MUHAMMAD THE BORROWER – DEBATE 1 WITH SAIFULLAH

This is the compilation of a debate that took place on USENET newsgroup soc.religion.islam between Silas, author of the articles on Islam Unveiled (see also his originally posted material) and Saifullah, the driving force behind the website Islamic Awareness.

NOTE: Saifullah’s post writings are in blue. When he quotes me, my words are in red.

My post writings are in black. When I quote Saifullah, his words will be in blue.

Quotes from various authors will be in green.

NOTE: I have deleted the “” quote brackets, and some unrequired comments / post information.

SAIFULLAH’S FIRST POST

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2

From: "Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp

Date: Mon, 09 August 1999 12:29 AM EDT

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

I am cutting the six part issue of the alleged borrowing done by Muhammad(P) from the Bible into the Qur'an. The gist of the Christian missionary argument is given below.

1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad learned via word of mouth. No one asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not follow that Muhammad had substantial written material in front of him.

Sure, their writings agree but then is that the proof that Muhammad(P) borrowed from the Bible through the word of mouth. What if I say that the TV works by black magic and ten other people assert that I am correct? Does that mean that whatever I said is true?

And many of them will be updated in the near future, inshallah (e.g., crucifixion, Mary sister of Aaron etc.).

And we Muslims have heard about many historical errors in the Bible which the Christian missionaries dismiss as 'scribal errors'. The conclusion, which is not often said, is that God inspires book that has scribal errors only to be detected by the humans.

2) They also agree that various opportunities occurred in Muhammad's life for him to learn about the other religions. (Only a few of these events have been mentioned thus far.)

So, the question is what did Muhammad(P) learn? Where did Muhammad(P) learn? Who were the teachers of Muhammad(P)?

Do you have any answers (of course with evidence!) for these questions? Well, do not come up with an evidence that since person X says that Muhammad(P) borrowed from the Bible, hence it is true. That is a circular argument. We can come up with similar 'evidences' if you do not really mind.

4) None of these writers assert that there were "seats" of Judaism or Christianity located in the Hijaz. Of course there were Christians. And, yes, there were Jewish scholars. However, for Muhammad to learn about these religions, as imperfectly as he did, there need not be Ivy League seminaries available. All he needed was to speak to people barely knowledgeable of these religions. And, this has already been partially shown, and will be brought out more fully, inshallah.

Well, more than half of the Qur'an (which includes the stories of the Prophets of the past) was revealed in Makkah. Makkah was pagan and there were no seats of either Judaism or Christianity in Makkah.

"...in spite of traditions to the effect that the picture of Jesus was found on one of the pillars of Ka'aba, there is no good evidence of any seats of Christianity in the Hijaz or in the near neighbourhood of Makkah or even of Madina."

Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment: The Gunning

Lectures Edinburgh University, 1925, London: Frank Cass and Company

Limited, 1968 (Reprinted), p.42.

The Christians were in Najran. And the contact of Muhammad(P) with Jews was in Madinah. Curiously enough, neither the contemporary Jews nor the Christians accused Muhammad(P) of being taught by their 'scholars' (the Christian missionary did not give the name of Jewish scholars!). And more interestingly, not even the pagans under whom the Prophet(P) suffered in Makkah accused him of having a Jewish or a Christian teacher.

So, the six installments long material on SRI, which I must confess is good enough for updating one's knowledge but does not stand the close scrutiny.

Dr. M S M Saifullah

MY RESPONSE

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2

From: silas778@aol.com /A (SILAS778)

Date: Sun, 15 August 1999 01:38 AM EDT

Sai wrote:

The gist of the Christian missionary argument is given below.

{{{1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad learned via word of mouth. No one asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not follow that Muhammad had substantial written material in front of him.}}}

Sure, their writings agree but then is that the proof that Muhammad borrowed from the Bible through the word of mouth. What if I say that the TV works by black magic and ten other people assert that I am correct? Does that

mean that whatever I said is true?

Sai, you've made a mistake. That is certainly not the gist of my argument. Please read the 6 parts before trying to analyze the whole.

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18:13.

I compiled the scholar's writings simply to show their coherence. Of course that is not a proof; it demonstrates a strong consensus among various scholars from varied backgrounds. The proof of Muhammad's borrowing followed later.

------------------

As far as the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are already answered at: (Sai's site)

I did not find any significant material regarding my postings there.

-----------------------

{{{2) They also agree that various opportunities occurred in Muhammad's life for him to learn about the other religions. (Only a few of these events have been mentioned thus far.)}}}

So, the question is what did Muhammad learn? Where did Muhammad learn? Who were the teachers of Muhammad?

Do you have any answers (of course with evidence!) for these questions? Well, do not come up with an evidence that since person X says that Muhammad borrowed from the Bible, hence it is true. That is a circular argument. We can come up with similar 'evidences' if you do not really mind.

The evidence was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5. Did you read them before you posted the question and statement above?

-------------------------

{{{4) None of these writers assert that there were "seats" of Judaism or Christianity located in the Hijaz. Of course there were Christians. And, yes, there were Jewish scholars. However, for Muhammad to learn about these religions, as imperfectly as he did, there need not be Ivy League seminaries available. All he needed was to speak to people barely knowledgeable of these religions. And, this has already been partially shown, and will be brought out more fully, inshallah.}}}

Well, more than half of the Quran (which includes the stories of the Prophets of the past) was revealed in Makkah. Makkah was pagan and there were no seats of either Judaism or Christianity in Makkah.

Again let me refer you to parts 3, 4, and 5. Mecca was not only Pagan. There were Jews and Christians there. In fact, after studying the available Islamic source material on the subject, there was certainly a Christian influence in Mecca's culture. Since you take to quoting Bell, allow me to quote Bell, (from my Part 2):

Richard Bell writes in "Introduction to the Quran", page 161,

"It is the narrative portions of the Quran that its dependence upon the Bible, especially upon the Old Testament, is most evident... the great bulk of material which Muhammad used to illustrate and enforce his teaching was derived

form Jewish and Christian sources, and was meant to reproduce what was contained in the revelation given to the People of the Book"

And on page 163,

"Examination of these parallels to Biblical narratives shows that they were not taken directly from the Bible. It must, of course, be remembered, that Muhammad was never simply a borrower. Material which came to him from outside sources was always made his own, molded by reflection, and freely used for his own purposes.... it is still clear that the material did not come to him from literary sources.

Page 164 (comments mine)

"In fact, the whole choice of material (borrowed religious material found in the Quran) is such as to suggest that it came from the memories of men and was communicated to him orally." [11]

Bell also wrote in "The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment", pub by

Cass, page 100:

"In the previous lecture, the independence of Muhammad was insisted on. That, however, had reference to the beginnings of his mission. It was not intended to deny, what is indeed undeniable, that there was a great deal of direct influence exerted upon him by Judaism and Christianity, and that much of the Quran is directly dependent upon the Bible, and stories associated with the Bible."

And on page 110:

"The stories of the Virgin Mary and the Birth of Jesus appear among them quite on the same footing as the others. These are related, however, not as in the New Testament, but more in the form in which they appear in Apocryphal Gospels. (They have most similarity with the Protevangelium Jacobi, a book that we know to have been widely diffused in the East.) [12]

Clearly, Bell states that Muhammad borrowed, and that there were Christian and Jewish influences upon Muhammad. The lack of "seats" being in Mecca did not preclude his borrowing material from the members of the respective faiths, or from those knowledgeable of those faiths.

---------------------------

The Christians were in Najran. And the contact of Muhammad with Jews was in Madinah. Curiously enough, neither the contemporary Jews nor the Christians accused Muhammad of being taught by their 'scholars' (the Christian missionary

did not give the name of Jewish scholars!). And more interestingly, not even the pagans under whom the Prophet suffered in Makkah accused him of having a Jewish or a Christian teacher.

There were Christians and Jews in Mecca. Again, please read Parts 3, 4, and 5 for the names of the various people who taught or at least communicated with Muhammad. Regarding the Meccan's accusations of Muhammad "borrowing", even the Quran relates:

Quran 25:5

And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104

"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear. Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and

theirs will be a grievous Penalty."

The Meccans knew, as is apparent to recent scholars, that Muhammad was learning from someone else. There could have been many people Muhammad learned from in Mecca. Perhaps the Meccan's reference was to a pagan who knew

Christianity and Judaism, perhaps it was a Christian slave, perhaps it was a Jewish merchant. Either way, Islamic source material states that there were Christians and Jews in Mecca, and that Muhammad had contact with them.

---------------------------------

So, the six installments long material on SRI, which I must confess is good enough for updating one's knowledge but does not stand the close scrutiny. Anyway, the Islamic argument is at...

It appears that you did not bother to read the entire set of postings. You obviously missed much material that would have answered the questions you asked here. Please read it before you attempt to scrutinize it.

The web site you posted does not address the material in my posts. Rather, it ignores the Islamic source material that states that Muhammad was in contact with various Christians and Jews from his childhood on, and that he did hear them relate their religious stories.

I want to close in saying that as I evaluate the entire set of data available from Islamic source material, i.e. the Quran, Hadith, and Sira, that it is clear that there was a strong vein of Christian knowledge in Mecca during Muhammad's lifetime. Muhammad could not have helped but to have bumped into Christian teachings. With that comes some knowledge of the OT as well. Gaining some knowledge of Christianity was unavoidable in Mecca.

SAI’S SECOND POST

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 1

From: "Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp

Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 03:41 AM EDT

silas778@aol.com (SILAS778) writes:

If you read part 5 of my posts, you'll find that some of what the Quran contains is not found in previous scriptures, but in Mishnah and NT apocrypha. These are the words of man. Some of these are just myths. They were never recognized as scripture by the Jews or Christians.

So, essentially the argument of the Christian missionary is simply that similarity implies borrowing. This is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT apocrypha match with the Qur'an; the conclusion is that Muhammad(P) copied these stories from the above mentioned books into the Bible.

Firstly, one has to understand what is meant by a proof and an explanation. If one claims that Muhammad(P) borrowed the Judeo-Christian literature then where is the evidence that his contemporaries saying that he really did even once in the pre- and post-Hijrah period? Sure, one can say that the Bible existed at that time but what is that supposed to prove? Copying? One can also say that Japan existed at that time too but does that automatically conclude that Muhammad(P) knew about that?

As far as the scriptures of Jews and Christians are concerned, it is well recognized that they had disagreements about it. As far as the Christianity is concerned, it is not even united upon a single canon. For more information please see:

So, to claim that some story is 'apocrypha' simply aggravates the problem for the Christian canon.

Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known myths is another.

Sure, we have also heard about the parallel stories which the Old Testament contains. We have heard about Ugaritic sources incorporated in the Bible which show some striking parallels such as notion of Yahweh as an aged diety, his dwelling place and his heavenly court. Should I also point the principal parallels between the Adapa Epic and the account of Adam in Gen. 2-3? How about the striking parallels between the Flood narrative in Genesis and the Mesopotamian parallels which is rather well studied? How about the parallels between code of Hammurabi and Israelite Laws? Ever heard about the parallels between Mithraism and Christian doctrines? May be the missionary is too ignorant about them.

And many Orientalists consider these stories in the Bible to be myths. May be we should invoke the blessings of the Jesus Seminar who have basically said that much of the New Testament is a myth built around Jesus(P).

We should perhaps now conclude that containing parallel stories is one thing and containing well known myths another.

5. No one can pretend that the Quran is not a unique book.

Unique? Sure, okay, big deal. Impressive or outstanding? No. Not at all. The Far Side was a unique comic strip. Mein Kampf (sp?) is a unique book. So is the Gita. Being unique does not mean it is from God.

So, one can even apply the same logic to the Bible and say that it is not a word of God.

Dr. M S M Saifullah

SAI ADDED THE FOLLOWING POST

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2

From: "Dr. M S M Saifullah" saif@aecl.ntt.co.jp

Date: Mon, 16 August 1999 03:41 AM EDT

silas778@aol.com (SILAS778) writes:

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

Now what is scholars' coherence supposed to mean without proof. Did they show any proof for such a claim?

As far as the question of scholarly 'consensus' is concerned a good insight can be gained from the following writings:

"Similar arguments were put forth, and continued to be put forth, which argue that the Jewish source from which Muhammad "borrowed" was not rabbinic Judaism but rather some form of sectarianism, Jewish, quasi-Jewish, or otherwise. Samaritan sources were found, and Jewish Christian, and Mandean, and Manichean. Perhaps because no one could ever make a convincing argument for exclusively Jewish or exclusively Christian borrowings, a particularly popular hypothetical "influence peddling" was said to be that of the Jewish Christian sects, Jewish groups who acknowledged Jesus as a prophet but not as a Messiah: a fair-sized and still-growing literature exists in this connection."

Steven M Wasserstrom, Between Muslim & Jew: The Problem Of Symbiosis Under Early Islam, 1995, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 171-172.

By the way, this is the recent scholarship that I am quoting not 100 years old.

As far as the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are already answered at: (Sai's site)

I did not find any significant material regarding my postings there.

Well, you did not quote significant material to back up your claim of historical 'errors'. Therefore, it is very natural to expect that you did not find anything significant.

The evidence was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5. Did you read them before you posted the question and statement above?

Well, I have read it and seen above that your claim is based on a scholarly consensus which does not bother to give any evidence except to speculate.

Sure, Jesus Seminar guys clearly say that much of the New Testament is myth. This is based on what is called the consensus. Do you agree with them, if not why not?

And did Bell show any evidence that Muhammad(P) borrowed?

Quran 25:5

And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104

By the way, what does the Islamic exegetes say about these verses? Any idea?

Now my next question is: Where does the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say that Muhammad(P) borrowed from the Judeo-Christian sources?

Quoting material is different from showing what you are claiming.

Dr. M S M Saifullah

MY NEXT TWO RESPONSES TO SAIFULLAH

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2

From: silas778@aol.com (SILAS778)

Date: Fri, 20 August 1999 03:08 AM EDT

Sai previously wrote:

The gist of the Christian missionary argument is given below.

In response, I wrote:

{{{Sai, you've made a mistake. That is certainly not the gist of my argument. Please read the 6 parts before trying to analyze the whole.

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18:13.}}}

Implicitly admitting his mistake, Sai revised his summation of my argument and stated it as:

So, essentially the argument of the Christian missionary is simply that similarity implies borrowing. This is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT apocrypha match with the Quran; the conclusion is that Muhammad copied these stories from the above mentioned books into the Bible.

Well, you're getting warmer, but you've made another mistake and a misleading statement. Here they are:

This is because some of the stories in Mishnah and NT apocrypha match with the Quran; the conclusion is that Muhammad copied these stories from the above mentioned books [1] into the Bible [2]".

[1] I have not asserted that Muhammad copied from books.

[2] Muhammad did not copy anything into the Bible.

Normally, I don't split hairs, but it is necessary here because of the errors that can arise from a poorly phrased statement. Muhammad didn't use books as his sources, he used oral stories he heard. This is very important. Much of the article on your site addressing the topic of Muhammad's borrowing attacks the possibility that Muhammad used written material. Of course this is a straw man argument, and your article does not really address Muhammad's borrowing from the human sources that were readily available to him both in Mecca and Medina. To the best of my recollection, all of the scholars I quoted agreed that Muhammad learned the borrowed material via human – oral transmission. None of them assert that Muhammad sat down and read books. Of course the Islamic sources I quoted state that there was material, in Arabic, available for Muhammad to reference, but that is secondary to him learning through oral transmission.

Regarding mistake # 2, perhaps you meant to say "into the Quran"?

Sai wrote:

Firstly, one has to understand what is meant by a proof and an explanation. If one claims that Muhammad borrowed the Judeo-Christian literature then where is the evidence that his contemporaries saying that he really did even once in the pre- and post-Hijrah period?

You question is poorly worded. It needs to be re-written? But let me take a shot at what I think you're asking. If I'm correct, no need to re-write it. I think you are asking for a proof that Muhammad's contemporaries accused him of borrowing from the Judeo-Christian literature. Well, the Quran contains two references I can recall off the top of my head, that could be considered proofs. Here they are:

Quran 25:5

And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104

"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.

Here Muhammad's contemporaries said that he was repeating "tales of the ancients", they were referring to stories they had heard of before. While his contemporaries do not state "fables of the Judeo-Christian faiths" they certainly could be referring to stories of the Judeo-Christian vein. In Sura 16, they point out that Muhammad was learning from a man, probably a foreigner. Remember, Islamic source material is full of references of Muhammad conversing with Christians and Jews.

---------------------------------------

Sai wrote:

Sure, one can say that the Bible existed at that time but what is that supposed to prove? Copying? One can also say that Japan existed at that time too but does that automatically conclude that Muhammad knew about that?

The existence of the Bible during Muhammad's time, or the Mishnah or NT Apocrypha, doesn't prove anything of itself. However, the existence of the Bible, OT, and NT Apocrypha, some in Arabic, during Muhammad's time, existing in the Hijaz, and the existence of people in the Hijaz, who knew them, and could have taught Muhammad, lay the groundwork for Muhammad's borrowing. The Jews and Christians were in the Hijaz. Muhammad spoke with them; he couldn't avoid them in Mecca or Medina. You may loath to admit it, but the sources were there and the people were there. Muhammad's opportunity for learning and thus repeating their material was ever present.

On the other hand, if Muhammad began to relate stories concerning the Mayan religions, then you might have a stronger case. But knowledge of Christianity and Judaism was throughout the Saudi peninsula.

After reading parts 3 and 4, can you admit that Muhammad had access to these human sources of Christian and Jewish knowledge?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Sai wrote:

This is off the topic and has no bearing whatsoever upon Muhammad's ability to borrow from the various religions. No doubt he heard stories from the Bible, NT Apocrypha, OT, and Mishnah. Muhammad was generally ignorant of what he was hearing. He didn't know better; he could not discern Apocrypha from Mishnah. He thought them truth.

--------------------------------------------------

{{{Containing parallel stories is one thing. Containing well known myths is another.}}}

Sure, we have also heard about the parallel stories which the Old Testament

SNIP

We should perhaps now conclude that containing parallel stories is one thing and containing well known myths another.

This is my point. The material Muhammad borrowed from the Arabic Infancy Gospel, the Gospel of Pseudo Matthew, etc. were well known myths. The stories from the Mishnah were well known to be the work of men. They were not cannonized; the NT Infancy Gospels were never considered to be inspired or revealed. They were just stories (fables) that people made up to fill in details missing in Mary's, Jesus', Joseph's, etc. lives.

Subject: Re: Did Muhammad Borrow? Part 2

From: silas778@aol.com (SILAS778)

Date: Fri, 20 August 1999 03:09 AM EDT

I wrote:

{{{I compiled the scholar's writings simply to show their coherence. Of course that is not a proof; it demonstrates a strong consensus among various scholars from varied backgrounds. The proof of Muhammad's borrowing followed later.}}}

Sai wrote:

Now what is scholars' coherence supposed to mean without proof. Did they show any proof for such a claim?

Yes, they did. Did you miss it? For example, in Part 1, I quote D. S. Margoliouth who mentions Jews conversing with Muhammad in Mecca. Dashti mentions Waraqa. Etc. So, the scholars do show Muhammad conversing with people who were knowledgeable about Judeo-Christian literature.

"What does the scholars' coherence mean?" It means that men who are considered experts in the field, men who have spent a portion of their lives studying and analyzing the subject, have an agreement. These men are not a pack of youth, sitting on the stoops, drinking cokes and talking football. These men had achieved a degree of proficiency in their knowledge of Islam. I find it extraordinary that so many men, from so many backgrounds, writing from so many personal bias', all agree that Muhammad borrowed.

People named as "scholars" or "experts" are supposed to know something about their field of study. For example, an engineering firm will not hire a high school grad and expect him to do in depth R & D analysis of phase relationships

between rare earths. Instead they will hire a PhD in the physics / materials science field, someone they believe knows more than average about the subject. Likewise, these scholars of Islam knew quite a bit of what they were writing about. And they all agreed that Muhammad borrowed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Sai wrote:

As far as the question of scholarly 'consensus' is concerned a good insight can be gained from the following writings:

"influence peddling" was said to be that of the Jewish Christian sects, Jewish groups who acknowledged Jesus as a prophet but not as a Messiah: a fair-sized and still-growing literature exists in this connection."

Steven M Wasserstrom, Between Muslim & Jew: The Problem Of Symbiosis Under Early Islam, 1995, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, p. 171-172.

By the way, this is the recent scholarship that I am quoting not 100 years old.

I think S.M.W. makes a good point. There were probably many different types of groups circulating in the Hijaz. Muhammad heard stories from a variety of people. Wasserstrom notes these. Did Muhammad borrow from some of them? Of course. I did not see Wasserstrom state that Muhammad did not borrow. All I read is Wasserstrom stating that people are expanding the definitions of the groups that existed in the Hijaz and who could have been in contact with Muhammad. So tell me, does S.M.W. state anything relevant to the topic?

-------------------------------

Sai previously wrote:

As far as the historical 'errors' in the Quran are concerned some of them are already answered at: (Sai's site)

I responded

{{{I did not find any significant material regarding my postings there.}}}

Sai then wrote:

Well, you did not quote significant material to back up your claim of historical 'errors'. Therefore, it is very natural to expect that you did not find anything significant.

Let me point out another one of your mistakes. You used the word "historical", in reference to my post, Part 2. I never used that word, rather, you inserted it into the text. (Shades of Ahmad Deedat!). Below is the quote from Part 2, near the end of the post.

"1) Their writings all agree that Muhammad learned via word of mouth. No one asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not follow that Muhammad had substantial written material in front of him."

Again, the material at your site has little or no relevance to the fundamental topic - i.e. Muhammad's borrowing information he heard from oral sources. And, frankly, I find your site somewhat deceitful. Your own Islamic source materials are full of references that Muhammad conversed with Jews and Christians, yet you practically omit it from your articles. Why?

Why dance around Waraqa actually translating material into Arabic? Why omit that Muhammad stated that the Torah the Jews had in their hand was truth? Just fess up, tell the whole story.

Why should a non-Muslim like myself quote extensively from Islamic sources that show that Muhammad had all the access he needed to people who could have taught him about Judeo-Christian themes, while you imply that it could not be.

Your own sources prove you and your argument wrong.

And, BTW, many of the people I quoted from are fairly recent. Certainly within the last 30 years. Who is Wasserstrom anyway?

----------------------------------------------------

Previously I wrote:

{{{The evidence was presented in parts 3, 4, and 5. Did you read them before you posted the question and statement above?}}}

Sai then wrote:

Well, I have read it and seen above that your claim is based on a scholarly consensus which does not bother to give any evidence except to speculate.

I've already addressed this. They did give evidence. All one had to do is read it to see it. And take a second look at Geiger, or Torrey. They provide much more evidence than Bell did.

--------------------------------------------

Sai has posted on his site and in one of his responses to my posts, the following quote from Bell:

Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment: The Gunning Lectures Edinburgh University, 1925, London: Frank Cass and Company Limited, 1968 (Reprinted), p.42.

Sai was trying to use Bell's quote to show that Muhammad could not have borrowed from Judeo-Christian material. Therefore, I presented a long series of quotes from Bell, both from the above book, and another, which show:

{{{Clearly, Bell states that Muhammad borrowed, and that there were Christian and Jewish influences upon Muhammad. The lack of "seats" being in Mecca did not preclude his borrowing material from the members of the respective faiths, or from those knowledgeable of those faiths.

Of course Sai's game with Bell is up. He selected a choice quote from Bell, and tried to use it, while ignoring where Bell really stood.

So Sai implicitly admits his mistake and takes a different tack. He asks:

And did Bell show any evidence that Muhammad borrowed?

Yes, he did. Did you miss it in my quote?

----------------------------------------

The Quran:

Quran 25:5

And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and

they are dictated before him morning and evening."

Quran 16:103-104

"We know indeed that they say "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him

they wickedly point to is notable foreign while this is Arabic pure and clear.

Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, Allah will not guide them and

theirs will be a grievous Penalty."

Sai then asked:

By the way, what does the Islamic exegetes say about these verses? Any idea?

I have a very limited knowledge of various Tafsir. Is that what you are referring to? I do know that Zamakshari essentially states the same thing that Margoliouth states. You'll find D.S.M.'s quotes in Part 2.

-----------------------------------------

Sai's presents his final question:

Now my next question is: Where does the Quran, Hadith, and Sira say that Muhammad borrowed from the Judeo-Christian sources?

Quoting material is different from showing what you are claiming.

Well, already I've shown that the Quran states that people recognized what Muhammad was speaking as the Quran. If I were to hear someone re-tell the Wizard of Oz, and claim it was original, I'd say that it was not, and that I heard it before. The story teller may insist it was original, but I know the story, and can access the book which contains the story. This is about what the Meccans told Muhammad. Further, the Hadith plainly states that Muhammad heard the Jews relate, even read from, the Torah. Finally, even the Sira records a dialog between Muhammad and the Jews:

Rafi Haritha and Sallam Mishkam and Malik al-Sayf and Rafi Huraymila came to him (Muhammad) and said: "Do you not allege that you follow the religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify that it is the truth from God?" He replied, "Certainly, ..."

Do the sources state that Muhammad admitted that he borrowed? Of course not. That would destroy his credibility. Joseph Smith, and other like him would not admit their borrowings either. The Book of Mormon contains entire sections, copied from Isaiah, word for word in King James English, but the Mormons do not admit borrowing. Likewise many stories in the Quran, as I presented in Part 5 contain entire stories, copied from various sources, through oral transmission. I would not expect Muhammad, or say, members of the Taliban, to admit to borrowing.

Because Muhammad did not admit to borrowing does not mean he didn't. Criminals in court deny doing the crime, even when they are shown on video tape. The lack of admittance doesn't change the fact that the stories are far too similar to be coincidental. It doesn't hide the fact that well known myths, "fables of the ancients", were incorporated into the Quran.

I've graded a number of student papers. Frequently, students in the same class ace certain take home tests. I can compare their papers and see if they copied from each other. If the equations are set up exactly the same for a fair number of complex problems, I would be suspicious. If they were each to claim divine inspiriation, I would be amused. Likewise, the stories Muhammad told were copied from elsewhere. The stories were all to human to begin with. These stories did not exist on some divine tablet, but rather in previous men's imaginations. Muhammad heard them, and used them.

Similarity does not mean borrowing. But when the details are the same, when the sources are known and are known to be man made, and when the repeater, who was exposed to the very material, many times, in many places, makes the claim of divine originality, then we must say that he is fraudulent and that he borrowed.