I better see your point now. Thank you for clarifying.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Last edited: