Historical-Critical Critique of early Islam

[fnr]

I would say that history supports Christianity in a way that it doesn’t support Islam.

Jesus died on the cross. The Quran denies it. Historians agree with Christians. Historians disagree with the Quran.

Jesus’ first followers were Christians, not Muslims (as a “valid” hadith of Ibn Abbas claims) – in the period between 30 and 50 AD . Historians agree with Christians, not Muslims.

The Quran uses stories about Jesus from the region where it originated. Many of those stories were written using Christian stories written centuries after Jesus actually lived and died. For example, the Quan’s story of the child Jesus blowing life into clay birds was found in the Syriac Infancy Gospel – a language common among some Arabs. Also, the story of the “Companions in the Cave” is taken from the story of the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus,” a Christian story found in the writings the eastern father, Ephraim.

The Quran has an incongruous repetition of John 6’s bread of life discourse in Sura 5:112-115. It looks like an intertext reference. What is the possible purpose of a Eucharist in the Quran? This is just one of many pieces of evidence to suggest that the Quran is a pastiche of regional Christian and Jewish writings, including possibly a lectionary. The word “Quran” is close to the Syriac word “Qeryana,” which means “lectionary.” (see also the work of Christopher Luxenberg).

The Quran misstates the doctrine of the trinity. This may be a result of its originating in a region where its nearest neighbors were non-Chalcedonian Christians. The Quran’s statements could easily have been taken from debates within the region between Jacobites and Nestorians (which the hadith of Ibn Abbas incorrectly claims to be present at the time of Jesus).

Mecca, supposedly a great center of trade in the Middle East at the time Muhammad lived, does not appear on any extant map before the 9th century, and was not located on any known major trade route (based on the work of Patricia Crone).

The earliest mosques don’t have qibla facing either Jerusalem or Mecca, but Pella (based on Dan Gibson’s work). The geography of the holy city of Bakkah in the Quran does not match the geography of Mecca.

There is little archaeological evidence of the “great battles” of the early Rashidun military victories recorded in Muslim histories of the region. (Fred Donner)

The story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira was first narrated (supposedly) by Ibn Ishaq, who was a court tutor in Baghdad during the reign of Al-Mansur, the Abbasid caliph. He was present when an embassy from the Frankish King. At the time, the most popular and widespread of Germanic poets was a hymnist named Caedmon from Whitby Abbey in Northumbria (England), which had close ties to the Frankish court (for example, Alcuin was a member of Charlemagne’s inner circle). Arabs were known for their love of poetry, and the story of how Caedmon was called to produce poetry – as narrated in Book 4, Chapter 24 of Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People – is virtually identical to the story of Muhammad at Hira. Notably, Ibn Ishaq’s original biography is entirely lost to history, and it was “edited” by his protege, Ibn Hisham. It’s very probable that the story of Muhammad’s original revelation comes from the story of Caedmon.

None of the valid hadith can be credibly dated using the isnads (chains of transmission) before the early eight century, during the reign of Abd al-Malik (based on the work of Schact and Juynboll). It’s likely that the manufacturing of a new religion, based on a possible previously compiled Quran, to support the new Umayyad empire was employed a means of political centralization and control.

 

[reggieM]

That is excellent - thank you! I was just looking for something like this, and there is a lot of good historical insight here.

I wonder which text of the New Testament the Quran is based on, or perhaps it’s entirely on apocryphal works? I had heard about the influence of Nestorians before, and also some of the Christian controversies at the time gave influence to where there is honor of the Blessed Virgin.

To honor Jesus as a Prophet, as the Quran does, is to know that He was a Prophet. To know He was a Prophet would require knowledge of the Gospels. Knowledge of the Gospels would show that He was not merely a Prophet, but the Son of God. Knowledge of the Gospels would show also that no other Prophet would follow Jesus.
That’s another strange historical contradiction - as I see it.

 

[hasantas]

A man died on cross who looked like Jesus. So all historians would say Jesus died on cross!

Muhammad was unlettered and He was not educated by any one. It is impossible for Muhammad to take from other books or sources. If He had done that all Pagans would know that. He never right a poetry before Qur’an.

He had never read a Bible. It is even very difficult by nowdays technology to compile from different Gospels. How could an unlettered man did? Conversely that stories were in different Gospels are writen in Qur’an prove that the words in Qur’an are belong to one who know all Gospels. Indeed Gospels were written after Jesus by people so there were many different Gospels. Many of these Gospels were not allowed by Church. So how could an unlettered man read all these books? Muhammad even could not read in Arabic?

First Qibla was Jerussalem and later Mecca. It is very comic to claim such thing that Qibla was towards to another place. It is like to reject all History!

All verses in Qur’an were verified at least by two people who heard from prophet.

Qur’an is miracle. I can prove that. An unlettered man could not write. Words of Qur’an include all times and places. Qur’an predict many cases. The literature of Qur’an is miracle which noone could challenge so Pagans prefered to struggle with Qur’an by swords.

…

To cliam other way is a consolation to not see the light! It does not be night by closing eyes in midday!

 

[MartinJordan]

A man died on cross who looked like Jesus. So all historians would say Jesus died on cross!

So Jesus looked like he died. How did this this “look alike” journey to the cross? Islamic source please.

Muhammad was unlettered and He was not educated by any one. It is impossible for Muhammad to take from other books or sources. If He had done that all Pagans would know that. He never right a poetry before Qur’an.

What did Mohammed teach about Jesus?

He had never read a Bible.

Correct. He only heard traders talk about it.

It is even very difficult by nowdays technology to compile from different Gospels. How could an unlettered man did? Conversely that stories were in different Gospels are writen in Qur’an prove that the words in Qur’an are belong to one who know all Gospels. Indeed Gospels were written after Jesus by people so there were many different Gospels. Many of these Gospels were not allowed by Church. So how could an unlettered man read all these books? Muhammad even could not read in Arabic?

Can you show original Islamic sources that taught that many Gospels were not allowed by the Church. Name those Gospels from Islamic sources .And Which Church?

Please provide these Hasantas.

MJ

 

[CandleFlame]

Kind of reiterating a bit, a person does not need to know how to read or write to have a wealth of knowledge about something. He/she can gain knowledge by having conversations with people. A person can learn without being formally taught.

Imagine what we are doing in this forum as having conversations. By doing this, we also gain knowledge about each other (and each other’s religions). I can speak out what I have learned about Islam from this forum and other conversations with my Muslim friends, even though I have not read the Quran or hadiths fully. I can speak out about Europe from conversations with my friends, even though I have never set foot there. I can memorize a whole book, especially about poetry, if given time. I don’t have to read, someone just needs to recite it to me and I repeat it. I have created poems in my spare time. I find memorizing my own poems are a lot faster too.

My point is… Being able to say details about places I’ve never been, being able to talk about religions I’ve never been taught formally, being able to recite a book from memory, even without being able to read or write, I do not think they can be considered miracles. But please do not take me wrong, this is my opinion and opinions can change, given evidences.

Peace be with you all.

 

[hasantas]

Kind of reiterating a bit, a person does not need to know how to read or write to have a wealth of knowledge about something. He/she can gain knowledge by having conversations with people. A person can learn without being formally taught.

Imagine what we are doing in this forum as having conversations. By doing this, we also gain knowledge about each other (and each other’s religions). I can speak out what I have learned about Islam from this forum and other conversations with my Muslim friends, even though I have not read the Quran or hadiths fully. I can speak out about Europe from conversations with my friends, even though I have never set foot there. I can memorize a whole book, especially about poetry, if given time. I don’t have to read, someone just needs to recite it to me and I repeat it. I have created poems in my spare time. I find memorizing my own poems are a lot faster too.

My point is… Being able to say details about places I’ve never been, being able to talk about religions I’ve never been taught formally, being able to recite a book from memory, even without being able to read or write, I do not think they can be considered miracles. But please do not take me wrong, this is my opinion and opinions can change, given evidences.

Peace be with you all.

Ofcourse any one can learn something just by hearing. But knowledge and wisdom of Qur’an is above any book. To write Qur’an must know all kinds of sciences just physics, astronomy, history, sociology, medical science etc. Qur’an include all these. And also Qur’an include all moral and religious knowledges. Ofcourse the main aim is religous.

Muhammad was a trader. Could a trader learn more than a priest and a rabbi? Muhammad has never known those kinds of knowledges before Gabriel came to Him. That was the point because of people to believe in Muhammad. Muhammad changed all customs and system of Arabs and Pagans. If they could refute Muhammad in any way they would do.

There are many other moraly high attributes of Muhammad. He never lied and betrayed any one. He was called Al-Emin(trustable). He never commited a wickedness jsut like adultery. But it was very usual for a man upon that times. Muhammad changed bad and evil customs and established the most high ones instead in a very short time. If Muhammad had not had a fact He could not do that.

Qur’an confirm Bible because God speak in Qur’an and God had spoken to prophets before Qur’an.

Just look at words of Qur’an. A man cannot talk in that way. The words of Qur’an point and indicate that the owner of words in Qur’an is owner of every thing. The spoken in Qur’an know all times, spaces, cases, histories shortly is God. If anyone have attention so he can understand.

Qur’an do not just talk about Gospels but also about Torah. So you will say Muhammad should hear every details about Torah!

If you look at something from a far remoteness a mountain look like a stone. To understand someone should look at Qur’an from very close.

 

[CandleFlame]

I think a lot of these claims are speculations. If a person has years of his life listening to people about different kinds of sciences and religious topics, it’s still a wealth of knowledge.

I do not say that Muhammad was not inspired. I do not say that Muhammad was not remarkable. I do not say that Muhammad was not gifted. He could very well be all of them. It could happen that he might have been a genius. When I see a teenager finishing a bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree, or a five-year-old playing a piano/violin at the level of an orchestra member, how could I say that a trader could not learn more than a priest or a rabbi with his/her God-given talents/time/dedication?

The same can be said about his honesty and goodness. One does not need to be religious or know God fully to be an honest person and full of goodness. As unusual as that may be… A person’s moral standard is usually a product of his/her upbringing and values learned in life. God/religion may have inspired this person to be honest and good, but I would not say that is a requirement.

Also, he did not have to hear all the details about Gospel or Torah, but just enough. Quran does not have all the details of Gospel and Torah, but enough to make a connection to them.

In my opinion, these things may be improbable, but not impossible. To equate them to miracles is a bit of a stretch. Or, perhaps I should also say, it seems our definitions of ‘a miracle’ are different. (I also noticed that we may have different definitions of ‘angels’ and ‘Holy Spirit’)… So I cannot count these speculations as evidences. There may very well be other things that support your claims, but surely these cannot be them, for me anyway.

Please forgive me if what I say have negative unintended misunderstandings. English is not my first language. I will try my best not to cause much, if at all.

Peace be with you all.

 

[fnr]

A man died on cross who looked like Jesus. So all historians would say Jesus died on cross!

That’s not a statement based on historical-criticisms. I will stay away from the moral issue of God supposedly changing an innocent follower of Jesus into his simulacrum so Jesus could escape to Heaven because God would not allow his prophet to be defeated. I will point to the utter lack of 1st century historical attestation for the Hadith containing that story. No secular historian would agree that someone other than Jesus took his place on the cross. The only reason one would believe the quasi-docetic assertion based on the Quran’s “they only appeared to kill him” is that one is a Muslim and wants to believe it. That’s not history, but belief in something that is verifiably counterfactual (akin to the old trope among Christian creationists that God buried dinosaur bones to test our faith by providing us evidence that appears not to support the literal creation account of Genesis 1-3).

There are other verifiably false statements in the hadith about the death of Jesus and what happened to his supposedly-Muslim followers, including the saying by Ibn Abbas that the first Christians were all Muslims and broke into three groups: Muslims, Nestorians, and Jacobites. According to Ibn Abbas, the other two groups killed the Muslims. That’s a story that’s blatantly and plainly false, as the men for which Nestorians and Jacobites were named (Nestorius and Jacob Barradaeus, respectively) lived hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus! Again, the only reason one would believe that the hadith is true is that one’s Muslim faith – not history – compels it.

 

[fnr]

Muhammad was unlettered and He was not educated by any one. It is impossible for Muhammad to take from other books or sources. If He had done that all Pagans would know that. He never right a poetry before Qur’an.

As to the biography of the prophet by Ibn Ishaq – which was heavily redacted and abridged 50 years later by Ibn Hisham if it actually was a real historical document – see below.
I wrote in my first post on this thread that using the formal methods of text criticism, such as redaction criticism, it is most likely that the story of Muhammad being illiterate and visited by Gabriel in a dream is based on the story of Caedmon in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. How would that story have made it into the Hadith? Well, the possibility-fictional Ibn Ishaq, first biographer of Muhammad, was supposedly a court tutor for Al-Mansour in Baghdad when the Carolingian embassy of Germanic Franks arrived. Knowing Arabic culture’s love of poetry, the Frankish embassy would be stupid not to bring the greatest poetry and hymnity from their own culture to share. Caedmon’s hymn was the poem that established the norms for Germanic poetry that followed. Bede records the story of how the illiterate Caedmon came to be the greatest composer of hymns in Europe. The story is unmistakably nearly identical to the story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira in the Sirat ibn Hisham. Of course, there’s some editing – as Ibn Hisham claims to have done a plenty. But some characters are the same but for a name change. The illiterate Caedmon becomes the illiterate Muhammad. The man in Caedmon’s dream becomes the angel Gabriel in Muhammad’s. The abbess in Caedmon’s story becomes Khadijah in Muhammad’s. The “learned men and scholars” in Caedmon’s story becomes Waraqah ibn Nawfal in Muhammad’s. The narrative sequence of events is the same, from the three denied requests to recite or sing, to the creation-focused content of their initial song, to their awakening to have new knowledge of verses about God. I will post the story of Caedmon from book 4, chapter 24 of Bede’s work below.

The point is that Muhammad being unlettered is just like Caedmon’s being unlettered. As a scientifically-minded person, I am required to choose the explanation of observed events that does not require miraculous intervention in the world over the explanation that does not. Unlike, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the story of Muhammad’s illiteracy and first revelation can be attributed to the acquisition of the story of Caedmon’s call by the servants of Al-Mansour, who embellished it and folded it into the story of Muhammad. Baghdad was intentionally built near the former Sassanian capitol, from which al-Mansour recruited the highly educated clergy of the Church of the East that had been the administrative staffers.

 

[fnr]

He had never read a Bible. It is even very difficult by nowdays technology to compile from different Gospels. How could an unlettered man did? Conversely that stories were in different Gospels are writen in Qur’an prove that the words in Qur’an are belong to one who know all Gospels. Indeed Gospels were written after Jesus by people so there were many different Gospels. Many of these Gospels were not allowed by Church. So how could an unlettered man read all these books? Muhammad even could not read in Arabic?

Again, I’ll say that Muhammad’s illiteracy is not an established historical fact. I am not saying that Muhammad read all the various Gospels. I’m simply pointing to the fact that the Quran has many stories that overlap in sequence and wording (in translation) with Christian and Jewish sources from the region of the Middle East. Like the authors of the Quran assimilated the story of the Marib Dam, they assimilated the stories of Jesus as a child, which were popular throughout the ancient world. The Syriac Infancy Gospel, in particular, was present in a language that would be familiar to residents of the region in which Islam came into being.

First Qibla was Jerussalem and later Mecca. It is very comic to claim such thing that Qibla was towards to another place. It is like to reject all History!

I will just point you to the book, Quranic Geography by Dan Gibson. He uses aerial photographs of the foundations of the earliest mosques to show that the oldest mosques faced neither Jerusalem nor Mecca, but Petra – the former home of the Nabatean Arabs. Only in mosques built after 822 AD is there a universal orientation toward Mecca. I’m not rejecting history, I’m just looking at objective evidence.

All verses in Qur’an were verified at least by two people who heard from prophet.

Again, this statement cannot be verified historically. Ibn Hisham’s sirah was over a century after the death of Muhammad. None of the hadith can be verified by multiple attestation to have originated before the reign of Abd Al-Malik using only the isnads.

Qur’an is miracle. I can prove that. An unlettered man could not write. Words of Qur’an include all times and places. Qur’an predict many cases. The literature of Qur’an is miracle which noone could challenge so Pagans prefered to struggle with Qur’an by swords. To cliam other way is a consolation to not see the light! It does not be night by closing eyes in midday!

I will have to respectfully disagree that the Quran is miraculous. It makes notable errors in describing Christian beliefs. It contains stories whose characters and sequence of events follow pre-Islamic texts (or oral traditions) that preceded it. The story of how the Quran came to Muhammad seems to have been borrowed from the story of Caedmon.

 

[fnr]

Here is the story of Caedmon in Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People:
heorot.dk/bede-caedmon.html

 

[fnr]

Here is an example of how the Quran borrowed from the Jewish Mishnah.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14700334&postcount=37

 

[reggieM]

As to the biography of the prophet by Ibn Ishaq – which was heavily redacted and abridged 50 years later by Ibn Hisham if it actually was a real historical document – see below.
I wrote in my first post on this thread that using the formal methods of text criticism, such as redaction criticism, it is most likely that the story of Muhammad being illiterate and visited by Gabriel in a dream is based on the story of Caedmon in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. How would that story have made it into the Hadith? Well, the possibility-fictional Ibn Ishaq, first biographer of Muhammad, was supposedly a court tutor for Al-Mansour in Baghdad when the Carolingian embassy of Germanic Franks arrived. Knowing Arabic culture’s love of poetry, the Frankish embassy would be stupid not to bring the greatest poetry and hymnity from their own culture to share. Caedmon’s hymn was the poem that established the norms for Germanic poetry that followed. Bede records the story of how the illiterate Caedmon came to be the greatest composer of hymns in Europe. The story is unmistakably nearly identical to the story of Muhammad’s first revelation at Hira in the Sirat ibn Hisham. Of course, there’s some editing – as Ibn Hisham claims to have done a plenty. But some characters are the same but for a name change. The illiterate Caedmon becomes the illiterate Muhammad. The man in Caedmon’s dream becomes the angel Gabriel in Muhammad’s. The abbess in Caedmon’s story becomes Khadijah in Muhammad’s. The “learned men and scholars” in Caedmon’s story becomes Waraqah ibn Nawfal in Muhammad’s. The narrative sequence of events is the same, from the three denied requests to recite or sing, to the creation-focused content of their initial song, to their awakening to have new knowledge of verses about God. I will post the story of Caedmon from book 4, chapter 24 of Bede’s work below.

The point is that Muhammad being unlettered is just like Caedmon’s being unlettered. As a scientifically-minded person, I am required to choose the explanation of observed events that does not require miraculous intervention in the world over the explanation that does not. Unlike, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the story of Muhammad’s illiteracy and first revelation can be attributed to the acquisition of the story of Caedmon’s call by the servants of Al-Mansour, who embellished it and folded it into the story of Muhammad. Baghdad was intentionally built near the former Sassanian capitol, from which al-Mansour recruited the highly educated clergy of the Church of the East that had been the administrative staffers.

I find that story about Caedmon absolutely amazing – and very convincing. Admittedly I am biased towards it, but still …
I had never heard anything about that before.

 

[reggieM]

I will have to respectfully disagree that the Quran is miraculous. It makes notable errors in describing Christian beliefs.

To me, this is the simplest and most devastating apologetic against Islam.

Jesus was a teacher within Judiasm. He was acknowledged as such by the Jewish teachers, and his knowledge and practice of Judiasm was of a very high order. So, He knew about the religion that He ultimately would fulfill and supercede.

Muhammad, necessarily by history, has to present himself as a prophet who supercedes Christianity. But as the Quran shows, there is very limited knowledge of the Christian religion there. It is contradictory in giving honor to Jesus as a Prophet while the entire Christian world already had proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God for over 500 years before Muhammad was born – the Son who would return in Glory. Nothing is said about this in the Quran and in fact, Muslims are encouraged to read the Gospel and be familiar with it.

We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off." (Sura 5:46)

One of many very obvious errors and contradictions.
The Gospel was not “bestowed on” Jesus. Muhammad assumed, wrongly, that the Gospel was like the Quran - a book supposedly given to Jesus.

I hope hasantas will take some time to think about this and pray about it.

 

[hasantas]

I think a lot of these claims are speculations. If a person has years of his life listening to people about different kinds of sciences and religious topics, it’s still a wealth of knowledge.

I do not say that Muhammad was not inspired. I do not say that Muhammad was not remarkable. I do not say that Muhammad was not gifted. He could very well be all of them. It could happen that he might have been a genius. When I see a teenager finishing a bachelor’s degree or a graduate degree, or a five-year-old playing a piano/violin at the level of an orchestra member, how could I say that a trader could not learn more than a priest or a rabbi with his/her God-given talents/time/dedication?

The same can be said about his honesty and goodness. One does not need to be religious or know God fully to be an honest person and full of goodness. As unusual as that may be… A person’s moral standard is usually a product of his/her upbringing and values learned in life. God/religion may have inspired this person to be honest and good, but I would not say that is a requirement.

Also, he did not have to hear all the details about Gospel or Torah, but just enough. Quran does not have all the details of Gospel and Torah, but enough to make a connection to them.

In my opinion, these things may be improbable, but not impossible. To equate them to miracles is a bit of a stretch. Or, perhaps I should also say, it seems our definitions of ‘a miracle’ are different. (I also noticed that we may have different definitions of ‘angels’ and ‘Holy Spirit’)… So I cannot count these speculations as evidences. There may very well be other things that support your claims, but surely these cannot be them, for me anyway.

Please forgive me if what I say have negative unintended misunderstandings. English is not my first language. I will try my best not to cause much, if at all.

Peace be with you all.

Then look at some miracle in Qur’an:

27-Certainly has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, not fearing [anyone]. He knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near [at hand]. Al-Fath(48)

In that verse God says Muslims will get into Mecca and explain details how it would happen. That verse were revealed before conquest of Mecca. Shortly Muhammad saw a vision in which He saw got into Mecca with Sahabas. He told His vision to Sahabas and Muslims left Medina without any heavy weapon. Pagans did not allow Muslims to get into Mecca. There had been many arguments but in the end they made aggrement that Muslims would not get into Mecca that year. By return to Medina some Muslims argued to Prophet and said: Are you not Messenger of Allah? Yes. Did you not say that we will get into Mecca? Yes. But we are turning without any gain! Then Allah revealed verses in return to Medina.

Mecca was conquered just how Qur’an had explained. Muslims were few. If Mecca were not conquered so Muhammad would be a liar!

Another miracle:

1- The Byzantines have been defeated

2- In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.

3-Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice

4- In the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful. Ar-Rum(Rome)(30)

Persians did defeat Rome. Persians were polytheist like Pagans and Rome were people of scripture(Christians) like Muslims. So Pagans said to Muslims that they would defeat Muslims as Persians did to Rome. Then that verse were revealed. In verse it says that Rome will defeat Persians. It happened just how Qur’an predict. The case happened in about 622. So anyone can check history and wars in wikipedia or in any valid source.

Another:

12- And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay.
13-Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.
14- Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah, the best of creators.

In underlined sentence the embryonic periods and stages are explained. Humanbeing could understand those by some techniques like ultrasound etc.

Muhammad should learn that from traders!

Another:

47-And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. Adh-Dhariyat(51)

In the verse it is said that the universe gets expand!

…

 

[hasantas]

That’s not a statement based on historical-criticisms. I will stay away from the moral issue of God supposedly changing an innocent follower of Jesus into his simulacrum so Jesus could escape to Heaven because God would not allow his prophet to be defeated. I will point to the utter lack of 1st century historical attestation for the Hadith containing that story. No secular historian would agree that someone other than Jesus took his place on the cross. The only reason one would believe the quasi-docetic assertion based on the Quran’s “they only appeared to kill him” is that one is a Muslim and wants to believe it. That’s not history, but belief in something that is verifiably counterfactual (akin to the old trope among Christian creationists that God buried dinosaur bones to test our faith by providing us evidence that appears not to support the literal creation account of Genesis 1-3).

There are other verifiably false statements in the hadith about the death of Jesus and what happened to his supposedly-Muslim followers, including the saying by Ibn Abbas that the first Christians were all Muslims and broke into three groups: Muslims, Nestorians, and Jacobites. According to Ibn Abbas, the other two groups killed the Muslims. That’s a story that’s blatantly and plainly false, as the men for which Nestorians and Jacobites were named (Nestorius and Jacob Barradaeus, respectively) lived hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus! Again, the only reason one would believe that the hadith is true is that one’s Muslim faith – not history – compels it.

Some Hadiths are not valid because people had fabricated somes. But all Christians were Muslim is true. Muslim means submitting to God. All believers of prophets including follwers of Jesus were (Muslim)submit to God.

The man looked like Jesus were not innocent. He had cheated Jesus. He told soldiers where Jesus were.

 

[reggieM]

But all Christians were Muslim is true. Muslim means submitting to God. All believers of prophets including follwers of Jesus were (Muslim)submit to God.

The term Muslim has more meaning than you describe but nonetheless - no Christians referred to themselves as “submit to God” or anything like that in any of the centuries before Muhammad. They did refer to themselves as Catholics. Others were called Nestorians or Arians, etc.
Have you read any of the many histories of the early Christian Church? There are several on-line editions that I could refer you to.

 

[MartinJordan]

To me, this is the simplest and most devastating apologetic against Islam.

Jesus was a teacher within Judiasm. He was acknowledged as such by the Jewish teachers, and his knowledge and practice of Judiasm was of a very high order. So, He knew about the religion that He ultimately would fulfill and supercede.

Muhammad, necessarily by history, has to present himself as a prophet who supercedes Christianity. But as the Quran shows, there is very limited knowledge of the Christian religion there. It is contradictory in giving honor to Jesus as a Prophet while the entire Christian world already had proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God for over 500 years before Muhammad was born – the Son who would return in Glory. Nothing is said about this in the Quran and in fact, Muslims are encouraged to read the Gospel and be familiar with it.

We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off." (Sura 5:46)

One of many very obvious errors and contradictions.
The Gospel was not “bestowed on” Jesus. Muhammad assumed, wrongly, that the Gospel was like the Quran - a book supposedly given to Jesus.

I hope hasantas will take some time to think about this and pray about it.

Good post.

Praying is good and prayers by Christians have always proclaimed Jesus as Lord long before Islam. Pray at all times…

MJ

 

[arthra]

The opening post has:

"I would say that history supports Christianity in a way that it doesn’t support Islam.
Jesus died on the cross. The Quran denies it. Historians agree with Christians. Historians disagree with the Quran."

I don’t think the martyrdom of Jesus is actually denied by the words of the Qur’an…

Consider the following:

Let’s look at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali

*That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
and read Surih 2:154

*And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.
The verse focuses on the reality of the Spirit of the martyr who was slain! The Spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157… while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed…but in verse 158:

*Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke…

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

…and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46

So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur’an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

*And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. There are translations that mention a substitute as in
So to me it’s an issue of interpretation.

The Arabic word in question is “Shubbiha” and means

it was made to appear (so)

for more information:

corpus.quran.com/search.jsp?q=made%20to%20appear

and

corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=(4:157:15

 

[reggieM]

Thanks for your thoughts, arthra.

The opening post has:

"I would say that history supports Christianity in a way that it doesn’t support Islam.
Jesus died on the cross. The Quran denies it. Historians agree with Christians. Historians disagree with the Quran."

I don’t think the martyrdom of Jesus is actually denied by the words of the Qur’an…

Consider the following:

Let’s look at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali

*That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
and read Surih 2:154

*And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.
The verse focuses on the reality of the Spirit of the martyr who was slain! The Spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157… while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed…but in verse 158:

*Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

First, it is good you are showing some honor to Jesus - that is a good thing.
Second, this interpretation is much better than the common idea given that supposedly, Jesus was not crucified at all.
In this case, you seem to be reading it as, to paraphrase: “He was not crucified. It appeared that he was, but it was only his body - his spirit is alive.”
As I said, this is better. Unfortunately, even if the Quran says what you say - it it still shows a profound distortion and error in understanding the Gospel.

As you say, “those who are slain in the way of Allah” live on in heaven. But this really says nothing. I notice, even in your words, you call Jesus a “martyr”. But notice, Christians don’t refer to Jesus as “a martyr”. You will find virtually no references like that in Christian literature in the 600 years before the Quran.
Anybody can be a martyr. Anybody who dies for God, also, will have “his spirit live on”. So, basically, that text says nothing about Jesus that would not be said for anyone “who is slain in the way of Allah” including any Muslim martyrs of the 21st century.
This is just an indication that the authors of the Quran were influenced by various
Christian heretical groups of the era - not recognizing Jesus’ divine nature.

…and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, “Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit” with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46

So Jesus committed His Spirit to God and the Qur’an says Allah raised him up unto Himself.

Yes, that’s a nice quote but notice - Jesus refers to God as “Father”. This is radically different than the view we find in the Quran. But that is a different topic. I’ll just say your quote from Luke does not say much about the statement that Jesus wasn’t crucified, he only appeared to be. The reasons Christians are interested in the crucifixion is not because Jesus’ spirit went to God. But that the crucifixion was the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, to take away sin. And from that, Jesus rose from the dead - three days later.

Surih 4:157 is also translated in a similar way by Pickthal:

*And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. There are translations that mention a substitute as in

The reason this remain incorrect, in spite of a better interpretation, is that they did slew him, and they did crucify him - not just in appearance, but in reality. That is a necessary element of the teaching of Christianity.
Certainly, it would be one thing if a person was mistaken about this, who didn’t know anything about Christ. But this is in the Quran, a book that supposedly is meant to supercede the Gospel for a prophet who is supposedly of a greater order than of Jesus. But we can see, the Quran dEphrem the Syrianes not even have a basic understanding of who Jesus is.
And the fact is, for 600 years before, the entire Christian world knew this quite well. True, there were controversies at the time of Muhammad – but orthodox teaching by the Catholic Fathers of the Church was available in the area. Muhammad could have consulted Christian scholars of the time and realized his mistakes.
So to me it’s an issue of interpretation.

It’s a beautiful coincidence that today is the Feast of St. Ephrahim the Syrian whose writings most likely influenced the Quran from centuries before.