fair interpretation. I.E. that the Quran is not the Word of God revealed to Mohammad by Gabrial. But the assimilated writings of any number of individuals at war and wishing to promote and justify their given positions.

I draw such a conclusion as a sceptic of course. The claim of 'divine dialogue' during fits or seizures was common practice for wannabee spirtualists and soothsayers at that time. So Muhammad, to my thinking, employed the same tomfoolery to validate his claims. He did not write it down though and left his companions or 'political allies' to do so. Given the context that this was incontravertably a time of power struggles and political wrangling I find it disengenious to state that the writings were not subject to political tampering. So I feel just in my assertion that the Quran is not verifiably even the work of Mohammad, let alone Allah.

If you wish to discuss it further though I think it deserves its own thread.

Regards
TE

as salaam aleykum TE, to continue….

Thought I’d add your post so everyone knows what we were talking about.

Where did you get “that the Quran is not the Word of God” by reading this article? The article discusses the written version of the Quran and we all know and accept that the Quran was originally memorised and passed verbally (as indeed all scriptures were).

As for you saying that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not write the Quran down, I can easily explain this – the Prophet could not read or write. Some people translate the first words of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad as being “read, Mohammad read” but the Arabic actually translates to “recite Mohammad recite”. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet over 23 years and he was required to memorise each verse as it was revealed to him. So to say the Prophet left his “political allies” to do seems to be suggesting a dark meaning. Less than 5% of the population, in that time in history, could read or write, so everyone (rulers, businessmen, clerics, etc) used scribes.

Ok first, Abu Bakr Siddiq was one of the closest companions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and was the first Caliph (he took over the care of the ummah (Mulsim people) on the death of Prophet in the year 632, by unanimous election. He only held this position for 2 years before his death.

Please read the article again. You will see that it refers to the huffadh of Qur’an, these were a people that had memorized the whole Quran and they were dying in battle. Umar (who later became the 2nd Caliph) was concerned that the Quran must be preserved, so he and Abu Bakr charged that it be written into a complete book (the Quran that we read today). The task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, as he had been a scribe for the Prophet during his life (the Prophet is referred to in this part of the article not by name but as RasoolAllah – meaning Messenger of G-d).

Zayd then went around collecting any knowledge of the Quran and the life of the Prophet. Everyone that had memorized the Quran repeated it for Zayd, these could obviously be compared to each other to ensure they were the same. This is how the Quran came to be set out as it is, it was not revealed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the order we now read it. The Quran was compiled in order of subject matter, I think anyone faced with such a charge would do the same thing – compile everything to do with a given topic together.

I do not reject the Book of Moses because it was written down by 4 different scribes. Scribes were simply a part of life in times before the general populace could read and write.

Happy to accept that you do not accept the Quran as the word of G-d, as I trust you are happy to accept that I believe it to be the word of G-d, and I feel it has been well protected over the centuries – hence the equality between men and women. If the Quran had been interfered with by men then women would have a minimal role in the Quran, they would be marginalized and oppressed within the Quran, as they have been in life but this is not the case. The Quran offers such amazing rights to women but then the scholars bring in the hadiths and they are another matter, that is where the oppression of women comes into being.

It is my personal opinion that whilst some authentic hadiths still exist, many have been misinterpreted/changed by men since the 8th century (look at my posts on the Islam board, the thread is called Discussing Taqlid (meaning blind imitation). I discuss here an event in history called ‘the closing of the gates’. It was this period of time and these misinterpreted/changed hadiths that have gone against the teaching of the Quran and fallen in line with the traditions of marginalising/oppressing women. One example, find a single verse in the Quran that refers to stoning men or women as punishment for fornication - I'll save you some reading, you can't find it because there isn't one. Yet men and women are still, in 2007, stoned to death based on hadiths. Ever played chinese whispers? Scholars do try very hard to authenticate hadiths but all it took some centuries ago was a group of men that decided a, b or c was the way to go and hey presto an authentic hadith was born - it must be authentic because so many men repeated the same thing - see where I am going with this? It is specculation on my part but does explain how 800 years of Islamic rights for women disappeared over the space of a century or so.

Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:

“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”

“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..

the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….

the third is the failure to understand what is intended….

the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….

the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….

the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….

the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society

Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))

Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!

Salaam

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I shall stand on the naughty spot for 10 minutes.

Hi,

A spot wouldn't be big enough for all offenders. It's a field.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:

“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”

“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..

the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….

the third is the failure to understand what is intended….

the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….

the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….

the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….

the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society

Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))

Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!

Salaam

Hi,

Nice one.

I think these very wise words should be on the front page of this whole forum.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Muslimwoman,

I am happy and grateful to engage with you in these questions as it is a rare muslim who can get past the defensiveness our times foster. I have read some of your other posts and the way that you justify your faith is very noble in that you always hold true to the justice within the Quran and condemn the perverions of it. This is very sadly uncommon amongst those that are passionate enough either way to join a forum like this. And i dont limit that to muslims.

I think I will precede my reply by first hanging my colours from the post, so that you are clear where my thought processes begin. I have no religion that I follow. My name here, Tao_Equus, is a name I have used for a long time before I came here and means 'way of the horse'. I am not a Taoist tho, which is not strictly a religion anyway. I do like Taoist 'go with flow' philosophy tho.
I like the ideas of Gaia theory tho again dont see it as a religion. And I believe that this sense of God we all have is our sense of feeling a part of Gaia, or the collective of all life on what is the organism Earth.
I apply what I hope is the scientific method to every question of both science and theology. That of course is 'best idea' to fit the 'available' information. I am unbaptised and was reared without religious influences, and so each time I have been to church, mosque, krishna meeting etc it has been at my own enquiry. I try to remain at all times free of bias, and yes I am sceptical of all written works that claim to be other than the thoughts of man and man alone.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Apologies to everyone that it is such a long post but it is a contiuation of a discussion, that started this thread.

[/size][/size]



Where did you get “that the Quran is not the Word of God” by reading this article? The article discusses the written version of the Quran and we all know and accept that the Quran was originally memorised and passed verbally (as indeed all scriptures were).

As for you saying that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) did not write the Quran down, I can easily explain this – the Prophet could not read or write. Some people translate the first words of the Angel Gabriel to Mohammad as being “read, Mohammad read” but the Arabic actually translates to “recite Mohammad recite”. The Quran was revealed to the Prophet over 23 years and he was required to memorise each verse as it was revealed to him. So to say the Prophet left his “political allies” to do seems to be suggesting a dark meaning. Less than 5% of the population, in that time in history, could read or write, so everyone (rulers, businessmen, clerics, etc) used scribes.

I got it my interpretation from reading it.

First off it is important to bare in mind that Mohammad himself was from a leading wealthy merchant family, a 5%ter, that was a part of the political ruling class in Mecca at that time. It is argued by some scholars that coming from such a background it is extremely unlikely he was unable to read and write. Literacy was the norm for his his class at that time. It is possible he was dyslexic or for some reason he was never schooled but that would not be normal.
Mohammad is said to have got his visitations from Gabrial, (he would immediately be labled schizophrenic if he were to claim this today), during fits or seizures. Afterward he would tell them to a scribe, there were around 60 in total, who would write them down on parchment, palm leaves or whatever was available. Often these visions would include changes or additions to previous revelations.
Suppose for a moment that Mohammad was literate and up until he was 40 had spent much time reading the different scriptures circulating at that time. (even this is not required however, he could have been read them or listened to them from a number of sources). Then there is very little in what he later claimed that cannot be found in the Christian and Jewish holy books. Infact much of it could be called plagarism.

Ok first, Abu Bakr Siddiq was one of the closest companions of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and was the first Caliph (he took over the care of the ummah (Mulsim people) on the death of Prophet in the year 632, by unanimous election. He only held this position for 2 years before his death.

Yes I know they were close, Muhammad married one of his daughters so they were family. But he was also a judge and a highly placed member in the power structure of the day. Factionalism led to him and Mohammad to flee Mecca, for Medina, where they built an army. They were both warlords toying for power and influence at any means. A very important part of effective powerplay then, as now, was control of a mans soul. You can look on it they were powerful warlords who employed the claim of divinity and I do.

Please read the article again. You will see that it refers to the

huffadh of Qur’an, these were a people that had memorized the whole Quran and they were dying in battle. Umar (who later became the 2nd Caliph) was concerned that the Quran must be preserved, so he and Abu Bakr charged that it be written into a complete book (the Quran that we read today). The task was given to Zayd ibn Thabit, as he had been a scribe for the Prophet during his life (the Prophet is referred to in this part of the article not by name but as RasoolAllah – meaning Messenger of G-d).

Zayd then went around collecting any knowledge of the Quran and the life of the Prophet. Everyone that had memorized the Quran repeated it for Zayd, these could obviously be compared to each other to ensure they were the same. This is how the Quran came to be set out as it is, it was not revealed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) in the order we now read it. The Quran was compiled in order of subject matter, I think anyone faced with such a charge would do the same thing – compile everything to do with a given topic together.

So all of Muhammads visions had not been collected and assembled in any order by the time of his death. (But I have read that in his last visions he recieved instruction on how they should be ordered.) Also by this time and after several bloody battles they, the Muslims headed now by Abu Bakr, had killed their way to the top. I believe this was also the time that the Shia/Sunni schizm took place and happened because Abu Bakr took control, with not inconsiderable violence, of both the written legacy of Muhammad's visions and that part of Arabia. Abu Bakr commanded that anything that he did not like should be destroyed, all disenters killed. His new right hand man Umar, another father in law of Muhammad and who succeeded to power after Abu Bakr's death, carried on this quest and with the expansionist philosophies espoused, the Muslims went on to conquer the whole region.

It is also to be noted that history is written by the conquerors, and if this is their version how much darker is the whole truth.

The Quran offers such amazing rights to women but then the scholars bring in the hadiths and they are another matter, that is where the oppression of women comes into being.

Offers? Amazing? With the utmost respect I feel more like you try to convince yourself here than me.

It is my personal opinion that whilst some authentic hadiths still exist, many have been misinterpreted/changed by men since the 8th century (look at my posts on the Islam board, the thread is called Discussing Taqlid (meaning blind imitation). I discuss here an event in history called ‘the closing of the gates’. It was this period of time and these misinterpreted/changed hadiths that have gone against the teaching of the Quran and fallen in line with the traditions of marginalising/oppressing women. One example, find a single verse in the Quran that refers to stoning men or women as punishment for fornication - I'll save you some reading, you can't find it because there isn't one. Yet men and women are still, in 2007, stoned to death based on hadiths. Ever played chinese whispers? Scholars do try very hard to authenticate hadiths but all it took some centuries ago was a group of men that decided a, b or c was the way to go and hey presto an authentic hadith was born - it must be authentic because so many men repeated the same thing - see where I am going with this? It is specculation on my part but does explain how 800 years of Islamic rights for women disappeared over the space of a century or so.

I have read most of the Quran, the only book I ever read from the last page back, but did not make notes on it. My lasting impression tho is that it is as a whole condescending, manipulative and controlling. Not all of it of course, but a significant enough of it to leave that impression with me. As for the Hadiths, well I can only call them political tools.
Your referrence to chinese whispers tho, have you ever applied that logic to the 60+ scribes who were working for political master with an undisputable agenda.?

Can I leave you with some inspiring (to me) words of a 7th century Islamic philosopher/economist/sociologist/historiographer:

“All records, by their very nature, are liable to error…”

“the first of these is partisanship towards a creed or opinion…..

the second factor….is over-confidence in one’s sources….

the third is the failure to understand what is intended….

the fourth is a mistaken belief in the truth….

the fifth is the inability to place an event in its real context….

the sixth is the common desire to gain favour of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame….

the seventh, and the most important, is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformations of human society

Ibn Khaldun in The Muqadimmah (known as the Father of historiography (the study of the writing of history))

Now there was a clever man. Hands up anyone who is not guilty of at least one of these!!!!

Salaam

Very sage words indeed. May I be so arrogant to say that they are all a part of the way I approach things? Well I do try but after all I am only human.
In what I have said above I present an evaluation of the history I can deduce from written records written by victors, Muslims themselves. I do not think it any more unreasonable an interpretation than that of Islams adherants. But neither do I know it to be the truth. Just the best guess of sceptic me.


Kind regards

TE

[cyberpi]

One aspect of the Bible and the Qur'an that I see... and this does not go over very well with some alleged Christians or Muslims. But, God never refers to his written words as HOLY. Not even the 10 commandments written on stone which Moses dropped. Not in the Gospels. (Paul did once). Not in the Torah. Not in the Qur'an. (Comes close by calling scripture pure, but No)... the Qur'an refers the Qur'an a number of times, Torah, Injeel, and 'the book' a number of times, but does NOT call any one of them Holy. In neither the Bible or Qur'an do I see God / Allah (swt) refer to his words, commandments, or a book as Holy.

So what is called Holy? I see there is the Holy Spirit, God's name, a day, places, some individuals, garments, or special items... it is as if the requirement were that it could not be copied or made unclean. I find that extremely instructive. Language changes. It warps. No matter how well something is put into words, it is out of control. No one person can fix the definition of a word. The meaning of words become twisted to distort the words.

But you just know that MAN would. Sure he would. How many Bibles and Qur'ans are stamped HOLY on the outside of them even though on the inside God / Allah (swt) passed up every opportunity to call them or any part of them Holy?

Dauer, in Jewish books or oral tradition are the words, scriptures, laws, or books ever called Holy?

[cyberpi]

I realize that I posted that among people who may not believe in one or the other books. I view it as a bit of evidence that both are authentic in being from God / Allah (swt) in part. It is just that people, language and culture influence anything written. I consider it evidence that a person must be a thinker and to pull some definitions from text rather than from a dictionary. To look inside, in relationships, and to keep a sabbath and/or pray regularly for guidance, etc... A book alone does not do it.

[dauer]

cyber,

I'm not literate enough to give a listing from all Jewish religious literature. I mean if we're speaking generally about sacred Jewish texts absolutely we find phrases abound like holy torah and holy mitzvot (commandments.) Hebrew itself is called lashon kodesh, the holy tongue. If you go to, for example, leviticus 19 it says, "2. Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them, You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy."

and goes on to list a number of commandments, at the end being a commandment to observe all of God's statutes and ordinances.

When you drew my attention to this in pm I thought you might be getting at the nature of the word holy in Hebrew, which doesn't at this moment seem related, but since it's on my tongue I'll mention anyway that holiness implies a degree of separation, distinction. Like the kohanim.

We also have statements for example, like that the Torah is black fire on white fire, that it is the blueprint of the world, that she is a tree of life for those who hold fast to her. Ben Bag Bag says in Avot, "Turn it [The Torah] and turn it over and over again and again, for everything is in it, study it thoroughly, grow old and gray in its study, do not stir from it for you can have no better measure than this." I just opened up a book of quotes I have and am looking under Torah, this is just a sampling:

"His soul is guarded who guards the Torah." Menahot, 99

"Why are men like fish? As fish die out of water,so men die without hte Torah and mitzvot" avodah zarah, 3

"Only Torah serves to purify a man." zohar, iii, 80b

"Of the seven things which were created before the creation of the world, Torah is first and repentance is the second." pesahim 54b

That is from The Talmudic Anthology edited by Louis I. Newman

Also, you mention God's name is holy, yes, and sometimes the words of Torah are seen as a name of God.

However, that said, Judaism has never limited the words of Torah to one single meaning. And there are examples in Jewish literature of Torah for different people being different, like moses and akiva. Here's the quote:

"When Moses ascended into heaven, he saw God occupied in making little crowns for the letters of the Torah. Upon his inquiry as to what these might be for, he received the answer, "There will come a man, named Akiba ben Joseph, who will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law." Moses' request to be allowed to see this man was granted; but he became much dismayed as he listened to Akiba's teaching; for he could not understand it" (Men. 29b)."

Akiba ben Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And one of the interesting things about this is, even if the Torah did exist in Moses' time in a complete form -- not my personal view of the matter -- the crowns still did not. The Hebrew aleph bet wasn't even the same as the one today's Torahs are made of, that is the characters were different. So it's really taking an extreme example of finding meaning and relevance where before no meaning was found.

Dauer

[Dondi]

Dauer,

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Dauer,

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

I wondered the same.

[dauer]

Would you say that you have a decidely different view from orthodox Judaism in regard to the Torah, as far as the historic content and interpretation? I wonder how different the responses you gave me would be from responses from, say, a person like bb. Does he not take a more literal approach?

Absolutely my views are not Orthodox. In the Orthodox view both the written and oral Torahs go back to Sinai, although from person to person that can be understood a little differently. However Orthodox Jews are generally not literalist in the same way that the more orthodox members of other religions can be because Judaism is by nature a religion of interpretation. They'll just stick more to the methods of interpreting that are more traditional, which includes drash -- along with the stipulation that the plain meaning (note that doesn't mean literal meaning) is key -- and understand what has been written in more traditional ways. For example, in context, "The Torah speaks in the language of man." which is a statement from the gemara at its plain level is most likely referring to a specific statement made by a human being in the Tanach. It has come to be understood as referring to the nature of the language used in the Torah, particularly all the anthropomorphic language attached to God. As the more progressive kind of Jew I am, I wouldn't reject the later view at all, and on a spiritual level that's more important for me, but I would also acknowledge what I see as the more likely historical meaning. I'm not really concerned with supporting that my views are ancient -- I love innovation -- so even when what I see as the historical goes against how I understand things on a spiritual level, it's not such a big deal to me.

For Orthodoxy there are basically 13 statements that everyone agrees on, and that is only when they are removed from their original, fleshed out context. They are:

Hashem exists
Hashem is one and unique
Hashem is incorporeal
Hashem is eternal
Prayer is to be directed to Hashem alone and to no other
The words of the prophets are true
Moses's prophecy is better than any other prophet's
The Written Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) and Oral Torah (teachings now contained in the Talmud and other writings) were given to Moses
There will be no other Torah
Hashem knows the thoughts and deeds of men
Hashem will reward the good and punish the wicked
The Messiah will come
The dead will be resurrected

The ideas were formulated fairly late by Rambam, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, or Maimonides, possibly as a response to the really faith-based traditions of Islam and Christianity. And it was a while later still that they became integrated into the siddur, and finally became a sort of way to say, "this is what unites Jews in belief." But really there have been people who have disagreed with him anyway who lived before and after he did, like Rabad, Moses ben Hasdai Taku, Ibn Ezra, Nissim Gerondi, Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Nachmanides, Gershonides, Rashba, Moses Sofer, Hillel, and you can read about their disagreements as well as those of others here:

MyJewishLearning.com - Ideas & Belief: The Thirteen Principles of Faith

And like I said earlier, the only people who really take more literally are the ultra-orthodox. It's a literalism that developed more recently as a response to the changing world. And even with them you'd still have a hard time finding someone to say, "The world was created in 7 literal days." in part because there are simply already interpretations that have become part of the Jewish corpus that interpret it in much different terms.

Dauer

[Tao_Equus]

Its high time I took a closer look at Jewish beliefs, thx for that link.

TE

[cyberpi]

Thank you Dauer. I recognize the word holy is primarily used and taught in the Torah and I have not read the Zohar or other texts. I do not mean to degrade the value of any book or commandment... I simply find it instructive or educating to recognize just how easy it would have been for Moses or Man to call the commandments or scripture Holy. A problem is that words can be made unclean so easily by the alteration of language. There is a challenge to keep language clean. Without judging what is authentic, I would say that some books distinguish themselves from others which might claim that some revealing or scripture is Holy or sacred... keeping in mind that it was a man who compiled and stamped the outside of some popular books. If ever there was a good opportunity within the Torah to call Holy or sacred the words from God I would think the stone tablets with Moses would have been it, but they weren't and they were even dropped and crumbled.

To me with Leviticus 19 it could be inferred that being Holy requires adhering to the commandments. But it is verses like Exodus 30:22-38 that really draw my attention with a Holy anointing oil and incense. Unlike words whose composition is external, the composition or ingredients to an oil are more easily kept clean.

I notice in the NIV translation of the bible in the last century that the word 'Holy' often became 'sacred'. A single word was split into two different words in different context. I suggest that is a good example of how a message is degraded or altered.

[dauer]

cyber,

for me, the changing of words doesn't really render something unclean. Perhaps less accurate to the original, but it happens, and if that's what sticks then it's just the natural evolution of religion. But I'm not really enamored to the concept of finite revelation either.

What keeps language clean? What makes language unclean? Is it really unclean to translate kadosh as sacred or simply interpretive? Holy isn't quite accurate to the hebrew either, just like sacrifice doesn't capture the meaning of qorban. Does that really make such a translation unclean?

One of the things that I really don't understand is the tendency by so many folks to see that which is older as somehow superior to that which is newer, like that an older text is naturally better than a newer one. More canonical perhaps, but that in itself is a judgement made by the community that holds it as canon, and becoming canon is something that does take time.

If a text changes over time, if beliefs change, if understandings of the text change, why is that so bad? People change. Civilizations change. Communities change. Is the most historically accurate answer really the best one? I suppose if you do hold to a finite revelation that happened in a certain place and time it makes more sense, but if not, if life is seen as a revelatory process, then I'm not sure what the basis could be at all.

And it's not something that is limited to only a few groups. Most everyone's trying to one-up each other by saying their tradition is older. Jews say Torah is older than dirt, and that includes the oral torah as a basis for what comes later. Muslims say it's not and the quran contains the older traditions. Christians link their claims to Torah, and claim their interpretations as correct. Neo-pagans claim their religion predates all of that. And these are of course generalizations. In any group you'll have people who feel these ways and people who don't.

Dauer