MUHAMMAD
THE BORROWER – DEBATE 1 WITH SAIFULLAH
This is the compilation of a debate that took place on USENET newsgroup soc.religion.islam between Silas, author of the articles on Islam Unveiled (see also his originally posted material) and Saifullah, the driving force behind the website Islamic Awareness.
NOTE: Saifullah’s post writings are in blue. When he
quotes me, my words are in red.
My post
writings are in black. When I quote
Saifullah, his words will be in blue.
Quotes from
various authors will be in green.
NOTE: I have deleted the “” quote brackets, and
some unrequired comments / post information.
SAIFULLAH’S
FIRST POST
Subject:
Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2
From:
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp
Date:
Mon, 09 August 1999 12:29 AM EDT
Assalamu-alaikum
wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
I
am cutting the six part issue of the alleged borrowing done by Muhammad(P) from
the Bible into the Qur'an. The gist of the Christian missionary argument is
given below.
1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad
learned via word of mouth. No one asserts
that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in
the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not follow that
Muhammad had substantial written material in front of him.
Sure,
their writings agree but then is that the proof that Muhammad(P) borrowed from
the Bible through the word of mouth. What if I say that the TV works by black
magic and ten other people assert that I am correct? Does that mean that
whatever I said is true?
And
many of them will be updated in the near future, inshallah (e.g., crucifixion,
Mary sister of Aaron etc.).
And
we Muslims have heard about many historical errors in the Bible which the
Christian missionaries dismiss as 'scribal errors'. The conclusion, which is
not often said, is that God inspires book that has scribal errors only to be
detected by the humans.
2) They also agree that various opportunities
occurred in Muhammad's life for him to learn about the other religions. (Only a few of these events have been mentioned
thus far.)
So,
the question is what did Muhammad(P) learn? Where did Muhammad(P) learn? Who
were the teachers of Muhammad(P)?
Do
you have any answers (of course with evidence!) for these questions? Well, do not come up with an evidence that
since person X says that Muhammad(P) borrowed from the Bible, hence it is true.
That is a circular argument. We can come up with similar 'evidences' if you do
not really mind.
4) None of these writers assert that there were
"seats" of Judaism or Christianity
located in the Hijaz. Of course there
were Christians. And, yes, there were
Jewish scholars. However, for Muhammad
to learn about these religions, as imperfectly as he did, there need not be Ivy
League seminaries available. All he
needed was to speak to people barely knowledgeable of these religions. And, this has already been partially shown,
and will be brought out more fully, inshallah.
Well,
more than half of the Qur'an (which includes the stories of the Prophets of the
past) was revealed in Makkah. Makkah was pagan and there were no seats of
either Judaism or Christianity in Makkah.
"...in
spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka'aba, there is
no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near
neighbourhood of Makkah or even of
Madina."
Richard
Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment: The Gunning
Lectures
Edinburgh University, 1925, London: Frank Cass and Company
Limited,
1968 (Reprinted), p.42.
The
Christians were in Najran. And the contact of Muhammad(P) with Jews was in
Madinah. Curiously enough, neither the contemporary Jews nor the Christians
accused Muhammad(P) of being taught by their 'scholars' (the Christian
missionary did not give the name of Jewish scholars!). And more interestingly,
not even the pagans under whom the Prophet(P) suffered in Makkah accused him of
having a Jewish or a Christian teacher.
So,
the six installments long material on SRI, which I must confess is good enough
for updating one's knowledge but does not stand the close scrutiny.
Dr.
M S M Saifullah
Subject: Re:
Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2
From:
silas778@aol.com /A (SILAS778)
Date: Sun,
15 August 1999 01:38 AM EDT
Sai wrote:
The
gist of the Christian missionary argument is given below.
{{{1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad
learned via word of mouth. No one
asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but
because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material,
it does not follow that Muhammad had substantial written material in front of
him.}}}
Sure,
their writings agree but then is that the proof that Muhammad borrowed from the
Bible through the word of mouth. What if I say that the TV works by black magic
and ten other people assert that I am correct? Does that
mean
that whatever I said is true?
Sai, you've made a mistake. That is certainly not the gist of my
argument. Please read the 6 parts
before trying to analyze the whole.
"He
that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Proverbs 18:13.
I compiled
the scholar's writings simply to show their coherence. Of course that is not a proof; it
demonstrates a strong consensus among various scholars from varied
backgrounds. The proof of Muhammad's
borrowing followed later.
------------------
As
far as the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are
already answered at: (Sai's site)
I did not
find any significant material regarding my postings there.
-----------------------
{{{2) They also agree that various opportunities
occurred in Muhammad's life for him to learn about the other religions. (Only a few of these events have been
mentioned thus far.)}}}
So,
the question is what did Muhammad learn? Where did Muhammad learn? Who were the
teachers of Muhammad?
Do
you have any answers (of course with evidence!) for these questions? Well, do not come up with an evidence that
since person X says that Muhammad borrowed from the Bible, hence it is true.
That is a circular argument. We can come up with similar 'evidences' if you do
not really mind.
The evidence
was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5. Did
you read them before you posted the question and statement above?
-------------------------
{{{4) None of these writers assert that there were
"seats" of Judaism or Christianity located in the Hijaz. Of course there were Christians. And, yes, there were Jewish scholars. However, for Muhammad to learn about these religions,
as imperfectly as he did, there need not be Ivy League seminaries available. All he needed was to speak to people barely knowledgeable of these religions. And, this has already been partially shown,
and will be brought out more fully, inshallah.}}}
Well,
more than half of the Quran (which includes the stories of the Prophets of the
past) was revealed in Makkah. Makkah was pagan and there were no seats of
either Judaism or Christianity in Makkah.
"...in
spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of
the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity
in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina."
Again let me
refer you to parts 3, 4, and 5. Mecca
was not only Pagan. There were Jews and
Christians there. In fact, after
studying the available Islamic source material on the subject, there was
certainly a Christian influence in Mecca's culture. Since you take to quoting Bell, allow me to quote Bell, (from my
Part 2):
Richard
Bell writes in "Introduction to the Quran", page 161,
"It
is the narrative portions of the Quran that its dependence upon the Bible, especially
upon the Old Testament, is most evident... the great bulk of material which
Muhammad used to illustrate and enforce his teaching was derived
form
Jewish and Christian sources, and was meant to reproduce what was contained in
the revelation given to the People of the Book"
And on page
163,
"Examination
of these parallels to Biblical narratives shows that they were not taken
directly from the Bible. It must, of
course, be remembered, that Muhammad was never simply a borrower. Material which came to him from outside sources
was always made his own, molded by reflection, and freely used for his own
purposes.... it is still clear that the material did not come to him from literary
sources.
Page
164 (comments mine)
"In
fact, the whole choice of material (borrowed religious material found in the
Quran) is such as to suggest that it came from the memories of men and was communicated
to him orally." [11]
Bell also wrote in "The Origin
of Islam in its Christian Environment", pub by
Cass, page
100:
"In the previous lecture, the
independence of Muhammad was insisted on.
That, however, had reference to the beginnings of his mission. It was not intended to deny, what is indeed
undeniable, that there was a great deal of direct influence exerted upon him by
Judaism and Christianity, and that much of the Quran is directly dependent upon
the Bible, and stories associated with the Bible."
And on page
110:
"The stories of the Virgin Mary
and the Birth of Jesus appear among them quite on the same footing as the
others. These are related, however, not
as in the New Testament, but more in the form in which they appear in Apocryphal Gospels. (They have most similarity with the
Protevangelium Jacobi, a book that we know to have been widely diffused in the
East.) [12]
Clearly, Bell states that Muhammad
borrowed, and that there were Christian and Jewish influences upon
Muhammad. The lack of "seats"
being in Mecca did not preclude his borrowing material from the members of the
respective faiths, or from those knowledgeable of those faiths.
---------------------------
The
Christians were in Najran. And the contact of Muhammad with Jews was in Madinah.
Curiously enough, neither the contemporary Jews nor the Christians accused
Muhammad of being taught by their 'scholars' (the Christian missionary
did
not give the name of Jewish scholars!). And more interestingly, not even the
pagans under whom the Prophet suffered in Makkah accused him of having a Jewish
or a Christian teacher.
There were Christians and Jews in
Mecca. Again, please read Parts 3, 4,
and 5 for the names of the various people who taught or at least
communicated with Muhammad. Regarding the Meccan's accusations of
Muhammad "borrowing", even the Quran relates:
Quran
25:5
And
they say: "Tales of the ancients,
which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and
evening."
Quran
16:103-104
"We
know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue
of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and
clear. Those who believe not in the
Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and
theirs
will be a grievous Penalty."
The Meccans knew, as is apparent to
recent scholars, that Muhammad was learning from someone else. There could have been many people Muhammad
learned from in Mecca. Perhaps the
Meccan's reference was to a pagan who knew
Christianity
and Judaism, perhaps it was a Christian slave, perhaps it was a Jewish merchant. Either way, Islamic source material states
that there were Christians and Jews in Mecca, and that Muhammad had contact
with them.
---------------------------------
So,
the six installments long material on SRI, which I must confess is good enough
for updating one's knowledge but does not stand the close scrutiny. Anyway, the Islamic argument is at...
It appears that you did not bother
to read the entire set of postings. You
obviously missed much material that would have answered the questions you asked
here. Please read it before you attempt
to scrutinize it.
The web site you posted does not address
the material in my posts. Rather, it ignores the Islamic source material that states
that Muhammad was in contact with various Christians and Jews from his childhood
on, and that he did hear them relate their religious stories.
I want to close in saying that as I
evaluate the entire set of data available from Islamic source material, i.e.
the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, that it is clear that there was a strong vein of
Christian knowledge in Mecca during Muhammad's lifetime. Muhammad could not have helped but to have
bumped into Christian teachings. With
that comes some knowledge of the OT as well. Gaining some knowledge of Christianity was unavoidable in Mecca.
SAI’S SECOND POST
Subject: Re:
Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 1
From:
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp
Date: Mon,
16 August 1999 03:41 AM EDT
silas778@aol.com
(SILAS778) writes:
If
you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what the Quran contains
is not found in previous scriptures, but in Mishnah and NT apocrypha. These are the words of man. Some of these are just myths. They were never recognized as scripture by
the Jews or Christians.
So,
essentially the argument of the Christian missionary is simply that similarity
implies borrowing. This is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT
apocrypha match with the Qur'an; the conclusion is that Muhammad(P) copied
these stories from the above mentioned books into the Bible.
Firstly, one
has to understand what is meant by a proof and an explanation. If one claims that Muhammad(P) borrowed the
Judeo-Christian literature then where is the evidence that his contemporaries
saying that he really did even once in the pre- and post-Hijrah period? Sure,
one can say that the Bible existed at that time but what is that supposed to
prove? Copying? One can also say that Japan existed at that time too but does
that automatically conclude that Muhammad(P) knew about that?
As far as
the scriptures of Jews and Christians are concerned, it is well recognized that
they had disagreements about it. As far as the Christianity is concerned, it is
not even united upon a single canon. For more information please see:
So, to claim
that some story is 'apocrypha' simply aggravates the problem for the Christian
canon.
Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well
known myths is another.
Sure, we
have also heard about the parallel stories which the Old Testament contains. We
have heard about Ugaritic sources incorporated in the Bible which show some
striking parallels such as notion of Yahweh as an aged diety, his dwelling
place and his heavenly court. Should I also point the principal parallels
between the Adapa Epic and the account of Adam in Gen. 2-3? How about the
striking parallels between the Flood narrative in Genesis and the Mesopotamian
parallels which is rather well studied? How about the parallels between code of
Hammurabi and Israelite Laws? Ever heard about
the parallels between Mithraism and Christian doctrines? May be the missionary
is too ignorant about them.
And many
Orientalists consider these stories in the Bible to be myths. May be we should
invoke the blessings of the Jesus Seminar who have basically said that much of
the New Testament is a myth built around Jesus(P).
We should
perhaps now conclude that containing parallel stories is one thing and
containing well known myths another.
5. No one
can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book.
Unique?
Sure, okay, big deal. Impressive or outstanding? No. Not at all. The Far Side was a
unique comic strip. Mein Kampf (sp?) is a unique book. So is the Gita.
Being unique does not mean it is from God.
So, one can even
apply the same logic to the Bible and say that it is not a word of God.
Dr. M S M
Saifullah
Subject: Re:
Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2
From:
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp
Date: Mon,
16 August 1999 03:41 AM EDT
silas778@aol.com
(SILAS778) writes:
Assalamu-alaikum
wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
I compiled the scholar's writings
simply to show their coherence. Of
course that is not a proof; it demonstrates a strong consensus among various
scholars from varied backgrounds. The
proof of Muhammad's borrowing followed later.
Now what is
scholars' coherence supposed to mean without proof. Did they show any proof for
such a claim?
As far as
the question of scholarly 'consensus' is concerned a good insight can be gained from
the following writings:
"Similar
arguments were put forth, and continued to be put forth, which argue that the
Jewish source from which Muhammad "borrowed" was not rabbinic Judaism
but rather some form of sectarianism, Jewish, quasi-Jewish, or otherwise.
Samaritan sources were found, and Jewish Christian, and Mandean, and Manichean.
Perhaps because no one could ever make a convincing argument for exclusively
Jewish or exclusively Christian borrowings, a particularly popular hypothetical
"influence peddling" was said to be that of the Jewish Christian
sects, Jewish groups who acknowledged Jesus as a prophet but not as a Messiah:
a fair-sized and still-growing literature exists in this connection."
Steven
M Wasserstrom, Between Muslim & Jew: The Problem Of Symbiosis Under Early
Islam, 1995, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 171-172.
By the way,
this is the recent scholarship that I am quoting not 100 years old.
As far as
the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are already
answered at: (Sai's site)
I
did not find any significant material regarding my postings there.
Well, you
did not quote significant material to back up your claim of historical
'errors'. Therefore, it is very natural to expect that you did not find
anything significant.
The
evidence was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5.
Did you read them before you posted the question and statement above?
Well, I have
read it and seen above that your claim is based on a scholarly consensus which
does not bother to give any evidence except to speculate.
Clearly,
Bell states that Muhammad borrowed, and that there were Christian and Jewish
influences upon Muhammad. The lack of
"seats" being in Mecca did not preclude his borrowing material from
the members of the respective faiths, or from those knowledgeable of those
faiths.
Sure, Jesus
Seminar guys clearly say that much of the New Testament is myth. This is based
on what is called the consensus. Do you agree with them, if not why not?
And did Bell
show any evidence that Muhammad(P) borrowed?
Quran
25:5
And
they say: "Tales of the ancients,
which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and
evening."
Quran
16:103-104
"We
know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of
him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.
Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and theirs
will be a grievous Penalty."
By the way,
what does the Islamic exegetes say about these verses? Any idea?
I
want to close in saying that as I evaluate the entire set of data available from
Islamic source material, i.e. the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, that it is clear
that there was a strong vein of Christian knowledge in Mecca during Muhammad's
lifetime. Muhammad could not have
helped but to have bumped into Christian teachings. With that comes some knowledge of the OT as well. Gaining some
knowledge of Christianity was unavoidable in Mecca.
Now my next
question is: Where does the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say that Muhammad(P)
borrowed from the Judeo-Christian sources?
Quoting
material is different from showing what you are claiming.
Dr. M S M
Saifullah
MY
NEXT TWO RESPONSES TO SAIFULLAH
Subject: Re:
Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2
From:
silas778@aol.com (SILAS778)
Date: Fri,
20 August 1999 03:08 AM EDT
Sai
previously wrote:
The
gist of the Christian missionary argument is given below.
{{{1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad
learned via word of mouth. No one
asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but
because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related
material, it does not follow that Muhammad had substantial written material in
front of him.}}}
In response,
I wrote:
{{{Sai,
you've made a mistake. That is
certainly not the gist of my argument. Please
read the 6 parts before trying to analyze the whole.
"He
that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Proverbs 18:13.}}}
Implicitly
admitting his mistake, Sai revised his summation of my argument and stated it
as:
So,
essentially the argument of the Christian missionary is simply that similarity
implies borrowing. This is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT
apocrypha match with the Quran; the conclusion is that Muhammad copied these
stories from the above mentioned books into the Bible.
Well, you're
getting warmer, but you've made another mistake and a misleading statement. Here they are:
This
is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT apocrypha match with the Quran;
the conclusion is that Muhammad copied these
stories from the above mentioned books [1] into the Bible [2]".
[1] I have not asserted that Muhammad copied from
books.
[2] Muhammad did not copy anything into the
Bible.
Normally, I don't split hairs, but
it is necessary here because of the errors that can arise from a poorly phrased
statement. Muhammad didn't use books as
his sources, he used oral stories he heard.
This is very important. Much of
the article on your site addressing the topic of Muhammad's borrowing attacks the possibility
that Muhammad used written material. Of
course this is a straw man argument, and your article does not really address
Muhammad's borrowing from the human sources that were readily available to him
both in Mecca and Medina. To the best
of my recollection, all of the scholars I quoted agreed that Muhammad learned
the borrowed material via human – oral transmission. None of them assert that Muhammad sat down and read books. Of course the Islamic sources I quoted state
that there was material, in Arabic, available for Muhammad to reference, but that is
secondary to him learning through oral transmission.
Regarding mistake # 2, perhaps you
meant to say "into the Quran"?
Sai wrote:
Firstly,
one has to understand what is meant by a proof and an explanation. If one claims that Muhammad borrowed the
Judeo-Christian literature then where is the evidence that his contemporaries
saying that he really did even once in the
pre- and post-Hijrah period?
You question
is poorly worded. It needs to be
re-written? But let me take a shot at
what I think you're asking. If I'm
correct, no need to re-write it. I think
you are asking for a proof that Muhammad's contemporaries accused him of
borrowing from the Judeo-Christian literature.
Well, the Quran contains two references I can recall off the top of my
head, that could be considered proofs.
Here they are:
Quran
25:5
And
they say: "Tales of the ancients,
which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and
evening."
Quran
16:103-104
"We
know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue
of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and
clear.
Here Muhammad's contemporaries said
that he was repeating "tales of the ancients", they were referring to
stories they had heard of before. While
his contemporaries do not state "fables of the Judeo-Christian
faiths" they certainly could be referring to stories of the
Judeo-Christian vein. In Sura 16, they
point out that Muhammad was learning from a man, probably a foreigner. Remember, Islamic source material is full of
references of Muhammad conversing with Christians and Jews.
---------------------------------------
Sai wrote:
Sure,
one can say that the Bible existed at that time but what is that supposed to
prove? Copying? One can also say that Japan existed at that time too but does
that automatically conclude that Muhammad knew about that?
The
existence of the Bible during Muhammad's time, or the Mishnah or NT Apocrypha,
doesn't prove anything of itself.
However, the existence of the Bible, OT, and NT Apocrypha, some in
Arabic, during Muhammad's time, existing in the
Hijaz, and the existence of people in the Hijaz, who knew them, and could have
taught Muhammad, lay the groundwork for Muhammad's borrowing. The Jews and Christians were in the
Hijaz. Muhammad spoke with them; he
couldn't avoid them in Mecca or Medina.
You may loath to admit it, but the sources were there and the people
were there. Muhammad's opportunity for
learning and thus repeating their material was ever present.
On the other
hand, if Muhammad began to relate stories concerning the Mayan religions, then
you might have a stronger case. But
knowledge of Christianity and Judaism was throughout the Saudi peninsula.
After
reading parts 3 and 4, can you admit that Muhammad had access to these human
sources of Christian and Jewish knowledge?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sai wrote:
As
far as the scriptures of Jews and Christians are concerned, it is well recognized
that they had disagreements about it. As far as the Christianity is concerned,
it is not even united upon a single canon.
... So, to claim that some story
is 'apocrypha' simply aggravates the problem for the Christian canon.
This is off the topic and has no
bearing whatsoever upon Muhammad's ability to borrow from the various
religions. No doubt he heard stories from
the Bible, NT Apocrypha, OT, and Mishnah.
Muhammad was generally ignorant of what he was hearing. He didn't know better; he could not discern
Apocrypha from Mishnah. He thought them
truth.
--------------------------------------------------
{{{Containing
parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known myths is another.}}}
Sure,
we have also heard about the parallel stories which the Old Testament
SNIP
We
should perhaps now conclude that containing parallel stories is one thing and
containing well known myths another.
This is my point. The material Muhammad borrowed from the
Arabic Infancy Gospel, the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew, etc. were well known
myths. The stories from the Mishnah
were well known to be the work of men.
They were not cannonized; the NT Infancy Gospels were never considered
to be inspired or revealed. They were
just stories (fables) that people made up to fill in details missing in Mary's,
Jesus', Joseph's, etc. lives.
Subject: Re:
Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2
From:
silas778@aol.com (SILAS778)
Date: Fri,
20 August 1999 03:09 AM EDT
I wrote:
{{{I
compiled the scholar's writings simply to show their coherence. Of course that is not a proof; it
demonstrates a strong consensus among various scholars from varied
backgrounds. The proof of Muhammad's
borrowing followed later.}}}
Sai wrote:
Now
what is scholars' coherence supposed to mean without proof. Did they show any
proof for such a claim?
Yes, they did. Did you miss it? For example, in Part 1, I quote D. S. Margoliouth who mentions
Jews conversing with Muhammad in Mecca.
Dashti mentions Waraqa.
Etc. So, the scholars do show
Muhammad conversing with people who were knowledgeable about Judeo-Christian
literature.
"What does the scholars'
coherence mean?" It means that men
who are considered experts in the field, men who have spent a portion of their
lives studying and analyzing the subject, have an agreement. These men are not a pack of youth, sitting
on the stoops, drinking cokes and talking football. These men had achieved a degree of proficiency in their knowledge
of Islam. I find it extraordinary that
so many men, from so many backgrounds, writing from so many personal bias', all
agree that Muhammad borrowed.
People named as "scholars"
or "experts" are supposed to know something about their field of
study. For example, an engineering
firm will not hire a high school grad and expect him to do in depth R & D
analysis of phase relationships
between rare
earths. Instead they will hire a PhD in
the physics / materials science field, someone they believe knows more than
average about the subject. Likewise,
these scholars of Islam knew quite a bit of what they were writing about. And they all agreed that Muhammad borrowed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sai wrote:
As
far as the question of scholarly 'consensus' is concerned a good insight can be
gained from the following writings:
"Similar
arguments were put forth, and continued to be put forth, which argue that the
Jewish source from which Muhammad "borrowed" was not rabbinic Judaism
but rather some form of sectarianism, Jewish, quasi-Jewish, or otherwise. Samaritan
sources were found, and Jewish Christian, and Mandean, and Manichean. Perhaps
because no one could ever make a convincing argument for exclusively Jewish or
exclusively Christian borrowings, a particularly popular hypothetical
"influence
peddling" was said to be that of the Jewish Christian sects, Jewish groups
who acknowledged Jesus as a prophet but not as a Messiah: a fair-sized and
still-growing literature exists in this connection."
Steven
M Wasserstrom, Between Muslim & Jew: The Problem Of Symbiosis Under Early
Islam, 1995, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 171-172.
By
the way, this is the recent scholarship that I am quoting not 100 years old.
I think S.M.W. makes a good
point. There were probably many
different types of groups circulating in the Hijaz. Muhammad heard stories from a variety of people. Wasserstrom notes these. Did Muhammad borrow from some of them? Of course.
I did not see Wasserstrom state that Muhammad did not borrow. All I read is Wasserstrom stating that
people are expanding the definitions of the groups that existed in the Hijaz
and who could have been in contact with Muhammad. So tell me, does S.M.W. state anything relevant to the topic?
-------------------------------
Sai
previously wrote:
As
far as the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are
already answered at: (Sai's site)
I responded
{{{I
did not find any significant material regarding my postings there.}}}
Sai then
wrote:
Well,
you did not quote significant material to back up your claim of historical
'errors'. Therefore, it is very natural to expect that you did not find
anything significant.
Let me point out another one of your
mistakes. You used the word "historical",
in reference to my post, Part 2. I
never used that word, rather, you inserted it into the text. (Shades of Ahmad Deedat!). Below is the quote from Part 2, near the end
of the post.
"1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad
learned via word of mouth. No one asserts
that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in
the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not follow that
Muhammad had substantial written material in front of him."
Again, the material at your site has
little or no relevance to the fundamental topic - i.e. Muhammad's borrowing
information he heard from oral sources.
And, frankly, I find your site somewhat deceitful. Your own Islamic source
materials are full of references that Muhammad conversed with Jews and Christians,
yet you practically omit it from your articles. Why?
Why dance around Waraqa actually
translating material into Arabic? Why
omit that Muhammad stated that the Torah the Jews had in their hand was
truth? Just fess up, tell the whole
story.
Why should a non-Muslim like myself
quote extensively from Islamic sources that show that Muhammad had all the
access he needed to people who could have taught him about Judeo-Christian
themes, while you imply that it could not be.
Your own
sources prove you and your argument wrong.
And, BTW, many of the people I
quoted from are fairly recent. Certainly
within the last 30 years. Who is Wasserstrom anyway?
----------------------------------------------------
Previously I
wrote:
{{{The
evidence was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5.
Did you read them before you posted the question and statement above?}}}
Sai then
wrote:
Well,
I have read it and seen above that your claim is based on a scholarly consensus
which does not bother to give any evidence except to speculate.
I've already addressed this. They did give
evidence. All one had to do is read it to see it. And take a second look at Geiger, or
Torrey. They provide much more evidence than Bell did.
--------------------------------------------
Sai has posted on his site and in
one of his responses to my posts, the following quote from Bell:
"...in
spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of
the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity
in the Hijaz or in the near neighborhood of Makkah or even of Madina."
Richard
Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment: The Gunning Lectures
Edinburgh University, 1925, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1968
(Reprinted), p.42.
Sai was trying to use Bell's quote
to show that Muhammad could not have borrowed from Judeo-Christian
material. Therefore, I presented a long
series of quotes from Bell, both from the above book, and another, which show:
{{{Clearly,
Bell states that Muhammad borrowed, and that there were Christian and Jewish
influences upon Muhammad. The lack of
"seats" being in Mecca did not preclude his borrowing material from
the members of the respective faiths, or from those knowledgeable of those
faiths.
Of course Sai's game with Bell is up.
He selected a choice quote from
Bell, and tried to use it, while ignoring where Bell really stood.
So Sai implicitly admits his mistake
and takes a different tack. He asks:
And
did Bell show any evidence that Muhammad borrowed?
Yes, he did. Did you miss it in my quote?
----------------------------------------
The
Quran:
Quran
25:5
And
they say: "Tales of the ancients,
which he has caused to be written: and
they
are dictated before him morning and evening."
Quran
16:103-104
"We
know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue
of him
they
wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.
Those
who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and
theirs
will be a grievous Penalty."
Sai then
asked:
By
the way, what does the Islamic exegetes say about these verses? Any idea?
I have a very limited knowledge of
various Tafsir. Is that what you are referring
to? I do know that Zamakshari
essentially states the same thing that Margoliouth states. You'll find D.S.M.'s quotes in Part 2.
-----------------------------------------
Sai's
presents his final question:
Now
my next question is: Where does the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say that Muhammad
borrowed from the Judeo-Christian sources?
Quoting
material is different from showing what you are claiming.
Well, already I've shown that the
Quran states that people recognized what Muhammad was speaking as the
Quran. If I were to hear someone
re-tell the Wizard of Oz, and claim it was original, I'd say that it was not,
and that I heard it before. The story
teller may insist it was original, but I know the story, and can access the
book which contains the story. This is
about what the Meccans told Muhammad.
Further, the Hadith plainly states that Muhammad heard the Jews relate,
even read from, the Torah. Finally,
even the Sira records a dialog between Muhammad and the Jews:
Rafi Haritha
and Sallam Mishkam and Malik al-Sayf and Rafi Huraymila came to him (Muhammad) and
said: "Do you not allege that you
follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and
testify that it is the truth from God?"
He replied, "Certainly, ..."
Do the sources state that Muhammad
admitted that he borrowed? Of course
not. That would destroy his
credibility. Joseph Smith, and other
like him would not admit their borrowings either. The Book of Mormon contains entire sections, copied from
Isaiah, word for word in King James English, but the Mormons do not admit
borrowing. Likewise many stories in the
Quran, as I presented in Part 5 contain entire stories, copied from various
sources, through oral transmission. I would not expect Muhammad, or say, members
of the Taliban, to admit to borrowing.
Because Muhammad did not admit to
borrowing does not mean he didn't. Criminals
in court deny doing the crime, even when they are shown on video tape. The lack of admittance doesn't change the
fact that the stories are far too similar to be coincidental. It doesn't hide the fact that well known myths,
"fables of the ancients", were incorporated into the Quran.
I've graded a number of student
papers. Frequently, students in the
same class ace certain take home tests.
I can compare their papers and see if they copied from each other. If the equations are set up exactly the same
for a fair number of complex problems, I would be suspicious. If they were each to claim divine
inspiriation, I would be amused.
Likewise, the stories Muhammad told were copied from elsewhere. The stories were all to human to begin with.
These stories did not exist on some divine tablet, but rather in previous men's imaginations.
Muhammad heard them, and used them.
Similarity
does not mean borrowing. But when the
details are the same, when the sources are known and are known to be man made,
and when the repeater, who was exposed to the very material, many times, in many
places, makes the claim of divine originality, then we must say that he is
fraudulent and that he borrowed.
Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page