Salam (Peace) Dear Questioner,
Thank you for for contacting About Islam with your question. Please find part one of the answer to your question below. Look for the second part tomorrow.
This type of question comes up many times these days, and it affords an ideal opportunity to explain the Islamic perspective.
Your first sentence has no basis in fact. Muslims believe the original Torah, Injil (“Bible”), and Quran were all revealed by our Creator. Therefore, one would expect similarities.
There is sufficient material in the Quran to show that it could not have come from the Old Testament (OT) or the New Testament (NT).
For example, Prophet Salih (peace be upon him-PBUH) is mentioned as a Prophet in the Quran, but he is not mentioned in the Bible.
He was sent, by God, to the Madain Salih (the cities of Salih, also known as Al-Hijr), the Nabataean Southern Kingdom, but the people (the Thamud) rejected him and God punished them, see Quran 7:73-79.
Your specific example is ambiguous as the “eldest son” is also referred to in the OT, and nowhere is Isaac referred to as the eldest son. So, which part of the Bible can we believe?
Again, in your quotation “Take away your son, your only son […]”, when was Isaac the only son? Surely, the “eldest” means there was more than one son, being the younger son; he could never have been the only son.
If you want to talk about birthrights, then, do you know that the birthright of the eldest son cannot be passed on or given away, even if the eldest son is disliked.
And also, Hajar was married to Abraham (Gen. 16:3). The rest of your first paragraph appears, to this writer, to be illogical.
So what if the Quran was written 600 years after the Bible? When was the Isaac narrative actually recorded? For how long did it exist in oral form? What is the oldest extant complete Codex in the Hebrew language? It is the Codex Leningrad, and is dated around 1010 CE.
Your second paragraph is even more difficult to understand. First, where does the word “infidel” come from? The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) lists several definitions for infidel, all of which have many attributed historical usages.
It would appear the modern use of infidel did originate from English-speakers, but in reference to non-believers in Christianity, including “Mohammedans” and “Saracens.”
There is much more information in the OED, but no mention of when Muslims first used it to refer to non-Muslims. I understand it to be used by Christians to describe one who doesn’t believe in the Christian concept of Jesus (PBUH).
I find it mildly amusing that Christians object to the word they would use for Muslims being used against them, that is, to describe one who doesn’t believe in the Islamic concept of Jesus (PBUH).
If you read the first fifteen verses of the second chapter of the Quran, you would see that the Quran is addressed to the believers, disbelievers, and to the hypocrites.
The Quran is particularly scathing towards the pagans of Makkah, as they knew Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to be honest and trustworthy.
The pagans of Makkah during Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) time believed that the highest God was, indeed, Allah. They also believed in secondary or intermediate false gods, but they knew Allah and were upset when Muhammad (PBUH) invoked Allah against them.
For this reason, the Quran refers to such people as kafir which actually means one who covers (the Truth).
This word is inappropriate for most Westerners as they don’t know Allah, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), or the Quran. If they don’t know the truth, how can they cover it?
The rest of your question will be answered over the next few days.
Please continue feeding your curiosity, and find more info in the following links: