During the time of the prophet, those Jews that rejected him would object to his prophethood on several bases, all of which the Quran and ahadith quote, address and expose for their irrationality.
For instance they would claim that for a new revelation from God to supersede the Torah and depose them from being the torch-bearers of monotheism, it would be contingent upon God communicating His will collectively with them as was the case at Sinai. Yet that very day, they requested themselves not to hear God's voice directly anymore, and not to see such awesome manifestation fearing they would die. They further said that it was a miracle that such a thing happened, and no mortal could hear such a thing and survive, with the exception of certain people, like Moses. They then asked Moses to be their intermediary with God
"Go near and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey".
In Deut4:32-33 the author writes a prediction that over the course of history no such phenomenon will occur again. But as Moses states much later, despite all the miracles they witnessed, they still did not possess any certainty of faith. Those Israelites who were stubborn and persisted in disobedience, even after these miracles, only increased their own loss. Their viewing a miracle granted them no superiority and in fact the Quran says that when God chooses to manifest miracles it is to establish the tremendous responsibility of those that witness it, resulting in terrible punishment in case of disobedience as their own books amply recount
44:33"And We gave them of the signs that in which there was an obvious trial".
The Midrashic sources [Shab. 88a] say that when the Israelites stood at "the bottom" of Mt Sinai when God manifested Himself through the dreadful dark smoke Ex19:16-18, it means that the mountain was actually uprooted and raised above their heads. Although most translations say the Israelites were "at the bottom" or at the feet of the mountain, the literal meaning of "taht" is beneath something, both in Hebrew and Arabic. There are ample examples in the HB. The secondary meaning "at the bottom of" or the metaphorical "instead of" are all derived from the primary meaning "underneath". Being under something entails at the lowest point in relation to it, and something under another is hidden from view, ie metaphorically replacing it. Many times the commentators mention the primary meaning of the word when it appears in a context where the secondary or metaphorical meaning is used. See for example Rashi on Lev13:23.
The mountain was literally raised above their heads when they were made to swear by the covenant. This is not a midrashic or metaphorical construct, rather what the words of the Torah literally entail.
But it is a very inconvenient, disturbing interpretation. The Talmud (shab. 88a) relates how this reading shocked the rabbis and students when first proposed by Rabbi Avdimi (3rd century), and it still causes much Rabbinic discussions due to the implications; did the Israelites enter willingly into the covenant, as the Torah depicts or were they compelled? The Quran equally states that the mountain was hovering like a dark shadow above their heads 2:63,93,4:154. The earliest statement occurs towards the end of the Meccan period, prior to the migration to Medina and in anticipation to Jewish polemics
7:171"And [mention] when We raised the mountain/JABAL above them as if it was a dark cloud and they were certain that it would fall upon them, [and Allah said], "Take what We have given you with determination and remember what is in it that you might fear Allah".
In the Quranic paradigm of the Israelites' rebelliousness, refusal to bend to God's will, this literal interpretation of the Torah makes ample sense, regardless of what is stated in the Talmud. Allah was demonstrating the responsibility that now rested on their shoulders for having witnessed such awesome miracle. The degree of punishment they will face for breaking the terms of the covenant will be at the height of the miracle they witnessed. History and the HB itself are testimony to the severity of their punishments because of their transgressions.
The raising of the mountain in the context of the revelation of the Torah to the Israelites and their assignment to be the spiritual leaders of mankind was a forceful imposition. The whole experience of Sinai is the culmination of their stiff neckedness, refusal to follow the prophetic guidance, obsession with the ways of idolatry. The Torah contains remnants of that reality, as seen earlier with the words that describe their position in relation to the mountain when about to enter into the covenant. The Torah relates how their witnessing the various manifestations involving the mountain was so dreadful, that they thought they would die, and thus requested Moses to be their intermediary with God. The reality of the whole incident, as exposed in the Quran and as is apparent from various indications within the Torah, was a consequence of their poor spirituality. After numerous favours and miracles, they had to be terrorized, physically threatened so as to accept obedience to God. Far from being a mark of honor, or something by which Jews should boast about whenever contrasting their "national revelation" to individual prophecies, that whole part of their story following their Egyptian bondage and culminating with the covenant they reluctantly entered into actually is a stain to be ashamed of.
In 62:5 it says they were hummilu/burdened with that duty. The Torah in becoming whose recipients they feel pride today, was not accepted by them with zeal and enthusiasm in the earlier times when it had been given to them; the manner in which they displayed their arrogance and obduracy in accepting each and every directive of the Torah, from the very beginning and down throughout their history, and how sorrowfully Moses complained to God for this attitude of theirs is referred to in both their books and the Quran.
The Quran gives a powerful insight into the events and exposes the reality of the matter to its audience, although, the prophet was not there when these things unfolded
28:44"And you were not on the western side when We revealed to Musa the commandment, and you were not among the witnesses".
In the context of the Sinai events, the Quran quotes what was truly being said in their deepest selves all the while they were made to swear by the terms of the covenant
2:93"they said/qaloo: we heard and we resisted"
whereas the HB reports the insincere uttering of their mouth
Ex24:3"All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do".
Somewhere else in the HB, their deception is reported with a very similar wording as in the Quran
Deut5"You go near and hear all that the Lord our God may say, and tell us all that the Lord our God says to you, and we will hear and do it/shaminu wa asaynu.’
The last portion reads in the Hebrew "shaminu wa asaynu" while in the Quran it says "samina wa asayna". The Quran uses the same expression with a same sounding Arabic verb, but with an opposite meaning of what they verbally uttered in Hebrew, exposing the Arabic speaking Jewish audience. They knew exactly what the Quran meant and how right it was. This is just one of the Quran's surgical use of words.
The Arabic QALA is derived from the root Qaf-W-L and it means saying in any way possible. When they uttered their verbal obedience, as related in the Hebrew of the Torah (shaminu wa asaynu), what was hidden and what the Quran revealed, was a staunch resistance (samina wa asayna) on account of their sinful hearts that were still imbibed with the love of the calf. In other words they were making their oath all the while thinking of idol worship
2:93"they said: we heard and we resisted/samina wa asayna. And they were made to imbibe the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief".
This resistance towards their prophets, the revelations, their laws and the divine covenant is one that initiated very early on as corroborated in their own scriptures and continued all throughout their history
11:110"And certainly We gave the book to Musa, but it was gone against; and had not a word gone forth from your Lord, the matter would surely have been decided between them; and surely they are in a disquieting doubt about it".
Some have attempted pointing to the Talmudic reference given earlier as a possible source for the Quranic depiction of the uprooted mountain. As has been shown, one doesnt need going to extra-biblical traditions to find that interpretation, and neither is its insertion in the Quran an oddity. It rather fits the overall paradigm of rebelliousness and forceful submission.
On a general note, one is confronted here, as is the case whenever similarities are found with written and oral traditions preceding the Quran, to the question as to how, where and when did the alleged human author stealthily access, study and extract the relevant information from an unrealistically broad and wide array of sources, which in ancient times were most often kept within a restricted circle, then weave his independent account of those common stories, while sifting in the process the inconsistencies, whether in their external or internal details, as well as the theological insertions from centuries of retelling, losing, rewriting them.
These facts as regards the events of Sinai were known to the prophet's addressees, refuting their request for the experience to be repeated.
Prophets have been around, before and after the Sinai national revelation, meaning the truthfulness of a prophet is independent of such criteria. That kind of miracle, as occurred at Sinai when the law was promulgated and the covenant established, even if true, remains frozen in time. It loses its value later to those that did not directly experience it. Those that come to know of it today only do so because a text tells them that their ancestors witnessed the events. Not because their parents tell them what their grand-parents said what their forefathers said they saw and so on, until the furthest ancestor that was present. It may even be outright rejected as a pious fabrication and legend, as is mostly the case today with Jesus' recorded miracles and life stories, allegedly witnessed by many.
Any miracle that comes after the events of Sinai, supersedes it in credibility to its witnesses. Only a miracle that transcends time and retains its supernatural qualities today as it did when first introduced cannot be superseded in credibility and can be termed superior to others. Only the Quran possesses that quality.
As to the national revelation of Sinai, it becomes, to those that did not directly witness it even among the community, nothing more than a story, passed down like any folk tale, without proof for the claim other than an oral tradition, a tradition far from being reliable and unbroken. One may add a written account, the Torah, supposedly written by one of those that were present, unattested by multiple witnesses. Even the vast number of eye witnesses that experienced the exodus and were present at Sinai becomes, down the line, nothing but a tall claim without evidence, and actually against archaelogical and reasonable evidence. How credible is this tradition, when within 2 generations after Moses and receiving the Torah
"there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that he had done for Israel".
This was due to several factors including passionate attachment to idolatry and their ancient polytheistic ways, intermarriages, envy and influence from their pagan neighbors as well as strategic alliances with them. Down the centuries their own books describe a point where there were reportedly only about 7000 remaining within the faith. Some reverted in their lifetime, others died apostates or neglected their religion, influenced by their alliances, marriages, successive years in exile, or in order not to compromise their worldly benefits acquired under foreign rule. Yet they had supposedly faithfully kept the memory of that vivid encounter with the divine?
The fact is, that tremendous manifestation at the mountain of the covenant, is actually a stain that will follow them to the end of days. Contrary to other peoples and nations that believed in their messengers based on the reasonable evidence presented, they were so imbibed in idolatry and rebellion that God did not reason with them but rather compelled them, through dreadful and life-threatening manifestations, to enter into the covenant. This forceful awakening however came at a price, serving as an example for all people of how not to come to believe; disobedience would be answered with punishment like no other people were punished in history. As their history attests, neither these threats nor the warnings of the subsequent prophets prevented them from turning away. And when the prophecies of destruction did come to fruition, they returned soon after to their sinful ways and neglect.
Such neglect even happened under Israelite kings, namely Josiah, to the point the ruler and the people had to be reintroduced to the Torah after it was accidentally found while undergoing renovations of the Temple. In the time of Ezra and following the return home from exile, the Torah had to be re-introduced to the vast majority of the nation. There were thus many occasions and intervals of time were no tradition was being transmitted, at least to some, if not the vast majority of people. They had to be re-educated and told in a vacuum what had happened to their own forefathers, either by a tiny righteous remnant or by reading the text on their own. This entirely undermines the notion of unbroken transmitted eyewitness tradition, and hence of superior credibility of "their" miracle.
This is not even getting into the discussion of the proportion of descendants of converts to Judaism, and who were consequently also either introduced to the story by consulting the written document on their own, or were "told", by descendants of converts that couldnt have been eyewitnesses, how the nation they are now part of, began. Another interesting and rather revealing fact is that certain books within the HB, such as Samuel, completely lack reference to the events of Sinai when the history of the community is summarized. Had the reason been that the audience was already aware of the tradition and was therefore not in need of being reminded then one would expect a regressive number of references as one proceeds through the 3 chronologically written books (Samuel, Kings & Chronicles) however the opposite is true. Samuel has 0 references, Kings about 15 references, Chronicles about 45 references. This simply means, the tradition was vastly neglected and forgotten, then progressively and forcefully re-introduced. Another peculiarity within the book of Samuel is the apparent ignorance of the masses as to the promise of having kings rule over them at Sinai, and instead invoke other reasons to justify to their prophet the request for a king.
Also, if the Creator's aim was to express His universal will for all mankind through a chosen nation, by establishing the experience of Sinai as the blueprint of truth and falsehood from the point of view of its superiority and undeniability compared to any other claim of divine revelation, then foreign nations (or at least a few of them) that were NOT to be included within the covenant of Sinai had to be present as independent witnesses. Otherwise, the claim remains subjective, one-sided, tainted with communitarian pride and even prejudiced. That is not even getting into the issue of textual criticism and the reliability of the HB itself, the primary written source attesting to the event, and which is supposed to testify to those absent foreign nations.
In a similar situation, looking no further than within the Bible, in the New Testament the unknown Greek authors describe several supernatural events surrounding Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ascension that must have been attested by independent witnesses. However contemporary writings by non-Christians fail to corroborate any of those claims. How convenient is it then that only the people concerned by the covenant happen to be the ones that witnessed the events of Sinai? To those that weren't there, the subsequent generations and today, the claim carries no more weight than personal claims of revelation by all the prophets in history.
The idea that it would be impossible to fabricate the myth of national revelation, because no nation is known to have refused to believe a similar proposition which was introduced to them as real history, is simply speculation, loaded with logical errors. Firstly, the lack of counterexample doesnt constitute proof, not in science and much less in history. It could simply be the Torah myth is somewhat different than others, and every myth is different, especially back in such ancient time where just about every culture told legends about its past, often ones involving supernatural events, in order to enhance their worth as a community. It is a mistake to transpose our modern minds and sense of deduction to such an entirely foreign mentality. Further, the Aztecs for example believed to have been led out from their homeland by their deity, experiencing miracles along the way which they recounted to their descendants. Christianity, as stated earlier, claims that those people who experienced the resurrected Jesus became Christians, and told the stories that eventually (within 40-80 years) became recorded in the NT.
The Quran alludes to this self-deceptive behavior of the People of the Book during the rise of Islam in many places, how they would raise irrelevant objections in light of their own scriptures in order to deny Muhammad's prophethood and Islam. None of these objections were related to the absence of prophecies speaking of him in their scriptures and in fact the Quran reinforces the notion that these predictions are so clear that
6:20,2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons".
The Quran would mention the reaction of such early converts among the Jews and Christians, when they
5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)".
The Quran speaks in sura Baqara of the predictions of the HB regarding Muhammad in the context of the covenant established with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, emphasizing that the context of the prophecy is the promulgation of a new law and the birth of a nation under God.
