Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

[Dawnofhope]

I better see your point now. Thank you for clarifying.

And the idea that the source of "Muhammad's revelation" was in Jewish and/or Christian, or Jewish Christian traditions that were represented by Jews/Christians/Jewish Christians has a persistent presence throughout the modern period starting from John Toland, who wrote in 1722 "...you'll discover some of the fundamental doctrines of Mahometanism to have their rise...from the earliest monuments of the Christian religion." (Toland, Nazarenus, p.5) to the rather more recent work of scholars such as Patricia Crone, who concluded that Jewish Christians were the "most obvious candidates" for the transmission of a number of Qur'anic themes (Patricia Crone, "Jewish Christianity and the Qurʾān (Part One)," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, no. 2 (October 2015): 225-253. https://doi.org/10.1086/682212).

This is certainly a much more plausible explanation than the Christian blacksmith or even the Christian scribe mentioned in the Al-Bukhari Hadith you quoted. Its only natural to consider a more human source for Muhammad's inspiration for the Qur'an. In searching for those answers it makes sense to assess the known history of the Arabian Penisula that pertains to the early Islamic and pre-Islamic period.

There is, in fact, a fairly well-established "revisionist school" in the field of Islamic studies and whilst not all of them concur on the "Jewish Christian" origins idea, there is an overall impetus to apply the same historical-critical methods of textual analysis to the Qur'an that have for much longer been the staples of much investigation into the origins of the Christian and Jewish revelations. I am guessing, since you seem to favour the historical-critical method for other religious texts, you would not object to this for the Qur'an - or, dare I even suggest, the writings of Baha'u'llah? Of course I'm not saying you have to agree with the findings - but Islam in general opposes the method irrespective of the findings by definition - because it has the hierarchy of Qur'an ... hadith .... sirah ... for answering such questions - rarely, if ever, would any other scholarly method or historical evidence be required - and especially so on matters pertaining to revelation.

It is essential when considering the history of any religion to consider BOTH the sources within the religion themselves and external to the religion. Considering one without the other will lead to distortions. I would even go as far as advocating this falls under the umbrellas of two core Baha'i principles: (1) The independant investigation of reality; and (2) The harmony of science and religion. So Baha'is should welcome such an approach.

Unfortunately the result of considering one source without the other is polarisation as one group argues we shouldn't consider the secular sources and another that we shouldn't consider any religious sources. Both form essential parts of examing the faith community in question.

In that sense I'm part of a revisionist school of thought too, but would redefine who Muhammad was and what He taught with due consideration not just to the heirachy of the Qur'an, Hadith,and Sirat but also consider science, history, psychology and comparitive religion.

Christianity and Islam are both crippled by their inability to constructively consider fields of study outside of their respective theologies. The lesson from the rise and fall of Islam is one of being open to new knowledge and then imagining new knowledge is no longer necessary and becoming defensive.

Needless to say, scholarship provides a critcal role in the Baha'i Faith.

http://www.bahai.org/library/authoritative-texts/compilations/scholarship/scholarship.pdf?60f1cd93

The problem in their field (textual and historical criticism of the Qur'an) is that it is impossible to engage in such studies without being accused of taking sides - one way or the other. To support the idea that the Qur'an was influenced (at all by any other tradition) is to invite the ire of Muslims and to oppose the idea is tantamount to being a Muslim apologist in the eyes, not only of fundamentalist Christians, but even of other scholars. And obviously, no faithful and practicing Muslim is going to engage in historical-critical analysis of the text of the Qur'an - at least not without inviting the ire of his Muslim brothers or abandoning his faith altogether - at which point anything further he might say on the matter will immediately be labelled "apostasy" (and trust me - I know how that works, having been labelled "apostate" myself - thereafter, every word that seems to contradict the faith is met with "well he would say that wouldn't he" and "what else can you expect from someone who abandoned his faith"...and then completely unfounded accusations on some kind of imagined impropriety that has made one turn away from the faith). It is a fraught field of study to be sure.

I agree with all you say here. The results are all too often counter-productive discussions as the two groups talk past each other. Baha'is need to work hard to ensure they adhere to a much higher standard when engaged in interfaith discourse.

But my point is that even within the tradition itself, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the "revelation" came in circumstances in which the influence of Jewish and/or Christian traditions was clearly present. If that were not the case, why did the Qur'an itself feel the need to refute such influence and why does the next most-trusted authority after the Qur'an have a Christian scribe as the very first man to accept the Prophet's status as messenger and why does it say it was this man (and Waraqa is generally revered in Islam as a companion of the Prophet) that mentions Moses - long before Muhammad ever recited any revelation about him?

I agree examing the facts about the presence of Christian and Jewish groups on the Atabian Penisula is a reasonable focus of investigation if we are to consider evidence for and against Muhammad being a Messenger of God.

*It is worth noting that all of your hadith quotes came from the same source as mine - the Sahih Bukhari - which itself was compiled 200 years after Muhammad's death and the oldest surviving manuscript seems to date to about 150 years after that - that's fully 350 years after the period of revelation it is discussing in the parts both you and I quoted from. This book - despite the couple of centuries separating the alleged quoters from the reported quotations - is considered to be second only to the Qur'an as an authoritative Islamic text.

It is an important consideration. I do not believe the Hadith are to be relied upon but they are a source of much valuable information. We wouldn't be having the discussion about the Christian scribe if that were not true.

Back to the beginning of your post.

This misses the point entirely. The Islamic tradition (and particularly the Baha'i rehashing due to Abdu'l Baha that you quoted in your OP) insists that the revelation occurred to Muhammad amidst the jahiliya (time of ignorance) of the immediately pre-Islamic period of Arabian history and was, predominantly - at least initially - directed towards correcting the barbarous, ignorant and polytheistic tribes of Arabs among whom Muhammad had grown up. It further insists that the transmission of elements of the Qur'anic revelation that happen to correspond to elements of Jewish and Christian traditions was miraculous and was not influenced (at all) by human transmission from Jews or Christians that Muhammad might have met and/or conversed with before or during the period of the revelation. And yet - here in the very tradition that makes these bold assertions* - the very first man to whom the revelation was made known was not only a Christian, but immediately - even according to the tradition that insists there was no such influence - starts linking Muhammad's reported experience to that of Moses!

Abdu'l-Baha in his short talk does say:

The first question which He put to them was, “Why do you not accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and why do you not believe in Christ and in Moses?” This saying presented difficulties to them, and they argued, “Our forefathers did not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel; tell us, why was this?” He answered, “They were misled; you ought to reject those who do not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel, even though they are your fathers and your ancestors.”

So clearly Abdu'l-Baha admits some knowledge of the Christians and Jews and their sacred scripture amongst those Muhammad taught.

Its important to reiterate that religious narratives such as the one provided by Abdu'l-Baha in 'Some Answered Questions' should never be seen as the beginning and end of knowledge. They are simply a basic framework and starting point to encourage us to educate ourselves further. I've read Abdu'l-Baha enough to know how he approaches the tough questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think you are misreading Abdu'l-Baha and taking him too literally and out of context.

So with that in mind lets continue to educate ourselves about Muhammad so we can better appreciate who He was.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Christians say Jesus died and rose again. Muslims say a body double was killed and then Jesus appeared and disappeared and then was taken alive to heaven?

Then about the gospels being corrupted? You and I have talked about how the writers wrote years later and probably were not eyewitnesses. So maybe the gospels say exactly what the writers wanted to say but was it what Jesus really said and what Jesus really did? And haven't you used that very argument yourself? But aren't there small additions and other changes in the various gospel fragments?

But of course the early church's interpretations are the biggest problem and probable corruption. By making Jesus God himself and the only way to gain salvation they put Christianity above all the other religions. And unlike Baha'is, they do believe in a Satan and many say all the other religions are part of Satan's deceptive plan. And Baha'u'llah and Muhammad get put into that category by many Christians. There is no question in the minds of those Christians that Muhammad is not a messenger of God but a false prophet. And Baha'is are up against the same problem.

Both religions have to take apart the traditional Christian beliefs and point out areas that point to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah. But that is exactly what Christians did to Judaism. They made the Law obsolete and redefined Judaism to fit the Christian model. Islam then did it to Christianity and the Baha'is have done it to Islam. But each religion lives on and is adapting to the changes in the world today. And, each can point out why the newer religions are wrong and why it is best to stay with the old one. Anyway, thanks for another great thread.

I don't know about this thread being great, but what makes it worthwhile for me is the quality of the discussion from BOTH those who agree and disagree with the OP. Thanks everyone for participating and to you CG for asking some excellent, probing questions.

 

[Muffled]

Was Muhammad a Messenger of God?

Yes, Muhammad was not a god but he was a messenger of G-d,d he claimed it and gave reasons for it.

Regards

I believe that is an affirmation of your belief but it is not an argument supporting the concept. My pastor argues that he is not because he contradicts the Bible but I do not see it that way. I believe Muslims contradict the Bible by misinterpreting the Qu'ran.

 

[YmirGF]

I believe that is an affirmation of your belief but it is not an argument supporting the concept. My pastor argues that he is not because he contradicts the Bible but I do not see it that way. I believe Muslims contradict the Bible by misinterpreting the Qu'ran.

But the Qur'an has many passages that, flat out, contradict the Bible. I do not understand how you, as a good Christian, could possibly miss that. This isn't about mistaken Muslim interpretations, as the book itself, contradicts the underpinnings of Christianity.

You have read the Qur'an, from cover to cover, right? Heck, Muhammad even argued with the Christians and Jews of Mecca, explaining how very wrong they were.

 

[Muffled]

As the Old Testament and New Testement contain prophecy about Muhammad, is that not proof enough? Muhammad and Ali are surely the two witnesses clothed in sackcloth, quoted in Revelation, that would give prophecy for 1260 days (years).

Peace be upon Muhammad

Peace be upon you and all.

I believe you are in error. As far as I know neither were killed and laid in the streets let alone taken up into heaven.

I believe that would be nice but I believe in reincarnation and there is no guarantee of peace for anyone except the inner peace that Jesus gives.

 

[Muffled]

But the Qur'an has many passages that, flat out, contradict the Bible. I do not understand how you, as a good Christian, could possibly miss that. This isn't about mistaken Muslim interpretations, as the book itself, contradicts the underpinnings of Christianity.

You have read the Qur'an, from cover to cover, right? Heck, Muhammad even argued with the Christians and Jews of Mecca, explaining how very wrong they were.

I believe it is due to the fact that the Holy Spirit helped me understand it.

I believe you should prove it but I think that means a new post.

I believe I have read the Saudi Arabian translation cover to cover. I started out reading the commentary but it was so full of garbage that the Holy Spirit had me stop reading it. I have read parts of the Ali translation.

It wouldn't be the first time that Christians were wrong about something. We have over 10,000 denominations because people are wrong about things.

 

[YmirGF]

I believe it is due to the fact that the Holy Spirit helped me understand it.

Yikes, you might want to see if there are any updates available. What version of the Holy Spirit are you using?

I believe you should prove it but I think that means a new post.

Hmmm. My first thought was to politely decline, but my second thought is that you are FAR more aware of Christian doctrine than I am, so it would be better for you to show how you circled this square. For example: The Qur'an is VERY clear on the role of Jesus whereas in Christian thought Jesus is central to and perhaps even surpasses the message. (Jesus is the message?)

I believe I have read the Saudi Arabian translation cover to cover. I started out reading the commentary but it was so full of garbage that the Holy Spirit had me stop reading it. I have read parts of the Ali translation.

This should serve you as a major "heads up", frankly.

It wouldn't be the first time that Christians were wrong about something. We have over 10,000 denominations because people are wrong about things.

Agreed, but a good Christian should be very, very wary of patting the Qur'an on the head. You are patting on the dissolution of your own faith as it is, clearly, a replacement theology.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe you are in error. As far as I know neither were killed and laid in the streets let alone taken up into heaven.

I believe that would be nice but I believe in reincarnation and there is no guarantee of peace for anyone except the inner peace that Jesus gives.

There is explanations of those passages, we can explore those explanations if you wish.

Peace be with you

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But the Qur'an has many passages that, flat out, contradict the Bible. I do not understand how you, as a good Christian, could possibly miss that. This isn't about mistaken Muslim interpretations, as the book itself, contradicts the underpinnings of Christianity.

You have read the Qur'an, from cover to cover, right? Heck, Muhammad even argued with the Christians and Jews of Mecca, explaining how very wrong they were.

I see Muhammad teaching that there was One God, the God of all the Messengers.

Then we have many people not wanting to accept Muhammad, as being from that One God, but from the God they have made in their own minds.

Peace be with you.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe you are in error. As far as I know neither were killed and laid in the streets let alone taken up into heaven.

I believe that would be nice but I believe in reincarnation and there is no guarantee of peace for anyone except the inner peace that Jesus gives.

You have an intriguing array of beliefs for a conservative Christian. I do like your acceptance of the Quran as being from God and although I don’t believe in reincarnation your belief suggests some affinity for Eastern religion unless you wish to argue that either the Quran or Bible affirms it. I suspect your biggest strength is also you biggest weakness. Your strong intuitive sense can certainly greatly assist you, but your belief that it is the inerrant Paraclete speaking to you is your greatest weakness.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe you are in error. As far as I know neither were killed and laid in the streets let alone taken up into heaven.

I believe that would be nice but I believe in reincarnation and there is no guarantee of peace for anyone except the inner peace that Jesus gives.

From Revelation 11:

I will appoint my two witnesses,and they will prophesy for 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth. 4 They are “the two olive trees and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies.This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

11 But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them.​

In another thread we discussed this and other chapters in Revelation. The Baha'is have some chapters interpreted by Abdul Baha himself. But the Baha'i interpretation makes everything about the dragons and beasts, along with the two witnesses, about Islam. For me, other than the 1260 day prophesy, things just didn't add up all that well. Like if this was Muhammad and Ali, then why does it say "Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified" I would imagine their only Lord would be God, not Jesus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Christians say Jesus died and rose again. Muslims say a body double was killed and then Jesus appeared and disappeared and then was taken alive to heaven?

Then about the gospels being corrupted? You and I have talked about how the writers wrote years later and probably were not eyewitnesses. So maybe the gospels say exactly what the writers wanted to say but was it what Jesus really said and what Jesus really did? And haven't you used that very argument yourself? But aren't there small additions and other changes in the various gospel fragments?

But of course the early church's interpretations are the biggest problem and probable corruption. By making Jesus God himself and the only way to gain salvation they put Christianity above all the other religions. And unlike Baha'is, they do believe in a Satan and many say all the other religions are part of Satan's deceptive plan. And Baha'u'llah and Muhammad get put into that category by many Christians. There is no question in the minds of those Christians that Muhammad is not a messenger of God but a false prophet. And Baha'is are up against the same problem.

Both religions have to take apart the traditional Christian beliefs and point out areas that point to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah. But that is exactly what Christians did to Judaism. They made the Law obsolete and redefined Judaism to fit the Christian model. Islam then did it to Christianity and the Baha'is have done it to Islam. But each religion lives on and is adapting to the changes in the world today. And, each can point out why the newer religions are wrong and why it is best to stay with the old one.

It’s incredibly useful when studying the Baha’i Faith in relation to Christianity to consider Islam too. We see clearly how Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith have each successfully built on what has gone on before. Of course there are adherents of the old faith who critise the Founders of the new Faith for incorporating and modifying their scripture. There are instances of violence as adherents of the old try in vain to suppress the new. It’s clear to see why the Muslims have cried foul and called the Baha’is apostates. Regardless the Baha’i Faith endured 75 years of persecution from the Persians and Ottomans as both empires did their utmost to suppress and eradicate the Baha’i Faith knowing full well the claims of its Founder. They failed. So if the Baha’i Faith has successfully incorporated the scripture of the previous religions, withstood the onslaught of its enemies and was the fastest growing religion of the twentieth century how will it progress through the twenty first century?

 

[siti]

So clearly Abdu'l-Baha admits some knowledge of the Christians and Jews and their sacred scripture amongst those Muhammad taught...with that in mind lets continue to educate ourselves about Muhammad so we can better appreciate who He was.

OK - so can we now move on to the second Surah you suggested - the Surah al Maryam (Qur'an 19).

It is fairly obvious that whilst the general gist of the narrative - the annunciation, virgin birth, flight to Egypt and so on - follows a broadly similar trajectory to that of the canonical Gospels, the account departs from the standard Gospel accounts quite significantly in details and theology. So it might be useful if we could investigate where the account in the Qur'an might have come from (assuming only for the sake of investigation that it was not miraculously revealed - which of course it might have been).

As you say, if there were indeed Jews and Christians among those that Muhammad reportedly taught - and even more especially if there were indeed "Jewish Christians" (by which I mean either Judaizing Christians or - perhaps fairly recent - Jewish converts to Christianity) among them - then a fair amount of the theological departures from the Christian tradition as we understand it - Jesus being a prophet rather than the "son of God" and so on - would seem to be perfectly logical inclusions. I mention this because it is difficult to figure out why these would have been so important to emphasize - as the Qur'an quite obviously does, for example, in verses 35-37 - if the main target audience were polytheistic pagans:

It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day!​

(Qur'an 19:35-37, Abdullah Yusuf Ali Translation)

Who, for example, were the "sects" referred to in this passage? Could it be that, in fact, the main audience was not, after all, the polytheistic pagan tribesmen (as depicted by tradition), but Christian "sects" who seemed to the author to have departed from a true monotheism by elevating Jesus to the status of a "Son of God"?

Certainly it seems that Muhammad was aware, not only of the presence of Christians amongst the people he taught but was also cognizant of (at least the broad outlines of) their various sectarian beliefs.

Now lets dig into a couple of examples of where the narrative parts of the Surah depart from the canonical accounts of the Christian tradition and see whether we can get a bit more information out of that consideration.

One interesting passage is in verses 29 - 30 (still using Yusuf Ali's tanslation):

But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; ​

Here we have the miracle of Jesus speaking in his cradle. Again, Muhammad could have got this by direct divine revelation. But perhaps a more plausible explanation is that he was familiar with the tradition that is also recorded in the non-canonical Arabic Infancy Gospel:

He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.​

(Arabic Infancy Gospel verse 2 - From: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8 - Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe - 1886)

We should note that this "Gospel" was probably not translated into Arabic until long after the Qur'an was written down and the original was probably written in Syriac - possibly in the 5th or 6th century. There is no evidence that the Gospel itself as a text was present in Arabia before, during or shortly after Muhammad’s time but it was definitely in existence in Syria by the middle of the 9th century because it is referred to by a Syrian Bishop of that time. Whether or not the text existed in Arabic or Arabia, the tradition about Jesus speaking in his cradle might very well have been known to Christians in Arabia and whether or not the Arabic Infancy Gospel was the source of the Qur’anic story, it is entirely feasible that they both stem from a common source - and that the idea of Jesus announcing his mission from his cradle was very likely already around before Muhammad recited this Surah.

The biggest difference is in the theology – or rather Christology – and (as already discussed above) the Qur’an goes to some lengths to highlight this making the entire passage from verses 29 through 37 appear (to me at least) like a commentary on the Christian tradition.

Again we have to ask the question: why would Muhammad feel inclined to recite a commentary on the errors of the Christian tradition if his principal audience were pagan Arabs?

OK – my post is getting too long – I’ll pause here and pick up again in another post.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In reality we can not use this arguement, as it would support that the Bible could have also be passed down correctly.

I'm confused. If no one is reading it for themselves, how do they trust the accuracy of the stories they tell orally?

This is my point though. The reason that Muslims believe the gospels are corrupted is because it appears to conflict with what the Qur'an says. The Quran at no point indicates the gospels were corrupted.

And really, even so, those who claim the scriptures were corrupted aren't exactly wrong either. We have literary evidence of tampering all throughout the thing. You can't even have the KJV without King James' footprint all over the script.

If so, if Jesus did not die in the flesh. Where is the body and can science support the answer?

I find there are medical explanations that, while not making Jesus surviving the crucifixion a done deal, definitely gives us wiggle room. Also note that post-resurrection, Jesus doesn't look like ground hamburger meat, just having maybe a few wounds, mostly from the piercings. That's peculiar, don't you think? He was supposedly flogged until he looked like a horror movie victim and yet he wakes back up with wounds lots of people recover from. I feel the likely scenario is that some medical condition made him appear to be dead and since he wasn't buried in dirt, that left him free to chill for a few days and recover. We wouldn't have Christianity all that much had Jews used dirt, right?

I mean, the wounds on the hands and feet aren't lethal and only John mentions a "side" puncture wound, but the lethality would depend on what the spear actually hit. You can puncture a single lung and recover. In fact, as he notes water drained out, it's highly likely (if the account is remotely accurate) that the piercing relieved fluid pressure on his lungs and helped him to recover more quickly.

I'm not sure - I am looking into the similarities that have accompanied this type of sudden astonishing appearances of supernatural "beings" that have accompanied the opening up a new "revelation". I am thinking of Moses and the burning bush, Jesus in the wilderness, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, Joseph Smith - all of them were completely alone - the Bab's "first revelation" seems to have been in a room with just two people including himself - they never seem to happen when more than one or two people are around to see it - and even when God's voice occurs when there is a crowd around, only one person - e.g. Moses at Sinai, Jesus when he was praying before his capture and crucifixion - hears a voice - everyone else just thinks it thundered. I'll be very happy to learn of exceptions and I am still in the early stages of investigating this aspect but it does seem that isolation is a key component.

Yeah, funny how that works.

At the baptisim of Jesus, it was said the dove descended upon him.

Like this?

 

[siti]

...continuing on the Surah al Maryam...

Verses 22-26 relate the miraculous provision of water and fruits as Mary rests under a date palm during her flight to Egypt (Yusuf Ali's translation, my bold):

So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: She cried (in her anguish): "Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; "And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. "So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into not talk with any human being'"​

This is most interesting not so much for what it says but for what it leaves out. What are these "rivulets" for example.

It turns out (again) there is a parallel account in the Christian pseudepigraphal Gospel of pseudo-Matthew:

And it came to pass on the third day of their journey, while they were walking, that the blessed Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. Joseph therefore made haste, and led her to the palm, and made her come down from her beast. And as the blessed Mary was sitting there, she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her: I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed. And after they had gathered all its fruit, it remained bent down, waiting the order to rise from Him who bad commanded it to stoop. Then Jesus said to it: Raise thyself, O palm tree, and be strong, and be the companion of my trees, which are in the paradise of my Father; and open from thy roots a vein of water which has been hid in the earth, and let the waters flow, so that we may be satisfied from thee. And it rose up immediately, and at its root there began to come forth a spring of water exceedingly clear and cool and sparkling. And when they saw the spring of water, they rejoiced with great joy, and were satisfied, themselves and all their cattle and their beasts. Wherefore they gave thanks to God.​

(Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew chapter 20, From: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 8 1886 ed. Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe - 1886 - my bold)

Obviously the details differ, but the essential elements of a miraculous provision of fruits and water as Mary rested under the shade of a date palm are common. It is also interesting that the order of the provision of fruits and water is reversed in the respective accounts - which perhaps suggests that the author of one was familiar with the other but clearly not quoting directly...perhaps it had been related to him orally and some of the details had been lost in transmission - e.g. Joseph being present in one and not the other etc.

Whatever, it is difficult to imagine how a mostly illiterate pagan Arab audience could possibly have made any sense of the Qur'anic version of this tale. But I think it would be fair to suggest that perhaps a hearer/reader familiar with the Christian tradition would have had a fairly reasonable chance of recognizing their own traditional story from the outline (reportedly) recited by Muhammad. Perhaps the writer felt justified in leaving out much of the detail because he knew his audience (like himself) were familiar with the Christian tradition already?

My point, just to emphasize, is not to prove anything - just to point out that there are fairly convincing indications that the target audience for (at least some key parts of) the Qur'anic text seems to be people who were very familiar with the Jewish and Christian tradition already.

Bearing in mind that this Surah was (reportedly) revealed while Muhammad was still in Mecca, this seems at variance with the traditional assumption that the Prophet's earliest preaching was intended to dissuade pagan Arabs from their polytheistic religion and was rather targeted at people whom he knew to be very familiar with Christian theology and tradition - much more familiar than the average professed Christian of the early 21st century I might add.

And that, I would argue, puts an entirely different slant on the entire "revelation" and the history of its conversion into a world religion. It calls into question how much Muhammad (assuming it is really a record of his recitation) really knew about Judaism and Christianity and from what source. And all that, in turn, throws wide open the question of whether the Qur'an itself can possibly be interpreted as evidence of Muhammad's Divine Messenger status.

PS - I am aware that we have only covered a few verses from three Surahs so far - but a picture does seem to be emerging from a slightly more critical evaluation of the texts - don't you think?

 

[Dawnofhope]

PS - I am aware that we have only covered a few verses from three Surahs so far - but a picture does seem to be emerging from a slightly more critical evaluation of the texts - don't you think?

This is good to critically evaluate what the Quran is saying. It is what I had hoped for.

In regards the Surah of Mary, lets consider the narrative Muslims have regarding the origin of this work, no doubt based on an evaluation of the Hadith and Sirat.

Surah Maryam Tafseer Notes

As the message of Islam became known amongst the Meccans, there was increasing persecuation and hostiliy.

Although Muhammad initially encouraged them to be patient in the face of adversity eventually He decided to move His followers to Abyssinia (Habasha) where He hoped they would live peacefully where the (Christian) King was known to be just and fair. Muhammad was from the Quraysh tribe (pagans) but when they came to know of the Muslim's departure, they chased after them but they had already left. So a council was appointed to go to the King of Abyssinia and convince him to hand over the Muslims.

The story is as follows:

“The Makkans sent two of their top people, Amr bin Al-as and Abdullah bin Abi Rabia, who took expensive gifts with them. They wanted to dazzle and bribe the Negus so that he would release these Muslims. The two Makkan envoys travelled to Abyssinia and spoke to the Negus. They explained that these Muslims had left the religion of their forefathers and they asked Negus to return them to the Makkans.

The king summoned the Muslims to the court and asked them to explain the teachings of their religion The Muslims were not scared of anything, they had the truth and they would stand by the truth. Ja‘far bin Abi Talib stood up and explained to the Negus about the situation of the Arabs before the divine guidance came from Allah. He said that in the past, they had been acting out of ignorance by worshipping Idols and carrying out many bad actions. They had neglected their responsibilities to their fellow man, neighbour and orphans. They had complete forsaken justice, compassion and charity. They had forgotten all the good characteristics of a human being such as truth, honesty and piety. They had neglected all forms of justice and the strongest oppressed and ruled over the weak.

Jafar then explained to the Negus about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his pure message which invited mankind to worship only Allah and to leave all forms of idol worship. The Prophet (PBUH) had encouraged them to always speak the truth; to be faithful to their trusts and promises; to be merciful and just in their dealings with others and to respect the rights of their fellow human beings. The Prophet (pbuh) had also forbade them to speak evil of women and ordered them to look after the welfare of the orphans. He further explained that the prophet (pbuh) had ordered them to keep away from all evil acts and instead offer prayers, give charity, and to observe fasting.

Jafar told the Negus they had accepted this noble person as the Prophet of Allah and had followed his teachings. It was for this reason the Makkans had attacked and persecuted them and it was for this reason the Muslims had left Makkah. The Negus was satisfied with their answers.

The two envoys decided on a new plan. They went to the Negus saying that Muslims spoke ill of Jesus. The Negus called the Muslims and questioned them regarding what their religion said about Jesus. Jafar recited some verses of the Qu’ran from Surah Maryam, which teaches us about the miraculous birth of Jesus and the status of Jesus in Islam. The Negus was again impressed and was moved to tears that rolled down his cheeks. He knew in his heart that this was indeed the truth and was moved by the beautiful verses of the Qu’ran

The Negus exclaimed: “It seems as if these words and those which were revealed to Jesus are the rays of light which have radiated from the same source.” He then turned to the two envoys from Makkah and told them to leave; the Muslims could stay in Abyssinia as long as they wished. The gifts were returned to the two envoys and they were told to return to Makkah.” [Taken from: http://www.musalla.org/articles/Hijra_to_Abyssinia_(Ethiopia)34.html]

This happened on the 6th year of Muhammad's Prophethood. Islamic scholars believe the Surah of Mary was revealed during the 4th year of Prophethood prior to their migration because the Muslims must have known the Surah well enough to present it to the King as they did.

Therefore an analysis of the Surah of Mary will consider it an essential provision and preperation for the Muslims who departed to the land of the Christians. Muhammad's message now extended to the Christians and its scope moved beyond the pagan traditions of His own people. There are many other moral stories too within this Surah but that is the historic context.

Now we come to the well known argument about the Surah of Mary being plagarised from the Arabic infancy gospel. Christian apologetics use this argument to discredit Islam of course and you have presented their argument very well but also tried to be fair.

The counter arguments:

(1) The Character of Muhammad and that which he promoted amongst His followers was that of utmost integrity and truthfulness. If that is true then He would not lie as to the origins of His Teachings.

(2) There is no evidence that this gospel was available on the Arabic penisula in the 7th century. Those Arab Christians (Nestorians not Gnostics) in all likelihood never used it anyway. While its possible, its unlikely and as you have said the first written translation into Arabic wasn't until after the Quran had been revealed.

(3) While there are similarities between the the Apocryphal Gospel there are far more differences. The Quranic narrative simply does not follow any known gospel.

So while it is possible he did copy parts of a gospel, on the balance of probabities appears to me unlikely that He did. Of course it is up to each of us to consider the facts and draw our own conclusions.

I do agree the Surah of Mary was targeted at a Christian audience (The King of Abysinnia), as do the Muslims.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And really, even so, those who claim the scriptures were corrupted aren't exactly wrong either. We have literary evidence of tampering all throughout the thing. You can't even have the KJV without King James' footprint all over the script.

It is a question of degrees though. On one hand we have fundamentalist Christians claiming it to be the inerrant word of God as if the writers were so possessed by the Holy Spirit it’s as if every word was dictated by God. On the other hand Muslims say the Christians don’t have the original gospel that Jesus taught at all. Of course there’s been errors in transcription and translation especially the symbolic verses where scribes have written in accordance with their own limited understanding.

 

[siti]

In regards the Surah of Mary, lets consider the narrative Muslims have regarding the origin of this work, no doubt based on an evaluation of the Hadith and Sirat.

Based actually on the testimony of ibn Ishaq about whom you previously said:

Ibn Ishaq is one of the earliest known biographers of Muhammad and while providing much useful information, is not reliable for all sorts of reasons.

And...

The story is part of an early biography of Muhammad called the Sirat written by Ibn Ishaq born over 70 years after Muhammad died.

So the truth about the Muslim (and Baha'i) interpretations of this is that we have no idea really unless we choose to accept the testimony of the same Hadith and Sirat accounts we have already discredited as ignorant and unreliable. And that, you might recognize, has been my point for most of this discussion regarding Muhammad's status.

The fact that the Surah al Maryam contains traditions that are known to have been in circulation among Christians of the time (even if not, or at least not proven to have been, Arabian Christians) is undeniable.

Ibn Ishaq's account must at least be as deniable as his account of Muhammad beheading hundreds of Banu Quarayza Jews - which, incidentally, for reasons I have already mentioned - I agree probably never happened. But I am declining to cherry pick - and that remains the difference between us I'm afraid.

Anyway, by way of correction, you have obviously misread my posts as a rehearsal of the Christian apologetic plagiarism argument. That certainly was not my intent and I (apparently mistakenly) thought my comments were sufficiently clear to make that obvious, but I will now clarify further.

I am not even certain in my own mind whether the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew was even written down (in any language) before Muhammad's Prophethood - scholarly opinion suggests a date in the first quarter if the 7th century (which overlaps with the beginning of the Prophet's career). Pseudo-Matthew draws on obviously much earlier writings such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of James but neither of these mention the account of Mary resting under the date palm and Pseudo-Matthew - the writing of which may even have happened after the "revelation" of the Surah al Maryam (for all I know - and which would have been a stronger counter-argument for you if you had investigated the facts rather than depending on Islamic apologetics) - is probably the earliest written record of this Christian tradition.

I am not accusing Muhammad of plagiarism - in this case, I think that argument is at best tenuous and is in any case, clearly religiously motivated and disingenuous because it (like you, I am sad to say) calls a witness that it, by its own tradition, has already discredited as unreliable - no mainstream or evangelical Christian today would argue that the event under the palm tree - or Jesus talking from his cradle - actually happened because if they had they would have been recorded in the divinely inspired record of the canonical Gospels. Neither would they argue in favour of either Pseudo-Matthew or the Arabic Infancy Gospel (which probably was not translated in Arabic until the late middle ages - a few centuries after the Qur'an took its current form) being in any way reliable. Gnostics would have a different take on it of course. But there aren't too many of those around and I doubt they would object to God revealing the same account twice in different allegorical forms.

Anyway, that was not my argument. I am simply pointing out the more mundane and obvious fact that the parallels between the Christian traditions that seem to have been in circulation at the time (among Christians) and the versions in the Qur'an bear striking similarities and that as such, it seems reasonable to assume that the authors of both Christian texts and the Qur'an that relate these traditions seem to have been aware of the same traditions. And further, that given that the Qur'an relates Christian traditions at all, it seems that its target audience may have been Christians. And that being the case, it becomes all the more reasonably explicable that the writer(s) of the Qur'an were themselves familiar, and expected their audience to be familiar with Christian traditions. The illiterate and polytheistic pagan Arabs (toward whom the Prophets early messages are said by tradition to have been directed) seem to have been irrelevant as far as this passage is concerned. But of course, the later verses of the Surah do seem to directed at them - but we haven't got that far yet.

Anyway, I think we'll have to leave that particular section of the Surah al Maryam there - we're obviously not going to make any further progress as long as we (or at least one of us) insist on prejudiced religious justifications rather than critical and reasoned assessment.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Anyway, I think we'll have to leave that particular section of the Surah al Maryam there - we're obviously not going to make any further progress as long as we (or at least one of us) insist on prejudiced religious justifications rather than critical and reasoned assessment.

I'm not insisting on anything. The whole area of study around the apocraphyl gospels, their origins and history, along with how it ties in with early Christian history appears a fascinating area of study in its own right, regardless of what extent it intersects with Islam. Its definitely useful to analyse the first section of the Surah of Mary as it relates to the story of Mary and Jesus and consider similarities and differences between different gospels. Hopefully I'll find some time over the weekend to study it more closely.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Was reading Wiki about Muhammad and read this about a 7th century Christian Historian, it may have been mentioned in this thread?

"Another account of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was an Armenian bishop of the House of Bagratuni. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656–661 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing. Concerning Muhammad, he says:

At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Mụhammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: 'With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him for ever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.

Sebeos was writing the chronicle at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs was fresh. He knows Muhammad's name and that he was a merchant by profession. He hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation."

It is good that Muhammad had claimed a Message from God was known and recorded external from the Muslim Faith.

It seems the only Barrier to undersatanding the Station of Muhammad, is not Historical references to Muhammad, but our own acceptance as to what Muhammad has given us in the Koran.

Peace be with you