Some wild theories did float around in the previous century arguing that Islam could have originated in a Christian milieu. For example the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling theorized in the 1960s that Mecca was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.
Going back in time, some 100 years after the prophet's death, there is John of Damascus. The short passage by this esteemed "church father" is by no means representative of the Quran's contents, form or extent as it was in his time. It surely is not, considering the heavy bias and intent of the author, representative of Islamic beliefs of the time. Especially coming from a school of thought known as justifying its use of lies and deceit, so as to save people into the loving arms of Christ. The author doesnt claim to have gone through the book from cover to cover. He did not even have a manuscript while penning his work and was obviously relying on hearsay. He paraphrases very few verses as he heard them, amplifying certain aspects so as to serve the purpose of his polemic. And because he has no Quran from which he is quoting, He jumbles clear Quranic chapters, calling them "books" since the scripture of his Christian audience is composed of books, and extra Quranic material, oral and written, as well as 2nd hand reports from non-Muslims about Muslims, like Herodotus's statement about Muslims worshiping Aphrodite.
This concise polemic is meant to resonnate to the average Christian of his time, ignorant of the teachings of their own bible on similar issues that undermine his very contentions against Muslims; Arianism, sexual depravity and parallelisms with the antichrist. Jesus' portrayal in the Quran is thus presented as partly in line with Arianism and gnosticism, Muhammad's prophethood is rejected, certain Islamic laws are amplified and misrepresented, sometimes completely distorted so as to render them offensive to flesh-hating Christians, including monastics like himself.
As a side note, it was common for polemicists to purposefuly misrepresent Islam and its prophet so as to deride Muslims and instill hatred for them in their Christian audiences. For example Muhammad is depicted as claiming he would be married to the emaculate mother of Jesus Christ in heaven. This latter polemic was invented in the 800s by Eulogius of Cordova, making its way even among some Muslim Quran comentaries. Ibn Kathir cites it while disputing its authenticity. Among other lies of this untalented Christian hate-mongerer, there is Muhammad's failure to rise on the 3rd day following his death, as he supposedly claimed, contrary to the "risen" Jesus. Robert Hoyland observes about this writer, after sketching a portrait of the prophet's early life, most likely plagiarized from John of Damascus
"follows a lampoon of the Qur'an, mocking the chapter titles involving animals and twisting the words of the verse on the divorce of Zayd and Zaynab (Qur'an xxxiii.37). The final section recounts Muhammad's failed attempt at resurrection, as told in John of Seville's note, adding that an annual slaughter of dogs was instituted to avenge him. This is pure invention, presumably meant to compare Muhammad unfavourably with Christ, and a similar fiction is found in the Bahira legend. "It was appropriate that a prophet of this kind fill the stomachs of dogs," concludes the author, "a prophet who committed not only his own soul, but those of many, to hell.""
Continuing with John' polemic; Islam is presented as a "heresy", but clearly not in the sense that it grew out of Christianity, rather in the sense of "false doctrine". John discusses in that polemic many other belief systems which he labels heresies, including pre-Christian religions.
The irony is that this caricature of Islam, read through a Christian lens and aimed at a Christian audience even more ignorant than him of what Islam is, would undermine similar later criticisms of Islam, more particularily modern, by his Christ-loving peers. He for instance although is unfamiliar with the Quranic text, speaks multiple times of descendents of Abraham and Ishmael, venerating a single Book whose messenger, a "seemingly" pious man named Muhammad, received from heaven. The book was thus already present in his time, compiled as a single unit. His Muslim contemporaries whom he repeatedly "embarasses", affirmed the oral and textual corruption of his Bible.
Regardless of the sharpness of their arguments or whether these Muslim interlocutors are real or fictitious, putting aside their supposed legends surrounding the Kaaba and the black stone, which are conveniently embarassing and self-serving for his polemic, these Muslims still affirmed the Abrahamic legacy with the Kaaba whose stone he says Muslims rub their face upon
"but they still assert that the stone is Abraham's".
In his "refutation" of that Muslim claim, he appeals to his Bible which he seems as unfamiliar with as he is with the Quran and Muslim tradition. Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from Beersheba where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice in Moriah. The wood was obviously not freshly cut from a forest as it would not burn, and neither is Beersheba an area that has wooded mountains. Abraham took wood from what he had already gathered, which he simply split, traveling with what he needed and leaving the rest behind. This makes John's argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention. He further deceptively states or is simply ignorant of the text he appeals to, that the wood was gathered on the spot of the sacrifice itself.
The blunder is so gross, coming from an esteemed church father, that one can only conclude that it is a purposeful deception so as to win an argument. What is clear is that some zealous Muslim contemporaries hit a nerve for John, accusing him of idolatrous worship of the cross, while John himself was having a hard time defending the veneration of icons against many fellow Christians.
Instead of justifying his position, as he does against the Muslim rejection of Jesus' divinity, he engages in an untenable polemical invention. The black stone supposedly is, up to his day a carving with the features of the head of Aphrodite. The Muslim historians do not shy away from naming, describing every main idol and statue introduced into the Kaaba and the surrounding sites. None has ever mentionned anything close to that claim. Not a single idol was left standing in the precincts of Mecca after its conquest, including the main idol Hubal. Why would an obscure female deity be left up to a 100 years later?
No comments:
Post a Comment