Now, we offer you the Islamic version, as found in Soorat al-Anbiya 21:51-70:
 

Walaqad aataynaa Ibraaheema rushdahu min qablu wakunna bihi aalimeena ith qaala li-abeehi waqawmihi maa haathihi at-Tamaatheelu allatee antum lahaa aakifoona qaaloo wajadnaa aabaaanaa lahaa aabideena qaala laqad kuntum antum waabaaokum fee dalaalin mubeenin qaaloo ajitanaa bialhaqqi am anta mina alla'ibeena qaala bal rabbukum rabbu as-Samaawaati wa al-ardi allathee fatarahunna waanaa 'alaa thaalikum mina ash-Shahideena wata'llaahi laakeedanna asnaamakum ba'da an tuwalloo mudbireena faja'alahum juthaathan illaa kabeeran lahum la'allahum ilayhi yarji'oona qaaloo man fa'ala haathaa bi-aalihatinaa innahu lamina ath-Thaalimeena qaaloo sami'naa fatan yathkuruhum yuqaalu lahu Ibraaheemu qaaloo fatoo bihi 'alaa a'yuni an-Nasi la'allahum yashhadoona qaaloo aanta fa'alta haathaa bi-aalihatinaa yaa Ibraaheemu qaala bal fa'alahu kabeeruhum haathaa fais-aloohum in kaanoo yantiqoona faraja'oo ilaa anfusihim faqaaloo innakum antumu ath-Thaalimoona thumma nukisoo 'alaa ruoosihim laqad 'alimta maa haaolaa'ee yantiqoona qaala afata'budoona min dooni Allaahi maa laa yanfa'ukum shay'an walaa yadurrukum offin lakum walimaa ta'budoona min dooni Allaahi afalaa ta'qiloona qaaloo harriqoohu waonsuroo aalihatakum in kuntum faa'ileena qulnaa yaa naaru koonee bardan wa salaaman 'alaa Ibraaheema Waaraadoo bihi kaydan faja'alnaahumu al-akhsareena Before that, we granted Abraham his guidance and understanding, for we were fully aware of him. He said to his father and his people, "What are these statues to which you are devoting yourselves?" They said, "We found our parents worshipping them." He said, "Indeed, you and your parents have gone totally astray." They said, "Are you telling us the truth, or are you playing?" He said, "Your only Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, who created them. This is the testimony to which I bear witness. "I swear by GOD, I have a plan to deal with your statues, as soon as you leave." He broke them into pieces, except for a big one, that they may refer to it. They said, "Whoever did this to our gods is really a transgressor." They said, "We heard a youth threaten them; he is called Abraham." They said, "Bring him before the eyes of all the people, that they may bear witness." They said, "Did you do this to our gods, O Abraham?" He said, "It is that big one who did it. Go ask them, if they can speak." They were taken aback, and said to themselves, "Indeed, you are the ones who have been transgressing." Yet, they reverted to their old ideas: "You know full well that these cannot speak." He said, "Do you then worship beside GOD what possesses no power to benefit you or harm you? "You have incurred shame by worshipping idols beside GOD. Do you not understand?" They said, "Burn him and support your gods, if this is what you decide to do." We said, "O fire, be cool and safe for Abraham." Thus, they schemed against him, but we made them the losers.

Muhammad who?

While the life of the Praised One is deeply intertwined with the origin of the Qur'an in the mind of the Muslims, this is not necessarily a stance that is held by al-Ikhwaan al-Kaafireen in toto. Indeed, as MENJ pointed out, the Christian "missionaries" have tried to use religious borrowing theories to malign the character of Muhammad. However, the theory can stand quite well without any reference to Muhammad (in fact, it is more plausible when assumptions about Muhammad are avoided!).

MENJ himself mocked the idea that Muhammad had "encyclopedic knowledge" of the alleged sources as part of his attempt to demonstrate the weakness of the theory. We would argue that Muhammad's knowledge of the relevant material is not as essential a detail as the believers claim. The meat of the theory is simply that the author(s) of the Qur'an included in their manuscript a story that is strikingly similar to one that was floating around contemporary religious communities living roughly in the same area. Who exactly it was that wrote or recited this story is irrelevant.

The Muslims want to drag their own tendentious history into the debate as evidence. The non-Muslims who accept such nonsense have been the victims of a subtle maneuver of a circular nature. First it must be realized that if the kuffaar are saying that a certain story is of a wholly human origin, they're already rejecting the traditional account. It is through a sort of theological sleight of hand that the Muslims attempt to then try and get the critics to accept their account. The point is to ignore the traditional account and consider other possibilities.

The reality is that distortions over time are a natural part of such a transfer, thus to harp on them is worthless as far as refuting the theory goes. These differences can arise out of a deliberate attempt to change the story, or through the accidental loss of key points (which was Tisdall's argument); both scenarios should be considered.

First, why would an author make a deliberate change? The authors may be taking a story that they feel is relevant to the current situation, and only needs to make minor (or major) alterations to repackage it for a new audience. This sort of Midrashic approach to finding moral value in the heroes of the past is one that exists in the ethical writings of every literate culture, and is well known to literary authorities:

In the re-creation of the myth by outstanding individual artists, the hero's quest becomes a critique of the existing social norms and points to a futuristic order which is envisaged as integrating the valuable residues of the past and present.
[Harry Slochower, Mythopoesis: Mythic Patterns in Literary Classics, (Wayne State, 1973), p. 34]

[T]he term "midrash" is used to refer to the Jewish tradition of the interpretive retelling of biblical stories that began within the Bible itself, developed in the rabbinic and medieval periods, and, I believe, has continued to the present. As an example of how this tradition has been sustained I would cite the retelling of the biblical account of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) by Hebrew writers of rabbinic legend, medieval piyyut (liturgical poetry), and modern poetry. [...] From a literary point of view, the rabbinic, medieval, and modern authors of these retold versions of the story of the binding of Isaac created new works out of the biblical text in significantly different ways that reflect each period's literary norms and its attitude toward the Bible. Nevertheless, these authors share a common midrashic impulse to use the Bible as a source of characters, plots, images and themes in order to represent contemporary issues and concerns. For authors of midrash, the way that a biblical text can serve as a meaningful vehicle for the representation of contemporary reality is by transforming it, sometimes even to the point of turning it on its head.
[David C. Jacobson, Modern Midrash, (SUNY, 1987), pp. 1-3]

For another example, consider a story about a miracle-worker, with the initials J.C., who performs magical healings and even raises the dead. This gentle man is from the oppressed class of a stratified society, and has been sentenced to death by the authorities who are from the oppressor class. Though this peaceful healer is mocked, and eventually executed, he manages to make believers out of members of the dominant ethnic group. Is this story about Jesus Christ as found in the gospels, or is it about John Coffee as found in the movie The Green Mile? The movie was definitely based on the gospel account of Jesus, and pointing out that John Coffee was African American, not Jewish, and was executed by white Americans rather than Romans, does not escape this fact.

One could go on and cite examples such as William Golding's Lord of the Flies being a rework of the story found in Ballantyne's The Coral Island, but the essential point should be obvious: differences do not automatically exclude the possibility of borrowing. However, up to this point we have only touched on deliberate changes. Far more likely would be a scenario, alluded to by Tisdall, where the changes are inadvertent.

Logically inavlid?

The mu'minin in the Islamic Awareness team, as well as other net-dawagandists, have argued that the borrowing theory is fallacious. It must be conceded that from a purely logical standpoint, the argument is deductively invalid. The reason for this is rooted in the mode of thinking employed to reach a conclusion of "religious borrowing." It is realized that there are striking similarities between passages from the Qur'an and much older stories that existed among near-by religious communities. It is then inferred that this similarity could have come about through religious borrowing. The subtle and implicit train of thought imbedded in such argumentation would go as follows:

Premise: If the author(s) of the Qur'an borrowed material from contemporary religious groups, there would be similarities in the stories.
Premise: There are similarities in the stories.
Conclusion: The author(s) of the Qur'an borrowed stories from others.

A case can be made that every case of abduction is invalid. The Islamic Awareness team tried to argue that there are other possibilities (both stories are from God, et cetera), and indeed other sources are always possible in an adductive inference. This is true of even the most absurd cases. For example, if your friend is the only one in the kitchen when you leave, and your muffin is gone when you come back, you can infer, via abduction, that your friend ate the muffin. Of course, such an inference would be deductively invalid, and there could be other possibilities (maybe aliens "beamed up" your muffin).

However, a good abduction is the best guess, or the most likely possibility. So, it would seem that we would not be abusing Occam's razor if we assumed your friend took your muffin, and the same would be true for the theory of borrowing. In the case of the muffin, it is possible that aliens are the culprits, and with the religious parallels it is possible that both stories are from God. Unfortunately for the theists and UFO-buffs, however, both instances introduce new, unnecessary, and wholly unproven premises.

To give one last analogy, imagine that there is a belief in three-toed elves who turn water into gold among a certain group of Korean nationals. These Korean nationals then move to Alaska in the year 1960, and take their belief in three-toed elves with them. By 1970, Eskimos in the region reveal a belief in three-toed elves who turn water into gold. There is no solid evidence of these elves, but both communities believe in them. It would seem that one would be justified in inferring that the origin of the Eskimo belief can be found among the Korean community that traveled to the region. Only an appeal to dogma on the part of the Eskimos would motivate anyone to doubt such a stance.

So, in the end it would seem that religious borrowing theories are not as absurd as the Muslims would like people to believe. The reality is that in the time and place that the Qur'an finds its origin, stories about Abraham smashing idols were told among a community of Monotheists. Then the Qur'an, a book which bares many similarities to the said religious community, comes to contain nearly identical stories. We could postulate a scenario where both stories fell out of the sky, but it seems more reasonable to lean towards a theory of religious borrowing in light of the temporal, religious and geographical connections. >