As-Salāmu ʿAlaykum all,
I’ve been busy writing my next article over the past while or so. Now that it’s finally ready, I’m sharing it with anyone who might be interested. I would recommend reading the PDF as the footnotes are easier to access, and have a lot of important information:
– Web Link (I’ve been told they’re having some issues with the images which they are working on)
– PDF Link
This piece is intended to sketch out a rough “confessional approach” to Qurʾānic intertextuality. It covers a lot of different sorts of interactions and highlights a historical/theological method for how they could be understood by Muslims.
The reviewers at Yaqeen have been enormously helpful in providing feedback on how tone and specific arguments may be improved to appeal to the average reader. The review process was also fairly rigorous, which I think is a welcome change to how Muslims have been publishing about apologetics to date. We additionally had some other anonymous reviewers external to Yaqeen who provided extremely useful comments without which the utility of the article would have no doubt suffered.
Having said that, more “academic” readers should keep in mind that the article is supposed to appeal to a broad audience. Sometimes we entertain arguments we (or I) don’t personally hold if only to provide a few alternative solutions to complement our main arguments. Regardless, I think this article does bring some new contributions which we hope everyone would find useful.
With those disclaimers out of the way I had some points to make about the article itself. I can possibly think of an eighth category to add to the article which covers instances where the Qur’an’s stories overlap with non-revelatory accounts that were circulating after Jesus, but don’t contain any historical impossibilities (as opposed to, say, the Syriac Legend of Alexander / the Alexander Romance). I wouldn’t really know what to title this category, but I guess some examples would be parallels with canonical or even early apocryphal gospels (i.e. these documents aren’t revelation, but plausibly contain historical data), as well as (I guess more controversially) stories of saints such as the seven sleepers.
What’s next?
There were a few more topics I would eventually like to cover in future articles, such as:
- A positive argument from Qurʾānic intertextuality (probably up next, as a part 2 to this article). This is going to cover a lot of ground (history, literature, analytic philosophy) so I expect this to take a while.
- Qurʾānic Cosmology (in light of intertextuality etc)
- Dhū-l-Qarnayn (probably long overdue, but I don’t think Yaqeen is the right place to cover this so it might be delayed). Anyhow, I tentatively think it belongs in the same category as the Alexander Romance parallel discussed in our article (an instance of ‘historicization’).
Thoughts / relevant feedback welcome.
Pondering Islam 
Hi Taha, it’s been a while, I’m really excited to read your paper as well for the future of blog!
Hope you’re doing well!
LikeLike
Dhul-Qarnayn (`alayhis-salam)! Pretty please?
I love your research. May Allah bless you in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Syriac Legend has been bothering me for quite some time.
I read in your paper that they might have similar traditions, but there is one point that I can’t escape.
This about the sun prostrating to Allah is a direct quote from a Hadith of the prophet. There has to be direct borrowing in some effect. Can you share your thoughts?
LikeLike
The sun’s prostration to God at night isn’t something that originates from the legend, so it’s not necessarily the case that the hadith is alluding to the Syriac Legend here. This same idea is also found in the talmud:
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.91b.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
As I discuss in my article for Yaqeen, many extrabiblical texts contain ancient traditions that were circulating during the time of prophecy before Jesus (see “category 1” in my article). This is especially true for the Talmud, so the Prophet saying something found in the talmud isn’t that different from him saying something found in the bible (i.e. not really problematic from a theological point of view).
Now as for interpretation. I’m inclined to think the story is metaphorical or is at least not to be taken at a surface level. It talks of the sun in highly anthropomorphic terms, such as speaking or bowing. This reminds me of trees prostrating in the Qur’an, clearly this isn’t intended to be an observable phenomenon. I think this is a decent discussion:
Even if the description was intended to be literal (which IMO it’s not), one is allowed to believe the Prophet wasn’t inspired when it came to scientific facts.
Hope that helps,
Taha
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salaam Taha, great to see you back!
I had a couple of questions for you:
(1) What is your personal favourite example of intertextuality?
(2) It’s interesting you mention Quranic cosmology in light of intertextuality. I’ve thought for some time now that Quranic cosmology could be another arena of intertextuality – after all, if it is being done with Quranic stories, then why not cosmology! One example that I’ve thought about in particular are the references to the jinn accessing information from the heavens – a poetic reference to the end of the age of astrology with the coming of the Qur’an (which, for me, is an interesting subject in itself). I wondered if intertextuality is also playing a part here?
In any case, reading your comment about intertextuality sparked my curiosity, and I’m wondering if there might be an example you could share to give us a taste of what is to come! (Or if there are any interesting papers you could recommend on the subject?).
As always, much appreciated and keep up the good work!
LikeLike
(1) Honestly, hard to say since there are so many and varied. I included my favorite micro-level ones (to do with turns of phrase / linguistic puns) in the above article at the end. For macro level stuff, I like the interaction with the Jesus stories, the Syriac Legends, and the story of Joseph.
(2) Interesting concept, I’m not sure. Tbh, cosmology is on my ‘to-do’ list of research so I have a lot to learn.
The intention of the next article iA would be to build on the one we just wrote, basically making a positive case for the Prophet’s inspiration on the basis of the qur’an’s intertextual knowledge. The argument is basically the same as what the Qur’an says, ie. he is an unlikely recipient and the Qur’an’s knowledge of christian/jewish lore isn’t explained well by the prophet authoring it himself.
Not sure when I’ll have time to write it but the intention is there…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Taha!
This Question might not be related to the article (tho it’s a great one) but I wanted to ask you about David Marshall’s (God Muhammad and the Unbelievers) what do you think of it (if you’ve read it of courses)?
This site has a nice summary of it (though used for polemics) :
https://steelmanapologetics.com/false-prophecy-in-the-quran-a-cataclysmic-judgement-that-never-arrived/
Thanks
LikeLike
Salam,
Thanks for your great work. How can you be contacted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salam Taha
LikeLike
Assalamualaikum pls do one on Dhul-Qarnayn and the alleged plagiarism from Alexander legends.
LikeLike
Hi Taha. What do you think about the theories of Stephen J. Shoemaker and David Marshall?
Stephen J. Shoemaker, he Death of a Prophet The End of Muhammads Life and the Beginnings of Islam.
David Marshall, God Muhammad and the Unbelievers.
LikeLike
Hello Taha,
I am a Catholic Christian looking into converting to Islam. Qur’an 7:157 is really the stumbling block for me, but your paper dealing with this verse as well as Isaiah 42 really helped solve a lot of things. I’ve been dialoguing with many Muslims for a good while now trying to come to a satisfactory view on where the Ummi Prophet is mentioned “in […] the Gospel” and so far have not come up with anything that convinces me. Looking at your future articles I notice that none of them will be dealing with this topic so I was hoping that you could possibly share with me your preliminary thoughts as to what Qur’an 7:157 exactly is alluding to when it says to find the Ummi Prophet in the Gospel. Thanks! God bless.
LikeLike
Hello,
I am sorry to let you down but I haven’t gotten around to working on that yet. Perhaps there is an echo of Isaian tradition in the NT, or the reference is based on some interpretation of the NT. It’s an interesting question but one I haven’t visited yet.
LikeLike
@ Texan
Hi, to begin I pray God guides you and everyone else to the path most pleasing to Him. I know you were talking to Taha but if you don’t mind I would like to try answering with my limited knowledge. Before beginning though I think an important distinction needs to be made in Quranic vocabulary. When God in the Qur’an is talking about the Torah and Gospel, He is quoting from what He Himself revealed as a Scripture The Torah and Gospel are the revelations that were actually dictated by God Himself, not stories about the time He revealed them. THE Gospel (i.e Injeel) is NOT the gospelS in the Bible. For example, in the Bible, you have verses like:
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,” (Mark 1:14)
Then he went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every illness among the people. (Matt 4:23)
And he said unto them, I must announce the gospel of the kingdom of God to other cities also because for this am I sent. (Luke 4:43)
Obviously, Jesus(as) is not preaching Mark, Matt,Luke amd John to the people. Some further commentary on the verses I quoted:
“As far as regards St. Matthew this is the first occurrence of the phrase. It tells of a VAST AMOUNT OF UNRECORDED TEACHING, varying in form, yet essentially the same—a call to repentance—the good news of a kingdom of heaven not far off—the witness, by act for the most part rather than words…” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)
“τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel) The chief teaching of Christ was the Gospel: the other things which He taught concerned only the removing impediments [to its saving reception].” (Bengel’s Gnomen)
“the gospel of the kingdom of God] or according to some MSS. the Gospel of God.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)
During his ministry, Jesus wasn’t going around reading Mark, Matt, Luke and John to the people. This is part of writing something and claiming that it’s from God. God never revealed these books and one can’t say these bios are the Scripture. Although books in the Bible may contain some of what these Scriptures contained, they are not what is being referred to in the Quranic verses. The Gospel has to be a direct revelation from God that Jesus teaches to the people and obviously SUPER early and used by ALL Christian sects in the 1st century.
So with that caveat out of the way, can we find out what the Gospel is or any of its content is? Yes, I believe the Quran does give us a clue as to what was in the Gospel. In 48:29 God quotes the Gospel:
“…their parable given in the Gospel is like a seed that sprouts from the ground, (which) He then strengthens it so it becomes tougher and it then stands firmly on its stalk delighting the one who planted it. It’s this progress the disbelievers hate, because it’s among them God has promised those who believe and do good forgiveness along with a great reward…”
This is the parable of the mustard seed and potentially this answers the question. God knows best but it appears some of the Gospels content survived in the Bible and they were Jesus’s parables. THis fits all of the criteria:
1. Early and agreed upon by all scholarship Jesus taught through parable
2. Contains no idolatry or divinity of Jesus
3. Many have Islamic parallels (for example the parable of the lost coin and Islam’s parable of the lost camel)
4. Would explain all the vast differences of interpretation in the early Church as each sect would debate about the parable’s true meanings
Alright so with that LOOOOONG intro out the way, I would say the parables will give us our answer. It’s going to be a chain of 4 prophecies Deut 18:18<Daniel 2<John 1:19<Matt 21:33-46
1. Deu 18:18-no need to spend a long time on this as you said you've done some research already, "prophet like Moses, etc"
2. Hold off on Daniel 2 for now
3. John 1:19- John(as) is said to have been asked about the 3 prophets left, Jesus later clarifies John was Elijiah in spirit and he was 2nd. Now to Matt,
4. Jesus argues witht he Jewish authoritis and gives the "parable of the tenants" which is basically about the kingdom being taken from the Jews and given to a new foreign nation
5. Muslims fulfill this as can be demonstrated with their fullfiment of Daniel 2 and the Caliphate (the kingdom ) destroying the previous empires of Daniel's statue dream.
I know this was a lot and I summarized to try and shorten it. If you need more clarification on something or want to critique something let me know
LikeLike
Hello Stew,
Thanks for the write up.
You mention that the Gospel is essentially the uncorrupted message given by God to Jesus. I agree that’s one Qur’anic usage of the term, but I think it can have a double meaning. 7:157 infers that the Jews and Christians have them “written with them” — Al-Tabari commented, to my knowledge, that it would make no sense for this verse to mean the uncorrupted Gospel, for it would mean that God is a liar, as He tells the Christians to look for something that they can not find. I have multiple different interpretations among many different Muslims as to what exactly the Gospel in 7:157 is. Some say it’s an explicit mention in the 4 canonicals. Some say it’s an implicit mention like Isaiah 42. Some say it’s the general characteristics of a prophet like Dt. 18. I could list more but there doesn’t seem to be any firm consensus on what exactly it pertains to; but the idea that it’s the uncorrupted Gospel is a hard pill to swallow because it’s asking me to rely on essentially a phantom Gospel; I don’t think any Christian would deny that Jesus was not preaching the 4 canonicals, no, that is why we refer to them more properly as the “Gospel ACCORDING TO name”.
To briefly go over your citations of the Bible:
1. Yes, I don’t really find a problem in Dt. 18. No need to go over that. It’s really only the “and Injeel” part that confounds me.
2. No problem.
3. While the Jews seem to differentiate “the prophet” from “the Messiah”, yes, but this is on the fault of the Jews. Jesus many times over in the NT is frustrated that the Jews do not understand His teachings, and this plays a large part in why they plot to kill Him. The NT authors do identify Jesus as the Prophet in Acts 3, though. So I see this more of a misunderstanding on the part of the Jews.
4. I have actually dialogued about this passage for quite many days with a Muslim. Ultimately I could not accept his interpretation because the parable has Jesus recounting how the prophets were literally slain by the Jews; if this is speaking of literal things then when Jesus teaches that the son will be killed by the tenants then I think I must also take that literally if we’re going to be consistent in our application of logic.
5. I’d have to look more into that.
God bless!
LikeLike
@ Texan
No problem. So I’d like to do some clarifications as I know I was trying to not be to wordy;
1. If you read 7:157 the verse is talking to Moses(as) when he meets with the 70 after worshipping the Golden Calf so the “with them” is referring to those time periods not during Muhammad’s time (but it won’t make a difference in a second)
2. The Gospel
Remember the verses I quoted inside the canonicals say “Jesus went and preached the Gospel” so what are the agreed upon Jesus teachings? The Parables. God knows best but I believe these are the Gospel. If we look through the parables we can find Muhammad and the Muslims
3. The Biblical quotes
Since we have no issue with Deut and Daniel no need to go over them. Regarding Jesus and the Jew’s interpretation he(as) does NOT correct their understanding about the separation between the Messiah and “the Prophet” but he does take the time to correct the issue with Elijah (as). I personally would say this is implicit evidence for approval
Regarding the parable of the tenants (assuming theological beliefs didn’t mold the parable as its pretty clear in the Bible that the Messiah doesn’t get defeated by his enemies) it can be an implicit threat on Jesus’ part. For example in the Quran God says to the Jews who were plotting to kill Muhammad:
2:87. I had given Moses the Scripture and continued it through several Messengers. I gave Jesus the son of Mary undeniable signs and aided him with the Holy Spirit. So why then, every time a Messenger came to you with what you didn’t want, you all sought your own greatness? Some of you called them liars, and some of you kill… (2:87)
The “some of you kill” is a reference to the assassination discussion. In the same way, Jesus is basically saying:
“Yeah you can kill me but you’re gone next”
Regarding Daniel please do. I’ll give you my interpretation:
A. Gold: Babylon (626 – 539 BCE)
B.Silver: Medo/Persian (539- 334 BCE)
C.Bronze: Grecian (334- 146 BCE)
D.Iron: Roman (146 BCE – 330CE)
E.Iron/clay : Byzantine/Roman (330 CE)
F. Stone from Heaven destroying the statue: Islamic Caliphate (632 CE)
Here’s a Christian and Jehovah Witness website making pictures of the landmass now compare to the Caliphate in the 3rd link:
http://www.csss.org.au/bible-insert-nebuchadnezzars-image-daniel-2.html?mobile_skin=0
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/appendix-b/daniel-2-image/
https://www.worldhistory.org/img/r/p/1500×1500/14212.png.webp?v=1692478746
I also checked Tabari’s commentary and didn’t see this quote. He says from Qatadah that:
“Allah said: “{The ones who find it with them}” He says: They find His description, His command, and His prophethood written with them.”
This actually helps further strengthens my theory we are the “kingdom” actually does come from Tabari who says ibn Abbas(ra) said this verse is referring to the community of Muslims in general (he also uses a hadith in which Moses(as) wished to have been part of us) This also coincided with the Quran verse I quoted earlier describing the Muslims in general in the Gospel (which again I theorize is Jesus’s(as) parables)
LikeLike
Asalamualaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatahu,
There are several passages in the new testament passages that I believe speak about the prophet(ﷺ), such as Mark 4:30-33, Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 21:42-43, Matthew 23:39, John 16:5-15
I can’t go through all of them but I think John 16 is arguably one of the most convicing prophecies of the prophet(ﷺ) in the bible for several reasons.
1) John 16:13 says that the paraclete will not speak on his own authority, many scholars have noted that this has similarites with Deuteronomy 18:15-18, where it says the prophet will speak whatever God has commanded him. This connection is further supported by Deuteronomy 18:22 which explains that the way to test out true prophets is to see if what they prophsey about the future comes to happen, which mirrors the languge in John 16:13 which says the parclete “will declare to you the things that are to come”, which also matches the prophet (ﷺ) who not only gave details sayings explaining eschatological signs but also prophecized future events which were fufilled in his lifetime and long after his lifetime.
2)The term “Spirit” in greek is gramatically neuter in greek, but the gospel author instead of using neuter pronouns uses masculine pronouns, despite the nearest antecedent noun being neuter. Scholars say this tension between masculine pronouns for a neuter noun was done intentionally to show personality of the Holy Spirit. However, we see that in the rest of the new testament, and even by the writer of 1/2 John neuter verbs and pronouns are consistently applied for spirits, or the Holy Spirit, and so the deliebrate use of the masculine pronouns for this spirit seems to indicate this is a distinct spirit from how the Holy Spirit or traditional spirits. This is also consistent with the old testament where the Spirit of God is equated with the finger/arm/power of God, not a seperate person from God. There are also other indications supporting this such as the advocate hearing what he has to speak, and being informed on what he has to speak does not support the traditional identification of the Holy Spirit, as no where in New Testament or Old Testament is the Holy Spirit given instructions or informed on what he has to speak.
3) Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20 both state that Jesus has stated that he can only cast out demons by the Spirit of God, in Matthew 10:1 Jesus gives authority to the disciples to cast out demons, this means that they must have had the spirit of God to cast out demons. If this is the case then if the traditional identification of the paraclete with the Holy Spirit is incorrect , as in John 16:5 when it is stating that Jesus must depart in order for the spirit to come contradicts the Matt. 12:28 and Luke 11:20 stating the spirit is given to them cast out demons. Furthemore in John 16:5, Jesus states he must leave in order for the spirit to come but until he leaves the spirit cannot come, while In John 20, Jesus says he has not yet ascended to the father (John 20:17), and then proceeds to breathe the spirit onto them. This clearly shows the spirit in John 16:5 cannot be understood as the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit is given to them before he leaves while John 16:5 is clear he cannot be given until he ascends to the father.
4)The greek term “Paracletos” can be broken down into two words “Para(In Excess or To be Called)” and “Kletos (glorified or advocate)”, while it is true that the word in greek has been traditionally understood to mean “Advocate”, many scholars have noted a discrepancy between the term “advocate” whose job is to defend, not convict, and the paraclete who convicts/exposes the world, of guilt, prophecies etc. I cannot go into all the details here but provingislam does a good job explaining this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z3pNvoybbg&ab_channel=ProvingIslam.
The bottom line is that if “Paracletos” corresponds to the meaning of Ahmad, then given that the prophet(SAW) had no control over what his name would be then it is an amazing coincidence that he would be named by his parents before his birth something which would point to his role in fufilling the paraclete especially since his parents didn’t know much about christianity let alone koine greek, and none o them would have been able to induce that the term paracletos means “the praised one”
I acan send you much more material on this inshallah if you want to discuss this more.
LikeLike
@ Taha
Salamualakum wa rahma tu lahi wa barakatu,
I’ve been reading through your article and another point I would like to add to your extra-biblical literature a quote from Dr.Joel Hoffman’s “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor” I think that would be relevant:
“The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]
In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. Yet even with seventy-eight books, more material was left out than was included. Additionally, different groups of people order the books of the Bible differently. The modern Jewish order is different from the traditional Jewish order. Christians put the Old Testament books into a third order yet. (For instance, Christians put Daniel near the other famous prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, to underscore his centrality. Jews marginalize Daniel by grouping him with the other “writings.”) The Apocrypha, too, appear variously as part of the Old Testament, as an addition to the Old Testament, or—as we just saw—not at all. Underlying all of these differences is the simple fact that there used to be lots of holy writings, and different groups of people compiled different collections of them to form a single book.”
So modern Christian and Jew apologists acting “high brow” about what is or isn’t ‘canon’ I think is a tad bit disingenuous to the fluidity of their traditions
LikeLike
Yeah the anxiety around it is a very protestant thing I think.
LikeLike
Was it the Protestant Reformation that flipped their thinking as I tried briefly researching before where they decided to leave off everything and couldn’t find a time period? Even more “classical” ones like Orthodox seem to have moved away a bit from the “extra-biblical” literature and I thought it was kinda weird
LikeLike
Salam Taha,
Can I ask when you are planning on doing your work on Quranic cosmology (and what specifically will you be going into)? I ask as I am struggling to get my head around it, especially certain concepts such as the origin un-seperation of the heavens and the earth, the heavenly water concept, etc.
LikeLike