Overview

Manuscripts

Christianity

New Testament written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., & before the fire of Rome, because these events and the martyrdoms of James (62 A.D.), Paul (64 A.D.) & Peter (65 A.D.), all pivotal Christian events, are not mentioned.

New Testament manuscripts

• 5,300 Greek

• 10,000 Latin Vulgate

• 9,300other early versions

• + 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today!

Magdalene Manuscript

(Dr.Thiede)=50-68A.D.

(KE=Kurios=Lord) oldest of 98 Papyrus

=15,000 translations: Latin, Syriac, Coptic Armenian, Gothic, Nubian, Georgian, Ethiopic

=2,135 Lectionaries from 6th century

=32,000 quotes from Early Church Fathers’ letters; all N. Test. except for 11 verses (-325A.D.) Uthmanic recension. not Topkapi / Sammarkand

Islam

1. Ma’il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.

2. Mashq 7th century onwards.

3. Kufic 8th-11th century.

4. Naskh 11th century till today.

Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings, Safadi all date Topkapi / Sammarkand to 9th century.

Quraish = Mecca, Kufa = 636 A.D. = Persia.

Ma’il Qur’an in British Library, Lings=790 A.D.

Conclusion: no Uthmanic recension, Qur’an= 1,200 years old, 150 year gap!!!

Documentary Evidence

Christianity

Moses didn’t write?, yet Black Stele found = laws of Hammurabi 300 yrs. before Moses.

Daniel not 2nd but 6th BC, East India. Inscription=Dan.4:30=Nebuchadnezzar building.

Dead Sea Scrolls 100 BC = Massoretic MS=916 A.D.

Armana tablets (Egypt) Habiru=Hebrew, first given to Abraham (Gen.14:13)

Ebla tablets (Syria) 17,000=Tell Mardikh 2300 BC=Deuteronomy law code, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, Zoar=Gen. 14:8

Mari tablets (Euphrates) Arriyuk=Arioch=Gen.14 Nahor, Harran=Gen.24:10, Benjamin

Nuzi tablets (Iraq) speaks of 6 Patriarchal customsJewssplit with Muh. 624 A.D. (S.2:144-150) – Doctrina Iacobi, 642A.D. Jews/Saracens allied.

Islam

Armenian Chronicler 660 A.D.= Jews & Ishmaelites together up to 640 A.D.

Mecca (S.3:96)=1st sanctuary, Adam=Kaaba 1st city, Abraham/Ishmael, Trade – no ancient reference till 724A.D. (“Makoraba” 1st?)

Sources Periplus (50A.D.), Pliny (79A.D.) vs. Cosmas, Procopius, Theodoretus

no overland trade post – 1st cent=maritime=Red Sea

no trade post-3rd cent, then Ethiopians (Adulis)

Mecca a valley, no water, unlike Taif 50 miles away

cheaper 1,250 miles by ship than 50 miles by camel

Archaeological Accuracy

Christianity

Abraham on Babylonian inscription

Field of Abram in Hebron = 918 BC by Shishak of Egypt, on walls of Karnak temple

Doors of Sodom 2200-1600 BC = heavy = Gen.19:9, 900-600BC = arch/curtains (security)

Beni Hasan Tomb Asiatics went to Egypt/famine

Joseph’s price (20 shekels) Gen.37:28=1,700 BC, earlier cheaper, later more

Joseph’s Tomb Josh.24:32 = in Shechem found mummy with Egyptian sword!

Jericho’s walls fell outwards = Joshua 6:20

David’s Water shafts found (II Sam.5:6-8; I Chron.11:6)Qibla (S.2:144-150) Jeru -> Mecca 624A.D.

Islam

Wasit, Baghdad & Kufa = West, Al As = East

Syrian Caliphal Palaces = Jerusalem

Jacob of Edessa 705 A.D. to Jerusalem

Dome of the Rock: by Abd al-Malik 691A.D., Mi’raj?

Inscriptions polemical & not = Qur’an!

Variant verbal forms, & extensive deviances

No Qibla, octagonal thus 1st sanctuary?

Nevo’s Inscriptions Arabic, religious after 661A.D., no Muh. formula until 690A.D.

then Tawhid, Muhammad rasul Allah, Jesus=man

on Protocols suddenly & only, until 724A.D.

Note: Compared to the Biblical archaeological evidence, there is no archaeological evidence for Adam, Abraham, or Ishmael in Arabia!

Luke’s Accuracy

Erastus = Corinth treasurer (Rom. 16:23), pavement found in 1929 with this name.

Meris = Philippia “district” of Macedonia doubted until inscriptions use it for district.

Politarchs = civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) 19 inscriptions use it, 5 in Thesselonica

Praetor = Philippian ruler instead of Duumuir, Romans used Praetor earlier.

Proconsul = title for Gallio (Acts 18:12) – corroborated by Delphi Inscription (52 A.D.) Gallio held this position for 1yr.

Quirinius = governor of Syria at Jesus’ birth = an inscription from Antioch.

---

• Next Part >

References Cited

Bonwetsch, N. (ed.), “Doctrina Iacobi nuper baptizati,” in Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, N.s., vol. xii, Berlin, 1910

Brock, S.P., “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam,” Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society,edited by G.H.A. Juynboll, Carbondale, So.Ill.Univ.Press, 1982

Bulliet, R.W., The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge, Mass., 1975

Cook, Michael, Muhammad, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983

Creswell, K.A.C., Early Muslim Architecture, vol.i, part one, Oxford, 1969

id. A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, (Revised by James W. Allan), Aldershot,Scolar Press, 1989

Crone, Patricia & Cook, Michael, Hagarism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977 Crone, Patricia, Slaves on Horses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980

id, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987

De Goeje, M. & P.de Jong (eds.), Fragmenta Historicorum Arabicorum, vol.i, Leyden, 1869

Elson, John, “Eyewitnesses Jesus?“, Time, April 8, 1996, pg.60

Fehervari, G., Development of the Mihrab down to the XIVth Century, London Ph.D. 1961 Feinburg, C.L., The New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Glubb, John, The Life and Times of Muhammad, New York, Stein and Day, 1971

Groom, N., Frankincense and Myrrh, a Study of the Arabian Incense Trade, London, 1981 Humphreys, R.S., Islamic History, a framework for Enquiry, Princeton, 1991

Jeffrey, A. (tr.), ‘Ghevond’s (Levond’s) text of the Correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III’, The Harvard Theological Review, 1944

Kister, M.J., Mecca and Tamim, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 8 (1965), 117-163

Lemonick, Michael D., “Are the Bible Stories True?“, Time, December 18, 1995, pgs. 50-58

Lings, M., & Safadi, Y.H., The Qur’an, (A catalogue of an exhibition of Qur’an manuscripts at the British Library, 3 April-15 August 1976), British Library, World of Islam Pub. Co., 1976 al-Maqrizi, Ahmad b. ‘Ali, Kitab al-mawa’iz wa’l-i’tibar, Cairo, 1326

McDowell, Josh, Christianity; A Ready Defence, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1991 id, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vols.I & II, Harpendon, Scripture Press Foundation, 1990 Muller, W.W., “Weibrauch…,” off-print: Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie, Supplement and 15, Munich, 1978

Nau, F., ‘Un colloque du Patriarche Jean avec l’emir des Agareens,’ Journal asiatique, 1915

Nevo, Yehuda D., “Towards a Prehistory of Islam,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol.17, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1994

Ostling, Richard N., “A Step Closer to Jesus”, Time, Jan.23, 1995, pg.57

Patkanean K.R. (ed.), Patmout’iun Sebeosi Episkoposi i Herakln, St. Petersburg, 1879

Pfander, C.G., The Mizanu’l Haqq ( Balance of Truth’), London, The Religious Tract Society, 1910 (& 1835)

Rippin, Andrew, “Literary Analysis of Qur’an, Tafsir, and Sira, the Methodologies of John Wansbrough”, Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Richard C. Martin (ed.), Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1985

id, Muslims, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, vol. 1, London, Routledge, 1990

Schacht, Joseph, “A Revaluation of Islamic Traditions,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain, Hertford, Stephen Austin, 1949

Schimmel, Annemarie, Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, New York, New York University Press, 1984

Sebeos, Bishop, Histoire d’Heraclius, tr. F. Macler, Paris, 1904

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, A Christian Arab’s View of Islam, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988

Sprenger, A., Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, 2nd ed., Vol. 3, Berlin, 1869

Van Berchem, M., Materiaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, part two, vol.ii, Cairo, 1927

Van Ess, J., Fruhe Mu’tazilitische Haresiographie, Beirut, 1971

Wansbrough, J., Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977

id, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

Conclusion

Now that we have carried out a cursory study of the historicity for both the Qur’an and the Bible, it is important that we make some conclusions. What can we say concerning the veracity of these two scriptures in light of the evidence produced by the manuscript, document and archeological data at our disposal?

Starting with the Qur’an, it is reasonable to conclude that these findings indeed give us reason for pause concerning its reliability. Manuscript, as well as documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that much of what the Qur’an maintains does not coincide with the historical data at our disposal which comes from that period. From the material amassed from external sources in the 7th-8th centuries, we now know:

1. that the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640 A.D.;

2. that Jerusalem and not Mecca was more-than-likely the city which contained the original sanctuary for Islam, as Mecca was not only unknown as a viable city until the end of the seventh century, but it was not even on the international trade route;

3. that the Qibla (direction of prayer) was not fixed towards Mecca until the eighth century, but to an area much further north, possibly Jerusalem;

4. that the Dome of the Rock situated in Jerusalem was possibly the original sanctuary;

5. that Muhammad was not known as the seal of prophets until the late seventh century;

6. that the earliest we even hear of any Qur’an is not until the mid-eighth century;

7. and that the earliest Qur’anic writings do not coincide with the current Qur’anic text. All of this data contradicts the Qur’an which is in our possession, and adds to the suspicion that the Qur’an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was supposedly collated and canonized in 650 A.D. under Uthman, as Muslims contend (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur’anic text. Consequently, the sole thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D. onwards) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written not 16 years after Muhammad’s death but 160 years later, and thus not 1,400 years ago, but only 1,200 years ago.

---

As for the Bible, with the abundance of existing manuscripts (handwritten copies) of the New Testament (more than 24,000), we know little has been lost through the transmission of the text. In fact there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press! This is indeed surprising, considering the early period in which the manuscripts were compiled, as well as the flimsy material on which they were written. The fact that we have such an abundance of manuscripts still in our possession points to the importance the scriptures have held for the church over the centuries. As far as we can know, the names, places, and events mentioned in the Bible have been recorded accurately so that what we have is the representation of what God said and did. Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed.

Even the Qur’an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures 1. We also know that, outside of the few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).

Therefore, the testimony of the historical evidence is that the Bible and not the Qur’an can be trusted as an accurate and reliable historical document. While we continue to unearth data which substantiates the Bible’s accuracy, we likewise unearth further data which erradicates the validity for the Qur’anic account. If a scripture claims to be a revelation from God, it must prove its claim by establishing its historical credentials, to the extent that even a third party can agree upon the evidence provided. This the Bible and not the Qur’an does adequately.

We must also know that the Bible is unique? Consider: Here is a book written over a 1,500 year span (about 40 generations), by more than 40 authors, among whose number were found: kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, a herdsman, a general, a cupbearer, a doctor, a tax collector, and a rabbi. It was written on three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics, yet from Genesis right on through to Revelation the authors all spoke with harmony and continuity on the theme of the unfolding story of “God’s redemption of humanity.”

If God truly created the world for His pleasure, He would have created it to work to a pattern. This pattern we would expect to find revealed in His Word; as indeed we do, not only in the life of Jesus, the incarnate Word, who came and dwelt among us, but in the truth of the Gospel which was found in His teaching and later written down by His apostles. It is therefore not surprising that many cultures and governments even today continue to follow its precepts, laws and institutions, even though they do not necessarily adhere to its authorship.

It should not surprise us then that the Bible continues to be the source of God’s revelation to His creation, for families and communities around the world, and that, according to the latest statistics, the Bible and not the Qu’ran is uncontested as the most popular book ever written. The statistics prove that it is read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in the history of humanity, so that even now “one copy of the Bible is published every three seconds day and night; or 22 copies every minute day and night; or 1,369 copies every hour day and night; and 32,876 copies every day in the year, and so on…”.

It is logical, then, that Christianity, because it holds the repository of Biblical principles and thinking, is the fastest conversion-growing religion in the world today. What better testimony could one ask to demonstrate the Bible’s claim to be the truly revealed and inspired Word of God.

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52,68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46[]

The Bible’s Archaeological Evidence

(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David):

What has become evident over the last few decades is that unlike the difficulties found with the Qur’anic evidence, the most fruitful area for a confirmation of the Bible’s reliability has come from the field of archaeology, for it is here that the past can speak to us the clearest concerning what happened then.

Because Abraham is honoured by both Christianity and Islam it is interesting to look at the archaeological evidence concerning his time which is now coming to light in the twentieth century. What we find is that archaeology clearly places Abraham in Palestine and not in Arabia.

1. Abraham’s name appears in Babylonia as a personal name at the very period of the patriarchs, though the critics believed he was a fictitious character who was redacted back by the later Israelites.

2. The field of Abram in Hebron is mentioned in 918 B.C., by the Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt (now also believed to be Ramases II). He had just finished warring in Palestine and inscribed on the walls of his temple at Karnak the name of the great patriarch, proving that even at this early date Abraham was known not in Arabia, as Muslims contend, but in Palestine, the land the Bible places him.

3. The Beni Hasan Tomb from the Abrahamic period, depicts Asiatics coming to Egypt during a famine, corresponding with the Biblical account of the plight of the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’.

There is further archaeology evidence which supports other Biblical accounts, such as:

1. The doors of Sodom (Tell Beit Mirsim) dated to between 2200-1600 B.C. are heavy doors needed for security; the same doors which we find in Genesis 19:9. Yet, if this account had been written between 900-600 B.C., as the critics previously claimed, we would have read about arches and curtains, because security was no longer such a concern then.

2. Joseph’s price as a slave was 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28), which, according to trade tablets from that period is the correct price for 1,700 B.C. An earlier account would have been cheaper, while a later account would have been more expensive.

3. Joseph’s Tomb (Joshua 24:32) has possibly been found in Shechem,as in the find there is a mummy, and next to the mummy sits an Egyptian officials sword! Is this mere coincidence?

4. Jericho’s excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

5. David’s capture of Jerusalem recounted in II Samuel 5:6-8 and I Chronicles 11:6 speak of Joab using water shafts built by the Jebusites to surprise them and defeat them. Historians had assumed these were simply legendary, until archaeological excavations by R.A.S. Macalister, J.G.Duncan, and Kathleen Kenyon on Ophel now have found these very water shafts.

Another new and exciting archaeological research is that which has been carried out by the British Egyptologist, David Rohl. Until a few years ago we only had archaeological evidence for the Patriarchal, Davidic and New Testament periods, but little to none for the Mosaic period. Yet one would expect much data on this period due to the cataclysmic events which occurred during that time. David Rohl (in A Test of Time) has given us a possible reason why, and it is rather simple. It seems that we have simply been off in our dates by almost 300 years! By redating the Pharonic lists in Egypt he has been able to now identify the abandoned city of the Israelite slaves (called Avaris), the death pits from the tenth plague, and Joseph’s original tomb and home. There remain many ‘tells’ yet to uncover.

Moving into the New Testament material we are dependant on archaeology once again to corroborate a number of facts which the critics considered to be at best dubious and at worst in error.

1. Paul’s reference to Erastus as the treasurer of Corinth (Romans 16:23) was thought to be erroneous, but now has been confirmed by a pavement found in 1929 bearing his name.

It is to Luke, however, that the skeptics have reserved their harshest criticisms, because he more than any other of the first century writers spoke about specific peoples and places. Yet, surprisingly, once the dust had settled on new inscription findings, it is Luke who has confounded these same critics time and again. For instance:

1. Luke’s use of the word Meris to maintain that Philippi was a “district” of Macedonia was doubted until inscriptions were found which use this very word to describe divisions of a district.

2. Luke’s mention of Quirinius as the governor of Syria during the birth of Jesus has now been proven accurate by an inscription from Antioch.

3. Luke’s usage of Politarchs to denote the civil authority of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6) was questioned, until some 19 inscriptions have been found that make use of this title, 5 of which are in reference to Thessalonica.

4. Luke’s usage of Praetor to describe a Philippian ruler instead of duumuir has been proven accurate, as the Romans used this term for magistrates of their colonies.

5. Luke’s usage of Proconsul as the title for Gallio in Acts 18:12 has come under much criticism by secular historians, as the later traveller and writer Pliny never referred to Gallio as a Proconsul. This fact alone, they said, proved that the writer of Acts wrote his account much later as he was not aware of Gallio’s true position. It was only recently that the Delphi Inscription , dated to 52 A.D. was uncovered. This inscription states, “As Lusius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the proconsul of Achaia…” Here then was secular corroboration for the Acts 18:12 account. Yet Gallio only held this position for one year. Thus the writer of Acts had to have written this verse in or around 52 A.D., and not later, otherwise he would not have known Gallio was a proconsul. Suddenly this supposed error not only gives credibility to the historicity of the Acts account, but also dates the writings in and around 52 A.D. Had the writer written the book of Acts in the 2nd century as many liberal scholars suggest he would have agreed with Pliny and both would have been contradicted by the eyewitness account of the Delphi Inscription.

It is because of discoveries such as this that F.F.Bruce states, “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”

In light of archaeological evidence, books such as Luke and Acts reflect the topography and conditions of the second half of the first century A.D. and do not reflect the conditions of any later date. Thus it is because Luke, as a historian has been held to a higher accountability then the other writers, and because it has been historical data which has validated his accounts, we can rest assured that the New Testament can be held in high regard as a reliable historical document.

We have no reason to fear archaeology. In fact it is this very science which has done more to authenticate our scriptures than any other. Thus we encourage the secular archaeologists to dig, for as they dig we know they will only come closer to that which our scriptures have long considered to be the truth, and give us reason to claim that indeed our Bible has the right to claim true authority as the only historically verified Word of God. This is why so many eminent archaeologists are standing resolutely behind the Biblical accounts. Listen to what they say (taken from McDowell’s Evidences 1972:65-67):

G.E. Wright states,”We shall probably never prove that Abram really existed…but what we can prove is that his life and times, as reflected in the stories about him, fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period.”

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, “The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting.”

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, “The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”

Millar Burrows of Yale states, “On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.”

Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, “To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement.”

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

The Qur’an’s Archaeological Evidence

[III] THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

If we are to take the Qur’anic and Biblical records seriously, we will need to inquire further as to whether there are other sources which we can turn to for a corroboration of their accounts. Since we are dealing with scriptures which often speak of history, probably the best and easiest way to confirm that history is to go to the areas where the history took place because history never takes place in a vacuum. It always leaves behind its forgotten fingerprints, waiting dormant in the ground to be discovered, dug up and deciphered. It is therefore, important that we also get our digets dirty and take a look at the treasures which our archaeologist friends are discovering, to ascertain if they have been able to reward us with any clues as to the authenticity of both the Qur’anic and Biblical accounts. Let’s see what archaeology tells us concerning the Qur’an.

[A] THE QUR’AN’S ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:

As with the manuscript and documentary evidence, there is not much archaeological data to which we can turn for corroboration of the Qur’an. What we can do, however, is look at the claims the Qur’an makes and ascertain whether they can be backed up by archaeology. Let’s start with the Qibla, or direction of prayer.

(1) The Qibla:

According to the Qur’an, the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. 1.

Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca, in fact somewhere in north-west Arabia 2. Consider the archaeological evidence which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the seventh century:

According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit(noted by Creswell as, “the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us” – Creswell 1989:41), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north 3. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees 4.

This agrees with Baladhuri’s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. 5, also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south 6.

The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik 7. Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south 8.

If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?

We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveller Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 A.D. was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the Mahgraye’ (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka’ba 9. His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 A.D. the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.

Note: The mention of a Ka’ba does not necessarily infer Mecca (as so many Muslims have been quick to point out), since there were other Ka’bas in existence during that time, usually in market-towns 10. It was profitable to build a Ka’ba in these market towns so that the people coming to market could also do their pilgrimage or penitence to the idols contained within. The Ka’ba Jacob of Edessa was referring to was situated at “the patriarchal places of their races,” which he also maintains was not in the south. Both the Jews and Arabs ( Mahgraye’) maintained a common descent from Abraham who was known to have lived and died in Palestine, as has been corroborated by recent archaeological discoveries 11. This common descent from Abraham is also corroborated by the Armenian Chronicler, Sebeos, as early as 660 A.D. 12.

According to Dr. Hawting, who teaches on the sources of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, a part of the University of London), new archaeological discoveries of mosques in Egypt from the early 700s also show that up till that time the Muslims (or Haggarenes) were indeed praying, not towards Mecca, but towards the north, and possibly Jerusalem. In fact, Dr. Hawting maintains, no mosques have been found from this period (the seventh century) which face towards Mecca (noted from his class lectures in 1995). Hawting cautions, however, that not all of the Qiblas face towards Jerusalem. Some Jordanian mosques have been uncovered which face north, while there are certain North African mosques which face south, implying that there was some confusion as to where the early sanctuary was placed. Yet, the Qur’an tells us (in sura 2) that the direction of the Qibla was fixed towards Mecca by approximately two years after the Hijra, or around 624 A.D., and has remained in that direction until the present!

Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary [and thus direction of prayer] not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century 13.

What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur’an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?

Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca. Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! Their livelihood was dependant on travelling the desert, which has few landmarks, and, because of the sandstorms, no roads. They, above all, knew how to follow the stars. Their lives depended on it. Certainly they knew the difference between the north and the south.

Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built in civilized urban areas, amongst a sophisticated people who were well adept at finding directions. It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which we are told was also canonized at this time? And why are so many of the mosques facing in the direction of northern Arabia, or possibly Jerusalem? A possible answer may be found by looking at archaeology once again; this time in Jerusalem itself.

(2) The Dome of the Rock:

In the centre of Jerusalem sits an imposing structure (even today) called the Dome of the Rock, built by Abd al-Malik in 691 A.D. One will note, however, that the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, as it has no Qibla (no direction for prayer). It is built as an octagon with eight pillars 14, suggesting it was used for circumambulation (to walk around). Thus, it seems to have been built as a sanctuary (Glasse 1991:102). Today it is considered to be the third most holy site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. Muslims contend that it was built to commemorate the night when Muhammad went up to heaven to speak with Moses and Allah concerning the number of prayers required of the believers (known as the Mi’raj in Arabic) 15.

Yet, according to the research carried out on the inscriptions on the walls of the building by Van Berchem and Nevo, they say nothing of the Mi’raj, but state mere polemical quotations which are Qur’anic, though they are aimed primarily at Christians. The inscriptions attest the messianic status of Jesus, the acceptance of the prophets, Muhammad’s receipt of revelation, and the use of the terms “islam” and “muslim” 16. Why, if the Dome of the Rock were built to commemorate that momentous event, does it saying nothing about it? Perhaps this building was built for other purposes than that of commemorating the Mi’raj. The fact that such an imposing structure was built so early suggests that this and not Mecca became the sanctuary and the centre of a nascent Islam up until at least the late seventh century, 17!

From what we read earlier of Muhammad’s intention to fulfill his and the Hagarene’s birthright, by taking back the land of Abraham, or Palestine, it makes sense that the caliph Abd al-Malik would build this structure as the centre-piece of that fulfilment. Is it no wonder then, that when Abd al-Malik built the dome in which he proclaimed the prophetic mission of Muhammad, he placed it over the temple rock itself 18.

According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note: not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad’s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ‘Kitab al-‘uyun wa’l-hada’iq,’ edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 1869:4). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur’an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier 19.

And that is not all, for we have other archaeological and inscripted evidence which point up differences with that which we read in the Qur’an. Let’s look at the reliability of Muhammad’s prophethood, using the data at our disposal.

(3) Nevo’s Rock inscriptions:

In order to know who Muhammad was, and what he did, we must go back to the time when he lived, and look at the evidence which existed then, and still exists, to see what it can tell us about this very important figure. Dr. Wansbrough, who has done so much research on the early traditions and the Qur’an believes that, because the Islamic sources are all very late, from 150 years for the Sira-Maghazi documents, as well as the earliest Qur’an, it behoves us not to consider them authoritative 20. It is when we look at the non-Muslim sources that we find some rather interesting observances as to who this man Muhammad was.

The best non-Muslim sources on this period which we have are those provided by the Arabic rock inscriptions scattered all over the Syro-Jordanian deserts and the Peninsula, and especially the Negev desert 21. The man who has done the greatest research on these rock inscriptions is the late Yehuda Nevo, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is to his research, which is titled Towards a Prehistory of Islam, published in 1994, that I will refer.

Nevo has found in the Arab religious texts, dating from the first century and a half of Arab rule (seventh to eighth century A.D.), a monotheistic creed. However, he contends that this creed “is demonstrably not Islam, but [a creed] from which Islam could have developed.” 22

Nevo also found that “in all the Arab religious institutions during the Sufyani period [661-684 A.D.] there is a complete absence of any reference to Muhammad.” 23 In fact neither the name Muhammad itself nor any Muhammadan formulae (that he is the prophet of God) appears in any inscription dated before the year 691 A.D.. This is true whether the main purpose of the inscription is religious, such as in supplications, or whether it was used as a commemorative inscription, though including a religious emphasis, such as the inscription at the dam near the town of Ta’if, built by the Caliph Mu’awiya in the 660s A.D. 24.

The fact that Muhammad’s name is absent on all of the early inscriptions, especially the religious ones is significant. Many of the later traditions (i.e. the Sira and the Hadith, which are the earliest Muslim literature that we possess) are made up almost entirely of narratives on the prophet’s life. He is the example which all Muslims are to follow. Why then do we not find this same emphasis in these much earlier Arabic inscriptions which are closer to the time he lived? Even more troubling, why is there no mention of him at all? His name is only found on the Arab inscriptions after 690 A.D. 25.

And what’s more, the first dated occurrence of the phrase Muhammad rasul Allah (Muhammad is the prophet of God) is found on an Arab-Sassanian coin of Xalid b. Abdallah from the year 690 A.D., which was struck in Damascus 26.

Of greater significance, the first occurrence of what Nevo calls the “Triple Confession of Faith,” including the Tawhid (that God is one), the phrase, Muhammad rasul Allah (that Muhammad is his prophet), and the human nature of Jesus (rasul Allah wa- abduhu), is found in Abd al-Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, dated 691 A.D. 27! Before this inscription the Muslim confession of faith cannot be attested at all.

As a rule, after 691 A.D. and on through the Marwanid dynasty (until 750 A.D.), Muhammad’s name usually occurs whenever religious formulae are used, such as on coins, milestones, and papyrus “protocols” 28. One could probably argue that perhaps these late dates are due to the fact that any religious notions took time to penetrate the Arabic inscriptions. Yet, according to Nevo, the first Arabic papyrus, an Egyptian entaqion, which was a receipt for taxes paid, dated 642 A.D. and written in both Greek and Arabic is headed by the “Basmala,” yet it is neither Christian nor Muslim in character 29.

The religious content within the rock inscriptions do not become pronounced until after 661 A.D. However, though they bear religious texts, they never mention the prophet or the Muhammadan formulae 30. “This means,” Nevo says, “that the official Arab religious confession did not include Muhammad or Muhammadan formulae in its repertoire of set phrases at this time,” a full 30-60 years and more after the death of Muhammad 31. What they did contain was a monotheistic form of belief, belonging to a certain body of sectarian literature with developed Judaeo-Christian conceptions in a particular literary style, but one which contained no features specific to any known monotheistic religion 32.

Of even greater significance, these inscriptions show that when the Muhammadan formulae is introduced, during the Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), it is carried out “almost overnight” 33.

Yet even after the Muhammadan texts became official, they were not accepted by the public quite so promptly. For years after their appearance in state declarations, people continued to include non-Muhammadan legends in personal inscriptions, as well as routine chancery writings 34. Thus, for instance, Nevo has found a certain scribe who does not use the Muhammadan formulae in his Arabic and Greek correspondence, though he does on papyrus “protocols” bearing his name and title 35.

In fact, according to Nevo, Muhammadan formulae only began to be used in the popular rock inscriptions of the central Negev around 30 years (or one generation) after its introduction by Abd al-Malik, sometime during the reign of Caliph Hisham (between 724-743 A.D.). And even these, according to Nevo, though they are Muhammadan, are not Muslim. The Muslim texts, he believes, only begin to appear at the beginning of the ninth century (around 822 A.D.), coinciding with the first written Qur’ans, as well as the first written traditional Muslim accounts 36.

Thus, it seems from these inscriptions that it was during the later Marwanid period (after 684 A.D.), and not during the life of Muhammad that he was elevated to the position of a universal prophet, and that even then, the Muhammadan formula which was introduced was still not equivalent with that which we have today.

(4) The Qur’an:

We now come to the Qur’an itself. It seems evident that the Qur’an underwent a transformation during the 100 years following the prophet’s death. We have now uncovered coins with supposed Qur’anic writings on them which date from 685 A.D., coined during the reign of Abd al-Malik 37. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock sanctuary built by Abd al-Malik in Jerusalem in 691 A.D. “does attest to the existence, at the end of the seventh century, of materials immediately recognizable as Koranic.” 38 Yet, the quotations from the Qur’an on both the coins and the Dome of the Rock differ in details from that which we find in the Qur’an today 39. Van Berchem and Grohmann, two etymologists who have done extensive research on the Dome of the Rock inscriptions, maintain that the inscriptions contain “variant verbal forms, extensive deviances, as well as omissions from the text which we have today.” 40.

If these inscriptions had been derived from the Qur’an, with the variants which they contain, then how could the Qur’an have been canonized prior to this time (late seventh century)? One can only conclude that there must have been an evolution in the transmission of the Qur’an through the years (if indeed they were originally taken from the Qur’an).

The sources also seem to suggest that the Qur’an was put together rather hurriedly. This is underlined by Dr. John Wansbrough who maintains that, “the book is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of the belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.” 41 Thus Crone and Cook believe that because of the imperfection of the editing, the emergence of the Qur’an must have been a sudden and late event 42.

As to when that event took place we are not altogether sure, but we can make an educated guess. From the earlier discussion concerning the dating of the earliest manuscripts we can conclude that there was no Qur’anic documentation in existence in the mid-late seventh century. The earliest reference from outside Islamic literary traditions to the book called the “Qur’an” occurs in the mid-eighth century between an Arab and a monk of Bet Hale 43, but no-one knows whether it may have differed considerably in content from the Qur’an which we have today. Both Crone and Cook conclude that except for this small reference there is no indication of the existence of the Qur’an before the end of the seventh century 44.

Crone and Cook in their research go on to maintain that it was under the governor Hajjaj of Iraq in 705 A.D. that we have a logical historical context in which the “Qur’an” (or a nascent body of literature which would later become the Qur’an) could have been compiled as Muhammad’s scripture 45. In an account attributed to Leo by Levond, the governor Hajjaj is shown to have collected all the old Hagarene writings and replaced them with others “according to his own taste, and disseminated them everywhere among [his] nation.” 46 A reasonable conclusion is that it was during this period that the Qur’an began its evolution, possibly beginning to be written down, until it was finally canonized in the mid to late eighth century as the Qur’an which we now know.

From this brief survey we can conclude that the archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Qur’an proves to be the most damaging. Not only do the seventh and eighth century ruins and inscriptions from the area seem to contradict the notion that Muhammad canonized a direction of prayer during his lifetime, or that he had formulated a scripture known as the Qur’an, but the idea of his universal prophethood, that he was the final “seal” of all prophets is brought into question. This indeed is significant and troublesome.

The question we must now pose is whether there is any archaeological evidence to corroborate the authenticity for the Bible? Do the same problems exist with the Bible that we find with the Qur’an?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. see Sura 2:144, 149-150[]

2. Crone-Cook 1977:23[]

3. Creswell 1969:137ff & 1989:40; Fehervari 1961:89; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173[]

4. Creswell 1969:137ff; Fehervari 1961:89[]

5. Creswell 1989:41[]

6. al-Baladhuri’s Futuh, ed. by de Goeje 1866:276; Crone 1980:12; Crone-Cook 1977:23,173[]

7. Creswell 1969:37,150[]

8. al-Maqrizi 1326:6; Crone-Cook 1977:24,173[]

9. Crone-Cook 1977:24[]

10. Crone-Cook 1977:25,175[]

11. see the earlier discussion on the Ebla, Mari and Nuzi tablets, as well as extra-Biblical 10th century references to Abraham in McDowell 1991:98-104[]

12. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:8; Cook 1983:75[]

13. Crone-Cook 1977:24[]

14. Nevo 1994:113[]

15. Glasse 1991:102[]

16. Van Berchem 1927:nos.215,217; Nevo 1994:113[]

17. Van Bercham 1927:217[]

18. Van Berchem 1927:217[]

19. see Sura 2:144-150[]

20. Wansbrough 1977:160-163; Rippin 1985:154-155[]

21. Nevo 1994:109[]

22. Nevo 1994:109[]

23. Nevo 1994:109[]

24. Nevo 1994:109[]

25. Nevo 1994:109-110[]

26. Nevo 1994:110[]

27. Nevo 1994:110[]

28. Nevo 1994:110[]

29. Nevo 1994:110[]

30. Nevo 1994:110[]

31. Nevo 1994:110[]

32. Nevo 1994:110,112[]

33. Nevo 1994:110). Suddenly it became the state’s only form of official religious declaration, and was used exclusively in formal documents and inscriptions, such as the papyrus “protocols” ((Nevo 1994:110[]

34. Nevo 1994:114[]

35. Nevo 1994:114[]

36. Nevo 1994:115[]

37. Nevo 1994:110[]

38. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

39. Cook 1983:74[]

40. Cook 1983:74; Crone-Cook 1977:167-168; see Van Berchem part two, vol.ii, nos.1927:215-217 and Grohmann’s Arabic Papyri from Hirbet el-Mird, no.72 to delineate where these variances are[]

41. quoted in Hagarism, Crone-Cook 1977:18,167[]

42. Crone-Cook 1977:18,167[]

43. Nau 1915:6f[]

44. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

45. Crone-Cook 1977:18[]

46. Jeffrey 1944:298[]

The Bible’s Documentary Evidence

(1900=Abraham, 1700=Joseph, 1447=Moses, 1000=David)

The documentary evidence for the reliability of the Bible has been an area of research which has been increasing rapidly over the last few decades. But this hasn’t always been so. The assumption by many former archaeologists was that the Old Testament was written not in the tenth to fourteenth centuries B.C. by the authors described within its text, but by later Jewish historians during the much later second to sixth century B.C., and that the stories were then redacted back onto the great prophets such as Moses and David, etc… Yet, with the enormous quantity of data which has been uncovered and is continuing to be uncovered, as well as the new forensic research methods being employed to study them, what we are now finding is that many of these preconceived notions of authorship are simply no longer valid. For instance:

(1) The skeptics contended that the Pentateuch could not have been written by Moses, because there was no evidence of any writing that early. Then the Black Stele was found with the detailed laws of Hammurabi which were written 300 years before Moses, and in the same region.

(2) There was much doubt as to the reliability of the Old Testament documents, since the oldest manuscript in our possession was the Massoretic Text, written in 916 A.D. How, the skeptics asked, can we depend on a set of writings whose earliest manuscripts are so recent? Then came the amazing discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls written around 125 B.C. These scrolls show us that outside of minute copying errors it is identical to the Massoretic Text and yet it predates it by over 1,000 years! We have further corroboration in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, translated around 150-200 B.C.

Yet to please the skeptics, the best documentary evidence for the reliability of the Biblical text must come from documents external to the Biblical text themselves. There has always been doubt concerning the stories of Abraham and the Patriarchs found in the books attributed to Moses, the Pentateuch. The skeptics maintained that there is no method of ascertaining their reliability since we have no corroboration from external secular accounts. This has all changed; for instance:

(3) Discoveries from excavations at Nuzu, Mari and Assyrian, Hittite, Sumerian and Eshunna Codes point out that Hebrew poetry, Mosaic legislation as well as the Hebrew social customs all fit the period and region of the patriarchs.

(4) According to the historians there were no Hittites at the time of Abraham, thus the historicity of the Biblical accounts describing them was questionable. Now we know from inscriptions of that period that there were 1,200 years of Hittite civilization, much of it corresponding with the Patriarchal period.

(5) Historians also told us that no such people as the Horites existed. It is these people whom we find mentioned in the genealogy of Esau in Genesis 36:20. Yet now they have been discovered as a group of warriors also living in Mesopotamia during the Patriarchal period.

(6) The account of Daniel, according to the sceptical historians, must have been written in the second century and not the sixth century B.C. because of all the precise historical detail found in its content. Yet now the sixth century’s East India Inscription corresponds with the Daniel 4:30 account of Nebuchadnezzar’s building, proving that the author of Daniel must have been an eye-witness from that period. Either way it is amazing.

The strongest case for extra-Biblical corroboration of the Patriarchal period is found in four sets of tablets which have been and are continuing to be uncovered from that area of the world. They demonstrate that the Biblical account is indeed historically reliable. Let’s briefly look at all four sets of tablets.

(7) *Armana tablets: (from Egypt) mention the Habiru or Apiru in Hebrew, which was first applied to Abraham in Genesis 14:13.

(8) *Ebla tablets: 17,000 tablets from Tell Mardikh (Northern Syria), dating from 2300 B.C., shows us that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in that part of the world, and that the judicial proceedings and case laws were very similar to the Deuteronomy law code (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:22-30 codes on punishment for sex offenses). One tablet mentions and lists the five cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar in the exact sequence which we find in Genesis 14:8! Until these tablets were uncovered the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah had always been in doubt by historians.

(9) *Mari tablets: (from the Euphrates) mentions king Arriyuk, or Arioch of Genesis 14, and lists the towns of Nahor and Harran (from Genesis 24:10), as well as the names Benjamin and Habiru.

(10) *Nuzi tablets: (from Iraq) speaks about a number of customs which we find in the Pentateuch, such as:

1. a barren wife giving a handmaiden to her husband (i.e. Hagar)

2. a bride chosen for the son by the father (i.e. Rebekah)

3. a dowry paid to the father-in-law (i.e. Jacob)

4. work done to pay a dowry (i.e. Jacob)

5. the unchanging oral will of a father (i.e. Isaac)

6. a father giving his daughter a slave-girl (i.e. Leah, Rachel)

7. the sentence of death for stealing a cult gods (i.e. Jacob).

Because of these extra-Biblical discoveries many of the historians are now changing their position. Thus Joseph Free states: “New discoveries now show us that a host of supposed [Biblical] errors and contradictions are not errors at all: such as, that Sargon existed and lived in a palatial dwelling 12 miles north of Ninevah, that the Hittites were a significant people, that the concept of a sevenfold lamp existed in the early Iron Age, that a significant city given in the record of David’s empire lies far to the north, and that Belshazzar existed and ruled over Babylon.”

While documentary evidence for the Bible in the form of secular inscriptions and tablets not only corroborates the existence of some of the oldest Biblical traditions, similar and more recent documentary evidence (such as the Doctrina Iacobi, and the Armenian Chronicler) eradicates some of the more cherished Islamic traditions, that Islam was a uniquely Arab creation, and that Mecca, the supposed centre for Islam, has little historicity whatsoever before or during the time of Muhammad.

We look forward to further documentary discoveries coming to light, as they continue to substantiate and underline the Biblical record, while simultaneously putting doubt to the record of the Qur’an. Let’s now look at the archaeological evidence for both the Bible and the Qur’an:

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

The Qur’an’s Documentary Evidence

[II] DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

[A] THE QUR’AN’S DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Documentary evidence for the Qur’an has always been difficult, due to the paucity of primary documents at our disposal (as was mentioned in the previous section).

The oldest Muslim documents available are the Muslim Traditions, which were initially compiled as late as 765 A.D. (i.e. The Sira of Ibn Ishaq). Yet the earliest documents which we can refer to today are those compiled by Ibn Hisham (the Sira of the prophet), and the large Hadith compilations of al-Bukhari, Muslim and others, all written in the ninth century, and thus 200 to 250 years after the fact. They are much too late to be useful for our study here. Therefore we must go back to the seventh century itself and ascertain what documents are available with which we can corroborate the reliability of the Qur’an.

(1) Doctrina Iacobi and 661 Chronicler:

Two seventh century documents at our disposal are helpful here: a) the Doctrina Iacobi, the earliest testimony of Muhammad and of his “movement” available to us outside Islamic tradition; a Greek anti-Jewish tract which was written in Palestine between 634 and 640 A.D. 1, and b) a chronicle supposedly written by Sebeos in 660 A.D. Both of these documents deal with the relationship between the Arabs and Jews in the seventh century.

The Qur’an implies that Muhammad severed his relationship with the Jews in 624 A.D. (or soon after the Hijra in 622 A.D.), and thus moved the direction of prayer, the Qibla at that time from Jerusalem to Mecca 2. The early non-Muslim sources, however, depict a good relationship between the Muslims and Jews at the time of the first conquests (late 620s A.D.), and even later. Yet the Doctrina Iacobi warns of the Jews who mix with the Saracens,’ and the danger to life and limb of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens’ 3. In fact, this relationship seems to carry right on into the conquest as an early Armenian source mentions that the governor of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the conquest was a Jew 4.

What is significant here is the possibility that Jews and Arabs (Saracens) seem to be allied together during the time of the conquest of Palestine and even for a short time after 5.

If these witnesses are correct than one must ask how it is that the Jews and Saracens (Arabs) are allies as late as 640 A.D., when, according to the Qur’an, Muhammad severed his ties with the Jews as early as 624 A.D., more than 15 years earlier?

To answer that we need to refer to the earliest connected account of the career of the prophet,’ that given in an Armenian chronicle from around 660 A.D., which is ascribed by some to Bishop Sebeos 6. The chronicler describes how Muhammad established a community which comprised both Ishmaelites (i.e. Arabs) and Jews, and that their common platform was their common descent from Abraham; the Arabs via Ishmael, and the Jews via Isaac 7. The chronicler believed Muhammad had endowed both communities with a birthright to the Holy Land, while simultaneously providing them with a monotheist genealogy 8. This is not without precedent as the idea of an Ishmaelite birthright to the Holy Land was discussed and rejected earlier in the Genesis Rabbah (61:7), in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Book of Jubilees 9.

Here we find a number of non-Muslim documentary sources contradicting the Qur’an, maintaining that there was a good relationship between the Arabs and Jews for at least a further 15 years beyond that which the Qur’an asserts.

If Palestine was the focus for the Arabs, then the city of Mecca comes into question, and further documentary data concerning Mecca may prove to be the most damaging evidence against the reliability of the Qur’an which we have to date.

(2) Mecca:

To begin with we must ask what we know about Mecca? Muslims maintain that “Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the centre of history.” According to the Qur’an, “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah (or Mecca), a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples.” 10 In Sura 6:92 and 42:5 we find that Mecca is described as the “mother of all settlements.” According to Muslim tradition, Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka’ba there, while according to the Qur’an 11 it was Abraham and Ishmael who rebuilt the Meccan Ka’ba many years later. Thus, by implication, Mecca is considered by Muslims to be the first and most important city in the world! In fact much of the story of Muhammad revolves around Mecca, as his formative years were spent there, and it was to Mecca that he sought to return while in exile in Medina.

Apart from the obvious difficulty in finding any documentary or archaeological evidence that Abraham ever went to or lived in Mecca, the overriding problem rests in finding any reference to the city before the creation of Islam. From research carried out by both Crone and Cook, except for an inference to a city called “Makoraba” by the Greco-Egyptian geographer Ptolemy in the mid-2nd century A.D. (though we are not even sure whether this allusion by Ptolemy referred to Mecca, as he only mentioned the name in passing), there is absolutely no other report of Mecca or its Ka’ba in any authenticated ancient document; that is until the early eighth century 12. As Crone and Cook maintain the earliest substantiated reference to Mecca occurs in the Continuatio Byzantia Arabica, which is a source dating from early in the reign of the caliph Hisham, who ruled between 724-743 A.D. 13.

Therefore, the earliest corroborative evidence we have for the existence of Mecca is fully 100 years after the date when Islamic tradition and the Qur’an place it. Why? Certainly, if it was so important a city, someone, somewhere would have mentioned it; yet we find nothing outside of the small inference by Ptolemy 500 years earlier, and these initial statements in the early eighth century.

Yet even more troubling historically is the claim by Muslims that Mecca was not only an ancient and great city, but it was also the centre of the trading routes for Arabia in the seventh century and before 14. It is this belief which is the easiest to examine, since we have ample documentation from that part of the world with which to check out its veracity.

According to extensive research by Bulliet on the history of trade in the ancient Middle-East, these claims by Muslims are quite wrong, as Mecca simply was not on any major trading routes. The reason for this, he contends, is that, “Mecca is tucked away at the edge of the peninsula. Only by the most tortured map reading can it be described as a natural crossroads between a north-south route and an east-west one.” 15

This is corroborated by further research carried out by Groom and Muller, who contend that Mecca simply could not have been on the trading route, as it would have entailed a detour from the natural route along the western ridge. In fact, they maintain the trade route must have bypassed Mecca by some one-hundred miles 16.

Patricia Crone, in her work on Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam adds a practical reason which is too often overlooked by earlier historians. She points out that, “Mecca was a barren place, and barren places do not make natural halts, and least of all when they are found at a short distance from famously green environments. Why should caravans have made a steep descent to the barren valley of Mecca when they could have stopped at Ta’if. Mecca did, of course, have both a well and a sanctuary, but so did Ta’if, which had food supplies, too” 17.

Furthermore, Patricia Crone asks, “what commodity was available in Arabia that could be transported such a distance, through such an inhospitable environment, and still be sold at a profit large enough to support the growth of a city in a peripheral site bereft of natural resources?” 18 It wasn’t incense, spices, and other exotic goods, as many notoriously unreliable earlier writers have intimated 19. According to the latest and much more reliable research by Kister and Sprenger, the Arabs engaged in a trade of a considerably humbler kind, that of leather and clothing; hardly items which could have founded a commercial empire of international dimensions 20.

The real problem with Mecca, however, is that there simply was no international trade taking place in Arabia, let alone in Mecca in the centuries immediately prior to Muhammad’s birth. It seems that much of our data in this area has been spurious from the outset, due to sloppy research of the original sources, carried out by Lammens, “an unreliable scholar,” and repeated by the great orientalists such as Watts, Shaban, Rodinson, Hitti, Lewis and Shahid 21. Lammens, using first century sources (such as Periplus and Pliny) should have used the later Greek historians who were closer to the events (such as Cosmas, Procopius and Theodoretus) 22.

Had he referred to the later historians he would have found that the Greek trade between India and the Mediterranean was entirely maritime after the first century A.D. 23. One need only look at a map to understand why. It made little sense to ship goods across such distances by land when a water-way was available close by. Patricia Crone points out that in Diocletian’s Rome it was cheaper to ship wheat 1,250 miles by sea than to transport it fifty miles by land 24. The distance from Najran, Yemen in the south, to Gaza in the north was roughly 1,250 miles. Why would the traders ship their goods from India by sea, and unload it at Aden where it would be put on the backs of much slower and more expensive camels to trudge 1,250 miles across the inhospitable Arabian desert to Gaza, when they could simply have left it on the ships and followed the Red Sea route up the west coast of Arabia?

There were other problems as well. Had Lammens researched his sources correctly he would have also found that the Greco-Roman trade with India collapsed by the third century A.D., so that by Muhammad’s time there was not only no overland route, but no Roman market to which the trade was destined 25. He would have similarly found that what trade remained, was controlled by the Ethiopians and not the Arabs, and that Adulis, the port city on the Ethiopian coast of the Red Sea, and not Mecca was the trading centre of that region 26.

Of even more significance, had Lammens taken the time to study the early Greek sources, he would have discovered that the Greeks to whom the trade went had never even heard of a place called Mecca 27. If, according to the Muslim traditions, and recent orientalists, Mecca was so important, certainly those to whom the trade was going would have noted its existence. Yet, we find nothing. Crone in her work points out that the Greek trading documents refer to the towns of Ta’if(which is south-east and close to present-day Mecca), and to Yathrib (later Medina), as well as Kaybar in the north, but no mention is made of Mecca 28. That indeed is troubling for the historicity of a city whose importance lies at the centre of the nascent Islam.

Had the later orientalists bothered to check out Lammens’ sources, they too would have realized that since the overland route was not used after the first century A.D., it certainly was not in use in the fifth or sixth centuries 29, and much of what has been written concerning Mecca would have been corrected long before now.

Finally, the problem of locating Mecca in the early secular sources is not unique, for there is even some confusion within Islamic tradition as to where exactly Mecca was initially situated 30. According to research carried out by J.van Ess, in both the first and second civil wars, there are accounts of people proceeding from Medina to Iraq via Mecca 31. Yet Mecca is south-west of Medina, and Iraq is north-east. Thus the sanctuary for Islam, according to these traditions was at one time north of Medina, which is the opposite direction from where Mecca is today!

We are left in a quandary. If, according to documentary evidence, in this case the ancient Greek historical and trading documents, Mecca was not the great commercial centre the later Muslim traditions would have us believe, if it was not known by the people who lived and wrote from that period, and if it could not even qualify as a viable city during the time of Muhammad, it certainly could not have been the centre of the Muslim world at that time. How then can we believe that the Qur’an is reliable? The documentary evidence not only contradicts its dating on the split between the Arabs and the Jews, but the city it identifies as the birthplace and cornerstone for the nascent Islam cannot even be identified with any historical accuracy until at least a full century later? Do these same problems exist with the Bible?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. Brock 1982:9; Crone-Cook 1977:3[]

2. Sura 2:144, 149-150[]

3. Bonwetsch 1910:88; Cook 1983:75[]

4. Patkanean 1879:111; Sebeos 1904:103[]

5. Crone-Cook 1977:6[]

6. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:6[]

7. Sebeos 1904:94-96; Crone-Cook 1977:8; Cook 1983:75[]

8. Crone-Cook 1977:8[]

9. Crone-Cook 1977:159[]

10. Sura 3:96[]

11. Sura 2:125-127[]

12. Cook 1983:74; Crone-Cook 1977:22[]

13. Crone-Cook 1977:22,171[]

14. Cook 1983:74; Crone 1987:3-6[]

15. Bulliet 1975:105[]

16. Groom 1981:193; Muller 1978:723[]

17. Crone 1987:6-7; Crone-Cook 1977:22[]

18. Crone 1987:7[]

19. see Crone’s discussion on the problem of historical accuracy, particularly between Lammens, Watts and Kister, in Meccan Trade 1987:3[]

20. Kister 1965:116; Sprenger 1869:94[]

21. Crone 1987:3,6[]

22. Crone 1987:3,19-22,44[]

23. Crone 1987:29[]

24. Crone 1987:7[]

25. Crone 1987:29[]

26. Crone 1987:11,41-42[]

27. Crone 1987:11,41-42[]

28. Crone 1987:11[]

29. Crone 1987:42[]

30. see the discussion on the evolution of the Meccan site in Crone & Cook’s Hagarism 1977:23,173[]

31. van Ess 1971:16; see also Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dhahabi 1369:343[]

The Bible’s Manuscript Evidence

Unlike the Qur’an, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslims contend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliability of the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?

(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one’s possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness’s agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus’s historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle’s writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today 1. These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! 2. Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What’s more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur’an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament 3.

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur’an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ 4. Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

(2) Available Manuscripts:

A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let’s then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let’s compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides’ work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts 5.

Secular Manuscripts:

---

AuthorDate WrittenEarliest CopyTime SpanCopies (extent)Herodotus (History)480 – 425 BC900 AD1,300 years8Thucydides (History)460 – 400 BC900 AD1,300 years?Aristotle (Philosopher)384 – 322 BC1,100 AD1,400 years5Caesar (History)100 – 44 BC900 AD1,000 years10Pliny (History)61 – 113 AD850 AD750 years7Suetonius (Roman History)70 – 140 AD950 AD800 years?Tacitus (Greek History)100 AD1,100 AD1,000 years20 Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)1st century50-60 ADco-existant (?) John Rylands (John)90 AD130 AD40 years Bodmer Papyrus II (John)90 AD150-200 AD60-110 years Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)1st century200 AD150 years Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)1st century200 AD150 years Codex Vaticanus (Bible)1st century325-350 AD275-300 years Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)1st century350 AD300 years Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)1st century400 AD350 years 

---

(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)

(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD 6. Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years 7. But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew’s Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive “IS” for Jesus and “KE” for Kurie or Lord 8. This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the “Jesus Seminar”) that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ’s divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:

(3) Versions or Translations:

Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) 9.

Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century) 10. The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.

(4) Lectionaries:

The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period 11. If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.

(5) Early Church Father’s Letters:

But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers.

Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers 12. In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 13. J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses 14! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are 15:

• Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.

• Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.

• Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.

Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

---

So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Qur’an and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Qur’anic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence 16, most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) 17, Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century 18. If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Qur’an, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur’an was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur’an.

Furthermore, while the earliest New Testament manuscripts as well as the earliest letters from the church fathers correspond with the New Testament which we have in our hands, providing us with some certainty that they have not been unduly added to or tampered with, the Qur’anic material which we have in our possession abounds with stories whose origins we can now trace to second century Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature. We know in some cases who wrote them, when exactly they were written and at times even why they were written; and that none of them were from a divine source, as they were written by the most human of Rabbis and storytellers over the intervening centuries after the Bible had been canonized.

We now turn our attention to the documentary evidence for both the Qur’an and the Bible.

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. McDowell 1972:42[]

2. taken from McDowell’s Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57[]

3. Aland 1987:82-83[]

4. Robinson 1976:79[]

5. taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17[]

6. Time April 26, 1996, pg.8[]

7. Time April 26, 1996, pg.8[]

8. The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994[]

9. McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47[]

10. McDowell 1972:48-50[]

11. McDowell 1972:52[]

12. McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52[]

13. Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52[]

14. McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48[]

15. from McDowell’s Evidence…, 1972 pg. 51[]

16. McDowell 1990:43-55[]

17. McDowell 1972:39-49[]

18. Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6[]

The Qur’an’s Manuscript Evidence

[I] MANUSCRIPT ANALYSIS:

Let’s then begin by looking at the area of manuscript evidence. What manuscripts do we have in Islam which can corroborate the authenticity of the Qur’an that we have in our hands today, and likewise, what Christian manuscripts are available to validate the Bible?

[A] THE QUR’AN’S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE:

A manuscript analysis of the Qur’an does present us with unique problems not encountered with the Bible. While we can find multiple manuscripts for the Bible written 700-900 years earlier, at a time when durable paper was not even used, the manuscripts for the Qur’an within the century in which it was purported to have been compiled, the seventh century, simply do not exist. Prior to 750 A.D. (thus for 100 years after Muhammad’s death) we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us a window into this formative period of Islam 1. In fact the primary sources which we possess are from 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events 2. For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists. We simply do not have any “account from the Islamic’ community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [the early 7th century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature” [the late 8th century] 3.

We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing 4. The documentary evidence at our disposal, prior to 750 A.D. “consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations” 5. Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the later Muslim traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur’an 6. In fact we have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text 7. Nor do we have any of the alleged four copies which were made of this recension and sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus 8.

Even if these copies had somehow disintegrated with age (as some Muslims now allege), there would surely be some fragments of the documents which we could refer to. By the end of the seventh century Islam had expanded from Spain in the west to India in the east. The Qur’an (according to tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there would be some Qur’anic documents or manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing anywhere from that period at all.

With the enormous number of manuscripts available for the Christian scriptures, all compiled long before the time Muhammad was born, it is incredible that Islam cannot provide a single corroborated manuscript of their most holy book from even within a century of their founder’s birth.

(1) Sammarkand and Topkapi MSS; Kufic and Ma’il Scripts:

In response, Muslims contend that they do have a number of these “Uthmanic recensions,” these original copies from the seventh century, still in their possession. There are two documents which do hold some credibility, and to which many Muslims refer. These are the Samarkand Manuscript, which is located in the Tashkent library, Uzbekistan (in the southern part of the former Soviet Union), and the Topkapi Manuscript, which can be found in the Topkapi Museum, in Istanbul, Turkey.

These two documents are indeed old, and there has been ample etymological analysis done on them by scriptologists, as well as experts in Arabic calligraphy to warrant their discussion. What most Muslims do not realize is that these two manuscripts are written in the Kufic Script, a script which according to modern Qur’anic manuscript experts, such as Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the eighth century, and was not in use at all in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century 9.

The reasons for this are quite simple. Consider: The Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi, derives its name from the city of Kufa in Iraq 10. It would be rather odd for this script to have been adopted as the official script for the “mother of all books” as it is a script which had its origins in a city that had only been conquered by the Arabs a mere 10-14 years earlier.

It is important to note that the city of Kufa, which is in present day Iraq, was a city which would have been Sassanid or Persian before that time (637-8 A.D.). Thus, while Arabic would have been known there, it would not have been the predominant language, let alone the predominant script until much later.

We know in fact, that the Kufic script reached its perfection during the late eighth century (up to one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death) and thereafter it became widely used throughout the Muslim world 11. This makes sense, since after 750 A.D. the Abbasids controlled Islam, and due to their Persian background were headquartered in the Kufa and Baghdad areas. They would thus have wanted their script to dominate. Having been themselves dominated by the Umayyads (who were based in Damascus) for around 100 years, it would now be quite understandable that an Arabic script which originated in their area of influence, such as the Kufic script would evolve into that which we find in these two documents mentioned here.

Therefore, it stands to reason that both the Topkapi and Samarkand Manuscripts, because they are written in the Kuficscript, could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the Uthmanic Recension was supposedly compiled; at the earliest the late 700s or early 800s 12.

We do know that there were two earlier Arabic scripts which most modern Muslims are not familiar with. These are the al-Ma’il Script, developed in the Hijaz, particularly in Mecca and Medina, and the Mashq Script, also developed in Medina 13. The al-Ma’il Script came into use in the seventh century and is easily identified, as it was written at a slight angle 14. In fact the word al-Ma’il means “slanting.” This script survived for about two centuries before falling into disuse.

The Mashq Script also began in the seventh century, but continued to be used for many centuries. It is more horizontal in form and can be distinguished by its somewhat cursive and leisurely style 15. There are those who believe that the Mashq script was a forerunner to the later Kufic script, as there are similarities between the two.

If the Qur’an had been compiled at this time in the seventh century, then one would expect it to have been written in either the Ma’il or Mashq script.

Interestingly, we do have a Qur’an written in the Ma’il script, and considered to be the earliest Qur’an in our possession today. Yet it is not found in either Istanbul or Tashkent, but, ironically, it resides in the British Museum in London 16. It has been dated towards the end of the eighth century (790 A.D.) by Martin Lings, the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, who is himself, a practising Muslim.

Therefore, with the help of script analysis, we are quite certain that there is no known manuscript of the Qur’an which we possess today which can be dated from the seventh century 17.

Furthermore, virtually all the earliest Qur’anic manuscript fragments which we do possess cannot be dated earlier than 100 years after the time of Muhammad. In her book Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel underlines this point when she states that apart from the recently discovered [Korans] in Sanaa, “the earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century.” 18

From the evidence we possess, therefore, it would seem improbable that any portions of the Qur’an supposedly copied out at Uthman’s direction have survived. What we are left with is the intervening 150 years for which we cannot account.

(2) Talmudic Sources in the Qur’an:

Another problem with manuscript evidence for the Qur’an is that of the heretical Talmudic accounts found within its passages. Possibly the greatest puzzlement for Christians who pick up the Qur’an and read it are the numerous seemingly Biblical stories which bear little similarity to the Biblical accounts. The Qur’anic stories include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to the familiar stories we have known and learned. So, we ask, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish and Christian apocryphal literature (some of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century A.D. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales of the later Jewish and Christian communities, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an (note:Talmudic material taken from Feinburg 1993:1162-1163).

The Jewish Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century A.D., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions were created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Most Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but they read them nonetheless with interest for the light they cast on the times in which they were written.

Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those among the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book 19.

Some orientalist scholars believe that when later Islamic compilers came onto the scene, in the eighth to ninth centuries A.D., they merely added this body of literature to the nascent Qur’anic material. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by later redactors, and incorporated into the holy writings’ of Islam.

There are quite a few stories which have their root in second century (A.D.) Jewish apocryphal literature; stories such as the murder of Abel by Cain in sura 5:31-32, borrowed from the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah and the Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; or the story of Abraham, the idols and the fiery furnace in sura 21:51-71, taken from the Midrash Rabbah; or the amusing story found in sura 27:17-44, of Solomon, his talking Hoopoo bird, and the queen of Sheba who lifts her skirt when mistaking a mirrored floor for water, taken from the 2nd Targum of Esther.

There are other instances where we find both apocryphal Jewish and Christian literatures within the Qur’anic text. The account of Mt. Sinai being lifted up and held over the heads of the Jews as a threat for rejecting the law (sura 7:171) comes from the second century Jewish apocryphal book, The Abodah Sarah. The odd accounts of the early childhood of Jesus in the Qur’an can be traced to a number of Christian apocryphal writings: the Palm tree which provides for the anguish of Mary after Jesus’s birth (sura 19:22-26) comes from The Lost Books of the Bible; while the account of the infant Jesus creating birds from clay (sura 3:49) comes from Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ. The story of the baby Jesus talking (sura 19:29-33) can be traced to Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.

In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque.’ From later traditions we find this aya refers to Muhammad ascending up to the seventh heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “winged-horse” called Buraq. More detail is furnished us in the Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic. Another analogous account is that of The Secrets of Enoch ( chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1), which predates the Qur’an by four centuries. Yet a further similar account is largely modelled on the story contained in the old Persian book entitled Arta-i Viraf Namak, telling how a pious young Zoroastrian ascended to the skies, and, on his return, related what he had seen, or professed to have seen 20.

The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century 21.

The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9 possibly utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

It is important to remember that the Talmudic accounts were not considered by the orthodox Jews of that period as authentic for one very good reason: they were not in existence at the council of Jamnia in 80 A.D. when the Old Testament was canonized. Neither were the Christian apocryphal material considered canonical, as they were not attested as authoritative both prior to and after the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Thus these accounts have always been considered as heretical by both the Jewish and Christian orthodox believers, and the literate ever since. It is for this reason that we find it deeply suspicious that the apocryphal accounts should have made their way into a book claiming to be the final revelation from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Let’s now look at the manuscript evidence for the Bible and ascertain whether the scripture which we read today is historically accurate?

---

• The Bible and The Qur’an: Contents

• Next Part >

1. Wansbrough 1978:58-59[]

2. Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204[]

3. Wansbrough 1978:119[]

4. Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8[]

5. Humphreys 1991:80[]

6. Schacht 1949:143-154[]

7. Schimmel 1984:4[]

8. see Gilchrist’s arguments in his book Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989, pp. 140-154, as well as Ling’s & Safadi’s The Qur’an 1976, pp. 11-17[]

9. Lings & Safadi 1976:12-13,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146; 152-153[]

10. Lings & Safadi 1976:17[]

11. Lings & Safadi 1976:12,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146[]

12. Gilchrist 1989:144-147[]

13. Lings & Safadi 1976:11; Gilchrist 1989:144-145[]

14. see the example on page 16 of Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989[]

15. Gilchrist 1989:144[]

16. Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144[]

17. Gilchrist 1989:147-148,153[]

18. Schimmels 1984:4[]

19. Feinburg 1993:1163[]

20. Pfander 1835:295-296[]

21. Glubb 1971:36[]

Introduction

Often, when we find ourselves in conversation with Muslims the authority for that which we are discussing comes up and we are forced to answer the question: “Which is the true Word of God, the Bible or the Qur’an?” As a Christian, I immediately affirm my own scriptures, maintaining that the Bible is the intrinsic Word of God. Obviously, for any Muslims, or others who may not have a religious position, this answer is not credible, as it involves a subjective statement of faith, one which cannot be proved or disproved, as there is no possibility of enquiry or verification. I am certain that when the same question is posed to a Muslim he likewise answers that the Qur’an qualifies as the final Word of God, and any further discussion ends. Both Christianity and Islam derive their set of beliefs from their revelations, the Bible and the Qur’an, yet we find that they disagree on a number of areas. One need only compare how each scripture deals with Jesus, sin, atonement, and salvation to understand that there are contradictory assertions held by both. Thus it is important to delineate which scripture can best make the claim to be the final and perfect Word of God.

When two documents which claim to be true are in contradiction, one must ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately using criteria which a non-believer, or a third party, can accept; in other words, using criteria which go beyond the adherents’ personal faith commitment to their revelation. Essentially one must ask whether the Qur’an or the Bible can stand up to verification, or whether they can withstand an external critical analysis for their authenticity. This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Since both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from the revealed truth which they find in their respective scriptures, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is not a task that one should undertake lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, and because of the lack of time and space, I have decided not to make a comparison between the claims the two revelations make for themselves, but simply ask the question whether the two scriptures can be corroborated by history; in other words whether there is any historical data or evidence which we can find that can help us verify that which they claim is true.

I start with the presupposition that God has intersected time and space and has revealed His truth to His creation. We should expect to see, therefore, evidence of those revelations in history, and be able to corroborate the historical claims the revelations make by an historical analysis. Both the Bible and the Qur’an claim to have been revealed at a certain place, and over a period of time. They speak of people, places, and events. If they are true, then we should be able to find evidence for their claims, and especially corroboration for what they say in the period in which they themselves profess they were revealed; the Bible between 1,447 B.C. and 70 A.D., and the Qur’an between 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. My intent in this study is to look at the historical data which exists in these periods, and ascertain whether it supports or denies the claims for the historicity of both the Bible and the Qur’an. This I will attempt to do by looking at three areas of evidence; that provided by manuscripts, documents and archaeological data from the periods mentioned above. If the manuscript, documentary and archaeological evidence supports the claims for the Bible or the Qur’an, then we can assume their reliability. However, if the evidence denies their historicity, then we have to question their authenticity.

I will admit that this study is nothing more than a mere ‘overview,’ with the desire that it will stimulate others to continue investigating this very important area in their own time. The hope is that, like Peter before us, we too can “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [us] to give the reason for the hope that [we] have” (1 Peter 3:15).

The Bible and The Qur’an — An Historical Comparison

CONTENTS:

Introduction

Manuscript Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Documentary Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Archeological Evidence

The Qur’an
The Bible

Conclusion

References Cited

Overview

The Qur’an

Apologetic Paper (Jay Smith) – May 1995

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Authority of the Qur’an

3. The Revelation of the Qur’an

4. The Inspiration of the Qur’an

5. The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

   1. Its Holiness

   2. Its Superior Style

   3. Its Literary Qualities

   4. Its Pure Arabic

6. The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

   1. The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

   2. The “Sword” found in the Qur’an

7. The Collation, or Collection of the Qur’anic Text

   1. The Periods of Revelation

   2. The Method of Collection

      1. Zaid’s Collection

      2. Competing Collections

   3. The Standardisation of One Text

   4. The Missing Verses

      1. Sura 33:23

      2. The Verse on Stoning

   5. The Variations Between the Codices

      1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

      2. Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

   6. Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

8. The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

9. Errors Found Within the Qur’an

   1. Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

      1. Moses

      2. Yahya

      3. Trinity

      4. Ezra

   2. Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors

      1. Mary & Imran

      2. Haman

   3. Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

      1. Ishmael

      2. Samaritan

      3. Sunset

      4. Issa

      5. Mountains

      6. Alexander the Great

      7. Creation

      8. Pharaoh’s Cross

      9. Other Scientific problems

   4. Absurdities

      1. Man’s Greatness

      2. Seven Earths

      3. Jinns & Shooting Stars

      4. Solomon’s power over nature

      5. Youth and dog sleep 309 years

      6. People become apes

      7. Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

      8. Jacob’s smell & sight

      9. Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man

   5. Grammatical Errors

10. The Sources of the Qur’an

    1. Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

       1. Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

       2. Cain and Abel

       3. Abraham

       4. Mt Sanai

       5. Solomon and Sheba

       6. Mary, Imran and Zachariah

       7. Jesus’s Birth

       8. Heaven and Hell

    2. Stories Which do not Correspond with the Biblical Account

       1. Harut and Marut

       2. The Cave of 7 Sleepers

       3. The Sirat

11. Conclusion

12. References

---

A: Introduction

How many of you have been in a conversation with a Muslim, and you find that soon there are irreconcilable differences between you? You ask the Muslim why he or she says the things they do, and they respond that they only repeat what they have learned from the Qur’an. In reply you claim that what you believe also comes from the Word of God, the Bible. It doesn’t take long before you realize that neither side can agree because the authority for what you believe and say is at a variance to what they believe and say. Our Bible contradicts much of what their Qur’an says, and this fact alone will continue to negate many worthwhile conversations which we may wish to indulge in.

So, what is the solution? If two documents are in contradiction, the first thing to do is ascertain whether the contradictions can be explained adequately. And if not, then we must conclude that one of the two documents is false. Therefore, before we get into serious dialogue with a Muslim we must ask the question of whether the authority for our respective beliefs (the Qur’an and the Bible) can stand up to verification, and whether they can stand up to a critical analysis of their authenticity.

This is an immensely complex and difficult subject. Both Islam and Christianity claim to receive their beliefs from revealed truth, which they find in their respective scriptures. Consequently, to suspect the source for revealed truth, the scriptures for each faith, is to put the integrity of both Christianity and Islam on trial.

Obviously this is a task that no-one should take lightly, and I don’t intend to do so here. For that reason, I have decided not to attempt a simplistic analysis concerning the authority of the Qur’an and the Bible in one single paper. Instead I will begin by dealing with the authority of the Qur’an in this paper and then turn my attention to the authority for our own scriptures, the Bible, in a follow-up paper.

In no way do I claim to know all the answers, nor will I be so pretentious as to assume that I can exhaustively argue the question of authority for both the Qur’an and the Bible in these two papers. These studies are nothing more than mere “overviews,” with the hope that they will stimulate you to continue studying these very important areas in your own time, so that you too will “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When we observe the two faiths, we see immediately that they are in conflict with one another concerning their scriptures. Muslims believe that their scripture, the Qur’an, is the ‘final revelation,’ while Christians believe only the Bible (including the Old and New Testaments) can claim true authority.

If we were to delve into the contents of each scripture we would find that the two are at variance with one another in a number of areas: stories have changed, characters are missing and entire sections do not exist in one but do in the other.

In order to delineate which is correct, we will need to take each revelation separately and ask whether it can stand up to scrutiny, whether it can hold firm under critical analysis, and whether it can claim to be indeed the true revelation from God. Let us then start with the authority for the Qur’an

---

Normally when one begins any research into the Qur’an, the first question which should be asked is how we know that it is what it claims to be, the final word of God? In order to answer that question we would need to go to the sources of the Qur’an to ascertain its authenticity.

As you well know, going to the sources of the Qur’an is much more difficult then one would usually assume, as we have so little data with which to use. In another paper (The problems with Sources of Islam) I have dealt with the problems which exist when confronted by the dearth of material on the sources of the Qur’an, so I won’t repeat those arguments here.

Suffice it to say, that the only real source we have for the Qur’an is the book itself, and what Muslim Traditions tell us concerning how that book came to be created. Because of their late compilations (200-300 years after the event), and the contradicting documentation which we now possess prior to 750 C.E., I find it difficult to consider either of them as valid or authentic as source material.

However, since we are attempting to compare the Qur’an with our own scriptures, I will, for the time being, set aside my prejudices, and assume, for argument’s sake, that the traditions are correct. In other words, I will take the position of current orthodox Muslim scholarship and presume that the Qur’an was compiled in the years 646-650 C.E., from material which originated with the man Muhammad before his death in 632 C.E.

It is from this premise that I will attempt to respond to the question of whether the Qur’an can claim to be the final and most perfect revelation of God’s word to humanity.

---

B: The Authority for the Qur’an

The Arabic word ‘Qur’an’ is derived from the root ‘qara’a’, which means “to read” or “to recite.” This was the command which the angel Gabriel supposedly asked Muhammad three times to do when he confronted him in July or August 610 C.E. in the Hira cave, situated three miles north-east of Mecca (Mishkat IV p.354).

According to Muslims the Qur’an is the final revelation from Allah. In Arabic the Qur’an is also referred to as ‘Al-Kitab’ (the book), ‘Al-furkan’ (the distinction), ‘Al-mas’haf’ (the scroll), and ‘Al-dikhr’ (the warning),
as well as other names.

For those who like statistics, you may be interested to know that the Qur’an consists of 114 chapters (suras), made up of 30 parts, 6,616 verses (ayas), 77,943 words, and 338,606 letters. According to Islamic scholars 86 of the suras were revealed in Mecca, while 28 suras were revealed at Medina. Yet, as portions of some suras were recited in both places, you will continue to find a few of the scholars still debating the origins for a number of them. The suras vary in length and are known by a name or title, which are taken from the general theme of that sura, or a particular subject, person or event mentioned in it. This theme may not necessarily appear at the beginning of the sura, however.

Each verse or portion of the sura is known as an ‘aya’, which means “miracle” in Arabic. Muhammad claimed that the Qur’an was his sole miracle, though the Qur’an did not exist in its written form during his lifetime. In fact much of the controversy concerning the chronology of the Qur’an can be blamed on the fact that he was not around to verify its final collation. But more about that later. To begin with, let’s start with the question of revelation: how does Islam understand this concept, and could their view on it be one of the reasons we don’t see eye-to-eye concerning our two scriptures?

---

C: The Revelation of the Qur’an

Islam, like Christianity, believes that God (Allah) desires to communicate with humanity. But, unlike Christianity, Islam tells us that Allah is remote, so he must not reveal himself to humanity at a personal
level. It is for that reason that Allah is forced to employ appointed prophets, who are known as, rasul, meaning “the sent one.” These prophets are mere humans and so finite, though they are given a special status, and consequently protected by God.

Because Allah is so transcendent and unapproachable, revelation in Islam is simply one-way: from God to humanity, via the prophets. While each prophet supposedly fulfilled his mission by producing a book, the final revelation, and therefore the most important, according to Muslims, is that given to the final prophet Muhammad: the Qur’an.

The Qur’an, Muslims believe, is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation, which are found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. Muslims point to sura 85:21-22 which says “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an absolutely identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters is concerned (why modern translations still can’t agree what those divisions are is evident when trying to refer to an aya for comparison between one version and another).

According to Muslim tradition, these ‘revelations’ were sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens at the time of the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (‘lailat al Qadr’) (Pfander, 1910:262). From there it was revealed to Muhammad in instalments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and must be revered as such.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for nazil revelation of the Qur’an, comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. There are no outside witnesses before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad’s testimony; nor are miracles provided to substantiate his claims.

In fact, the evidences for the authority of God’s revelation, which the Bible emphatically produces are completely absent in the Qur’an, namely, that the revelation of God must speak in the name of God, Yahweh, that the message must conform to revelation which has gone before, that it must make predictions which are verifiable, and that the revelation must be accompanied by signs and wonders in order to give it authority as having come from God. Because these are missing in the case of the prophet Muhammad and of the Qur’an, for those of us who are Christians, it seems indeed that it is the Qur’an and not the Bible which turns out to be the most human of documents.

Yet, Muslims continue to believe that the exact Arabic words which we find in the Qur’an are those which exist eternally on the original stone tablets, in heaven. This, according to them, makes the Qur’an the “Mother of books” (refer to sura 43:3). Muslims believe there is no other book or revelation which can compare. In fact, in both suras 2:23 and 10:37-38 we find the challenge to, “Present some other book of equal beauty,” (a challenge which we will deal with later).

This final revelation, according to Islam, is transcendent, and consequently, beyond the capacity for conjecture, or criticism. What this means is that the Qur’an which we possess today is and has always been final and pure, which prohibits any possibility for verification or falsification of the text.

Because Allah is revered much as a master is to a slave, so his word is to be revered likewise. One does not question its pronouncements any more than one would question a masters pronouncements.

What then are we to do with the problems which do exist in the Qur’an?

If it is such a transcendent book, as Muslims claim, then it should stand up to any criticism. Yet, what are we to do with the many contradictions, the factual errors and bizarre claims it makes? Furthermore, when we look more carefully at the text that we have in our possession today, which is supposedly that of Uthman’s final codification of the Qur’an, compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, from a copy of Hafsah’s manuscript, we are puzzled by the differences between it and the four co-existing codices of Abdullah Masoud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy, all of which have deviations and deletions between them.

Another problem concerns its very pronouncements. Because of its seeming transcendency we may not question its content, much of which, according to Muslim Tradition, originates from the later Medinan period of Muhammad’s life (the last 10 years), and so consists of basic rules and regulations for social, economical, and political structures, many of which have been borrowed from existing legal traditions of the Byzantine and Persian cultures, leaving us with a seventh-ninth century document which has not been easily adapted to the twentieth century.

As Christians, this question is important. The Bible, by contrast is not simply a book of rigid rules and regulations which takes a particular historical context and absolutizes it for all ages and all peoples. Instead, we find in the Bible broad principles with which we can apply to each age and each culture (such as worship styles, music, dress, all of which can and are being contextualized in the variety of cultures which the church finds itself today).

As a result the Bible is much more adaptable and constructive for our societies. Since we do not have a concept of Nazil revelation, we have no fear of delving into and trying to understand the context of what the author was trying to say (the process of historical analysis). But one would expect such from a revelation provided by a personal God who intended to be actively involved in the transmission of His revelation.

This, I feel is the crux of the problem between Islam’s and Christianity’s views on revelation.

Christians believe that God is interested in revealing Himself to His creation. Since the time of creation He has continued to do so in various ways. His beauty, power and intricate wisdom is displayed in the universe all around us, so that humanity cannot say that they have never known God. That is what some theologians like to call “general revelation.”

But God also chooses to reveal Himself more specifically; what those same scholars call “special revelation.” This He does by means of prophets, who are sent with a specific word for a specific time, a specific place, and a specific people. Unfortunately, much of what was revealed to those people was quickly forgotten. The human mind has a remarkable capacity to be completely independent of God, and will only take the time to think of Him (if at all) when they are in a crisis, or near to death.

Therefore, God saw the plight of His creation and in His love and compassion for His creation, decided to do something about it.

God decided to reveal Himself directly, without any intervening agent, to His creation. He did this also to correct that relationship which had been broken with humanity at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden. This is consistent with a God who is personally involved with His creation.

Simply speaking, God Himself came to reveal Himself to humanity. He took upon Himself the form of a human, spoke our language, used our forms of expression, and became an example of His truth to those who were His witnesses, so that we who are finite and human would better understand Him who
is infinite and divine and beyond all human understanding.

As we read in Hebrews 1:1-2:

“God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke in past times to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds.”

In Jesus Christ we see God perfectly revealed to humanity. This goes beyond special revelation. This is revelation personified!

The Bible, therefore, introduces the world to Jesus Christ. It is, for all practical purposes, a secondary revelation. It is simply the witness to the revelation of God. The Bible tells us about His life, mentioning what He said and did, and then expounds these teachings for the world today. It is merely a book which points to a person. Therefore, we can use the book to learn about the person, but ultimately, we will need to go to the final revelation, Jesus Himself to truly understand who God is.

And here is where revelation becomes specific for us today, because God did not simply stop revealing Himself with Jesus Christ. He still desires to be in relationship with His creation, and has continued to reveal Himself in an incarnational way. His ongoing revelation continues from that time right up until the present as He reveals Himself by means of Himself, the Holy Spirit, the comforter, convicting us of guilt in regard to sin, guiding us into all truth, telling us what is yet to come, and bringing glory to Jesus. (John 16:7-15).

Jesus is the truest revelation. We find out about Him in the Bible. Yet, that is not all, for the Holy Spirit continues to make Him known to us even today, and that is why the scriptures become alive and meaningful for us.

For Muslims this must sound confusing, and possibly threatening, as it brings God’s infinite revelation down from its transcendent pedestal, and presents it within the context of finite humanity. Perhaps to better explain this truth to them we may want to change tactics somewhat. Instead of comparing the Qur’an with the Bible, as most apologists tend to do, it might be helpful to compare the Qur’an with Jesus, as they are both considered to be the Word of God, and stand as God’s truest revelation to humanity.

The Bible (especially the New Testament), consequently, is the testimony of Jesus’s companions, testifying about what He said and did. To take this a step further, we could possibly compare the Bible with their Hadiths, or the Tarikh, the Sira of the prophet and the Tafsir, all of which comment upon the history and teachings of the prophet and the Qur’an. While this may help us explain the Bible to a Muslim we must be careful to underline that though the New Testament speaks mostly about what Jesus said, about His message, it has little to say concerning how He lived. On the other hand the Hadiths and such talk primarily about the life of Muhammad, what he did, with here and there interpretations of what he said.

In this light there is no comparison between the two revelations, Jesus and the Qur’an. The Qur’an, a mere book with all its faults and inadequacies, its very authenticity weakly resting on the shoulders of one finite man, who himself has few credentials as a prophet, is no match against Jesus, the man, revered by Muslims and Christians alike as sinless, who, according to His sinless Word is God Himself, and therefore, the perfect revelation.

It may be helpful to use this argument to introduce Jesus to a Muslim, rather then begin with His deity, as it explains the purpose of Jesus before attempting to define who He is; in other words explaining the why before the how.

---

D: The Inspiration of the Qur’an

That then leads us into the question of inspiration. We have already said that God (or Allah) requires agents in the form of prophets to communicate his truth to his creation. Yet how does Allah communicate his thoughts and will to these prophets? How is revelation carried out?

The Arabic term which best explains the process of revelation is the word ‘Wahy’, which can mean ‘divine inspiration.’ According to the Qur’an the primary aim of Wahy is two fold:

1. to prove Muhammad’s call to prophet-hood (according to suras 13:30 and 34:50), and

2. to give him authority to warn people (according to sura 6:19).

Concerning the inspiration of the previous prophets, we are told very little.

In sura 42:51 we find Wahy explained as such:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a Messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills, for He is most high, most wise.”

According to the above sura there are three methods by which Allah communicates to his creation:

1. by direct inspiration

2. from behind a veil and

3. through a messenger (the implication is that of an angelic being).

Since the Qur’an tells us little concerning how Muhammad received his revelations, we refer to those who compiled the Sira of the prophet, men like Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Athir, and the Turkish writer ‘Ali Halabi to get a clearer insight. Their writings list seven forms of the experience of Wahy by Muhammad, some of which are quite revealing:

1. While the Wahy (inspiration) lasted, according to his wife Aisha, there were the sounds of bells ringing as he sweated profusely. He would become greatly perturbed and his face would change (Sahih Muslim). Muslim Tradition tells us that sometimes he would shiver and swoon, his mouth would foam, and he would roar like a camel (Mishkat IV p.359). At other times when the inspiration descended there was the sound near his face like the buzzing of bees (from ‘Umar ibnu’l Khattab), while at other times he felt a tremendous headache (from Abu Hurairah). Many times it seemed to his friends that he swooned and looked like someone intoxicated (Pfander 1910:346).

2. Wahy came to him in dreams.

3. Inspiration also came to him in visions while he was awake.

4. At times he saw an angel in the form of a young man (Pfander 1910:345).

5. At other times he saw angels in angelic form (sura 42:51).

6. During one evening (known as the Mi’raj) he was raptured through the Seven Heavens (according to the Hadith, Muhammad was taken to the highest heaven where he received the command to pray five times a day).

7. Allah spoke to him from behind a veil (sura 42:51).

When we look at all these examples of inspiration a picture begins to form, of a man who either had a vivid imagination, or was possessed, or suffered from a disease such as epilepsy. Muhammad, according to ‘Amr ibn Sharhabil, mentioned to his wife Khadijah that he feared he was possessed by demons and wondered whether others might consider him possessed by jinn (Pfander 1910:345).

Even during his childhood Muhammad was afflicted with similar problems, causing concern to his friends who felt he had “become afflicted” (Pfander 1910:347).

Anyone acquainted with occult phenomena would be aware of the conditions of those who participate in seances. Occult phenomena in childhood, daydreams, the hearing of voices and calls, nightly meditations, excessive perspiration during trances and the subsequent exhaustion and swoon-like condition; as well as the ringing of bells are quite common. Even the intoxicated condition resembles someone who is in a reasonably deep trance.

Also revealing is the report by Al Waqidi that Muhammad had such an aversion to the form of the cross that he would break everything brought into the house with a shape of the cross on it (Nehls 1990:61).

What we must ask is whether these manifestations point to true occurrences of inspiration, or whether they were simply a disease, or a condition of demonization? Historians inform us that certain great men (many of whom tended to be great warriors, such as Julius Caesar, the great Roman general, as well as the emperor Peter the Great of Russia, and Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor), all exhibited the same symptoms mentioned above. But none of them claimed to be prophets or apostles of God, nor did their followers offer them such status.

While we want to be careful not to revel in trivial speculation, we must remember that the above statements concerning Muhammad’s condition did not originate from sources outside of Islam. These were statements by his friends and relatives, and those who most firmly believed in his claim to be the seal of the prophets. I am not an expert on these matters, so I leave it to you to decide whether the facts which we have learned concerning the condition of Muhammad at the time he received his revelations, can lead us to the conclusion that what he received were truly inspired.

---

E: The Qur’an’s Supposed Distinctive Qualities

Moving on, we now tackle the book itself, and ask whether its supposed qualities give it the right to claim a unique position alongside those of the previous scriptures.

E1: Its Holiness

While Muslims hold a high view for all Scriptures, including the Old and New Testaments, they demand a unique and supreme position for the Qur’an, claiming its ascendancy over all other scriptures, because, according to them, “initially, it was never written down by men and so was never tainted with men’s thoughts or styles.” As we mentioned earlier, it is often referred to as the “Mother of Books” (taken from sura 43:3).

Since the Qur’an is such a highly honoured book, it therefore is treated as if it, in itself, is holy. To enquire into its source is considered blasphemy. In most mosques which I have attended, no one would be permitted to let their Qur’an touch the floor. Instead, every individual was urged to use ornately decorated book-stands to rest their Qur’an on while reading from its contents. My Muslim friends were horrified to learn that Christians not only stacked Bibles alongside other lesser books, but that they wrote notes in the margins as well.

The function of the Qur’an, then, seems to be in opposition to that of the Bible. This points out another clear distinction between the two faiths view on revelation.

Take the example of an old man I met in a Pennsylvania mosque, who was highly revered due to his ability to quote, by memory, any passage from the Qur’an (and thus had the title of Hafiz). Yet, I never saw him lead any discussions on the Qur’an. A young Saudi Arabian man was given that responsibility. When I asked, “Why?” I was told that the old gentleman didn’t understand Arabic well (memorizing thus doesn’t command understanding).

It shocked me to find a man who had spent years memorizing the Qur’an, yet had no yearning to understand the content of its message. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims find little desire to translate their most holy book? Merit is found in the rote reading of the Qur’an in Arabic, and not in its message.

Another example is that of a friend of mine here in London who considered the Qur’an the epitome of beauty, and offered me certain suras as examples. Yet, when I asked him to translate the texts he could not.

Some of the Pakistani students at the university I attend who could quote certain passages, admired the beauty of the text, but had great difficulty in explaining the meaning. I found it disconcerting that the “beauty of the Qur’an” had such an influence, yet its “beauty” seemed, in fact, to discourage its understanding, which becomes an enemy to its mystique.

Here then is the key which points to the difference between the scriptures of the Christians and that of the Muslims. The fact that Muslims accord the Qur’an a place of reverence and worship, while memorizing its contents without necessarily understanding it, sparks of idolatry, the very sin (“Shirk”) which the Qur’an itself warns against, as it elevates an object to the same level of reverence as Allah (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

In much of the Muslim world leather amulets worn on the body are sold outside the mosques (sometimes called Giri-giri). Within these amulets one can find folded pieces of paper with an aya, or verse from the Qur’an written on them. These verses supposedly have power to ward off evil spirits and diseases. For these Muslims the very letters of the Qur’an are imbued with supernatural power.

Christianity stands against this view of God’s written word. We believe that the power and authority for the scriptures comes not from the paper it is written on, but from the words it expresses. We believe that the Bible is merely the testimony of God’s revelation to humanity, and so is not holy in and of itself. It is a text which must be read and studied, much as a textbook is read and studied in school. Therefore, its importance lies in its content, rather than in its physical pages, just as a newspaper is read and thrown away, though the news it holds may remain imprinted on the readers mind for years to come.

Perhaps, the criticism by Muslims that Christians abuse the Bible is a result of this misunderstanding of its purpose. Once we understand the significance of the scriptures as nothing more than a repository of God’s word, we can then understand why Christians feel no injunction against writing in its margins, or against laying it on the floor (though most of the Christians I know would not do so out of respect for its message).

The high regard for the Qur’an carries over into other areas as well, some of which need to be discussed at this time.

E2: Its Superior Style

Many Muslims claim that the superiority of the Qur’an over all other revelations is due to its sophisticated literary style. They quote suras 10:37-38, or 2:23, or 17:88, which say: “Will they say ‘Muhammad hath forged it? Answer: “Bring therefore a chapter like unto it, and call whom ye may to your assistance, besides Allah, if ye speak truth.”

This boast is echoed in the Hadith (Mishkat III, pg.664), which says:

“The Qur’an is the greatest wonder among the wonders of the world… This book is second to none in the world according to the unanimous decision of the learned men in points of diction, style, rhetoric, thoughts and soundness of laws and regulations to shape the destinies of mankind.”

Muslims conclude that since there is no literary equivalent in existence, this proves that the Qur’an is a “miracle sent down from God, and not simply written by any one man.”

Ironically, we now know that many stories and passages in the Qur’an were borrowed, sometimes word-for-word, and sometimes idea-for-idea, from Second century apocryphal documents of Jewish and Zoroastrian origin (to be discussed later in this paper).

To support this elevated belief in their scripture, many Muslim Qur’anic translators have an inclination to clothe their translations in a style that is rather archaic and ‘wordy,’ so that the average person must run to the dictionary to enquire their meanings. Yet, these translations were not conceived hundreds of years ago. This is merely a ploy by the translators to give the text an appearance of dignity and age which, they hope, will in turn inspire trustworthiness.

In response, we must begin by asking whether the Qur’an can be considered a miracle written by one man, when we know from Muslim Tradition that the Qur’an which we have today was not written by Muhammad but was collated and then copied by a group of men who, fourteen to twenty years after the fact, took what they found from the memory of others, as well as verses which had been written on bones, leaves and stones and then burned all evidence of any other copies. Where is the miracle in that?

More current research is now eradicating even this theory. According to the latest data, the Qur’an was not a document which was even given to Muhammad. Much of what is included in the Qur’an were additions which slowly evolved over a period of 150-200 years, until they were made a canon sometime in the eighth or ninth century. If this is true, and it looks to be the best theory which we have to date, then the authority for the Qur’an as a miracle sent down from heaven is indeed very slim.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s ask whether the Qur’an can be considered unique in its style and makeup.

The logic of the claim to its uniqueness, according to Dr. Anis Shorrosh, is spurious as:

“… It no more proves its inspiration than a man’s strength demonstrates his wisdom, or a woman’s beauty, her virtue. Only by its teachings, its principles, and content can a book be judged rightly; not by its eloquence, elegance, or poetic strength” (Shorrosh 1988:192).

Furthermore, one must ask what criteria is used for measuring one literary piece against the other. In every written language there must be a “best piece” of literature. Take for example the: Rig-Veda of India (1,000- 1,500 B.C.), or the eloquent poems in Greek, the Odyssey and the Iliad by Homer, or the Gilgamesh Epic, the Code of Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead from Egypt, all which are considered classic masterpieces, and all of which predate the Qur’an.

Closer to home: would we compare Shakespeare’s works against that of the Qur’an? No! They are completely different genres. Yet, while few people today dispute the fact that Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets are the best written in the English language, no-one would claim they were therefore divine.

To show the futility of such an argument, it would not take a very brilliant person to quote from classical pieces of literature in rebuttal. They could use such examples as the prayer written by Francis of Assisi (from the 12th century), or the prayer of Thomas Aquinas (in the 13th century), or portions of our own scripture, such as the 23rd Psalm and other Psalms, or even point to the imagery found in the gospel of John, or the sophistication evidenced in the letter to the Romans, or the chapter on Love in 1 Corinthians 13. These could all make the claim to be superior to the Qur’an and some of them definitely are, but that is not the point. We know the authors of each of these pieces of literature, humble men all; men who would shudder if we would consider their writings somehow elevated to that of the divine.

To make this distinction more clear, compare for example:

1. sura 76:29-30 (sura or 16:93) and I Timothy 2:4, Luke 15:3-4, John 10:14,18.

2. sura 111 and Francis of Assisi’s prayer (see Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims, example no.11, pg.75).

3. suras 4:74,84; 5:33; 48:16-17 and Matthew 5:3-12.

4. sura 109 and Psalm 23.

5. sura 24:2 and John 8:3-12.

6. suras 2:222-223; 4:11,24,34,176 and Ephesians 5:22-25.

7. sura 9:29 and I Corinthians 13:4-7.

8. sura 33:53, 56-57 and Matthew 20:25-28.

9. suras 55:46-60; 56:22-26,35-38 and Revelation 21:1-8, 22-27; 22:1-6.

You may feel that the selection of the suras has been unfavorable in contrast to the quotations from the Bible and the prayer, and you are correct. But you must remember that the claim of the Qur’an is to “produce a chapter like it.” A chapter would mean any chapter, and certainly, as I have done here, those chapters which are similar in kind and content.

I am aware that the reverse could be done, that Biblical texts could be taken and opposed in similar fashion, but for what purpose? We make no claim, as has the Qur’an, that the Bible is superior to all pieces of literature.

In fact many statements and events described in the Bible are historical records, including quotations uttered by opponents of God, which do not necessarily reflect the consent, thought and will of God. Taken out of context such texts can and frequently are abused to support just about any view or opinion. Our intent here is to consider whether indeed the Qur’an has a superior style, such that it is unique among the scriptures of God. From what you now know, you, then, must decide.

E3: Its Literary Qualities

But what about the Qur’an’s supposed literary qualities?

While Christian or secular Arabic speakers are likely to appreciate the Qur’an’s poetic qualities, when anyone who is familiar with the Bible picks up a Qur’an and begins to read it through, there is the immediate recognition that he or she is dealing with an entirely different kind of literature than what is found in the Bible.

Whereas the Bible contains much historical narrative, the Qur’an contains very little. Whereas the Bible goes out of its way to explain unfamiliar terminology or territory, the Qur’an remains silent. In fact, the very structure of the Bible, consisting of a library of 66 books, written over a period of 1,500 years, reveals that it is ordered according to chronology, subject and theme.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, reads more like a jumbled and confused collection of statements and ideas, interposed many times with little relationship to the preceding chapters and verses. Many scholars admit that it is so haphazard in its make-up that it requires the utmost sense of duty for anyone to plow through it!

The German secular scholar Salomon Reinach in his harsh analysis, states that:

“From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time in absorbing it.” (Reinach 1932:176)

McClintock and Strong’s encyclopedia concludes that:

The matter of the [Koran] is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have been delivered. (McClintock and Strong 1981:151)

Even the Muslim scholar Dashti laments the literary defects of the Qur’an, saying:

“Unfortunately the Qur’an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged.”

He concludes that:

“All students of the Qur’an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation, as in ‘Ali ibn Taleb’s lost copy of the text” [Dashti 1985:28].

When reading a Qur’an, you will discover that the 114 suras not only have odd names for titles (such as the Cow, the Spoils, the Bee, or the Cave), but their layout is not at all in a chronological order. Size or length had more to do with the sequence of the suras than any other factor, starting with the longer suras and ending with the shortest. Even within the suras we find a mixed chronology. At times there is a mixture of Meccan and Medinan revelations within the same sura, so that even size is not an infallible guide in dating them.

Another problem is that of repetition. The Qur’an was intended to be memorized by those who were illiterate and uneducated since they could not read it. It therefore engages in the principal of endless repetition of the same material over and over again [Morey 1991:110]. This all leads to a good bit of confusion for the novice reader, and gives rise to much suspicion concerning its vaunted literary qualities.

In contrast to the Bible, which was written over several hundred years by a variety of authors, and flows easily from the creation of the world right through to the prophecies concerning the end of the universe; the Qur’an, supposedly written by just one man, Muhammad, during a span of a mere 20 years, seems to go nowhere and say little outside of the personal and political affairs of himself and his companions at one particular time in history.

With no logical connection from one sura to the next, one is left with a feeling of incompleteness, waiting for the story to give some meaning. Is it no wonder that many find it difficult to take seriously the claim by the Hadith that the Qur’an is “a book second to none in the world,” worthy of divine inspiration?

E4: Its Pure Arabic

Muslims believe that the Arabic language is the language of Allah. They also believe that the Qur’an, because it is perfect, is the exact representation of Allah’s words. For that reason only the Arabic Qur’an can be considered as authoritative. It, therefore, follows that those who do not know Arabic are still required to read and memorize the Qur’an in the Arabic language, as translations can never replace the language of Allah. Yet, is the Qur’an the Arabic document which Muslims claim it to be?

The answer is unequivocally “NO!” There are many foreign words or phrases which are employed in the Qur’an, some of which have no Arabic equivalent, and others which do.

Arthur Jeffrey, in his book Foreign Vocabulary of the [Koran], has gathered some 300 pages dealing with foreign words in the Qur’an, many of which must have been used in pre-Qur’anic Arabic, but quite a number also which must have been used little or not at all before they were included in the Qur’an. One must wonder why these words were borrowed, as it puts doubt on whether “Allah’s language” is sufficient enough to explain and reveal all that Allah had intended. Some of the foreign words include:

1. Pharaoh: an Egyptian word which means king or potentate, which is repeated in the Qur’an 84 times.

2. Adam and Eden: Accadian words which are repeated 24 times. A more correct term for “Adam” in Arabic would be basharan or insan, meaning “mankind.” “Eden” would be the word janna in Arabic, which means “garden.”

3. Abraham (sometimes recorded as Ibrahim): comes from the Assyrian language. The correct Arabic equivalent would be Abu Raheem.

4. Persian words

   1. Haroot and Maroot are Persian names for angels.

   2. Sirat meaning “the path” has the Arabic equivalent, Altareeq.

   3. Hoor meaning “disciple” has the Arabic equivalent, Tilmeeth.

   4. Jinn meaning “good or evil demons” has the Arabic equivalent, Ruh.

   5. Firdaus meaning “the highest or seventh heaven” has the Arabic equivalent, Jannah.

5. Syriac words: Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat, Malakout are all Syriac words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

6. Hebrew words: Heber, Sakinah, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim, Tufan (deluge) are all Hebrew words which have been borrowed and included in the ‘Arabic’ Qur’an.

7. Greek words: Injil, which means “gospel” was borrowed, yet it has the Arabic equivalent, Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, but a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

8. Christian Aramaic: Qiyama is the Aramaic word for resurrection.

9. Christian Ethiopic: Malak (2:33) is the Ethiopic word for angel.

---

F: The Qur’an’s Supposed Universal Qualities

Another claim by Muslims for the authority of the Qur’an is its universal application for all people and for all time. Yet is this the case?

There are many who believe that the Qur’an follows so closely the life and thought of the Arab world during the 7th-9th centuries, that indeed it was written for that specific environment, and not as a universal document for all peoples. suras 16:103; 26:195; and 42:7 point to its uniquely Arabic character.

In fact, the Qur’an, rather than being a universal document served to provide personal advantages for Muhammad. Examples of this can be found in suras: 33:36-38 (Zayd and Zaynab), 50-52 (rotation of wives and special privilege of Muhammad), 53-54 (privacy of Muhammad, and non marriage to his widows) and 66:1 (abstaining from wives or honey?-see Yusuf Ali’s note no.5529). Why would a document written for the benefit of all of humanity refer to personal incidents of one man? Do we find similar examples in the previous scriptures and prophets?

Indeed, it seems that Muhammad was the right prophet for the Arabs. He took their culture and universalized it. Take for instance these three examples:

1. The Arabs gloried in their language; Muhammad declared it the divine language, maintaining that the everlasting tablets in heaven recorded the original revelations in the Arabic script. Yet, he seemed to forget the fact that all the previous scriptures were written in Hebrew and Greek and not Arabic.

2. The Arabs gloried in their traditional practices and customs of the desert; practices such as predatory war, slavery, polygamy, and concubinage. Muhammad impressed upon all these usages the seal of a divine sanction. Yet it is these very areas which have proved such a stumbling-block to the western world ever since, as they reflect little of the ethos of the preceding scriptures; an ethos which guides the laws and practices of much of the modern world today.

3. The Arabs gloried in the holiness of Mecca. Muhammad made it the only portal whereby men could enter paradise. Yet there is no extra-Qur’anic documentation that Mecca was much more than a small nondescript hamlet until well into the 7th century. It was not situated on the coast, nor did it have an adequate water supply, like its neighbour Taif, which, unlike Mecca, was well-known as a rest-stop on the caravan routes.

Therefore, one can say that Muhammad took the Arab people just as he found them, and while he applied some new direction, he declared much that they did to be very good and sacred from change (Shorrosh 1988:180).

There are other examples of a specific Arabic influence on the Qur’an; two of which are the status of women, and the use of the sword.

F1: The Inferiority of Women in the Qur’an

Women in the Qur’an have an inferior status to that of men. While the Qur’an permits women to participate in battle, it also allows a Muslim husband to cast his wife adrift without giving a single reason or notice, while the same right is not reserved for the woman. The husband possesses absolute, immediate, and unquestioned power of divorce (suras 2:224-230 and 33:49).

Women are to be absolutely obedient, and can be beaten (or scourged) for being rebellious in sura 4:34 (Yusuf Ali adds “lightly,” yet the Arabic does not allow this inclusion). No privilege of a corresponding nature is reserved for the wife. Men have double the inheritance of women (sura 4:11,176). In addition to the four wives allowed by law, a Muslim man can have an unlimited number of slave girls as concubines (or sexual partners) according to sura al-Nisa 4:24-25.

Even paradise creates inequalities for women. suras 55:56; 56:36 and 78:33 state that paradise is a place where there are beautiful young virgins waiting to serve the “righteous” (sura 78:31). These virgins, we are told, will have beautiful, big, lustrous eyes (sura 56:22); they will be Maidens who are chaste, who avert their eyes out of purity (sura 55:56, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5210), and have a delicate pink complexion (sura 55:58, Yusuf Ali’s note no.5211). Nowhere are we told what awaits the Muslim women of this world in paradise: the Muslim mothers and sisters. One wonders who these virgin maidens are, and where they come from?

With Qur’anic pronouncements such as we have read in the preceding chapters it is not surprising that much of the Muslim world today reflects in its laws and societal makeup such a total bias against women?

Though statistics are hard to find, we do know that, currently, of the twenty-three countries with the worst records of jobs for women (women making up only ten to twenty percent of all workers), seventeen are Muslim countries (Kidron 1991:96-97). Similarly, of the eleven countries with the worst record for disparagement of opportunity between men and women, ten are Muslim states. The widest gaps were found in three Muslim countries: Bangla Desh, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (Kidron 1991:57).

Another revealing statistic shows that of the twelve states with the worst records for unequal treatment of girls, seven are Muslim states. The bottom three listed are UAE, Bahrain, and Brunei (Kidron 1991:56).

While one may justifiably argue that this is not representative of true Islamic teaching, it does show us how those in Muslim countries, using the Qur’an as their foundation treat their women, and what we might expect if we were living in that type of environment.

With this kind of data before us we need to ask whether the Qur’an is God’s absolute word for all people for all time, and if so, then why only half of the world’s population (its males) receive full benefit from its laws, while the other half (its women) continue in an unequal relationship?

Does not the previous revelation, the Bible, have a more universalistic and wholesome concern for women? Take for instance Ephesians 5:22-25 where we find the true ideal for a relationship, saying: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.” This scripture demands a sacrificial love by the husband, one which puts the interests of the loved one before that of his own. This sacrificial love is best explained in 1 Corinthians 13:1,4-8.

It is understandable, then, why so many people in the West see Islam as an archaic and barbaric religion, which forces people back into the mentality of the middle ages, where women had no rights or freedoms to create their own destiny, and where men could do with their wives as they pleased.

F2: The “Sword” Found in the Qur’an

Concerning the ‘sword’ in the Qur’an, the testimony of Islam today is that of a religion which condones violence for the sake of Allah.

Though many Muslims try to deny this, they have to agree that there are ample examples of violence found not only within the Qur’an, but also exemplified within the life of the prophet Muhammad.

While in Mecca, Muhammad was surrounded by enemies, and while there he taught his followers toleration, according to sura 2:256, which says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error…” As a minor player, surrounded by enemies he did well to receive this ‘convenient’ revelation. But the call for toleration changed when his power was established in Medina, once the charter had been written which regulated life between the various differing groups.

Muhammad needed a livelihood for himself and those who had come with him from Mecca. Thus he undertook a number of “expeditions,” sending groups of his soldiers out to raid Meccan caravans in order to find booty.

Though there was a rule in the Hijaz at that time not to fight during the “holy month,” Muhammad, nonetheless sent a number of his troops to raid an unsuspecting trading caravan. This caused havoc in his own camp because a Meccan had been killed in the month in which bloodshed was forbidden. Promptly another ‘convenient revelation’ came which authorized the attack (read sura 2:217).

Later on, in 624 C.E., after having been in Medina for two years, a Meccan caravan of 1,000 men was passing close to the south-west of Medina. Muhammad, with only 300 men went out to attack it at the battle of Badr. He defeated the Meccans, and consequently received tremendous status, which helped his army grow.

The Medinans participated in further battles, some of which they won (i.e. the battle of the trenches) and others which they lost (the battle of Uhud). In fact, Muhammad himself is known to have conducted 27 battles and planned 39 others.

Muslims, however, continue to downplay any emphasis on violence within the Qur’an, and they emphatically insist that the Jihad, or Holy War was only a means of defence, and was never used as an offensive act. Sahih Muslim III makes this point, saying, “the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity” (Sahih Muslim III, pg.938).

In the Mishkat II we find an explanation for Jihad:

“[Jihad] is the best method of earning both spiritual and temporal. If victory is won, there is enormous booty and conquest of a country which cannot be equalled to any other source of earnings. If there is defeat or death, there is ever-lasting Paradise and a great spiritual benefit. This sort of Jihad is conditional upon pure motive, i.e. for establishing the kingdom of Allah on earth (Mishkat II, pg.253) Also in Mishkat II we learn with regard to Jihad, that: Abu Hurairah reported that the Messenger of Allah said: To whichever village you go and settle therein, there is your share therein, and whichever village disobeys Allah and His Messenger, its one-fifth is for Allah and His Messenger, and the remainder is for you (Muslim, Mishkat II, pg.412).”

The claim that Muslims acted only in self-defense is simply untrue. What were Muslims defending in North Africa, or Spain, France, India, Persia, Syria, Anatolia or the Balkans? These countries all had previous civilizations, many of which were more sophisticated than that of Islam, yet they all (outside of France) fell during the conquests of Islam in the first few hundred years, and their cultures were soon eradicated by that of Islam. Does that not evidence a rather offensive interpretation for Jihad?

We can understand the authority for this history when we read certain passages from the Qur’an, which, itself stipulates a particularly strong use of violence. The full impact of invective against the unbeliever can be found in sura 9:5 which says, “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…” Of like nature is sura 47:4 which says, “When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…”

Similarly sura 9:29 states: “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden… until they pay tribute…” And in sura 8:39 we find, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression. And there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.”

The murder of between 600-700 Banu Kuraiza Medinan Jewish males by the sword, and the slavery of their women give testimony to this sura (Nehls pg.117)

According to the Dictionary of Islam we read:

“When an infidel’s country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:

the reception of Islam, in which case the conquered became enfranchised citizens of the Muslim statethe payment of Jizya tax, by which unbelievers obtained “protection” and became Dhimmis, provided they were not idolaters, anddeath by the sword to those who would not pay the Jizya tax.”

(Dictionary of Islam, pg.243).

War is sanctioned in Islam, with enormous rewards promised to those who fight for Allah, according to sura 4:74. Later in verse 84, Muhammad gives himself the divine order to fight. This is the verse which is the basis for calling Islam “the religion of the sword” (Shorrosh 1988:174).

In sura 5:33 the Qur’an orders those who fight Allah and his messenger to be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off; or they can be expelled out of the land. In sura 48:16-17, we read that all who die “fighting in the ways of the Lord” (Jihad) are richly rewarded, but those who retreat are sorely punished.

The first blood shed under Muhammad was carried out by a blind disciple named Umair, who stabbed and killed a woman named Asma while she slept suckling her baby because she had criticized Muhammad with poetic verses. Upon hearing of this Muhammad said “Behold a man that hath assisted the Lord and His prophet. Call him not blind, call him rather ‘Umair,’ the seeing.” (Nehls pg.122).

Therefore, when those of us who are Christians read these suras, and see the example of the prophet himself, we find a total rejection of the previous teachings of Jesus who calls us to live in peace and put away the sword. We then are incredulous when we hear Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace. The record speaks for itself.

For those countries who aspire to use Islamic law, statistics prove revealing. According to the 1994 State of the World Atlas, while only five northern countries (i.e. western) are categorized as “Terror States” (those involved in using assassination, disappearances and torture), twenty-eight of the thirty-two Muslim states fall into this category (except UAE, Qatar and Mali) (Kidron 1991:62-63).

Furthermore, it seems that most Muslim countries today are following the example of their prophet and are involved in some sort of armed conflict. It is difficult to know where the truth lies. While the West documents and publishes its criminal activities openly, the Muslim countries say very little. Lists which delineate where each country stands in relation to murders, sex offenses and criminality include most of the western countries, yet only four Muslim countries out of the thirty-two have offered statistics for the number of internal murders, while only six out of the thirty-two have offered a list of sex offenses, and only four of the thirty-two have divulged their level of criminality. Therefore, until more Muslim countries are willing to come forward with statistics, it is impossible to evaluate the claim which they make: that western states have a higher degree of degradation and criminality than that of Muslim states.

We do know, however, that in the 1980’s, of the fourteen countries who were involved in ongoing “general wars,” nine of them were Muslim countries, while only one was a non-western Christian country.

Why, we wonder, are so many Muslim countries embroiled in so many wars, many of which are against other Muslims? Muslims answer that these are not good examples because they are not authentic Muslim states. Yet, can we not say that to the contrary, these countries do indeed follow the examples which we find so readily not only within the text of the Qur’an, but within the life of the prophet, and in the history of the first few centuries of Islam. Muhammad’s life, and the Qur’an which he gave to the world, both give sufficient authority for the sword in Islam. While this may cause the 20th century western Muslim to squirm uncomfortably, it cannot be denied that there is ample precedent for violence within their scriptures and within their own history. What we choose to ask, however, is whether the witness of violence within Islam exemplifies the heart of a loving and compassionate God, one who calls Himself merciful; or whether it rather exemplifies the character of 7th century Arabia, with all its brutal desert tribal disputes and warfare?

Compare the opposing concept of Jesus:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one kilometre, go with him two kilometres. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:38-44)

So what can we say about the authority of the Qur’an? Can we say it is a divinely inspired book sent by Allah for all of humanity, for all time? Can it claim supernatural as well as literary qualities, which not only place it above other revelations, but point to its divine origins? Much of what I have offered you here points to the fact that the Qur’an lacks in all three qualities, and seems to reflect more the life and times of its supposed mediator than that of the heart of a universal God. The idolatrous tendency of Muslims towards the Qur’an, as well as the confusion of its literary makeup, and the special conditions given to Muhammad, point to a book put together by one man, or as we now know, a group of much later men, than an inspired piece of God’s revealed word.

If one were to contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over hundreds of years by at least 40 different authors, with the Qur’an which came through one man, Muhammad, during his lifetime, there would be no contest as to which was the superior literature. In the final analysis, the Qur’an simply does not fit the breadth of vision, nor the literary style or structure of that found in the Old and New Testament. To go from the Bible to the Qur’an is to go from the superior to the inferior, from the authentic to the counterfeit, from God’s perspective to that of an individual, caught up and controlled by his own world and times.

I end this section with a quote from an expert on the Qur’an, Dr. Tisdall, who says:

“The Qur’an breathes the air of the desert, it enables us to hear the battle-cries of the Prophet’s followers as they rushed to the onset, it reveals the working of Muhammad’s own mind, and shows the gradual declension of his character as he passed from the earnest and sincere though visionary enthusiast into the conscious imposter and open sensualist.” (Tisdall 27)

---

G: The Collation, or Collection, of the Qur’anic Text

We now take the discussion concerning the authority for the Qur’an away from its makeup and ask the question of how it came to us. We will give special emphasis on the problems which we find with its collation. We will also ask why, if it is the Word of God, so much of its content is not only self-contradictory, but is in error with the facts as we know them? From there we will then consider where the Qur’an received much of its material, or from where many of its stories were derived. Let’s then begin with the alleged collection of the Qur’anic text.

Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect in its textual history, that there are no textual defects (as they say we have in our Bible). They maintain that it is perfect not only in its content and style, but the order and script as we have it today is an exact parallel of the preserved tablets in heaven. This, they contend, is so because Allah has preserved it.

Therefore, the Qur’an, they feel, must be the Word of God. While we have already looked at the content and style of the Qur’an and found it wanting, the claim to its textual purity is an assertion which we need to examine in greater detail.

G1: The Periods of Revelation

According to Muslim Tradition the “revelations” of the suras (or books) were received by the prophet Muhammad, via the angel Jibril (Gabriel) within three periods. The first is referred to as the 1st Meccan period, and lasted between 611-615 C.E. During this time the suras contain many of the warnings, and much of the leading ideas concerning who Allah is, and what He expected of His creation (i.e. suras 1, 51-53, 55-56, 68-70, 73-75, 77-97, 99-104, 111- 114).

The 2nd period, referred to as the 2nd Meccan period (between 616-622 C.E.) had longer suras, dealing with doctrines, many of which echoed Biblical material. It was during this time that Islam makes the claim of being the one true religion (i.e. suras 6-7, 10-21, 23, 25-32, 34-46, 50, 54, 67, 71-72, 76).

The third period, referred to as the Medinan period (between 623-632 C.E.) centered in Medina and lasted roughly ten years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E. There is a distinct shift in content during this period. Divine approval is given for Muhammad’s leadership, and much of the material deals with local historical events. There is a change from the preaching of divine matters, to that of governing. Consequently, the suras are much more political and social in their makeup (suras 2-5, 8-9, 22-24, 33, 37, 47-49, 57-59, 60-66, 98, 110).

G2: The Method of Collection

While there is ongoing discussion concerning whether Muhammad ever received any revelations, there is considerably more skepticism concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have today is indeed made up entirely of those revelations which he did supposedly receive.

Many Muslims ardently contend that the Qur’an which is in our hands today was in its completed form even before the death of Muhammad, and that the collation of the texts after his death was simply an exercise in amassing that which had already existed. There are even those who believe that many of the companions of the prophet had memorized the text, and it is they who could have been used to corroborate the final collation by Muhammad’s secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit. If these assertions are true, then indeed we do have a revelation which is well worth studying. History, however, points to quite a different scenario, one which most Muslims find it difficult to maintain.

Muslim Tradition tells us that Muhammad had not foreseen his death, and so had made no preparations for the gathering of his revelations, in order to place them into one document. Thus, according to tradition, it was left up to Muhammad’s followers to write down what had been said.

Al Bukhari, a Muslim scholar of the 9th-10th century, and the most authoritative of the Muslim tradition compilers, writes that whenever Muhammad fell into one of his unpredictable trances his revelations were written on whatever was handy at the time. The leg or thigh bones of dead animals were used, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, and bark. And when there was nothing at hand the attempt was made by his disciples to memorize it as closely as possible.

The principle disciples at that time were: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, all of whom were close companions of Muhammad.

According to Sahih Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad’s death, passages of the Qur’an were lost irretrievably when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This incident together with the Qur’an’s automatic completion as a revelation, now that its mediator had passed away, compelled a companion of the prophet named Hazrat Omar to suggest to the current caliph, Abu Bakr, that the existing revelations be collected.

Initially the aging caliph demurred, as he was not willing to do what the prophet had not done. However, he later changed his mind, due to the crisis caused by the death of the reciters at Yamama. The secretary of Muhammad, Zaid ibn Thabit was commissioned by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings of the prophet and put them into a document.

G2i: Zaid’s Collection

Zaid’s reply, according to Bukhari, is interesting. He is purported to have said that it would have been easier if they had demanded that he shift a mountain then collect the suras of the Qur’an. The reason for this rather odd statement becomes obvious when we find that, in his search for the passages of the Qur’an he was forced to use as his sources the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, parchments, papers, skins, mats, stones, bark, and the memories of the prophet’s companions (Bukhari, vol.6, pg.477).

This shows that there were no Muslims at that time who had memorized the entire Qur’an by heart, otherwise the collection would have been a simple task. Had there been individuals who knew the Qur’an by heart, Zaid would only have had to go to any one of the companions and write down what they dictated. Instead, Zaid was overwhelmed by the assignment, and was forced to “search” for the passages from these men who had memorized certain segments. He also had to refer to rather strange objects to find the ayas he needed. These are hardly reliable sources for a supposed “perfect” copy of the eternal tablets which exist in heaven.

What evidence, we ask, is there that his final copy was complete? It is immediately apparent that the official copy of the Qur’an rested on very fragile sources. There is no way that anyone can maintain with certainty that Zaid collected all the sayings of the prophet. Had some of the objects been lost, or thrown away? Did some of the ayas die with the companions who were killed at the battle of Yamama? We are left with more questions then answers.

In Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, page 478) Zaid is quoted as saying that he found the last verses of sura 9 (verses 128 and 129) from a certain individual. Then he continues by saying that he found this verse from no-one else. In other words there was no-one else who knew this verse. Thus had he not traced it from this one man, he would not have traced it at all!

This leads us to only one possible conclusion: that we can never be sure that the Qur’an which was finally compiled was, in fact, complete! Zaid concedes that he had to find this one verse from this one man. This underlines the fact that there was no-one who knew the Qur’an by heart, and thus could corroborate that Zaid’s copy was complete.

Consequently the final composition of the Qur’an depended on the discretion of one man; not on the revelation of God, but on an ordinary fallible man, who put together, with the resources which he had available, what he believed to be a complete Qur’an. This flies in the face of the bold claim by Muslims that the book is now, and was then, complete.

Zaid’s text was given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad, and the daughter of Umar, the 2nd Caliph. We then pick up the story with the reign of Uthman, the 3rd Caliph.

G2ii: Competing Collections

In Sahih Bukhari, (vol. 6, pg.479) we read that there were at this time different readings of the Qur’an in the different provinces of the Muslim world. A number of the companions of Muhammad had compiled their own codices of the text. In other words, though Zaid had collated the official text under Abu Bakr, there were other texts which were circulating which were considered authoritative as well.

The two most popular codices were those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, whose manuscript became the standard for the area of Iraq, and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, whose manuscript became standard in Syria.

These and other extant codices were basically consistent with each other in their general content, but a large number of variant readings, many seriously affecting the text, existed in all the manuscripts such that no two codices were entirely the same (which we’ll talk about later).

In addition, the texts were being recited in varying dialects in the different provinces of the Muslim world. During the 7th century, Arabic was composed in a so-called scriptio defectiva in which only the consonants were written. Since there was no vowels, the vocalization was left to the reader. Some verbs could be read as active or passive, while some nouns could be read with different case endings, and some forms could be read as either nouns or verbs.

G3: The Standardization of One Text

Consequently, during the reign of Uthman, the third Caliph, a deliberate attempt was made to standardize the Qur’an and impose a single text upon the whole Muslim community.

The codex of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, was chosen by Uthman for this purpose, to the consternation of both Mas’ud and Ibn Ka’b. Zaid ibn Thabit was a much younger man, who had not yet been born at the time Mas’ud had recited 70 suras by heart before Muhammad.

According to Muslim tradition Zaid’s codice was chosen by Uthman because the language used, the ‘Quraishi dialect,’ was local to Mecca, and so had become the standard Arabic. Tradition maintains that Zaid, along with three scholars of the Quraishi tribe of Mecca, had written the codice in this Quraishi dialect, as it had been revealed to Muhammad in this dialect. Linguists today, however, are still at a quandary to know what exactly this Quraishi dialect was, as it doesn’t exist today and therefore cannot be identified. Furthermore, the dialect which we find in the present Qur’an does not differ from the language which was current in other parts of the Hijaz at that time. While it makes for a good theory, it has little historical evidence with which to back it up.

A further reason for the choice of Zaid’s codice, according to tradition, was that it had been kept in virtual seclusion for many years, and so had not attracted the publicity as one of the varying texts, as had the codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Ironically, by virtue of their popularity, Mas’ud’s and Ka’b’s codices were rejected as sources for the final Qur’an and supplanted by the codice of an individual who neither had the notoriety, nor the experience, and whose text (as we shall soon discover) had never been selected as authoritative by the prophet, as had the other two.

Consequently, copies of Zaid’s codice were then sent out and dispersed throughout every Muslim province, while all the other manuscripts were summarily destroyed.

It is evident from this discussion that the final choice for an authoritative text had little to do with its authenticity, but had more to do with the fact that it was not a controversial manuscript. It is also evident that there were no two Qur’ans which existed at that time which were exactly alike. This tradition tells us that other whole copies did exist, yet not one of the other texts were spared the order for their destruction. We must conclude that the destruction of the other manuscripts was a drastic effort to standardize the Qur’anic text. While we may have one standard text today, there is no proof that it corresponds with the original. We can only say that it may possibly be similar to the Uthmanic recension, a recension which was one of many. Yet, what evidence is there that in all instances it was the correct one? We don’t know as we have no others with which to compare.

G4: The Missing Verses

This then brings up another difficult problem: how can we be sure that what Zaid ibn Thabit included in his codice (or manuscript) contained the full revelation of Muhammad’s revelation? The fact is we simply cannot. We are forced to rely on Muslim tradition to tell us. Yet, interestingly, it is Muslim tradition which informs us that Zaid himself initially cast doubt on his own codice.

G4i: Sura 33:23

According to Sahih Bukhari (volume 6, pg.79), despite the fact that Zaid’s text had been copied out and sent to the seven different cities, Zaid suddenly remembered that a verse which the prophet had quoted earlier was missing from his text. Zaid is quoted as saying that this missing verse was verse 23 of sura 33, which says, “Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.” So he searched for the verse until he found it with Hussaima ibn al Ansari.

Thus, we find that after the copies had been sent out claiming to be the only authentic and complete copies of the Qur’an available, Zaid, and he alone, recorded a verse which was missing; a verse which, once again, was only found with one man. This resembles the previous occasion where a verse was only found with one man.

The conclusion is obvious: initially all of those seven copies which were sent out to the provinces were imperfect. But even more concerning is the fact that it was due to the recollection of one man, and the memory of another that the Qur’an was finally completed. Once again it is obvious that there simply could not have been any man at that time who knew the whole Qur’an by heart. This is yet another instance which contradicts the argument posed by Muslims that the Qur’an had been memorized by certain men during the early days of Islam.

But of more importance is the troubling question of whether there were perhaps other verses which were overlooked or were left out. The answer to this question can be found in another of the authoritative traditions, that of Sahih Muslim.

G4ii: The Verse on Stoning

Muslim maintains that key passages were missing from Zaid’s text. The most famous is the verse of stoning. All the major traditions speak of this missing verse. According to Ibn Ishaq’s version (pg. 684) we read:

“God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, ‘We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle [Muhammad] stoned, and we stoned after him. I fear that in the time to come men will say that they find no mention of stoning in God’s book, and thereby go astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down. Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery.”

Therefore, according to Umar, the stoning verse was part of the original Qur’an, the revelation which Allah sent down. But now it is missing. In many of the traditions we find numerous reports of adulterous men and women who were stoned by the prophet and his companions. Yet today we read in the Qur’an, sura 24:32 that the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes. Umar said adultery was not only a capital offence, but one which demanded stoning. That verse is now missing from the Qur’an, and that is why Umar raised this issue.

Muslims will need to ask themselves whether indeed their Qur’an can claim to be the same as that passed down by Muhammad to his companions? With evidence such as this the Qur’an in our possession today becomes all the more suspect.

G5: The Variations Between the Codices

Yet that is not all. Another glaring problem with Zaid’s text is that it differed from the other codices which coexisted with his.

Arthur Jeffery has done the classic work on the variants of the early codices in his book Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an, printed in 1937. The three main codices which he lists are those which we have referred to earlier, and include:

1. Ibn Mas’ud (‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ud) (died 653), from Kufa, in Iraq. It is he who is reported to have learned 70 suras directly from Muhammad, and was appointed by Muhammad as one of the first teachers of Qur’anic recitation (according to Ibn Sa’d). Mas’ud became a leading authority on the Qur’an and hadith in Kufa, Iraq. He refused to destroy his copy of the Qur’an or stop teaching it when the Uthmanic recension was made official.

2. Ubayy b. Ka’b (died 649) a Medinan Muslim who was associated with Damascus, Syria. Prior to that he was a secretary for the prophet, and was considered by some to be more prominent than Mas’ud in Qur’anic understanding, during the prophet’s lifetime. Ubayy’s codice had two extra suras. He destroyed his codice after the Uthmanic recension.

3. Abu Musa (died 662), a Yemenite, though his codice was accepted in Basra, where he served as governor under Umar. His codex was large and it contained the two extra suras of Ubayy’s codex, and other verses not found in other codices (Jeffery, pp.209-211).

In addition to these three Jeffery classifies 12 other codices belonging to the companions of the prophet, which were considered as primary.

One of these Ali b. Abi Talib (d.661) a cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, is said to have been the first to collect the Qur’an after the prophet’s death, and to have arranged the suras in some sort of chronological order.

According to Jeffery, there were thousands of variations between the different codices.

G5i: Abdullah ibn Mas’ud’s Codex

Take for instance the codice of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, a very close companion of the prophet, according to the traditions. As we know it was he who refused to hand over his manuscript after the order went out from Uthman for all existing copies to be burned.

There is much evidence today to show that, in fact, his text is far more reliable than Hafsah’s manuscript, which we know to be the one collated by Zaid ibn Thabit. Ibn Mas’ud alone was present with Muhammad when he reviewed the content of the Qur’an every year during the month of Rammadan.

In the well-known collection of traditions by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.441), we read these words:

“Ibn Abbas asked, ‘Which of the two readings of the Qur’an do you prefer?’ [The prophet] answered, ‘The reading of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.’ Verily the Qur’an was recited before the apostle of Allah, once in every Rammadan, except the last year when it was recited twice. Then Abdullah ibn Mas’ud came to him, and he learned what was altered and abrogated.”

Thus no-one knew the Qur’an better then he did. In the same tradition by Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.442) it says:

“No sura was revealed but I [Mas’ud] knew about it and what was revealed. If I had known anyone knowing more of the book of Allah than me, I would have gone to him.”

Ibn Mas’ud lays claim here to be the foremost authority of the text of the Qur’an. In fact, it is Sahih Muslim (vol. 4, pg.1312) who informs us that Mas’ud knew seventy suras by heart, and was considered to have a better understanding of the Qur’an then the other companions of the prophet. He recited these seventy passages before the prophet and the companions, and no-one disputed with him.

In Sahih Bukhari (vol. 5, pgs.96-97) we read that Muhammad himself singled out Abdullah ibn Mas’ud as the first and foremost authority on the Qur’an.

According to Ibn Sa’d (vol. 2, pg.444) Mas’ud learned his seventy suras while Zaid was still a youth. Thus his authority should have been greater as he knew so much of the Qur’an long before Zaid became a man.

Arthur Jeffery in his book points out several thousand variants taken from over thirty “main sources.” Of special note are those which he found between the codex of Ibn Mas’ud and that of Zaid ibn Thabit. He also found that Mas’ud’s codex agreed with the other codices which existed at the expense of Zaid’s text (while we don’t have the time to go into all the variations, it might be helpful if you could obtain a copy of Arthur Jeffrey’s book: Materials for the history of the Text of the Qur’an).

According to Jeffery, Abu Mas’ud’s Codex was different from the Uthmanic text in several different ways:

1. It did not contain the Fatiha (the opening sura, sura 1), nor the two charm suras (suras 113 and 114).

2. It contained different vowels within the same consonantal text (Jeffery 25-113).

3. It contained Shi’ite readings (i.e. suras 5:67; 24:35; 26:215; 33:25,33,56; 42:23; 47:29; 56:10; 59:7; 60:3; 75:17-19) (Jeffery 40,65,68).

4. Entire phrases were different, such as:

   1. sura 3:19: Mas’ud has “The way of the Hanifs” instead of “Behold, the [true] religion (din) of God is Islam.”

   2. sura 3:39: Mas’ud has “Then Gabriel called to him, ‘O Zachariah’”, instead of the Uthmanic reading: “Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary.”

   3. Only his codice begins sura 9 with the Bismilah, while the Uthmanic text does not (“bismi ‘llahi ‘l-rahmani ‘l-rahim” meaning, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

5. Finally, the order of the suras in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex is different from the Uthmanic text in that Mas’ud’s list arranges the suras more closely in order of descending length.

G5ii: Ubayy Ka’b’s Codex

Ubayy Ka’b’s codex also had variations. Though there are those who disagree, it seems to have been less important than Ibn Mas’ud’s, as it was not the source of any secondary codices.

It included two suras not found in the Uthmanic or Ibn Mas’ud’s texts: the surat al-Khal’, with three verses, and surat al-Hafd, with six verses (Jeffery pg. 180ff). Al-Fadl b. Shadhan is said to have seen a copy of Ubayy’s 116 suras (rather than the 114 of Uthman’s) in a village near Basra in the middle of the 3rd century A.H. (10th century C.E.).

The order of suras in Ubayy’s codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman’s.

G6: Conclusions on the Collation of the Qur’anic Text

These variations in the codices show that the original text of the Qur’an cannot have been perfect. The fact that a little known secretary (Zaid ibn Thabit) was chosen as the final arbiter of the Qur’anic text points to possible political interference. The admission by this secretary that the task of collating the verses was unduly daunting and his consequent pronouncement that one verse was initially missing from his finished text (sura 33:23) while another verse, according to authoritative sources, is still missing (the stoning verse) puts even more suspicion on its authenticity.

On top of that, the many variations which exist between Zaid’s text and those of supposedly more authoritative collators (Mas’ud and Ka’b) can only add to the perception of many today that the Uthmanic Qur’an which we supposedly have today leaves us with more doubt than assurance for its authority as the perfect word of God.

Yet that is not all. We also know from Muslim tradition that the Uthmanic Qur’an had to be reviewed and amended to meet the Caliph’s standard for a single approved text even after Uthman’s death. This was carried out by al-Hajjaj, the governor of Kufa, who made eleven distinct amendments and corrections to the text, which were later reduced to seven readings.

If the other codices were in existence today, one could compare the one with the other to ascertain which could claim to be closest to the original. Even Hafsah’s copy, the original from which the final text was taken, was later destroyed by Mirwan, the governor of Medina. But for what reason???

Does this act not intimate that there were problems between the other copies, possibly glaring contradictions, which needed to be thrown out? Can we really believe that the rest were destroyed simply because Uthman wished to have only one manuscript which conformed to the Quraishi dialect (if indeed such a dialect existed)? Why then burn the other codices? If, as some contend today, the other codices were only personal reminisces of the writers, then why did the prophet give those codices so much authority during his lifetime? Furthermore, how could Uthman claim to judge one from the other now that Muhammad was no longer around?

There are certain scholars today who believe that Zaid ibn Thabit and his co-workers could have reworked the Arabic, so as to make the text literately sophisticated and thus seemingly superior to other Arabic works of its time; and thus create the claim that this was indeed the illiterate Muhammad’s one miracle.

There are others, such as John Wansbrough from SOAS, who go even further, contending that all of the accounts about companion codices and individual variants were fabricated by later Muslim jurists and philologers. He asserts that the collection stories and the accounts of the companion codices arose in order to give an ancient authority to a text that was not even compiled until the 9th century or later.

He feels that the text of the Qur’an was so fluid that the multiple accounts (i.e. of the punishment stories) represent “variant traditions” of different metropolitan centres (such as Kufa, Basra, Medina etc.), and that as late as the 9th century a consonantal textus receptus ne varietur still had not been achieved. Today, his work is taking on greater authority within scholarly circles.

Unfortunately we will never know the real story, because the originals (if indeed they ever existed) which could have told us so much were destroyed. All we have are the copies written years after the originals by those who were then ordered to destroy their originals. There are, therefore, no manuscripts to compare with to give the current Qur’an authenticity, as we have with the Bible.

For those who may wonder why this is so important, let me provide an example: If after I had read this paper out-loud, everyone was to then write down all I had said from memory when they returned home, there would certainly be a number of variations. But we could find out these variations by putting them all together and comparing the many copies one against the other, as the same errors would not be written at the same place by everyone. The final result would be a rendering which is pretty close to what I had said originally. But if we destroyed all of the copies except one, there would be no means of comparing, and all precision would be lost. Our only hope would be that the one which remained was as close to what I had said as possible. Yet we would have no other rendering or example to really know for sure.

Consequently, the greater number of copies preserved, the more certitude we would have of the original text. The Qur’an has only one doctored manuscript to go on, while the New Testament has over 24,000 manuscripts in existence, from a variety of backgrounds, from which to compare!!! Can you see the difference?!

It is therefore quite clear that that which is known as the Textus Receptus of the Qur’an (the text considered authoritative in the Muslim world today) cannot lay claim to be the Textus Originalis (the genuine original text).

The current Qur’anic text which is read throughout the Muslim world is merely Zaid’s version, duly corrected where necessary, and later amended by al-Hajjaj. Consequently, the ‘official’ text as it currently stands was only arrived at through an extended process of amendments, recensions, eliminations and an imposed standardization of a preferred text at the initiative of one caliph, and not by a prophetic direction of divine decree.

In conclusion one can safely say that there is relative authenticity of the text in the sense that it adequately retains the gist and content of what was originally there. There is, however, no evidence to support the cherished Muslim hypothesis that the Qur’an has been preserved absolutely intact to the last dot and letter, as so many Muslims claim (For further reading see Jam’ al-Qur’an, by Gilchrist).

Yet, even if we were to let the issue rest, concerning whether or not the Qur’an which we have now is the same as that which Muhammad related to his followers, we would still need to ask whether its authority might not be impinged upon due to the numerous errors and contradictions which can be found within its pages. It is to that question that we now proceed.

---

H: The Abrogation of Qur’anic Verses

The abrogation of Qur’anic verses presents a problem for Muslims today. As we all know, a man can make mistakes and correct them, but this is not the case with God. God has infinite wisdom and cannot contradict himself. Abrogation flies is the face of sura 6:34 (and 10:65) which state:

“…There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.” An even more damaging pronouncement is made in sura 4:82 which reads, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies.”

Muslim authorities try to explain the internal contradictions in the Qur’an by stating that certain passages of the Qur’an are annulled (Mansukh) by verses revealed chronologically later than themselves. The verses which replace them are referred to as Nasikh. Yet, there is by no means any certainty as to which disagreeing verses are mansukh and which are nasikh, since the order in which the Qur’an was written down was not done chronologically but according to the length of the suras.

From the preceding section we have found that even the text at our disposal was found and collated piecemeal, leaving us little hope of delineating which suras were the more authentic. Furthermore, Muslim tradition admits that many of the suras were not even given to Muhammad in one piece. According to tradition, some portions were added to other suras under the direction of Muhammad, with further additions to the former suras. Therefore, within a given sura there may be found ayas which were early, and others which were quite late. How then could we know which were the more authoritative?

The law of abrogation is taught by the Qur’an in sura 2:106,108, stating: “We substitute one revelation for another…” This is echoed in sura 17:86, which reads, “If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration.” In sura 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read, “None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Jalalu’d-Din estimated the number of abrogations at between 5 to 500. Others say it stands closer to 225. What this shows us is that the science of abrogation is an inexact science indeed, as no-one really knows how many of the verses are to be abrogated. Underlying this claim of abrogation is another concern: How can a divine revelation be improved upon? Would it not have been perfect from the start?

Yusuf Ali in his defense of abrogation claims that there is a need for progressive revelation within scripture, saying: “its form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time”. Christians believe in progressive revelation as well, as God reveals and changes His will for a people as they change culturally over a period of generations. The problem with suras 2:106, 17:86 and 16:101 is that they do not refer to revelations given prior to Muhammad, but refer uniquely to the Qur’anic verses themselves. One cannot claim progressive revelation within a space of only 20 years (this was the time in which the Qur’an was written). The period found in the previous scriptures spans 1,500 years! People and cultures change in that amount of time. Thus the revelations would reflect those changes. To demand the same for a revelation of a mere 20 years suggests that God is not all-knowing. The only other option can be that the recorder made corrections, and then came up with a revelation to authenticate those corrections. While you decide, let’s look at some of these abrogations.

Some examples of these abrogations are:

1. In sura 2:142-144, we find the change of the Qibla, the direction of prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, and back to Mecca.

2. The inheritance laws in suras 4:7; & 2:180, provides an equal share for women and men, and then is doubled for men in sura 4:11.

3. The change of night prayers from a full night in sura 73:2-4, to a half or less, or whatever was easy to do in sura 73:20.

4. The change of punishment for adulteresses, beginning with life imprisonment, found in sura 4:15, and then changed to 100 strokes by flogging, according to sura 24:2. Remember that these two examples make no mention of the previous ‘missing’ aya which prescribes the stoning for those who commit adultery. It is also interesting to note that Homosexuals were let off if they repented, according to sura 4:16, though this same allowance was not given for heterosexuals.

5. The change of the retaliation laws where retaliation for the crime (murder) was confined to people of equal rank (i.e. slave for slave) in sura 2:178, then it was to be carried out only against the murderer by the heir, sura 17:33 (note: Ali adds Qisas and forgiving to the Arabic).

6. The change of the days of creation from 6 (7:54; 25:59) to 8 (41:9- 12).

7. The change of the hierarchy of prophets, where they were initially equal (suras 3:84;2:285;2:136) and then some are elevated above the others, sura 2;253 (see Ali’s note:289).

8. The changes in intercession; at first done by angels and Muhammad (suras 42:5; 24:62), and then were not acceptable to Allah (suras 74:48; 63:5; 34:23).

9. The Sword verses: the Call to “fight and slay the pagan (idolaters) wherever you find them” (sura 9:5); or “strike off their heads in battle” (sura 47:5); or “make war on the unbeliever in Allah, until they pay tribute” (sura 9:29); or “Fight then… until the religion be all of it Allah’s” (sura 8:39); or “a grievous penalty against those who reject faith” (sura 9:3). These all contradict “There is no compulsion in religion” (sura 2:256).

10. Sura 2:184 first allows a rich man to buy himself out of the fast by feeding an indigent. The following verse (185) allows no compensation.

11. Widows were to keep themselves apart for 4 months and 10 days after their husband’s death (sura 2:234), which is then changed to one year (2:240).

12. Sura 2:106 contradicts sweeping changes which follow: in the Qibla (vss.115,177,124-151), pilgrimage rites (vs.158), dietary laws (vss.168-174) law of talio (vss.178-179), in bequests (vss.180-182), the fast (vss.182-187), and the pilgrimage again (vss.196-203).

13. Sura 16:101 contradicts changes which follow in dietary laws (vss.114-119), and in the Sabbath laws (vs.124).

14. Muhammad will not forget the revelations which Allah gives him (sura 87:6-7), is then changed to withdrawing that which Allahs wills to withdraw (i.e. revelations) (17:86).

15. Allah commits himself as law to act mercifully, which implies cause and effect (sura 6:12), yet later in the same sura we find that “If Allah willed, he could have brought them all together to the guidance… Whom Allah will he sendeth astray, and whom he will he placeth on a straight path” (vss. 35 & 39).

16. Concerning predestination, in sura 57:22 we find the words, “No evil befalls on the earth, nor on your own souls but it is in a book before We bring into existence.” And in sura 76:29-31 it says, “..whosoever will may choose a way unto his Lord, Yet ye will not, unless Allah willeth… He maketh whom He will to enter His mercy…” Both of these contradict sura 42:30, which states, “Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned.”

17. In sura 5:82, Pagans and Jews are considered the furthest from Muslims, while Christians are the nearest, yet in sura 5:51 & 57 Muslims are told not to have Christians as friends. Interestingly, in the same verse (51) it comments that Jews and Christians are friends, yet the only thing they have in common is their agreement on the authenticity of the Old Testament.

18. Muhammad was the first to bow down to Allah (i.e. the first Muslim) (sura 6:14,164; 39:12). Yet these passages forget that Abraham, his sons and Jacob were former Muslims (sura 2:132) as were all the earlier prophets (sura 28:52-53), and Jesus’ disciples (3:52).

19. Allah curses all liars, yet permits Muhammad to break an oath (sura 66:1-2), and though Allah alone may be worshipped, he demands Satan and the angels to worship Adam, with the result that Satan is eternally punished because he refused to do so (sura 2:32).

20. An abrogation evidenced by Muslims today is the claim that the Bible (which they admit is a revealed book) has been altered and corrupted. Yet sura 10:65 reads, “There is no changing in the Words of Allah,” and sura 6:33,34 reads, “There is none that can alter the decisions (revelations) of Allah.”

21. In sura 17:101 we find 9 plagues (or signs), whereas in sura 7:133 only 5 are listed (note Ali’s footnote no.1091 which adds the rod and leprous hand from verses 107 and 108, as well as the drought and short crops of verse 130 as plagues, to make up the nine).

22. In sura 51:57 we find that Jinn were created to worship Allah, yet in sura 7:176 we find that the Jinn were created for Hell.

23. In sura 17:103 we are told that Pharaoh was drowned with his army, yet in sura 10:90-92, upon admitting to the power of God, he is rescued as a sign to others.

24. Angels are commanded by Allah to bow down to Adam in suras 15:29-30; 20:116, which they do, yet Allah prohibits anyone worshipping any but him (suras 4:116; 18:110).

25. Lust is condemned in sura 79:40-41, yet in sura 4:24-25 Allah permits polygamy, divorce, and the use of female slaves as concubines (one needs to ask why a man needs a concubine if not to satisfy his lust). Furthermore, for those who are faithful lust is the primary, and unlimited reward in heaven (suras 55:46-78; 56:11-39). Surely if lust is wrong on earth and hateful to a Holy God, it cannot be pleasing to him in paradise.

26. On that same note, wine is forbidden while on earth (sura 5:91), yet rivers of wine await the faithful in paradise (suras 47:15; 76:5; 83:25)

27. Muslims Jews, Christians, and Sabians are all considered saved in sura 2:62, yet in sura 3:85 only Muslims are considered saved.

28. In sura 4:157 we read that Jesus did not die, yet in sura 19:33 we read that not only did he die, but he arose again! (note: Yusuf Ali has no rebuttal here, but in his footnote no.2485 refers to sura 19:15, which repeats the same words for Yahya, and then refers the reader to sura 4:157-a vivid example of using a Nasikh verse to abrogate one which is Mansukh in order to get out of a “jam”).

Some of these may not be serious contradictions, were it not for the claim that the Qur’an is “nazil” which means “brought down” from heaven without the touch of human hand. This implies that the original “un-created” preserved tablets in heaven, from which the Qur’an proceeds (sura 85:22), also contains these abrogations. How can they then claim to be Allah’s eternal word?

Equally disturbing is what this implies concerning the character of God. For, if Allah in the Qur’an manifests himself as the arbitrary God who acts as he pleases without any ties even to his own sayings, he adds a thought totally foreign to the former revelation which Muhammad claimed to confirm. Indeed, these abrogations degrade the integrity of the former revelations which were universally applicable to all peoples, for all time. The Qur’anic abrogations on the other hand fit the requirements of one specific man and his friends, for one specific place, and one specific time.

---

I: Errors Found Within the Qur’an

For centuries Muslims have been taught to believe that the Qur’an has been preserved in its original Arabic form since the beginning of time itself, and preserved intact from the period of the “sending down” of the book to Muhammad, right on down till the present. They have been taught that the text which we read now was uniquely inspired, in that there were no intermediary agents who could possibly pollute the integrity of the script.

At the same time they have also been taught that this suggested textual perfection of the book proves that the Qur’an must be the Word of God, as no one but Allah could have created and preserved such a perfected text. This sentiment has become so strongly established in the Muslim world that one will rarely find a Muslim scholar willing to make any critical analysis of its content or of its structure, as to do so would usually be detrimental to his or her health. However, when an analysis is made by a Western scholar upon the Qur’an, that analysis is roundly castigated as being biased from the outset, and even “satanic,” and therefore, unworthy of a reply.

But that does not stop the analysis from being undertaken, for the Qur’an when held up to scrutiny finds itself lacking in many areas.

As we have already discussed, we find problems with its sources, its collation, its literary makeup, its supposed uniqueness, and problems even with its content. It is not difficult to find numerous contradictions within the Qur’an, a problem which Muslims and the Qur’an has attempted to alleviate by conveniently allowing for the ‘law of abrogation.’ But even more devastating towards the integrity of this supposed perfect ‘divine book,’ are the numerous errors which are found in its pages. It is therefore to those errors which we will now turn in our continuing quest to ascertain whether, indeed, the Qur’an can claim to be the true, and “perfect” Word of God, as Muslims have so often maintained since the very inception of their faith.

I1: Contradictions With the Bible Which Point to Errors:

Many errors are found in the Qur’an which contradict the Biblical account. In the previous section we discussed a number of these contradictions in some detail, so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say, that because the Qur’an followed these scriptures and made the claim to protect them (suras 6:34; 10:65; and sura 4:82) its integrity is put into doubt when it fails to adhere to the content of the very scriptures it claims to protect and confirm. Some contradictions I will mention, however, because they give doubt to the veracity of its content.

I1i: Moses

The first concerns the adoption of Moses by Pharaoh’s wife (in sura 28:9). This story contradicts the Biblical Exodus 2:10 version, which states that it was Pharaoh’s daughter who adopted Moses. It is important to note here that had Pharaoh’s wife adopted Moses, he would have consequently been adopted by Pharaoh himself, making him heir to the throne. This fact alone makes the subsequent story of Moses’s capture and exile rather incredulous.

I1ii: Yahya

According to the Qur’an, no-one bore the name of Yahya before John the Baptist (sura 19:7). Yet, we find that name mentioned in the Old Testament (2 Kings 25:23) implying that it was a well known name hundreds of years before the writing of the Qur’an.

It is interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his translation of sura 19:7 tries to circumvent this problem by translating this aya as, “on no-one by that name have We conferred distinction before.” Yet, the word ‘distinction’ does not appear in the Arabic at all. Is a translator permitted to change a text like this to correct an error? Obviously not! Ali is playing a dangerous game here. Is it no wonder, then, that Muslims refer to all English translations as simply interpretations. In his note (no.2461) Ali attempts to explain the problem by assuming that “Allah had, for the first time, called one of His elect by that name.” It would have been better had he left the text stand as it was written.

I1iii: Trinity

The Qur’an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. The author of sura 5:116 mistakenly thought that Christians worshipped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). But Christians don’t worship this doctrine of the Trinity at all! There was a heretical sect of Christianity called the Choloridians, who had a concept of the Trinity which included Mary, who would have been in Arabia during the time of Muhammad. They are possibly the source for this obvious error.

Another error is also found in sura 5:73-75, where the Qur’an says, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three…” Obviously the accusation is against Christians, yet Christians do not believe God is one of three! We believe that God is one. Yusuf Ali does a grave injustice in his translation by adding the phrase, “Allah is one of three in a trinity.” The words “in a trinity” do not exist in the Arabic text! Ali puts it into his translation in an attempt to avoid the rather obvious mistake that Christians believe in three gods.

I1iv: Ezra

The Qur’an in sura 5:72 makes the mistake of claiming that the Jews believed that Ezra was the Son of God, the Messiah, just as Christians claim for Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I2: Internal Contradictions Which Point to Errors:

Some errors point to internal contradictions within the Qur’an itself. I have dealt with these in another paper as well, and so will only list them here to jog your memory.

I2i: Mary & Imran:

One of the best known errors is that concerning the confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur’an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in suras 19:28; 66:12; 20:25-30), though the two, Mary and Miriam, lived 1,570 years apart.

I2ii: Haman

Another well known passage is that of Haman. In the Qur’an Haman is referred to as a servant of Pharaoh, who built a high tower to ascend up to the God of Moses (sura 28:38; 29:38; 40:25,38). But the Babel tower occurs 750 years earlier (Genesis 11), and the name Haman is correctly found in the story of Esther in Babylon, 1,100 years after Pharaoh. Yusuf Ali believes that the reference here is simply that of another Haman, yet Haman is not an Egyptian name, but uniquely Babylonian.

I3: Errors Which Contradict Secular and Scientific Data

There are other stories in the Qur’an which do not stand up to the secular data which is available. These errors are possibly the most damaging for the credibility of the Qur’an as the perfect ‘Word of God’ because their veracity can be measured against the test of observable data, which is by definition neutral and binding.

I3i: Ishmael

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham’s nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob’s twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham’s third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur’an.

I3ii: Samaritan

The Qur’an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term ‘Samaritan’ was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to “Samiri” and Pickthall to “As Samirii,” Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it “Samaritan.” Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, “bends over backwards” to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean “Shemer,” which denotes a stranger, or “Shomer,” which means a watchman, the equivalent of “Samara” in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of “Periklytos,” or the word “Machmad” which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

I3iii: Sunset

In sura 18:86 it states, “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness.” It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring.

I3iv: Issa

The name for Jesus in the Qur’an is given as “Issa.” Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly “all-knowing” Qur’an has no mention of it.

I3v: Mountains

Suras 16:15; 21:31; 31:10; 78:6-7; 88:19 tell us that God placed (threw down) mountains on the earth like tent pegs to keep the earth from shaking. For pre-scientific man this would sound logical, since mountains are large and therefore, their weight would have seemingly, a stabilizing effect on the earth. Yet we now know this logic to be quite inaccurate. Mountains do not render the earth’s crust stable. In fact, the very existence of mountains is evidence of instability in the earth’s crust, as they are found and pushed up by the colliding of tectonic plates (i.e. the migration of Arabia toward Iran has resulted in the Zagros range, France pushing against Italy produced the Alps, and the Indian plate nudging Tibet has given us the Himalayas).

I3vi: Alexander the Great

In sura 18:83-100 we find the story of Dhu al Qarnayn, who is known as the Greek conqueror, Alexander the Great. According to this sura, his power was given to him by Allah (aya 84), which some Muslims contend is an assertion that he had the same prominence as a prophet. But of even more importance to our discussion is the contention, according to this sura, that he was credited with building an enormous wall of iron and brass between two mountains, which was tall enough and wide enough to keep an entire army out (aya 96).

It is simple to test these claims because Alexander lived in the full light of history. Arrian, Quintus Curtius and other historians of repute have written the history of Alexander’s exploits. From their writings we know that Aristotle was his tutor. Yet, these historians equivocally make him out as a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his untimely death at the early age of 33. They show that he was an idolater, and actually claimed to be the son of the Egyptian god Amun. How, therefore, could he be considered to have the same prominence as a prophet, or even, as aya 84 clearly asserts, that Allah was the agent for his power?

Yet, what is even more troubling, there is no historical evidence anywhere that he built a wall of iron and brass between two mountains, a feat which, indeed, would have proven him to be one of the greatest builders or engineers in the history of mankind.

When we find the Qur’an so inaccurate in regard to Alexander, whose history is well known, we hesitate to accept as valuable or even as reliable the statements of the Qur’an about other matters of past history.

I3vii: Creation

Sura 86:5-7 tells us that man is created from a gushing fluid that issues from between the loins and the ribs. Therefore, in this sura we find that the semen which creates a child originates from the back or kidney of the male and not the testicles.

I3viii: Pharaoh’s Cross

In sura 7:124 we find Pharoah admonishing his sorcerers because they believe in the superiority of Moses’s power over theirs. Pharoah threatens them with cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, and then says they will all die on the cross. But their were no crosses in those days. Crucifixion was first practised by the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians and then borrowed extensively by the Romans close to the time of Christ, 1700 years after Pharaoh!

I3ix: Other Scientific problems

1. Sura 16:66 mentions that cow’s milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow’s abdomen. What does this mean?

2. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

3. sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

4. sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

5. sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the “farthest Mosque” during his journey by night (the Mi’raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir ‘Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad’s death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

I4: Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur’an.

I4i: Man’s Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,”Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not.” This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man’s greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God’s image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

I4ii: Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, “It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths.” We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

I4iii: Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur’an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non- material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

I4iv: Solomon’s power over nature:

1. Birds and ants King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah’s army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).Note: According to the historical record, Abrah’s army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

2. Jinn The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba’s throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

3. Wind The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month’s journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura 3:11; 21:81).

4. Ants talk The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

I4v: Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali’s attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah’s power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

I4vi: People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur’an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled “Planet of the Apes” rather then the other way around.

I4vii: Sodom & Gomorrah turned upside-down

In suras 11:81-83; 15:74 the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned upside-down and rained upon with clay-like brimstone, upon whose surface were marked the destiny of the wicked people who lived there.

I4viii: Jacob’s Smell & Sight:

In sura 12:93-96 Joseph sends his coat to his father as proof of his existence. But as the caravan leaves Egypt, Jacob, who is in Canaan smells Joseph, who is hundreds of miles away (aya 94). Then the coat, when it arrives, is placed over the face of his father Jacob and suddenly he receives his sight. Now we know why Andrew Lloyd Weber added the word “amazing” to the title of his musical, “Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

I4ix: Night/Day/Sun/Moon are subject to man:

In sura 16:12-15 the day and night as well as the Sun and Moon are surprisingly all made subject to man. That would imply that we had control over the rotation of our planet, as well as the entire movement of our solar system (Yusuf Ali’s explanation of this odd pronouncement in note no.2031 is rather interesting).

I5: Grammatical Errors

Muslims believe that since the Qur’an is the Word of God, it is without error in all areas. We have already dealt with the questions concerning the style and literary qualities of the Qur’an earlier, and found it to be quite defective in those areas. Yet, even more troubling are the grammatical mistakes which exist within its text. Can we expect an omnipotent and omniscient God to allow such deficiencies to creep into his supposedly ‘perfect’ and eternal revelation? Consider the following:

1. In sura 2:177, the word Sabireen should be Sabiroon because of its position in the sentence (since it is a human plural, it should remain in the masculine plural form?).

2. In sura 7:160, the phrase “We divided them into twelve tribes,” is written in the feminine plural: Uthnati Ashrat Asbaataan. Due to the fact that it refers to a number of people, it should be written in the masculine plural form: Uthaiy Ashara Sibtaan, as all human plurals are automatically male in Arabic.

3. In sura 4:162, the phrase “And (especially) those who establish regular prayer…” is written as al Muqiyhina al salaat, which again is in the feminine plural form, instead of the masculine plural: al Muqiyhuna al salaat (?). It is important to note that the two following phrases, “(those who) practice regular charity, and (those who) believe in Allah…” are both correctly written in the masculine human plural form.

4. In sura 5:69, the title al Sabioon, referring to the Sabians, should be written al Sabieen.

5. In sura 63:10, the phrase “I shall be” is written akun (which is in the 3rd person?). Yet since this word refers to the future (& is in the 1st person) it should be written akunu.

6. In sura 3:59, the words Kun feekunu should be written, Kun fakaana.

There are other grammatical errors which exist in the Qur’an as well, such as: suras 2:192; 13:28; 20:66 and the duals which replace the plurals in sura 55.

If we are still in doubt as to whether the Qur’an is subject to error, it might be helpful end this section by quoting a Muslim scholar, who, himself, comments on this very problem concerning grammatical mistakes in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects… To sum up, more than one hundred Qur’anic aberrations from the normal rules and structure of Arabic have been noted.” (Dashti, 23 Years, pgs.48-50)

---

J: The Sources of the Qur’an

In the earlier sections of this paper we discussed the problems which we observed concerning the claims which Muslims make towards their Qur’an. We noted the haphazard means by which the Qur’an was collected, and were appalled by the many abrogations and errors which exist in this supposedly “perfect” word of Allah. We came to the conclusion that the book could be nothing more than a man-made piece of literature, which could not stand alongside the great literary compositions that we have in our possession today. Yet, we found it troubling that there were so many inadequacies with this most ‘holy book’ for the Muslims.

As we approached the study on the collation of the Qur’an, we were shocked by the glaring deficiencies which were evidenced in its collection, forcing us to conclude that much of its content must have been added to much later.

If this be so, we are now left with the question as to where the author or authors went for their material? Where were the sources for many of the stories and ideas which we find in the Qur’an?

When we read the Qur’an we are struck by the large number of Biblical stories within its pages. Yet, these stories have little parallel with that which we read in our Bible. The Qur’anic accounts include many distortions, amendments, and some bizarre additions to that which we have heard our parents read to us at devotional times. So, where did these stories come from, if not from the previous scriptures?

Upon reading and observing these dubious teachings in the Qur’an we are forced to ask whether they contain stories which have parallels in pre-Islamic writings which were of questionable authenticity? If so, then we should be able to find these “apocryphal” accounts and compare them with that which we read in the Qur’an.

Fortunately, we do have much Jewish apocryphal literature (much of it from the Talmud), dating from the second century C.E. with which we can compare many of these stories. It is when we do so, that we find remarkable similarities between these fables or folk tales, and the stories which are recounted in the Qur’an.

The Talmudic writings were compiled in the second century C.E., from oral laws (Mishnah) and traditions of those laws (Gemara). These laws and traditions had been created to adapt the law of Moses (the Torah) to the changing times. They also included interpretations and discussions of the laws (the Halakhah and Haggadah etc.). Many Jews do not consider the Talmudic writings authoritative, but merely use them as windows with which to understand the times in which they were written.

So how did these non-authoritative Talmudic writings come to be a part of the Qur’an? In the Arabian Peninsula (known as the Hijaz), during the seventh century many Jewish communities could be found. They were part of the diaspora who had fled Palestine after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. A large number of these Jews were guided by these Talmudic writings which had been passed down orally from father to son for generations. Each generation embellished the accounts, or at times incorporated local folklore, so that it was difficult to know what the original stories contained. There were even those amongst the Jews who believed that these Talmudic writings had been added to the “preserved tablets” (i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the Torah which were kept in the Ark of the Covenant), and were believed to be replicas of the heavenly book.

When Muhammad came onto the scene, in the seventh century, some scholars believe he merely added to this body of literature the Qur’an. It is therefore, not surprising that a number of these traditions from Judaism were inadvertently accepted by Muhammad, or perhaps later redactors, and incorporated into the religion of Islam.

Those who are critical of these sources, yet who adhere to Muslim Tradition, and consider Muhammad as the ‘originator’of the Qur’an, contend that many of these stories came to Muhammad via the Jewish friends which he had in Medina. We do know from Muslim tradition that Muhammad’s uncle, Waraqa, translated portions of the Gospels into Arabic, and that Buhaira, a Nestorian monk, was his secret teacher (Tisdall, pg.15).

Muslim Tradition also maintains that Muhammad’s seventh wife, Raihana, and his ninth wife, Safiyya, were Jewesses. Furthermore, his first wife, Khadija, had a Christian background. His eighth wife, Maryam, also belonged to a Christian sect. It is likely that these wives shared with him much of their Old and New Testament literature, their dramas, and their prophetic stories.

Whether these wives understood the distinction between authentic Biblical literature and that which was apocryphal is not known. They would not have been literary scholars, but would have simply related the stories they had heard from their local communities, much of which was Talmudic in origin, as we shall soon see.

Another scenario is that many of the corresponding stories which we find in the Qur’an are from a later date (towards the end of the eighth century, or 100-150 years after the death of Muhammad), and have little to do with Muhammad. They were possibly written by later Persian or Syrian redactors, who simply borrowed stories from their own oral traditions (Persian Zoroastrians, or Byzantine Christians) as well as stories from the apocryphal Jewish literature which would have been around at that time. They then simply telescoped back the stories onto the figure of Muhammad in the seventh century. Whatever is the case, the Qur’anic accounts do have interesting parallels with the Jewish apocryphal literature from the second century C.E.

Let’s then look at a few of these accounts, and compare them with the parallels which we find in other co-existing, or pre-dating literature of that period.

J1: Stories Which Correspond With Biblical Accounts

J1i: Satan’s Refusal to Worship Adam

In suras 2:34 and 17:61 we find Satan (Iblis, who could be a fallen angel, or a jinn, according to sura 18:50) refusing to bow down to Adam. This story can be traced back to the second century Talmud.

J1ii: Cain and Abel

A better example is the story of Cain and Abel in sura 5:27-32: The story begins much as it does in our own Biblical account with Cain killing his brother Abel (though they are not named in the Qur’anic account). Yet in aya 31, after Cain slays Abel, the story changes and no longer follows the Biblical account (see sura 5:30-32 written out below, on the left). Where could this Qur’anic account have come from? Is this an historical record which is unknown to the Biblical writers?

Indeed it was, as the source for this account was drafted after the New Testament was written. In fact there are 3 sources from which this account is taken: the Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah, The Targum of Jerusalem, and a book called The Pirke-Rabbi Eleazar. All these 3 documents are Jewish writings from the Talmud, which were oral traditions from between 150-200 C.E. These stories comment on the Laws of the Bible, yet are known to contain nothing more than Hebrew myths and fables. As we read this particular story from these 3 sources, we find a striking parallel to the Qur’anic account:

Qur’an- sura 5:31:

“Then Allah sent a raven, who cratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.”

Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah:

“Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had as yet no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the earth, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, buried it at once.”

Apart from the contrast between who buried who, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later author obtained their story. Thus we find that a Jewish fable, a myth, is repeated as historical fact in the Qur’an.

Yet that is not all, for when we continue in our reading of sura 5, in the following aya 32 , we find a further proof of plagiarism from apocryphal Jewish literature; this time the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

Qur’an- sura 5:32:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land-it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people…”

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5:

“We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, ‘the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth out’ [this latter is a quote from the Bible, Genesis 4:10], and he says, ‘it does not sayeth he hath blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural.’ Thou was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain the whole race. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved the whole race.”

There is no connection between the previous verse (aya 31) and that which we have just read (sura 5:32 above). What does the death of Abel by Cain have to do with the slaying or saving of the whole people? Nothing. Ironically, this aya 32, in fact, supports the basis of the Old Testament hope for the finished work of Jesus, who was to take away the sins of the world (see John 1:29). Yet, it doesn’t flow from the verse which preceded it. So why is it here?

If we were to turn to the Jewish Talmud again, this time to the Mishnah Sanhendrin, chapter 4, verse 5 (above, on the right), we will find where the author obtained his material, and why he included it here.

In this account we read a Rabbi’s comments, where he interprets the word ‘blood’ to mean, “his own blood and the blood of his seed.” Remember, this is nothing but the comment of a Rabbi. It is his own interpretation, and one which is highly speculative at that.

Therefore, it is rather interesting that he then goes on to comment on the plural word for ‘blood.’ Yet this Rabbi’s comments are repeated almost word-for-word in the Qur’an, in aya 32 of sura 5! How is it that a Rabbi’s comments on the Biblical text, the muses of a mere human become the Qur’anic holy writ, and attributed to God? Did Allah learn something from the Rabbi, or was it Muhammad or a later author who learned this admonition from this Rabbi’s writings?

The only conclusion is that the later is the case, because there is no connection between the narrative concerning the killing of Cain in the Qur’an (aya 31), and the subsequent verse about the whole race (aya 32).

It is only when we read the Mishnah Sanhedrin that we find the connection between these two stories: a Rabbi’s exposition of a biblical verse and a core word. The reason why this connection is lacking in the Qur’an is now quite easy to understand. The author of sura 5 simply did not know the context in which the Rabbi was talking, and therefore was not aware that these were merely comments on the Biblical text and not from the Bible itself. He simply added them to the Qur’an, repeating what he had heard without understanding the implication.

It is rather ironic that in sura 25:4-5 this very charge of haphazard plagiarism is leveled at Muhammad by the unbelievers in Medina:

“But the unbelievers say: ‘Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it.’ In truth, it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood. And they say: ‘Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”

This charge rings closer to the truth than many Muslims are willing to admit. It seems that those who did not believe in Muhammad or in the later redactions, recognized the sources for these stories, since they had undoubtably heard the same myths and fables from the Jews who were not only living in that area at that time, but came from the surrounding countries to the fairs at Mecca and other trading towns in the Hijaz.

It seems quite obvious that the Qur’an cannot be accepted as the word of God, if there exists parallels in its narratives which exist from myths and commentaries of other religions, such as we find here.

J1iii: Abraham

In sura 21:51-71, we find the story of Abraham (due to its length, it is not written here- you can read it for yourself). In the Qur’anic account Abraham confronts his people and his father because of the many idols which they worship. After an argument between Abraham and the people, they depart and Abraham breaks the smaller idols, leaving the larger ones intact. When the people see this they call Abraham and ask if he is responsible, to which he replies that it must have been the larger idols which did the destruction. He challenges them to ask the larger idols to find out, to which they reply, “Thou knowest full well that these (idols) do not speak!” (aya 65). He gives a taunting retort, and they then throw him into a fire. But in aya 69 Allah commands the fire to be cool, making it safe for Abraham, and he miraculously walks out unscathed.

There are no parallels to this story in our Bible. There is a parallel, however, in a second century book of Jewish folktales called The Midrash Rabbah. In this account Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest one. His father and the others challenged him on this, and with an added bit of humour, which is missing in the Qur’anic account, Abraham responds by saying that he had given the biggest idol an ox for all the idols to eat, but because the smaller idols went ahead and ate, they thus did not show respect. The bigger idol consequently smashed the smaller idols. The enraged father did not believe Abraham’s account, and so took him to a man named Nimrod, who simply threw him into a fire. But God made it cool for him and he walked out unscathed.

The similarity between these two stories is quite unmistakable. A second century Jewish fable, a folklore, and myth is repeated in the “holy Qur’an.” It is quite evident that Muhammad or another author heard this story from the Jews, but because he could not read their books, though he had heard snatches of the Biblical narratives, from visiting Jews, or even his wives, he simply assumed they came from the same source, and unwittingly wrote Jewish folklore into his Qur’an.

Some Muslims claim that this myth, and not the Biblical account, is in reality the true Word of God. They maintain that the Jews simply expunged it so as not to correspond with the later Qur’anic account. Without attempting to explain how the Jews would have known to expunge this very story, since the Qur’an was not to appear until centuries later, we nonetheless must ask where this folklore comes from?

The Bible itself gives us the answer.

In Genesis 15:7, the Lord tells Abraham that it was He who brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ur is a place, also mentioned in Genesis 11:31. We have evidence that a Jewish scribe named Jonathan Ben Uziel mistook the Hebrew word “Ur” for the Hebrew word which means “fire.” Thus in his commentary of this verse he writes, “I am the Lord who brought you out of the fire of the Chaldeans.”

Consequently, because of this misunderstanding, and because of a misreading of the Biblical verse a fable became popular around this era, which stated that God had brought Abraham out of the fire.

With this information in hand, we can, therefore, discern where the Jewish fable originated: from a misunderstanding of one word in a Biblical verse by one errant scribe. Yet, somehow this errant understanding found its way into God’s “holy” word in the Qur’an.

It is obvious from these examples that the author of the Qur’an simply repeated what he had heard, and not being able to distinguish between that which he heard and that which was Biblical truth, he simply compiled them side-by-side in the Qur’an.

J1iv: Mt Sanai

The story found in sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law is not recognizable from the Biblical account. And well it should not be, for it hails from another second century apocryphal Jewish book, The Abodah Sarah.

J1v: Solomon and Sheba

In sura 27:17-44 we read the story of Solomon, the Hoopoo bird and the Queen of Sheba. After reading the Qur’anic account of Solomon in sura 27, it would be helpful to compare it with the account taken from a Jewish folklore, the II Targum of Esther, which was written in the second Century C.E., nearly five hundred years before the creation of the Qur’an:

Qur’an- sura 27:17-44:

(aya 17) “And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts-of Jinns and men, and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks.

(aya 20) “And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: ‘Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?

(aya 21) “I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence).

(aya 22) “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: ‘I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

(aya 23) “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne…

(aya 27) “(Solomon) said: ‘Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!

(aya 28) “Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return.

(aya 29) “(The queen) said: “Ye chiefs! Here is- delivered to me-a letter worthy of respect.

(aya 30) “It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): ‘In the name of Allah, most Gracious, Most Merciful: Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).’

(aya 32) “She said: ‘Ye chiefs! Advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence.’

(aya 33) “They said: ‘We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command.’

(aya 35) “She said…’But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors.’

(aya 42) “So when she arrived…

(aya 44) “… she was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: ‘This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass.’”

II Targum of Esther:

“Solomon…gave orders…I will send King and armies against thee…(of) Genii [jinn] beasts of the land the birds of the air.

Just then the Red-cock (a bird), enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it.

But just then, the cock appeared in the presence of the King and said, ‘I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom (of Sheba) which is not subject to thee, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.’

By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird’s wing and away it flew and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing (Sheba) opened it and read it.

‘King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please thee to come and ask after my welfare, I will set thee high above all. But if it please thee not, I will send kings and armies against thee.’

The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems…also to send a letter to him.

When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger…to meet her…Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass.

When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her…”

It is rather obvious, once you have read the two accounts above, where the author of the story of Solomon and Sheba in the Qur’an obtained his data. The two stories are uncannily similar. The jinns, the birds, and in particular the messenger bird, which he couldn’t at first find, and then used as a liaison between himself and the Queen of Sheba, along with the letter and the glass floor, are unique to these two accounts. One will not find these parallels in the Biblical passages at all.

Qur’an- sura 3:35-37:

(aya 35) “Behold! a woman of Imran said: ‘O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: so accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.’

(aya 36) “When she was delivered, she said: “O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!” And Allah knew best what she brought forth- “And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.”

(aya 37) “Right graciously did her Lord accept her; He made her grow in purity and beauty: to the care of Zakariya was she assigned.”

The Proto-Evangelion’s James the Lesser:

“And Anna (wife of Joachim) answered, ‘As the Lord my God liveth, whatever I bring forth, whether it be male or female, I will devote it to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in holy things, during its whole life’…and called her name Mary…And the high-priest received her; and blessed her, and said, ‘Mary, the Lord God hath magnified thy name to all generations, and to the very end of time by thee will the Lord shew his redemption to the children of Israel.”

After reading the passage from the Qur’an (on the left), notice the similarities between the Qur’anic story and that found in a spurious gospel account from The Proto-evangelion’s James the Lesser, which is a second century C.E. apocryphal Christian fable (on the right).

Both accounts speak of the child being either male or female. They also mention that the child is Mary, and that she is protected by either a high- priest, or Zachariah, who is inferred as the keeper of the sanctuary, where Mary is kept (though the Lukan account speaks of him as the father of John the Baptist).

J1vii: Jesus’ Birth

There are a number of accounts in the Qur’an which speak of the early childhood of Jesus. These accounts do not correspond at all with the Biblical story. But they do have parallels with other apocryphal Jewish documents:

1. The Palm Tree In sura 19:22-26 we read the story of Mary, the baby Jesus, the Palm Tree, and the rivulet which flows below it. This story is not found in the Biblical account, but first appeared in an apocryphal fable of the second century C.E. (see lower passage; from The Lost Books of the Bible, New York, Bell Publishing Co., 1979, pg.38). Notice the similarities between the two accounts.Qur’an- sura 19:22-26:

   “So she conceived him [Jesus], 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.

   The Lost Books of the Bible:

   Now on the third day after Mary was wearied in the desert by the heat, she asked Joseph to rest for a little under the shade of a Palm Tree. Then Mary looking up and seeing its branches laden with fruit (dates) said, ‘I desire if it were possible to have some fruit.’ Just then the child Jesus looked up (from below) with a cheerful smile, and said to the Palm Tree, ‘Send down some fruit.’ Immediately the tree bent itself (toward her) and so they ate. Then Jesus said, ‘O Palm Tree, arise; be one of my Father’s trees in Paradise, but with thy roots open the fountain (rivulet) beneath thee and bring water flowing from that fount.’

2. The Baby Jesus Talking Later on in the same sura (19) in verses 29-33 we find that the baby Jesus can talk. Nowhere in any of the gospels do we find the baby Jesus talking. There is the account of Jesus disputing with the elders in the temple, but this story comes later, when Jesus has grown into a young boy. So where did this story come from? Once again, we need only turn to apocryphal writings from the 2nd century; this time to an Arabic apocryphal fable from Egypt, named The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ to find the same story:Qur’an- sura 19:29-33:

   “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;

   “And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live;

   “He hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

   “So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

   The first Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “… Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother: ‘Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel…’

3. Creating birds from clay Jesus, according to sura 3:49 breathed life into birds of clay. The source for this Qur’anic fiction is found in the earlier Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, another apocryphal fable from the 2nd century:Qur’an- sura 3:49:

   “And (appoint him [Jesus]) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): ‘I have come to you, with a sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave…”

   Thomas’ Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ:

   “Then he took from the bank of the stream some soft clay, and formed out of it twelve sparrows…Then Jesus clapping together the palms of his hands called to the sparrows, and said to them: ‘Go, fly away.'”

J1viii: Heaven and Hell

There are Qur’anic accounts which deal with heaven and hell, which have no parallels with our Biblical accounts. It is not difficult, however, to find out where these stories originated. Take for instance the following:

1. Seven Heavens and Seven Hells In suras 15:43-44 and 17:44 we find reference to the seven hells and the seven heavens. Without asking where these seven heavens and hells are located, it will be helpful to note that the same number of hells and heavens can be found in the tradition called Jagigah and Zuhal.

2. Mi’raj In sura 17:1 we have the report of Muhammad’s journey by night from the Sacred mosque to the farthest mosque. From later traditions we know this aya is referring to Muhammad ascending up to the 7th Heaven, after a miraculous night journey (the Mi’raj) from Mecca to Jerusalem, on a “horse” called Buraq.More detail is furnished us in the Jewish Mishkat al Masabih. We can trace the story back to a fictitious book called The Testament of Abraham, written around 200 B.C., in Egypt, and then translated into Greek and Arabic.Another account is that of The Secrets of Enoch, which predates Muhammad by four centuries. In chapter 1:4-10 and 2:1 we read:

   “On the first day of the month I was in my house and was resting on my couch and slept and when I was asleep great distress came up into my heart and there appeared two men. They were standing at my couch and called me by name and I arose from my sleep. Have courage, Enoch, do not fear; The Eternal God sent us to thee. Thou shalt today ascend with us into heaven. The angels took him on their wings and bore him up to the first heaven.”

3. Hell The Qur’anic description of Hell resembles the descriptions of hell in the Homilies of Ephraim, a Nestorian preacher of the sixth century (Glubb, pg.36)

4. Balance The author of the Qur’an in suras 42:17 and 101:6-9, utilized The Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or to hell.

5. Paradise The description of Paradise in suras 55:56-58 and 56:22-24,35-37, which speak of the righteous being rewarded with wide-eyed houris who have eyes like pearls, has interesting parallels in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia, where the name for the maidens is not houris, but Paaris.

J2: Stories Which do not Correspond With the Biblical Account

There are other stories which do not necessarily follow any Biblical accounts, but which have astonishing similarities with further apocryphal Jewish literature from the second century.

J2i: Harut and Marut

In sura 2:102 the two angels Harut and Marut are mentioned. Who exactly are these two characters? While Yusuf Ali believes these were angels who lived in Babylon, historical records show us that they were idols which were worshipped in Armenia. Their existence was inspired by Marut, the Hindu god of the wind. We find this story related in the Talmud (Midrash Yalzut, chapter 44).

J2ii: The Cave of the Seven Sleepers

The story which was mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, concerning the seven sleepers and a dog who slept for 309 years in a cave, is found in sura 18:9-25. It has a striking resemblance to a book called The Story of Martyrs, by Gregory of Tours. In this account it is a legendary tale of Christians who were under persecution, and who fell asleep in a cave for 200 years.

J2iii: The Sirat

Though not mentioned in the Qur’an by name, the bridge over which all must pass to their final destiny is referred to in sura 19:71. As in the case of the Mi’raj, we must go to the Hadiths to find out what the Sirat really is. And when we do, we wonder from whence such an idea originated. We don’t need to look far, for a similar bridge leading over the deep gulf of hell to Paradise is called Chinavad (the connecting link) in the Zoroastrian book Dinkart.

It is important to remember that none of the above extra-Biblical quotations are recognized by Biblical scholars, historians, or theologians as authentic events in the life of Christ, or in the scope of the Jewish faith. Consequently they are not included in the Bible. In fact their late dates (most are from the second century C.E., or A.D.) should make it obvious to any casual observer that they have little authenticity whatsoever.

---

K: Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our discussion on the authority of the Qur’an. We began our study by noting that a possible reason for so much misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians could be the way we viewed our respective scriptures; and the real differences which exist concerning our views on revelation and inspiration. It seems obvious to me that until we understand these differences in perception we will be condemned to continue talking at and past each other, without any hope of coming together in true dialogue.

We noted in our study the tendency by Muslims to elevate their Qur’an to a higher degree then what we do with our own Bible. Examples of this elevation can be found in their demand that no-one write in its margins, or let it touch the floor. By doing so they could almost be blamed for deifying it, a practice which sparks of idolatry, the very sin (Shirk) which the Qur’an itself warns Muslims not to do (suras 4:48; 5:75-76; 41:6).

From there we dealt with the claim by Muslims that Qur’anic authority is found in the miracle of its composition; that it has superior and unique literary qualities which exceed any known written work. It seems to be the consensus of a number of scholars, however, that with no logical connection from one sura to the next, the Qur’an not only is difficult to read, its content is so confusing that it takes an enormous amount of patience to understand it. With criticisms like these it is difficult to understand why Muslims continue to elevate its supposed literary qualities.

We noted that Muslims claim authority for the Qur’an as a universal document. Yet, we found the Qur’an to be a uniquely 7th-9th century Arab piece of literature, which simply reflected the mentality and culture of that time. This was made clear with two examples: the case for the inferiority of women and the profoundly violent nature of the Qur’an and its prophet, Muhammad. From there we continued on to the collection of the original documents, and asked the question of whether any document which comes from the hands of God could be tampered with as we have witnessed here in these examples. The incredible respect and awe which is evidenced by Muslims today for their Qur’an belies the seemingly cavalier attitude of the earlier Caliphs towards the original codices, evidenced by their burning of all extent manuscripts, even those which Muhammad himself had deemed to be authoritative.

We were astonished at how an “eternal divine document of God” could contain within its text not only abrogations of itself, but errors which give doubt to its entire veracity. If God’s word is to retain its integrity, it must remain above suspicion. Even the Qur’an demands such a standard. In sura 4:82 we read, “Do they not consider the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancies” (sura 4:82). The testimony of the material we have covered here convicts the Qur’an of failing in the very claims it purports to uphold, and sustain. This bodes ill for its claim to inspiration, while negating any hope of any recognized authority.

In conclusion, while we can concede that the Qur’an is a fascinating book to study, it simply cannot maintain its status as the final Word of God it claims to be. The declaration of textual perfection by the Muslims simply do not stand up to any critical analysis of their content. As we have seen, the Qur’an carries numerous inconsistencies with the former scriptures, while its narratives and stories help to discredit its claim to be the true Word of God. Popular sentiment and unquestioning fanatical devotion by Muslims are simply not adequate as a proof for the Qur’an’s authenticity. When we take a sober analysis of the sources of the Qur’an, we find conclusive evidence that the confidence of the Muslims for their scripture is simply unfounded.

It stands to reason that those whose responsibility it was to compile a “holy book” which could compete with the existing scriptures, would naturally turn to the myths and legends of the surrounding civilizations and borrow many of their stories. Due to the predominance of oral tradition in the 7th-9th centuries one can understand how many of the stories became embellished and distorted over time. It is these corrupted stories that we find all through the Qur’an, many of which were adapted from 2nd century Talmudic literature, which was popular amongst the Jews of that area. Consequently it is the glaring similarities which we find between the Qur’an and these errant sources which nullifies the claim that the Qur’an could hope to be the true Word of God.

The same test of verification is required of the Qur’an as that of all scriptures, including those which have preceded it (the Old and New Testament). For decades now scholars have attempted to find fault with our scriptures, applying to them the same critical investigation we have applied here and more, and for the most part we have welcomed it. Yet, through all the critical and sometimes polemical analysis which has been fomented against our scriptures, they have resolutely stood the test. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Bible continues to be the number one best-seller in the history of literature. Though we do not accord our scriptures the same sense of elevated worship which the Muslims demon- strate for their Qur’an, we do stand behind the veracity of our scriptures claim to divine inspiration. We do so because it has proven time and again to remain consistent to the claims it makes of itself and of all true revelations which come from the divine hand of God.

---

L: References Cited

Ali, ‘Abdullah Yusuf, The Holy Qur’an (Revised Edition), Brentwood, Amana Corporation, 1989

Campbell, Dr. William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, Middle East Resources

Copleston, F.S, Christ or Mohammed? The Bible or the Koran?, Harpenden, Nuprint, 1989

Gilchrist, John, Jam’ Al-Qur’an, The Codification of the Qur’an Text, South Africa, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989

Hoodbhoy, Pervez, Islam and Science, London, Zed Books ltd., 1989

Morey Robert, Islamic Invasion, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers, 1992

Nehls, Gerhard, Christians Ask Muslims, Bellville, SIM International Life Challenge, 1987

Pfander, C. G., The Mizanu’l Haqq, (Balance of Truth), London, The Religious Tract Soc., 1910

Shorrosh, Anis A., Islam Revealed, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

“Is the Qur’an the Word of God?” — 99 Truth Papers

Hyde Park Christian Fellowship
Jay Smith
3rd June 1996

---

1. Introduction

2. The Problems with the Islamic Traditions

   1. The Sources

   2. Late Dates

      1. Writing

      2. Age

      3. Scripts

   3. Credibility

   4. Contradictions

   5. Similarities

   6. Proliferation

   7. Isnad

   8. Storytelling

3. An Internal Critique of the Qur’an

   1. The Qur’an’s Makeup

      1. Inimitability

      2. Structural weaknesses

      3. Literary defects

      4. Universality

      5. Interpolation

   2. Talmudic Sources in the Qur’an

      1. The story of Cain and Abel

      2. The story of Abraham

      3. The Story of Solomon and Sheba

   3. Scientific Peculiarities in the Qur’an

   4. A Possible Solution (“Salvation History”)

4. An External Critique of the Qur’an

   1. Hijra

   2. Qibla

   3. The Jews

   4. Mecca

   5. Dome of the Rock

   6. Muhammad

   7. ‘Muslim’ and ‘Islam’

   8. Qur’an

5. Can We Use These Non-Muslim Sources?

6. Conclusion

7. References Cited

---

A: Introduction

In August of 1995 I was invited to debate the motion, “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?” with Dr. Jamal Badawi. The debate took place at Trinity College, Cambridge, and after our papers had been presented the debate was opened to the floor for an hour of questions from both the Muslims and Christians present. Below is the content of the paper which I gave at the debate, as well as further material which I used in the question and answer period, and further data which has come out since the time of the debate. Because of the interest shown in the topic, we have put this paper along with ten other apologetical papers, and certain Muslim rebuttals to the material, as well as a number of the popular 99 Truth Tracts on a web-site, on the internet (this site). Our hope is that with the material on this web-site the debate can continue around the world, and help to enliven the dialogue already begun by the Cambridge debate.

(Note: I have tried to footnote those statements which could prove to be contentious, or which would stimulate the readers to look for further data. I have used the Harvard model, which commences with the author’s name, followed by the date of publication, and page number). Let us then begin our study.

---

Islam claims that the Qur’an is not only God’s Word, but that it is the final revelation given to humanity. It comes from the “Mother of all books” according to sura 43:2-4. Muslims maintain that the Qur’an is an exact word-for-word copy of God’s final revelation which is found on the original tablets that have always existed in heaven. They point to sura 85:21-22 which says, “Nay this is a glorious Qur’an, (inscribed) in a tablet preserved.” Islamic scholars contend that this passage refers to the tablets which were never created. They believe that the Qur’an is an identical copy of the eternal heavenly book, even so far as the punctuation, titles and divisions of chapters are concerned.

According to Muslim tradition, these revelations’ began to be sent down (Tanzil or Nazil) (sura 17:85), to the lowest of the seven heavens in the month of Ramadan, during the night of power or destiny (lailat al Qadr) 1. From there they were revealed to Muhammad in installments, as need arose, via the angel Gabriel (sura 25:32). Consequently, every letter and every word is free from any human influence, which gives the Qur’an an aura of authority, even holiness, and with such, its integrity.

Most westerners have accepted these claims from Muslims at face value. They have never had the ability to argue their veracity, because the claims could neither be proved nor disproved, as their authority was derived solely from the Qur’an itself (dispelling any attempt to wrest from the pages of the Bible fulfilled prophecies of Deuteronomy 18, John 14, 16; and perhaps others).

There has also been a reticence to question the Qur’an and the prophet due to the adverse response directed upon those who were brave enough to attempt it in the past. The fact is that for too long westerners have been content to assume that the Muslims had evidence and data to substantiate their claims.

It is only now, as secular scholars of Islam (known as “Orientalists”) re-examine the Islamic sources, that evidence is being uncovered which puts into question much of what we have been led to believe concerning Muhammad and his revelation,’ the Qur’an.

The findings of these scholars indicate that the Qur’an was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions (or editions) formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years 2. In other words, the Qur’an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but was more than likely a product of the eighth and ninth centuries 3. It was at this time, the Orientalists say, particularly in the ninth century, that Islam took on its classical identity and became that which is recognizable today. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam, they contend, was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 200-300 years 4.

Source material for this period, however, is sparse. Essentially the only sources which had been available to the historians were Muslim sources. What is more, outside the Qur’an,’ the sources are all late. Prior to 750 A.D. we have no verifiable Muslim documents which can give us a window into this formative period of Islam 5. Nothing exists with which to corroborate Muslim Tradition’ material (that is, Islamic history based on their traditions). Later documents simply draw upon earlier documents, which no longer exist today (if indeed they existed at all) 6. This classical period (around 800 A.D.) describes the earlier period, but from its own viewpoint, much like an adult, writing about their childhood will tend to remember those areas which were pleasant. Thus, the account is coloured, and biased, and as such cannot be accepted as authentic by historical scholars 7.

Consequently, the demarcation line between what the historian will accept and that which Muslim Traditions maintain is growing further apart for the following reasons: Islam, according to orthodox Muslim scholars, gives complete credence to divine intervention for its revelation. Muslim Tradition asserts that Allah sent down his revelation to Muhammad via the angel Gabriel (Jibril) over a period of twenty-two years (610-632 A.D.), in which time many of the laws and traditions which delineate that which we define as Islam were formulated and worked out.

Yet it is this scenario which secular historians are balking at today, as it presupposes that in the early seventh century, Islam, a religion of immense sophistication, of intricate laws and traditions was formulated in a backward’ nomadic culture and became fully functional in only twenty two years.

The Hijaz (central Arabia) before that time was hardly known in the civilized world. Even the later traditions refer to this period as Jahiliyya (or period of ignorance, implying its backwardness). Arabia before Muhammad did not have an urbanized culture, nor could it boast a sophisticated infrastructure needed to create, let alone maintain the scenario painted by the later traditions for the early period of Islam 8. So, how did it come together so neatly and so quickly? There is no historical precedence for such a scenario. One would expect such a degree of sophistication over a period of one or two centuries, provided there were other sources, such as neighbouring cultures from which traditions and laws could be borrowed, but certainly not within an unsophisticated desert environment, and certainly not within a period of a mere 22 years.

Secular historians cannot simply accept the position posited by the later traditions that this all came about by divine revelation, as they maintain that all of history must be substantiated with historical evidence. They are forced to stand back and ask how we know what we know, where the information originates, and whether it stands up to an “unbiased” or neutral historical analysis.

Historians had, therefore, been pushed into a dilemma. Due to their secular presuppositions they could not base their research on the existence of God, yet they could not throw out the Muslim Traditions (which naturally presuppose His existence), because they were the best and at times only documents available.

That is, until recently.

The new crop of historical experts on Islam (such as Dr. John Wansbrough, Michael Cook [both from SOAS], Patricia Crone formerly from Oxford, now lecturing at Cambridge, Yehuda Nevo from the University of Jerusalem, Andrew Rippin from Canada, and others), while admitting that there is a mystery concerning the question of divine intervention, are now looking more closely at other sources concerning the Qur’an to ascertain clues to its origins. It is these sources which are now beginning to reveal evidence for alternative explanations to the beginnings of a religion which today encompasses 1/5th of the world’s population, and is growing faster then any other major religion.

It is their work, therefore, that I would like to use, to understand better a possible origin for the Qur’an. It is their material, and others, which, I feel, Muslim apologists will need to face seriously in the years ahead, as much of this new data puts into serious doubt many of the claims forwarded by traditional Muslim scholars concerning their holy book, the Qur’an, and their prophet, Muhammad. Let us, then begin our analysis by taking a look at the sources for much of what we know concerning Islam, its prophet and its book.

---

B: The Problems with the Islamic Traditions

In order to make a critique of the Qur’an it is important not to listen to what the exegetes are saying today, but to go back to the beginning, to the earliest sources of the Qur’an which we have at our disposal, to pick up clues as to its authenticity. One would assume that this should be quite easy to do, as it is a relatively new piece of literature, having appeared on the scene, according to Muslims, a mere “1,400 years ago.”

B1: The Sources

The question of sources has always been a contentious area for the secular scholar of Islam, as any study of the Qur’an must begin with the problem of primary versus secondary sources. Primary sources are those materials which are the closest, or have direct access to the event. Secondary sources concern any material which tends to be more recent and, consequently, is dependent on the primary sources. In Islam, the primary sources which we possess are 150-300 years after the events which they describe, and therefore are quite distant from those events 9. For that reason they are, for all practical purposes, secondary sources, as they rely on other material, much of which no longer exists. The first and largest of these sources is that of “Muslim or Islamic Traditions.” Because of the importance of the Muslim Traditions it is crucial that we deal with them first.

Muslim Traditions are comprised of writings which were compiled by Muslims in the late eighth to early tenth centuries concerning what the prophet Muhammad said and did back in the seventh century, and commentaries on the Qur’an. They are by far the most extensive body of material which we have today on the early period of Islam. They are also written in greater detail then anything else in our possession, in that they include dates as well as explanations for what happened. They are a complement to the Qur’an.

The Qur’an by itself is difficult to follow, as it leaves the reader confused while it jumps from story to story, with little background narration or explanation. It is at this point that the traditions are important as they fill in details which otherwise would be lost. In some instances the traditions prevail over the Qur’an; as for example, when the Qur’an refers to three daily prayers 10, while the five daily prayers stipulated by the later traditions have been adopted by Muslims ever since 11.

A number of genres exist within these traditions. Their authors were not writers themselves, but were compilers and editors who drew together information “passed to them,” and produced it. There are many compilers, but the four who are considered by many Muslims to be the most authoritative in each genre all lived and assembled their material between 750-923 A.D. (or 120-290 years after the death of Muhammad). It may be helpful to list their works, along with their dates:

1. The Sira are accounts concerning the traditional life of the prophet (including his battles). The most comprehensive Sira was written by Ibn Ishaq (died 765 A.D.), though none of his manuscripts exist today. Consequently, we are dependent on the Sira of Ibn Hisham (died 833 A.D.), which was supposedly taken from that of Ibn Ishaq, though, by his own admission (according to the research of Patricia Crone) he omitted those areas which might have caused offense (such as anything which he felt was repugnant, poems not attested elsewhere, as well as matters which he could not accept as trustworthy) 12.

2. The Hadith are thousands of short reports or narratives (akhbar) on the sayings and deeds of the prophet which were collected by Muslims in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of the six most famous collections of Hadith, those of al-Bukhari (died 870 A.D.) are considered by many Muslims as the most authoritative.

3. The Ta’rikh are histories or chronologies of the prophet’s life, the most famous written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.) early in the tenth century.

4. The Tafsir, are commentaries and exegesis on the Qur’an, its grammar and its context; the best known also written by al-Tabari (died 923 A.D.).

B2: Late Dates

Obviously, the first question which we must ask is why these traditions were written so late, 150-300 years after the fact? We simply do not have any “account from the Islamic’ community during the [initial] 150 years or so, between the first Arab conquests [of the early seventh century] and the appearance, with the sira-maghazi narratives, of the earliest Islamic literature” [towards the late eighth century] 13. We should expect to find, in those intervening 150 years, at least remnants of evidence for the development of the old Arab religion towards Islam (i.e. Muslim traditions); yet we find nothing 14.

There are Muslims who disagree, maintaining that there is evidence of earlier traditions, principly the Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas (born in 712 A.D. and died in 795 A.D.). Norman Calder in his book Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence disagrees with such an early date and questions whether works can be attributed to the authors listed. He argues that most of the texts we have from these supposedly early authors are “school texts,” transmitted and developed over several generations, and achieving the form in which we know them considerably later than the putative “authors” to whom they are usually ascribed. Following the current assumption that “Shafi’i’s law” (which demanded that all hadith be traced to Muhammad) did not come into effect until after 820 A.D., he concluded that because the Mudawwana does not speak of Muhammad’s prophetic authority whereas the Muwatta does, the Muwatta must be the later document. Consequently, Calder positions the Muwatta not prior to 795 A.D., but sometime after the Mudawwana which was written in 854 A.D. In fact Calder places the Muwatta not even in eighth century Arabia but in eleventh century Cordoba, Spain 15. If he is correct then we are indeed left with little evidence of any traditions from the early period of Islam.

Humphreys crystallizes this problem when he points out that, “Muslims, we would suppose, must surely have taken great care to record their spectacular achievements, while the highly literate and urbanized societies which they had subjugated could hardly avoid coming to grips with what had happened to them.” 16 Yet, according to Humphreys all we find from this early period are sources which are, “either fragmentary or represent very specific or even eccentric perspectives,” completely annulling any possibility of reconstructing Islam’s first century adequately 17.

The question, therefore, must be asked as to where the eighth and ninth century compilers actually obtained their material from?

The answer is that we just don’t know. “Our evidence for documentation prior to 750 A.D. consists almost entirely of rather dubious citations in later compilations.” 18 Consequently, we have no reliable proof that the traditions speak truly of the life of Muhammad, or even of the Qur’an 19. We are asked to believe that these documents, written hundreds of years later are accurate, though we are not presented with any evidence for their veracity, outside of Isnads, which are nothing more than lists purporting to give the names of those from whom these oral traditions were passed down. Yet even the Isnads lack any supportive documentation with which to corroborate their authenticity 20! However, more of that later in the paper.

B2a: Writing

Muslims maintain that the late dates of the primary sources can be attributed to the fact that writing was simply not used in such an isolated area at that time. This assumption is completely unfounded, as writing on paper began long before the seventh century. Writing paper was invented in the fourth century, and used extensively thoughout the civilized world thereafter. The Umayyad dynasty was headquartered in the former Byzantine area of Syria and not Arabia. Thus it was a sophisticated society which used secretaries in the Caliphal courts, proving that manuscript writing was well developed there.

Furthermore, we are told that Arabia (better known as the Hijaz) in the seventh century and earlier, was an area of trade, with caravans plying routes north-south, and possibly east-and west. While the evidence shows that the trade was primarily local (as we will discuss later), caravans were in use. How did the caravaneers keep their records? They certainly didn’t memorize the figures.

And finally, we must ask how we came by the Qur’an if there was no-one capable of putting-pen-to-paper before that time? Muslims claim the existence of a number of codices of the Qur’an shortly after the death of Muhammad, such as those of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abu Musa, and Ubayy b. Ka’b 21. What were these codices if they were not written documents? The Uthmanic text itself had to have been written, otherwise it would not be a text! Writing was available, but for some reason, no record was kept of those supposed earlier documents prior to 750 A.D.

B2b: Age

Other Muslim scholars maintain that the absence of early documentation can be blamed on old age. They believe that the material upon which the primary sources were written either disintegrated over time, leaving us with few examples today, or wore out from heavy handling and so were destroyed.

This argument is rather dubious. In the British Library we have ample examples of documents written by individuals in communities which were not too distant from Arabia, yet they predate these manuscripts by hundreds of years. On display are New Testament manuscripts such as the Codex Syniaticus and the Codex Alexandrinus, both of which were written in the fourth century, three to four hundred years before the period in question! Why have they not disintegrated with age?

Where this argument is especially weak, however, is when we apply it to the Qur’an itself. The “Uthmanic text” of the Qur’an (the final canon supposedly compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit, under the direction of the third caliph Uthman) is considered by all Muslims to be the most important piece of literature ever written. As we noted earlier, according to Sura 43:2-4, it is the “mother of books.” Its importance lies in the fact that it is considered to be an exact replica of the “eternal tablets” which exist in heaven 22. Muslim tradition informs us that all other competing codices and manuscripts were destroyed after 646-650 A.D. Even “Hafsah’s copy,” from which the final recension was taken was burned. If this Uthmanic text was so important, why then was it not written on paper, or other material which would have lasted till today? And certainly, if the earliest manuscripts wore out with usage, why were they not replaced with others written on skin, like so many other older documents which are still in existence today?

We have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text 23. Nor do we have any of the alleged four copies which were made of this recension and sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus (see Gilchrist’s arguments in his book Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989, pp. 140-154, as well as Ling’s & Safadi’s The Qur’an 1976, pp. 11-17). Even if these copies had somehow disintegrated with age, there would surely be some fragments of the documents which we could refer to. By the end of the seventh century Islam had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur’an (according to tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should be some Qur’anic documents or manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 New Testament manuscripts still in existence 24, most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) 25, Islam can not provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century 26. If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the seventh century, at a time when paper had not yet been intoduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegtrated, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, when it was supposedly revealed? This indeed presents a problem for the argument that the earliest Qur’ans all simply disintegrated with age, or were destroyed because they were worn.

B2c: Scripts

In response, Muslims contend that they do have a number of these “Uthmanic recensions,” these original copies from the seventh century still in their possession. I have heard Muslims claim that there are original copies in Mecca, in Cairo and in almost every ancient Islamic settlement. I have often asked them to furnish me with the data which would substantiate their antiquity; a task which, to date, nobody has been able to do.

There are two documents, however, which do hold some credibility, and to which many Muslims refer. These are the Samarkand Manuscript, which is located in the Soviet State Library, at Tashkent, Uzbekistan (in the southern part of the former Soviet Union), and the Topkapi Manuscript, which can be found in the Topkapi Museum, in Istanbul, Turkey.

These two documents are indeed old, and there has been ample enough etymological and paleographical analysis done on them by scriptologists, as well as experts in Arabic calligraphy to warrant their discussion here.

Samarkand Manuscript – taken from Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an 1989, pp. 148-150:

The Samarkand Manuscript is not at all a complete document. In fact, out of the 114 suras found in today’s Qur’ans, only parts of suras 2 to 43 are included. Of these suras much of the text is missing. The actual inscription of the text in the Samarkand codex presents a real problem, as it is very irregular. Some pages are neatly and uniformly copied out while others are quite untidy and imbalanced 27. On some pages the text is fairly expansive, while on other pages it is severely cramped and condensed. At times the Arabic letter KAF has been excluded from the text, while at others it not only is extended but is the dominant letter in the text. Because so many pages of the manuscript differ so extensively from one another, the assumption today is that we have a composite text, compiled from portions of different manuscripts 28.

Also within the text one can find artistic illuminations between the suras, usually made up of coloured bands of rows of squares, as well as 151 red, green, blue and orange medallions. These illuminations have compelled the scriptologists to give the codex a ninth century origin, as it is grossly unlikely that such embellishments would have accompanied a seventh century Uthmanic manuscript sent out to the various provinces 29.

Topkapi Manuscript:

The Topkapi Manuscript in Istanbul, Turkey is also written on parchment, and devoid of vocalization 30. Like the Samarkand MSS it is supplemented with ornamental medallions indicating a later age 31.

Muslims claim that this too must be one of the original copies, if not the original one compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit. Yet one only needs to compare it with the Samarkand codex to realize that they most certainly cannot both be Uthmanic originals. For instance, the Istanbul’s Topkapi codex has 18 lines to the page whereas the Samarkand codex in Tashkent has only half that many, between 8 and 12 lines to the page; the Istanbul codex is inscribed throughout in a very formal manner, the words and lines quite uniformly written out, while the text of the Samarkand codex is often haphazard and considerably distorted. One cannot believe that both these manuscripts were copied out by the same scribes.

Script Analysis:

Experts in manuscript analysis use three tests for ascertaining their age. To begin with, they test the age of the paper on which the manuscript is written, using such chemical processes as carbon-14 dating. This is adequate for recent documents such as the Qur’an, as precise dating of between +/-20 years is possible. There has been a reticence to use it, however, because the amount of material that has to be destroyed in the process (1 to 3 grams) would require the loss of too much of the manuscript. A more refined form of carbon-14 dating, known as AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectometry) is now used, requiring only 0.5 to 1.0 mg. of material for testing 32. Yet, to date neither of these manuscripts have been tested by this more advanced method.

Experts also study the ink of the manuscript and analyse its makeup, discerning where it originated, or if it had been erased and copied over. But the age for these documents would be difficult to pinpoint because of the lateness of the document. These problems are compounded by the inaccessibility of these manuscripts for detailed research, due to a fear by those who guard them.

Thus the specialists must go to the script itself, analyse whether the manuscript is recent or old. This study is better known as paleography. Styles of letter formation change over time. These changes tend to be uniform as manuscripts were usually written by professional scribes. Thus the penmanship tended to follow easy to delineate conventions, with only gradual modifications 33. By examining the handwriting in texts whose dates are already known and noting their development over time, a paleographer can compare them with other undated texts and thereby ascertain the time period to which they belong.

It is when we apply the paleographical test to both the Samarkand and Topkapi manuscripts that we arrive at some interesting conclusions concerning their dates. It is this evidence which is proving to be the most serious argument against the possibility that either of these two manuscripts could be those copied out, or ‘Uthman’, or that they were even in existence in the seventh century.

The Kufic Script:

What most Muslims do not realize is that these two manuscripts are written in the Kufic Script, a script which according to modern Qur’anic experts, such as Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until late into the eighth century (790s and later), and was not in use at all in Mecca and Medina in the seventh century 34.

The reasons for this are quite simple. Consider: The Kufic script, properly known as al-Khatt al-Kufi, derives its name from the city of Kufa in Iraq 35. It would be rather odd for this to be the official script of an Arabic Qur’an as it is a script which takes its name from a city that had only been conquered by the Arabs a mere 10-14 years earlier.

It is important to note that the city of Kufa, which is in present day Iraq, was a city which would have been Sassanid or Persian before that time (637-8 A.D.). Thus, while Arabic would have been known there, it would not have been the predominant language, let alone the predominant script, until much later.

We know in fact, that the Kufic script reached its perfection during the late eighth century (up to one hundred and fifty years after Muhammad’s death) and thereafter it became widely used throughout the Muslim world 36. This makes sense, since after 750 A.D. the Abbasids controlled Islam, and due to their Persian background were headquartered in the Kufa and Baghdad areas. They would thus have wanted their script to dominate. Having been themselves dominated by the Umayyads (who were based in Damascus) for around 100 years, it would now be quite understandable that an Arabic script which originated in their area of influence, such as the Kufic script, would evolve into that which we find in these two documents mentioned here.

The Landscape Format:

Another factor which points to the late dates for these two manuscripts are the format in which they are written. One will observe that due to the elongated style of the Kufic script, they both use sheets which are wider than they are tall. This is known as the ‘landscape format’, a format borrowed from Syriac and Iraqi Christian documents of the eighth and ninth centuries. The earlier Arabic manuscripts were all written in the ‘upright format’ (thanks to Dr. Hugh Goodacre of the Oriental and India Office Collections, who pointed this fact out to me for the South Bank debate).

Therefore, it stands to reason that both the Topkapi and Samarkand Manuscripts, because they are written in the Kufic script, and because they use the landscape format, could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the Uthmanic Recension was supposedly compiled; at the earliest the late 700s or early 800s 37.

Ma’il and Mashq Scripts:

So what script would have been used in the Hijaz (Arabia) at that time? We do know that there were two earlier Arabic scripts which most modern Muslims are not familiar with. These are the al-Ma’il Script, developed in the Hijaz, particularly in Mecca and Medina, and the Mashq Script, also developed in Medina 38. The al-Ma’il Script came into use in the seventh century and is easily identified, as it was written at a slight angle (see the example on page 16 of Gilchrist’s Jam’ al-Qur’an, 1989). In fact the word al-Ma’il means “slanting.” This script survived for about two centuries before falling into disuse.

The Mashq Script also began in the seventh century, but continued to be used for many centuries. It is more horizontal in form and can be distinguished by its somewhat cursive and leisurely style 39.

If the Qur’an had been compiled at this time in the seventh century, then one would expect it to have been written in either the Ma’il or Mashq script.

Interestingly, we do have a Qur’an written in the Ma’il script, and considered to be the earliest Qur’an in our possession today. Yet it is not found in either Istanbul or Tashkent, but, ironically, resides in the British Library in London 40. It has been dated towards the end of the eighth century, by Martin Lings, the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Library, who is himself, a practising Muslim.

Therefore, with the help of script analysis, we are quite certain that there is no known manuscript of the Qur’an which we possess today which can be dated from the seventh century 41.

Furthermore, virtually all the earliest Qur’anic manuscript fragments which we do possess cannot be dated earlier than 100 years after the time of Muhammad. In her book Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel underlines this point when she states that apart from the recently discovered [Korans] in Sanaa, “the earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century.” 42

Interestingly, these Qur’ans from Sanaa still remain a mystery, as the Yemen government has not permitted the Germans who discovered them to publish their findings. Could this be a possible cover-up due to what these earliest’ Qur’ans might reveal? There have been suggestions that the script in these early eighth century Qur’ans does not correspond to that which we have today. We still wait to know the whole truth.

From the evidence we do have, however, it would seem improbable that portions of the Qur’an supposedly copied out at Uthman’s direction have survived. What we are left with is the intervening 150 years for which we cannot account. However, before continuing with the Qur’an, let us return to the Muslim traditions and continue our discussion on whether these earliest sources of the Qur’an can provide an adequate assessment of the Qur’an’s authority. The body of traditions which are most widely used are the Hadith.

B3: Credibility

There is much discussion not only amongst the secular historians, but within Islam as well, even today, as to the credibility of the hadith compilations.

As we noted earlier, the bulk of our historical texts on early Islam were compiled between 850-950 A.D. 43. All later material used these compilations as their standard, while earlier material simply cannot be corroborated with any degree of authenticity 44. It could be that the earlier traditions were no longer relevant, and so were left to disintegrate, or were destroyed. We don’t know. What we do know is that these compilers most likely took their material from collections compiled within the decades around 800 A.D., and not from any documents which were written in the seventh century, and certainly not from the person of Muhammad or his companions 45.

We also know that many of their compilations were paraphrases of earlier Akhbars (anecdotes and phrases) which they considered to be acceptable, though what their criterion was is still a mystery 46. It now seems obvious that the early ninth century “schools of law” authenticated their own agenda by asserting that their doctrines came initially from the companions of the prophet and then from the prophet himself 47.

Schacht maintains that the origin for this undertaking was the scholar al-Shafi’i (died in 820 A.D.). It was he who stipulated that all traditions of law must be traced back to Muhammad in order to retain their credibility. As a result the great mass of legal traditions perpetrated by the classical schools of law invoking the authority of the prophet originated during the time of Shafi’i and later, and consequently express later Iraqian doctrines, and not those from early Arabia 48. It is this agenda imposed by each school of law concerning the choice of the traditions in the ninth and tenth centuries which many now believe invalidates the authenticity for the hadith.

Wansbrough agrees with Humphreys and Schacht when he maintains that literary records, although presenting themselves as contemporary with the events they describe, actually belonged to a period well after such events, which suggests that they had been written according to later points of view in order to fit the purposes and agendas of that later time 49. Take the example of the Shi’ites. Their agenda is indeed quite transparent, as they maintain that of the 2,000 valid hadith the majority (1,750) were derived from Ali, the son-in-law of the prophet, to whom all Shi’ites look for inspiration. To a casual observer this looks rather suspect. If the premise for authenticity for the Shi’ites was purely political, then why should we not deduce the same premise was likewise at work with the other compilers of the traditions?

The question we must ask is whether or not there is an underlying “grain of historical truth” which is left for us to use? Schacht and Wansbrough are both sceptical on this point 50.

Patricia Crone takes the argument one step further by contending that credibility for the traditions has been lost due to the bias of each individual compiler. She states,

The works of the first compilers such as Abu Mikhnaf, Sayf b.’Umar, ‘Awana, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn al-Kalbi are accordingly mere piles of disparate traditions reflecting no one personality, school, time or place: as the Medinese Ibn Ishaq transmits traditions in favour of Iraq, so the Iraqi Sayf has traditions against it. And all the compilations are characterized by the inclusion of material in support of conflicting legal and doctrinal persuasions. (Crone 1980:10)

In other words, local schools of law simply formed different traditions, relying on local conventions and the opinions of local scholars 51. In time scholars became aware of this diversity and saw the need to unify Muslim law. The solution was found by appealing to Prophetic tradition, which would have authority over a scholar’s ra’y (opinion). Hence the traditions attributed to the Prophet began to multiply from around 820 A.D. onwards 52.

Take the example of the Sira, which gives us the best material on the prophet’s life. It seems to take some of its information from the Qur’an. Although Isnads are used to determine authenticity (which we now know to be suspect, as we shall see later), its authority is dependent on the authority of the Qur’an, whose credibility is now in doubt as well (also to be discussed in a later section). According to G. Levi Della Vida, in his article on the Sira, the formation of the Sira down to the period of its reduction to its “canonical” form seems to have taken place along the following lines:

The continually increasing veneration for the person of Muhammad provoked the growth around his figure of a legend of hagiographical (idolizing) character in which alongside of more-or-less corrupt historical memories there gathered episodes modelled on Jewish or Christian religious tradition (perhaps also Iranian, although to a much lesser degree). 53

He goes on to explain that his material became , organized and systematized in the schools of the Medina muhaddithun, through a ‘midrash,’ subtle and full of combinations, made up of passages from the Qur’an in which exegesis had delighted to discover allusions to very definite events in the life of the Prophet. It was in this way that the history of the Medina period was formed. 54

We are therefore left with documents which hold little credibility 55. Even earlier material helps us little. The Maghazi, which are stories of the prophet’s battles and campaigns, are the earliest Muslim documents which we possess. They should have given us the best snapshot of that time, yet they tell us little concerning the prophet’s life or teachings. In fact, oddly enough nowhere in these documents is there a veneration of Muhammad as a prophet!

B4: Contradictions

A further problem with the traditions are the contradictions, confusions and inconsistencies as well as anomalies which are evident throughout. For instance Crone asks, “What do we do with Baladhuri’s statement that the Qibla (direction for prayer) in the first Kufan mosque was to the west…that there are so many Fatimas, and that ‘Ali is sometimes Muhammad’s brother? It is a tradition in which information means nothing and leads nowhere.” 56

Certain authors wrote reports which contradict other reports which they had themselves written 57. Al-Tabari, for instance, often gives different, and sometimes conflicting accounts of the same incidents 58. The question of how far al-Tabari edited his material therefore remains an open one. Did he select the akhbar (short narratives) which he used in order to develop and illustrate major themes about the history of the Islamic state? We don’t know.

Ibn Ishaq informs us that Muhammad stepped into a political vacuum upon entering Yathrib (Medina), but then later tells us that he snatched away authority from a well-established ruler there 59. Ibn Ishaq also relates that the Jews in Medina were supportive of their Arab neighbours, and yet were molested by them 60. Which of these contradictory accounts are we to believe? As Crone points out, “the stories are told with complete disregard for what the situation in Medina may or may not have been like in historical fact.” 61

Another difficulty are the seeming contradictory accounts given by different compilers 62. Many are variations on a common theme. Take for example the 15 different accounts of Muhammad’s encounter with a representative of a non-Islamic religion who recognizes him as a future prophet 63. Some traditions place this encounter during his infancy 64, others when he was nine or twelve years old 65, while others say he was twenty-five at the time 66. Some traditions maintain that he was seen by Ethiopian Christians 67, or by Jews 68, while others maintain it was a seer or a Kahin at either Mecca, or Ukaz or Dhu’l-Majaz 69. Crone concludes that what we have here is nothing more than “fifteen equally fictitious versions of an event that never took place.” 70

Consequently it is difficult to ascertain which reports are authentic, and which are to be discarded. This is a problem which confounds Muslims and orientalists even today.

B5: Similarities

On the other hand, many of the traditions reflect the same material as the others, implying the recycling of the same body of data down through the centuries without any reference to where it originated.

Take for example al-Tabari’s history of the life of the prophet which is much the same as Ibn Hisham’s Sira, and much the same as his “Commentary on the Qur’an,” which is much the same as Bukhari’s Hadith collection. Because of their similarities at such a late date, they seem to point to a singular source early in the ninth century, from which all the others took their material 71. Does this suggest a “canon” of material authorized by the Ulama? Possibly, but we can never be sure.

These materials, consequently, create immense problems for the historian who may only consider them authentic if there is observable data which can be objectively assessed to be derived from outside the secondary sources themselves, such as the primary sources from which these traditions were obtained. Yet we have few if any to refer to. The question, therefore, must be asked, Did the primary sources ever exist, and if so would we be able to recognize them, using the secondary material at our disposal?’

B6: Proliferation

A further problem with these traditions is that of proliferation 72. As we have mentioned, these works begin to appear not earlier than the eighth century (200-300 years after the event to which they refer). Then suddenly they proliferate by the hundreds of thousands. Why? How can we explain this proliferation?

Take the instance of the death of ‘Abdallah, the father of Muhammad. The compilers of the mid to late eighth century (Ibn Ishaq and Ma’mar) were agreed that Abdallah had died early enough to leave Muhammad an orphan; but as to the specific details of his death, God knew best’ 73.

Further on into the ninth century more seems to be known. Waqidi, who wrote fifty years later tells us not only when Abdallah died, but how he died, where he died, what his age was, and the exact place of his burial. According to Michael Cook, “this evolution in the course of half a century from uncertainty to a profusion of precise detail suggests that a fair amount of what Waqidi knew was not knowledge.” 74 This is rather typical of Waqidi. He was always willing to give precise dates, locations, names where Ibn Ishaq had none 75. “It is no wonder,” Crone retorts,

that scholars are so fond of Waqidi: where else does one find such wonderfully precise information about everything one wishes to know? But given that this information was all unknown earlier to Ibn Ishaq, its value is doubtful in the extreme. And if spurious information accumulated at this rate in the two generations between Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi, it is hard to avoid the conslusion that even more must have accumulated in the three generations between the Prophet and Ibn Ishaq.” 76

Consequently, without any real supervision, or the desire to present any documentation the compilers became more than what their office permitted.

Muslim scholars who are aware of this proliferation excuse it by contending that the Muslim religion was beginning to stabilize at this time. Thus, it was natural that the literary works would also begin to appear more numerous. Earlier written material, they say, was no longer relevant for the new Islam, and consequently was either discarded or lost 77.

While there is some credence to this theory, one would assume that even a few of these documents would have remained, tucked away in some library, or within someone’s collection. Yet there is nothing, and this is suspicious.

Of more importance, however, is whether the “Uthmanic Qur’anic text” (the final recension, supposedly compiled by Zaid ibn Thabit in 646-650 A.D., and the source for our contemporary Qur’an) would be included in this scenario? Certainly it would have been considered to be of relevance, for, as we have previously mentioned, according to tradition all of the other copies and codices were burned by the Caliph Uthman soon after, leaving this one text, from which four copies were made. Where are these copies today? The earliest manuscript segments of the Qur’an which we possess are not dated earlier then 690-750 A.D.! 78 Are those who hold this position willing to admit that these four copies were also discarded because they were no longer relevant for the new Islam?

Furthermore, the sheer number of Hadiths which suddenly appear in the ninth century creates a good deal of scepticism. It has been claimed that by the mid-ninth century there were over 600,000 hadith, or early stories about the prophet. In fact, tradition has it that they were so numerous that the ruling Caliph asked Al Bukhari, the well-known scholar, to collect the true sayings of the prophet out of the 600,000. Obviously, even then there was doubt concerning the veracity for many of these Hadith.

Bukhari never spelled out the criteria which guided his choice, except for vague pronouncements of “unreliability” or “unsuitability” 79. In the end, he retained only 7,397 of the hadith, or roughly a mere 1.2%! However, allowing for repetition, the net total was 2,762, gathered, it is said, from the 600,000 80. What this means is that of the 600,000 hadith 592,603 of them were false, and had to be scrapped. Thus nearly 99% of these hadith were considered spurious. This beggars belief!

Ironically it is just this sort of scenario which creates doubt about the authenticity of any of the hadith. Where did these 600,000 sayings come from in the first place if so many were considered to be spurious? Were any of them written down? Do we have any evidence of their existence before this time? None at all!

The fact that they suddenly materialized at this period (in the ninth century, or 250 years after the event to which they refer), and just as suddenly were rejected, seems to suggest that they were created or adopted at this time, and not at an earlier date. This echoes the statement made earlier by Schacht concerning the need by compilers of the ninth century to authenticate borrowed laws and traditions by finding a link with the Prophet. In their haste they borrowed much too liberally, which in turn, forced the Ulama to step in and canonize those hadith which they considered supported their agenda.

That still leaves us with the problem of how they decided which hadith were authentic and which were not.

B7: Isnad

To answer this problem, Muslim scholars maintain that the primary means for choosing between the authentic and the spurious hadith was a process of oral transmission called in Arabic Isnad. This, Muslims contend, was the science which was used by Bukhari, Tabari and other ninth and tenth century compilers to authenticate their compilations. In order to know who was the original author of the numerous hadith at their disposal, the compilers provided a list of names which supposedly traced back the authorship through time to the prophet himself. Because of its importance for our discussion, this science of Isnad needs to be explained in greater detail:

In order to give credibility to a hadith, or a narrative, a list of names was attached to each document supposedly designating through whom the hadith had been passed down. It was a chain of names of transmitters, stating, I received this from ____ who obtained it from ____ who got it from a companion of the prophet.’ (Rippin 1990:37-39)

While we in the West find oral transmission suspect, it was well developed within the Arab world, and the vehicle for passing down much of their history. The problem with oral transmission is that by its very nature, it can be open to corruption as it has no written formula or documentation to corroborate it. Thus, it can easily be manipulated according to the agenda of the orator (much like a child’s game of “Chinese Whispers”).

For the early Muslim, however, an Isnad was considered essential, as it gave the signature of those from whom the document came. Our concern is how we can know whether the names were authentic? Did the person to whom the Isnad is credited really say what he is credited as saying?

A compiler, in order to gain credibility for his writings, would list historically well-known individuals in his Isnad, similar to the custom we use today of requesting noteworthy individuals to write forwards in our books. The larger the list within the chain the greater its credibility. But unlike those who write forwards today, the ninth century compilers had no documentation to prove that their sources were authentic. Those individuals whose names they borrowed were long dead, and could not vouch for what they had allegedly said.

Curiously, “isnads had a tendency to grow backwards.’ In certain early texts a statement will be found attributed to a caliph of the Umayyad dynasty, for example, or will even be unattributed, as in the case of certain legal maxims; elsewhere, the same statements will be found in the form of hadith reports with fully documented isnads going back to Muhammad or one of his companions.” (Rippin 1990:38))

It therefore seems likely that isnads were used to give authority to certain hadith which “clearly are concerned with matters of interest to the community in generations after Muhammad but which have been framed as predictions made by him.” 81These isnads and the hadith which they supposedly authenticate merely testify to what the exegetes chose to believe rather than to what can be deemed as historical facts, which in turn weakens that which they sought to communicate 82.

It is rather obvious, therefore, that the isnads rather then corroborating and substantiating the material which we find in the Muslim traditions, present instead an even greater problem. We are left with the realisation that without any continuous transmission between the seventh and eighth centuries, the traditions can only be considered a snapshot of the later ninth and tenth centuries and nothing more 83.

What is more, the science of Isnad, which set about to authenticate those very Isnads only began in the tenth century, long after the Isnads in question had already been compiled 84, and so have little relevance for our discussion. Consequently, because it is such an inexact science, the rule of thumb’ for most historians today is: the larger the list, which includes the best known historical names, the more suspect its authenticity.’ We will never know, therefore, whether the names listed in the Isnads ever gave or received the information with which they are credited.

B8: Storytelling

Possibly the greatest argument against the use of Muslim Tradition as a source is the problem of transmission. To better understand the argument we need to delve into the hundred or so years prior to Ibn Ishaq (765A.D.), and after the death of Muhammad in (632 A.D.), since, “the Muslim ‘rabbis’ to whom we owe [Muhammad’s] biography were not the original memory banks of the Prophet’s tradition.” 85

According to Patricia Crone, a Danish researcher in this field of source criticism, we know little about the original material, as the traditions have been reshaped by a progression of storytellers over a period of a century and a half 86. These storytellers were called Kussas. It is believed that they compiled their stories using the model of the Biblical legends which were quite popular in and around the Byzantine world at that time, as well as stories of Iranian origin. From their stories there grew up a literature which belonged to the historical novel rather than to history (Levi Della Vida 1934:441)).

Within these stories were examples of material which were transmitted by oral tradition for generations before they were written down. They were of two kinds: Mutawatir (material handed down successively) and Mashhur (material which was well-known or widely known) 87.

Patricia Crone, in her book: Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, maintains that most of what the later compilers received came from these story-tellers (Kussas) who were traditionally the real repositories of history:

…it was the storytellers who created the [Muslim] tradition. The sound historical tradition to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. It is because the storytellers played such a crucial role in the formation of the tradition that there is so little historicity to it. As storyteller followed upon storyteller, the recollection of the past was reduced to a common stock of stories, themes, and motifs that could be combined and recombined in a profusion of apparently factual accounts. Each combination and recombination would generate new details, and as spurious information accumulated, genuine information would be lost. In the absence of an alternative tradition, early scholars were forced to rely on the tales of storytellers, as did Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, and other historians. It is because they relied on the same repertoire of tales that they all said such similar things. (Crone 1987:225)

ecause the earliest written accounts of Muhammad’s life were not written until the late Umayyid period (around 750 A.D.), “the religious tradition of Islam,” Crone believes, “is thus a monument to the destruction rather than the preservation of the past,” 88 and “it is [this] tradition where information means nothing and leads nowhere.” 89 Therefore, it stands to reason that Muslim Tradition is simply not trustworthy as it has had too much development during the course of its transmission from one generation to the next. In fact, we might as well repeat what we have already stated: the traditions are relevant only when they speak on the period in which they were written, and nothing more.

There are so many difficulties in the traditions: the late dates for the earliest manuscripts, the loss of credibility due to a later agenda, and the contradictions which are evident when one reads them, as well as the proliferation due to aggressive redaction by the storytellers, and the inexact science of Isnad used for corroboration. Is it any wonder that historians, while obliged to refer to the material presented by Muslim Tradition (because of its size and scope), prefer to find alternative explanations to the traditionally accepted ideas and theories, while looking elsewhere for further source material? Having referred earlier to the Qur’an, it makes sense, therefore, to return to it, as there are many Muslim scholars who claim that it is the Qur’an itself which affords us the best source for its own authority, and not the traditions.

1. Pfander, 1910:262

2. Rippin 1985:155; and 1990:3,25, 60

3. Wansbrough 1977:160-163

4. Humphreys 1991:71, 83-89

5. Wansbrough 1978:58-59

6. Crone 1987:225-226; Humphreys 1991:73

7. refer to Crone’s studies on the problems of the traditions,’ especially those which were dependent on local storytellers, in Meccan Trade….1987, pp.203-230 and Slaves on Horses, 1980, pp. 3-17

8. Rippin 1990:3-4

9. Nevo 1994:108; Wansbrough 1978:119; Crone 1987:204

10. suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 30:17-18 and possibly 24:58

11. Glasse 1991:381

12. Crone 1980:6

13. Wansbrough 1978:119

14. Nevo 1994:108; Crone 1980:5-8

15. Calder 1993

16. Humphreys 1991:69

17. Humphreys 1991:69

18. Humphreys 1991:80

19. Schacht 1949:143-154

20. Humphreys 1991:81-83

21. Pearson 1986:406

22. Sura 85:22

23. Schimmel 1984:4

24. McDowell 1990:43-55

25. McDowell 1972:39-49

26. Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6

27. Gilchrist 1989:139 and 154

28. Gilchrist 1989:150

29. Lings & Safadi 1976:17-20; Gilchrist 1989:151

30. see Gilchrist, 1989, pp.151-153

31. Lings & Safadi 1976:17-20

32. Vanderkam 1994: 17

33. Vanderkam 1994:16

34. Lings & Safadi 1976:12-13,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146; 152-153

35. Lings & Safadi 1976:17

36. Lings & Safadi 1976:12,17; Gilchrist 1989:145-146

37. Gilchrist 1989:144-147

38. Lings & Safadi 1976:11; Gilchrist 1989:144-145

39. Gilchrist 1989:144

40. Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144

41. Gilchrist 1989:147-148,153

42. Schimmels 1984:4

43. Humphreys 1991:71

44. Humphreys 1991:71-72

45. Humphreys 1991:73, 83; Schacht 1949:143-145; Goldziher 1889-90:72

46. Humphreys 1991:83

47. Schacht 1949:153-154

48. chacht 1949:145

49. Rippin 1985:155-156

50. Schacht 1949:147-149; Wansbrough 1978:119

51. Rippin 1990:76-77

52. Schacht 1949:145; Rippin 1990:78

53. Levi Della Vida 1934:441

54. Levi Della Vida 1934:441

55. Crone 1987:213-215

56. Crone 1980:12

57. Humphreys 1991:73; Crone 1987:217-218

58. Kennedy 1986:362

59. Ibn Hisham ed.1860: 285, 385, 411

60. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:286, 372, 373, 378

61. Crone 1987:218

62. Rippin 1990:10-11

63. Crone 1987:219-220

64. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107

65. Ibn Sa’d 1960:120

66. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:119

67. Ibn Hisham ed.1860:107

68. Abd al-Razzaq 1972: 318

69. Ibn Sa’d 1960:166; Abd al-Razzaq 1972:317; Abu Nu’aym 1950:95, 116f

70. Crone 1987:220

71. Crone 1980:11

72. Rippin 1990:34

73. Cook 1983:63

74. Cook 1983:63-65

75. Crone 1987:22

76. Crone 1987:224

77. Humphreys 1991:72

78. Schimmel 1984:4

79. Humphreys 1991:73

80. A.K.C. 1993:12

81. Rippin 1990:38

82. Crone 1987:214

83. Crone 1987:226

84. Humphreys 1991:81

85. Crone 1980:5

86. Crone 1980:3

87. Welch 1991:361

88. Crone 1980:7

89. Crone 1980:12

In Search of Muhammad

by Clinton Bennett
Cassell, London, 1998
Reviewed by Jay Smith

---

(Page numbers in [ ] brackets)

[viii] God can speak to us in other world views, providing they don’t contradict what we know of God in Christ. “…if God’s nature is made known to us through the biblical record, then it is right for us to inquire whether God is speaking to us through what we encounter in other world-views – as long as this does not contradict what we know of God in Christ, who is the touchstone for all Christians”

[2] Muhammad must be understood theologically and not just historically

[3] Thesis of the book: to explore different understandings of Muhammad, that of history and of faith by both Muslims and non-Muslims, and finding the similarities and differences of both insider and outsider positions.

[4] Only insiders can understand their stories.

[5] Wants to look at all the texts to find the hidden assumptions, using multiple disciplines.

[6] According to Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1959): we must become you to then talk with you about ‘you’.

– Thus we are only permitted to say that which our subject agrees to.

– Then we can only know Muhammad by those who see him as a prophet.

-“This is exactly what this book aims to achieve – an understanding of what Muhammad means to those for whom he is Prophet, and of what he might, can or does not mean for those for whom he is not a Prophet…but my fundamental aim is to hear Muslim voices. When I examine textual and historical material, my aim is both to uncover voices which can be found within the texts, and to listen to other Muslim voices which have commented on and interpreted these texts.”

[7] What you write as an outsider must elicit approval from the insider to be valid.

-Smith believes “that the aim of an outside scholar writing about Islam is to elicit Muslim approval…and I [Bennett] have tried ever since to make it my motto.”

-“Historians, reconstructing the past, have, often found there the evidence they need to justify their current ideological assumptions… ‘seen’ what they have wanted to see…Such ‘constructs’ actually tell us more about the observers than they do about the observed.”

[11] Bennett’s premise, using C.W.Smith: “1) to see what Muslims see in Islam; 2) to understand why others have seen Islam differently, and last but not least, 3) to ask whether what anybody sees in Islam can be justified, given the texts, voices and data which are available to us.”

---

[1] Muhammad of History: The Primary Sources

[20] Only 300 out of 6,666 verses in the Qur’an are on law.

[21] Source criticism of the Qur’an has been done by: Tisdall (1901); Bell (1945); Crone and Cook (1977); Wansbrough (1977) Cook (1983); and Ibn Warraq (1995).

– Wansbrough (1977) dates the standard version of the Qur’an to two centuries after Muhammad, reflecting sectarian interests.

– Wansbrough, due to death threats, changed his field of research…”to the comparatively tranquil pastures of the treaties worked out between Crusaders and Muslims in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries” (Hugh Goddard, Christians and Muslims: From Double Standards to Mutual Understanding, London, Curzon Press, 1995, pg.8)

[22] Muslims don’t feel that similar sources prove indebtedness, since such sources are believed to be ‘revelatory’ in origin, any similarity is due to their having the same ‘author’.

-[shows faulty logic when he agrees with the Muslim assertion that Talmudic and apocryphal sources for the Qur’an are not a problem, claiming that they and the Biblical texts are equally revelatory (page 22). Yet no Jew or Christian would consider the apocryphal Talmudic or Christian apocryphal stories to be equal to the Biblical text, having been written many centuries later, and by spurious individuals; they are not considered authoritative, and therefore the Qur’anic stories are likewise not authoritative.]

[24] Qur’an states only 3 prayers (S.11:114 and 24:58), while the Hadith are responsible for five prayers, and the five pillars.

– The 99 names of Allah all come from the Hadith.

[25] According to Crone, no early sources now exist: “all surviving versions have lost their starting point in as much as not a single hadith remembers the context in which the document was issued…many add extraneous material; and such clauses as they do remember are either summarized too briefly to be informative or else given in paraphrases so far removed from the original wording that their meaning has changed” (from ‘Review of F.E.Peter’s ‘Muhammad and the Origins of Islam’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3rd series, 5:2, pg.271)

-Bennett criticizes Crone’s and Cook’s analysis as weak, maintaining that due to the lack of originals, one cannot know for sure whether the copies we possess have strayed from those originals, so why not simply accept them as authoritative? He has completely missed Crone’s and Cook’s principal argument: that since the Muslim source material is between 150-300 years late, it cannot be considered primary, and may not even be trusted as it does not correspond with the existing seventh century extra-Islamic material in our possession, which are closer to the events of that time.

-Abu Hurayra was considered the closest companion to Muhammad, yet he is suspect, and therefore not the best authority to cite; since Umar called him ‘the worst liar among the muhaddithun (narrators of hadith)’.

[27] Many fraudulent traditions came from itinerant storytellers [Kussas], who embellished tales to astonish their audience in return for payment.

[28] Ibn Ishaq’s Sira contains much fiction.

[30] Both Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi had Shi’a sympathies and so their biographies give us examples of ‘political reshaping of the material’.

[31] The Six authoritative (Sahih) hadith are compiled by: al-Bukhari (810-870); Muslim (817-874); Daud (817-888); al-Tirmidhi (821-892); al-Nasai (d.915); al-Darimi (797-868); and Ibn Maja (824-886).

[32] Bukhari (870) retained 7,275 out of 600,000 hadith, but only 2,765 were unique.

Abu Daud (888) retained 4,800 out of 500,000 hadith.

Sahih = best; Hasan = good; da’if = weak

– Islamic computing centre: http://www.ummah.org/icc/index.htm

[33] The rules for hadith science were not developed until the early 11th century, by Al-Hakim (d.1014) who developed 52 categories, and then Ibn al-Salah (d.1245) who developed 65 categories.

---

[2] The Sources: a Critical Evaluation

[38] According to Crone and Hinds (“God’s Caliph”, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986:1) “Muhammad’s authority developed posthumously, invented by the religious scholars as a device to wrestle power out of the hands of the Caliph.”

-The idea that Muhammad’s political power passed to the Caliph was invented at a later period (the early Abbasid- post 750 AD), when the idea of Muhammad as a ‘fully-fledged founder-prophet’ was used to undermine the positions of the Caliphs (1986:26).

-Cook felt that Muhammad created Islam, and that much of what has now become distinctly Islamic were borrowed from existing Jewish and Christian stories and ideas (1983:77).

-The 5 Pillars do not appear until the 9th century (Rippin, Muslims, vol.1, London, Routledge, 1990:86).

-Rather than critique the work of Cook, Bennett simply quotes a criticism by A.S. Bose that Cook’s writing was ‘hostile, prejudiced, biassed, and an atheist-tinted vision of Islam’, but gives no explanation or examples to back up Bose’s criticism and simply accepts it at face-value. This is not only sloppy work but detrimental to one who claims to be fair and just in his assessment.

[39] Bennett mentions that both Watt and Rodinson offer biographies of Muhammad “which, arguably, are as reliable as those of any other historical figure”.

[45] The miracle of splitting the moon comes from Bukhari 58:35 and 56:26.

[46] Many point out that the sources for the ‘miracle hadith’ of Muhammad come from the cousin of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abbas (who was 13 at Muhammad’s death), and Anas Ibn Malik (who was only 19), which may caste doubt on their testimonies.

[48] Anthropomorphic language of God: ‘God sits on a throne’ (S.57:4), and one can see God’s face on the day of reckoning (S.75:23).

[54] Bennett admits that the miracle stories are fabricated (possibly because he cannot believe that Muhammad could do miracles)!! Why then is he not able to say the same concerning his biography?

-There was a lot of political pressure being placed on the compilers; thus Mu’awiyah put pressure on the scholars to suppress hadith favourable to Ali, and extolled hadith favourable to Uthman, as he came from the same family.

[55] Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi were both pro-Ali, and this comes out in their biographies.

[56] The Abbasids compiled anti-Umayyad hadith (see quote MM, 1, p.42, attributed to Ibn Mas’ud and transmitted by Muslim).

[57] Bennett is doubtful of manipulation, yet refuses to speak about the late dates.

[60] According to Seyyed Hossein Nasr the prophet left such an impression on his companions that they would not have forged new sayings or actions.

-According to Sayyid Ahmed Khan, he saw no reason to suspect that ‘early believers, men and women, should willfully lie and deceive’.

[61] A man may beat his wife (Bukhari 72:43) and “I looked into paradise, and saw that the majority of its people were the poor, and I looked into the Fire, and found that the majority of its people were women” (Bukhari 76:16, 51)!

[62] Mernissi believed that Bukhari was a misogynist, and that is why he has anti-women hadith.

-Bennett admits that the hadith are exaggerated to fulfill an admirable view of Muhammad.

-Bennett also thought that the misogyny was a result of Abbasid attitudes and was not thus real history.

[63] Bennett’s conclusion was the third period of Muhammad’s life (in Medina) is almost wholly authentic, except the miracles and the misogynist hadith (how PC!!).

-Bennett admits some fabrication is happening, but never states how he knows that the reliable hadith are historical.

[64] Bennett’s object is to see the Muhammad of history, however using his criteria (that Muhammad was passionate for the poor, disliked ostentation and wealth, had a simple concept of justice, all of which stands the test of time).

[65] He criticizes Crone’s statement that ‘the Qur’an is a text without a context’, because she bases her arguments on non-Islamic sources (Duhhh, no kidding).

---

[3] Non-Muslim Lives of Muhammad: from the 7th-16th Centuries

[74] Nestorians flourished under Abbasid Muslim rule, and Mar Timothy (in office 780-823) debated with the Caliph Al-Mahdi (775-785).

-Also John of Damascus (675-679) debated on the titles of ‘Word’, ‘Spirit’ (Q4:171), the trinity, and divinity of Jesus.

[75] John of Damascus in defining the trinity says, “Just as the whole of the taste and the whole of the scent is from the whole of the apple, and yet scent is not taste nor taste scent, so, too, the persons of the Trinity being uncircumscribed are not separate one from another and not mixed and confused with one another but ‘separated in their person in a united wayand united in their nature in a separate way” (Mingana:25f)

– Tahrif = the corruption of scripture (Q2:59, 75, 121, 140; 3:63, 113; 4:44)

-Watt believes that there is no claim in the Qur’an for the corruption of scripture, but makes allegations of the concealment of passages.

-Sayyid Ahmed Khan speaks of a ‘corruption of meaning and interpretation, not of actual alteration of the written text’.

[76] John of Damascus calls Muslims ‘Hagarites’.

-Al-Kindi in 830 AD criticized the Muslim view of Muhammad, saying that he was only a soldier of fortune, who had no miracle to his name, that the Qur’an was ‘a rag-tag of discrepancies and garbled tales, a confused heap, with neither system nor order…with one passage contradicted by another’.

-He believed that “histories are all jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a revelation sent down from heaven?” (Muir’s edition 1882:18-19,26).

– Al-Kindi also condemned Holy War and the laws concerning women.

-He stated that Muhammad’s chief ‘object and concern’…was to attack surrounding tribes, slay and plunder them, and carry of their females for concubines” (Muir 1882:49-50)

– Al-Kindi had considerable knowledge of Muslim sources, especially the miracle Hadith.

[77-78]In the 13th century Bar Hebraeus maintains that the violent and sexual themes in the Qur’an point to a human origin.

-Christian apologists did not critique the sex and violence themes of Muhammad because 1) they wanted to win the intellectual argument rather than revert to character assassination, 2) they preferred to compare Christ with the Qur’an and not with Muhammad, 3) there were penalties for criticizing Muhammad, 4) Muslims admired the criticisms, thinking it ennobled Muhammad.

[79] [Bennett’s study of Islam began at Selly Oak]

[80] Byzantine literature represented Muhammad as an epileptic, and thus the reason for his ‘revelatory trances’.

[82] Spanish Christians pinpointed Muhammad’s sexual immorality.

[83] 11th century Europeans believed Muhammad was being worshipped, and saw him as the devil incarnate, using the derisory name ‘Mahound’.

-Much polemical literature featured attacks against the Muslim heaven which was designed for men.

-“They [the heavenly maidens] are devout wives, and those who with grey hairs and watery eyes died in old age. After death, Allah re-makes them into virgins” (Andrae 1936:26)

[85] 12th – 13th centuries = Crusades. Gave Christians a more realistic look at Islam, and so was not as polemical. Contact between the two opened up commercial relationships as well as medical, architectural, food, dress, and vocabulary links.

[86] The Crusades were not so negative, nor had as great an impact on Islam as is commonly felt today.

-Muslim Spain became the centre of medicine, astronomy, attracting many scholars to study Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tufayl, and Aristotle (whose works were preserved by the Muslims, though forgotten in the rest of Europe).

[87] The 13th century used the ‘irenic’ approach; writing, reason, and argument, which was considered better than the sword, but in Latin, thus Muslims did not read them.

---

[4] Non-Muslim Lives: from the Renaissance to Today

[93] The birth of serious non-Muslim scholarship of Islam begins with the Renaissance.

[94] [Bennett: Muslim sources are devoid of myth and fiction]

[95] [Bennett: Allah of the Qur’an and Yahweh of the Bible are one and the same]

[97] [Bennett: The western view of Muhammad was distorted and prejudiced]

[99] George Sale (1734) was the turning point in the West’s concept of Muhammad, in that he was willing to listen to Muslim voices.

[100] Non-Muslims came closer to Muslims when they admitted Muhammad’s temporal achievements, but then moved away when the refused his theological claims.

[107] There were three categories all non-Muslims who wrote about Muhammad fit into: 1) those who wrote for Westerners alone [Thomas Carlyle, Crone/Cook], 2) those who wrote for both, but from a Western perspective [Lord Cromer, William Muir], and 3) those who wrote to ‘do justice to the faith in Muslim hearts’ [Wilfred Cantwell Smith].

[108] [Bennett: wanted to separate fact from fiction, but whose facts?]

[110] Crone & Cook: [Bennett: both Crone and Cook did not want to have Muslim approval]

-What they say is that Islam is more an Arabian heilgeschichte, lending authority to a hybrid religion, partly founded by Muhammad, but moreso by his successors (Crone 1987:230)

– Their book was banned in Egypt

[111] [Bennett: he points out that William Muir’s ‘life of Mahomet’ used only ‘the oldest and most authentic sources’ which “evidences a genuine desire to reproduce fact, not fiction…” So old sources do suffice after all!!]

[117] [Bennett: believed Muir’s criticisms of Muslims and Islam were due to his colonial experiences rather than academic research, thus Bennett believes that therein lies the reason for the bias]

-[Bennett: rather than accepting Muir’s version for Muhammad’s allowing deception to kill Ka’b (a poet who wrote verses irritating Muhammad), refers to Lings explanation that deception is permitted in war, yet Lings is a Muslim, so would his interpretation also not have a bias! Then Bennett castigates Muir for not allowing for deception in war, taking Lings version!]

[119] [Bennett: Sura 9:5 the sword verse according to Bennett is only used for defensive purposes or to right a wrong, and since the unbelievers were to repent, they must have initiated some type of attack first, and so war was permitted; this is eisegesis.]

-[Then in the same paragraph he quotes various Muslim scholars (Rahman, and Muhammad Ali, who felt Muhammad never ‘fought against peaceful people’, that he never was inclined for war, and that he was peace-loving by nature, contradicting the above]

[127] “The Satanic Verses are found in Tabari and Ibn Sa’d but not in the earlier Ibn Ishaq, though Ibn Hisham may have edited them out”

[133] [Bennett: finally accepts that ones presuppositions colour their conclusions.]

-Writers at the end of the 19th century thought much good of Muhammad, but that he had a stained moral character.

---

[5] Muhammad’s Significance in Muslim Life and Thought

[139] [Bennett: he has difficulty understanding how authority in Islam could have been with the Caliphs, then redacted back onto Muhammad.]

[142] [Bennett: The Qur’an placed limits on Muhammad in that he could not go contrary to its message; but what about the number of wives?]

-quotes Maududi in delineating that while in the west people make their own laws, in Islam God makes the laws.

[148] Umayyads (660-750), Abbasids (750-1517 [Buyids 932-1075; Saljuks 1075-1258; Mongols 1258-]), Ottomans (1517-1924)

[151] The Abbasids were basically Persian, retaining the caliphate in their close-knit family, ceased to treat Arabs as special, increased the non-Arabs participation in running the empire, and modelled their rule on the Sassanid pattern, even adopting Persian ideas about the divine nature of kingship (Caliphat Allah).

[154] Definition of Sufism: It stresses the individual rather than society, the internal rather than the historical, God’s love rather than his power, men’s heart rather than behaviour, their pure soul over their correct actions, and that law is used for one’s private discipline.

[169] Shi’a: adding to the importance of Muhammad as a model, they say that his descendants may interpret Islam for each generation, adding newly inspired content to Islamic law, that they Imams enjoy a unique authority within the Shi’a world, and that Ali’s role becomes elevated at Muhammad’s expense.

[170] Because the imams can re-interpret law, Shi’as has had less difficulty with change, and is better able to adjust to new circumstances.

[183/184] The Wahhabi (Arabia), Deobandi (Pakistan and India) and Jamaat-I-Islami all are anti-sufi, and against the devotion to Muhammad, whereas the Barelvis emphasize Muhammad’s uniqueness.

[185] The Mu’tazilites, who flourished during the early Abbasid Khalifate believed the Qur’an was created, using Sura 43:3, whereas the Asharites believed the Qur’an was uncreated, using Sura 85:22. Orthodoxy agrees with the Asharites.

– If the Qur’an is uncreated this risks a duality, associating a partner with God.

[191] [Bennett: He admits that Muhammad becomes the model for every conflicting tradition. Does this not show how Muhammad and Islam are thus created in OUR image?]

[192] [Bennett: finally admits that when Muslims look at Muhammad they do so through the eyes of faith, which is a theological belief, and not ‘historically sustainable’. He then says that since we have historical documents about Muhammad the theological claims must be subject to critical inquiry! Thus “scholarly scrutiny may be able to identify whose claims harmonize more, whose less, with the classical texts”, but what about their historical authority?]

---

[6] Conversations Islamic

[195] [Bennett: His second year students did not know where he stood on Muhammad, possibly because he refused to take a position]

[197] [Bennett: He found that even with the same text, Muslims came to different conclusions]

[199] [Bennett: mentions that liberal Muslims agree that because of their late dates many of the hadiths cannot be genuine, agreeing with the Revisionists! So are they insiders?]

[203] [Bennett: believes that Christianity is not exclusivistic, thus there is no need to convert, and so need to find the insiders view]

---

Conclusion: Towards a Postmodern Theology of Religions

[221] [Bennett: says that]

[222] [Bennett: Salman Rushdie, an insider, reflects a negative image of Muhammad, which is equal to the outsiders view; but this is o-kay. Yet, earlier he contends that all Muslims, and thus all insiders only see Muhammad as positive]

-If you approach the sources with the ‘hermeneutic of faith’ then everything is o-kay in the Qur’an, including the deceptive killing of Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf; whereas if you approach the sources with the ‘hermeneutic of doubt’ you will see the same incident as morally degrading.

[223] And both ‘a prioris’, insider and outsider, are correct, according to post-modernism.

[224] Bennett’s thesis: peaceful co-existence.

[227] Bennett believes that Jesus is much like the Qur’an, yet Muhammad models the Qur’an, thus we cannot have the Qur’an without Muhammad. [Which Muhammad, the one of faith or of history?]

[229] [Bennett: believes that both Christ and Muhammad are both exemplary, and rooted in divine self-disclosure]

[230] The cross only shows God’s character in Jesus. [what about redemption?]

-[Bennett: then quotes and agrees with Newbigin who claims catagorically that the cross was there ‘to take away our sin’].

[231] [Bennett: says that God reveals himself thru not only Moses, Job, Jesus, but even Muhammad; the bags out!]

[232] Bennett believes that there is no absolute culture, and adds that since, as Newbigin believes, the Christian [he adds Muslim] message is real, affirming it is no arrogance, and to remain quiet is treasonous. [but how can he glibly add Muslim to Newbigin’s statement?]

[236] Muhammad is a corrective, useful for law and war; since Christians interested in war have no model of it in Christ.

[237] “Muhammad’s sunnah, with its many safeguards against the misuse of power may serve as a ‘prophetic corrective’ for Christians”

[238] Muhammad lived quite frugally [yet her received 1/5th of all booty]

-Bennett is in a bind with the Qur’anic rejection of the crucifixion, and so rather than use the Muslim interpretation (insiders) he comes up with his own interpretation.

[241] We must abandon our convictions (i.e. the trinity), become unitarian and Muslims must accept Qur’anic criticism.

[242] Religion is basically for social works.

The Origins of the Koran

This is a summary of The Origins of The Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York. 1998). Ibn Warraq has provided a valuable collection of some of the most important critical studies of the Koran over the past century. Most of the essays are now a bit dated, and those familiar with the modern revisionist approach to Islamic history will recognise the areas where further study has proposed conclusions very different to some of the authors included here. These essays are foundational reading for all students of the Koran. They reveal many areas where new study is needed as well as providing a good grounding in the materials available to us both within the Islamic tradition and from non-Muslim source. Ibn Warraq himself provides a helpful discussion of the state of contemporary research, and the sections on the collation, variants, and sources of the Koran contains essays by such scholars as Arthur Jeffery and St. Clair-Tisdall. It is to be expected that this type of criticism will be summarily dismissed by most Muslim readers, but it should be very informative for students of religious history. This summary is not authorised by the editor, though it attempts to be a faithful representation of the ideas in this book and does not necessarily reflect my own views.

Summary by Sharon Morad, Leeds

The Origins of the Koran:

Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book

Edited by Ibn Warraq; Prometheus Books,
Summarised by Sharon Morad, Leeds

Part One: INTRODUCTION

Chapter One: Introduction (pp. 9-35)

-Ibn Warraq

There is a notable lack of critical scholarship on the Koran.

Major questions still needing answers include:

1. How did the Koran come to us? [issues of compilation and transmission]

2. When was it written and who wrote it?

3. What are the sources of the Koran? [the origin of stories, legends, and principles]

4. What is the Koran? [How do we determine authenticity?]

The traditional account claims that the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, written down in bits, and not collated before Muhammad’s death.

The Collection Under Abu Bakr (p. 11)

Abu Bakr was caliph from 632-634. There are several incompatible traditions describing a collation during his reign.

1. ‘Umar was worried that bits of the Koran would be lost after many Muslims were killed at the Battle of Yamama. Therefore he commissioned Zaid ibn Thabit to collect the Koran and write it down?

2. Or was it Abu Bakr’s idea? Or maybe ‘Ali’s?

3. There are several other difficulties: Could this have been accomplished in only two years? The Muslims were fighting the Battle of Yamama (in Central Asia), why had these new converts memorised the Koran but the Arab converts had not? Why was this collation not an official codex but rather the private property of Hafsa?

It sounds like these traditions were invented to credit the popular Abu Bakr and (more significantly) to debit the much maligned ‘Uthman.

The Collection of the Koran (pp. 12-13)

‘Uthman was caliph from 644-656. He was asked for an official codex by one of his generals because the troops were fighting over which reading of the Koran was correct. Zaid was once again commissioned, with the help of three others. But…

1. The Arabic of the Koran was not a dialect.

2. There are variations between the number and names of the people working with Zaid. (One version lists somebody already dead at that time!)

3. In these stories there is no mention of Zaid’s involvement in an earlier rescension.

Most scholars assume that the ‘Uthmanic rescension is correct and the Abu Bakr rescension is fictitious, but they have no valid reasons for preferring it over the latter, as the same reasons for dismissing the Abu Bakr story (biased, unreliable, late sources, attempts to credit the collector etc…) can be applied to the ‘Uthman story as well.

One major (and often un-addressed) question is – how much can we rely upon the memories of the early Muslims? Can we assume that they not only remembered everything perfectly, but that they heard and understood Muhammad perfectly in the first place?

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added (pp. 13-18)

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. ‘Uthman, A’isha, and Ibn Ka’b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas’ud, Ubai ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). ‘Uthman’s codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although ‘Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

Also, if some verses were omitted, why couldn’t some have been added? For example, the Kharajites considered the Joseph story to be an interpolation, and most scholars suggest the addition of scribal glosses designed to explain the text or smooth out rhyme.

Scepticism of the Sources (pp. 18-34)

Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq’s work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.

Scholars have attempted to distinguish which hadith contain real information from those containing legendary, theological or political embellishment. Wellhausen insists that the 8th century version (i.e. Ibn Ishaq) was accurate, and later versions were deliberate fictions designed to alter the 8th century story. Caetani and Cammens suggest that most sira were invented to construct an ‘ideal’ past and a justification for contemporary exaggerated exegesis of the Koran. Most scholars conclude that the stories about Muhammad prior to becoming a prophet are fictitious. In his important critique of the hadith Goldhizer argues that many hadith accepted even by the most rigorous collectors were 8th and 9th century forgeries with fictitious isnads. These hadith arose out of quarrels between the ‘Umayyads and their opponents – both sides freely inventing hadith to support their respective positions. The manufacture of hadith speeded up under the ‘Abbasids who were vying with the ‘Alids for primacy. Even Muslims acknowledged a vast number of forgeries [~90% of hadith were discarded], but even so the collectors were not as rigorous as could be hoped. Even in the 10th century over 200 forgeries were identified in Bukhari. At one point 12 different versions of his work existed.

In his study of the hadith Schacht concludes:

1. Isnads only began to be widely used after the ‘Abbasid revolution, and then they were formulated carelessly.

2. The better an isnad looks the more likely it was to be spurious

3. No existing hadith can reliably be ascribed to Muhammad

4. Most of the classical corpus was widely disseminated after Shafi’i (820) and most of he legal tradition was formulated in the 9th century.

His methodology includes looking at legal decisions – if they didn’t refer to a crucial tradition it’s because the tradition wasn’t there. He argues that traditions were created in response to 9th century conditions and then redacted back several centuries. Islam cannot be traced accurately back before the 8th century.

Wansbrough argues that the Koran and the hadith developed out of sectarian controversies and were projected back to the time of Muhammad. Islamic law developed after contact with Rabbinic Judaism outside the Hijaz. Muhammad is portrayed as a Mosaic-type prophet, but the religion was Arabised – Arabic prophet, Arabic Holy language, Arabic scripture. At the same time as the formation of this Arabic religion we see the beginning of interest in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, further suggestive of a rise in Arab nationalism. Negative evidence further supports a late date for the creation of the Koran. There is no record of the Koran being used in legal decisions before the 9th century, and the Fiqh Akbar I (a sort of Muslim creed drafted in the mid-8th century to represent orthodox views) contains no reference to the Koran.

Cook, Crone, and Hinds argue that Islam developed as an attempt to find a common identity among peoples united in conquests that began when the Arabs joined Messianic Judaism in an attempt to retake the Promised Land. Looking at non-Muslim all we can say is that Muhammad lived, was a merchant and taught about Abraham. But other than that non-Muslim sources do not confirm the traditional Islamic account. We have no reason to think that he lived in central Arabia (much less Mecca), or that he taught about the Koran. The Koran first appears late in the 7th century, and the first inscriptions with Koranic material (e.g. on coins and the Dome of the Rock) show trivial divergence from the canonical text. The earliest Greek sources say that Muhammad was alive in 634 (Muslim sources say he died in 632). In the 660’s the Armenian chronicler describes the community of Jews and Arabs, but Muslims say that the Arabs split with the Jews during Muhammad’s lifetime. The Armenian also describes Palestine as the focal point of the Ishmaelite (i.e. Arab) activity, though Muslims say this focus switched to Mecca in AH 2.

The result of their research is described in Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (1977). The major thesis of this work is that Muhammad preached a message of Jewish Messianism and became involved in a joint attempt by Jews and Arabs, citing common Abrahamic decent, to reconquer Palestine. Therefore the earliest non-Muslim sources report strong anti-Christian sentiment. But, eventually the Arabs quarrelled with the Jews in Palestine and needed to establish a separate religious identity. They were inhibited by lack of an indigenous religious structure, so they borrowed heavily from the Samaritans. For example, note the similar emphasis on the unity of God, the fatiha resembles a Samaritan prayer, the Koran only seems to know of the Torah or the Psalms (the Samaritans do not recognise the rest of the Hebrew scriptures), the importance of Moses, and the similarities between the Samaritan view of the Messiah and the Muslim concept of the Mahdi.

---

Samaritan structure with Muslim parallels

 ProphetMajor eventScriptureHoly MountainSanctuary near MountainSamaritanMosesExodusPentateuchMt. Sinai/ GerizimShechemMuslimMuhammadHijraKoranMt. HiraMecca

---

Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity argues that the traditions about the caliphate are fictitious, and Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam claims that the existence of the Koran required the invention of stories to explain it. These stories became more detailed and elaborate over time and the further from Arabia that they were collected.

Chapter Two: The Koran (pp. 36-63)

-Theodor Nöldeke

The present Koran is identical with the original. Muhammad probably could read and write, but he tended to use a scribe. There is some suggestion that part of the Koran was written down during Muhammad’s lifetime, since he had its inserted and deleted in large suras which he probably could not have remembered unless they were written down. The Koran itself admits that Muslims accused Muhammad of changing verses (S. 16:103). Variations are explained by the abrogation of verses and laws.

The Quraishites preferred the stories by Nadr son of Harith, who told Persian myths – so Muhammad had him executed.

The Koran contains many Biblical characters, but the stories are mixed up. The variations came from either the Jewish Haggada or the New Testament apocrypha or they are simply mistakes made by a listener (e.g. Haman is believed to be the minister of Pharaoh, and Mary is believed to be the sister of Aaron).

The style is semi-poetical. Rhyme is maintained throughout, but rhythm is rarely used. There are many reasons to criticise the style – arbitrary leaps between subjects, annoying word repetitions, and poor grammar. The challenge to ‘produce a sura like it’ is completely subjective. Muhammad repeatedly emphasised that the Koran is in Arabic, but he borrowed many foreign terms to express ideas that had no Arabic expression. Sometimes he misused these terms (e.g. the Aramaic ‘furquan’ meaning ‘redemption’ is used to mean ‘revelation’).

Differences between the Meccan and Medinan suras are due to a change in circumstances as Muhammad moved from being the preacher of a small, despised sect to becoming an autocratic ruler. However, establishing the chronology of revelation is almost impossible. The traditions that attempt to do so disagree with each other and are not reliable. In fact, there is very little reliable information at all about Muhammad before the Hijra. We are not even sure when to date the beginning of his prophethood (probably ~610). The Meccan suras tend to be short and are reminiscent of the oracles of pagan soothsayers, even beginning with the same oaths involving heavenly objects like stars. The greatest passage in the Koran is S. 1 – al-fatiha. This shows the influence of the Jews, especially in the reference to God as ‘Rahman.’ The Medinan suras are longer and contain sketches of the histories of previous prophets, laws, and diatribes against Jews and Christians. The beginning of each sura has a cryptic series of letters – for which no meaning is known.

After the death of Muhammad no one knew the entire Koran by heart. Many Arabs revolted against Abu Bakr and had to be forcibly put down. The greatest opposition came from Maslama (a.k.a. Musailima) who claimed to be a prophet but was executed by Abu Bakr. Then ‘Umar asked Zaid ibn Thabit to collate the Koran. The suras were arranged from longest to shortest, as even then the chronological order was imperfectly known. That codex was given to Hafsa. Other scholars also compiled their own codices. These became sources of contention because they different from one another. So, ‘Uthman asked Zaid to write another codex and all the others were destroyed despite a fair amount of grumbling by their compilers. The variations between the codices could not be variations of dialect, as at this point the Arabic script could not express such variations, being both unvowelled and unpointed. The distinctives of the destroyed codices have survived somewhat in oral tradition. Ibn K’ab’s codex contains two extra suras (similar to al-fatiha) and Ibn Masu’d has a different order and omits suras 1, 113, and 114. Ibn Mas’ud seriously opposed the use of Zaid’s codex over his own, arguing that he [ibn Mas’ud] had been a disciple of Muhammad for longer and knew the Koran better than Zaid. Even after the production of Zaid’s codex a great variety of different readings (extending to meaning and not just pronunciation) were possible through different means of pointing and vowelling. Eventually seven systems of pointing [each with two systems of vowelling] were considered valid.

Part Two: THE COLLECTION AND THE VARIANTS OF THE KORAN

Chapter Three: Uthman and the Recension of the Koran (pp. 67-75)

-Leone Caetani

1. The Koran today is not the same as that given by MuhammadDuring the lifetime of the prophet and immediately afterwards verses were circulating that were either apocryphal or mistakenly attributed to the prophet. The ‘Uthmanic recension was necessary to deal with the uncertainty regarding the canonical text. “It is clear that in the year 30 AH no official redaction existed. Tradition itself admits that there were various ‘schools,’ one in Iraq, one in Syria, one in al-Basrah, besides others in smaller places, and then, exaggerating in an orthodox sense this scandal, tries to make out that the divergences were wholly immaterial; but such affirmations accord ill with the opposition excited by the caliph’s [i.e. ‘Uthman’s] act in al-Kufah. The official version must have contained somewhat serious modifications.” (pg. 69)

2. The first recension under Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is a myth

   1. Why did Abu Bakr practically conceal his copy, especially if the death of so many Muslims at the battle of Yamamah really did endanger the existence of the Koran?

   2. How was it that there was still no consensus regarding the Koran in AH 30 if this official codex had been made?

3. The ‘Uthmanic recension was undertaken for political rather than religious motivesMuhammad made no provision for continuing political and religious leadership after his death. Without his guidance, the knowledge of men who remembered his teaching (reciters or ‘Qurra’) became valuable. The Qurra spread with the empire establishing schools and teaching the lay populace and other Qurra. Rival groups developed, and many Qurra also began to voice strong disapproval of the caliph and of the military and political leaders who were profoundly ignorant of the Koran. The Qurra encouraged a general revolt against ‘Uthman in AH 25. ‘Uthman reacted quickly, ordered an official text to be complied and branded anyone who recited the Koran differently as a heretic. This effectively broke the power of the Qurra by taking the monopoly of knowledge about the Koran out of their hands.

4. We must revise our opinion of ‘Uthman’s character and not be mislead by later Muslim bad press.Tradition has many evil things to say about ‘Uthman, but they dare not criticise his recension, because the Koran resulting from it is the foundation of Islam. Many of the complaints about ‘Uthman are anti-‘Ummayyad polemics and unjustly blame him for the financial blunders of his predecessor, ‘Umar. The invention of the Abu Bakr recension effectively reduces ‘Uthman’s role to nothing more than copier of a previously compiled text. This accomplished the dual goal of preserving the authority of the existing text, while failing to give any credit to ‘Uthman for preserving the Koran.

Chapter Four: Three Ancient Korans (pp. 76-96)

-Alphonse Mingana

1. The sources of the Koran – Muhammad was illiterate. He depended on oral information from Christians and especially from Jews. The corruption of oral transmission explains the inaccuracies of the stories. Historical errors include: Mary being the sister of Aaron(S. 3:31ff), Haman being Pharaoh’s minister (S.28:38), and the conflation of Gideon and Saul (S. 2:250). There are contradictory attitudes toward non-Muslims. S. 2:189 says to fight against unbelievers and Suratut-Taubah says to make war on those who disagree, but S. 2:579 says there is no compulsion in religion and S. 24:45 says to dispute only kindly with Jews and Christians.

2. If we strip away the commentary, the Koran is inexplicable. Muslim theologians explain the contradictions by trying to put ayat (verses) in a historical context and by appealing to the doctrine of abrogated and abrogating verses. Without the commentary the Koran is completely garbled and meaningless.

3. Transmission from 612-632? – Muhammad never ordered the Koran to be written down, and when first asked to do so by Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Thabit refused, arguing that he had no right to do so if Muhammad hadn’t thought it necessary. (The wonderful memory of the Arabs has been overstated. For example, if we compare versions of the elegy ‘Itabah‘ in different tribes we see significant variations.) Some verse were apparently written down, but we’re not told which ones and we have no idea how they were preserved. What happened to the scraps after codification? They couldn’t have been just chucked away – what sacrilege!

4. Who is the compiler of our standard text and is it authentic? Zaid ibn Thabit supposedly wrote the whole text of the Koran at least twice (under Abu Bakr and then under ‘Uthman). The first copy was given to Hafsa, but 15 years later the believers were still arguing about what the Koran was, so ‘Uthman had Zaid write up a second copy and destroyed all the others. Zaid probably tried to reproduce faithfully the words of Muhammad, otherwise surely he would have improved the style and grammar and amended the historical and typographical errors!) Indeed, the Koran today is substantially identical with this second recension, though not necessarily with the words of Muhammad. The claim that the Koran is perfect Arabic is absurd – there are many examples of repetition, weak rhyme, changing letters to force a rhyme, foreign words, bizarre usage or change of names (e.g. Terah to Azar, Saul to Talut (S. 2:248250), Enoch to Idris (S. 19:57)

II. The text of the Koran has traditionally been studied through (1) commentaries, (2) grammarians studying Arabic vowels and diacritical points, and (3) types of script used.

1. The first commentator was Ibn Abbas. He is the main source of traditional exegesis, though many of his opinions are considered heretical. Other important commentators include Tabari (839-923), az-Zamakhshari (1075-1144), and al-Baidhawi (d. 1286)

2. Diacritical marks did not exist before the ‘Umayyad caliphate. They were borrowed from Hebrew and Aramaic. Important grammarians include Khalil ibn Ahmad (718-791) who invented the ‘hamza’, and Sibawaihi (Khalil). Vowels were not discovered until the end of the 8th at a study centre in Baghdad century under the influence of Aramaic.

3. Three major scripts are used – Kufic, Naskhi, and Kufo-Naskhi. The type of script gives the first rough division of age of manuscripts. More precise age determination is arrived at by considering other features, like the use of diacritical points.

Chapter Five: The Transmission of the Koran (pp. 97-113)

-Alphonse Mingana

According to Muslim writers (pp. 98-104)

• There is not much consensus among the traditions about the collection of the Koran. The earliest records about compilation are from Ibn Said (844), Bukhari (870) and Muslim (874).

• Ibn’ Sa’d lists 10 different people who are supposed to have collected the Koran in the time of Muhammad (with a number of different hadith supporting each contender). Then he also gives hadith attributing collation to ‘Uthman during ‘Umar’s caliphate, and in another place attributes collation to ‘Umar himself.

• Bukhari’s stories are different. He gives credit to the collection of the Koran during Muhammad’s lifetime to a variety of people, but not the same list as Ibn Sa’d gives). Then he has the story of Abu Bakr’s recension carried out exclusively by Zaid ibn Thabit. This is immediately followed by hadith about the ‘Uthmanic recension work done by Zaid and three others.

• The last two traditions (the Abu Bakr and ‘Uthmanic recensions) have been accepted above all the others – why? Also, if they had already assembled the whole Koran, why was it so hard to produce a codex? These two recensions are likely as fictitious as the others.

• Other Muslim historians confuse the picture farther:

  • The author of the Fihrist lists all the stories given by both Ibn Sa’d and Bukhari, then adds in two more.

  • Tabari tells us that Ali B. Abi Talib and ‘Uthman wrote the Koran, but when they were absent ibn Ka’b and Zaid ibn Thabit did so. The people at that time accused ‘Uthman of reducing the Koran from many books to one.

  • Wakidi writes that a Christian slave, ibn Qumta, taught Muhammad and that ibn Abi Sarh claimed that he could change what he wanted in the Koran just by writing to ibn Qumta.

  • Another source of traditions attributes the collection of the Koran to the caliph ‘Abdul-Malik b. Marwan (684-704) and to his lieutenant Hajjaj b. Yusuf. Barhebraeus and Jaluld-Din as-Sayuti attribute it to the former, Ibn Dumak and Makrizi to the latter. Ibnul-Athir says that al-Hajjaj proscribed the reading of al-Masu’d’s version, and Ibn Khallikan says that al-Hajjaj tried to get writers to agree on a text but was unsuccessful. Indeed variant readings continued and were recorded by Zamakhsharia and Baidhawi, though anyone who followed the variants was severely punished.

Transmission of the Koran according to Christian writers (pp. 104-111)

1. 639 CE – discussion between a Christian patriarch and ‘Amr b. al-‘Asd (summary of conversation recorded in a manuscript dated 874 CE). We learn:

   1. The Bible had not been translated into Arabic

   2. Teaching regarding the Torah, inheritance, and denial of the divinity and death of Christ existed in the Arab community.

   3. No reference was made to any Arab holy book.

   4. Some of the Arab conquerors were literate.

2. 647 CE – a letter from the patriarch of Seleucia, Isho’yabb III, refers to the beliefs of the Arabs without any reference to the Koran.

3. 680 CE – the anonymous writer at Guidi knows nothing about the Koran, thinks that the Arabs are simply professing the Abrahamic faith, and doesn’t realise that Muhammad is a religious character.

4. 690 CE – John Bar Penkaye, writing under the reign of ‘Abdul-Malik, has no idea that the Koran existed.

Only in the 8th century does the Koran become an item of debate between Muslims and Christians. Early Christian critics of the Koran include: Abu Nosh (secretary to the governor of Mosul), Timothy (the Nestorian patriarch of Seleucia), and, most importantly, al-Kindi (830 CE – i.e. 40 years before Bukhari!).

Kindi’s major argument: ‘Ali and Abu Bakr had been squabbling over the succession to Muhammad. ‘Ali began collecting the Koran, and others demanded that their bits be included. A variety of codices were written. ‘Ali pointed out the divergences to ‘Uthman, hoping to undermine them, so ‘Uthman had all but one copy destroyed. Four copies of ‘Uthman’s codex were made, but all the originals were destroyed. When Hajjaj b. Yusuf became powerful (‘Abdul-Malik was caliph – 684-704) he gathered together all the copies of the Koran, changed passages as he wished, destroyed the others and made six copies of the new version. So, how can we possibly distinguish the original from the counterfeit?

A sort of Muslim response to Kindi is found in an apology for Islam written 20 years later in 835 CE by the physician ‘Ali b. Rabbanat-Tabari at the request of the caliph Mutaw’akkil. In it Tabari ignores Kindi’s historical point and merely asserts that the Sahaba (i.e. companions of the prophet) were good men. Then he lays out an apology for Islam that is significant because it pre-dates the hadith.

In summary – the Christians don’t seem to know of the official Koran until the end of the 8th century and they seem to see Islam as a political venture with a bit of religious dressing.

Conclusion (pp. 111-113)

1. Almost nothing of the Koran was written at the death of Muhammad. It’s uncertain as to how well known writing was in Mecca and Medina at that time.

2. Some years after Muhammad’s death his companions began writing down oracles of Muhammad. This gave them prestige. ‘Uthman’s version was given royal sanction and the others were destroyed. Certainly dialectical differences were not the problem, as Arabic script at that time could not differentiate between dialectical variations anyway.

3. ‘Uthman’s Koran was probably written on scrolls of parchment (suhufs) and then, under ‘Abdul Malk and Hajjaj b. Yusuf these were placed in book form with a fair amount of redaction, some parts deleted and others added.

Chapter Six: Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran (pp. 114-134)

-Arthur Jeffrey

Muslim writers have not seemed interested in textual criticism of the Koran since 322 AH when the text was fixed by Wazirs Ibn Muqla and Ibn ‘Isa (helped by Ibn Ibn Mujahid). After that point those who used old or variant readings were punished (Ibn Miqsam and Ibn Shanabudh are good examples of what happened to those who made the attempt). Though the actual manuscripts have perished, these variations are somewhat preserved in the commentators of az-Zamakhshari (d. 538), Abu Hayyan of Spain (d. 745) and ash-Shawkani (d. 1250), and in the philology works of al-‘Ukbari (d. 616), Ibn Khalawaih (d. 370), and Ibn Jinni (d. 392). None of this information has been used to produce a critical text of the Koran.

Muslim tradition (i.e. that before his death the prophet had the Koran ordered and written out though not in book form) is largely fictitious. After all, this same tradition says that very little had been recorded and that large amounts of the Koran were in danger of being lost when Muslims were killed at Yamama.

Abu Bakr probably did collect something, as did a variety of others (whose names are not agreed on in any two lists preserved in the tradition); but his collection was not an official recension, rather a private matter. Some orthodox Muslims say the word ‘jama’a’ (“to collect”) only means “to memorise” in the traditions referring to the metropolitan codices, but as these collections were carried on camels and eventually burnt it is more likely that they were written codices. Different metropolitan areas followed different codices: Homs and Damascus followed al-Aswad, Kufa – Ibn Mas’ud, Basra – as-Ash’ari, and Syria – ibn Ka’b. Major divergences between these texts mandated ‘Uthman’s radical recension. The Qurra violently opposed him in this, and ibn Masu’d stubbornly refused to give his codex up until he was forced to do so.

Variants were preserved by commentators and philologists only when they were close enough to orthodoxy to help with tafsir. The ones they do preserve they insist were merely explanatory glosses on ‘Uthman’s text.

“The amount of material preserved in this way is, of course, relatively small, but it is remarkable that any at all has been preserved. With the general acceptance of a standard text other types of text, even when they escaped the flames, would gradually cease being transmitted from sheer lack of interest in them. Such readings from them as would be remembered and quoted among the learned would be only the relatively few readings that had some theological or philological interest, so that the great mass of variants would early disappear. Moreover, even with regard to such variants as did survive there were definite efforts at suppression in the interests of orthodoxy. On may refer, for instance, to the case of the great Baghdad scholar Ibn Shanabudh (245-328) who was admitted to be an eminent Koranic authority, but who was forced to make public recantation of his use of readings from the old codices.” (pg. 119)

Any of the more striking variants were not recorded because of fear of reprisal.

“For example, Abu Hayyan, Bahr VII 268, referring to a notorious textual variant, expressly says that in his work, though it is perhaps the richest in uncanonical variants that we have, he does not mention those variants where there is too wide a divergence from the standard text of ‘Uthman.”

The Masahif Books (pp. 120-126)

During the fourth Islamic century three books were written by Ibn al-Anbari, Ibn Ashta, and Ibn Abi Dawud, each entitled Kitab al-Masahif, and each discussing what was known of the lost codices. The former two are lost to us and known only in quotation; the third has survived. Ibn Abi Dawud is the third most important Hadith collector. He refers to fifteen primary codices and thirteen secondary codices (the later were mostly based on Mas’uds primary codex).

One major drawback to tracing variants through the Hadith is that there was not the same meticulous care taken over the transmission of the variants as over the canonical version, so authenticity is difficult to ascertain. However, despite the limitations, significant information is available to contribute toward the formation of a critical text. Thirty-two different books contain the main sources of variants.

Codex of Ibn Mas’ud (d. 33) (pp. 126-129)

Ibn Masu’d was an early convert. He participated in the Jijra’s to Abyssinia and Medina, was present at the battles of Badr and Uhud, was a personal servant of Muhammad, and learned seventy suras from the prophet. He was one of the earliest teachers of Islam, and was commended by the prophet himself for his knowledge of the Koran.

He produced a codex that was used in Kufa, and many copies were made of it. He indignantly refused to give his codex up because he argued it was more accurate than Zaid ibn Thabit’s. His codex did not include Suras 1, 113, and 114. He did not consider them a part of the Koran though he knew of them and offered variant readings of them. The order of his suras is also different from that ‘Uthman’s official codex.

Codex of Ubai B. Ka’b (d. 29 or 34) (pp. 129-131)

Ibn Ka’b was one of the Ansar. He was a secretary to Muhammad in Medina and is said to have written the treaty with the people of Jerusalem and to have been one of the four instructors commended by Muhammad. His personal codex was dominant in Syria even after standardisation. He appears to have been involved with the creation of ‘Uthman’s text, but tradition is garbled as to exactly how. He seems to have known the same number of suras as the authorised version, though the order is different. His personal codex never attained the popularity of Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, and it was destroyed early by ‘Uthman.

Codex of ‘Ali (d. 40) (pp. 132-134)

‘Ali was Muhammad’s son-in-law and supposedly began compiling a codex immediately upon the death of Muhammad. He was so engrossed in the task that he neglected to swear fealty to Abu Bakr. Some say he had access to a hidden store of Koranic materials. ‘Ali’s sura divisions were very different from ‘Uthman’s so it is difficult to tell if material was missing or added. ‘Ali supported ‘Uthman’s recension and burnt his own codex. It is hard to know if the variants ascribed to ‘Ali were in fact due to the original codex or to his interpretations of ‘Uthman’s codex.

Chapter 7: Progress in the Study of the Koran Text (pp. 135-144)

-Arthur Jeffrey

A quick look at Muslim commentaries reveals many difficulties with the vocabulary of the Koran. The commentators tended to assume that Muhammad meant the same things as they would mean by certain words, and they interpreted the Koran in light of the theological and judicial controversies of their time.

Jeffrey has already produced a lexicon of the non-Arab words in the Koran, but the Arabic words cannot properly be investigated until a critical text exists. The closest thing to a textus recepticus is the text tradition of Hafs from ‘Asim (the best of the three traditions of the Kufan school). A standard issue of this text tradition was officially produced by the Egyptian government in 1923.

Following the Muslim traditions, the text resulting from the ‘Uthmanic recension was unpointed and unvoweled. When diacritical marks were invented different traditions of pointing developed in the major metropolitan centers. Even when the consonants (huruf) were agreed different ways of voweling could be devised. So a large number of ikhtiyar fi’l huruf (i.e. traditions as to the consonants, as variations in pointing resulting in a varying consonantal text) developed. These systems not only differed regarding pointing and voweling, but occasionally used different consonants altogether, as if attempting to improve the ‘Uthmanic text. [NB: There are seven systems of pointing (i.e. ikhtiyar f’il huruf), each with two traditions of voweling, providing a total of fourteen canonical variations in reading. When citing a system both the source of the hurufand the source of the voweling are mentioned.)

In AH 322 Ibn Mujahid of Baghdad (a great Koranic authority) pronounced a fixed huruf (supposedly ‘Uthmanic) and forbade any other ikhtiyar and limited the variations in voweling to seven different systems. Later, three other systems were considered equally valid by some.

So, the text of the Koran has two major categories of variants, the canonical variants, restricted to patterns of voweling (of which the system of ‘Asim of Kufa according to Hafs is most popular for some reason), and the uncanonical consonantal variations.

Chapter 8: A Variant Text of the Fatiha (pp. 145-149)

-Arthur Jeffrey

The Fatiha (Sura 1) is generally not considered to be an original part of the Koran. Even the earliest Muslim commentators (e.g. Abu Bakr al Asamm d. 313) did not consider it canonical.

One variant form of the Fatiha is given in the Tadhkirat al-A’imma of Muhammad Baquir Majlisi (Tehran, 1331), another is given in a little book of fikh written about 150 years ago. These two vary from one another and from the textus recepticusthough the sense of all three remains the same. Variations include: replacing synonyms, changes in verb form, and one or two changes of words that are not synonyms by have generally related meanings (e.g. ‘r-rahmana (merciful) to ‘r-razzaqui(bountiful).) These variants to not improve grammar or clarity and seem to have no doctrinal significance; they are the sort that would exist in an oral prayer that was later fixed.

Khalil b. Ahmad, a Reader of the Basran school, offers yet another variant. He is a known to have transmitted from ‘Isa b. ‘Umar (d. 149) and was a pupil of Ayyub as-Sakhtiyani, (d. 131), both of whom are famous for their transmission of uncanonical variants.

Chapter 9: Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran (pp. 150-153)

-Arthur Jeffrey

There are perhaps a few invalid proclamations that have been interpolated into the Koran, but what is far more certain is that many authentic proclamations have been lost. Jeffrey gives the complete text of a chapter in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il-al-Qru’an, folios 43 and 44, concerning chapters that have been lost from the Koran.

Abu ‘Ubaid al-Qasim . Sallam (154-244 AH) studied under renown scholars and himself became well known as a philologist, jurist and Koranic expert. His chapter contains a list of Hadith on the missing verses of the Koran. According to these Hadith:

• ‘Umar is recorded as saying that much of the Koran has disappeared.

• Ai’sha ways that sura 33 used to have 200 verses, but much of it has been lost.

• Ibn Ka’b says that Sura 33 had as many verses as sura 2 (i.e. at least 200 verses), and included the verses on stoning [NB: as the Sura 33 has 73 verses today.]

• ‘Uthman also refers to the missing verses on the stoning of adulterers (several different Hadith all report this).

• Ibn Ka’b and al-Khattab differed over whether S. xxxlii:6 (sic) was part of the Koran or not.

• Several people (Abu Waqid al-Laithi, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Zaid b. Arqam, and Jabir b. ‘Abdallah) remember an aya about humans being greedy which is not now in the Koran.

• Ibn Abbas confesses to hearing things and not knowing if they were part of the Koran or not.

• Abi Ayyub b. Yunus reports a verse that he read in A’isha’s codex that is not now in the Koran, and adds that A’isha accused ‘Uthman of having altered the Koran.

• ‘ Adi b. ‘Adi comment on the existence an other missing verses, the previous existence of which was confirmed by Zaid ibn Thabit.

• ‘Umar questioned the loss of another verse, and was informed by ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Auf that “It dropped out among what dropped from the Koran.”

‘Ubaid concludes the chapter by asserting that these verses were all genuine and used to be recited during prayers, but they were not passed down by the savants because they were considered extra, similar to verses contained elsewhere in the Koran.

Chapter Ten: Textual Variations of the Koran (pp. 154-162)

-David Margoliouth

Orthodox Islam does not demand uniformity of the Koran. It permits 7-10 variant readings differing usually (but not always) in minutia.

Other (non-orthodox) variations can be attributed to the fact that Muhammad frequently changed his revelation and some of his followers might not have known what the abrogating version was. After his death it was a political necessity for ‘Uthman to standardise the text, and al-Hajjaj produced yet another recension at the end of the7th century.

For a long time there was confusion about what was Koran and what was not. Sometimes verses of poets were cited as words of Allah. Even the religious leaders weren’t always sure what the correct text was. For example, in one of his letters the Caliph Mansur grossly misquotes S. 12:38, relying on the word ‘Ishmael’ to prove his point, when the word is not even in the text. Significantly, neither Mubarrad nor Ibn Khaldun, who both reproduce this letter, notice the mistake. Even Bukhari, at the beginning of his Kitab al-Manaqib cites something as ‘revealed’ that was not in the Koran. These mistakes were made after a written existed; it’s scarcely credible that mistakes would not have crept in while the text was still transmitted orally.

Further confusion resulted from the lack of diacritical marks. For example, Hamza, who later helped invent point notation, confesses to having confused ‘la zaita fihil’ (no oil in it) with ‘la raiba (no doubt) because of the lack of points. (So the lack of pointing could quite dramatically alter meaning!) Eventually a system of pointing based on Aramaic was adopted, though the caliph Ma’mun (198-218 AH) is said to have forbidden the use of both diacritical and vowel marks. Variant traditions of pointing developed over time, usually with little difference to sense, but in some places the differences in pointing resulted in greatly different meanings.

Sometimes the textual variants look like deliberate attempts to amend the text (e.g. 24:16- did the pre-Islamic Arabs only worship inathan (females) or authanan (idols)? ). Sometimes the Readers used historical research to supplement grammatical studies in determining the authentic text. For example Ibraham was chosen over Ibrahim (which seems to be necessary for the rhyme.) Also, three different ways of vowelling sura 30:1 result in three different meanings. One awkward rendition was chosen because it fits history.

Part Three: THE SOURCES OF THE KORAN

Chapter Eleven: What Did Muhammad Borrow From Judaism? (pp. 165-226)

-Abraham Geiger

THOUGHTS BELONGING TO JUDAISM WHICH HAVE PASSED OVER INTO THE KORAN?

Conceptions Borrowed from Judaism (pp. 166-172)

---

Tabut – arkSakinat– the presence of GodTaurat – lawTaghut – errorJannatu’Adn – paradiseMa’un – refugeJahannam – hellMasanil – repetitionAhbar – teacherRabani – teacherDarasa – studying scripture so as to force a far-fetched meaning from the textFurquan – deliverance, redemption (used this way in S. 8:42, 2:181, also misused as ‘revelation’_Sabt – SabbathMalakut – government

---

That these 14 words of Hebrew origin are used in the Koran suggests that ideas about divine guidance, revelation, and judgement after death were all borrowed from Judaism by Islam. Otherwise why wouldn’t Arabic words have been used?

Views borrowed from Judaism (pp. 172-185)

1. Doctrinal views

   1. Unity of God

   2. Creation – 6 days, 7 heavens (asserted in Chagiga, also the ‘7 paths’ is used in the Talmud), 7 hells – including 7 gates and trees at the gates

   3. Mode of Revelation

   4. Retribution, including the last judgement and Resurrection – e.g. linkage of resurrection and judgement, evil state of the world before the Messiah/Mahdi, the war between Gog and Magog, a person’s body will testify against them (e.g. S. 24:24), idols will be cast into hellfire, the wicked will be allowed to prosper so as to increase their iniquity. 1000 years is like a day to the Lord, the resurrected person will appear in the clothes in which he is buried

   5. Doctrine of spirits – similar beliefs regarding angels and demons (djinn). Though Islam has a much more earthy idea of paradise, some similarities remain.

2. Moral and Legal Rules

   1. Prayer

      • Matches the rabbis’ positions for prayer (standing, sitting, reclining) see Sura 10:13

      • shorten prayer in war

      • prayer forbidden to the drunken

      • prayer must be vocalised by not said loudly

      • Daybreak discerned by the ability to distinguish a blue (black) from a white thread

   2. Woman

      • divorced woman waits three months before remarriage

      • suckling time is two years

      • same limits on intermarriage

3. Views of LifeDeath with the righteous is to be prized – S. 3:191 and Num. 23:10Full understanding at 40 years – S. 46:14 and Aboth 5:21Interceding effectively leads to reward – S. 4:87 and Baba Kamma 92At death family and goods don’t follow a person, only works do – Sunna 689 and Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 34

Stories Borrowed from Judaism (pp. 185-223)

We can assume that Muhammad acquired the Old Testament narratives from the Jews, because nothing is included that would be of particular interest to Christians.

Patriarchs (pp. 187-204)

1. From Adam to Noah

   • Creation – Adam is wiser than the angels are because he could name the animals (S. 2:28-32) c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Numbers para. 19, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8 and 17, and Sanhedrin 38

   • The story of Satan refusing to worship Adam (S. 7:10-18; 17:63-68, 18:48, 20:115, 38:71-86) was explicitly rejected by the Jews. c.f. Midrash Rabbah on Genesis para. 8

   • Cain and Abel – sacrifice and murder.Koran – raven tells Cain how to bury the body (S. 5:31)Jews – raven tells parents how to bury body (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 21)Koran – slaying a soul is like slaying all mankind (S. 5:35) this is taken out of context from Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5

   • Idris (Enoch) – taken to Paradise after death and raised to life again. c.f. S. 19:58 with Gen. 5:24 and Tract Dereen Erez (cited in Midrash Yalku Ch. 42)

2. From Noah to Abraham

   • Angels living on earth, lusting after women and dividing marriages. S. 2:96 – alludes to Mdr. Abhkhir (quoted in Midr. Yalkut Ch. 44)

   • Noah – role as teacher and seer and the flood of hot water both match rabbinical ideas. [Compare S. 7:57-63, 10:72-75, 11:27-50, 22:43, 23:23-32, 25:39, 26:105-121, 29:13-14, 37:73-81, 54:9-18, 71:1ff with Sanhedrin 108, and S. 11:40 with Midrash Tanchuma, Section Noah, S. 11:42, 23:27 with Rosh Hashanan 162.] Noah’s words are indistinguishable from Muhammad’s (or Gabriel/Allah).

3. Abraham to Moses

   • Abraham – Archetypal prophet, friend of God, lived in temple, wrote books. Conflict over idols lead to danger of being burned alive but he was rescued by God. (Compare S. 2:60, 21:69-74, 29:23-27; 37:95-99 with Midrash Rabba on Genesis para. 38). So strong is Muhammad’s identification with Abraham that he places words in Abraham’s mouth that are not suitable to anyone outside Muhammad’s context (e.g. S. 24:88, 29:17-23)

   • Joseph is the subject of almost all of the 12th sura. Additions to the Biblical story are derived from Jewish legends. (e.g. Joseph is warned away from Potiphar’s wife in a dream (s. 12:24, Sotah 6:2), Egyptian women cut their hands because of Joseph’s beauty (S. 12:31, compare with references in Midrash Yalkut to ‘The Great Chronicle’.)

Moses and His Time (pp. 201-216)

This is very similar to the Biblical account, but with some additions from Jewish fables and some errors.

• The infant Moses refused the breast of Egyptian women (S. 28:11, Sotah 12,2)

• Pharaoh claims divinity (S. 26:28, 28:38, Midrash Rabba on Exodus para. 5)

• Pharaoh eventually repents (S. 10:90ff, Pirke Rabbi Eliezar section 43)

• God threatens to overturn the mountain onto the Israelites (S. 2:60, 87; 7:170, Abodah Zerah 2:2)

• There is a confusion as to the exact number of plagues – is it 5 (S. 7:130) or 9 (S. 17:103; 27:12)

• Haman (S. 28:5,7,38; 29:38; 28:38) and Korah (S. 29:38; 40:25) are thought to be advisors to Pharaoh.

• Miriam the sister of Aaron is also thought to be the mother of Jesus (S. 3:30ff, 29:29, 46:12)

The Kings Who Ruled Over Undivided Israel (pp. 216-220)

Very few particulars are given about Saul or David. Solomon is discussed in much more detail. The story about the Queen of Sheba (S. 27:20-46) is virtually identical to the 2nd Targum on the Book of Esther.

Holy Men After the Time of Solomon (pp. 220-223)

Elijah, Jonah, Job, Shadrach, Mishach, Abednego (not by name), Ezra, Elisha

Conclusion: Muhammad borrowed a great deal from Judaism – both scripture and legend. He freely altered what he heard. ‘Conceptions, matters of creed, views of morality, and of life in general, and more especially matters of history and traditions, have actually passed over from Judaism into the Koran.’ (p. 222)

Appendix: Statements in the Koran Hostile to Judaism (pp. 223-226)

Muhammad’s aim was to bring about the union between all religions, but Judaism, with its host of laws, stood in his way. So he made a break with the Jews, declaring them enemies (S. 5:85) who killed the prophets (S. 2:58, 5:74), thought themselves favoured by God (S. 5:21) believed they alone would enter paradise (S. 2:88, 62:6), held Ezra to be the son of God (S. 9:30), trusted in the intercession of their predecessors (2:128, 135), and perverted the Bible (S. 2:73). To emphasise this break he changed some of the Jewish traditions. For example: (1) Supper precedes prayer (sunna 97ff) in opposition to the Talmud’s adamant stance that prayer has priority, (2) Sex is permitted during Ramadan. The Talmud forbids it on the evening of fasts. Also, men may only remarry the wives they have divorced if the woman has first married and divorced someone else (S. 2:230). This is in direct opposition to the Bible, (3) Most of the Jewish dietary regulations are removed, (4) Muhammad cites ‘eye for eye’ and rebukes the Jews for replacing it with the payment of money (S. 5:49).

Chapter Twelve: The Sources of Islam (pp. 227-292)

-W. St. Clair-Tisdall

Ch. I – Views of Muslim Divines as to the sources from which Islam sprang (232)

The Koran is direct from heaven from God via Gabriel to Muhammad. God is the only ‘source’ of Islam.

Ch. II – Certain Doctrines and Practices of the Arabs in the “Days of Ignorance” Maintained in Islam (pp. 232-236)

Islam retains much from pre-Islamic Arabia including Allah, the name for God. The concept of monotheism did exist in the jahiliyya – even the pagans conceived of a supreme God that ruled over all the others. There are hints that some idolatry would remain (e.g. the Satanic verses). The Ka’ba was the masjid of many tribes as early as 60 BC, and the pagans first had the tradition of kissing the black stone. Two passages from the Sabaa Mu’allaqat of Imra’ul Qays are quoted in the Koran (S. 54:1, 29:31&46, 37:69, 21:96, 93:1). There is also a hadith where Imra’ul mocks Fatima because her father is plagiarising him and claiming to be quoting revelation.

Ch. III – How Far Some of the Doctrines and Histories in the Koran and Tradition were taken from Jewish Commentators, and Some Religious customs from the Sabaeans (pp. 236-257)

Sabeans – a religious group now disappeared. Among the little known about them we see the following customs:

• 7 daily prayers, 5 of them at the same times as those chosen by Muhammad

• prayed for the dead

• fasted 30 days from night to sunrise

• observed Eed from the setting of 5 starts

• venerated the Ka’ba

Jews – Three important tribes lived in the vicinity of Medina: Bani Quraiza, Qainuqa’a, and Nadhir.

1. Cain and Abel – S. 5:30-35, compare with the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah, the Targum of Jerusalem. Specifically there are parallels with Pirke Rabbi Eleazer(the story of the raven teaching people how to bury), and with Mishnah Sanhedrin (the commentary about the shedding of blood).

2. Abraham saved from Nimrood’s fire – (S. 2:260, 6:74-84, 21:52-72, 19:42-50, 26:69-79, 29:15,16; 37:81-95, 43:25-27, 60:4) taken from Midrash Rabbah (Gen. 15:7). The parallels are especially clear when the relevant hadith are consulted. The only significant difference is that in the Koran Abraham’s father is called Azar, not Terah, but Eusebius tells us that this is similar to the name used in Syria. This Jewish commentary was the result of a mistaken translation of ‘Ur’, which means ‘city’ in Babylonian, but was apparently mistaken for the word ‘Or’ meaning fire, so the commentator (Jonathan ben Uzziah) thought Abraham had been delivered out the ‘fiery oven’ of the Chaldeans.

3. Visit of the Queen of Saba (Sheba) to Solomon (S. 21:17ff) is taken from the 2nd Targum of the Book of Esther

4. Harut and Marut (S. 2:96, especially Araish al-Majalis – the commentary on that ayat) similar to several accounts in the Talmud, especially Midrash Yalkut. The stories are the same except for the manes of the angels. The manes in the Koran are the same as those of two goddesses worshipped in Armenia.

5. A few other things taken by Islam from the Jews

   • ‘Sinai overhead’ – S. 2:172 and Abodah Sarah

   • The golden calf lowing – s. 2:90 and Pirke Rabbi Eleazer

   • Also, the Koran uses the word ‘Sameri’ for the man who built the golden calf – but Samaritans didn’t exist until 400 years after Moses.

6. A few other Jewish Matters

   • Many words in the Koran are not Arabic but Hebrew, Chaldaean, Syriac, etc…

   • The concept of 7heavens and 7 hells are in the Jewish books Hagigah and Zohar (S. 15:44, 17:46)

   • God’s throne is above the waters (S. 11:9) from the Jewish Rashi

   • The angel Malik rules over Jehennam – the names is taken from Molech, the ruler of fire in pagan Palestine.

   • There is a wall or partition separating heaven and hell (S. 7:44) – a variety of places in the Jewish Midrash.

7. Religious usages of Islam taken from the Jews

   • Daybreak begins when you can distinguish a white from a black(Islam)/blue(Jewish) thread (S. 2:83, Mishnah Berakhoth)

   • S. 21:105 is a quotation of Psalm 37:11. How could the Koran quote the Psalms unless it came after them, therefore either the Psalms must be eternal as well, or the Koran is not.

   • The Koran is preserved on heavenly tablets (S. 85:21-22) – similar to the stone tablets of the decalogue (Deut. 10:1-5) which Jewish legend had embellished to include the entire Torah, Writings, Prophets, Mishnah, and the Gemara (Rabbi Simeon).

Ch. IV – On the Belief that Much of the Koran is Derived from the Tales of Heretical Christian Sects

Many heretics were expelled from the Roman Empire and migrated to Arabic before the time of Muhammad.

1. The Seven Sleepers, or Companions of the Cave (S. 18:8-26) is a story of Greek origin found in a Latin work of Gregory of Tours (‘Story of Martyrs’ 1:95) and was recognised by Christians as pious fiction.

2. The History of Mary (S. 19:16-31, 66:12, 3:31-32&37-42, 25:37). Mary is said to be the sister of Aaron, the daughter of Imran (Hebrew Amran the father of Moses), and the mother of Jesus. The hadith tell us that Mary’s mother was an aged, barren woman who promised to give her child to the temple if God gave it to her (from the Protevangelium of James the Less). The hadith also explain that the casting of rods mentioned in the Koran refers to when 6 priests were vying for who would raise Mary. They threw their rods into the river, only Zaccharias’ rod floated (from the History of our Holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter (Joseph), and Arabic apocryphal book). Mary was denounced as an adulteress but pleaded her innocence (from Protevangelium a Coptic book on the Virgin Mary), and gave birth under a palm tree that aided her (from History of the Nativity of Mary and the Saviour’s Infancy)

3. The Childhood of Jesus – Jesus spoke from the cradle and created birds of clay which he then turned to life (S. 3:41-43, 5:119), from The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite and The Gospel of the Infancy Ch. 1, 36, 46. Jesus was not really crucified (s. 4:156) in accordance with the heretic Basilides (quoted by Iraneus). The Koran erroneously thinks that the Trinity consists of father, mother, and son (s. 4:169, 5:77).

4. Some other stories from Christian or heretical writers: In the hadith (Quissas al-Anbial) God sends angels together dust to create Adam and Azrael brings it from every quarter (Ibn Athir via Abdul Feda). This is from the heretic Marconion who argued that it was an angel (the ‘God of the law’) who created people, not the true God. The balance of good and bad deeds (S. 42:16, 101:5-6) is from the ‘Testament of Abraham’ and from the Egyptian ‘Book of the dead.’ Two New Testament verses are alluded to: (a) camel through the eye of a needle (S. 7:38, Mt. 19:24), God has prepared for the righteous things that eyes have not seen nor ears heard (Abu Hureira quoting the prophet in Mishkat of the Prophet, 1 Cor. 2:9).

Ch. V – Some Things in the Koran and Tradition Derived from Ancient Zoroastrian and Hindu Beliefs (pp. 275-286)

Arabian and Greek historians tell us that much of the Arabian peninsula was under Persian rule before and during Muhammad’s life. Ibn Hisham tells us that the stories of Rustem, Isfandiyar and ancient Persia were told in Medina and the Quraish used to compare them with tales in the Koran (e.g. the tales told by Nadhr, son of al-Harith).

1. Ascent (Miraj) of the prophet (S. 17:1) – There is a great variation in interpretation. Ibn Ishaq quotes A’isha and the prophet as saying this was an out of body journey. Muhyiad-Din [ibn al-‘Arabi] agrees. But Ibn Ishaq also quotes the prophet saying that it was a literal journey. Cotada relates the prophet saying that it was a literal journey into the 7th heaven. In a Zorastrian story the Magi send one of their number into heaven to get a message from God (Ormazd) (from a Pahlavi book Arta Viraf Namak – 400 B.H.) Also, the ‘Testament of Abraham’ tells of Abraham being taken up to heaven in a chariot.

2. Paradise – filled with houris (S. 55:72, 56:22) – like the ‘paries’ in Zorastrianism. The words ‘houry’, ‘djinn’, and ‘bihist’ (Paradise) are derived from Avesta or Pahlavi sources. The ‘youths of pleasure’ (ghilunan) are also in Hindu tales. The name of the Angel of death is taken from the Jews (in Hebrew two names are given, Sammael and Azrael, the latter was borrowed by Islam), but the concept of the angel killing those in hell was taken from Zoroastrianism.

3. Azazil coming from hell – in the Muslim traditions he worshiped God 1000 years in each of the 7 heavens before reaching earth. Then he sat 3000 years by the gates of paradise trying to tempt Adam and Eve and destroy creation. This is very similar to the Zoroastrian tale regarding their devil (Ahriman) in the book Victory of God. The peacock agreed to let Iblis into Paradise in exchange for a prayer with magical qualities (the Bundahishnih) – an association also noted by the Zoroastrians (Eznik in his book Against Heresies).

4. The light of Muhammad was the first created thing (Qissas al-Anbia, Rauzat al Ahbab). The light was divided into 4, then each into 4. Muhammad was the first of the first divisions of light. This light was then placed on Adam and descended to the best descendent. This is virtually identical to the Zoroastrian view which described 4 divisions of light (the Minukhirad, Desatir-i Asmani, Yesht 19:31-37); the light was placed on the first man (Jamshid) and passed to his greatest descendent.

5. The Bridge Sirat is a concept from Dinkart, but it is named Chinavad by the Zoroastrians.

6. The concept that each prophet predicts the next prophet is from Desatir-i Asmani where each Zoroastrian prophet predicts the next one. Also, the openings of these books (i.e. the Desatir-i Asmani) is “In the name of God, the Giver of gifts, the Beneficent’ which is similar to the opening of all the Suras ‘In the name of God the Merciful, the Gracious.’

7. How could Muhammad have learned these stories? Rauzat al-Ahbab tells us that the prophet used to talk to people from all over the place. Al-Kindi accuses the Koran of including foolish old-wives tales. Also, in Sirat-Rasul we learn of the Persian, Salman, who advised Muhammad regarding the battle of the trench and was accused of helping compose the Koran. (The Koran mentions him, though not by name, in S. 16:105).

Ch. VI – The Hanefites: Their Influence on Muhammad and On His Teaching (pp. 286-292)

The influence of the Hanefites (Arab monotheists) on Muhammad is most reliably described by Ibn Hisham quoting Ibn Ishaq’a Sirat. Six Hanefites are mentioned by name – Abu Amir (Medina), ‘Ummeya (Tayif), Waraqa (became a Christian), ‘Ubaidallah (became a Muslim, moved to Abyssiniya and gave up Islam for Christianity), ‘Uthman, Zaid (banished from Mecca, lived on Mt. Hira where Muhammad went to meditate) (the latter four were from Mecca).

Conclusion – All this said, the variety of sources does not mean than Muhammad had no role in creating Islam. But we see that as circumstances in his life changed, so too did his revelation. For example, s. 22:44 (pre-Hegira) permission is given to fight when persecuted, but in s. 2:212-214) war is commanded even during the sacred months (post-Hegira). Then again after the Banu Quraiza are conquered comes s. 5:37 commanding dire punishments for anyone who opposes Muhammad. Towards the end of Muhammad’s life the sacred months come back into favour (s. 9:2,29), but Muslims are also commanded to kill idolaters wherever they may find them, (even if they are not fighting against Islam!), because they do not profess the true religion.

Chapter Thirteen: The Jewish Foundation of Islam (pp. 293-348)

-Charles Cutler Torrey

Allah and Islam (pp. 293-330)

Muhammad was trying to create a religious history for the Arabs, but Arabian religious history did not provide many sources for him. What references there are occur mainly in the Meccan period. He refers to Hud, the prophet of the people ‘Ad; Salih, the prophet of the Thamud; and Shu’aib, prophet of Midian. All pagan customs not directly involving idolatry were preserved in Islam, e.g. the rituals of the Haj.

After exhausting the Arabian possibilities Muhammad began to rely on Jewish material because it was well-known and would give the new religion greater credibility in the wider world. In addition to apocryphal works, Muhammad must have been familiar with the canonical Bible, especially the Torah. He only knows the prophets with interesting stories and is therefore ignorant of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and all the minor prophets except Jonah. From popular tales the Arabs knew that the Jews felt that they had descended from a common ancestor, Abraham, via Isma’il and Isaac respectively. Hagar is not mentioned in the Koran. The Koran says that they built the Ka’ba (though later Muslim doctrine says that Adam built it and Abraham cleansed it of idols). It is possible that the ‘hanifs’ (Arab monotheists following the religion of Abraham) are an invention of later Islam. The story of Iblis (or Shaitan) prostrating himself before Adam (38:73-77) may not refer to worship as there is a possible Jewish source for this story in Sanhedrin 596 and Mir. Rabba 8. Shu’aib is probably the Biblical Jethro. ‘Uzair is Ezra, and the Jews are accused of declaring him to be the son of God. Idris is also Ezra (the Greek name). Hebrew chronology is very week in the Koran, e.g. Muhammad seems to associate Moses near to Jesus (as Moses’ sister is also Jesus’ mother).

‘Isa ibn Maryam is Jesus. Very little is known about him by Muhammad and there are no uniquely Christian doctrines in the Koran. The little that was known about Jesus came from (1) the facts and fancies that were spread throughout all Arabia, and (2) a little via the Jews. The name ‘Isa is itself inappropriate, it should be Yeshu in Arabic. Either it was given by the Jews (associating Jesus with their ancient enemy Esau) or it is a corruption of the Syriac name (Isho). In the Koran itself Jesus doesn’t have a position higher than Abraham, Moses, or David. This elevation occurred later in the caliphate when the Arabs had closer contacts with Christians. A few Christian terms (e.g. Messiah, Spirit) work their way into the Koran without any real understanding of what they mean. It was probably the migration to Abyssinia that increased Muhammad’s interest in the Christian stories. Rudolph and Ahrens argue that if Muhammad had learned about Jesus from the Jews then he would have ignored or insulted him. But many Jews appreciated Jesus as a teacher while rejecting Christian dogmas. Also, Muhammad was aware of the large Christian empire, so he would have distrusted anyone who insulted Jesus. The only information about Christ in the Koran is the kind of stuff that wouldn’t bother the Jews. The Koran’s view of Jesus’ mission is: (1) confirm the true doctrine of the Torah, (2) preach monotheism, (3) warn against new sects. S. 15:1-15 is a literary connection with the New Testament (Lk. 1:5-25, 57-66). This is the story of Zechariah and John was probably related by a learned man but not a Christian as it was isolated from any association with Jesus’ birth. In summary, there is nothing particularly Christian about Jesus in the Koran.

Torrey now digresses to a discussion of the composite Meccan suras, following the traditional Muslim accounts closely. He points out the implausibility of Meccan and Medinan verses being intermingled if in fact the prophet was publicly reciting his revelations and having them memorised by his followers as they were revealed. Would it not cause confusion (or scepticism) to be continually inserting new material into previously revealed suras? The traditional commentators frequently neglect the Jewish population in Mecca that may have been the target of some ayat in the Meccan suras. In fact, Muhammad’s personal contact with Jews was longer and closer pre-Hijra than post-Hijra. Why would we assume that there was no hostility to Muhammad from the Meccan Jews? And, after the eviction or butchery of the yews in Yathrib, it’s scarcely surprising that the Jews quickly left Mecca. Torrey recommends considering the Meccan suras to be complete without interpolations unless there is unmistakable proof to the contrary. Doing this decreases the variation in style and vocabulary assumed to exist between the two periods. [NB: Basically he is arguing for literary criticism instead of form criticism.]

‘The origin of the term Islam’ (pp. 327-330)

Traditionally ‘Islam’ is said to mean ‘submission’, especially to Allah. But, this is not the normal meaning one would expect of the 4th stem of the verb ‘salima’. It is especially strange since ‘submission’ is not a prominent feature of Muhammad or his religion nor especially emphasised in the Koran. It is, however, an important attribute of Abraham, especially in his potential sacrifice of Ishmael.

The Narratives of the Koran (pp. 330-348)

Muhammad’s use of stories about prophets served two functions: (1) it provided a clear connection with the previous ‘religions of the book’, and (2) it showed his countrymen that his religion had been preached before and those who rejected it were punished. But, Muhammad’s storytelling was boring and he was mocked by an-Nadr ibn al-Harith who insisted that his own tales of Persian kings were far more interesting. (After the battle of Badr the prophet had his revenge and slew an-Nadr.) Muhammad himself appreciated a good story and incorporated pretty bits of folk tale into the Koran where he could. However, this provided a dilemma for Muhammad. If he merely reproduced tales he would be accused of plagiarism, but if he changed them he would be accused of falsifying. He couldn’t just invent new stories, for his imagination was vivid but not creative. All of his characters talk the same way and he has very little sense of action. His solution was to repeat the stories he had learned, but in fragments, using introductory words which imply that he could tell more if he chose (e.g. ‘and when…’, ‘and then there was that time…’)

The story of Joseph is the most complete narrative in the Koran, but it is still annoyingly short in detail. Why were the women given knives? What does the banquet have to do with anything? Why was Joseph put in prison after Potipher’s wife confessed? Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (27:16-45) is taken directly from the Haggada (see above pp. 181-186). Jonah (37:139-148) is a condensation of the Biblical account, but the name given is based on the Greek rather than Hebrew form. Saul and Goliath (‘Talut’ and ‘Jalut’) is a confusion of the story of Gideon (Jdg. 7:47) with that of David and Goliath. The story of Moses (s. 28:2-46) is a summary of most of Ex. 1-4, though Muhammad does not associate Moses with the Israelites. Haman is believed to be Pharaoh’s vizier (also in s. 29 and 40). As in the Talmud (Sotah 126) the baby Moses refuses to suckle at an Egyptian breast. The marriage of Moses in Midian is loosely patterned after Jacob and Rachael; and a tower (virtually identical to the tower of Babel) is built by Pharaoh to reach Allah. This narrative illustrates the freedom which Muhammad felt as a prophet to alter the Biblical tradition.

Sura 18 is unusual because the stories in it are not from the Bible or Rabbinic literature, and Muhammad makes not mention to it elsewhere in the Koran.

1. The seven sleepers is from the legend of 7 Christian youths who fled from Ephasus to the mountains to escape the persecution of Decius (250 AD). Though a Christian tale it seems to have come to Muhammad via the Jews for several reasons (a) The hadith say that the Jews of Mecca were especially interested in this story (See Baidawi on vs. 23), (b) the rest of the stories in the chapter seem to have come via a Jewish rescension, and (c) internal evidence points to verse 18, which mentions the importance of ‘clean’ food, a concept important to Jews, not to Christians. There is nothing uniquely Christian about this tale. It could just as easily have been Israelite youths. Apparently the legend existed in different forms and Muhammad was challenged to know what was the correct number of youths. The Koran diffuses the challenge by insisting that only God knows the right answer.

2. The next story is a common parable of a god-fearing poor man vs. an arrogant, impious rich man. The latter is punished.

3. Then we have the story of Moses searching for the fountain of life which is the same as an episode from the legend of Alexander the Great with the name changed. This legend has roots in the Gilgamesh epic.

4. Finally, the narrative of the ‘Two-horned’ hero is again from Alexander the Great. He journey’s to the place of the setting sun and to the place of its rising, as an emissary of God. He is protected against Gog and Magog (Yajuj and Majuj in the Koran) and Alexander builds a great wall. These fantasies echo those found in the Haggada, which reinforces the possibility of a Jewish source for the entire sura, likely a single document.

So, the sources of the Koran used by Muhammad include:

1. Biblical narrative with alteration

2. Jewish Haggada, well preserved

3. A small amount of ultimately Christian material from Aramaic.

4. Legends common to world literature introduced via the Jews at Mecca.

All of these were altered and rearranged for the purpose of providing his listeners with an Arabian revelation with enhanced credibility because it could be seen as part of a universal divine revelation.

Part Four: MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE KORAN

Chapter Fourteen: Literary Analysis of Koran, Tafsir, and Sira: The methodologies of John Wansbrough (pp. 351-363)

-Andrew Rippin

Christianity and Judaism are both seen as religions rooted in history. ‘What really happened’ is seen as an important criteria for determining the truth or falsehood of the religion. It assumes that the sources available to us contain discernible historical data which enable us to achieve positive historical results.

Modern scholarship of Islam has the same desire to achieve positive results, but the literary qualities of the available sources are often overlooked. Neutral testimony, archaeological data, datable documents, and evidence from external sources, are profoundly lacking. The few external sources that we have (as recounted by Crone and Cook in Hagarism) have questionable authenticity and are based on polemic. Internal sources are recorded two centuries after the event, influenced by the intervening years and intended to provide a ‘salvation history’ legitimising the faith and the scripture of Islam. For example, the stories known as asbab al-nazul (occasions of revelation) are significant not for their historical value but for their exegetical value – they provide a framework for interpretation of the Koran. Yet these basic literary facts are often ignored by historians.

The Nature of the Sources

John Wansbrough (SOAS) argues for a critical literary assessment of the sources so as to avoid the inherent theological view of history. His two major books are Qur’anic Studies: Sources and Methods of Historical Interpretation, dealing with “the formation of the Koran along with the witness of exegetical writings (tafsir) to that formation., and The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, examining the traditional biographies of Muhammad to see “the theological elaboration of Islam as a religious community” especially “questions of authority, identity, and epistemology.” [pg. 354] Wansbrough’s basic methodology is to ask the question: What is the evidence that the stories are accurate regarding the formation of the scripture and the community? The earliest non-Islamic sources testifying to the Koran are the 2nd/8th century. Islamic sources (excluding those whose primary purpose was defending the canon) suggest that the Koran itself was not totally fixed until the 3rd/9th century. Manuscript evidence doesn’t allow for much earlier dating.

Many scholars ask why they should not trust Islamic sources. In answer Wansbrough, rather than pointing to contradictions between and within them (like John Burton, The Collection of the Koran), argues that “the entire corpus of early Islamic documentation must be viewed as ‘salvation history.’ What the Koran is trying to evidence, what tafsir, sira, and theological writings are trying to explicate, is how the sequence of worldly events centred on the time of Muhammad was directed by God. All the components of Islamic salvation history are meant to witness the same point of faith, namely, an understanding of history that sees God’s role in directing the affairs of humankind.” [pp. 354-355] Salvation history is not attempting to describe what really happened, it is attempt to describe the relationship between God and men and vice versa. (Wansbrough does not use ‘salvation’ with it’s Christian connotations, i.e. the saving of an individual soul from damnation, but in a more general literary sense that could just as easily be called ‘sacred’ history.)

This concept has been fully developed within biblical and Mishnaic studies by the likes of Bultmann and Neusner. “All such works start from the proposition that the literary records of salvation history, although presenting themselves as being contemporary with the events they describe, actually belong to a period well after such events, which suggests that they have been written according to later points of view in order to fit the purposes of that later time… The records we have are the existential records of the thought and faith of later generations.” [pp. 355-356] Goldziher and Schact recognised that many of the sayings attributed to the prophet were invented to settle legal and doctrinal disputes in later generations. However most scholars since Schact have tended to ignore the implications of his work. Wansbrough argues that we do not (and probably cannot) know what ‘really happened’. Literary analysis can only tell us about the disputes of later generations. The whole point of Islamic salvation history is to adapt Judeo-Christian religious themes for the formulation of an Arabian religious identity. The Koran itself demands that it be placed within a Judeo-Christian context (e.g. the line of prophets, sequence of scriptures, common narratives). “This notion of extrapolation is, in a sense, the methodological presupposition that Wansbrough sets out to prove within his books by posing the question: If we assume this, does the data fit? At the same time he poses the question: What additional evidence appears in the process of the analysis to corroborate the presupposition and to define it more clearly?” [pg. 357] Attacking the presupposition misses the entire point To evaluate his work one must first weigh the evidence and the conclusions proposed.

Wansbrough’s Approach to the Sources (pp. 358-363)

Wansbrough argues that modern studies of the Koran, even those which purport to use modern biblical methodologies (e.g. Richard Bell), acquiesce to the traditional interpretation of the data. Major reasons for this include: (1) increasing specialisation means that there are fewer scholars capable of interacting with the wide variety of necessary languages and religions. Most think that a knowledge of Arabic and 7th century Arabia is sufficient. (2) The irenic approach (e.g. Charles Adams), aimed at appreciation of Islamic religiousness, avoids the basic question ‘How do we know?’

In his analysis of the basic character of the Koran Wansbrough identifies four major motifs common to monotheistic imagery: divine retribution, sign, exile, and covenant. He points out that the Koran is written in a ‘referential’ style, presupposing detailed audience knowledge of the Judeo-Christian traditions which can be alluded to with only a few words without losing meaning (similar to Talmudic references to the Torah). Only as ‘Islam’ moved out of the Arabian peninsula and obtained a fixed identity (based on political structure) does the Koran become detached from its original intellectual environment and require explanation – i.e. the tafsir and sira. The similarities between the Koran and Qumram literature show a “similar process of biblical-textual elaboration and adaptation to sectarian purposes.” [pp. 360] So the Koran is a composite of referential passages developed on the context of Judeo-Christian sectarian polemics joined together through a variety of literary and narrative conventions. Textual stability goes hand-in-hand with canonisation and was not really feasible until political power was well established; “thus the end of the 2nd/8th century becomes a likely historical moment for the gathering together of oral tradition and liturgical elements leading to the actual concept “Islam.” [pg. 361] This coincides with the rise of literary Arabic. Wansbrough analyses Koranic tafsir into five genres – haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical – and then shows a chronological development of increasing concern with the textual integrity of the Koran and then with its use as scripture. The sira have some exegetical function, but are more important in providing a narrative of the Islamic version of salvation history. Much of the contents of the sira fit nicely as elaborations of 23 well-known polemical motifs traditional to the Near Eastern sectarian milieu.

Critics have largely accused Wansbrough of creating a method that determines results rather than allowing material determining results. However, Rippin points out that the traditional theologico-historical methods are just as likely to condition results. What is needed is for scholars to become more aware of the limitations of their own methods and to be prepared to considered the validity of other methods. A closer examination of the basic data is necessary to determine the validity and implications of Wansbrough’s method.

Trends in Biographies of Muhammad

Jay Smith – 1996

Thesis: An Observation of some of the recent trends in Western biographies of Muhammad, with detailed reference to the work of at least 2 authors.

Muhammad, a man considered by many to have been one of the greater influences on mankind, will, due to his popularity generate a large quantity of interest and curiosity. This is born out by the “1,548 different titles dealing explicitly with Muhammad” which Muhammad Maher Hamadeh has listed in his Ph.D. dissertation (Hamadeh 1965:112-283; taken from Royster 1972:49). The majority of these titles no doubt, especially those written by Muslims, will reiterate much of the material passed down through the centuries about Muhammad, which had their “origins” in the classical period of Islam; between 750-950 A.D. (the approximate dates attributed to the four genres of compilations concerning the prophet’s life and teachings, compiled by notable individuals such as Ibn Ishaq=d.765, Ibn Hisham=d.833, al-Bukhari=d.870, and al-Tabari=d.923).

Yet, because of their late dates, there is a growing concern in the West that much of the data which we possess on the life of Muhammad is perhaps erroneous, or has at least been embellished (Cook 1983:63). There simply are no documents which were written from the period of the prophet himself with which we can corroborate the historicity of the classical compilations. In fact the “oldest texts we have concerning the life of the Prophet go back to about 125 years after his death” (Rodinson 1996:xi). Consequently, the new research into Muhammad is focusing towards a more critical approach as researchers apply much the same historical/critical criteria earlier employed on the Bible. The resultant reaction from those in Islam has been understandably vociferous in its condemnation. A.L. Tabawi is probably symptomatic of this position, when he postulates that only those who are believers themselves have the right to critique a book of faith. Anyone else should, due to their bias, leave it alone (see Tabawi’s “Second Critique” pp.5-8).

To assess this new research into the biography of Muhammad currently being employed in the West I have read four of the better-known western biographies, those written by Karen Armstrong, W.Montgomery Watt, Maxine Rodinson, and Michael Cook. Because of time and space I will only be critiquing Armstrong and Rodinson in this paper.

While many of the stories’ surrounding the life of Muhammad are similar in all four accounts, the methodologies used to interpret these stories differ quite substantially. On the one extreme we have Karen Armstrong, who in her biography adopts nearly all the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life (as we will study below). On the other extreme we find Michael Cook, who not only is critical of the interpretation of the traditions, but believes the later compilers, “drew on a mass of earlier literature which is otherwise mostly lost” (Cook 1983:61). His skepticism arises from the enormous amount of enlargement which is evidenced in compilers such as Waqidi, as he states, “this evolution in the course of half a century from uncertainty [concerning the death of Abdallah, Muhammad’s father] to a profusion of precise detail suggests that a fair amount of what Waqidi knew was not knowledge” (Cook 1983:64). Thus, he believes that the same embellishment was probably at work in the period following the death of Muhammad until the first Sira compilations with Ibn Ishaq in the mid-eighth century (Cook 1983:67). The fact that he reserves a quarter of his book (pages 61-82) to a study of the origins and sources of Islam shows his concern for this real problem. In between these two extremes can be situated both Watt and Rodinson, who though they are suspicious of the authenticity for the traditions, nonetheless refer to them in their account of Muhammad’s life, being careful to caution the reader as to their veracity time and again.

In order to understand the methodology used by these western biographers (for this paper, Armstrong and Rodinson), I would like to begin by summarizing James Royster’s excellent paper which gives an overview concerning the methodologies used today. Royster divides the methodologies into two categories; the first he calls the “non-empirical” or “normative approach,” as they deal with that which is not observable or demonstrable, and thus tend to lean towards a critical assessment of Muhammad (Royster 1972:49-54,70).

Royster’s second approach includes that which is empirical or descriptive. Under this category he delineates three groups. The first are those who attempt to ascertain what really happened’ in the life of Muhammad (“Historicism”). They are factually oriented, in that they only accept data which can be empirically identified. The problem, however, is that because data is so sparse they tend to come away with erroneous generalizations due to hasty conclusions which are based on a lack of primary sources (Royster 1972:54-56).

The second group are those who try to explain what happened by cause and effect (“Reductionism”). Their intent is to explain the life of Muhammad within a social framework. Royster describes four forms of reductionism: “Naturalistic Reductionism,” where the religious phenomena in Muhammad’s life is explained naturally; “Psychological Reductionism,” where psychological explanations are given for the phenomena; “Cultural Reductionism,” where the cultural milieu of that period is used to explain the phenomena; and “Exordial Reductionism,” where the sources are sought out to explain from whence an idea or story originated (Royster 1972:57-60).

The third “empirical” group are those who attempt to understand Islam from the inside, from the Muslims perspective. This is the “phenomenological approach” (Royster 1972:61-64). It is this group, he feels, which have best caught the true meaning of Islam, irregardless of whether their assessment is historical or not (Royster 1972:68). They are not necessarily concerned with how it was, but with how it is, not with the “Muhammad of history, but the Muhammad of faith” (Royster 1972:66). As I go through the biographies which I have read it will be helpful to refer back to Royster’s criteria, since I feel they exemplify these categories in their writings quite well.

Let’s then begin with Karen Armstrong. Her biography is a good example of the phenomenological approach, in that she interprets the facts’ of Muhammad’s life much as a Muslim would. From the very first page one can see that she is speaking from a definite position, and that it is not as an European. If I had not read her name on the cover, I could have thought this was simply another Muslim biography, as she had little good to say about the West, characterizing its entire history as that of hatred towards Islam (Armstrong 1992:35,42). It was difficult to take her biography seriously, as throughout the book she made numerous simplistic generalizations concerning the West, Islam and Christianity. Let me give some examples.

An overriding theme of Armstrong is the belief that the West, and particularly the Christian West, has an agenda which is innately anti-Muslim. She contends that the western contempt for Muhammad and Islam is ingrained, and therefore, it should be blamed for the fanatical stance Islam has today (Armstrong 1992:42). At one point she maintains that the anti-Jewish myths which spread throughout Europe was an unhealthy disturbance and disease, which is not found in Islam, but is unique to the western psyche (Armstrong 1992:28). Her list of western luminaries tainted with this hatred includes Wycliffe (p.33), Luther (p.34) and even a misguided Francis of Assissi (p.31), though her criteria for such assertions could just as easily be applied to their Muslim contemporaries.

In her attempt to distance herself from her own background she makes statements which I feel are somewhat naive. At one time she writes, “It has never been a problem for Muslims to coexist with people of other religions. But Western Europe has found it almost impossible to tolerate Muslims and Jews in Christian territory.” (Armstrong 1992:87) This theme is repeated later when she maintains, “In the Islamic empire Jews like Christians had full religious liberty; the Jews lived there in peace until the creation of the State of Israel in our own century. The Jews of Islam never suffered like the Jews of Christendom…a history of 1,200 years of good relations between Jews and Muslims.” (Armstrong 1992:209) While there is some truth behind the atrocious treatment of Jews by Christianity in Europe, it is odd to assume that Islam has an unblemished record, especially as even Armstrong herself recounts the stories of the prophet’s own eviction and execution of the three Medinan Jewish families (though she, like most Muslim historians, puts the blame squarely upon the Medinan Jews).

At another time she states anachronistically that, “Muhammad’s religious requirements would help Muslims to cultivate a respect for other people as individuals with certain inalienable rights.” (Armstrong 1992:146) Whether her reading of Islamic history has been coloured or whether she refuses to believe the western reports she has read I am not sure. What seems clear is that she is greatly angered by her western European past, and this bias permeates much of her biographical interpretation of Muhammad’s life.

A list of superlatives is saved for the man himself. Muhammad, according to Armstrong was good-looking, with a whole-hearted character and luminous expression (p.78); he was gentle to women (p.79), and wise (p.82); he was a spiritual genius (p.98) with “enhanced knowledge” (p.159); he loved children, was pious (p.230), was lenient, kind, loved animals (p.231), helped with the household chores (p.239), and had a mission much more difficult than that of Jesus, which succeeded (pp.250-251). All of these examples she gleaned from source material compiled hundreds of years after the fact, yet she repeats them as if she knew the man himself.

It was obvious to me that Armstrong used the many classical Muslim sources without questioning their veracity. Very little was ever said concerning the authenticity of the sources. When she broached the subject she contended that they were not a “whitewash,” but gave a “compelling and realistic portrait…telling their story as honestly and truthfully as they could” (Armstrong 1992:47). What bad Hadiths there were, she maintains, the later compilers “ruthlessly discarded,” so that the editing was objective (Armstrong 1992:48). I am certain that there are few orientalist scholars who would agree with such assertions.

It was this uncritical acceptance of the traditional sources which set her off from the other biographies I read. While the other three authors each took pains to mention the problem of primary sources, Armstrong hardly ever mentioned this difficulty, rehashing the traditional accounts without ever warning the reader of the possibility of elaboration. It was only when faced with accounts which were apparently erroneous that she suddenly fell back to alluding to the possibility that there was room for embellishment; for instance stating that the invasion of Mecca by Abraha on an elephant was probably “embellished by legend” (Armstrong 1992:67). Why she suddenly chose to find an embellishment in this account and not in any others I am not sure. It would have been helpful had she remained critically consistent throughout.

Her treatment of Christianity, on the other hand, I found to be overly critical. At times her analysis seemed somewhat unjust, and simply out of date. In comparing Islamic traditions with those of Christianity she contends that the Biblical oral traditions were changed and confused. The gospel accounts, she states, were, “more concerned with religious meaning of Jesus’ life than with historical facts, and frequently express the needs, preoccupations and beliefs of the early churches rather than the original events.” (Armstrong 1992:51). While this may reflect the sentiment of liberal theology perhaps ten to fifteen years ago, it is not consistent with the newer documentary and archaeological findings, which now provide manuscripts for Matthew, Mark and Luke within the lifetime of the disciples themselves, and therefore complicate the theory that the germinal beliefs of the gospels could have been created and then redacted back at a later date (refer to Time, April 8, 1996, p.60, which is a recent outline of Dr. Thiede’s research on the Magdalene Manuscript, as well as the Qumranic fragments for Mark and the Lukan papyrus, all dated between 63-70A.D. and consistent with the later manuscripts).

Her position on Christian missions matches her critical view of its history. Defending the Muslim belief that Christian missionary work today is associated with the crusades, she uses as an example General Allenby’s remark upon his arrival in Jerusalem in 1917, that the crusades were now complete (Armstrong 1992:40). How the remark of a single military man could somehow represent the work of thousands of missionaries over the centuries, many of whom gave their lives to share that which they believed, is beyond me? I come from a long tradition of missionaries, with a grandfather buried in India, and a grandmother and two cousins buried in Kenya. All my aunts and uncles were missionaries, yet none of them ever represented any government, or would think to acknowledge the crusades as anything other than an historical aberration. While there is truth that in the past the colonial governments many times provided land and security for missionaries, it is not true that the missionaries therefore colluded with these governments, or that they somehow continue to function as an arm of what are quite secular institutions.

At times her biography became quite apologetical. In her attempt to reconcile the concept of Jihad within a twentieth century context, she used, ironically, a Christian definition, stipulating that the Christian duty to live alongside the oppressed for a just and decent society is how we should consider Islamic Jihad (Armstrong 1992:165). At another time she argued that Muhammad must have known of the Johanine prophecy concerning the Paraclete (which she erroneously pointed out could be spelt periklytos), as he speaks of the Injil prophesying the coming of Ahmad in Sura 61:6 (Armstrong 1992:73). Concerning the many second century Talmudic stories found in the Qur’an, Armstrong, admitting their sources then contends that they were only meant as signs, and not as accurate historical accounts (Armstrong 1992:131). In taking on the Muslim position she also adopted their arguments, to the point that it was difficult not to wonder what her true beliefs really were.

While there is profit in reading the history of Muhammad from the perspective of Islam, as Karen Armstrong has done, I think it important that we don’t, at the same time, forget to do so with a critical eye. In accepting the critical conclusions posited by liberal theologians upon the Bible (see p.51), while refusing a similar critical analysis on the life of Muhammad, Karen Armstrong has compromised her credibility as a historian. A more tenable biography, which takes seriously the real problems of authority is that written by Maxine Rodinson in 1961, and newly revised just this year (1996). It is to that biography that I would now like to turn.

I found it a pleasure to read through Rodinson’s biography on Muhammad, not simply because his style was so fluid and thus easy to read, but because I felt here was a man who, as a historian, sought desperately to delineate the “Muhammad of history from the Muhammad of faith”. His book was a prime example of what Royster coined the “historicistic methodology” (Royster 1972:55). Of concern to him was what actually happened, rather than what the later compilers would like us to believe happened. He made it quite plain in his foreword that the biography of Muhammad would always be built on speculation, that the information we possessed on Muhammad “are far from being certain historical fact…that there is nothing of which we can say for certain that it incontestably dates back to the time of the Prophet” (Rodinson 1996:xi). And so, to accentuate this concern Rodinson would commence almost every story with phrases like, “seemingly,” or “it was said,” or “as was recounted later,” and so on (Rodinson 1996:xii).

Rodinson took great pains to point out that he was speaking from a position of skepticism, maintaining that as an atheist, he had a bias, but that likewise a religious man would have a similar bias, though from an opposing position (Rodinson 1996:xiii). It is apparent that he has had his battles with critics (since his first edition published in 1961), evidenced by his apology in the foreword to the second English edition, for not adhering to Islam himself (Rodinson 1996:xxii). This could be the reason that, halfway through the biography, Rodinson, after having described the Medinan revelations as inferior to that previously evidenced in Mecca, and unworthy of divine origin, he suddenly stops his account and apologizes to the reader for his plain speaking (Rodinson 1996:217). He then admonishes the orientalist community for falling back on “equivocal phrases to disguise [their] real meaning” (Rodinson 1996:218). Here we get a glimpse of the ordeal Rodinson, as an outsider, daring to critique the revelation for one-fifth of the world’s population, must be under, and the frustration he feels towards those of like mind who acquiesce under the pressure.

Throughout his account, Rodinson, unlike Armstrong, quoted often from source material outside of the Islamic traditions. Many of the sources were Greek, such as Ammianus Marcellinus (pp.15,19), or Artemidorus of Ephesus, and Pliny (p.21), or Procopius and Cosmas (p.31). Others were Byzantine, such as the historian Theophanes, the first non-Muslim source of Muhammad which we know of (Rodinson 1996:256). I can only assume he employed these extra-Islamic sources to help the reader understand the context of the times, but they did not alway corroborate with later Islamic traditional material. For instance, the Islamic traditions paint the pre-Islamic Hijaz (Arabia) as an area which was barbaric and backwards. The name given to this period is Jahiliyya, meaning the age of ignorance. Yet, the Greek sources used by Rodinson paint Arabia as a civilized land with a highly developed and religious population, who were quite literate, producing impressive books on archaeology, and “deeply imbued with Aramaic and Hellenic culture” (Rodinson 1996:24-25).

In order to help the reader understand the context of the times, or explain a certain event Rodinson resorted to what Royster terms as the “methodology of Reductionism” (Royster 1972:57). For instance, in order to explain the belief held by Muslims then (and even now) concerning the inimitable perfection of the Qur’an, Rodinson maintained that this probably had more to do with familiarity of the recited text repeated since childhood, rather than divine inspiration, much like hymns used in the liturgy for Catholics, or the Bible for Protestants (Rodinson 1996:92). Here is an example of what Royster terms “Naturalistic Reductionism,” where religious phenomena is explained naturally (Royster 1972:58).

At other times Rodinson refers to the visions and revelations which Muhammad received as “emanations of his own being,” (p.72) or “hallucinations” (p.77), or possibly “mystical experiences” (p.81-82), or a “voice” (pp.123,130), or even “sensory phenomena” (p.218). Here we find an example of “Psychological Reductionism,” where psychological explanations are given for religious phenomena (Royster 1972:59).

Rodinson also looked for the sources of many of Muhammad’s ideas to help explain them, what Royster terms “Exordial Reductionism” (Royster 1972:60). Arab traditions and sacred Jewish books were used by Muhammad to explain his own situation while in Mecca (Rodinson 1996:123). Parallel stories could be found in Christian Syriac literature (p.124) and even the devotional salats (prayers) were borrowed from eastern Christians (p.127). The Muslim fast was borrowed from the Jewish fast of ashura, while dietary rules were borrowed from Gnostic and Manachaean Christian practices (Rodinson 1996:159). The concept for paradise was borrowed from St. Ephraem’s vision of heaven (a fourth century Father of the Syrian Church) (Rodinson 1996:244). Similarly, Watt in his biography helped me understand where Muhammad borrowed his Biblical material from, even explaining that since the sources were traders and not religious men, they thus possibly corrupted the stories our of ignorance (Watt 1961:40,54).

To help explain the violent nature of early Islam, both Rodinson and Watt sought to show how private wars, which were a form of kinship rivalry, was quite common at that time (Rodinson 1996:162; Watt 1961:220,222). Later on they both mention that wars were also used to fill Muhammad’s coffers, and to focus the warriors who were becoming restless with inaction (Rodinson 1996:273; Watt 1961:221). Here is an example of the “Cultural Reductionism” coined by Royster (Royster 1972:60), and used to explain the cultural environment of that period. Even the seemingly unjustifiable deaths of five of Muhammad’s critics (the poetess Asma’ bint Marwan: p.171, the poet Abu Afak: p.171, the poet Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf: p.176, the aged Jew, Abu Rafi’: p.195-196, and Muhammad’s former secretary Abdallah ibn Sa’d: p.261) was explained by Rodinson as merely good political maneuvering, in that it “relieved him of the problem of a number of influential enemies” (Rodinson 1996:208).

We find Rodinson crediting Muhammad’s success to that of his environment, his time and his background; the “ideology” of Islam, “built up from elements imposed on a man by his own situation and adopted by a society by reason of its situation…an Arab religion for the Arabs…with truth [revealed] in the Arab tongue…and [worship] towards the Ka’ba, an Arab shrine” (Rodinson 1996:237). Watts agrees stating that, “circumstances of time and place favoured Muhammad. Various forces combined to set the stage for his life-work and for the subsequent expansion of Islam. There was the social unrest in Mecca and Medina, the movement towards monotheism, the reaction against Hellenism in Syria and Egypt, the decline of the Persian and Byzantine empires, and a growing realization by the nomadic Arabs of the opportunities for plunder in the settled lands round them” (Watt 1961:236).

In the final analysis, Muhammad for Rodinson was an ideal, “the utopia that has never been achieved [which] is always before us” (Rodinson 1996:323); for Watt, he was a “seer..a statesman, and an administrator” (Watt 1961:237); for Cook he was a historical figure whose historicity yet leaves us much in doubt; and for Armstrong he was the man who gave birth to a literary masterpiece, created a major religion and founded a world power, whose descendants are viewed as a profound threat to Western civilization (Armstrong 1992:back cover). Ironically, had Muhammad ascended to prominence even twenty years later, the history of Islam would have been quite different. According to Rodinson, Muhammad “might perhaps have found the Byzantine Empire consolidated, ready to fight off the attacks of the desert tribes successfully” (Rodinson 1996:298). And instead of introducing Islam to the world, “Arabia might have been converted to Christianity” (Rodinson 1996:298). Rodinson understandably doesn’t choose to carry this idea through, but one can only begin to imagine the course of history today, had this man Muhammad not come along at such a convenient time of history; one man, in the space of a mere 23 years, who has effected so many over such a long period of time.

References Cited:

• Armstrong, Karen, Muhammad, A Western Attempt to Understand Islam, London, Victor Gollanca Ltd., 1992

• Cook, Michael, Muhammad, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983

• Hamadeh, Muhammad Maher, “Muhammad the Prophet; A Selected Bibliography,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1965, pp.112-283

• Rodinson, Maxine, Muhammad (2nd English Edition), London, Penguin Books, (1961) 1996

• Royster, James, “The Study of Muhammad: a Survey of Approaches from the Perspective of the History and Phenomenology of Religion,” Muslim World, 1972 (pp.49-70)

• Tibawi, A.L., “Second Critique of English-Speaking Orientalists and their Approach to Islam and the Arabs,” Islamic Quarterly, 1979, pp.3-54

• Watt, W. Montgomery, Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, London, Oxford University Press, 1961

The Compilation of the Text of the Qur’an and the Sunni-Shia Dispute

Antoin MacRuaidh

1. Introduction

In recent years, in various countries, there have been public disputations between Christians and Muslims about the veracity of their respective holy books. At the time of writing there is an ongoing heated dispute taking place on the inter-net on this subject, and one issue being raised by some Christians is the question of the compilation of the Qur’an. A cursory examination on the literature on both sides demonstrates that the issue raises intense emotions, and sometimes both sides can express themselves in terms which do not promote good communal relations, or useful academic dialogue. It is not my purpose in this paper to raise questions about the veracity or otherwise of the contemporary edition of the Qur’an. Neither is it my intention to provoke or intensify hostilities between the Sunni and Shia about the integrity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an. Rather, I hope to show how the different Muslim hypotheses about the compilation of the Qur’an, and the Sunni-Shia dispute therein, help to explain the attitudes of Muslims to the Christian concept of inspiration, text and canon. After examining the history and nature of Qur’anic compilation and the sectarian controversy thereof, we can see that to some extent the accusations of Muslim polemicists about the Bible reflect an internal dispute within Islam about its own sacred Scripture. With this in mind, I have largely ignored the positions of Orientalist and other scholars who have engaged in ‘The Quest for the Historical Qur’an‘ and have questioned the veracity of the ‘Uthmanic edition of the text. Instead, I have been guided by what Muslims themselves say about its compilation.

This brings us back to the point I made in my previous paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, that Muslims view the Bible through the lens of the Qur’an, and in their estimation the holy book of Islam sets the pattern for the form and content of an inspired Scripture. Insofar as the average Muslim is familiar with the concept of canonicity, he naturally assumes that what was true of the compilation of his own scripture is equally true of other sacred writings, at least those mentioned in the Qur’an. Nor is this a mere personal prejudice. If the ‘previous Books’ are true revelations from God, sent down from ‘the Mother of the Book’, a Muslim will believe that given the collegiality of the prophets and thus their Scriptures, the process which marked the compilation of the Qur’an must be a reflection of that procedure which characterised the collation of the Books of Moses, David and Jesus. If this is not the case, then, naturally, Muslim suspicions are aroused. Ironically, as we shall see, the actions Caliph ‘Uthman took to canonise the text assembled by Zaid ibn Thabit have influenced Muslim opinion on the corruption of the Biblical text and canon. It can be seen that on this issue, textual history and psychology meet. On the other hand, the position that oral tradition played in preserving the Qur’anic text presents us with an opportunity to explain to our Muslim friends the similar role it performed in the Biblical revelation.

2. Origins and Structure of the Qur’an

2.1 The Commencement of Revelation

The Qur’an celebrates the event of the commencement of revelation in its reference to Laylat al-Qadr, ‘the Night of Power’, during the month of Ramadan when the portion of the Tablet descended to the ‘House of Protection’ in the lowest of the seven heavens. The Qur’an claims to have been supernaturally revealed by angelic spirits on this night. Throughout history, as necessity arose, aspects of the eternal Tablet were revealed to the Prophets through Gabriel; the Qur’an is the culmination of these revelations. In the same fashion, it was revealed to Muhammad in Arabic by the angel Gabriel over a period of twenty-two to twenty-three years. The fact that the Qur’an as a whole was not revealed immediately demonstrates that in many cases it is responding to historical events in the career of Muhammad, and helps to explain the phenomenon of abrogated verses.

The hadith literature records the advent of revelation to Muhammad, and his reaction of terror, the result of fearing that he had become mad or possessed. Insanity was often associated with possession by the jinn, and so it is interesting to note Surahs 15:6 and 68:2 in this respect which answer the accusations of the pagans as to his condition. There is nothing comparable in Christian concepts of inspiration to the physical grip of the angel in imparting revelation to Muhammad, and this again points to the passive character of revelation in Islam. It is interesting to note that there was an early Christian association with Muhammad at this point, and that the role that the Christian believer played was crucial in confirming to Muhammad the truth of his revelation. After this, revelation ceased for a period, and when it resumed, it was once again through the agency of the Archangel Gabriel. At first, the reaction of Muhammad to the angelic visitation was once again to be afraid. Inspiration thereafter continued throughout the remainder of his life, and a large number of revelations came to Muhammad just before his death. The last revelation was 2:281 (although some say it was v282, v278, or all three). Others say it was 5:4. The Hadith literature offer support to either Surah Tawbah or Surah Nasr.

2.2 The Place of Oral Tradition

We can see from this that there was not a simple, single event which disclosed the entire Muslim holy book, and that given that most revelation came not long before his passing, it follows that there was not an entire, completed document of the Qur’an at the death of Muhammad. However, as Muslims often protest, this does not necessarily mean that the Qur’an as it stands is unreliable. Oral tradition and memorization have long been adequately practised by Oriental peoples of all faiths, and has been frequently demonstrated to be dependable. Muslims have long placed great emphasis on memorization of their sacred text, and many mullahs today are able to recite the Qur’an without mistake. The earliest claim for the public recitation of the Qur’an is found in respect to Abdullah bin Mas’ud, who proclaimed it at the pagan sanctuary in Mecca, in the early period of Muhammad’s ministry. Of course, there would have been only a restricted portion of the Qur’an to express at this time, and what bin Mas’ud recited according to the sira was clearly Surah 55 Rahman Ayah 1ff. This points to an early period of oral transmission, to which should be added the testimony of the hadith on the subject which encouraged memorization. Zayd ibn Thabit records that when he began his collection of the Qur’anic text it existed as writings on ‘… palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart… ‘

2.3 The Structure of the Qur’an

The chapters of the Qur’an are called surahs, meaning ‘fences’. They are arranged in order of length rather than chronology. It is often difficult for a Christian reader coming to the Qur’an for the first time to understand the nature of what he is reading, since its form is so different from the Biblical structure of books and verses. The themes within each surah are not all sequential, but rather purportedly reflect the order established by Muhammad. Agreement with this proposition, however, depends upon whether one is a Sunni or a Shi’i. Further, it should be remembered that since revelation was effected over a period of twenty years, compilation was necessarily piecemeal. As stated earlier, for the most part, the Qur’an was preserved through oral tradition; necessarily so since most of the Prophet’s Companions were illiterate.

2.3.1 Abrogated Verses

A major issue in Qur’anic interpretation is that of abrogation – Naskh. Within the Qur’an itself are statements which offset others, but according to the doctrine of abrogation the later texts supersede the earlier whenever there are inconsistencies. The Muslim argument is that the abrogated verses were only meant for specific, temporary situations. We have seen that the revelation of the Qur’an is grounded in the historical circumstances of the life and career of Muhammad, and so there is a progressive element in doctrine of Islam’s holy book. Situations change and develop, and since the Qur’an reflects this, its teachings changed with the circumstance at hand. At the most obvious level we can see this in the fact that in the early years of Islam, Muhammad was a minority preacher in Mecca, concerning himself with almost solely theological and moral/social issues, but when he moved to Medina, he became the Governmental Executive, and so his revelations began to address legal, political and economic matters. The Qur’an explains the practice of abrogation by referring to the sovereignty of God. Yusuf Ali says:

For: 2.106

The word which I have translated by the word ‘revelations’ is Ayat… It is not only used for verses of the Quran, but in a general sense for God’s revelations, as in ii. 39 and for other Signs of God in history or nature, or miracles, as in ii. 61. It has even been used for human signs and tokens of wonder, as, for example, monuments or landmarks built by the ancient people of AD (xxvi. 128). What is the meaning here? If we take it in a general sense, it means tht God’s Message from age to age is always the same, but that its Form may differ according to the needs and exigencies of the time. That form was different as given to Moses and then to Jesus and then to Muhammad. Some commentators apply it also to the Ayat of the Quran. There is nothing derogatory in this if we believe in progressive revelation. In iii. 7 we are told distinctly about the Quran, that some of its verses are basic or fundamental, and others are allegorical, and it is mischievous to treat the allegorical verses and follow them (literally). On the other hand, it is absurd to treat such a verse as ii. 115 as if it were abrogated by ii. 144 about the Qibla. We turn to the Qibla, but we do not believe that God is only in one place. He is everywhere.

As can be seen, some Muslims believe that this verse refers to Jewish and Christian Scriptures. However, it is not the only verse that impinges on this subject, and these others indicate that what is involved is abrogation of the Qur’an.

For: 16.101

… The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message as revealed to him is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

In the Hadith, we find reference to abrogation which specifically relates this practice to the Qur’an. Another text concerns Surah 2:106; a Qur’anic reciter was supposed to have memorised every revelation from Muhammad, so what was under consideration in this text was whether he should have deleted those verses which had been cancelled. Finally, there are Hadith texts which settle the issue that abrogation relates to the Qur’an itself, rather than to the holy scriptures of the Jews and Christians (or anyone else for that matter). The Hadith illustrates our earlier point about the progressive character of Qur’anic revelation, and how an aspect of this related to the changed conditions of Muhammad after the Hegira. The classic example often used by Muslim exegetes to explain the mechanics of abrogation is found with respect to the widow’s bequest.

To understand what this involves, we can examine the fact that Islam makes a great point in portraying itself as a ‘mercy’ to Mankind, and part of this is that is does not burden believers with too much ritual obligation. For example, Surah 73 begins in vs. 2 – 4, by commanding Believers to spend a considerable portion of the night in prayer, but ayah 20 abrogates this. S. 43:89 orders that polytheists be let alone, however, S. 2:190-191 commands that they be slaughtered.

However, it is not only the case that the Qur’an abrogates itself; the Sunnah also abrogates parts of the Qur’an. This can be seen in the Mut’ah practice of temporary marriage. According to Sunnis, this was later abrogated, and the hadith refers to this. Ahmad von Denffer records three types of abrogation with respect to the Qur’an, which he evidences by quoting from ayat and ahadith:

1. Abrogation of the recited verse together with the legal ruling:
   

   Aisha

   SAHIH MUSLIM

   It had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).

2. Abrogation of the legal ruling without the recited verse:
   

   Surah: 33. Ahzab Ayah: 50

   50. O prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts who migrated (from Mecca) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her this only for thee and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for Thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.

   52. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this nor to change them for (other) wives even thought their beauty attract thee except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.

3. Abrogation of the recited verse without with the legal ruling:
   

   Abdullah ibn Abbas

   SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

   … Umar sat on the pulpit and when the summoners for the prayer had finished their announcement, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, ‘Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say… Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him. Among that which Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of a married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we recited this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

   I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book.’ and thus they will go astray by abandoning an obligation which Allah has revealed. The punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted on any married person (male or female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse provided the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession…

von Denffer notes that the punishment of stoning for adultery has been retained in the Sunnah, whilst it is not present in the Qur’an. According to Ibn Salama, an authority on the subject, there are:

43 surahs with neither nasikh (abrogating verses) or mansakh (abrogated verses)

6 surahs with nasikh but no mansakh.

40 surahs with mansakh but no nasikh.

25 surahs with both nasikh and mansakh.

According to Jalauddin us-Suyuti there are 21 abrogated verses, and according to Shah Waliullah there are five:

Mansakh 2:180 Nasikh 4:11, 12
Mansakh 2:240 Nasikh 2:234
Mansakh 8:65 Nasikh 8:62
Mansakh 30:50 Nasikh 33:52
Mansakh 58:12 Nasikh 58:13

The problem for Christians as they read the Qur’an, is that its structure is unlike that of the Bible in this regard. The New Testament, because of the Sacrifice of Christ, ‘abrogates’ the Old Testament rulings on animal sacrifices, since the latter had a prophetic character which is now fulfilled; to a large extent, this is the message of Hebrews, e.g. 10:1ff. On a similar basis, the kosher laws of the Old Testament are superseded by the declaration of Jesus in Mark 7:19 that all foods were now ‘clean’. In these cases, however, abrogation occurs because of prophetic fulfilment. This ending of food legislation and other aspects of the Law often seems so arbitrary to Muslims, and encourages them to believe that the Christians have tampered with their Scriptures. They do not understand the eschatological element involved. The structure of the Christian Scriptures, whereby the books that celebrated the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies of the Tenak, i.e. what we call the New Testament, in temporal terms obviously came later than the Old Testament texts, and the present Biblical structure, though arbitrary in terms of denoting the books as ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’, reflect the theological fact of the change that the Advent of Christ has wrought. Moreover, we are dealing with later books that abrogate aspects of the former books.

With the Qur’an, however, this is not the case. There is no element of realized eschatology involved. Nor is it simply a case that the Qur’an abrogates elements of the previous books. Rather, verses abrogate others in the same book, and the structure of the Qur’an does not reveal this, as the abrogated texts are not removed. Hence the need for instruction in the science of Qur’anic interpretation and the impact of the Sunnah. The fact that Christian ‘abrogation’ is of a different character to that of Islam is confusing to Muslims, and adds to the belief that the New Testament is fraudulent. This is especially true when we consider the role that the Sunni-Shia dispute has played in this. The Shia deny that the rule on temporary marriage has been abrogated, and naturally consider the Sunni hadith abolishing the practice as being untrue. The Sunnis, on the other hand, regard the Shia as sinning by continuing the practice. It is not surprising that when Muslims accuse each other of corruption in issues of text and canon on issues affecting doctrine and practice, that they naturally accuse ‘the nations before them’ of similar actions when they discover differences with Islam.

2.4 Variant Readings

One interesting feature about Islamic dogma concerning the Qur’an is that the holy book is held to have been revealed in seven different ways. There are various opinions about what this means. For example, one tradition linked it to seven different reciters of the text This however, is generally not accepted. Another possibility is that it refers to pages expressed in different Arab dialects. For example, a recent Muslim contributor to the Internet stated the following:

At the time of the Prophet… Arabs use [sic]to speak many different accents. Many of them did not know how to read or write. So Allah (SWT), allowed for them to read it in different ways. For example the tribe of Quraish do not pronounce the ‘hamza’ while the tribe of Tamim… pronounce it… When it comes to writing there have to be some differences in spelling, those who pronounce the ‘hamza’ wrote it down as the prophet taught them, others did not write it. Other differences in tone ‘harakat’, grammar or using a different word for the same meaning…

To this agrees the modern Muslim scholar von Denffer, as one of several possibilities. He points out that tribes like the ones mentioned above pronounced words differently, for example al-tabuh and al-tabut (2:248). Other differences include variant readings of words such as ‘trusts’ in 23:8, which can be read as either singular or plural in the unvowelled text, or in different wordings of a particular passage, such as 9:100, where adding min (‘from’) to the text gives a minor variant reading. Again, synonyms are used, such as in 101:5 which reads as ‘Ka-l-‘ihni-l-manfush’, but another reading is ‘Ka-s-sufi-l-manfush’, both meaning ‘like carded wool’. von Denffer also points out variant readings in the texts of the Companions, such as the omission of qul (‘Say’) in the texts of ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ubaid and ‘Umar with respect to S. 112:1, with ibn Mas’ud’s text replacing al-ahad (‘unique’) with al-wahid (‘one’), omitting 112:2, and replacing lam yalid wa lam yulad (‘he begets not’) for lam yulad wa lam yulid (‘he is not begotten’). The Muslim scholar Tabataba’i points out that ‘… the script used at the time was the kufic style and had no diacritical points; each word could be read in various ways.’ It should be noted that the Hadithimplies that there were different dialectic readings of the Qur’an.

This difference in recitation was later to lead to conflict between Syrians and Iraqis, and this led ‘Uthman to standardise the Qur’anic text.

3. Collation of the Qur’an

3.1 Fragmentary Existence

Whilst Muhammad was alive, certain of his companions began the compilation of the Qur’an, and this is recorded in the Hadith literature, an indication of how important it was to establish the claims of the Qur’an and especially to assert its purity of text. Amongst these, a major figure in the redaction of the Qur’an was Zayd ibn Thabit. There are clear evidences of different versions of the Qur’an in the early period, at least in regard to order. Four reciters had memorized it before the death of Muhammad. However, Muhammad said that he had left ‘the Book of Allah’ for his people, and there is evidence that parts were written down during Muhammad’s lifetime by some of his followers. Yusuf Ali says the following about Surah 80:13ff:

For: 80. 13

At the time this Sura was revealed, there were perhaps only about 42 or 45 Suras in the hands of the Muslims. But it was a sufficient body of Revelation of high spiritual value, to which the description give here could be applied. It was held in the highest honor; its place in the hearts of Muslims was more exalted than that of anything else; as Allah’s Word, it was pure and sacred; and those who transcribed it were men who were honorable, just and pious. The legend that the early Suras were not carefully written down and preserved in books is a pure invention. The recensions made later in the time of the first and the third Khalifas were merely to preserve the purity and safeguard the arrangement of the text at a time when the expansion of Islam among non Arabic-speaking people made such precautions necessary.

The written existence of some parts of the Qur’an at least is also implied by the fact that people were forbidden to touch it unless they were in a state of ritual purity. However, what was written down tended to be fragmentary. The Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, says that when Muhammad died, the Qur’an

… consisted of scattered fragments either privately collected or preserved in human memory. It was the Muslim community which in the end gave the Qur’an its final form and reduced it to a single standard version which remains unchanged to this day. The community has, moreover, guaranteed the authenticity and truthfulness of the Qur’an through its universal and unbroken process of transmission. Thus it is the community consensus on the shape and authenticity of the Divine Word which ultimately shaped the Qur’an.

3.2 The Role of Consensus

It is worth noting the role ijma played in the process of collation. There is a tradition in the Hadith that it is impossible for the united Ummah to err, so ijma on this issue is a divine seal on the ordering of the text. However, the Sunni-Shia divide on the text of the Qur’an raises questions about this authority, since the obvious point is the lack of consensus as to the true form of Islam’s holy book. We see evidence of this lack of consensus in the traditions, for some surahs were not named at first. It is also implied by the fact that Gabriel checked the recitation of the Qur’an once a year, presumably because the majority of the revelation was preserved orally, and thus was subject to the infirmity of the human memory. There would be little point in checking it if it were all set down in writing. The alternative explanation, that he would come to confirm that the text had not been corrupted by someone, would not commend itself to Muslims.

3.3 Collation Under the Caliphs

The complete compilation was the work of the Muslim leadership under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman. The first compilation occurred after the Battle of Yamama in 633 during which some Qurra had been killed. Obviously, if the entire text, as recognized by every Muslim, had been already collated, there would not have been the sense of urgency that accompanied the death of these men. The event was recorded by Zayd ibn Thabit, and the narrative reveals that not even the Prophet of Islam himself had previously collected the Qur’an:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), ‘Umar has come to me and said: ‘Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.’ I said to ‘Umar, ‘How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ ‘Umar said, ‘By Allah, that is a good project.

‘Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.’ Then Abu Bakr said (to me). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book).’ By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, ‘How will you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?’ Abu Bakr replied, ‘By Allah, it is a good project.’ Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

‘Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa’ (At-Tauba) (9.128-129)

Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur’an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with ‘Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of ‘Umar.

The edition given to Hafsa was not copied nor presented as the ‘Authorised Version’ of the Islamic holy book, but rather appears to have been a private copy in the hands of the Caliph to safeguard against the loss of the text through incidents such as the battle in question. Other people kept their own codices, or relied on their own memorization of the text. This explains the trouble during the rule of ‘Uthman arise about variant copies. As we shall see, the Shia claimed that Ali already had both a written copy and appendices of the Qur’an.

These texts reveal the central role of Zayd ibn Thabit in the collation of the Qur’an, and that this occurred under Governmental mandate. However, it is clear that Zayd ibn Thabit’s collation did not fully resolve the matter, as we see later under the caliphate of ‘Uthman in 653, which indicates that variant readings remained a problem for the early Muslim community. In fact, so distinct were the variant readings of the Qur’an that there was trouble between the Muslims of Syria and Iraq at the time of ‘Uthman. The Christian apologist Campbell states that the differences arose from the Syrians using the collection of Ubayy bin Ka’b whereas the Iraqis used that of Ibn Mas’ud. von Denffer points out that the collection of Ibn Mas’ud differed from the ‘Uthmanic recension by excluding Surahs 1, 113, and 114, and also in terms of order, pronunciation, spelling and the use of synonyms. Likewise, the collection of bin Ka’b differs in order and variant readings from that of ‘Uthman and also that of Ibn Mas’ud. Not all 114 surahs are present in his collation, and he purportedly adds two extra ones, as well as an additional verse. Doi states that the Syrian-Iraqi conflict was over textual order, an issue that arises again when we examine the Sunni-Shia dispute. Maududi, in his Introduction to Yusuf Ali’s translation and commentary, holds that the dispute was over dialect readings. Tabataba’i states that the problem arose because

… differences and inconsistencies were appearing in the copying down of the Qur’an; some calligraphers lacked precision in their writing and some reciters were not accurate in their recitation.

Ahmad von Denffer claims that the differences were largely a matter of pronunciation and spelling, and this is the common Islamic view. It is amazing that such minor distinctions could have caused so much controversy, and that insignificant differences could have compelled ‘Uthman to take the drastic action he did:

Anas ibn Malik

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Armenia and Azerbaijan. Hudhayfah was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ‘O chief of the believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before.’

So Uthman sent a message to Hafsah saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.’ Hafsah sent it to Uthman.

Uthman then ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, and AbdurRahman ibn Harith to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.

Uthman said to the three Qurayshi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zayd ibn Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraysh as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.’

They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah.

Uthman sent to every Muslim province one set of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Zayd ibn Thabit added, ‘A verse from surat al-Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaymah ibn Thabit al-Ansari.

(That verse was): –

‘Among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'(33:23)

We learn from this that the collation of Zayd ibn Thabit ordered under Abu Bakr and held by Hafsa became the canonical Qur’an at the time of ‘Uthman by virtue of it being chosen by the political authority and by all other copies of the Qur’anbeing destroyed. It is noteworthy that the text did not become canonical under Abu Bakr. When one considers the reverence given to the Qur’an by Muslims, this destructive action on the part of the Caliph may imply how distinct many of the copies might have been from the chosen version, at least in regard to the kind of variants von Denffer proposes. Moreover, it is instructive that Zayd did not rely upon his memory of the text, but rather investigated various readings. However, the existence of variant copies, such as that of Ali, suggests that some Qurra under ‘Uthman had memorized different readings. It is also noteworthy that ‘Uthman’s action, restricting the recitation of the Qur’an to the Quraish dialect, overturned the permission of the Prophet to recite the text in different dialects. This in itself demonstrates the seriousness of the event; the Caliph would not have lightly acted in this way unless he faced a genuine emergency.

In the light of many Muslim jibes that Christians do not have the autographs of the Bible it is interesting to note that a Muslim scholar such as Ahmad von Denffer states that

Most of the early original Qur’an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. The earliest copy… dated from the late second century. However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur’anic papyri available, which date from the first century.

There is a copy of the Qur’an in the Egyptian National Library on parchment made from gazelle skin, which has been dated 68 Hijra (688 A.D.), i.e. 58 years after the Prophet’s death.

He goes on to say that ‘Uthman kept a copy for himself, and five were sent to major cities. What is extraordinary is the action ‘Uthman took in establishing an authorised text. Try as one might, it is impossible to get any true Muslim to write in, tear or burn any copy of the Qur’an. In fact, riots have often started in Muslim countries when it has been reported that someone has defiled the holy book in this way. The Hadith literature speaks about the miraculous qualities of the Qur’an, which include its being inflammable. It is therefore all the more astonishing that Islam records that ‘Uthman was successful in his auto da fe of existing copies. To understand the urgency of his action, we must recognise the emphasis Islam places on Ijmaand Muslim unity. Whenever a Muslim meeting is held, the issue of the unity of the Islamic world is at the top of the agenda. ‘Unity is strength’ is a genuine Muslim attitude. Muslims frequently blame their depressed political condition on their disunity. After all, the Gulf War would have been impossible if the Muslim Umma had been united, and America’s attitude to the Palestinian issue would doubtless be different if it had to take into consideration the opinion of a single, Islamic mega-state. Likewise, we can understand that ‘Uthman, given that Islam was still a young religion, and one that was in political-military conflict with its neighbours, would be concerned at anything which would weaken the unity of the nascent community, especially when internal conflict arose in the course of a military campaign. One should also remember that in Islam, there is no separation between religion and politics. Muhammad was a Ruler as well as a Prophet. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, had to engage in jihad against rebels who refused to pay their Zakat religious tax. Taxation is a political activity, but here it referred to religion. Further, these uprisings are called the Riddah rebellions, a term used also to describe religious apostasy. The Sunni-Shia divide was originally a dispute about political succession. Malise Ruthven states:

The divisions of Islam, in contrast to those of Christianity, have their origins in politics rather than dogma. This is not to say that dogmatic and theological questions do not form part of these divisions. However, the questions over which they first crystallised were political to the extent that they were primarily concerned with leadership of the community. Having a religious ideology built on the social foundations of tribalism, the Muslims expressed their aspirations first in terms of group loyalty, and only afterwards in terms of the doctrinal and theological accretions surrounding these loyalties.

If the Muslim community split, not only would there have been a number of sects comparable to the divisions of Christianity, but by definition, Secular and Holy being synonymous, there would have been at least the danger of the emergence of separate Muslim states. The Sunni-Shia divide, for example, helped to preserve Shi’i Iran’s independence from the Sunni Ottoman caliphate. Had there been separate editions of Islam’s holy book, even if the differences were comparatively minor, the obligation to have a single Islamic state could not have been fulfilled, since the basis for state law in Islam is essentially the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If there is no unity as to the sacred text of Islam, there could not have been a united hermeneutic and thus ijtihad – legal/theological study seeking to establish a policy.

Moreover, it should be remembered that in Islam, the Qur’an is equivalent in position to Jesus in Christianity. Christianity centres on the Person and Work of Christ. We know from the history of the early Church the painful disputes that ensued over Christology, with various heresies such as Arianism, Monarchianism, Monothelitism, etc., all threatening the unity of the Church and the purity of its doctrine. The conflicts and councils that ensued from these challenges all testify to how crucial for the Church is the question ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Not for nothing was Hudhayfah so urgent in his cry to ‘Uthman to save the Muslims from the divisions suffered by Jews and Christians. If I may say advisedly, even if the Church did not have the Bible, it would still exist, because it has the Risen, reigning Christ. The role of the Bible is secondary to that of Christ. It witnesses to Him and His activity. Although oral tradition preserved the words and actions of Jesus intervening period, it is obvious that years passed before the complete New Testament was extant. The central act for Christianity is not the revelation of the Bible, but the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of Christ, and the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The Christian emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus and His supernatural intervention in the life of a believer witnesses to the Christocentric nature of Christian faith and experience.

Islam, by contrast, centres on the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the revelation that establishes Islam, that instructs men how to live according to the will of God. Without it, Islam does not exist. One cannot have Christianity without Christ, and one cannot have Islam without the Qur’an. Christian initiation, based on Romans 10:9, involves a confession that implies a supernatural experience of the Spirit of Christ, as is indicated by 8:9-11. The Muslim credal affirmation, the Shahada, states ‘La ilaha illa llah Muhammadur rasulu llah’ – ‘there is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God’. The Divine message Muhammad brought was the Qur’an, so if there is a dispute about its actual text, the effect is the same as conflict concerning the Person of Christ, since His Work is inextricably linked to, and flows from His Person. If I may borrow from 1 Corinthians 15:17, if the Qur’an is not revealed, Islamic faith is futile and Muslims are still in their sins. For the Qur’an to be revealed, its text must be pure. The Muslim scholar Bucaille makes this point in his polemical book; ‘It was absolutely necessary to ensure the spread of a text that retained its original purity: Uthman’s recension had this as its objective.’

In the light of this, we can understand what a desperate situation ‘Uthman faced, and why he took the extraordinary action of burning copies of Islam’s holy book. The doctrine of Ijma consecrated the action of the Caliph – the agreement of the Sahabah represented the voice of God, since the united Muslim community cannot err. What is so pertinent for our concern as Christians is the effect this has had in Islam’s view of Biblical canonicity. Given that the Qur’an is the paradigmatic Scripture for Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the Muslim canonical process mirrors Christian historical experience. The Muslim polemicist ur-Rahim writes about the Council of Nicaea:

In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held… out of the three hundred or so Gospels extant at the time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the Church… It was also decided that all Gospels written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.

He goes on to allege:

According to one source, there were at least 270 versions of the Gospel at this time, while another states there were as many as 4,000 different Gospels… It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burned… It became a capital offence to possess an unauthorised Gospel. As a result, over a million Christians were killed in the years following the Council’s decisions. This was how Athanasius tried to achieve unity among the Christians.

It need hardly be said that all this is pure fantasy, bearing no resemblance to actual events or decisions at the Council of Nicaea, which at any rate was not concerned with textual issues. It is noteworthy that the author gives no sources for his preposterous assertions. Yet this is the common Muslim idea of Christian canonical history, especially with regard to Nicaea. The trouble is that Muslim polemicists are not only convinced of a Christian conspiracy to pervert the Scriptures, and must find a convenient scapegoat such the Council of Nicaea, which purportedly destroyed the ‘Islamic’ Gospel. They are governed by the presuppositions of their own canonical history to imagine that like ‘Uthman’s commission, the Christians needed such an official event to decide upon their authoritative text. Given that consensus is so important to Muslims, it is natural for them to assume that the same must be true of Christians – note ur-Rahim’s comments about Athanasius. Following from this, it can be understood why Muslim polemicists would write what they do about the burning and destruction of variant New Testament texts: they are looking at Nicaea anachronistically in the light of ‘Uthman’s action to establish a single, authorised text. Like the Sunnah of the Prophet, the policy of the first four Caliphs of Islam – the Righteous Caliphs – is an obligated model for Sunni Muslims. It follows that their actions that should be the paradigm to be followed after them, and must have been the appropriate action to take in the years of the earlier Abrahamic faiths. Further, since the procedure for Islamic canonical orthodoxy was State-enforced, it is natural for Muslims to assume the same was true with regard to the Christian Scriptures, and likewise the penalty for disobedience. It does not seem to occur to Muslim polemicists that even if what they say about Nicaea were true, how could Constantine have enforced this decision outside his own borders, for example, among the Christians of Persia and Ethiopia? Moreover, since there are minor variants as to isolated verses, and Bible-translations – like Qur’anic translations, such as those of Yusuf Ali and Pickthall – are not identical in every way in their choice of words, although they have the same content, it is mystifying that the Christians in recent years have not resorted to such heavy-handed tactics as they purportedly did at Nicaea according to Islamic polemicists.

4. The Impact of the Sunnah

4.1 Classification of Hadith

The Sunnah, or the ‘path, way, manner of life’ records the sayings and doings of Muhammad, whose way of life became a norm for the entire Muslim community. Muhammad provided a pattern by the example of his life for others to follow as the Qur’an itself testifies. The life of Muhammad was the display of the teachings of the Qur’an, and thus was itself hermeneutical. On this basis, the words and acts of Muhammad were themselves revelatory as the practical outworking of the Prophetic Message. Moreover, many issues were not addressed in the Qur’an, and the Sunnah deals with these. This was especially pertinent before the collation of the Qur’an, when it was still fragmentary. Hence, Muhammad’s actions, his judgments, policies, words and silences are the norm of conduct and ethics for all Muslims. Muslims are prone to say of Muhammad that ‘his life was the Qur’an‘ or vice versa. As one Islamic scholar states

The Qur’an is both the foundation and fountain of Faith and, among the fundamentals of Divine Law, the Sharee’ah, its place is unique. Its purpose however is only to lay down the principles. Its elaboration and interpretation are left to the Sunnah and Hadeeth.

The Sunnah, the example of the Prophet in his words and deeds, is transmitted through the Hadith. A Hadith is divided into two parts:

1. Isnad: This word means ‘supporting’. It records the names of the persons handing down the tradition (the transmissional chain)

2. Matn: the actual information

We can see from the following text an example of this:

Abdullah ibn Umar

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Safwan ibn Muhriz al-Mazini narrated that while I was walking with ibn Umar holding his hand, a man came in front of us and asked, ‘What have you heard from Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) about an-Najwa?’

Ibn Umar said, ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) saying, ‘Allah will bring a believer near Him and shelter him with His Screen and ask him, ‘Did you commit such-and-such sins?’…

We see the chain of narration from ibn Muhriz to ibn Umar to Muhammad himself is the Isnad; the Matn refers to God’s discourse with a believer about sin. The Isnad became the testing point for the authenticity of a hadith. There were several criteria for a genuine tradition:

1. The narration must distinctly state something said or done by the Prophet.

2. The traditional chain must be able to be traced back to the original reporters and thus to Muhammad himself.

3. All the transmitters had to be men of excellent character and piety.

4. The tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition.

The principal criteria for classification were:

1. Perfection or otherwise of the chain of transmission.

2. Freedom of the text from defect.

3. Acceptance of the text by the Sahabah (in the case of Sunnis), the Tabi’un (their followers) and the Tab’ Tabi’un (their successors). Obviously, with the Shia, the integrity of traditions depends upon their acceptance by the Imams.

There are three classes of hadith:

1. Sahih: This means a ‘sound’ or genuine tradition, with a reliable chain of transmission with no weaknesses.

2. Hasan: This is a ‘fair’ text, but not wholly reliable, since the narrators were not the best.

3. Da’if: A ‘weak’ tradition, because of internal defects and unreliable transmission.

Within this category are several sub-divisions:

1. Mu’allaq: Where a text omits one or two transmitters in the beginning of the Isnad.

2. Maqtu’: Reported by a Tab’i.

3. Munqati’: Broken traditions.

4. Mursal: Incomplete texts omitting Sahabah from the chain of Tab’i to Prophet.

5. Musahhaf: Texts with a mistake in words or letters of Isnad or Matn.

6. Shadh: Texts with reliable chains, but with meanings contrary to majority attested traditions.

7. Maudu’: Fabricated texts.

Other divisions, used especially by Tirmidhi, include the idea that Gharib can refer either to the isnad or the matn. It refers to a certain weakness in some respect.

It may refer to the only tradition known by a certain line of transmission, although the same tradition may be known by other line, this type being gharib regarding the isnad. It may refer to a tradition whose matn has only one transmitter, this type being gharib regarding both isnad and matn. It may refer to a tradition which comes only from a man who is considered reliable, or in which some addition to what is found in other lines of the same tradition is made by a man of this quality, such a tradition being called gharib sahih.

Gharib can also refer to the use of rare words in a text, although it is not so-employed in the Mishkat al-Masabih, an important hadith collection. The terms gharib hasan and hasan gharib are descriptions of texts which are recognised as hasan in terms of transmission and which does not contradict other transmissions, but has itself only one line of transmission, and is thus simultaneously considered gharib. Hasan gharib sahih and hasan sahih gharib are also found in the Mishkat, and seem to refer to a hasan sahih tradition which has some feature that is gharib. Hasan sahih describes a hadith whose isnad is hasan, but which is supported by another whose isnad is sahih.

4.2 Collection of Hadith

As time passed, more and more of these sayings were recorded, including undoubtedly a number of forgeries. In order to collect, sift and systematize this massive product, scholars started travelling all across the Muslim world.. For this reason, the dating for the collections is somewhat late. Strict rules were laid down to separate true ahadith from false. It should be noted that we have evidence from the Hadith literature itself that the transmission in some cases must have been oral at the beginning, rather than written. Although oral tradition was usually considered reliable, there was some reticence with regard to confidence on this issue among the narrators. Sunni Muslims have ever since regarded a particular six of these collections as authoritative:

Sahih Bukhari (d. 870)

Sahih Muslim (d. 875)

Abu Dawud (d. 888)

Al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)

An-Nasai (d. 915)

Ibn Madja (d. 886)

The most important collector of ahadith was undoubtedly Imam al-Bukhari of Bukhara in central Asia, 810-870 A.D. All of Bukhari’s collection is recognized as sound. His collection is called Jami’ al Sahih, divided into ninety-seven books with 3,450 chapters. He examined 600,000 purported examples of Hadith, memorised 200,000 but rendered all save 7295 as spurious. Many of the remaining are parallel traditions, e.g. the traditions by different narrators referring to the dread consequences of lying against the Prophet. It is significant that Muslims apologists often attack the veracity of the Gospels because of their different nuances, yet they can accept parallel hadiths which are often less similar than are the Gospels to each other.

Shia Muslims adhere to their own collections and regard many of the Sunni ahadith as forged. The most important Shia collections are the two collations of Mohammad Ibne Yaqoob Abu Jafar Kulaini (d. 939), Usool al Kafi and Forroh al Kafi.Others include Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih, by Muhammad ibn Babuya (d. 991); Tahdhib al-Akhkam, by Sheikh Muhammad at-Tusi, Shaykhu’t-Ta’ifa (d.1067); Al-Istibsar, by the same author. Many Shia texts specifically attack Sunni distinctives, particularly with regard to the purported vice-gerency of Ali. It follows from this that the Shia could not accept the authenticity of any traditions narrated by the Sahabah or showing them in a good light. Neither will the Shia accept any tradition which contradicts Shi’i theology, such as temporary marriage, even if the purported narrator had been Ali. For Shi’is, ahadith are usually transmitted through their Twelve Imams, the true successors of the Prophet, as opposed to the Sunni Caliphs. Even among Shi’ites themselves, there were fabricated traditions.

It can be seen that Islam had an early problem with the question of the authenticity of texts. Granted, we are dealing here with Hadith, rather than Qur’an, but as we have seen, the Sunnah interprets the Qur’an, and acts as a secondary source of authority. Invariably, Muslims refer to their authority as the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Hence, it is openly confessed that in their history they had problems with those who engaged in corruption of text, especially when we consider the mutual accusations of Sunnis and Shia on this issue. Given the correlation of the Books of God, it is not surprising that they assume the same is true of the Christian holy texts. Consider the problem of isnad. The Gospels are not written by Jesus Himself, but by others. This is not so insurmountable, since the authors were involved with Jesus and His ‘Companions’, but Muslims have encountered liberal Biblical scholarship which questions the authenticity of the traditional authorship of the gospels. Hence the chain of transmission is questioned. This is even more true with respect to the epistles of Paul, who was not at all associated with the earthly ministry of Jesus, and who did not write gospels, but epistles on his apostolic authority. Muslims do not take seriously his Damascus Road experience. Secondly, the issue of matn arises. We saw earlier with respect to criteria for soundness that the tradition must not contradict the Qur’an or any other sound tradition. This is true for both Sunnis, and Shia. As I stated in my earlier paper, The Attitude of the Qur’an and Sunnah to the Christian Scriptures, the Gospels appear to Muslims to be of the characteristics of Hadith literature. In this case, the Christian ‘hadiths‘ (as Muslims would see them) do not agree with the Qur’an. The New Testament is therefore judged unreliable.

5. Shi’ism and the Qur’an

5.1 Shi’ism – Origins and Politics

The essential distinction between Sunnis and Shia is their concept of the Imamate and its restriction to the Alids, the House of Ali. Shi’is claim their Imams, being the descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima, to be the true successors of the Prophet. Ali is held to be the only genuine successor of Muhammad. After the death of Muhammad, Medinese Muslims assembled to appoint one of their number to the succession, but Abu Bakr arrived and successfully argued for a Meccan member of the Quraysh tribe as Caliph, and he himself duly received this honour. Shi’is argue that since so much of Abu Bakr’s claims relied upon the issue of kinship, the person with the strongest claim was Ali. It follows from this that later Sunni caliphs like Muwaiya and Yazid were guilty of sin in attacking the House of Ali. The implication is that Ali was to be both the chief aide of Muhammad and his successor. Another text echoes this, and it is important since it reflects the actions of Muhammad after the Farewell Pilgrimage of Muhammad in 632 which in Shi’i eyes designated Ali as the successor of Muhammad, and by implication, indicates that those who appointed or took the position of authority were guilty of rebellion against the Prophet and thus apostasy.

The word translated ‘patron’ in the hadith is Mawla, a strong term which is better rendered as ‘lord’ or ‘guardian’; it is used of God Himself. As with the previous text, this hadith is accepted by both Sunnis and Shia alike, and implies, in the eyes of Shia, that Ali was his designated successor and was recognized in this by Umar , the Caliph preceding Ali. Because the succession went someone other than Ali, it naturally follows that Abu Bakr, Umar and ‘Uthman were guilty of rebellion against Islam, since the faith is partly defined as obedience to the Apostle. Shi’is have an intense and emotional love for Ali and his two immediate successors Hasan and Hussain. All Muslims revere the memory of Muhammad’s grandsons. The implication is that those who oppose the House of Ali are guilty of opposing Muhammad, and thus God Himself. The text is so-employed by Shi’is. Moreover, what was said about the relationship of Ali to Muhammad is also stated about Hussain, the son of Ali, and the same is said of his brother Hasan. It follows that those who martyred Hussain were guilty of opposing Islam.

5.2 Sunni-Shia Conflict and Political Resolution

Since politics and religion are coterminous in Islam, it should not surprise us that throughout Islamic history, there have been frequent conflicts between Sunnis and Shia. In contemporary Pakistan, there have been terrible riots with much loss of life between the two confessions. The militant Sunni group Sipah-i-Sahabah have declared their hatred for the Shia, and the issue of Shia attitude to the Companions and the ‘Uthmanic edition of the Qur’an plays its part in this. One of the difficulties Iran has faced in exporting the Islamic revolution is the fact that it is a primarily Shi’i country. Saudi Arabia, being controlled by the militantly anti-Shia Wahhabi sect of Sunnis has used this in its propaganda against Iran, although the real reason for their mutual hostility is that Saudi Arabia is a conservative regime, widely seen as an American client state, whilst Iran is a radical, anti-imperialist Government. The largely Sunni but pro-Iranian Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, has prided itself on uniting Sunni and Shia. Its late leader, Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, had a reputation as an outspoken advocate of uncompromising Islamic radicalism, notably on the Rushdie issue. This impression tended to obscure that he was actually one of the finest Islamic political theorists of the twentieth century, and certainly one of the most acute Muslim minds to have arisen in the West to date. A major advantage is that he writes in English, and being a Western-educated political scientist and journalist, his works are easy for Occidental minds to understand. As with Ali Shariati of Iran, and Malcolm X in the USA, his influence in death is likely to exceed that he exercised in life. One area in particular that he made a significant contribution is his understanding of Khomeini’s concept of the Guardianship of the Jurisconsult. The idea that in the absence of the Mahdi, for whose manifestation both Sunni and Shia wait, the ruler of the Islamic State inherits all the political power of the Prophet, as practised by the revolutionary Government in Iran, means that ‘… for all practical purposes, on issues of Leadership, State and politics, there is no longer any difference between the Sunni and Shi’i positions.’

5.3 Sunni Polemics

Since the Sunni-Shia divide was primarily political in origin, the contribution of Khomeini and Siddiqi might indicate that a major bone of contention has been healed, and we can only pray that the peaceful relations the two Islamic sects have enjoyed in Britain and the West will continue. However, the divide encompasses more than political considerations. A relatively minor problem is that Shi’is do not believe the Qur’an is uncreated. The Shia, because they hold that the activeattributes of God, such as speaking, are not eternal, believe that the Qur’an, as the ‘speech’ of God, is created. To Shia, the Sunni view borders on polytheism. A major difficulty is that Sunni and Shi’i polemicists accuse each other of corrupting the Qur’an. Saudi Arabia has printed a number of anti-Shia booklets in English in recent years which allege that the Shi’is make this claim about the Sunnis – that the latter have tampered with the text by excising verses. For example, the Jamaican-Canadian Muslim convert, Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, one of the most respected Islamic scholars in the West, has translated anti-Shia works which make this assertion, especially about the ‘missing’ Surah concerning Ali, Surah Wilaya, that the Shi’is are supposed to allege was excised from the Qur’an. A further claim is that Shi’is believe that yet another chapter Surah Nurain (forty-one verses), the ‘Chapter of the Two Lights’ (i.e. Muhammad and Ali) was removed. Sunnis allege that Shi’is believe that the authentic copy of the Qur’an, compiled by Ali, is in the hands of the Twelfth Imam and will be presented by him when he returns as Mahdi. In the meantime, Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic Qur’an, but they interpret it in the light of their Hadith collections, which reinterpret texts in the Sunni edition of the Qur’an after a Shia fashion. According to Sunni polemicists, a Shi’i hadith purportedly states:

Jabir says, ‘I heard Imam Baqar… saying: One who says that he has collected the whole Quran is a big liar’.

It goes on to state:

‘Only Ali and the Imams collected it all and preserved it.’

It is noteworthy that even a respected Orientalist scholar such as Montgomery Watt echoes this belief.

The Shi’a, it is true, has always held that the Qur’an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to ‘Ali and the Prophet’s family. This charge… is not specially directed against ‘Uthman, but just as much against the first two caliphs, under whose auspices the first collection is assumed to have been made.

Shi’is deny these accusations, and state that they uphold the veracity of the present edition. The great Shi’i scholar Shaykh Saduq, (919-991 A. D.), stated (and with this agree the Shi’i scholars Allama Ridha Mudhaffar and Sayyid al-Murtadha)

Our belief is that the Qur’an, which God revealed to His Prophet Muhammad (is the same as) the one between the boards (daffatayn).

Jafri comments:

… the text of the Qur’an as it is to be found in the textus receptus,… is accepted wholly by the Shi’is, just as it is by the Sunnis. Thus the assertion that the Shi’is believe that a part of the Qur’an is not included in the textus receptus is erroneous.

5.4 Shi’i Qur’anic Beliefs

5.4.1 Emendations?

However, it appears that at times, whilst Shi’is agree that nothing has been added, some have indeed felt references to Ali have been excised. In Majlisi’s Hadith collection, S. 3:33′ adds ‘family of Muhammad‘ to the text. Surah 25:28 is apparently changed to read in Ali’s copy of the Qur’an, which will one day be revealed, ‘O would that I have not chosen the second as a friend‘, ‘the second’ referring to Abu Bakr, who was the second in the cave after Muhammad’s emigration from Mecca.. S. 3:110 is purportedly emended to read ‘You are the best of Imams‘, substituting ‘imma‘ (‘imams’) for ‘umma‘, (‘peoples’). Hence, even if Shi’is use the ‘Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an, their hadiths essentially emend it.

5.4.2 Allegorical verses

Linked to this is the issue of allegorical verses. S. 3:7 speaks of such verses, and the issue is specifically addressed in the Hadith. The division of these verses is called explicit or clear – in Arabic, mukham. The other kind are called mutashabih – implicit or allegorical. The first are held to be incapable of misinterpretation, whilst the second are not. The mukham verses have only one dimension, and are clear in meaning, the mutashabih are known only to God (in the eyes of Sunni scholars), have more than one dimension and require further explanation. The former include issues such as halal and haram,punishments, etc., whereas the latter deal with the divine nature, life after death, and similar concerns. Shi’is believe that the mutashabih verses actually have a deeper, mystical meaning, and that only the infallible Imams, recipients of divine guidance, had true knowledge of the latter kind. Since only Shi’i hadiths reveal this information, it could be argued that, in effect, Shi’is and Sunnis read something different from each other when they study the Qur’anic text, even if it is the ‘Uthmanic recension.

5.4.3 Textual Order

What does seem to be the case, is that Sunnis and Shia differ over the order of verses in the Qur’an. No-one denies that the present edition of the Qur’an is not in the same order as it was revealed. However, Sunnis believe that

Both the order of the ayat within each sura and the arrangement of the surat were finally determined by the Prophet under guidance from the Angel Gabriel in the year of his death, when Gabriel twice came to revise the text with him.

It is noteworthy, however, that von Denffer offers as the determining evidence for this assertion the statement of ‘Uthman that

… in later days, the Prophet used to, when something was revealed to him, call someone from among those who used to write for him and said: Place these ayats in the sura, in which this and this is mentioned…

Another Sunni scholar states of Muhammad with respect to textual order:

It is logical to suppose that there must have been a certain order in which he read all the verses. The Prophet also used to direct scribes as to the positioning of verses and Surahs in the Qur’an.

He goes on to refer to traditions mentioning the positioning of the last verse in the Qur’an, concerning usury. Hence, the question of textual order is crucial for Islam. According to Sunnis, the actual order is the result of divine inspiration – it is part and parcel of the Qur’an itself. Shi’is, however, deny that the ‘Uthmanic edition is true as regards its sequential order. We noted earlier the Sunni accusation about the Shi’i views of the compilation of the present text. However, Shi’is state that what their hadith actually says is the following:

I heard Abu Jafar (AS) saying: ‘No one (among ordinary people) claimed that he gathered the Quran completely in the order that was revealed by Allah except a liar; (since) no one has gathered it and memorized it completely in the order that was revealed by Allah, except ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) and the Imams after him (AS)’ (Usul al-Kafi, Tradition 607)

Hence, Shi’is utter the obvious truism

… the Quran that we use which was compiled by the companions is not in the sequence that has been revealed. In fact, the Sunni scholars confirm that the first Chapter… was Chapter al-Iqra’ (al-Alaq, Ch. 96)… Muslims agree that the verse (5:3) was among one of the last revealed… yet it is not toward the end of the present Quran. This proves that although the Quran that we have available is complete, it is not in the order that has been revealed.

The Qur’an which is in the correct order according to Shi’is is that of Ali, the first Imam and son-in-law of Muhammad. They hold that he was the first to compile the Qur’an. The Sunni polemicist Salamah agrees that Ali was one of the scribes, but only of the later, Medinan revelations. The Shi’is retort by claiming that the changed order of the Qur’an was the result of either deliberate purpose or ignorance on the part of the Companions. It is significant that von Denffer records the words of ‘Uthman as regards the question of order. Regarding ‘Uthman as they do, it is clear that they cannot accept the veracity of his statement, and they would be naturally suspicious of his edition. It is significant that a Sunni scholar such as von Denffer states that Ali wrote a copy of the Qur’an, which is held in Najaf, Iraq. Another Sunni writer, Suhaib Hasan, states

Ali had his own personal copy of the Qur’an in which he recorded Surahs in their chronological order. This was only one individual copy, and the accepted text of the Qur’an was that prepared by the first two Caliphs.

It is thus clear that Sunni and Shia agree that the Alid Qur’anic text is distinct from that of ‘Uthman at least as to order, and since textual order is an issue of revelation, we can recognize the seriousness of this division in Muslim minds. However, Ali’s text also included commentary and hermeneutical information from Muhammad

… some of which had been sent down as revelation but NOT as part of the text of Quran. A small amount of such texts can be found in some traditions in Usul al-Kafi… Thus the commentary verses and Quranic verses could sum up to 17000 verses.

This is crucial with respect to the issue of interpretation. Shia believe that Imams are the infallible interpreters of the Qur’an. According to this belief, they alone have the divinely-revealed hermeneutic and commentary on the text, as well as the proper order of the text. The transcript remains hidden in the possession of the Twelfth Imam until his manifestation. The concept is strange to Christian minds. The nearest parallel is in Apocalyptic literature, e.g. Rev. 17:7, where an angel explains the meaning of a vision. Obviously, if the Alid Qur’anic appendices are part of the inspiration accompanying the text, if the Sunnis do not possess this, they are lacking the fullness of revelation, and if the revelations are rejected, it could be argued that the Sunni Caliphs are somewhat less than faithful Muslims. Indeed, Shi’is claim Ali presented this transcript to the caliphs, but they rejected it. Tabataba’i echoes this, and appeals to the need for Muslim unity as the reason for his acquiescence. Ali then quoted S. 3:187 against them. On this basis, Shia accuse Sunnis of tahrif in the sense of displacing a verse or corrupting its meaning in the same way as the Jews did.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. The extra revelation Ali possessed disclosed the identity of the abrogated and abrogating verses, and also revealed the Mutashabih verses. Inevitably, this means that whilst the text of the ‘Uthmanic recension is complete, not only its order but the knowledge of the genre of each verse, as well as the scholarship of Sunni theologians as to these vital issues is somewhat off-beam. It is not hard to see why the issue raises the passions it does. Essentially, Sunnis see Shi’i claims as heretical fantasy, and both accuse each other of distortion.

A further point to consider in this regard is that the Shia claim that their assertions on the question of order are supported by some Sunni references on the issue. As we have previously seen, Aisha, one of Muhammad’s wives, narrated an incident in which reference was made to this. In particular, the collection of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, one of the Prophet’s acknowledged reciters indicates variance of order, which is significant because he claimed to know the exact order of verses. His collection was distinct, as we have seen previously. However, the Shia use this to berate ibn Mas’ud since they claim that he asserted that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were not true Surahs, but merely prayers! Similarly, Shi’is point to Sunni ahadithwhich assert the incompleteness of the Qur’an. It should be noticed that the references to the ‘two valleys’ in Sahih Muslimare not in the Qur’an but there are further references in the Hadith. Likewise, Shi’is point to a sound Sunni tradition which relates Caliph Umar speaking of a verse of stoning in the Qur’an, despite the fact that there is no such verse in the present edition. Further, Shi’is assert that ‘Uthman, the Caliph who ordered the definitive collation of the Qur’an, was also guilty of mentioning the existence of Qur’anic verses which do not exist.

This is one reason Shi’is regard the Companions as perverters of the faith. Shi’is attack them anyway for engaging in innovation – departing from the path of the Prophet, which is essentially heresy. For example, ‘Uthman extended the journey prayer which Muhammad had shortened, and he changed the rules for pilgrimage. As a consequence of this, they necessarily are suspicious of the collections under Abu Bakr and ‘Uthman, especially since the Caliphs rejected the transcript of Ali, and in the case of ‘Uthman, burnt variant readings. This helps to explain the psychology of Muslim attacks on the Christian Scriptures. They emanate from a milieu in which accusations and counter-claims concerning textual corruption in some form or another have been advanced within the Muslim community against each other. It is not surprising that Christians are likewise targeted, because Shi’is see the actions of Sunni caliphs as both parallel to the historical practices of the People of the Book, and fulfilment of prophecy in this regard:

AbuSa’id al-Khudri

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

The Prophet (peace b upon him) said, ‘You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e. inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure, you would follow them.’

We said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him)! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?‘ He said, ‘Whom else?’ (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

What was said earlier about the relationship between theology, history and psychology needs to be reiterated. As can be seen from the often harsh words Sunnis and Shia sometimes use against each other in regard to their respective hadithcollections and the collation of the Qur’an, the attacks on the text and canon of the Bible to a large extent reflect an internal dispute between Muslims on similar issues. Family disputes are often the most bitter, and since Christians are part of the ‘Abrahamic’ prophetic family, along with Sunnis, Shia, and Jews in the eyes of Muslims, it is unsurprising that the terrible hostility that has characterized internal Islamic conflicts spills over to us as well.

Of course, this is not the only reason for Christian-Muslim difficulties with respect to the Bible. The political conflicts of the Middle Ages, especially the Crusades, the colonialism of the nineteenth century, and Western domination of the current Muslim world have all intensified passions, especially since the Gulf War and the Bosnian conflict. Muslims see no difference between religion and politics, so they are inclined to see the actions of the Belgrade or the Tel Aviv regimes as evidence of the corruption of Christian and Jewish holy texts. In this respect, they tend to see Christian evangelistic work in the same light as the massacres at Srebenica or Qana – as acts of aggression, intended to destroy the Muslims. People who are prepared to commit genocide are quite likely to be capable of anything, and certainly would not shirk to engage in deceit. It is in this light we should understand why they can imagine that the ridiculous stories Muslim polemicists publish about the Council of Nicaea and the canon of the New Testament are true.

The main reason, however, is that Muslims see themselves, or more especially Muhammad, as the eschatological fulfilment of the predictions of the previous scriptures. They affirm the unity of the Abrahamic prophets. Since, however, the Jewish-Christian holy texts differ from that of Islam, it follows that Jews and Christians must be the black sheep of the Abrahamic family. They must have distorted their scriptures, and done so in a parody of the action of ‘Uthman to establish confessional unity. In order to answer them, we must ‘speak the truth in love’, explaining what actually occurred in the realm of canonicity. To do so effectively, we must understand their own textual and canonical history, and how it affects their perceptions of Christian canonicity.

Bibliography

A. Guillaume, Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

A. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1975

Al-Afghaanee, Dr Ahmad, The Mirage in Iran, trans. A. A .B. Philips, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1985

Ayoub, Mahmoud, Islam – Faith and Practice, Open Press, Toronto, 1989

Bucaille, Maurice, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, North American Trust Publications, USA, 1978

Campbell, William, The Qur’an and the Bible in the light of history and science, Arab World Ministries, USA, 1986

Deedat, Ahmad, Is the Bible God’s Word?, 1987 UK reprint, Islamic Propagation Centre, Birmingham

von Denffer, Ahmad, ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, , Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1983

Dimashkiah, Abdul Rahman, Let the Bible Speak, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, 1995

Doi, A. Rahman, Introduction to the Qur’an, Hudahuda Publishing Company, Nigeria, 1981

Doi, A. Rahman I., Introduction to the Hadith, Arewa Books, 1981, Ibadan, Nigeria

Ghiyathuddin Adelphi, and Hahn, Ernest, The Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur’an and the Hadith, Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad, India, 1977

Guillaume, A., Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, 9th impression, OUP, Pakistan, 1990

Ismaeel, Saeed, The Difference between the Shi’ites and the majority of Muslim scholars, World Assembly of Muslim Youth, Riyadh, 1988 edition.

Jafri, S, Husain M., Origins and Early Development of Shi’a Islam, Longman, London and New York, 1979

Maududi, S. Abul A’la, The Meaning of the Qur’an, Islamic Publications Ltd., Lahore, 1993 edition.

Momen, Moojan, An Introduction to Shi’i Islam, Yale Univ. Press, !985, New Haven and London.

Philips, Abu Ameenah, Ibn Taymeeyah’s Essay on The Jinn, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh, 1989

Pickthall, Muhammad Marmaduke, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, Nusrat Ali Nasri for Kitab Bhavan, 1784, Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi, New Delhi-110 002, India, 5th Reprint 1993 (first published in Hyderabad, 1930).

Ruthven, Malise, Islam in the World, Penguin, London, 1984, 1991

Salamah, Dr Ahmad Abdullah, The Sunni and Shia Perspective of the Holy Qur’an, Abul-Qasim Publishing House, Saudi Arabia, 1992.

Siddiqi, Kalim, Stages of Islamic Revolution, Open Press (UK) Limited, London, 1996

Suhaib Hasan, An Introduction to the Qur’an, Al-Qur’an Society, London, 1989.

Tabataba’i, ‘Allamah Sayyid M. H., The Qur’an in Islam: Its Impact and Influence on the Life of Muslims, Zahra publications, London, 1987

The Holy Bible, New International Version, New York International Bible Society, Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, USA, Eleventh Printing July 1980.

Tisdall, Rev. W. St. Clair, The Sources of Islam, T. & T Clark, Edinburgh

ur-Rahim, Muhammad ‘Ata, Jesus A Prophet of Islam, MWH London Publishers, 1977, 1979

Watt, Montgomery W., Introduction to the Qur’an, EUP, Edinburgh, 1970, 1977

The Council of Nicaea: Purposes and Themes

Anthony N. S. Lane

In tackling this theme we will consider first the sources that are available to us concerning the Council of Nicaea, secondly the purpose for the calling of the council (looking especially at the events which led up to the council), thirdly the events of the council itself, fourthly the official documents of the council (creed canons and letter) and fifthly related letters written concerning the council. Finally we shall review this material in order to draw together some conclusions concerning the purposes and themes of the council.

I. The Sources for the Council

If any official minutes, or Acta, were kept of the Council of Nicaea, these have not survived. But fortunately, that does not mean that we are left in the dark. There are four different types of documents on which we can rely.

First, although there are no minutes, the Creed of the council and its twenty canons, or disciplinary decisions, are preserved in a variety of sources, as is a synodical letter that the council sent to the church of Alexandria. 1

Secondly, the council is described in a number of church histories from the period. Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian, concludes his famous Church History before the time of the council, but he does cover the events in his later Life of Constantine. 2 From the following century there are three important church histories which pick up from where Eusebius left off and which all, at or near the beginning, cover the events of Nicaea. These are by Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, 3) all of whom wrote in the 440s. Although they were writing more than a hundred years after the event, they were using contemporary documents, for which they are valuable sources.

Thirdly, although there are no minutes, three of those who were present and deeply involved in events later describe the council. Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine, already mentioned, covers the council but completely ignores the theological issues at stake. 4 He does, however, describe the doctrinal discussions in an important letter to his church justifying his own behaviour at the council. 5 Athanasius also describes the events of the council in two of his later works. 6Finally, Eustathius of Antioch’s account is preserved by Theodoret in his Church History. 7 As Eusebius and Eustathius were bitterly opposed to one another their two rival partisan accounts are valuable for reconstructing the course of the debate.

Finally, there are a few other documents which have survived independently of the above, such as the letter from the earlier Council of Antioch and Constantine’s letter naming Nicaea as the venue for our council.

II. The Prehistory of the Council

Why was there a Council of Nicaea? The sources are clear that the Emperor Constantine called the council in order to bring an end to dissension within the church. In particular, he was concerned about two specific issues which were causing disagreement: Arianism and the date of Easter. 8 Other matters were settled at the council, but these were the two that prompted the calling of the council.

Since the second century there had been rival ways of calculating the date of Easter. 9 Such diversity was tolerable in the pre-imperial persecuted church. It was not tolerable for the new Christian emperor and his imperial church. Constantine was influenced by the old pagan idea of the pax deorum, the idea that the purpose of the state religion was to win the favour of the gods by offering them acceptable worship. Their side of the deal was to bring peace and prosperity to the empire. Constantine the Christian held to a Christianised version of this. It was his duty as emperor to ensure that the Christian God received pure worship from a harmonious and undivided church. Internal harmony is always a greater priority for the politician than the theologian and this was especially true where Constantine was concerned. For the emperor, the primary scandal with Arianism and the diverse dates of Easter was not the fact of error but the fact of division. 10

The question of the date of Easter needs no further elaboration, but the Arian controversy is more complex. A brief review of the events leading to the council is in order. While the precise dating and order of some of the events is uncertain, what actually happened is clear enough, which is all that is necessary for our purposes. 11

Some time around AD 318/9 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, was told about the unorthodox views of Arius, an influential presbyter in the same church. These views concerned the deity of Christ. Here is not the place for a full discussion of Arius’s views or their origin, about which there has been considerable discussion in recent years. 12 Fortunately, there is no serious question about the basic thrust of Arius’s teaching, which is all that needs concern us at present. Arius himself very accurately stated the issue in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, a leading bishop who supported him:

We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. 13

The two debated points were whether or not the Son had a beginning and whether or not he was created out of nothing. Behind these is the fundamental issue of the deity of Christ, which Arius denied. For him the Son was not to be identified with God himself but is the first and greatest of God’s creatures. He was made ex nihilo, although Arius (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses today) also affirmed that all of the rest of God’s creation was made through the Son. Since time is an aspect of the created universe, which was made through the Son, the latter existed before all time. 14 But he is not eternal and ‘before his generation he was not.’ The same idea was also expressed in the Arian slogan ‘there was once [before time] when he was not’—~jn pote “ote ohuk ~jn. These are the key points, to which Nicaea responded. Arius was also accused of teaching that the Son was morally mutable and liable to sin and change, 15 that he is called God’s Word and Wisdom only loosely or inaccurately as courtesy titles 16 and that he has no perfect or even direct knowledge of the Father. 17 The first of these is the charge most often repeated and is answered in the Creed of Nicaea.

Alexander took action against Arius, calling a synod of bishops and requiring him to sign a confession of orthodoxy. Arius declined to do so and was excommunicated. Arius and his supporters travelled, seeking and gaining support. Alexander responded by sending out an encyclical letter to all bishops. 18 A council was held in Bithynia which declared Arius orthodox and demanded his restoration by Alexander. Arius also wrote a conciliatory letter to Alexander, with a manifesto of his beliefs. 19 Arius received support from Eusebius of Caesarea and from a council of Palestinian bishops, which protested to Alexander about his treatment of Arius and in turn received a stern reply. Arius thereupon wrote a letter to another Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, 20 whose influence was then considerable since Nicomedia had become the site of an imperial palace. ‘When Eusebius received the epistle, he too vomited forth his own impiety,’ and wrote an important letter to a like-minded bishop, Paulinus of Tyre. 21

At this point the situation was transformed. Since 312 the western empire had been ruled by the newly converted Constantine, the eastern half by the pagan Licinius. Relations between the two had deteriorated and Licinius began to oppress the church in his domain. Matters came to a head in 324 when Constantine defeated Licinius in battle, becoming sole emperor. At this stage Constantine encountered the Arian controversy. Ever since 312 Constantine had had to wrestle with the Donatist schism, which had split the church in Roman Africa (roughly modern Algeria and Tunisia). He had hoped that the eastern church could help with resolving this dispute. Instead, he found the eastern church itself split over the Arian question. He promptly dispatched his ecclesiastical advisor, the Spanish bishop Hosius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with a letter rebuking Alexander and Arius for their needless squabble and commanding them to agree to differ. 22

On arriving at Alexandria Hosius saw at once how serious was this dispute. Constantine the politician was concerned for harmony. Hosius the bishop and theologian was concerned for truth. Hosius was totally on Alexander’s side and they organised a council which met at Antioch, early in 325. A letter which appears to be from this council was first identified and published in 1905. 23 That it comes from this council was initially contested, but is now widely accepted. 24 The letter strongly repudiates Arianism, but without using the terms which were to be coined at Nicaea, a strong indication of its pre-Nicene date. All but three of the bishops present accepted the conclusions, the dissidents including Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian. These three were excommunicated but were also offered ‘the great and priestly synod at Ancyra as a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ This last point is the key to understanding Eusebius’s behaviour and role at Nicaea.

III. The Events of the Council

25

Constantine was not satisfied with the manner in which Hosius had summarily resolved the issue. He sent out a letter to all bishops inviting them to the coming council. The venue he changed from Ancyra to a more westerly location at Nicaea, for three reasons: ‘because the bishops from Italy and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent temperature of the air, and’ (the real reason) ‘in order that I may be present as a spectator and participator in those things which will be done.’ 26 He also ‘pledged his word that the bishops and their officials should be furnished with asses, mules, and horses for the journey at the public expense.’ 27

In due course the council opened on 19 June 325 not, as Socrates mistakenly held, on 20 May, 28 and lasted for two months. There is less certainty about the number of bishops present. There are imperfect copies of the list of bishops who signed at the end. These contain 228 names and do not include all of those known to have been present. 29 Reports of the council refer to ‘more than 250,’ 30 ‘about 270,’ 31 ‘300,’ 32 about 300, 33 ‘over 300,’ 34 ‘about 320,’ 35 and, finally, 318 bishops. 36 This last figure prevailed and became the norm. Its origin has been traced to the mystical significance of the number in Greek and to Genesis 14:14. The variation in numbers may be because not all of the bishops stayed for the duration of the council. Another explanation that has been given is that the Arian bishops were not counted, but only two remained obstinate out of an initial number of seventeen pro-Arians, 37 and the high figure of 318 is clearly meant to refer to the number assenting to the conclusions. There is a later Arabian tradition that over 2000 bishops were present. 38 This may be a simple error or may arise from counting all of those present, whether bishops or not. Theodoret describes how many of the bishops had been physically mutilated in earlier persecutions and comments that ‘the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.’ 39Eusebius also comments on the wide range of nations represented at the council, from countries as far away as Persia, Scythia and Spain. 40 While this may be true, the fact remains that all but a handful of the bishops were from the East, although this did not prevent the council from reaching conclusions highly congenial to the West.

What actually happened at the council? Some of the events are well documented. After his arrival, early in July, Constantine made an oration to the council at a special meeting in his palace in which he, as normal, laid considerable emphasis on the importance of harmony. 41 According to Theodoret, Constantine stressed the normative role of Scripture:

For the gospels, the apostolic writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue. 42

The question of Easter was amicably resolved. 43 The status of clergy involved in the Melitian schism was also resolved. 44Constantine met with Acesius, a bishop of the rigorist Novatian schism, which did not believe that those guilty of mortal sins should be restored to communion. Acesius approved the Creed of Nicaea and stated that it contained no new doctrine but the ancient faith. Constantine’s response to his rigorist stance was to urge him to ‘take a ladder and ascend alone to heaven.’ 45

Another noteworthy incident concerns the attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy. The precise proposal was to forbid those who were married at the time of their ordination from having intercourse with their wives, it being assumed that clergy would not marry after their ordination. The Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, one of whose eyes had been gouged out in the persecutions, earnestly opposed this, stressing that marriage itself is honourable and chaste and warning the council not to impose too strict a burden which would itself give rise to temptation and sin. 46

Constantine also arranged a splendid banquet at which, according to Eusebius, not one of the bishops was absent. Eusebius’s editor wryly comments that ‘one cannot help noting that the human nature of ancient and modern councils is the same,—much controversy and more or less absenteeism, but all present at dinner.’ 47 Finally, Constantine made a farewell speech to the council, in which he predictably stressed the benefits of peace and harmony. 48 Those at all familiar with the subsequent course of the Arian controversy will be aware how utterly ineffectual this exhortation proved to be.

One matter has not been mentioned: the discussion of the Arian issue and the production of the creed. For this we are largely dependent upon the three eye-witness accounts mentioned earlier. Eustathius states that ‘the formulary of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. The reading of it before all occasioned great grief to the audience, on account of its departure from the faith.’ 49 To which Eusebius does he refer? Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian, did present a creed as we shall see, but the description better seems to fit the stance adopted by the other Eusebius, of Nicomedia. This is confirmed by Athanasius’s account. He describes the arguments used by the Arian party, referring to them as ‘Eusebius and his fellows.’ He later refers to Eusebius of Caesarea, stating that he was ‘at first an accomplice of the Arian heresy.’ 50 Ambrose later speaks of a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia being read at the council and provoking a negative reaction. 51 It is not possible to be certain, but it is very likely that Eustathius and Athanasius are describing the arguments put forward by Eusebius of Nicomedia and the Arian party.

What then of the other Eusebius? He duly signed the creed and was so embarrassed at the apparent inconsistency of this (in the light of his earlier teaching) that he hastily wrote a tortuous letter of explanation to his church. 52 He is clearly apprehensive about the reception that he will receive on his return and writes warning them not to pay heed to any rumours that they may have heard. He cites two creeds, one that he had submitted to the council and the Creed of Nicaea. But why should Eusebius have submitted a creed to the council? The answer, which has been realised only since the identification earlier this century of the letter of the Council of Antioch, is that Eusebius had been excommunicated and had been granted at Nicaea ‘a place of repentance and recognition of the truth.’ 53 Eusebius, understandably, does not draw attention to this fact. Eusebius proceeds to affirm his full commitment to the doctrines of the creed that he had submitted. He also goes on to affirm that the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea is identical to his, save only the addition of the single word homoousios, which will be discussed below. He then proceeds to give a blatantly minimising interpretation of the Creed of Nicaea.

Whose idea was the introduction of the word homoousios? Athanasius describes how the bishops first tried to reject Arianism by the use of scriptural terms alone, but found that the Arians could twist whatever terms they used to an unorthodox meaning. So just as the Arians ‘uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms,’ the council responded by condemning them by ‘unscriptural terms pious in meaning.’ 54) But why the word homoousios in particular? Eusebius states that it was proposed by the emperor. 55 Given the former’s considerable unease with the term, he would hardly have enhanced its prestige by attributing it to the emperor unless this was accurate. But why should the emperor have proposed it? There is some evidence to support the theory that it was suggested to him by Hosius, his ecclesiastical advisor, possibly in alliance with Alexander of Alexandria. 56 Constantine played a dominant role at the council and this meant that those who had his ear, especially Hosius, were able to lead events to the conclusion that they desired. The outcome reflected the interests not so much of the emperor as of the western-Alexandrian alliance of Hosius and Alexander.

IV. The Official Documents of the Council

There are three documents that survive from the council: the creed, the canons and a letter to the Egyptian church. There is an alleged decree of the council on Easter which is not generally considered to be authentic. 57

(a) The Creed of Nicaea

The most important document from the council is undoubtedly the creed. The Creed of Nicaea, often referred to as ‘N,’ is not to be confused with what is today known as the Nicene Creed. The latter originates from the Council of Constantinople (381) and is substantially different. 58 It probably acquired its name because it was seen as a reaffirmation of the faith of Nicaea.

Eusebius, in his letter to his church, states that the council approved his creed with the addition of the single word homoousios. This in the past led some to the erroneous conclusion that Eusebius’s Caesarean creed formed the basis for N, but it is clear that Eusebius is referring to doctrine, not to the use of documents. 59 Nicaea, he alleges, taught no more than does the Caesarean creed with the addition of homoousios.

What, then, was the origin of N? It is now generally accepted that it was produced by starting with a local eastern creed (probably of Syro-Palestinian provenance) and adding to it a number of anti-Arian statements. 60 The actual text is as follows, with the anti-Arian additions in italics: 61

We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say ‘there once was when he was not,’ and ‘before he was begotten he was not,’ and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

A brief comment on the additions is in order. 62 ‘That is from the substance of the Father’ was added in order to clarify the meaning of ‘begotten from the Father.’ Eusebius of Nicomedia had earlier pointed out that even the dew drops are begotten by God (Job 38:28). 63 The added clause makes it clear that creation is not in mind. The same point is made by the addition ‘begotten not made,’ which makes the contrast explicit. ‘True God from true God’ was added because the Arians followed an older tradition and, citing John 17:3, distinguished between the Father (who is true God) and the Son (who is not). ‘Consubstantial with the Father’ introduces the word homoousios which is the most controversial of the additions. There is much debate about its meaning, but in the present context it should be seen as affirming the full deity of Christ, as do all of the other additions so far.

The statements anathematised had all been made by Arius and/or his followers or were at least attributed to them. The first two deny the eternity of the Son. The first was used by Arians and the second had been used by Arius himself. 64 The next two state that the Son was created ex nihilo or that he came to be from some source other than the Father. 65 So far we have the condemnation of the ideas that the Son had a beginning and was created out of nothing, the points which Arius himself (correctly) identified as crucial to the debate. 66 The last point, that the Son is subject to change or alteration, Arius was accused of teaching 67 but denied. 68 Perhaps Arius held that the Son was changeable by nature (as a creature) but changeless by God’s grace.

(b) The Canons 69

A simple summary of the canons will serve to give a feel of their character and will also make it clear what subjects are and are not covered in them:

1. Those who in good health have castrated themselves are banned from the clergy, but this does not apply to those castrated forcibly or for medical reasons.

2. Those converted from paganism should not be promoted to be presbyters or bishops immediately after their baptism.

3. Clergy are not to have women living with them, except for a relative or someone who is above suspicion.

4. Bishops should ideally be appointed by all the bishops of a province and at least by three with the written approval of the others. The metropolitan bishop of the province 70 has the right of confirming the proceedings.

5. Those excommunicated in one place are not to be admitted elsewhere. Each province should hold a synod twice yearly to consider such cases.

6. The traditional authority of the bishops of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch is to be preserved. No one may become a bishop without the consent of his metropolitan.

7. The bishop of Aelia [Jerusalem] is to have his ancient honour, save only the dignity proper to the metropolitan.

8. Novatianist clergy who come over to the Catholic Church may retain their status after the laying on of hands, if they give a written undertaking to accept the rules of discipline of the Catholic Church. If a Novatianist bishop comes over where there is a Catholic bishop, he will have the rank of presbyter unless the bishop is willing to share the honour of his title.

9. If anyone has been ordained despite some sin which should have prevented it, with or without having concealed the sin, his ordination is not to be accepted.

10. Those who have been ordained despite having lapsed under persecution are to be deposed.

11. Those laity who lapsed without great pressure, if they genuinely repent are to be restored to communion in stages over a period of twelve years.

12. Those who renounced the army because of their faith and then return to it are to be restored to communion over a period of thirteen years, though the bishop may shorten the time for those who show especial sincerity.

13. Those at the point of death are not to be denied communion.

14. Catechumens who lapse are to be readmitted after three years as hearers only.

15. Clergy are not to transfer from city to city.

16. Clergy are not to be received in other churches but are to be returned to their own dioceses under pain of excommunication.

17. Any clergy who in future practise usury are to be deposed.

18. Deacons are not to give communion to presbyters, nor to receive it before bishops, nor to sit among the presbyters.

19. Followers of Paul of Samosata who seek to join the Catholic Church are to be rebaptised. Those who have been clergy may, if suitable, be ordained by the Catholic bishop.

20. On Sundays and during the season of Pentecost one should pray standing and not kneeling.

These are the twenty canons which today are accepted as genuine. Those are the only canons found in the earliest Greek and Latin collections, from the fourth and fifth centuries and it is precisely those canons that are found in medieval collections, both Greek and Latin. But there is an Arabic translation which contains eighty canons 71 or, in some manuscripts, eighty-four canons. What is the origin of these extra canons? Some of them are manifestly later than Nicaea, referring to events which are subsequent to 325 (such as the elevation of Byzantium to imperial and ecclesiastical honour or the appointment of bishops in Ethiopia) and rejecting heresies from later centuries (such as Monophysitism and Monothelitism).

How did these extra sixty canons come to be added? The answer is very simple. From early times it was the practice to collect the canons of different councils into one document. The canons of Nicaea came first and over time some copyists, deliberately or otherwise, neglected to mention the origin of subsequent canons from later councils, thus making it appear that these too were from Nicaea. An early example of this type of mistake came in 417-418 when Pope Zosimus claimed the right to hear appeals from Africa, citing as his authority a canon of Nicaea. The Africans were ignorant of this canon and appeals were made to the East for authentic copies, which confirmed that there were only twenty canons. Zosimus had cited a canon from the later council of Serdica, mistakenly attributing it to Nicaea. 72

There are other grounds on which it is alleged that Nicaea promulgated more than twenty canons. For example, Jerome states that we read that the Nicene Synod reckoned the Book of Judith as part of Holy Scripture. This is a reference not to a canon of the council but probably to the citation of the book as Scripture at the council. That this does not refer to any binding decision, such as a canon, is shown by the fact that later eastern fathers rejected the canonicity of the Book of Judith and Jerome himself questioned it. 73

(c) Letter of the council to Egyptian Church 74

This letter reports on the results of the council, mentioning the condemnation of Arius and of those who sided with him, the treatment of the Melitians and the settlement of the date of Easter.

V. Related Letters Written concerning the Council

(a) Letter of Constantine to the Alexandrian Church 75

The emperor also wrote personally to the Alexandrian church. He talks of those who had been blaspheming against the Saviour, teaching ‘contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures.’ He also stresses that ‘that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God; seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectively enlightened them respecting the divine will.’

(b) Letter of Constantine to those bishops not present at Nicaea 76

Here Constantine returns to his favourite emphasis on harmony. The council examined the issues, ‘until that judgment which God, who sees all things, could approve, and which tended to unity and concord, was brought to light, so that no room was left for further discussion or controversy in relation to the faith.’ He proceeds to describe the agreement that had been reached on the date of Easter, stressing how unfitting it was to follow Jewish calendrical calculations in this matter and also how scandalous it had been for different Christians to celebrate Easter at different times. There is no mention of Arianism in this letter.

(c) Letter of Constantine about Arius’s Works 77

This letter relates to the condemnation of Arius, but it is not clear how soon after the council it was issued. In it Constantine orders all of Arius’s writings to be burnt. Anyone concealing a copy of any of his works and not being willing to surrender it is to be subject to the death penalty.

(d) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius of Caesarea concerning the Scriptures 78

This letter has no connection to the Council of Nicaea, but since it concerns Constantine and the Scriptures it is worthy of mention. Constantine wrote to Eusebius asking him to arrange for the production of ‘fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures, both legibly described, and of a portable size, the provision of which you know to be needful for the instruction of the Church.’ This command has nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of Scripture but is simply the provision of the funds necessary for the making of extra copies, needed for new churches being built in Constantinople.

VI. Conclusions

What was the purpose of the Council of Nicaea? It was called by the Emperor Constantine with the aim of bringing peace and harmony to the church. The issues that needed to be resolved were the date of Easter and the Arian controversy. The spectacle of public theological disagreement was injuring the Christian cause. ‘To so disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theatres.’ 79

Constantine’s concern was above all for unity and harmony. The bishops, while sharing this concern, placed a higher premium on theological truth. For them the resolution of the Arian affair had to preserve the truth of the Gospel as well as the unity of the church. Those who were concerned to maintain the full deity of Christ had every reason to be satisfied with the creed that emerged from the council. But the deity of Christ is just one of the components of the doctrine of the Trinity and judged by this fuller criterion Nicaea is less satisfactory. The doctrine of the Trinity also includes the clear distinction between Father and Son. Not only did Nicaea fail to state this clearly enough for some but some of its leading supporters, such as Eustathius, were not totally orthodox in this area. Nicaea, therefore, while it affirmed the full deity of Christ was not in any way a final resolution of the doctrine of the Trinity. That happened only after another half century of controversy.

What were the achievements of the council? The two original aims were met in that Arianism was condemned and the date of Easter was fixed. Other disciplinary matters were also resolved in the canons of the council.

What did the council decide about the Scriptures? Absolutely nothing. The issue was not raised in any form.

References

1. These will be cited from Norman P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils vol.1 (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990) 1-19. Hereafter it will be cited simply as Decrees. They are also to be found in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Second Series, 14 volumes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971 reprint) 14:1-56. This series was originally published in the 19th century but will be used here because it has the twin advantages of being comprehensive in its coverage and widely available, even on CD ROM. Anyone with access to this series will be able to verify most of what follows below and also to follow up any points of particular interest. Hereafter it will be cited simply as NPNF. References to works cited will be as they are given in this edition, even though chapter numbers sometimes vary slightly from other editions. Some readers may find it easier to refer to J. Stevenson, A New Eusebius(London: SPCK, 1957) or to the later edition of this revised by W.H.C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987), where the numbering of items has been changed. Items that are found in this work will be cited as NE a/b, where a and b refer to the number of the item in the old and the new editions respectively.[]

2. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:61-73, 3:4-23 (NPNF 1:515-18,520-26).[]

3. Socrates, Church History 1:5-14 (NPNF 2:3-20); Sozomen, Church History 1:15-25 (NPNF 2:251-57); Theodoret, Church History 1:1-15 (NPNF 3:33-54). (Chapter numbers in Theodoret vary from edition to edition.[]

4. While Eusebius mentions the Arian controversy in Book 2, the account of the council in Book 3 makes no mention of Arius or the Arian controversy. A reader who knew only Eusebius’s Life of Constantine might not realise that the council had anything to do with the Arian issue.[]

5. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 33(NPNF 4:74-76); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.[]

6. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition (NPNF 4:150-72 + 74-76) and his synodical letter To the Bishops of Africa (NPNF 4:489-94) include description of events at Nicaea.[]

7. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).[]

8. These two reasons are mentioned by Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:490); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8); Sozomen, Church History 1:16 (NPNF 2:252f.).[]

9. For a brief account, cf. E. Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (Chicago & London: St James Press, 1990) 696.[]

10. This is especially evident in Constantine’s letter to Alexandria prior to the council (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72 (NPNF 1:515-18); Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6f.); NE 297/287).[]

11. The order and dating followed here is that of R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988) 129-51, which follows the work of H.G. Opitz who published an important collection of original documents. For a slightly different reconstruction, see R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1987) 48-61.[]

12. See, e.g., Williams, Arius, 95-178; Hanson, Search, 3-128.[]

13. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283. For the same ideas, cf. Socrates, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 2:3); Theodoret, Church History 1:1 (NPNF 3:34).[]

14. The NPNF translations frequently confuse this point by inserting the word time where it does not appear in the Greek. Some modern works are guilty of the same error.[]

15. Socrates, Church History 1:6,9 (NPNF 2:4,12); Theodoret, Church History 1:3,7f. (NPNF 3:35f.,45f.).[]

16. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).[]

17. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:4).[]

18. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:3-5); NE 292/282.[]

19. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284.[]

20. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.[]

21. Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:42).[]

22. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2:64-72; Socrates, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 2:6); NE 297/287.[]

23. NE 298/288.[]

24. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London: Longman, 1972 – 3rd edition) 208-11.[]

25. For accounts of the events, see T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge (MA) & London: Harvard University Press, 1981) 214-19; Hanson, Search, 152-72; C.J. Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents, to the Close of the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871) 270-447 (H. Leclercq’s French translation of the second edition of the German original, Histoire des Conciles d’après les documents originaux, vol.1 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1907) is fuller); Kelly, Creeds, 211-30,249-54; I. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1963) 53-68; G.C. Stead, ‘“Eusebius” and the Council of Nicaea,’ Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973) 92-98, reprinted in his Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (London: Variorum, 1985) item 5; Williams, Arius, 67-72.[]

26. NE 299/289. Nicaea was close to the imperial palace at Nicomedia.[]

27. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).[]

28. Kelly, Creeds, 211; Decrees, 1. Socrates, Church History 1:13 (NPNF 2:19) is followed by Hanson, Search, 152; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 59.[]

29. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.[]

30. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8 (NPNF 1:522).[]

31. Eustathius in Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).[]

32. Athanasius, Councils 43 (NPNF 4:473), Defence against the Arians 23 (NPNF 4:112); Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).[]

33. Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition 2:3 (NPNF 4:152) and History of the Arians 66f. (NPNF 4:294f.).[]

34. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8), inaccurately citing Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:8; Constantine in Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13);.NE 303/293.[]

35. Sozomen, Church History 1:17 (NPNF 2:253).[]

36. Athanasius, To the Bishops 2 (NPNF 4:489) (a later work); Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Theodoret, Church History 1:6,10 (NPNF 3:43,48).[]

37. Cf. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10); Sozomen, Church History 1:20f. (NPNF 2:255); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).[]

38. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 270f.[]

39. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43).[]

40. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:7 (NPNF 1:521), quoted also by Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:8).[]

41. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:10-13 (NPNF 1:522f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:19 (NPNF 2:254f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:43f.).[]

42. Theodoret, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 3:44).[]

43. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:14 (NPNF 1:523); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13); Sozomen, Church History 1:21 (NPNF 2:256); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:47). Cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 298-332.[]

44. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:24 (NPNF 2:256f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.).[]

45. Socrates, Church History 1:10 (NPNF 2:17f.); Sozomen, Church History 1:22 (NPNF 2:256).[]

46. Socrates, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 2:18); Sozomen, Church History 1:23 (NPNF 2:256).[]

47. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:15 (NPNF 1:523f.). Cf. Sozomen, Church History 1:25 (NPNF 2:257).[]

48. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:21 (NPNF 1:525f.).[]

49. Theodoret, Church History 1:7 (NPNF 3:44).[]

50. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.).[]

51. Ambrose, The Christian Faith 3:15:125 (NPNF 10:260).[]

52. In Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:10-12); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49-51); NE 301/291.[]

53. NE 298/288.[]

54. Athanasius, To the Bishops 5f. (NPNF 4:491f.[]

55. Socrates, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 2:11); Theodoret, Church History 1:11 (NPNF 3:49); NE 301/291.[]

56. Kelly, Creeds, 251-53. Williams, Arius, 69f., represents Eusebius of Caesarea as the architect of the unanimous acceptance of homoousios. This is not plausible given the tone of Eusebius’s letter.[]

57. Decrees, 4. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 93-95,259f.,295f. accepts the decree. There is also the list of signatories (Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 296f.). For other spurious documents, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 439-47.[]

58. Kelly, Creeds, ch.10.[]

59. Kelly, Creeds, 217-26.[]

60. Kelly, Creeds, 227-30.[]

61. Decrees, 5. Cf. NPNF 14:3-7.[]

62. Cf. Kelly, Creeds, 234-54; Hanson, Search, 163-72; Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 69-92.[]

63. Theodoret, Church History 1:5 (NPNF 3:42).[]

64. Athanasius, Councils 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.[]

65. The denial that the Son came from any other hypostasis or ousia is ambiguous and potentially confusing. See Hanson, Search, 167f. It could be taken to equate the two words and thus deny that the Trinity are three hypostases. Since the majority of the bishops at the council held to the doctrine of three hypostases they are unlikely to have taken it that way. All that it is actually denied is that the Son takes his origin from some hypostasis or ousia distinct from the Father, not that Father and Son are two hypostases.[]

66. See at n.13, above.[]

67. See n.15, above.[]

68. Athanasius, The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 16 (NPNF 4:458); NE 294/284; Theodoret, Church History 1:4 (NPNF 3:41); NE 293/283.[]

69. Decrees, 6-16. Also in NPNF 14:8-42; NE 300/290. Cf. Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée, 95-117.[]

70. Roughly the same as a modern archbishop.[]

71. For the captions of these, see NPNF 14:46-50. None of them relate in any way to the question of the canon of Scripture.[]

72. For this and the previous paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 355-67; NPNF 14:43-45.[]

73. For this paragraph, cf. Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, 367-75, esp. 370f.[]

74. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:12f.); Theodoret, Church History 1:8 (NPNF 3:46f.); NE 302/292; Decrees, 16-19; NPNF 14:53f.[]

75. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:13f.); NE 303/293.[]

76. Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3:17-20 (NPNF 1:524f.); Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14-16); Theodoret, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 3:47f.).[]

77. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:14).[]

78. Socrates, Church History 1:9 (NPNF 2:16); Theodoret, Church History 1:15 (NPNF 3:53).[]

79. Socrates, Church History 1:6 (NPNF 2:5).[]

Muslims and the Crucifixion

By Toby Jepson

Introduction

Most Muslims deny that Jesus was ever crucified. I hope in this paper to examine and evaluate some of the reasons that are given in support of this assertion.

Claims such as this are usually made for one of two reasons: either there is factual evidence, or there is a need to make the claim despite a clear lack of evidence. It is my opinion that this claim falls into the latter category, although I shall examine some supposed evidence that is sometimes given in support.

The Opinion of the Qur’an

The Qur’an is, of course, the primary source of Muslim belief and practice. Surah 4:157 states:

And because of [the Jews’] saying, ‘We killed Messiah ‘Isa, son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah,’ – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Isa was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. 1)

Here we have a clear denial of the crucifixion. Note the idea that the likeness of Jesus was transferred onto another man. We shall return to this question below.

In the Muslim mind then, the issue is sealed: the Qur’an says it, so it must be. However, for the non-Muslim observer, this is not good enough. On something so important we would expect corroboration from other reliable sources. This would then help us to evaluate whether the Qur’an, a work at best from the 7th century, has any authority to pronounce on events in the 1st century.

Supposed Historical Evidence

There are Muslims who, to their credit, claim ample historical support for their denial of the crucifixion. Consider the following quote:

There are also several historical sources other than the Bible and the Qur’an which confirm that many of the early Christians did not believe that Jesus died on the cross…The Cerinthians and later the Basilidians, for example, who were among the first of the early Christian communities, denied that Jesus was crucified…The Carpocratians, another early Christian sect, believed that it was not Jesus who was crucified, but another in his place… 2

In attempting to dispel the ‘myth’ of Jesus’ crucifixion, the authors appeal to ‘historical sources’ that refer to some of the ‘earliest communities of Christians’. The implication is clearly that these groups, being near to the event, had real, historical reasons for denying Jesus’ crucifixion. They are portrayed as genuine, orthodox believers, fighting for the truth against a rising tide of heresy, in particular the ‘Pauline’ Christians and their ‘false’ doctrines such as the trinity and the deity of Jesus.

In order to judge this claim, we need to know who these groups were, what they believed and why they denied the crucifixion. Then we may evaluate whether they have any relevance to the debate.

The Basilidians

Basilides taught at Alexandria in Egypt, around 125-150AD. 3 The early church historians (Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Clement) differ as to exactly what he taught, but he seems clearly of the Gnostic school of thought. His followers appear to have expanded his doctrine after his death.

Irenaeus tells us that the Basilidians believed in one supreme God called Abraxas, who presided over 365 different heavens. Each heaven was ruled subordinately by a different order of angels, the lowest order creating the earth. The God of the Jews was one of these inferior angels. The gods of other nations (e.g. Ammonites, Moabites) were also angels of this order, whose interests therefore conflicted, resulting in fights and feuds between them and their followers. In the course of time all became corrupt and lost their original heavenly knowledge (gnosis in Greek).

In order to rectify this situation, Abraxas sent down his Son, the Christ, who joined himself to the man Jesus, teaching mankind the knowledge they had lost. The God of the Jews, obviously angry at this encroachment, was unable to harm the Christ, yet instigated his people against Jesus, whom they therefore killed. 4

Along with many in the 2nd century, the Basilidians held that matter was inherently evil. They could not accept that the resurrection of physical human bodies would serve any possible good, so they denied it. Denying a general physical resurrection, they had to deny the physical resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, this obliged them to deny Christ’s crucifixion, instead saying that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place. 5

The Cerinthians

The Cerinthians were an earlier group, followers of Cerinthus, one of the original Gnostic teachers in the mid to late 1st century. Irenaeus and Jerome state that the apostle John wrote his account of the gospel primarily as a refutation of Cerinthus’ heresy.

Again, Cerinthus’ beliefs are unacceptable to both Christians and Muslims. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God, but a power that was ignorant of and inferior to the one true God. The divine Christ was sent by the Supreme God and joined to the man Jesus, who himself was not born of a virgin, but in the normal way via sexual intercourse. In fact, Cerinthus did believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, but simply taught that the divine Christ departed prior to the event, leaving the man on his own. 6 7

The Carpocratians

Carpocrates was an Alexandrian Gnostic from the early 2nd century. It is thought that 2 Peter and Jude were directed against early forms of his heresy. He taught that the creator was not the Supreme God and also denied the virgin birth. Jesus was portrayed as a man endowed with special knowledge from a previous existence, who rose above his fellow humans and attained his unique position as Christ. This led Carpocrates to suggest that anyone with sufficient knowledge and power could attain the same spiritual level as Christ did.

Some of their beliefs are uncertain, but Irenaeus states that they believed in a form of reincarnation, where escape from bodily existence was conditional on seeking out every possible human experience, despising the enslaving laws of society. Although the founders may not have been guilty of the grosser impurities, their principles certainly led to them. Carpocrates’ son, Epiphanes, argued that God must have been joking when he forbade Israel to covet their neighbours’ wives, as it was God who had given humans the desire for multiple sexual partners. 8 9

The Relevance of Gnostic Teachings

We must not deny the importance of this brief historical survey. To begin with, not all of these groups actually denied that Jesus was crucified. Some thought he was, yet downplayed the importance of the physical man, elevating the divine Christ who was supposedly separate. Others claimed that someone else was cunningly switched for Jesus before the crucifixion. What is clear is that they were basing their beliefs on flawed philosophy, not historical knowledge. They rejected the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ simply because it was distasteful to them.

Even more importantly, their worldview was one which both Christians and Muslims must reject completely. Some of the major beliefs of these groups are outlined again below:

• the God of Abraham and Moses (i.e. Allah) was a created being, an angel;

• there were many other Gods of the same order as the Creator (i.e. polytheism);

• Jesus was either a man who was joined to the divine Son at his baptism and then deserted before the crucifixion, or who by his own effort attained his status as Christ;

• the physical resurrection of humans at the Day of Judgement would not happen;

• physical matter (e.g. the human body) was inherently evil;

• the virgin birth of Jesus did not occur;

• no rules governed behaviour as good and evil were imaginary.

Not all of these ideas were held by the same group, but they give a good idea of where they were coming from. They were not ‘Christians’ at all but followed their own romantic idea of a ‘Christ’ that had no basis in history. By the same reasoning I can claim to be a devout Muslim because I think that I ‘submit’ to God in my own way, not according to the Qur’an. This is clearly not acceptable.

Neither were they good Muslims; yet the Qur’an tells us that Jesus’ followers were (Surah 5:111).

And when I inspired the disciples [of Jesus] to believe in Me and My Messenger, they said: ‘We believe. And bear witness that we are Muslims’. 10

Therefore, the Gnostics’ opinion on the crucifixion is frankly worthless. Their beliefs are shown to have little to do with history, Christianity or Islam. They are interesting by all means, but are of little help to honest Muslims who wish to refute the crucifixion with sound evidence. Ironically, the Basilidian belief that someone was exchanged for Jesus before the crucifixion may be a possible source for the identical idea found in the Qur’an.

The Gospel of Barnabas

This fascinating book is seen by many Muslims as preserving an original and accurate account of the life of Jesus. Unfortunately, few have ever read it. The following quotes from the ‘gospel’ give the gist of its account of the crucifixion:

…the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus…The soldiers took Judas and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus… So they led him to Mount Calvary… and there they crucified him naked… 11

This clearly supports the Qur’anic assertion that another was crucified in Jesus’ place after having been made to look like him. This would be both convenient and convincing if the ‘gospel’ had any historical authenticity at all. Sadly, it is nothing but a pious mediaeval fraud, whose gross blunders of history, geography, language and more make quite amusing reading. Readers should consult one of several well-written critiques. 12 Suffice it to say that it appears to have been written by a disgruntled Christian in mediaeval Europe who converted to Islam and wanted to do something in support of his new-found faith, even before he had understood it fully. A few of its more major mistakes are listed below:

• It assumes that Jerusalem is a sea port and Capernaum in the mountains, whereas the reverse is true;

• It mentions both shoes and wine barrels, neither of which were invented by the time of Jesus;

• It claims that the Year of Jubilee occurred every 100 years (biblically it was every 50), a situation that only ever occurred once in history, under a mediaeval Pope;

• Its view of Hell is at odds with the Qur’an, but strangely reminiscent of the mediaeval Italian poet Dante, in his book The Inferno;

• It claims that Jesus was the Christ but not the Messiah (this it ascribes to Muhammad) – a terrible mistake as they are one and the same, Christ being derived from Greek and Messiah from Hebrew, both meaning ‘the anointed one’.

Thus it can be seen that this witness is again totally unreliable and gives us no insight into the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. Muslims would do best to avoid this forgery, as it is only harmful to their cause.

Contemporary Reports that Support the Crucifixion

Having dealt with the claims against the crucifixion, it would be well to consider the positive evidence given by historians of the period soon after Jesus’ life. 13 There is ample evidence from early Christian writers, but I shall include only those from non-Christians, as these authors had no vested interest in Jesus or his crucifixion.

• Tacitus, a Roman historian from the 1st/2nd centuries, said: ‘[Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.’

• Lucian was a 2nd century satirist and referred to Jesus as, ‘…the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…’ He denounced the Christians for ‘worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.’

• Josephus, a 1st/2nd century Jewish historian, had this to say: ‘[Jesus] was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day’.

• It appears that other references were made that have been lost to us today. Bishop Apapius in the 10th century stated: ‘We have found in many books of the philosophers that they refer to the day of the crucifixion of Christ.’ He then goes on to list and quote the ancient works, some of which are not known to modern scholars.

As already seen, Muslims believe that someone was crucified and that people were made to think it was Jesus. Therefore it could be said that these quotes prove nothing. However, the Islamic view is that the early Christians knew that it was not Jesus, so it is strange in this case that all the sources speak of Jesus. We know from elsewhere that many Christians gave their life for the belief that Jesus died and rose again. This would never be the case if they did not believe it.

Conclusion

In this paper I have dealt with some sources that are used by Muslims to lend support to their denial of Jesus’ crucifixion. All have been shown to be late, unreliable and therefore of no worth to the debate. On the other hand, I have quoted contemporary sources outside Christianity that take the crucifixion as historical fact. From this brief overview it is clear that there is ample evidence for the crucifixion, but virtually none against.

We return to my assertion in the introduction, that Muslim denial of the crucifixion is based on need rather than fact. Their only authority in this case is the Qur’an, a book far removed from the event it claims to inform us of. It is in direct contradiction to the historical material we have looked at and therefore its authority on this question must be rejected. Muslims, in taking the Qur’an to be divine revelation, are forced to claim that all other sources that disagree with it are mistaken or corrupted. Yet as shown above it may well be one of these suspicious sources that forms the basis for the Qur’an’s denial in the first place.

We are left asking why the Qur’an should choose to deny the crucifixion without good evidence. I assume that this is related to the Islamic idea of prophethood, that God would not allow his great prophet to die such an ignominious death at the hands of traitors and sinners. However, once again the problem lies with the Islamic view. The righteous can suffer, as the book of Job makes abundantly clear. God does not rejoice to see the righteous suffer, but he often has a much larger agenda and is willing to allow it when a greater good will result. We see that nowhere clearer than in the crucifixion, where the only Righteous One offered himself as a loving sacrifice in order that all sinners could have the opportunity of forgiveness. We only need to accept the Bible’s perspective on the situation. I would urge all Muslims to do just that.

References

1. Khan, MM. The Noble Qur’an. Riyadh. Darussalam, 1996 (15th edition[]

2. ‘Ata’ur-Rahim M, Thomson A. Jesus, Prophet of Islam. London. Ta-Ha, 1996 (revised edition). p47.[]

3. Cross FL. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford. OUP, 1997. pp168, 169.[]

4. Blunt JH. Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties and Schools of Religious Thought. London. Longmans Green & Co, 1891. pp67-69.[]

5. Ibid[]

6. Op Cit. pp104-106.[]

7. George L. The Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. London. Robson Books, 1995. p71.[]

8. Ibid. p66.[]

9. Blunt JH. Op cit. pp102,103.[]

10. Khan MM. Op cit.[]

11. Gospel of Barnabas. Trans. Ragg L & L. No publisher or date given. Chapters 216, 217.[]

12. E.g. Campbell WF. The Gospel of Barnabas – its True Value. Rawalpindi. Christian Study Centre, 1989.[]

13. Material taken from McDowell J. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino. Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972. pp84-88.[]

Uncomfortable Questions for the Qur’an

Apologetic Paper by Jay Smith – 14th May 1995

Contents

1. Muslim Claims for the Qur’an

2. Disturbing Questions

   1. Do we have the Uthmanic Recension?

   2. What do archeology and the external documents tell us?

      1. Qibla

      2. Jews

      3. Mecca

      4. Dome on the Rock

      5. Muhammad

      6. Muslim

      7. Prayer

      8. Hajj

3. Conclusion

---

A: Muslim Claims for the Qur’an:

1. Uthmanic recension unchanged for 1,400 years

   1. Collated in 650. (Muhammad died in 632)

   2. Canonized in 651 by Zaid ibn Thabit

   3. 4 copies sent to Medina, Mecca, Kufa and Damascus.

2. The perfect word of God

   1. No errors

   2. No contradictions

   3. Superior to all other books (“mother of all books” S.43:3)

      1. Literary qualities

      2. Perfect Arabic

      3. Universal application.

      4. Cannot be reproduced. “Produce another Sura like it” (S.2:23).

   4. Direct revelation – no human mediation

      1. Replication of the eternal tablets in paradise. (Sura 85).

3. The seal of all revelations

   1. The final revelation

   2. Supercedes previous revelations.

4. Blueprint for every aspect of life

   1. Social agenda

   2. Morality

   3. Political programme

   4. Economics

   5. Education.

---

B: Disturbing Questions

Whose criteria will I use? Which Court of Appeal?

1. The experts (Orientalists).

   1. Question of bias

   2. Is there an agenda? YES! We all have an agenda.

2. What is Orientalism? Who are the Orientalists?

   1. History, Anthropology, Sociology, Philology, Phonology,Etymology.

   2. Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, G. Hawting, A.Jeffery

3. Orientalists formulated their methodology using the Bible. Christians didn’t run away, but defended the Bible using the scholarly criteria. Thus the Bible was strengthened for the Christians because it held up to the most severe criticism.

---

B1: Do We Have Uthmanic Recension?

Where are the copies?

Consider:

1. Most important book. Foundation of Islam.

2. THUS, must have been written on durable material.

3. Durable material existed. Codices… 4th century (Syniaticus, Alexandrinus).

   1. Ubayy Ka’b, Ibn Masud, Abu Musa, and Hafsa codices.

   2. Uthmanic recension. Not a scroll but a codex.

Muslims claim there are two.

(Topkapi and Sammarkand MSS)

How do we date scripts? Ink; medium (Papyrus-4th cent-paper.); script.

1. Ma’il 7th-9th century Medina and Mecca.

2. Mashq 7th century onwards.

3. Kufic 8th-11th century.

4. Naskh 11th century till today.

Modern scriptology since the 1950’s has discovered the earlier scripts.

Noldeke, Hawting, Schacht, Lings all date the Topkapi and Sammarkand to the 9th century.

Practical observations: Quraish=Mecca, Kufa=636 A.D.=Persia.

Earliest copy of the Qur’an is the Ma’il in British Library

Date by Lings=790.

Conclusion

We do not have the Uthmanic recension. We have the Qur’an that has existed for only the last 1,200 years.

150 year gap!!! Where are the documents? There are no earlier Qur’ans! WHY!!! Could there have been a change, an evolution up until the Umayyad period? It is likely that the Qur’an was not canonized in the 7th century, but in the 9th century. HOW DO WE KNOW? We use archeology and External sources.

---

B2: What Do Archaeology and the External Documents Tell Us?

Consider:

B2i. Qibla

Qibla was canonized (finalized) in the Qur’an in 624 towards Mecca (S.2:144, 149-150) Yet, Mosques uncovered between 650-705 do not have Qiblas facing Mecca.

1. Wasit in Iraq. Qibla points North instead of s.w.

2. Baladhuri stated that the Qibla in the first Kufan mosque (Iraq) faced West.

3. Fustat in Egypt. The Qibla points North-East towards Jerusalem instead of s.e.

4. Jacob of Odessa (Christian bishop) in 705 said Egyptian Muslims (Haggarenes) prayed towards Jerusalem, like Christians.

5. (Cook) Earliest evidence for direction of prayer (thus their sanctuary) points much further north than Mecca. In fact no mosques have been found from this period which face towards Mecca. Some Jordanian mosques also face north, while there are certain North African mosques (from much later) which face south.

6. “They didn’t know the direction.” Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers!

What is happening here? Why are the prayers not towards Mecca?

Possible reasons:

1. There was still a good relationship with Jews, so no need to change the Qibla

2. Mecca was not yet well-known.

Consider:

B2ii: Jews

1. The Qur’an says Muhammad split with Jews in 624, & thus moved the Qibla (S.2:144).

2. Yet, Greek sources speak of “the Jews who mixed with the Saracens, and of danger of falling into the hands of these Jews and Saracens.”

3. An Armenian Chronicler in 660 says Jews & Ishmaelites were together upto 640, with common Abrahamic platform. They had set out to conquer Palestine.

4. The break came immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem in 640. Thus, documental evidence conflicts with the Qur’an over when Muh. split with Jews.

B2iii: Mecca

Was not yet significant at that time

1. Muslims say: “Mecca is the centre of Islam, and the center of history”

   1. “The first sanctuary appointed for mankind was that at Bakkah, a blessed place, a guidance for the peoples” (S.3:96)

   2. Adam placed the black stone in the original Ka’bah there.

   3. Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka’bah there.

   4. Thus this is the 1st and most important city in the world!

2. Muslims say: “Mecca was the center of the trading routes.”

   1. Yet, Mecca was not on the trading route. It’s in a valley, no water, not like Taif, 100 miles away (cheaper to ship 1,250 miles than go by camel 50 miles).

   2. Yet, except for a city called “Makoraba” by geographer Ptolomy= 2nd century, no mention of Mecca, or Ka’bah in any document, until late 7th century (Cook-74). Why?

So, what is going on here? If Mecca was not the center of the Muslim world, then what was? The answer is simple. It seems that Jerusalem and not Mecca was the center and sanctuary of the Haggarenes, or Maghrebites upto 700 A.D. Take for instance another fact:

B2iv: Dome on the Rock

1. Built by Abd al-Malik (governor of Jerusalem) in 691. It is not a mosque, but a sanctuary! Considered the 3rd most holy place, to commemorate the Mi’raj.

2. Yet nothing is inscribed about the Mi’raj, but polemic verses about Jesus.

3. Why? Because this was the center of Islam then and not Mecca.

4. In fact, the inscriptions are supposedly Qur’anic, both at the dome and on coins from this period, yet they don’t coincide with the present Qur’an (Cook:74).

5. Thus, if this is from the Qur’an, how could it have been canonized at this time?

Other Problems which point to a changing revelation:

B2v: Muhammad

Muhammad, a merchant and a conqueror up till the late 7th century, but no mention as prophet until into the 8th century, and then only in Muslim literature (Maghazi?).

B2vi: ‘Muslim’

‘Muslim’ was the name first used in late 7th century.

1. Athanasius (684) in Syriac used Maghrayes.

2. Jacob of Odessa (705) mentions them as Haggarenes. (Ishmaelites, Saracen, Muhajirun)

B2vii: Prayer

Umar II (717-720), the pious caliph, didn’t know about details of the prayer.

Qur’an in Suras 11:114; 17:78-79; 20:130; 30:17-18 speaks only of 3 prayers. Where do we get 5 prayers? From the Hadith, compiled 200-250 years later (Zoroastrians).

B2viii: Hajj

Suleyman (715-717) went to Mecca to ask about Hajj. Chose to follow Malik.

---

C: Conclusion

So what can we say about the Uthmanic Recension? Where is it? Why do we not have any copies? Modern scriptology proves that the Topkapi and Sammarkand are 200 years later.

Archaeology shows us that much of what the Qur’an maintains does not coincide with the data which we posess:

1. The Qibla was not fixed until the next century

2. the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640

3. Mecca was unknown until the end of the 7th century

4. the earliest Qur’anic writings do not coincide with the Qur’an which we have today

5. the number of prayers as well as the Hajj was not formalized until after 717

6. Muhammad was not known as a prophet, nor was the word “Muslim” used until the end of the 7th century.

These are what archaeology and external sources say!

They all contradict the Qur’an which we have today, and add to the suspicion that the Qur’an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was collated and canonized in 650 A.D. by Uthman (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur’anic text. Consequently, the only thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D.) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written 160 years after Muhammad’s death, & 1,200 yrs. ago.