Abraham and the story of the fire

**rpwelton** · 12-10-2008

This is something that I have seen brought up in several debates. The opponent's argument goes something like this:

In regards to the story of Abraham, a Jewish scholar mistranslated the word "Ur", which is a Babylonian word meaning city, and instead wrote it down as a word that sounded similar, but meant fire in Hebrew. Thus, the Christians argue that the story is really about Abraham and a city, and not Abraham being thrown into the fire. They say that the Qur'an copies this story incorrectly as the Jews had done, therefore the Qur'an must be false.

Does anybody know anything about this? I have found scant evidence online for this claim, and neither of the debates this was brought up in provided a response from the Muslim side (probably because it seems to be a very obscure reference and not well known in the Muslim world).

I don't believe this mistranslation hypothesis to be true, mainly because of my firm belief in the truth of the Qur'an in its entirety, but also because there seems to be little evidence to support the Christian viewpoint. Nonetheless, it's one of the few arguments brought against Islam that I've seen go unanswered.

Thanks!

**- Qatada -** · 12-10-2008

First of all ask them, where did Muhammad (sal allah alaihi wasalam) read this from? He was illiterate, the jews of Medinah did not believe in him and would actually challenge his prophethood by hiding their scripture and asking him questions such as the narrative of Prophet Yusuf, or the reasons for the revelation of Surah Al Kahf.

They might claim that he got the idea off Waraqah ibn Nawfal - the uncle of Khadijah (who was learned in knowledge of the Bible), but tell me - Prophet Muhammad met up with Waraqah ibn Nawfal only a few days after his first revelation, then Waraqah died while saying on his first encounter with him that i believe in you, and you will be expelled from your town by your people, and that if i live long enough - i would support you.

Now if Waraqah is a sincere man throughout his life (along with all the other haneefs) in wanting to accept the truth, going to the extent of learning hebrew and the bible (when he himself is arab, [who were predominatly illiterate]. Could it really be that Waraqah told ALL the rich history of the Prophets of old within one days period to Prophet Muhammad?

Furthermore, would Waraqah really be so gullible as to believe in someone claiming to be a Prophet without taking into consideration of who he is? Would he compare this mans claims to the biblical prophecies of the final Prophet? yes. So would this man who has wished to follow the truth all his life say that i accept this 'false prophet' - simply because he claims it? Ofcourse not. He'd only speak the truth because he knows its the truth.

So the question isn't whether that narrative of Prophet Ibrahim is false, its about who told Prophet Muhammad this information which he so called 'stole off the Bible'.

To go further than that though, these claims are so weak. Simply because the bible which they use has contradictions within it, so we're supposed to accept their version of the story over our uncontradicting Qur'an? Just because they said it? What about the clarity and truthfulness of the Qur'an? What about the fact that this Bible is filled with stories of incest, and men fighting with 'god'. Are we supposed to accept these stories too?

We have our reasons for believing in the Qur'an. And even if they doubt their own scripture, we don't need to doubt ours - since Allah has promised to preserve it till the final hour. That's the final word at the end of the day.

And Allah knows best.