In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
When in the Torah, Ibrahim prayed that Ismail might live "before the Lord", he was asking God that his firstborn and only son at the time be dedicated to His service at the altar. Anyone familiar with that terminology knows that throughout the Hebrew Bible, it applies to dedication to God, besides its use for the offerings made to God. Accordingly, Ibrahim settled his only son in a place where he would live "before the Lord" and worship Him 2:127, right besides the altar of sacrifice. Ibrahim prayed God that this Holy Shrine remain a purified sanctuary for the righteous pilgrims 2:125, that this unforgiving location be turned to a hospitable place for those seeking it 2:126,14:37,28:57 that he and his descendants remain free from worshiping idols
14:36"surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he is surely of me, and whoever disobeys me, Thou surely art Forgiving, Merciful".
Ibrahim asked that his descendants keep up prayer and be protected until the Day of Resurrection 14:40.
Judeo-Christian apologists often wonder as to the distances involved in Abraham having to travel between Beersheba where he had settled his family through Sarah and Mecca, where the Muslim tradition states he had settled his family through Hagar. From the beginning as he set himself out of his native area, Ibrahim travelled distances surpassing the Beerseba-Mecca distance, which is an approximate 10 days journey.. It was nothing out of the ordinary for frequent travelers, nomads, or traders to undergo 20 or 30 days journeys even in harsh terrains, so why would it be the case for an obedient servant of God whom Judeo-Christian tradition itself admits he was so submissive in his obedience that he set out to sacrifice his son to God. Neither did he hesitate to leave everything behind his native Ur in Chaldea, for a far away and unspecified location, in obedience to God Gen11. His travels, they happened by foot, donkey's back, and he made many stops along the way, pitching his tent, building worship sites and altars, a practice that continued among his descendants. He used a donkey as he went to prepare the sacrifice of "the only son" Gen22. It is also to be noted that to the ancient, town-dwelling Hebrews the term "wilderness of Beersheba" comprised all the desert regions south of Palestine, including the Hijaz.
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
This is a is a highly revered and respected Christian tradition known, among other titles as the seven youths of Ephesis. The miraculous events are believed to have started under the reign of the Roman emperor Decius that persecuted the belief systems contrary to the Greek state religion. The earliest manuscripts relating the story are Greek but the tradition itself predates these Greek writings, and was widespread geographically very early on after the actual events. Its appearance in the golden legends with added embellishments and modifications, intermingling reality and fiction, occured hundreds of years after other texts made references to it, including the lost original in Greek.
The golden legend version of the story is irrelevant in establishing the historicity of the original. The golden legends stories are inspired by ancient traditions drawn from multiple sources, including the New Testament, some having undergone more or less modifications. None of those rewrites claim to be the true version of the common events of the cave. Only the Quran claims, in its introduction to the story, to have the authentic and original version, in addition divinely inspired.
To validate the claim of the Quran borrowing a false story and passing it off as true, the critic must show what the original source of the story was, from which all later texts and traditions outside of the Quran find inspiration. Until that is achieved, it remains a case of one word against another. And no single Syriac text we have today includes every aspect of the legend as it circulated orally in the time of the Quran, or as the Quran evokes it.
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 were 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.
The Quran says regarding these courageous youths of Ephesis, that they openly refused worshiping false gods, even publicly denounced the pagan practices of their people 18:14-15. This attracted great hostility against them to the point their lives were threatened 18:19-20. Allah then guided and inspired them to seek a specific cave in which to hide 18:10-11,16. It must have been a hidden location, in an unexplored area, because its entrance remained unobstructed, the rays of the sun could still go in 18:17. There, they sought their Lord in prayer, to direct them to a favorable outcome 18:10.
This is where the miraculous events begin, with God preserving their bodies by causing them to fall into a sleep that lasted several centuries 18:11-12. God Himself raised them up at the moment He saw fit 18:12,19. When they were awaken, they had no idea how long they had tarried, thinking they had just spent a few hours or at most a day. They were hesitant to go back to their town but had no choice, they needed to find some food. So one of them was cautiously sent with money 18:19. Once he payed with his ancient silver coin his identity was betrayed.
By that time, their disappearance had turned into a legend, various stories circulated about them. People were even conjecturing about them down in the times the Quran was revealed 18:22. But now they had nothing to fear as the pagan population was supplanted by a religion that saw them as saints, worthy of having a commemorative edifice built on their cave 18:21. It is interesting to note that the youths apparently wanted to remain secluded, even while the threat to their lives was gone and people acclaimed them as heroes. This reveals that they might not have fully agreed with the religion of the townsfolk although it clearly wasnt paganism anymore, as seen with the people's calling upon the one God 18:21. The townsfolk finally settled upon building a place of prostration, a masjid on top of their cave 18:21.
This miracle, the preservation of these youths for centuries, served the purpose of settling the dispute people were having at the time concerning the concept of bodily resurrection 18:21.
In Christian tradition, after their death they were raised to sainthood and the power of intercession was attributed to them. The Jacobites Christians of Najran celebrated them yearly, with some church paintings representing them with a dog. Up to this day, the Orthodox Church commemorates them twice yearly.
Their historicity was never officially doubted until the 16th century that saw the rise of Protestantism and the period of Enlightenment. The first to voice doubts regarding it was actually a Renaissance scholar and cardinal, named Baronius, branding it as apocryphal. He was representing the thought process of his own time, which was all about discrediting anything medieval to raise the church's credibility to a highly sceptical, cartesian audience. And he did not discredit the story based on evidence, nobody can prove or disprove oral tradition when the source is unknown and when that tradition is believed for centuries as true. He rather labelled it an "improbability".
Again, it is the embellished version as found in the golden legends compilation that was subject to criticism and not the core story which can never be disproven. In a series of concessions to his cartesian audience, the cardinal selected that story among others because it isnt of primary importance to Christian tenets. Even though what one can find as "probable" and accepted within the NT, such as the resurrection story, is no more credible in terms of historicity and internal evidence, than the discarded story of the seven sleepers. But of course, this part of the Christian fable cannot be as easily dismissed since, according to Paul
"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".
Where the Quranic account departs from Christian tradition is regarding the theological derivations and some factual details. The Quran denies the intercession powers attributed to them, through their declaration of God's supreme power and unity. The Quran also teaches through them the universal principle that in some cases, unnecessary attention given to side issues deviates the focus from the deeper meaning of things and more important, pressing and immediate problems; for example when raised, some among them began guessing and disputing the time-span of their sleep, while others knew for a fact that only God possesses this knowledge. They relied on Him and began instead organizing the manner in which their immediate needs and problems should be solved. Similarly, as the townfolk discovered the truth some began going after the unnecessary details of the sleepers' identity, the various facts surrounding them, the length of time they spent in the cave instead of acknowledging God's all encompassing knowledge and pondering on the deeper significance of the miracle
18:26"Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment".
The Quran also very appropriately hints at the overall confusion among later people as to the timespan of their sleep and other details. The Quran settles these disputes. Among all saints of Christianity, had they not been mentioned, none would have known them in Islam, but God rehabilitated them as heroes of spiritual integrity, insisting and puting great emphasis that
18:13"We relate to you their story bil haqq/with truth/purpose/rightfully".
The word covers that God takes back all rights to telling their story. It isnt the prerogative of the Christians and their false conjectures anymore. And by rehabilitating their truth, the Quran restores the purpose of God's miracle through them and how they benefited themselves from it
18:21"And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them that they might know that Allah's promise is true and that as for the hour there is no doubt about it".
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
The Alexander Romances, although often believed by critics of Islam as being the source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, has an unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries. That is why it is legitimate to speculate that the borrowing charge against the Quran has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.
The Alexander Romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the shallow and far fetched similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century, and in which by the way Alexander is never given the title "two horned".
As to the 14th-16th century Ethiopic translation in which he is called "two horned", besides being irrelevant in trying to establish the title by which Alexander was known around the time of the revelation of the sura in 620, it is important noting that this work contains the authors' interpretative opinion and is based on earlier Arabic translations.
But back to the Syriac translation which is of main interest to the accusers.
Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stresses parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria around 634CE. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate. In that conquest the Persians are contrasted with the Sassanids, and the Greeks with the Romans. This pushes the finalization of the passage to post date the revelation of sura Kahf pre-620CE. (as a side note even if one would be to assume the sura is Medinan then the onus is on him to prove it post dates the finalization of the Syriac romance).
Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance, called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims. Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, as it was clearly reshaped as a means by which the author sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.
In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian translation, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.
Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception, in 629CE. Even if one takes this earliest estimate, it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, again revealed pre-620, orally or textually, integrating the Quranic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius.
Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe. Finally, there exists zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn were in oral circulation all over the middle East and Europe prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions of the romances, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.
Even if for argument's sake these traditions were in circulation, then it would still do nothing to undermine the Quran's authenticity. All these sources draw on earlier lost sources, as shown earlier, with the life stories of Cyrus the Great being the main inspiration. This puts these shallow critics in a lonely corner yet again, similarity between any of those alleged Quranic sources does not prove plagiarism. The common denominator between all of these sources, including the Quran, is the truth.
Now the manner in which that common truth found its way in the Quran is a matter of faith. To Muslims, it is divine revelation, and the opponents have nothing to disprove it.
There are many other Quranic stories besides that of Dhul Qarnayn, which are true and that are found in previous traditions. The same is the case with the Biblical text. The Quran doesnt shy away from that reality and in fact embraces it, being the muhaymin/guardian of the truth that is still found scattered among previous scriptures and traditions.
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
There is no character called Alexander or resembling this ancient figure in the Quran. Dhul Qarnayn's story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8. He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys, as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45.
Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his
"being established in the land"
to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementionned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power.
Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus. In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn.
The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it. It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III.
The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk. The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.
This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. As to the notion of parental resemblance, it is similar to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a. The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions
"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that".
To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge
"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".
The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet
25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".
Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;
- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.
- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?
- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.
Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with
"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".
The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels;
- it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures
- it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness
As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head.
Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on. This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf.
Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.
The story also speaks about the limitations man can achieve in dominion, even when explicitly divinely favored. Dhul Qarnayn, despite being a noble and pious person and being blessed by God in his dominion, was also limited in the extent of his conquests. In one conquest, he was halted by a geographical limitation, that of an abundance of water/aynin, although he asserted his dominion over the local population in a just and fair manner, despite that people being at his entire mercy. In another conquest, he reached an unforgiving location battered by the sun, probably a desert, and the people encountered there although without natural shelters against it, remained in it. Contrary to the former location, he did not have the resources or need to maintain a presence in such a harsh climate and thus left that particular land and its people without seeking to interact with them. His dominion in this area was essentially useless, despite him having power over the people. As far as Gog and Magog, Dhul Qarnayn could only establish a barrier to prevent their assaults ie he could not maintain an army in that region, and that barrier too, as Dhul Qarnayn pointed out, would ultimately collapse despite being built with the most formidable of materials.
Despite the lack of surviving information on Cyrus' life, in light of what is known of him from the Hebrew bible and the historical records, there exists no other conquerer of the ancient world whose details given in the Quran are as applicable as they are to him. Cyrus led several military campaigns, starting West then heading East as described in the Quran, instead of Alexander who never went West but only East and took back another route on his way back. He led his campaigns against the most powerful kingdoms of the time, including Media, Lydia, and Babylonia ultimately defeating them all and founding the Achaemenian empire, centred on Persia and comprising the Near East from the Aegean Sea eastward to the Indus River. He encountered many nomadic tribes all throughout his expeditions. Those of Central Asia were the most rebellious.
Cyrus built fortified towns with the object of defending the farthest frontier of his kingdom against their assaults. He is in fact said to have been finally killed by one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes among whom he was trying to expand his influence. Although the lack of inscriptions left behind do not indicate precisely what were Cyrus' beliefs, because among other reasons Persia was comprised of many nomadic cultures and languages and record-keeping was not a priority, it can be inferred that he was Zoroastrian or at least a theist, as seen from his monotheistic proclamation in the book of Ezra and the way he is spoken of by God in Isaiah, that had a leaning for Zoroastrianism. Several people in his closest family and entourage, including among his children had names of Zoroastrian characters. Although he never forced his beliefs upon conquered people, he is said to have sent emissaries peacefully preaching his religion around his empire or territories he was about to conquer. Influence of Zoroastrian teachings can be seen in writings related to him, including in the Bible in certain Isaiah passages, that are thought to have been penned during the Jewish Babylonian captivity. The Medes vastly supported him in his battle against their own king who wasnt Zoroastrian. Cyrus was buried according to Zoroastrian rituals.
His heroic, magnanimous, humanitarian qualities, religious tolerance, as a ruler greatly influenced his portrayal by the Greek writers who were easily tempted to embellish his biography, and the Romans too who transmitted the traditions about him to Europe.
Alexander the great was known, from an early age among his contemporaries as having been in literal "loving" infatuation for Cyrus as presented in Greek works, restoring and visiting his tomb several times later on. It is only natural then that many aspects from Alexander, as portrayed by contemporaries and others, sometimes accurately and at other times with additions, will parallel with Cyrus. This is the common thread of truth that is found between the Quran and the various Alexander traditions. To a Muslim, the whole borrowing charge often levelled by the misleading critics could be dismissed right here. But let us delve further into the issue to burry it deeper that what it already is.
These Cyrus/Alexander similarities are the reasons why some among the earlier Quran commentators, without any basis in the prophetic traditions, have confusedly identified Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander. They were misinformed due to a weak and unreliable narration by Tabari in his tafsir, and by Muhammad bin Rabee’ Jaizi in his “Book of the companions” where Dhul-Qarnayn has been mentioned as Roman and founder of Alexandria. Other Commentators like ibn Kathir and ibn Taymiyya did not subscribe to that view.
Orientalists and recent critics of course jumped on the Alexander bandwagon, grasping upon superficial similarities, between some versions of the Alexander legends (there are different versions) and the Quran.
This story is part of a larger picture, teaching mankind through several parables (the sleepers, the owners of the gardens, Moses' encounter with one of God's messengers, Dhul Qarnayn and his conquests) what is the true God-conscious and God-ordained way for mankind to deal with the issues of TIME (ie how life is in God's hands with the story of the sleepers), WEALTH (the owners of the gardens), KNOWLEDGE (Moses' encounter), POWER (Dhul Qarnayn).
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
The prophet Muhammad lived among his people for 40 years before the start of his prophetic mission, without anything from his speech foretelling either fully or partly a knowledge of the information and principles provided within the book
12:3,102,28:44,11:49"These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them-- (neither) you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).".
The only thing distinguishing him from the majority of his people was his pure conduct and detachment from their ungodly habits
10:16"Say: If Allah had desired (otherwise) I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have taught it to you; indeed I have lived a lifetime among you before it; do you not then understand?".
As stated in 42:52, before his appointment to prophethood, he never had any idea that he was going to receive a Book, or that he should receive one. He was wholly unaware of the heavenly Books and the subjects they treated.
Likewise, although he believed in Allah, intellectually he was not aware of the requirements of the Faith.
In addition, from a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed.
Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood.
This teacher of his, from the mass of informants proposed throughout the ages by the critics of Islam, from Waraqa b. Nawfal to ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, to the anonymous hanif communities or other monotheists such as Zayd ibn Amr, the hermit Bahira, some unnamed foreign slaves knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian oral and written traditions, to Zayd ibn Thabit's crucial role in originating the Quranic text, none of them could have done what is alleged that they did without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against that student or plagiarist who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity.
Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.
The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. That is why the prophet's critics, even as reported in the Quran, would point to various suspects that were living in everyone's plain sight, although they could not prove any of their claims and neither did these individuals ever agree with these calumnies. And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire.
The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. What insignificant Judeo-Christian community was the prophet interested in appeasing at point, as sometimes suggested by the mischievious critics? His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.
His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. The intricate manner in which his followers, in and out of the household, observed, memorized and safeguarded every aspect of his life, everyday and in all situations further dwarfs this already untenable proposition. So, because that idea of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed.
The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. But the rest is history. To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier.
What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.
It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was
"Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
In Psalms84, David speaks in his prayers to the Lord of hosts -the Lord of all nations-, of pilgrims frequently going through the valley of Beca to pray at the altar. Some attribute this psalm to David, others to Korah's 3 sons who lived in Moses' time. Jewish oral tradition states that the book is entirely David's who took the earlier works and melded them with his own ideas. In that passage Becca is identified by a definite article meaning a specific place. That place could not be the Jerusalem Temple, which was not even constructed at the time (neither in Moses' time).
Of course, later in Jewish history Zion became affiliated with Jerusalem, but it couldnt have been during the time of David, or Moses for that matter. Jerusalem in the sense of the Holy City and place of pilgrimage was not built yet in David's days who was in addition referring to a place far away that required strenuous effort. The context of Ps84 is that of difficulty as one engages in a dry and barren valley then gaining spiritual strength upon strength. Clearly the meaning as noted by all commentators cannot be anything than the "valley of lamentation/weeping". The root word, bacca is used for types of trees that grow in arid places, like balsam, mulberry, or aspen that drip resin like tears. The balsam tree itself is found in southern Arabia, as well as on the mountains of Mecca and Medina.
So then which valley in Jerusalem is the ground so hard that the rain collects in pools? The valley of Becca has this particularity and the passage is meant to demonstrate its aridity. A valley of trees and lush vegetation doesnt fit this description. Which valley in or around Jerusalem do people take rest in and make it a well, when they go through to "Zion"? The fact that they make it a well, show that they take their rest there as well, another specificity of the place.
David laments that this place is far from the people and much hardship has to be taken to get there and despite the hardship, as they proceed to it and get closer to the court of the Lord in 'Zion", they move with strength upon strength. So where is that arid valley that pilgrims ever took on their way to Zion?
None of this was applicable to Jerusalem, nor is any valley affiliated with the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, besides the fact that the Temple didnt even exist then.
David speaks of Becca as a frequently journeyed site by pilgrims and there was no place in his days nor before, to the point that certain commentators argue that what David is referring to is a place in heaven. This is ruled out by the fact it is refered to as a geographical location which Bible scholars have not been able to identify until now. Since pre-islamic times, Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran.
One of the BEcca's defining characteristics, per the Psalms is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, which isnt Jerusalem's case, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys
"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools".
Mecca is enclosed between valleys and Jerusalem, which is on a small range of mountain tops in no way can be said to fulfill these qualities. The Zamzam well is what made the location hospitable to the pilgrims. This is where the HB states that God openned Hagar's eyes to a well, in answer to her supplications
Gen21:18-9"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink".
This was God's gift to her, a means of sustenance for her settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to make a great nation out of Ismail. As a side note, none of the wells of Beerseba or anywhere near it are mentionned as God-given. They are very distinctly described as the work of human hand. Nor is there any local tradition pointing to the existence there, now or in the past, of any divinely caused well. The only well made to gush miraculously in connection to Hagar and Ismail is in Mecca.
It is interesting to note also that by the time of the great rabbinic scholar and Torah commentator ibn Ezra, when every historian and religious scholarly authority agreed that the inhabitants of hijaz are descendants of Ishmael, he comments that the well which Hagar was miraculously pointed to prior to Ishmael's birth in Gen16:14 was originally called Beer Lahai, meaning
"the well of him who will be alive next year..The well was so called because the Ishmaelites held annual festivities at this well. It is still in existence and is called the well of zamum".
This well, present in his time and known accross cultures, is mispronounced as Zamum. Obviously no other well than that of Zamzam exists, where Ishmaelites ever held festivities prior to Islam.
Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/ Weeping", and Beca means "crying" in Arabic as a reference to Hagar crying for Allah's help in the wilderness fearing for her son Ismail's life, as related in both the Torah and Islamic tradition.
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
The Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran in addition that it is the first monument of worship of the One God and that it will remain so 3:95-99.
When asked
"which mosque was set up first on the earth? He said: Al-Masjid al-Haram".
The name itself "kaaba" is attested in ancient south Arabian epigraphy as a word used to describe a shrine for divinities.
It is also mentionned several times as the Ancient/Atiq House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125. The word Atiq conveys also the meaning of honor and reverance since it had been made sacred by God 27:91. The root word rataqa conveys also the deeper sense of freedom from bondage and the Kaaba effectively has always been free from the bond of ownership of the mortals and in no time it had a possessor, save Allah. It is to be noted, had there been any doubt as to Becca being a synonym for Mecca, one would have seen a variant interpretative reading replacing the B with M. Exegetical readings are known among the accepted qira'at. Given the importance Becca is given, one would have at least seen interpretive glosses inserted into the text, clarifying its meaning. And yet, just as with other geographical synonyms, we see none of all that in the Quran. This is because the location it refers to has never been disputed. Besides, Arab historians have recorded other names to the holy city than Mecca and Becca, each describing come of its characteristics. For example because of its position between valleys, causing it to be prone to flash floods, it was called Sayl meaning heavy rain (Al-Zahraniy). It was also called Tihama because it lies between Hijaz and Yemen.
Only one location is said to be dedicated to those performing the ritual prayers, as well as the pilgrimage and it is the Kaaba, Becca, the Ancient House and al masjid al haram, all names referring to one same place with the definite article and with almost identical wording 2:125,158,196,3:96-7,9:19,22:26,29, all connecting the Abrahamic legacy to one and the same place. This unquestionably links the Kaaba, Becca, Mecca with some of the most important rituals of Islam.
The revisionist argument that these locations are disconnected and unrelated is based upon the faulty mehtodology of isolating statements out of their direct and wider context. The requirement that a particular Quranic statement needs to be fully detailed in each context is unnecessary. Any type of literary research, especially historical, is done by piecing together related information. Conjecture is stripping statements out of their direct and larger context and ignoring surrounding indicators, then drawing clumsy conclusions.
Interestingly, when Moses had fled Egypt where he was wanted for man slaughter, and hid in Midian/Madyan, which is nowhere else than in the Arabian Peninsula, a "foreign land" in Moses' own words, from where he had to "return to Egypt" to free the Israelites Ex2:22,4:18, the Quran mentions his encounter with a righteous man in that land of Arabia, saying to him
28:27"I desire to marry one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you should serve me for eight hijaj/pilgrimages; but if you complete ten, it will be of your own free will, and I do not wish to be hard to you; if Allah please, you will find me one of the good".
This righteous Arabian man, whom tradition identifies with Shuayb, is quoted as counting the years in terms of pilgrimage, as it happened every year. Also, the valley where God first spoke to Moses is called Tuwa 20:12. The word tuwa means to fold, from the root ta-waw-ya, it is used as a name of the valley because a valley is by definition folded between higher ground, and in this case, figuratively folded with holiness. Dhi tuwa, which is near Mecca might very well be this same Tuwa of Moses where he had been dwelling with his Madian or Arab family prior to his return to Egypt and confrontation with Pharao.
Another interesting observation, linguistically is that Makka and bakka are used once in the Quran, and not randomly; in the context of hajj which involves the mass ingathering of populations, bakka is used since it stems from a word meaning crowd, while makka is employed outside that context.
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
Polemicists have misconstrued a known linguistic phenomenon so as to try another weak attack against the Quran. To enforce their obsessive claims of borrowing, they have scavenged the book for supposedly "foreign" words. These words betray the Quran's adoption of foreing concepts, as well as the fact it needed additional vocabulary to express new ideas.
Firstly, all languages, including Arabic, have eventually adopted foreign words as people have interracted. Sometimes these words retain their implicit cultural or theological baggage. At other times a completely new meaning is assumed.
In the Quran's case, foreign words do not even amount to a fraction of the totality. In addition, many of those words pointed to by the critics either are in fact Arabic, with well established triliteral Arabic roots, or have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to other Semitic cognate languages of the region, thus rendering their tracing very difficult.
Recently for instance, Wolf Leslau refuted Nöldeke's identification of certain Arabic words in the Quran as Ethiopic, like shaytan or jahannam, proving that the direction of borrowing was actually the opposite. The words that entered the Arabic language prior to revelation cannot be termed foreign. They are now Arabic words.
Onus is on the critics to prove that these words were borrowed post Islam. Another case is that of the Aramaic "qeryana" meaning "recitation", which supposedly became the Arabic "Quran" which also is, by its very nature a recitation. Being cognate languages, both Aramaic and Arabic share the same triliteral root for qeryana/quran, qa-ra-a meaning to read/recite. It is thus difficult to ascertain which came from which. It has been however recently suggested that Aramaic had penetrated deep within the peninsula, until Yathrib/Medina, as far back as during the 500s BC through king Nabonidus. Thus, there must have been intra-cultural and linguistic exchanges, between Aramaic speakers and Arabs, one way or the other. Even if one were to grant the adoption by Arabs of Aramaic loanwords, then by the rise of Islam these words had become Arabic words far detached from their full technical implications.
As to the idea of Arabic having a poor vocabulary, anyone familiar with pre-islamic literature and poems knows how rich and expressive the language of the time already was. There was no need to express any of its ideas by borrowing foreign words. In fact none of the supposed words or expression do not have their synonym, either in other passages of the Quran, or in the well established Arabic language.
In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use, it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.
In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.
In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"
A strange claim by Christoph Luxenberg (later repeated by Sawma) is that, despite early documentary evidence of Arabic Qurans, and without providing a single piece of proof, he believes the “proto-Koran” and the “original Koranic text” were written by Arab Christians in Garshuni, meaning the transcription of the Arabic language using the Syrio-Aramaic script. It was not until 150 years after the advent of Islam that the Arabic script was used instead for the Quran. All earlier inscriptions were in fact made by Christians and had nothing to do with Islam.
For example he states that the dome of the rock inscription about Muhammad is actually a mistransltation and is speaking of Jesus. Yet the same phrase
"muhammadun abdullahi wa rasuluhu"
is translated in 1st century Arabic-Greek bilingual papyri as
"maamet apostolos theou" ie "Muhammad is the Messenger of God".
There are Christian Syriac apocalyptic texts contemporaneous with the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, mentioning its construction along with its "anti-Christian" Arabic inscriptions.
That is besides the known fact that we have nearly the entire Quran in the Arabic script, in scattered manuscripts all dated to the 1st century hijra, including hijazi manuscripts from the 1st half of the 1st century of hijra. This makes the time period between Uthman's codification of the Quran and the appearance of one of the earliest manuscript of the Quran, at most 20 years. How could this shifting of script occur so fast?
More recently, the university of Birmingham UK revealed the existence of a Quran manuscript, written in the early Hijazi script and containing suras 18 to 20, dated to between 568AD and 645AD which is at most 13 years after the prophet Muhammad's death. Only the parchment was dated, not the ink, so as to safeguard the manuscript. Some have used the occasion to claim the parchment was kept, its content erased so that it could be reused at a much later time. However, as noted by Bart Ehrman
"It is very difficult to test the ink on such documents, because to do so requires you to destroy the ink! And it takes a good bit of it to be enough to be checked. So in theory the parchment could be from the 7th century, but the ink from, say, the 14th. But in the judgment of most experts that would be highly unlikely. The only real reason for someone to use ancient parchment for a modern writing (when modern parchment would be in much better shape and easier to access and easier to use) is to make the writing look older than it was. That is something you might expect a modern forger to do, someone who knew that the parchment could be scientifically dated. But it’s not something that would be expected to be done in the Middle Ages. So more than likely the date of the parchment is pretty close to the date of the writing on it. As with all history, of course, this is simply a matter of probabilities, not certainties".
Scholars of the field, know that the Quran was closed text very early on in Islam. This fragment only confirmed what they already knew
(Shady Hekmat Nasser, university of Cambridge) "We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources".
And as corroborated by Nicolai Sinai
"To be sure, one may well hold that the gamut of viable hypotheses about the date of the Quran has now shrunk to the seventh century, 9 thereby defusing some of the issue’s long-standing contentiousness".
Furthermore, a vast array of the Quran’s religious vocabulary is attested in old southern as well as sometimes northern Arabian epigraphy, without any linguistic and theological connection with the languages of the Christian Levant.
Sulayman Dost "As we have seen, some of the most central concepts for the Qur’ān’s theological outlook have their solitary parallels in the religious, social and political idiom of the Arabian inscriptions. In some cases, there are exact lexical overlaps between the two sets of texts, i.e. the Qur’ān and the epigraphy, and, in some cases, the qur’anic equivalents of certain pre-Islamic concepts are given new semantic dimensions in line with the Qur’ān’s doctrinal stance. It is also worth noting that the Qur’ān’s description, albeit very short and elliptical, of pre-Islamic religious milieu can be largely followed through epigraphic evidence".
A very simple observation is that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, then its tumultuous historical context would have surely reflected within it. We would have seen anachronisms, traces, names, allusions to events and passionate Muslim debates, on laws and theology, the inter religious wars and other major events that had occured. The massive and fulgurant expansion of Muslim territories by that time would have surely been rewritten as retrospective prophecies. None of that is found in the Quran, unlike what happened with the Bible; from the successive destructions and rehabilitation of the Israelites, re-written as prophecies of punishment/reward, to Jesus' crucifixion re-cast as a divine suicide plan since the beginning of creation.
(Nicolai Sinai)"Hence, the argument that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, it somehow ought to reflect the historical context from which it supposedly emerged (albeit not necessarily by virtue of explicit name-dropping) still stands. As long as scholars have not managed to demonstrate that certain Quranic passages – and preferably, passages with a distinct stylistic and terminological profile! – are only intelligible, or best intelligible, when placed in a post-conquest context, a dating of the standard rasmto before 650 therefore seems heuristically preferable...the Quran lacks even the most editorially minimalist techniques of biographical contextualization, such as the insertion of superscriptions tying specific scriptural passages to certain events in Muḥammad’s life (see Isaiah 1:1, Jeremiah 1:1–3, and the various Psalmic superscriptions associating the following text with the life of David).136 The fact that the Quranic corpus as we have it is remarkably uncontaminated not only by fully-fledged sīra narratives but also by such minor redactional accretions is most easily accounted for by a mid-seventh century date for the standard rasm’s closure."
To further expound upon Luxenberg's theories. Christoph Luxenberg states that the Syro-Aramaic used in Edessa and its environs is the original language of the Quran, not Arabic, despite the Quran itself repeatedly saying about itself it is evident Arabic, in the language of the messenger's people 12:2,13:37,26:195,46:12,16:103,19:97,44:58,14:4. Neither does Luxenberg explain how this language might have come to dominate in far away Hijaz to such an extent that it would form the basis of the sacred writings of its inhabitants, nor does he present the slightest evidence that there existed in Mecca and its surroundings an Arab community under intense Christian influence.
These claims run along the same lines as those of the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling who theorized in the 1960 that this area was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and Mecca 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.
There are no Arabic inscriptions written in the Syriac script whereas there are quite a number of them written in Nabataean Aramaic script, the recognized origin of the Arabic script. Arabic was widely spoken in the Middle East by the 7th century CE, particularly in the region of the former Nabataean kingdom. This very evolution presumes frequent writing of Arabic in the Nabataean script. Some inscriptions prove that Arabic had already long been used for sacred expression, such as the Oboda inscription, and possibly also the ones found in the Madaba area. There is also Epiphanius of Salamis’ testimony as to the praises to a virgin deity sung in Arabic by the inhabitants of Petra and Elusa.
A well known Meccan inscription date to AH 98/717 CE is variously attributed to a bishop of Najran in southwest Arabia named Quss ibn Sa‘ida, or else to one of the pre-Islamic kings of Yemen.
Regardless of the authenticity of that attribution, the accumulation of pre-islamic evidence, including a vast wealth of poetry, does point to them belonging to that period. The pre-Islamic Arabic texts are nothing but the visible tip of the iceberg. Most of the hidden material is lost through the effect of time or in the process of being discovered. The point is that there is a substantial tradition of writing and speaking Arabic. Why would then the Quran's supposed authors need to express their sacred traditions in a far away foreign language?
As to methodology, Luxenberg starts by selecting Quranic passages with multiple layered meanings. HE then forces the consonantal Uthmanic text into parallel Syriac words he chooses based on what he deems is a more appropriate meaning of the passage. His whole point being to expose the Arab compilers of the text that came some century and half after Muhammad, as disconnected from the original Syriac substratum of the Quran. But this exercize wasnt unique to Luxenberg.
The background of other scholars engaged in a similar process is reflects in their findings. Thus those studying northwestern semitic languages will see Ugaritic behind obscure Quranic words, while those inclined to see Islam coming out of a Christian background would prefer syriac etymologies; those favoring a Jewish matrix would see Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic as the sources of many Quranic terms.
