Parallels Between the Qur'an and Late Antique Judeo-Christian Literature: Difference between revisions

The similarities between the Qur'an and previous scriptures has been noted since the advent of Islam. However, the Judeo-Christian tales and their Qur'anic counterparts do not always match. A claim found in the Qur'an and other Islamic literature is that the Jews and Christians deliberately changed their scriptures to obscure the truth of the Qur'an. There is no documentary evidence in the textual traditions of those religions to support this claim, and as it would require a conspiracy of people across centuries and empires, speaking different languages and holding radically different beliefs, as such the claim is generally not taken seriously by modern scholars.

The more accepted theory is that the Qur'an burrows stories from the ancient milieu in which it arose--Christianity and Judaism of the late antique period in the near or middle east. Contrary to the Islamic tradition, most scholars today agree that the Qur'an must have been composed in an environment in which Christian and Jewish stories were very familiar, both to the person(people) writing the Qur'an and to the audience. As such borrowings are to be expected, and in a semi-literate culture before the advent of the printing press different versions of the same story as well as mistakes in transmission from one medium to the other are also to be expected.

In such an environment it is also unsurprising that many of the stories one finds in the Qur'an do not comes from the canonical books of the Christian or Jewish bibles, but often from secondary literature which played a huge role in the spiritual life of believers in that time.

Old Charges of Borrowing

Many contemporaries of Muhammad commented on the similarities between the Qur'an and previous scripture: the Meccans pagans already knew the tales from previous scriptures (i.e. Judeo-Christian tales) – they called Muhammad’s version of them the “tales of the ancients”. Muhammad griped against this oft-leveled charge. It must have irked him so much that it warranted eight verses, composed over a number of years.

These verses are all found in the Meccan Qur'an, despite the fact that some of these verses have been inserted into Medinan suras, such as Sura al-Anfal 8. Scholars are unanimously agreed on the fact that these aforementioned verses are indeed Meccan, despite the suras in which they are now found. What one can gather from this is that the unbelievers, who spoke of the fairy-tales of the ancients in the Qur'an, were of the people of Mecca. None adopted this opinion in Medina after the migration.^[1]

A check of Maududi’s commentary confirms this. Maududi: Surah 6 - last year of the Holy Prophet's life at Makkah; Surah 8 - in 2 A. H. after the Battle of Badr; Surahs 23 & 27 - the middle stage of Prophethood at Makkah; Surah 25 - during the third stage of Prophethood at Makkah; Surah 46 - towards the end of the 10th year or in the early part of the 11th year of the Prophethood; Surah 68 - one of the earliest surahs to be revealed at Makkah; Surah 83 - in the earliest stage at Makkah.

One verse has the Meccan pagans accusing Muhammad of “making ancient tales written” (i.e. iktatabaha) that were recited (i.e. dictated) to him Quran 25:5. Thus, the Qur'an itself alludes to the charge of ‘borrowing’ of Biblical tales against Muhammad even in the earliest days of Islam.

(Translations from Qaribullah & Darwish)

The evidence that at least some of these tales of the ancients were Judeo-Christian tales and not that of the fanciful Quranic “Arabic/Arabized” fairy-tales of Jinns, Houris and the like is the context, particularly those relating to the Resurrection, and the charge that another nation had supplied these tales (meaning the Jews and possibly also Sabeans and Christians).

There is a sahih hadith that shows, without doubt, that the Arabs had heard the Judeo-Christian tales from the Jews. The implication of the hadith is that these tales were common-place from the phrase, ‘used to explain…’, so much so as to warrant Muhammad’s warning to the Muslims to both disbelieve and believe the Jews.

The following sahih hadith strongly suggests Muhammad was susceptible to ‘absorbing’ Jewish tales:

Note how Aisha noticed Muhammad vigorously adopting the Jewish belief of ‘punishment in the grave’ only after she had told him the tale. Before she told him she never saw this belief in him.

Possible Sources from the Ancient Tales

Who did Muhammad learn the Judeo-Christian tales from? There is strong evidence from the sahih hadiths that he learned at least some of them from Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail. These hadiths show that Zaid told the then still-pagan Muhammad about Allah and the religion of Abraham. Also note how Zaid claimed before the Ka'aba that he was the only one of the Quraysh who followed the religion of Abraham which he learned from a Jew and a Christian.

Even the prohibition of female infanticide was inspired by Zaid. How often did Muhammad hear these stories from Zaid? The hadiths do not tell. However, one notes that the sira recounts Zaid’s withdrawal from Meccan society (where he was allegedly persecuted) to a cave in Mount Hira. Muhammad apparently visited the same cave at Ramadan on a yearly basis, an act his wife Khadijah said was the custom of his tribe as an act of penance.^[2]

Thus, it can be seen that there was ample opportunity for Muhammad to learn from Zaid long before the first revelation in 610 AD. Some say Muhammad first went to Mt Hira when he was around 35, i.e. around 605 AD. It is possible that Muhammad first visited Mt Hira when he was 33, when the “first unseen secrets” revealed themselves to him. Zaid died around 607 AD. The cave in Mt Hira is very small, measuring 4 yards long and 1.75 yard wide – there seems no way Zaid and Muhammad could have avoided each other. Clearly they knew each other; the sahih hadiths make that apparent, and we also know that Muhammad spent weeks and months in that cave which Zaid was reputed to have lived.

Zaid’s religious principles were also adopted by Muhammad

1. the prohibition of killing infant daughters by burying them alive, according to the cruel custom of the Arabs of the time.
2. the acknowledgment of the Unity of God.
3. the rejection of idolatry and the worship of Al-Lat, AI-'Uzza' and the other deities of the people.
4. the promise of future happiness in Paradise or the "Garden".
5. the warning of the punishment reserved in hell for the wicked.
6. the denunciation of God's wrath upon the "Unbelievers".
7. And also, the application of the titles Ar Rahman (the Merciful), Ar Rabb (the Lord), and Al Ghafur (the Forgiving) to God.

Moreover, Zaid and all the other reformers (Hanifs) claimed to be searching for the "Religion of Abraham." Besides all this, the Qur'an repeatedly, though indirectly, speaks of Abraham as a Hanif, the chosen title of Zaid and his friends.^[3]

Argumenta ad hominem-loving Muslims who malign answering-islam for the above, should note that it references Ibn Ishaq’s Siratu’Rasul. The main thrust of Zaid’s story in the sira conforms to the reported meeting with Muhammad, and Zaid’s anti-female infanticide stance, in the sahih Bukhari hadiths.

Even the Muslim method of prayer may have originated from Zaid, as Ibn Ishaq (pg. 99-100) wrote that he prayed by prostration on the palm of his hands.^[4]

Another possible source of Judeo-Christian stories is Umm Habiba bint Abu Sufyan, Muhammad’s eighth wife. Her former husband Ubaydullah b. Jahsh was a Christian who converted to Islam and migrated with other Muslims to Abyssinia, there to reconvert to Christianity. However, this is admittedly mere conjecture. Other critics name Mariah the Copt but the evidence is against her being the source of Muhammad’s Judeo-Christian borrowings as she was presented to Muhammad when he was residing in Medinah, long after he included the Judeo-Christian tales in his ‘revelations’.

There is yet another hint in the Qur'an that Muhammad was influenced by a ‘foreigner’.

Who is this non-Arab who taught Muhammad? Could it have been Salman the Persian (who was a Christian) or Bahira the disgraced Nestorian?

The evidence for Salman is not strong and some say it was Bahira.

Islamic sources report that Muhammad, already at the age of nine to twelve, made his first journey with a trade caravan to Syria where he came in contact with Christians. We also know that on a second visit to Syria he showed great interest in the Judaism and Christianity he encountered there. He spent some time during that period with a Nestorian Christian monk named Bahirah. ^[6]

However the evidence is not convincing that it is Bahira that told Muhammad the Judeo-Christian stories.

Perhaps the strongest evidence of the ‘foreigner’s’ identity comes from the Sira:

This source specifically names the foreigner to be Jabr, slave of B. al-Hadrami.

Then there is this sahih hadith that specifically informs us that Muhammad learned from a Christian:

This Christian who taught Muhammad is not named in the sahih hadiths. However, Ibn Warraq, citing Waqidi, names him as ibn Qumta.

Waqidi [d. 207 AH D/823 CE] who says that a Christian slave named Ibn Qumta was the amanuensis of the prophet, along with a certain ‘Abdallah b. Sa‘ad b. Abi Sarh, who reported that "It was only a Christian slave who was teaching him [Mohammed]; I used to write to him and change whatever I wanted."^[8]

Regardless who this foreigner who taught Muhammad was, it is clear that this highly specific charge was leveled against Muhammad, and he revealed the aforementioned verse to ‘deflect’ it. That this foreigner existed is real: the Qur'an itself alluded to him by saying, ‘the tongue of him at whom they hint is a non-Arab’. Why would Muhammad say this? He admits there was someone (who taught him) whose tongue was not Arabic.

That this foreigner taught Muhammad the Judeo-Christian tales is alluded to when one follows Muhammad’s apologetic against this complaint in Surah 16. What follows Quran 16:103 is Muhammad talking how Allah revealed the religion of Abraham, the Resurrection, the Everlasting Life, Judgment Day, prohibition of meat of swine and non-halal slaughter, and other practices given to the Jews.

In short, verse Quran 16:103-104 is nothing more than Muhammad's attempt to answer the charge that he learned the Jewish/Christian religion from a foreigner (probably Jabr). He was the Muslim who first came up with the excuse that the similarities between the Judeo-Christian religion and the Qur'an are due to the three scriptures sharing the same source, which he named as Allah.

Thus it is evident that Muhammad heard Judeo-Christian tales from various sources, beginning with Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail and from Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, to Jabr and the un-named Christian of Sahih Bukhari 4:56:814

Muslim Responses

In the literature, Muslims commit red-herrings and straw-man arguments to deflect attention from the fact that their own sources, i.e. the Qur'an, hadiths and sira, confirm that Muhammad had borrowed ‘tales of the ancients’. The Muslim responses are as follows:

1. There were no Arabic copies of the Judeo-Christian scriptures available to Muhammad.

This is a straw-man argument as the Quran itself claims the charges were that Muhammad heard what was recited to him Quran 25:4-6 or that he learned them from a foreigner Quran 16:103-104. Thus, the existence or otherwise of Arabic translations in Muhammad’s time is an irrelevancy.

2. There was no center of Judaism and/or Christianity in Mecca or the Hijaz in Muhammad’s time.

This is another straw-man argument. As the Islamic literature itself shows Muhammad learnt the ‘tales of the ancients’ from individual Jews and Christians, some of whom we know by name, there is no need for Muhammad to learn from centers of Judaism or Christianity. Whether or not there were any Christian proselytizing in Mecca, is irrelevant: all it takes is one Christian individual (as in Sahih Bukhari 4:56:814) for Muhammad to learn from.

3. There is no evidence that Muhammad borrowed these tales even though there were Jews and Christians in the region.

The evidence is clear for all to see. The charges of borrowing are in the Qur'an. The evidence of borrowing is in the hadiths and sira: the individuals who taught Muhammad the Judeo-Christian tales were named.

4. The Jews were in Medinah and the Christians were in Najran and Yemen.

This is a red-herring and a clear error. Jews and Christians were certainly present in Mecca, for instance Jabr the Christian slave. Waraqa, Khadijah’s cousin also lived in Mecca, and so did the Hanif Zaid bin ‘Amr. We also know from Ibn Sa'd, that contact with Christian people was not unusual:

It is even possible that the Ka’ba contained a biblical quote:

It is often said by Muslims that there were no Jews in Mecca but only in Yathrib and surrounding areas of Northern Hijaz. This is untrue. It is possible that the Ka’aba contained pictures of Abraham and Mary. While not evidence of Jewish presence, it is certainly strongly suggestive of it.

The sira of Ibn Ishaq provides evidence that, while there was no major Jewish community, there were certainly Jews present in Mecca. It is said that when the Quraysh rebuilt the Ka’aba they found a Syriac inscription they were unable to read; a Jew read it for them. ^[10][11]

5. The Qur'an contains stories absent in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, thus the charge of borrowing is erroneous.

This is another straw-man argument. Nobody claims Muhammad copied the Judeo-Christians texts exactly nor limited his scope to these prior texts.

As had been stated in the introduction, similarities between the Qur'an and previous Abrahamic scriptures have been noticed since the inception of Islam. However, the Judeo-Christian tales and their Qur'anic counterparts do not always match. There are three possible explanations for this:

1. The original Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted (as Muslims like to claim).
2. Muhammad imperfectly borrowed from the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
3. The Qur'an was corrupted.

Muslims typically focus on translational variations. In most of the examples of Muslim charges, they curiously deride variation in modern English translations of the Bible. This is merely them seeing Christianity through Islamic eyeglasses. Muslims like to claim their Qur'an is immutable and thus deride any variations as proof of the corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Some of the more intelligent Muslims have homed in on transcriptional variations as well. To them, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are self-evidently corrupt. Hence, there is no need to actually provide any tangible evidence to support their assertions.

None of the early Christian texts support the Muslim contention of corruption of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, as Muslims fail to distinguish between apocryphal and canonical works. They fail to see the difference between mainstream texts and cultic/Gnostic texts.

One really needs either the original manuscripts or a succession of early manuscripts to show how the alleged corruption has occurred. However, since the original manuscripts are long lost, this avenue is unavailable to Muslims. The next possibility is to examine the change in the succession of early manuscripts – the historical approach. However, as far as is known, the Judeo-Christian scriptures are remarkably similar to historical manuscripts. The next possibility is to examine the extra-scriptural writings of the early Rabbis and early Church fathers. Alas, no irrefutable evidence has yet surfaced that would lead one to conclude the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted.

Since Muslims have been unable to produce even any tangible evidence of corruption in the original Judeo-Christian scriptures, one must conclude that the charge of corruption is unproven.

However, the parallelism between the Qur'an and the Judeo-Christian scriptures is undeniable. The main parallelisms have been mentioned in this set of articles. I have ignored other charges such as the seven sleepers in the cave Quran 18:8-26 (as per the seven sleepers of Ephesus); the story of the angels Harut and Marut Quran 2:102 (as per Midrash Yalkut chapter 44 with the angels Shamhazai and Azael: for further details, click here); and God holding Mt Sinai over the Israelites Quran 7:171 (as per the second century Jewish apocrypha Abodah Sarah).

Robert Morey has also listed some other interesting parallelisms (for further details, click here.)

To reiterate, the main parallelisms are: Talking baby Jesus; Mary daughter of Amran & sister of Aaron; Sanhedrin 37a; the raven and the burial of Abel; Mary, Jesus and the Trinity; Jesus and the clay birds; Mary’s upbringing & her relationship with Zachariah; Mary, Jesus & the palm tree; Satan’s refusal to prostrate to Adam; the Queen of Sheba; the wealth of Korah; and Abraham & the idols.

Upon reading these articles, the point that becomes apparent is that these parallelisms are either apocryphal, heretical, commentaries by religious figures, or mere folk tales. Or, in the case of the Trinity, a clear misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

Now, one must stress that the charge is not that Muhammad copied from previous scripture, but that he incorporated stories he heard from other people. Some of these tales he probably heard from the Christian slave of Sahih Bukhari 4:56:814 whom Ibn Ishaq named as Jabr for which Quran 16:101-104 was probably revealed. Waqidi names this Christian as Ibn Qumta. Ibn Ishaq also recounts the story of how three Christians, Abu Haritha Ibn `Alqama, Al-`Aqib `Abdul-Masih and Al-Ayham al-Sa`id, spoke to Muhammad regarding such Christian subjects as the Trinity, Jesus speaking in infancy, and Jesus animating clay birds. Ibn Ishaq also claimed that as a result of these discussions, the Qur'an was revealed addressing all these arguments – leading to the conclusion that Muhammad incorporated Judeo-Christian tales he had heard from other people.

Thus, it is quite conclusive that the parallelism, particularly the imperfect parallelisms, point to Muhammad and not any divine source as being the originator of the Qur'an.

So, is the Qur'an corrupted? Strictly speaking, no. The Qur'an was not corrupted, but it was false from the start.

Talking Baby Jesus

The story of the baby Jesus speaking found in Suras 19:29-31 and 3:46 parallels that in the apocryphal works:

‏

The following is the relevant excerpt taken from the Arabic Infancy Gospel:

The parallelism between the Arabic Infancy Gospel and verse 19:29-31 and 3:46 is plainly evident. There are three possible logical reasons behind this:

1. The Qur'an has ‘corrected the omission’ of the talking baby Jesus tale from the New Testament.
2. The Qur'an has ‘corrected the consigning of the tale to the apocrypha,’ and that the Arabic Infancy Gospel should be included in the canonical New Testament.
3. Muhammad heard the story and mistakenly included it in the Qur'an, thinking it to be canonical and not apocryphal.

The Arabic Infancy Gospel is widely regarded as apocryphal. It is believed to be a seventh century invention and was quite popular among the Syrian Nestorians. The talking baby Jesus miracle was recorded in the sira as one of the topics discussed by three Christians with Muhammad just before he revealed the relevant verses. Thus, it seems strange that the Qur'an should contain what is clearly an apocryphal story.

Sanhedrin 37A

It may surprise many that the Qur'an parallels a passage in the Talmud, specifically a rabbinical commentary in the Book of Sanhedrin.

Talmudic Mishnah

Qur'anic Verse

The salient points are:

• a. The Qur'an itself admits to the borrowing, with the phrase, 'We decreed (katabnā) for the Children of Israel…’

  This word katabnā كَتَبْنَا is from the same Arabic root as kitāb, meaning book, as in 'People of the Book', and the verb katabā literally means he wrote. It is used a few verses later (wakatabnā) in Quran 5:45 regarding some things that are certainly in the written Torah, and in another example Quran 7:145 it is used for Allah writing on the stone tablets. Lane's Lexicon includes 'prescribed', 'ordained' among its definitions for this verb ^[12], though it is likely that this usage arose from royal decrees and legal rulings being written down. In some other verses exactly the same word is translated 'We have written'. It is quite obvious that the author believed that this 'decree' was in the law book of the Jews, the written Torah.

• b. The Sanhedrin parallel is not in the Torah as it is merely a rabbinical commentary on Cain’s murder of Abel, derived from the use of the plural, "bloods", in Genesis 4:10. It is a Mishnayot – a teaching of a Jewish sage. Thus, it cannot be of divine origin.

• c. The Qur'anic verse relates to the story of Cain's murder of Abel Quran 5:27-31, as does the Sanhedrin parallel.

Muslim Objections

Some Muslims (e.g. Dr Saifullah) claim that the parallelism is inexact, as the Sanhedrin 37a should be limited to ‘whoever destroys a single soul of Israel’. They claim that since the Qur'an lacks this reference to the 'single soul of Israel' but instead, generalizes the injunction to any soul, then the charge of parallelism has failed.

Muslim Objections Refuted

Dr Saifullah has made a number of errors here:

1. No one claims the parallelism is an ‘exact copy’. That’s why the term ‘parallelism’ is used. By implying thus, Dr Saifullah has created a straw man argument.
2. "of Israel" is absent in some manuscripts of this passage in the Babylonian Talmud, and we don't know which version Muhammad might have heard.
3. The commentary also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4/5, which omits the phrase, ‘of Israel’. There is no evidence that Muhammad had to rely on the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud, even though the former is considered more authoritative. Thus, Dr Saifullah has committed another straw man argument.

Prima facie - this is a clear-cut case of Muhammad erroneously thinking the Sanhedrin 37a is from the Torah and therefore, he included it in the Qur'an. There is no other explanation for the phrase, ‘We decreed / have written’ (katabna) in the verse. If Allah had indeed decreed/ordained/prescribed/made binding/written for the Children of Israel where is the corresponding verse in the Torah? The claim that it is lost because the Torah is corrupted stretches credulity because the parallelism exists in the Talmud, and it is unlikely that something lost from the Torah should find its way almost unchanged into the Talmud as a commentary of a narrative (i.e. a mishnayot). If the Rabbi had in mind a verse in the Torah that has since been lost, why does he quote verbatim from Genesis 4:10 ('it is written...'), but then when making his main point not quote directly this hypothetical lost verse? It is not a law, despite being in the Talmud (Oral Law) but a commentary by a Jewish sage, who explains his reasoning.

Thus, it seems perplexing that Allah should katabna / decreed / ordain / prescribe / write something that is a commentary written by a Jewish Rabbi.

The Raven and the Burial of Abel

Qur'anic Account

The Qur'an tells the story of how Allah sent a raven to show Cain how to bury Abel.

Jewish Folklore

This story of the raven and the burial of Abel has led critics to charge that Muhammad borrowed Jewish folklore because this account is not in the Old Testament or the Torah. In the Jewish folklore it was Adam who noticed the raven burying a dead bird and that gave him the idea to bury Abel. Thus, the parallelism isn’t with the person who did the burying but with the raven providing the idea of burial in the ground.

Critics point out four sources of this Jewish folklore:

• the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel

• the Targum Yerushalmi I (aka Targum Jonathan or the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan)

• the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

• the Midrash Tanhuma.

Only two are true. The Targums do not carry this story and the claim that they do is a misreading of Tisdall.

It would have been more correct to claim that the raven burial story in the Qur'an has its predecessor in Jewish folklore, which has also been preserved in the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer, and the Midrash Tanhuma. This is because there is no evidence that Muhammad copied from these texts. The claim should be that he probably heard the story from Jewish folklore. It is for the dating of this Jewish folklore that critics should introduce those texts as evidence.

Tisdall quotes from the same source in a slightly different translation:

Muslim Objection

• Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

Saifullah, Ahmed and Karim of Islamic-Awareness claim that Jewish scholars have known for quite some time that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is post-Islamic and that it cannot possibly be attributed to Rabbi Eliezer, quoting as evidence:

They claim that since the final redaction occurred after the advent of Islam, it cannot be the source of the raven burial story. There are two difficulties with this claim:

• final redaction does not mean the stories contained in the Pirke were composed after the advent of Islam. Redaction means ‘making something suitable for publication – including editing, compilation etc.’ or the act of putting something in writing (i.e. that had already existed prior to the writing);

• new evidence suggests the original dating of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is erroneous.

According to Andrew Vargo of answering-islam:

Midrash Tanhuma

The general scholastic view is that Midrash Tanhuma is also known as Tanhuma Yelamdenu, although some scholars believe they are different manuscripts.

In an effort to discredit the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer, the Islamic-awareness team introduced the work of Norman A. Stillman, published in the Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19. However, Stillman proved inconvenient to Saifullah and co:

Saifullah and co then challenged the dating of a version of the Midrash Tanhuma known as the Buber’s recension:

Does recension mean origin or composition? No. The date of recension is only the date of compilation of older stories. It is generally believed that the contents of Midrash Tanhuma pre-date Islam:

Vargo introduced the fact that there are versions of the Midrash Tanhuma older than the Buber recension.

From Meyer Waxman in “A History of Jewish Literature”:

Conclusion

It is likely that the raven burial story in the Midrash Tanhuma (or the Tanhuma Yelamdenu) pre-date the advent of Islam. Buber’s version of the Midrash Tanhuma, although compiled in the mid-eighth century is generally believed to have sourced material from the fourth-century or earlier, while the Tanhuma Yelamdenu dates to the beginning of the sixth century. Thus the pre-Islamic Jewish folklore of the raven burial story is paralleled in the Qur'an.

The Qur'anic Trinity

God, Jesus and Mary: The Trinity?

The Qur'an has its own version of the Christian Trinity:

Note how this strange verse does not mention the Trinity, but has Allah asking Jesus whether he told the people to take him and Mary for gods beside Allah. To which, Jesus replied 'no, I did not; if I did you would have known about it anyway'.

Why did Allah ask Jesus something he already knew Jesus did not do? Did Allah ask simply for the fun of it? Or was he testing him? If this was a test, why perform it at all, when one already knows the result? The circularity of this verse and its lack of logic is apparent.

A plausible explanation of Muhammad’s need to reconcile the Christian Trinity with Islam’s monotheism is given below.

Analysis of Muslim Apologetics

Muslims claim verse 5:116 is not a difficulty for them, and they give three reasons for this:

1 - The heretical Christian sect of the Collyridians may have existed in Muhammad’s time and the Quran was specifically addressing their understanding of the Trinity.

Lets take a look at who the Collyridians were:

Some claim that the Collyridians were in existence from the fourth century and flourished during the fifth century, although since they have fallen out of the pages of history, nobody knows for sure how long they existed as a sect. Edward Gibbon in 'the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' [Chapter 50] states that they were still in existence in the seventh century (without providing any corroborating evidence). One explanation is that Gibbon's simply took the clear parallelism of verse 5:116 with Collyridianism to mean they were present during Muhammad’s day.

Thus, there is clear parallelism between the Qur'an’s version of the Trinity and the Collyridian belief.

As previously stated, Muslims claim that this verse was alluding to the belief of some Christians at the time of Muhammad. This is clearly false, as it specifically states that the belief occurred during the time of Jesus. Remember, Allah asked Jesus whether he had told the people to worship him and Mary besides Allah. Since the Collyridians are post-Jesus (probably originating in the late fourth century, as reported by Epiphanius) the parallelism with the Collyridians is anachronistic. Hence, the Qur'an could not have been alluding to the Collyridians at all, unless of course, Jesus was a Collyridian.

What was the purpose of verse 5:116? The most plausible explanation is Muhammad’s need to explain to his followers the Christian concept of the Trinity in relation to the strict monotheism of Islam. As he claimed Jesus a prophet of Islam, and Allah being the same god to the Christians as the Muslims, and thus Christianity as a predecessor religion to Islam, this perceived inconsistency would have required explanation. So this verse has Jesus denying the concept of the Trinity – implying that the Christians had corrupted his teaching. In doing so, Muhammad had unwittingly exposed his lack of understanding of what the Trinity means. He probably thought Jesus had taught this doctrine, as he thought the Trinity comprised of God, Jesus and Mary.

2 - Some Muslims such as Dr Saifullah of Islamic-awareness claim that it is unreasonable to point out the clear parallelism with Collyridianism as something erroneous as early Christians did not believe in the Trinity.

This is a pseudo-defense. The issue is not if modern Christians view the Collyridians as heretics, but whether the Quranic version of the Trinity has any basis. After all, Allah should know what the Trinity is. But apparently he thought the Collyridian version of the Trinity was the prevailing one during the time of Jesus Christ.

3 - Modern Christians also believe Mary as the Mother of God and prayers are sent to her.

This is a subtle point and one that Muslims fail to address: Neither in the New Testament nor the Qur'an does Jesus claim Mary to be a co-divinity with God. In fact, the Qur'an is specific in Jesus’ denial of this charge. So where does this charge against Jesus come from? Orthodox Christians such as the Catholics do venerate Mary as a saint and the Mother of Jesus, but are very clear in not ascribing divinity to her.

Praying to saints is an Orthodox/Catholic practice. It does not mean that the object of prayer is divine. Catholics do not solely pray to Mary, but to all manners of saints who have passed-away without ascribing divine status on any of them. Thus, it is nonsense to suggest that prayers to Mary absolves the Qur'an from its error about her divinity.

Conclusion

The parallelism between verse 5:116 and the belief of Mary’s divinity by the Collyridians has laid open the charge that Muhammad was mistaken in his understanding of the Trinity. The Qur'an is anachronistic as the doctrine of the Trinity post-dates Jesus. While the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E laid the groundwork by asserting that Christ is the same substance as God, it was the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. that laid down the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, Jesus could not have promulgated the idea of the Trinity to the people as it was conceived almost four centuries after his death.

Secondly, the Qur'an’s understanding of the Trinity as three gods is erroneous (see Quran 5:73) Thirdly, the Muslim explanation that verse 5:116 was alluding to the Collyridians is erroneous as Jesus was never a Collyridian. Fourthly, Jesus never claimed his mother to be a co-divinity with God, and one wonders why Allah should ask Jesus something he already knew Jesus did not do. Rather pointless, one might gather. Perhaps it was a slow day in Jannah.

Considering all that has been discussed, it is reasonable to suggest that Muhammad heard of the Collyridian version of the Trinity and assumed that it were the standard Christian belief taught by Jesus himself. It probably didn’t occur to him that the Trinity was a doctrinal development of the early church or that the worship of Mary as a divinity long post-dated Jesus himself.

Jesus Christ and the Clay Birds

Qur'anic Account

According to the Qur'an, Jesus Christ (with the permission of Allah) created a clay bird which he blew into and brought to life.

Apocryphal Account

This story is a clear parallelism of two apocrypha, which are as follows:

The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ

This is also known as The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour, and was written around 400 CE.^[20]

The Second Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ

This is also known as The Infancy Gospel of Thomas – probably a fragment of the Gospel of Thomas, and was written around 140 CE.^[21]

Muslim Objections Refuted

This parallelism has never been explained by Muslims except to use it to perversely claim that the Bible is corrupted. They argue that the original Bible contained the apocryphal story of Jesus making and animating clay birds, and that the Qur'an was merely correcting a wrongful exclusion of these apocrypha from the canon.^[22]

This is erroneous as the sira tells how Muhammad, far from receiving these stories from Allah (via the angel Jibreel/Gabriel), heard it from three Christians. Saifullah & Azmy of Islamic-awareness have kindly provided the following evidence here.

Conclusion

The parallelism between the Qur'an’s ‘Jesus animating clay birds’ verses and the apocryphal infancy gospels is strong, suggesting that Allah was not the author of the Qur'an, nor is he the God of the Christians. There are various reasons why these apocryphal gospels are not included in the canon; the First Gospel of the Infancy is a comparatively late work while the Second Gospel of the Infancy (actually a fragment of the Gospel of Thomas) is a famous forgery. Both these apocrypha contain verses that contradict the canonical Gospels.

According to the sira, the purported sources of the story are three Christians who spoke to Muhammad. These Christians were either heretics or they were unsure of doctrine as their errancies were then repeated in the Qur'an. These errancies include Jesus animating clay birds, the talking baby Jesus, and the Trinity comprising God, Jesus and Mary (Father, Son and Mother).

Mary and Zechariah

Qur'anic Account

The Bible, unlike the Qur'an, is silent on Mary’s birth, upbringing and relationship with Zachariah. The following is what we find in the Qur'an:

The salient points are:

• The child Mary was given into Zachariah’s care by her mother, and kept in a sanctuary (possibly in dedication to God).

• Zachariah was astonished that she did not need human help in feeding herself. Some supernatural occurrence explained her daily sustenance.

• Zachariah speaks to God who told him of John. Zachariah is incredulous due to the physical condition of him and his wife.
• Mary’s husband was decided by the drawing of lots.

Apocryphal Account

The Qur'anic verses parallel the apocryphal Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary. Both apocrypha were probably written in the middle of the second century.^[23]

Other apocrypha carrying the same story are:

1 - The Coptic History of the Virgin, which may be the Gospel of the Birth of Mary.^[24]

2 - The Arabic apocryphal work, History of our holy Father the Aged, the Carpenter (Joseph), also gives an account of Mary’s upbringing in the Temple and the choice of Joseph by lot.^[25][26] The dating of this apocrypha, also known as the History of Joseph the Carpenter, is the fourth or fifth century.^[27]

3 - The Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus and Mary.^[28]

This apocrypha is also known as the Pseudo-Matthew or ‘The Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood of the Savior’. The dating is uncertain. Most scholars date it to the fourth or fifth century, although some date it later to the eighth or ninth century. However it may have been included in the list of apocryphal works in the fifth century ‘'Decretum Gelasianum De Libris Recipiendis Et Non Recipiendis' as ‘the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife’.^[29]

The Decretum is said to have been issued by Pope Gelasius I (492-496 AD) in 494 AD although some scholars claim it was wrongly attributed to Gelasius I and believe it was written in the sixth century.^[30]

Excerpts from the Protevangelium of James:

Conclusion

The story of Mary’s upbringing in the Temple under the supervision of the High Priest Zachariah, and the choice of Joseph as Mary’s husband by the drawing of lots, is not told in the Bible but in various apocrypha. The Qur'an’s parallelism of this story casts suspicion as to its provenance. These apocrypha are clearly later Christian writings pre-dating Islam, and the oldest, the pseudepigraphal Protevangelium, dates to about 130 CE. On stylistic and theological grounds, the Protevangelium has long been considered apocrypha. Thus, one wonders how these fictional accounts written about the early life of Mary ended up in the Qur'an.

Jesus, Mary, and the Palm Tree

Qur'anic Account

The Bible canon does not contain the episode of Mary, Jesus and the palm tree, it is included in the apocrypha. However, the Qur'an does contain this story.

Gospel of Pseudo-Mathew

Quranic verse 19:22-26 is a clear parallel of the account found in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.

Dating issues

The dating of this apocrypha is contentious. Most scholars date it to the fourth or fifth century, although some date it later to the eighth or ninth century. However, the balance of probability suggests that it pre-dates Islam. This is due to its reference in the ‘Decretum Gelasianum De Libris Recipiendis Et Non Recipiendis’ as ‘the book of the nativity of the saviour and of Mary or the midwife’.^[32]

(Note: Apocrypha are known by various names, particularly in translations.)

The Decretum is said to have been issued by Pope Gelasius I (492-496 AD) in 494 AD, although some scholars claim it was wrongly attributed to Gelasius I and believe it to have actually been written in the sixth century.^[33]

Here are some evidence for the dating of the apocrypha:

Leto in Greek mythology

Suleiman Mourad has traced the development of this story in the Qur'an and Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew through Greek and Latin literature. He writes:

Conclusion

The parallel between the Qur'an and the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew suggests a non-divine source for the Qur'an. This story, in which Jesus was still in the womb during the flight to Egypt, is clearly at odds with the canonical gospels which suggest that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1,5-6,8,16; Luke 2:4,15; John 7:42) and the flight to Egypt occurred only after his birth at Bethlehem.

Christians believe that Jesus was prophesized to be born at Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). It looks like Muhammad bin Abdallah never read the Old Testament.

Iblis and his refusal to prostrate

Qur'anic Account

The Qur'anic story that Satan was expelled from Heaven for defying Allah’s command to prostrate to Adam seems to have antecedents in pre-Islamic Jewish tales. The Bible does not contain this tale.

This story recurs several times in the Qur'an, for instance:

Apocryphal Account

Apparently, the story of Satan refusing to prostate/worship (sajada) Adam is found in the apocryphal ‘Life of Adam and Eve’, a first to fourth century Jewish Hellenistic work. Some authorities date it to the first century CE based on the absence of the Christian concept of original sin and the influence of the story on the Ebionites.^[42]

Another version of this in Syriac, The Cave of Treasure, appeared in the sixth century. There were also other earlier versions in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian, which indicate the early spread of the story regarding the worship of Adam by the angels.^[43]

The story is also found in the Talmud, namely the Genesis Rabba (or Bereshith Rabba – compiled in the fourth or fifth century CE, some say sixth century CE) and the Pirke Rabbi De Eliezer. Also, in Die Schatzhöle, an anonymous work, which dates from the sixth century, we have the Christian legend of what took place after the creation of Adam:

Conclusion

The Qur'anic story of Satan refusing to worship or prostate before Adam seems to have distinct antecedents in pre-Islamic Jewish and Christian sources. It is possible that this is merely coincidence. For more than fifteen centuries after God revealed Genesis to Moses he was content to leave this story untold. Then around the first century CE Jewish story tellers, independent of divine revelation, invented this story. After another six hundred years or so, Allah decided it was high time this story was properly told to humanity, thus he chose to reveal it to Muhammad in a form almost identical to that told by the non-divine Jewish writers.

One begs the question why an omniscient deity would leave himself open to a charge of ‘parallelism’ when the simplest solution would merely be to include the story within the first chapter of the Torah. Instead, he chose to allow Jewish rabbis to receive the distinction of co-inventing this story, long before his revelation to any prophet.

=The Queen of Sheba

Qur'anic Account

The story of the Queen of Sheba is an ancient one, dating back to the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 10:1-10 and 2 Chr. 9:1-12). Josephus also makes mention of the Queen of Sheba, as does the Qur'an, which interestingly embellishes the Old Testament account with the episodes of the hoopoe and the Queen of Sheba exposing her legs.

Below is the Quranic account of the story as translated by Hilali & Khan:

Targum Sheni

This story parallels that which is found in the Second Targum of Esther, or Targum Sheni, and is taken as evidence of the Qur'an’s non-divine source:

Muslim Objections

A counter argument to the idea (raised by the sources referenced above) that Muhammad derived the story from Jewish sources, is produced by Dr Saifullah and the Islamic-Awareness team, which you can find here

The crux of the argument lies with the dating of the Targum of Sheni. It is commonly believed that this targum dates to around the seventh to ninth century, thus making it too late to account for the parallelism with the Qur'an.

According to Saifullah, quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia:

[Note that the dating is only of the final redaction of the Targum, not of the Midrash enclose therein.]

Saifullah goes on to report, citing Encyclopaedia Judaica:

Refutation to Muslim Objections

One must remind Dr Saifullah and his supporters that final redaction is not composition. It is merely the date of final compilation and editing of earlier works. Dr Saifullah’s dating of Targum Sheni has been answered by the answering-islam team.

In another place in his introduction Professor Grossfeld states in connection with the origin of the Targum that it: Must have begun before the Christian era.

On the same subject the Jewish Encyclopedia 1925 edition by Funk & Wagnalls Company, Vol 12, p 63 states:

So the Targum, having been quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, must have had existence at least before the time the Jerusalem Talmud was finally concluded.

On the subject of the dates of the Jerusalem Talmud the Encyclopedea Judaica 1996 edition, Vol 15, p 772, states:

This again supports the claim that the Targum existed in pre-Islamic times and at least early enough for the legend of the Queen of Sheba to have travelled to wherever the Jewish community had dispersed throughout Arabia.”

There is also evidence that the story of the Queen of Sheba’s hairy legs was an ancient Arabian tale:

Conclusion

One cannot be too dogmatic about this parallelism, as the dating of Targum Sheni is not beyond doubt. Nevertheless, it is likely that the story of the Queen of Sheba pre-dates the Qur'an as the Targum is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud. It is also clear that the post-Quranic dates often ascribed to Targum Sheni are that of the final redaction and not that of the Queen of Sheba myths.

Abraham and the Idols

The parallel between the Qur'an and the Midrash is given below.

Midrash Account

Qur'anic Account

Examination of both Accounts

The claim is that this parallelism originated from the Midrash as an invention of a Rabbi:

“It will no doubt come as a shock for some to discover that the Qur'an which claims to be "divine revelation" contains one such Jewish legend and presents it as being an historical fact concerning the life of Abraham. However this story is a well known illustration invented by Rabbi Hiyya in the 2nd century CE; it is recorded in the Midrash Rabbah Genesis and all authorities agree that it was never mean't to be considered historical.

The Quranic account of Abraham and the idols commences in Quran 6:74 where Abraham is quoted as saying "Takest thou idols for gods?" and this theme is then expanded in Sura Quran 21:51-71 . It is exactly the same theme of the Midrashic legend where Abraham takes issue over the idols of his father.

The Shared Themes in the Midrashic Account

The Midrashic account is given here and the Qur'anic equivalent can be found in the ayats in the brackets:

• Abraham's father accused of being an idolater: "Terah (Abraham's father) was a manufacturer of idols" ie. He was an idolater. (52)

• "He once went away somewhere and left Abraham..." (57)

• Abraham breaks all the idols except the biggest: "So he took a stick, broke them, (the idols) and put the the stick in the hand of the largest." (58)

• "When his father returned he demanded, 'What have you done to them?'" (59) (In the Quranic account this demand is made by his father and the people.)

• Abraham claims: "Thereupon the largest arose, took the stick, and broke them." (63)

• Abraham is seized and delivered up for judgement: "Thereupon he seized him and delivered him to Nimrod." (64) (The Quran does not mention by name who was to punish Abraham.)

• Abraham is saved from the fire: "When Abram descended into the fiery furnace and was saved..." (69)

All the above points are unique both to the Qur'anic and mythical midrashic accounts. They do not appear in the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians.”^[48]

Analysis and Refutations to Muslim Objections

Dr Saifullah and the Islamic-awareness team have sought to disparage the above evidence, and these objections have been addressed by the freethoughtmecca team.^[49][50]

Objection 1: Additions (i.e. in the parashiyyot) and alterations may have been made to the text of the Bereshit Rabbah (i.e. Genesis Rabbah) after its redaction in the sixth century CE.

Redaction does not mean the date of origin of the text. The Abraham and the idols story is not in the parashiyyot but the Noach. This story is not in the list of texts added or edited.

Objection 2: The existing manuscripts of the Bereshit Rabbah post-date the origin of the Quran.

Historical evidence from various sources evidence a pre-Islamic date for the Bereshit Rabbah. For example, St Jerome mentions the Jewish interpretation of Genesis 11:28 in respect to Abraham refusal to worship fire and his consumption by fire. Also, the Book of Jubilees mention Abraham’s dislike of idol worship, and the Babylonian Talmud mentions Nimrod casting Abraham into the fire.

Objection 3: The text is unstable due to flexibility of copying and therefore it cannot be ascertained that the compared texts are similar.

It is not asserted that Muhammad copied from the Bereshit Rabbah, rather he heard this Judeo-Christian story from others, possibly Jews and Christians. The Bereshit Rabbah is merely evidence to date this particular Judeo-Christian story. There are other Judeo-Christian sources as listed above.

Objection 4: Judeo-Christian sources of the same story are different, thus the original paralleled story cannot be ascertained.

Again, the charge is not that Muhammad referred to any particular text, although the Bereshit Rabbah’s version comes closest to the Quranic version.

Conclusion

It is clear the story of Abraham disdaining idol worship, destroying idols, and being thrown into the fire pre-dates Islam in various Judeo-Christian sources. It is not the contention that Muhammad copied from these texts, but that he heard this story or variants thereof from other people, probably Jews and Christians. The Judeo-Christian sources used as evidence are merely evidence of the antiquity of this story.

One is forced to wonder how a story invented by Rabbi Hiyya in the 2nd century CE managed to find its way into a source purported to be of divine origin. Allah seems prone to co-invention of many Judeo-Christian stories not believed to be of direct revelation by Yahweh or Jehovah to any pre-Islamic prophets.

The Wealth of Korah

Qur'anic Verse

The Torah and Mishnah tells the story of Korah (or Korach) and his rebellion against Moses (Numbers 16:1-35). This story is also replicated in the Qur'an where Korah is transliterated to Qaaroon.

The parallelism between the Qur'an and the Gemara has not escaped noticed, for instance, this site

Talmudic Verse

A check of Tractate Sanhedrin 110a shows this to be indeed the case:

Jewish scholars have noted that the story of Korah’s wealth is not told in the Torah or Mishnah but by sages. Professor Avigdor Shenan says that the Sages present Korach, among others things, as an extremely wealthy man and the phrase “as wealthy as Korach” is used even today.

Professor Shenan also noted that the Jewish sages had two theories about how Korah acquired his wealth.

Here is Professor Shenan’s conclusion about the wealthy Korah story:

Thus, it can be seen that there is little or no basis in the Bible for Korah to be assumed a wealthy man, especially since he fled with Moses during the Exodus. It is unlikely, although Jewish tradition has it, that the Hebrews would have fled in haste from a vengeful Pharaoh and his army carrying a load of treasure.

Conclusion

So where did Muhammad get his idea about Korah being so wealthy that the keys to his treasure house themselves were so heavy that they required the strength of a body of strong men?

Apparently, Rabbi Levi; a third century Haggadist who lived in Palestine and who also made up the story of Korah’s keys, was actually none other than Allah in the flesh.

Parallelisms

• Introduction
• Talking Baby Jesus
• Sanhedrin 37a
• The Raven & the Burial of Abel
• The Quranic Version of Trinity‎
• Jesus Christ & the Clay Birds
• Mary & Zachariah
• Mary, Jesus & the Palm Tree
• Satan & His Refusal to Prostrate‎
• The Queen of Sheba
• Abraham & the Idols
• The Wealth of Korah
• Conclusion

See Also