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

By Julian Charteris

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. This in-depth study takes a closer look at some of these parallelisms.

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. There are three 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 has been corrupted.

It is an epistemological matter as to which of the three is correct. The Qur'an’s assertion that the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted is mere accusation devoid of evidence. To prove corruption of an older scripture, it is logically necessary to provide tangible evidence such as an extant copy of an uncorrupted manuscript. However, to prove a later scripture has either been corrupted or is an imperfect derivation of the previous scripture, one merely has to compare the texts – if one is unable to prove the older scripture has been corrupted then it stands to reason the latter two explanations are likely.

Note: I take the word ‘corruption’ in this context to mean a substantive alteration of the textual meaning, not the change of words or other translational changes.

No Muslim has ever been able to provide irrefutable tangible evidence that the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to at least the Third Century BC can be of no help to the Muslim proposition. So all we have from Muslims is the Qur'an, and what it has to say on the subject is irrelevant if Allah did not see fit to prove himself with tangible evidence.

On the other hand, it is easy to point out the imperfect ‘borrowing’ from previous scripture in the Qur'an. Muslims speculate that these are merely due to Allah ‘correcting’ the corruption which had crept into the previous scriptures. Prima facie - this is a good argument, as is the 'similarity due to a single source' argument. It would be interesting to take a closer look at the relevant texts and their purported sources of origin.

It is a common proposition that Muhammad most likely borrowed from previous scripture from hearing scriptural accounts told by Christians and Jews. As he was an unscholarly man, it is unlikely that he read any previous scriptures, hence the imperfection of his borrowing. I believe that it is not commonly asserted that these previous scriptures from which Muhammad ‘borrowed’ the Judeo-Christian tales were translated into Arabic in his day as the Quran and hadiths suggest Jews and Christians were present to do the translation into Arabic for all and sundry to hear.

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.

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