Refuting Islam

Why Did the Qur’an Plagiarize Biblical Stories — But Change Key Details?

April 15, 2025

One of the most striking features of the Qur’an is how often it references stories found in the Bible. From Adam and Noah to Moses, Joseph, and Jesus, the Qur’an draws heavily from Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Muslims often argue that this is proof of continuity — that Islam confirms previous revelations.

But when we examine the Qur’anic versions closely, we find something deeply troubling: the Qur’an borrows from the Bible’s sacred stories — but then changes key theological details, often to the point of contradiction.

This raises a crucial question:

If the Qur’an is truly from the same God who inspired the Bible, why does it plagiarize biblical narratives — only to distort them?

Let’s dig into this puzzle and what it means for the Qur’an’s claim of divine authorship.

1. What the Qur’an Admits About Earlier Scriptures

The Qur’an acknowledges the Torah (Tawrah) and Gospel (Injil) as genuine revelations:

“He has sent down upon you the Book in truth… and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before.”
— Qur’an 3:3

“Say, ‘We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you…’”
— Qur’an 29:46

This admission creates a theological premise: the God of the Qur’an also sent the Bible. Therefore, the same stories — if they come from the same divine source — should align in substance.

But they don’t.

2. Familiar Characters, Unfamiliar Narratives

Here are just a few examples of where the Qur’an alters key elements of biblical stories:

❖ The Crucifixion of Jesus

Bible: Central to the gospel is that Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again (e.g., Mark 15–16, 1 Corinthians 15).
Qur’an: “They did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was made to appear so…” (Qur’an 4:157)

This is not a clarification — it is a flat contradiction of the core of Christianity.

❖ Abraham’s Sacrificed Son

Bible: Abraham is commanded to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22).
Qur’an: The son is unnamed, but Islamic tradition identifies him as Ishmael, and the story is altered (Qur’an 37:99–113).

This rewrites the entire theological framework of Abrahamic covenantal history.

❖ The Fall of Man

Bible: Adam and Eve both sin and are exiled — but the sin introduces the need for redemption (Genesis 3).
Qur’an: There is no concept of original sin; Adam is forgiven almost immediately (Qur’an 2:36–37). The story lacks the redemptive arc.

❖ Pharaoh and Haman

Bible: Haman is a Persian official under King Xerxes (Book of Esther, ~5th century BCE).
Qur’an: Haman is described as Pharaoh’s minister in Moses’ time — a millennium earlier (Qur’an 28:6).

This is a historical anachronism that cannot be reconciled.

These are not minor storytelling tweaks. These are theological and historical contradictions.

3. What’s Really Going On? A Closer Look

Scholars have long noted that the Qur’an’s “biblical” stories closely resemble Jewish Midrashim, apocryphal gospels, and oral legends — not the canonical Bible.

For example:

The infant Jesus speaking from the cradle (Qur’an 19:29–30) is found in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, a 6th-century apocryphal text, not the New Testament.
The story of Abraham smashing idols (Qur’an 21:57–67) comes from Jewish Midrash Genesis Rabbah, not Genesis itself.
The tale of Solomon talking to birds and jinn (Qur’an 27:16–17) resembles Jewish folklore, not 1 Kings.

This suggests the source of these stories wasn’t divine revelation — but local hearsay and religious storytelling circulating in Arabia during Muhammad’s time.

4. Why Change the Stories?

This leads to an uncomfortable but critical point:

If the Qur’an were simply confirming previous scriptures, it would repeat them faithfully — not revise them.

So why alter them?

The answer appears to be theological and political. The Qur’anic versions consistently:

Remove or downplay Jewish election and Christian theology.
Place Arab figures like Ishmael at the center instead of Isaac.
Refocus the narrative to legitimize Muhammad’s prophethood.
Strip away any implication of Jesus’ divinity or atonement.

The Qur’an’s versions are not corrections — they are ideological revisions, tailored to suit a new religious system.

5. This Is Not Continuity — It’s Religious Rebranding

Let’s be honest: when a later religious book lifts characters, themes, and storylines from an earlier scripture — but rewrites the conclusions and theological meaning — it’s not a continuation.

It’s a rebranding.

And the fact that many Qur’anic accounts resemble non-canonical, legendary, or folkloric versions rather than the historical biblical record further exposes the human — not divine — origin of these stories.

Muhammad, exposed to Christians, Jews, and storytellers in Arabia, absorbed and repurposed familiar tales — not by revelation from God, but by adapting what was already culturally circulating.

6. Conclusion: Borrowed Stories, Altered Theology

The Qur’an’s relationship to the Bible is not one of harmony, but plagiarism with purposeful revision.

It borrows characters and plots — but changes their meanings to build a new religion:

A Jesus who didn’t die.
A God who doesn’t redeem through grace.
A new “chosen people” descended not from Isaac, but Ishmael.

If the Bible and the Qur’an come from the same God, then God must have changed His story midstream — contradicting Himself and erasing the very theological foundations He laid before.

But if, as the evidence suggests, Muhammad was borrowing from familiar Jewish and Christian stories and reshaping them for his own purposes — then the Qur’an is not a divine revelation.

It is a human remix of sacred history — edited for a new audience.

And that destroys its claim to be the final, infallible word of God.