In answer to the video "Paul Was a Contemporary of Jesus; Muhammad Wasn't (PvM 4)"
The Quran demarcates itself in the most subtle and meaningful of ways, from the embellishments added on top of the nativity and infancy stories.
The RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to her, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91.
Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35.
At an advanced point of her pregnancy, she withdrew to a remote place, away from the Temple in which she was secluded. She was searching for a private place to deliver when the moment would come. The verse 19:22, through the double use of the particle "fa" indicates a time interval between the moment she got pregnant and her decision to leave her dwelling place.
She would this way be hidden from the people's eyes and ears. Her pain was intense and she did not want to be heard suffering and then have to explain herself 19:23. Away and secluded, she would have time to compose herself mentally and physically prior to the return with her newborn. She was seeking to safeguard herself from the clamor had she been seen or heard during or right after the process of delivery, in a debasing state. Her accusers would have gladly picked up on the occasion, seeing a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service, conceiving outside wedlock, in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22.
As she set herself on her way out of her community, she did not know what to expect and how things would turn out, but being the God-conscious woman that she was, she trusted in God. During her walk, the suffering of childbirth began, prompting her to stop and sit under the shade of a palm tree. As a side note, Christians were too quick to adopt pagan symbolisms (christmas tree) around Jesus' nativity from the pagan cultures surrounding them. Had they waited for the Quran's revelation, they would have found the closest one can come to the significance of a tree in the story of Jesus' birth, and they would've been decorating palm trees around Christmas instead of evergreen conifers.
Mary's case at that point was desperate. She had to deliver in the middle of nowhere without any food and most importantly no water. Water is crucial for a woman about to deliver, providing hydration during and after labor when she would have lost plenty of body fluids, as well as afterwards to help her cleanse herself and the newborn. Lacking these elements, in addition to her intense suffering and emotional toll, she wished she had died.
But unexpectedly, God, as He did during her seclusion in the Temple, took it on Himself to sustain and protect her. A voice called from beneath her position, indicating to her the presence of a water source directly under her and the tree, plentiful and flowing meaning it will not stagnate or spoil as she makes use of it throughout her ordeal. The voice comforted and consoled her with words telling her how the sustenance of food and water is abundantly put within easy reach and would re-energize and reinvigorate her entirely 19:23-6. God was watchful over her, taking care not only of her physical suffering but also soothing her fearful heart due to her emotional isolation from her community. All she had to do was shake the trunk of the tree, no matter her feebleness, the simple action of attempting to shake it, would miraculously create a motion in the tree that would force loose the ripe fruits.
It is interesting to note, how the Quran in its well established pattern of employing meaningful words and placing them surgically in a sentence, relates how before anything else, the first comfort Mary was given was the abundance of water, being of primary importance to a woman in labor, and then speaks of the availability of highly nutritious food.
The Quran at that point omits the fictions, absurdities and anachronisms of the NT and apocryphal writings, as well as Christian traditions -such as Herod's mass killing episode that prompted Mary to flee to Egypt in order to give birth safely, or the census of Quirinus-.
This is very similar to modern criticism’s approach to the account of Moses' trip along a river to encounter a knowledgeable individual. The account in the Quran superficially resembles a story found in the beta recension of the Alexander Romances. Although usually dated to the 5th century CE, the primary manuscript witness to that text post-dates the Quran by eight centuries. But assuming the Quran's author was aware and influenced by that story while writing 18:60-65, instead of the reverse being the case with the beta recension's author inspiring himself from the Quran, why would he strip the story from all the fantastic elements that make it worthwhile, very prominent elements, including details that would not harm its own distinctive theological message? For example in the beta recension, Alexander the Great is the protagonist. In Late Antiquity he was depicted as a proto Christian and monotheist. Why would the Quran replace him with the prophet Moses? Similarly, why would the Quran omit mentioning myths impossible to falsify and that would greatly embellish the story, such as the life giving spring replaced with a normal geographical location, the dried fish miraculously coming to life after being submerged in the water of immortality replaced with a captured fish escaping as a sign for Moses that he reached his destination, without any miracle involved. The burden of proof lies on the critic to show why would the Quran avoid the recension's most prominent features, such as historical and scientific inaccuracies that do not compromise its own ideas and theological notions, had it been borrowing from it. From a Muslim viewpoint, the answer is simple; a fictional tradition developed independently of a true event. Its popularity gave the Quran an occasion to seize on familiar themes slightly connecting the 2 stories, so as to transmit more easily its theological message all the while revealing a forgotten episode in the life of a prophet of God.
It is interesting to note how Muhammad the illiterate was able to cherry pick the right information everytime, among the plethora of written books and oral traditions supposedly widely available, managing to glue everything together in the most well-knit, intricate and meaningful manner. It is even more remarkable considering the manner in which the Quran was uttered, openly and publicly, instantly written down by the scribes and leaving him no chance at going back to his word and re-editing it so as to harmonize it or correct an error, which would have been brought to his attention later on.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdened with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were canonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularly the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
Back to the Quran's nativity account.
After the blessed Mary delivered, God inspired her, taking in charge the responsibility of answering the critics among her people with compelling evidence
19:26"Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today".
As a woman known for her chastity because of having lived secluded in dedication to Allah's worship all her life, Mary was received with suspicion when she came back to her people with the newborn. A priest's daughter had to exemplify modesty and piety and tradition asserts that should she commit a sin such as fornication she would suffer a punishment worse than that of regular women. So to remove all doubts -justifiable to some extent- of seeing an unmarried woman supposed to represent the epitome of piety and chastity conceiving and bringing forth a child, Jesus, while in the cradle began speaking clearly, identifying himself and his future role 19:22-33.
Mary could not bring evidence of her virginity anymore so the only way she could dispel all doubts was to prove this child is a miracle from God so he cannot be the product of sin. The blessed Mary, who was previously divinely ordered to remain silent in the face of criticism, kept her mouth closed and simply "pointed to him". She let him speak to prove his miraculous conception. Jesus did so by clarifying his identity, purity, and the fact he has been made kind, respectful and "dutiful" to his mother. Interestingly, in another case of the Quran's cherry picking the correct information, this statement negates the NT's depiction of his irreverent interactions with his mother Jn2:4. Another subtlety is his being dutiful to his mother only, contrary to another miraculous birth, that of John/Yahya who was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14. This is because Jesus had no father contrary to John. It is also worthwhile noting the honorable manner in which Jesus implicitly defended his mother; it was not necessary to repeat the slanderous accusations and argue against them. In the manner of an orator confident of his being on the side of truth, Jesus preserved his eminence and that of his mother by not steeping to the level of the slanderers' injurious talk, the statement of his identity would suffice to dispel all doubts to any intellectually honest individual.
As a side note, some critics among Christians and Jews have denigrated this infant speech miracle, forgetting what their own scriptures say about God giving even to animals, such as a donkey, the ability to utter a clear speech Numb22:21-30 as well as forgetting that some prophets were appointed by God and sent to preach at very early ages, such as Jeremiah Jer1:6.
Despite witnessing that miracle, some among Mary's folk remained obdurate in their position as regards her chastity, contending with others who were convinced of her innocence 19:34.
Mary and Jesus were then given
23:50"shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs".
When Jesus later began denouncing the Israelites, exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy, moral degradation and its consequences, those same disbelieving Jews who had absolutely no ground for suspicion about his miraculous birth without father because God had caused the whole community to stand as witness to the miracle, started accusing Mary of the most grievous calumny in order to put a stain on Jesus. In their mind, this stain would discredit his claim of prophethood, because of being the product of fornication.
They were once again mistreating, rejecting, and blaspheming against a prophet sent to them with that which they did not like despite witnessing clear signs. At this point, Allah labelled their accusations "disbelief" and "monstruous calumny" 4:156 because they knew it for certain that Mary and her son were absolutely free from this taint. It wasnt real honest suspicion, which they might be harboring in their hearts as they did in the beginning when they saw Mary with a child for the first time, but it was a pure, invented calumny with a clear evil aim; opposing the Truth and hindering the people from the Way of God. Again, one cannot but notice the remarkable manner in which the Quran connects the most subtle points of a narrative together, even while these 2 parts of the story are mentioned in different suras, years appart, and in different contexts. These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".
During his prophetic mission, these Israelites to whom he was preaching the return to the straight path kept rejecting him, despite the miracles he performed. Some of these miracles the Quran mentions 3:46,49,5:110-114,19:28-34, while the NT omits
Jn20:30"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book"
Jn21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".
The Quran makes it clear, these miracles of Jesus, bringing the dead to life among other things, would not have been possible without God's license. They were performed with the "ithn" of Allah 3:49 which means with His knowledge and approval. Jesus was given whatever abilities he had by God, as a favor 5:110. In fact the Quran connects all the miracles that marked Jesus life, with Allah's permission, as signs meant to distinguish both Jesus and his mother 5:110. God this way defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among Mary's contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things 23:50,21:91. With every miracle Jesus performed by God's permission, it had the double effect of elevating Mary against the slanderers and strengthening Jesus' mission.
But again, these miracles, Jesus did not obtain them on his own and neither could express them except with his Maker's license
40:78"and it was not meet for a messenger that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission".This message was so embedded in Jesus' teachings that he proclaimed it since infancy and all throughout his prophetic career, surprisingly in a wording found almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context
19:36,3:51"Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore worship Him"
Jn20:17"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".
The whole point of the Quran in regards to Jesus is that he was not fully, nor partially God. The reason it lists his miracles is to make it clear they were performed with the permission of other than him. The signs are described as "for you" and "from your Lord". They testify to Jesus' identity, leaving no doubt as to his humanity and prophethood, like others before and after him. It is a message to those conjecturing on his identity due to these very miracles, and trying hard to find a subtext to them in relation to the HB.
Jesus' direct disciples understood well this distinction and never saw him as the originator of miracles; he was but a means of their manifestation. Just as the staff of Moses was, or like every naturally occuring phenomena through which Allah manifests His will. In 5:111-115 Jesus' close circle did not request Jesus to send down a table-spread. Rather they asked him to invoke his Sustainer, if He would consent to this miracle so that their hearts are reassured through it. They knew that this man whom they saw as sent by God, a prophet, was but a means through which God manifested His will.
This reflects in Jesus' own reported sayings in the NT Jn17:6-8,13:3,8:28,5:30,Matt28:17-19,Mk2:10 where he teaches his audience he is given everything and cannot do anything on his own Jn10:25. He further emphasizes this reality by invoking Allah's name during and after the performance of miracles Jn11:40-43. He was fully dependant of God's power when he exorcised demons Lk11:21,Matt12:28. Neither did he forgive sins, but stated a fact, in the passive form "your sins are forgiven".
What happened, by the way to the blood pre-requisite for atonement, allegedly established by Jesus himself since Genesis? Jesus in this statement doesnt take God's place but uses a circumlocution for God: “your sins are forgiven” means “they are forgiven by God” as he said "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” Mk2:5-10. He states himself that he is given that authority. He is authorized to declare forgiveness on God's behalf, the same way priests think they can do. In fact in a passage absent from the oldest manuscripts of Luke over a wide geographical distribution, Jesus while on the cross prays the Father to forgive his killers, instead of forgiving them himself
Lk23:34"Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing".
It is however difficult to blame the branches of Christianity that have misunderstood the NT's sometimes blurred lines between the Creator and His creation.
The transmitted oral traditions of Jesus were put to writing not by Jews like him with a Semitic concept of the Divine but by gentile converts who understood and transmitted these traditions through the lens of their previous Hellenistic thought system. That is why we find "difficult" passages obviously tainted with Roman Mithraism, the likes of Jesus telling regular people that they should strive to become
Matt5:48"perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect".
Nothing is more abhorred in Semitic monotheism, of which Jesus was part of, to suggest that the Creator could in any way be brought to the level of his creation.
The unsurmountable difficulty Trinitarians face is that Jesus, contrary to God as depicted throughout the Bible, never asks to be worshiped. This is because he was a prophet, and prophets never departed from the pattern of complete obedience and servitude to the supreme authority that sent them among the people
3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"
The long line of prophets supported one another in that principle, never departing from it by virtue of the covenant they had entered into with their Lord
3:81"God made a covenant with the Prophets: “If after what I have vouchsafed to you of the Scriptures and wisdom, there comes to you a messenger confirming the truth of what you have in your possession, you shall believe in him and you shall help him. Do you,” said He, “affirm this and accept the obligation I lay upon you in these terms?” They answered: “We do affirm it.” Said He: ‘Then bear witness, and I am also a witness with you".
Here the Quran overlooks the time intervals which separated the messengers, and groups them all in one majestic scene with God, addressing them all at the same time.
The specific miracle of the bird from clay, an example of miracle reported in the Quran but absent from the canonical Gospels, is found in another transmitted Christian text, the infancy Gospel of Thomas. Although it connects this miracle to his childhood along with the ability to speak in the cradle, the Quran only qualifies the ability to speak in the cradle as a childhood miracle (serving the purpose of clearing Mary of the slanders), and then proceeds to connect the bird from clay miracle to his ministry to the Israelites, coming to them and preaching and performing other miracles with Allah's permission like his healing powers and knowledge of the unseen 3:49-55,5:110. Obviously there would have been no reason to give Jesus such powers in his childhood, because he needed them in adulthood in support of his ministry to demonstrate certain points, including the process of resurrection of the dead from dust, a concept heavily disputed at the time. The Quran ascribes special traits to other prophets in their infancy, such as John/Yahya, given wisdom and divine knowledge as a child in answer to his father Zakariya, who requested an upright progeny as opposed to his wicked and sinful contemporaries 19:12.
Concerning the relevance of Jesus' miracles and their purpose, it was already seen that the ability to speak in infancy was highly pertinent in absolving Mary from any suspicion of sexual transgression which in turn would purify Jesus' own identity. This twofold purpose is the reason why the Quran, when listing the divine favors experienced by Jesus from miracles, including the speech in the cradle, says that it benefited both him and his mother 5:110.
Concerning the infancy Gospel's reliability, just because it was rejected as apocrypha, does not mean it was rejected for all of its contents and besides, a man's apocrypha was another's scripture until very late in the canonization process of the Bible. The book of revelation for example was regarded as apocrypha and then finally canonized. Current estimates for the composition of the book of revelations point to the late 80s while traditionally believed to be around the 60s. If oral tradition can be preserved for almost a century for it to be considered reliable enough according to Church standards, then what kind of logic denies the reliability of the transmission of oral tradition just a few years later when the infancy Gospel of Thomas was put to writing? That Gospel is believed to have been finalized anywhere between the late 80s (which would make it contemporaneous with Luke's gospel) and 185CE. It was never discredited for all of its contents, neither for the miracles in it such as the bird from clay miracle. It was rejected because among other things it depicts Jesus in an unflattering, capricious, malicious way, similarly to how Greek mythological “trickster” gods and pagan “child-gods” from antiquity were depicted. Scholars believe this Gospel integrated these pagan themes so as to serve as a missionary propaganda tool. It demonstrated the divine nature of Jesus in a manner familiar to the Hellenistic, Egyptian and other pagans proselytized by the early Christians.
Even a "late compilation" argument of that Gospel is a non-issue, considering that every book of the NT was composed decades after Jesus, containing traditions obviously preceding it and transmitted orally until written down. There exists no other account anywhere of Jesus' infancy and childhood. The canonical Gospels make a passing reference to a 12 year old Jesus. Besides that there is no point of reference in Christian tradition to determine the genuine from fictional parts in the Infancy Gospel.
In fact by the time of the writing of the Gospels, many lost accounts, written and oral, of Jesus' life were in circulation. The Gospel of Luke's author, unknown and thus making it impossible to ascertain his agenda and credibility, chose, according to his standards, one or more versions of Jesus' early life to include in his writings Lk1:1.
