Muhammad(s) was from????Mecaa/Petra/Palestine??

Anoushirvan

Very interesting link that if true change the whole geography of early Islam.
I have lived in Arabia and seen these people closely. The area of najd and surrounding have people lived for centuries and speaking Arabic language. The qabila of Quraish and others tribes still exists in present day s.arabia
Even the family who owns the key to Kaaba still lives in todays Makkah and have proof of their family tree date back to prophet.
I wonder some people would all made up so much and place prophet near Petra and also places Kaaba some where else. Just because figs and olives do not grow in Makkah?
If the article is true then it would be the biggest lie people have created to all Muslims….

There is a French historian, Jacqueline Chabbi (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Chabbi) who is a strong proponent of the historical anthropology approach and therefore advocates that Muhammad was from Mecca and the Kaaba was already there, rejecting theories that he would have been in Petra.
Historical anthropology is exactly about that "Even the family who owns the key to Kaaba still lives in todays Makkah and have proof of their family tree date back to prophet".
In this region, people are supposed to never lie about their bloodline, so the lineage could be considered truthful.

On the other hand, the same attachment to bloodline exists in Afghanistan among Pashtuns. Some claim that their ancestor was Abdul Rashid Pashtun and companion of Muhammad in Mecca, which in my opinion, is clearly mythical.
Other claim (or rather claimed in the past) to be descent of some lost Israeli tribes, which also sounds doubtful in most cases.

So I feel skeptical when people claim to be descent of some prestigious ancestor even in societies where bloodline is of the most importance.

Iyyaka

There is a French historian, Jacqueline Chabbi (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Chabbi) who is a strong proponent of the historical anthropology approach and therefore advocates that Muhammad was from Mecca and the Kaaba was already there, rejecting theories that he would have been in Petra.
Historical anthropology is exactly about that "Even the family who owns the key to Kaaba still lives in todays Makkah and have proof of their family tree date back to prophet".
In this region, people are supposed to never lie about their bloodline, so the lineage could be considered truthful.

Peace Anoushirvan,

(above in bold) YES. with also some verses from the Quran (Fusion quoted one 1437)

Anoushirvan

Peace Anoushirvan,

(above in bold) YES. with also some verses from the Quran (Fusion quoted one 1437)

Peace Iyyaka,

In fact, I disagree that verse 1437 means that Muhammad and / or the Kaaba were located in Mecca.
This verse means something else.

First of all, the speech is put in the mouth of Abraham.

And next, this verse is a stylistic device typical of the Jewish midrash, where "barren" metaphorically refers to idolatry.
Qur'an regularly alternates explicit statements and illustrations of them by stories that are known by the Jewish tradition, either the Bible or the midrash, and that must be understood according to this tradition.

The opponents to the Qur'an preacher were assumed to share the same corpus of Jewish traditions as him and his community, so if the explicit statements were not enough to convince them, then illustrations by stories resorting to the Bible or the midrash should do the job.

In the Jewish tradition, idolaters are those who do not follow the divine Law because they are astray by false deities or other gods.
The Jewish prayer actually consists in teaching the divine Law (the Torah) to the people by reciting it in synagogues.
It is fairly different from the Muslim ritual prayer.
In fact, a similar ritual than the Muslim prayer exists in Judaism, but its purpose is to put oneself in appropriate mental condition to receive the divine Law.

But in Qur'an the Salat has the same goal as in the Jewish tradition, unlike the Muslim tradition it is to teach the divine Law (but not Torah as Qur'an holds it as fairly outdated, see verse 2.141) to guard people from idolatry.

This is exactly what verse 14.37 wants us to hear like Abraham has sent part of his family in an idolatrous land so that they teach the divine Law to people, the followers of the Qur'an preacher should teach the divine Law in the Kaaba as the only path of salvation to those people who are misled by expecting angels or other supernatural entities (verses 1410 and 1411) to bring them closer to the divine realm.

Iyyaka

Peace Iyyaka,

In fact, I disagree that verse 1437 means that Muhammad and / or the Kaaba were located in Mecca.
This verse means something else.

And next, this verse is a stylistic device typical of the Jewish midrash, where "barren" metaphorically refers to idolatry.

This is exactly what verse 14.37 wants us to hear like Abraham has sent part of his family in an idolatrous land so that they teach the divine Law to people, the followers of the Qur'an preacher should teach the divine Law in the Kaaba as the only path of salvation to those people who are misled by expecting angels or other supernatural entities (verses 1410 and 1411) to bring them closer to the divine realm.

Peace Anoushirvan,

1/ - Sorry but it is not about Jewish midrash here (in verse 1437), but about arabic and quranic language ! (see point 2 below)

2/ - So, the word "barren" doesn't appears into the text " ghayri/not dhī/with zarʿin/cultivation".

The noun zarʿ (زَرْع) wich occurs 10 times into the Quran refers without no doubt to "cultivation - that is throwing, sowing, planting in the Earth." ; and not metaphorically refers to idolatry.
I let you analyse all the others 9 occurences here (https//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=zrE#(14379)).

Conclusion
The best translation of the sentence "biwādin ghayri dhī zarʿin" is probably the one of Mazhar "in the valley which is characteristically other than the possessor-capable of cultivation for crop production" (https//www.haqeeqat.pk/Quran.Corpus-1.htm)

Anoushirvan

Peace Iyyaka,

1/ - Sorry but it is not about Jewish midrash here (in verse 1437), but about arabic and quranic language ! (see point 2 below)

Qur'an is a Jewish text written in Arabic, it is not a Muslim text. By this, I mean it was written by someone (or a group of people) having a Jewish mindset and learned in the Jewish tradition, not a Muslim mindset.

2/ - So, the word "barren" doesn't appears into the text " ghayri/not dhī/with zarʿin/cultivation".

The noun zarʿ (زَرْع) wich occurs 10 times into the Quran refers without no doubt to "cultivation - that is throwing, sowing, planting in the Earth." ; and not metaphorically refers to idolatry.
I let you analyse all the others 9 occurences here (https//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=zrE#(14379)).

I'm perfectly aware that zar' means cultivation in Qur'an in those ten verses.
A metaphor means that you refer to some person or object by some other object belonging to another lexical field.
Like Big Apple for New York (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Apple) here your argument above amounts to say that an apple is a fruit and cannot refer to a city.

good_logic

Peace Anoushirvan.
This is your opinion/view I suppose,quote

"Qur'an is a Jewish text written in Arabic, it is not a Muslim text. By this, I mean it was written by someone (or a group of people) having a Jewish mindset and learned in the Jewish tradition, not a Muslim mindset."

Or do you have any proof/evidence ?
Please clarify.
Also Qoran s message is about a true "Muslim mindset" so surely the author knew about true "Muslim mindset" before Qoran was written?
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Anoushirvan

Peace Anoushirvan.
This is your opinion/view I suppose,quote

"Qur'an is a Jewish text written in Arabic, it is not a Muslim text. By this, I mean it was written by someone (or a group of people) having a Jewish mindset and learned in the Jewish tradition, not a Muslim mindset."

Or do you have any proof/evidence ?
Please clarify.

Peace GL,

I think that my claim (Qur'an is a Jewish writing in Arabic) is not more extravagant than the one claiming that Qur'an was authored by God Himself.

Once you learn what was this ancient Jewish thinking and tradition (and this is not just about reading the Bible, btw), you will surely recognize how deeply shaped by it Qur'an actually is.
Or at least, if you want to disagree with me on this point, you should learn it too first, otherwise arguing with me will be a waste of time.

good_logic

There is nothing to argue about since you confirm it is a claim.
You are entitled to claim anything you want.
So the "Jewish mindset" author/s you claim must have had a "Muslim mindset" theme in mind that your claim rejects as "author/s or does Qoran s message not call to "Islam to GOD"?
Just highlighting this issue for you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

Anoushirvan

There is nothing to argue about since you confirm it is a claim.
You are entitled to claim anything you want.
So the "Jewish mindset" author/s you claim must have had a "Muslim mindset" theme in mind that your claim rejects as "author/s or does Qoran s message not call to "Islam to GOD"?
Just highlighting this issue for you.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

We are seriously offtopic w.r.t. the initial question which was "Muhammad(s) was from????Mecaa/Petra/Palestine??".

Let's recap why we came here.
As I said above, verse 1437 is not sufficient to claim that the Qur'an preacher was from Mecca, for at least two reasons

it is uttered in the context of the life of Abraham, not the life of Muhammad.
A barren place, or place without cultivation, or expressions that belong to this lexical field, is a typical (ancient) Jewish stylistic device to metaphorically speak of idolatry.

Then we came to the question why would Qur'an embed this kind of Jewish imagery.
The reason, I say, is because Qur'an was a Jewish text written in Arabic, rather than a "Muslim" text, whatever you put inside the word "Muslim".
It was not from Rabbinic tradition but from a different Jewish tradition, though.

The proof of this appears obvious once we study this ancient Jewish thinking. It also gives to Qur'an a overall meaning that is much more natural in its historical context (i.e. Qur'an is not a book fallen from the Heaven through Muhammad's brain and speech).

So Qur'an is not primarily about "Islam to God".
It is primarily about salvation, the conditions of salvation, the signs that salvation will happen.
This is why the word "ayat", which means signs, is omnipresent in Qur'an.

But the topic of the signs of upcoming salvation is actually a typical Jewish theme. For example, the Talmud is full of this kind of discussions about the "signs" of the Messiah, of atonement of Israel, and so on.

Qur'an claims that salvation will take place through ethics and laws that fully conform to divine guidance (i.e. the deen).
This is fully in line with the Jewish tradition.

But it says so in a context (that it constantly alludes to) where his contemporaries shifted from this traditional Judaic belief to the Gnostic belief that salvation will take place through knowledge of the unseen stimulated by angelic entities and intermediate deities.
The other part of the context that Qur'an hardly alludes to is the foundation of the Arab kingdom around 620 J.C. triggering the need for a system of laws in lands conquered by the Arabs.

What you speak of a "true Muslim mindset" or "Islam to God" that Qur'an would call people to, it is actually an attempt from Qur'an to call his contemporaries to come back to this traditional Jewish belief of salvation by laws that follow the divine guidance.
Instead of trusting angels to save them with a useless knowledge, they should trust God to guide them to the correct system of laws.

Going back to the initial question, I would like to add that this doesn't prove that the Qur'an preacher was not from Mecca either.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that he came from Hijaz region (which Petra is at doorstep), because Qur'an contains grammatical constructs that ancient Arabic grammarians attributed to Old Hijazi dialect.
But on the other hand, Qur'an was certainly reshaped later in an Eastern region like Iraq, because it is pronounced with hamza which was missing in Old Hijazi dialect but present in Eastern dialects.
Cf. Kees Versteegh, Arabic Language.

Iyyaka

Peace Anoushirvan,

Let's recap why we came here.
As I said above, verse 1437 is not sufficient to claim that the Qur'an preacher was from Mecca, for at least two reasons

it is uttered in the context of the life of Abraham, not the life of Muhammad.

Yes for the context but it a weak argument coz

Abraham is the father of the Kaaba with Ishmael, and Muhammad is the heir.

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
2127 And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the Temple , "O our Sustainer! Accept Thou this from us for, verily, Thou alone art all-
hearing, all-knowing!

With the coming of Muhammad, Abraham's invocation/request was answered

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
2129 "O our Sustainer! Raise up from the midst of our off spring an apostle (Lit., "within them&quot from among themselves, who shall convey unto them Thy messages, and impart unto them
revelation as well as wisdom, and cause them to grow in purity for, verily, Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!"

Let's recap why we came here.
As I said above, verse 1437 is not sufficient to claim that the Qur'an preacher was from Mecca, for at least two reasons

A barren place, or place without cultivation, or expressions that belong to this lexical field, is a typical (ancient) Jewish stylistic device to metaphorically speak of idolatry.

Your (weak) hypothesis.

The literal meaning of a text can lead to 2 types of meaning (in order of priority)

proper sense
figurative sense
The figurative sense requires factual arguments.
But, in verse 1437, in its textual context, in the other occurrences of the term zarʿ in the Qur'an and in the Qur'anic Arabic language (cf. my previous post), the figurative sense (metaphor) that you propose is very difficult to accept as a working hypothesis.

Nb

With an intellectual curiosity, can you provide concrete examples which demonstrate that "a typical (ancient) Jewish stylistic device to metaphorically speak of idolatry."?

Anoushirvan

Peace Iyyaka,

Abraham is the father of the Kaaba with Ishmael, and Muhammad is the heir.

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
2127 And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the Temple , "O our Sustainer! Accept Thou this from us for, verily, Thou alone art all-
hearing, all-knowing!

With the coming of Muhammad, Abraham's invocation/request was answered

Muhammad Asad (The Message Of Quran)
2129 "O our Sustainer! Raise up from the midst of our off spring an apostle (Lit., "within them&quot from among themselves, who shall convey unto them Thy messages, and impart unto them
revelation as well as wisdom, and cause them to grow in purity for, verily, Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!"

So here (and whether you really wanted it or not) you are actually taking up the traditional Islamic narrative, e.g. found in Tabari, that Muhammad was the great prophet foreseen in the Scriptures according to their Islamic interpretation, descending from Abraham himself through Ismael instead of Isaac, and that Qur'an more or less desperately tries to convince Jews and Christians that indeed he was.

In my opinion, it is inconsistent methodology to leverage the traditional Islamic narrative while still holding personal interpretations of Qur'an, in particular without hadithes or well-known tafsirs.
But let's say that is your problem, not mine.

One word still on this traditional Islamic narrative outline above it reuses narrative patterns that are already found in the ancient Jewish thinking and tradition and that have been mostly forgotten now, mainly who is legitimately entitled to inherit the flame of the prophecy (i.e. being the light of the nations) among the different ideological branches in Judaism.
This idea is already known in Christianity as supersessionism (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism).

Here the original intent of the outlined Islamic narrative was that Islam, through its numerous successes on Earth (in the 7th and 8th CE) was supposed to establish a new Covenant between God and mankind and that the flame of the prophecy has switched from the offspring of Isaac to the offspring of Ismael. The offspring of Isaac (i.e. Judaism or Christianity) is no more legitimate to hold the flame of the prophecy and the Covenant with God.

This was the initial meaning of this narrative, now mostly forgotten.

In Qur'an, supersessionism is also at work but in a somewhat different fashion than in the Islamic narrative.

Did you notice that, while Qur'an speaks hundred times of the Children of Israel, speaks numerous times to them, yet it never speaks of the Children of Ismael ?
Never you will find in Qur'an the expression "Banu Isma'il".

So the Islamic idea that the lineage of Ismael shall inherit and take over the flame of the prophecy instead of the lineage of Isaac doesn't exist as such in Qur'an.

The reason why Qur'an summons Ismael is certainly because the figure of Ismael is that of the preaching to the idolaters (remember that in the Pentateuch, Ismael is born through Agar which was an Egyptian, so a converted pagan, he and his mother were sent in the wilderness, which again mentally refers to idolatry).
As the Qur'an preacher holds his contemporaries, especially those opposing him, as idolaters, they would need an Ismael.

I disagree with your reading that verse 2129 is about the prophecy of the coming of Muhammad.

Verse 2129 draws a parallel between the act of Abraham and the preaching of the Qur'an preacher. What Qur'an wants to say is that a messenger (Moses is likely implied in this verse) is sent by God among the people from themselves to teach the divine Law (Kitab and Hikmat) and not from the angels or the intermediate deities like the contemporaries of the Qur'an preacher desired.

Likewise a messenger was sent from the people themselves at the time of Abraham to teach the divine Law, a messenger is sent from the contemporaries of the Qur'an preacher (himself actually) to teach the divine Law.

The literal meaning of a text can lead to 2 types of meaning (in order of priority)

proper sense
figurative sense
The figurative sense requires factual arguments.
But, in verse 1437, in its textual context, in the other occurrences of the term zarʿ in the Qur'an and in the Qur'anic Arabic language (cf. my previous post), the figurative sense (metaphor) that you propose is very difficult to accept as a working hypothesis.

Firstly, it is only in verse 1437 that you find the expression "without cultivation" (or "without crops&quot, so of course the figurative sense of idolatry can only be found there.

But let's take another verse, like 134 (FM translation)

134 And on the earth are neighboring pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, some of which may be twin sharing the same root, or single, even though they are being watered with the same water source; and We make preference for some of them over others in what they consume. In that are signs for a people who comprehend.

Qur'an says that different pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, watered with the same water source, but producing fruits, some of them having better taste than others, is an ayat for people who reason.

Since Qur'an is not a course on agronomy, this is a hint that crops and alike should have a figurative meaning here as well though it is not said so.

At least there is a clear parallel with this

2253 Such messengers, We have preferred some over others; some of them talked to God, and He raised some of them in rank, and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear proofs and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. And had God wished, the people after them would not have fought after the proofs had come to them, but they disputed, some of them believed and some of them rejected. If God had wished they would not have fought, but God does what He pleases.

I disagree with your order of priority, the proper sense vs. the figurative sense, it doesn't work like that.
In Qur'an as well as other older Judaic texts, it is not one sense instead of the other, but both co-exist altogether.
In French we say "double entente", and I think the English expression is the same "double entente" or maybe "double entendre".

Nb

With an intellectual curiosity, can you provide concrete examples which demonstrate that "a typical (ancient) Jewish stylistic device to metaphorically speak of idolatry."?

If you can read French, you can look at this website https//www.lechampdumidrash.net/.
In addition, those books of Philippe Mergui (whom the website above borrows a lot of extracts)

Un étranger sur le toit
Comprendre les origines du christianisme

Some articles of this website try to interpret some hadithes and Qur'an passage through the midrash
https//www.lechampdumidrash.net/hadith-et-tradition-musulmane/hagarisme/

(I only provide this for information, I didn't say I fully agree with the viewpoint exposed in this website).

One example quoted by Philippe Mergui belongs to an old text of the 3rd century, the Acts of Thomas (http//www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsthomas.html)

87 And when the apostle had said these things in the hearing of all the multitude, they trode and pressed upon one another and the wife of Charisius the king's kinsman Ieapt out of her chair and cast herself on the earth before the apostle, and caught his feet and besought and said O disciple of the living God, thou art come into a desert country, for we live in the desert; being like to brute beasts in our conversation, but now shall we be saved by thy hands; I beseech thee, therefore, take thought of me, and pray for me, that the compassion of the God whom thou preachest may come upon me, and I may become his dwelling place and be joined in prayer and hope and faith in him, and I also may receive the seal and become an holy temple and he may dwell in me.

Fusion

Good morning Anoushirvan,
First of all thanks for your detailed analysis, appreciate it.
I have a question or call it a clarification that I need on your own viewpoint.
I get this notion from your messages that Quran was written by Mohammed himself along with help from one or more closed circle companion who have known the history of Jews and travel to those lands and have enough knowledge.
And that Quran is not as it claims a message revealed directly by god via Gabriel as wahi. To the heart of prophet Mohammad. In that case Mohammad could not been a prophet likes of Moses and others but an enlightened person who for the better of society wrote the book.
Please clarify your views so that I may have understood your replies in that background.

Cheers

Iyyaka

Peace Anoushirvan,

So here (and whether you really wanted it or not) you are actually taking up the traditional Islamic narrative, e.g. found in Tabari, that Muhammad was the great prophet foreseen in the Scriptures according to their Islamic interpretation, descending from Abraham himself through Ismael instead of Isaac, and that Qur'an more or less desperately tries to convince Jews and Christians that indeed he was.

In my opinion, it is inconsistent methodology to leverage the traditional Islamic narrative while still holding personal interpretations of Qur'an, in particular without hadithes or well-known tafsirs.
But let's say that is your problem, not mine.

I quote you verses of the Quran and you quote me Tabari! What is the logic ?
I am not a sectarian person (at least I try not to be).
Only the TRUTH matters to me, and if some informations from the Islamic Tradition or Tabari is true (with the Qur'an as the Utimate criterion) then I have no problem with that.

I put you the 4 verses together (FM translation), so that you can reflect on the fact that Muhammad is the messenger quoted in verse (from ishmael and Abraham's descendants)

2127 And as Abraham raised from the Sanctuary its foundations, along with Ishmael
"Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable."
2128 "Our Lord, and let us submit to You and from our progeny a nation submitting to You, and show us our rites, and forgive us; You are the Forgiver, the Merciful."
2129 "Our Lord, and send among them a MESSENGER from among themselves, that he may recite to them Your revelations and teach them the Book and the wisdom, and purify them. You are the Noble, the Wise."
1437 "OurLord, I have resided part of my progeny in a barren valley (uncultivated arable land/valley) near your Restricted Sanctuary. Our Lord, that they may hold the contact prayer, so let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks."

Firstly, it is only in verse 1437 that you find the expression "without cultivation" (or "without crops&quot, so of course the figurative sense of idolatry can only be found there.

But let's take another verse, like 134 (FM translation)

134 And on the earth are neighboring pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, some of which may be twin sharing the same root, or single, even though they are being watered with the same water source; and We make preference for some of them over others in what they consume. In that are signs for a people who comprehend.

Qur'an says that different pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, watered with the same water source, but producing fruits, some of them having better taste than others, is an ayat for people who reason.

Since Qur'an is not a course on agronomy, this is a hint that crops and alike should have a figurative meaning here as well though it is not said so.

"though it is not said so" BECAUSE "it is not said so" ! (the figurative meaning).
Only physical elements are enumerated here, and also before this verse.
So evident and simple..

At least there is a clear parallel with this

2253 Such messengers, We have preferred some over others; some of them talked to God, and He raised some of them in rank, and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear proofs and We supported him with the Holy Spirit. And had God wished, the people after them would not have fought after the proofs had come to them, but they disputed, some of them believed and some of them rejected. If God had wished they would not have fought, but God does what He pleases.

No it is not so clear as you said.
Different contexts !
The signs (ayat) of creation, like the Quranic signs (same term = ayat), are elements of teaching about God, and how it is THE sublime and THE only one.

If you can read French, you can look at this website https//www.lechampdumidrash.net/.
In addition, those books of Philippe Mergui (whom the website above borrows a lot of extracts)

Un étranger sur le toit
Comprendre les origines du christianisme

Some articles of this website try to interpret some hadithes and Qur'an passage through the midrash
https//www.lechampdumidrash.net/hadith-et-tradition-musulmane/hagarisme/

(I only provide this for information, I didn't say I fully agree with the viewpoint exposed in this website).

One example quoted by Philippe Mergui belongs to an old text of the 3rd century, the Acts of Thomas (http//www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsthomas.html)

87 And when the apostle had said these things in the hearing of all the multitude, they trode and pressed upon one another and the wife of Charisius the king's kinsman Ieapt out of her chair and cast herself on the earth before the apostle, and caught his feet and besought and said O disciple of the living God, thou art come into a desert country, for we live in the desert; being like to brute beasts in our conversation, but now shall we be saved by thy hands; I beseech thee, therefore, take thought of me, and pray for me, that the compassion of the God whom thou preachest may come upon me, and I may become his dwelling place and be joined in prayer and hope and faith in him, and I also may receive the seal and become an holy temple and he may dwell in me.

Yes i can read french and thank you for these different links (to sudy !).
BUT your example (in bold above) are not an example of the use of a metaphor.
Indeed, the word "desert" is used in the text into its proper sense...that is a desert in its physical sense.

Anoushirvan

Peace Fusion,

I get this notion from your messages that Quran was written by Mohammed himself along with help from one or more closed circle companion who have known the history of Jews and travel to those lands and have enough knowledge.
And that Quran is not as it claims a message revealed directly by god via Gabriel as wahi. To the heart of prophet Mohammad. In that case Mohammad could not been a prophet likes of Moses and others but an enlightened person who for the better of society wrote the book.

There are two different aspects here

My own personal opinion on the process of revelation / writing of Qur'an (and other scriptures for that matter). Here I believe for some personal reasons that people calling themselves "prophets" or "messengers" took their own self-enlightenment for a divine inspiration.
So there is no divine inspiration or revelation as such.
How people at the time Qur'an could have received and understood its message.

Normally both points should be uncorrelated.

For point 2, a lot of us here on this forum and elsewhere are actually wondering the same question, so I'm not the only one.
The reason is that we hope to approach the purest meaning of Qur'an by establishing how its contemporaries received it.

Now, I hold that the key to understand the correct meaning of Qur'an is to be found for its greatest part in the ancient Jewish thinking and tradition.

This, in my opinion, is perfectly compatible with the historical context of Qur'an and provides illuminating insights on the meaning of Qur'an.
But after 1400 years of history and common understanding of Qur'an that have deeply shaped the Muslim mindset, I understand this could be very difficult to accept for most people.

This is where my personal opinion of point 1 above is correlated to point 2 since I do not hold Qur'an as text authored by God Himself, I have much less trouble to accept that it was written with a mindset strongly tainted by a Judaic tradition.

But in theory, you could still hold that Muhammad or whatever his name or who he was truly received a divine inspiration from God and that Qur'an be marked by a Judaic tradition and mainly understandable within this tradition.
And in my opinion, it is exactly what his contemporary followers believed.

good_logic

Peace Anoushirvan.
Do you mind if we do a simple exercise to check what the author of Qoran is saying confirms your stand?
This will determine if what you say holds your argument about a "Jewish mindset" writing Qoran. like, quote

"Now, I hold that the key to understand the correct meaning of Qur'an is to be found for its greatest part in the ancient Jewish thinking and tradition"

I will put forth verses for you to interpret for us according to your understanding,then I will put my understanding of the same verses. We will then see if your argument confirms or contradicts your point of view?
Here are the verses I have chosen at random

Surah 45 Verses 2- 24

تَنزيلُ الكِتٰبِ مِنَ اللَّهِ العَزيزِ الحَكيمِ

إِنَّ فِى السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالأَرضِ لَـٔايٰتٍ لِلمُؤمِنينَ

وَفى خَلقِكُم وَما يَبُثُّ مِن دابَّةٍ ءايٰتٌ لِقَومٍ يوقِنونَ

وَاختِلٰفِ الَّيلِ وَالنَّهارِ وَما أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ مِنَ السَّماءِ مِن رِزقٍ فَأَحيا بِهِ الأَرضَ بَعدَ مَوتِها وَتَصريفِ الرِّيٰحِ ءايٰتٌ لِقَومٍ يَعقِلونَ

تِلكَ ءايٰتُ اللَّهِ نَتلوها عَلَيكَ بِالحَقِّ فَبِأَىِّ حَديثٍ بَعدَ اللَّهِ وَءايٰتِهِ يُؤمِنونَ

وَيلٌ لِكُلِّ أَفّاكٍ أَثيمٍ

يَسمَعُ ءايٰتِ اللَّهِ تُتلىٰ عَلَيهِ ثُمَّ يُصِرُّ مُستَكبِرًا كَأَن لَم يَسمَعها فَبَشِّرهُ بِعَذابٍ أَليمٍ

وَإِذا عَلِمَ مِن ءايٰتِنا شَيـًٔا اتَّخَذَها هُزُوًا أُولٰئِكَ لَهُم عَذابٌ مُهينٌ

مِن وَرائِهِم جَهَنَّمُ وَلا يُغنى عَنهُم ما كَسَبوا شَيـًٔا وَلا مَا اتَّخَذوا مِن دونِ اللَّهِ أَولِياءَ وَلَهُم عَذابٌ عَظيمٌ
.
هٰذا هُدًى وَالَّذينَ كَفَروا بِـٔايٰتِ رَبِّهِم لَهُم عَذابٌ مِن رِجزٍ أَليمٌ

اللَّهُ الَّذى سَخَّرَ لَكُمُ البَحرَ لِتَجرِىَ الفُلكُ فيهِ بِأَمرِهِ وَلِتَبتَغوا مِن فَضلِهِ وَلَعَلَّكُم تَشكُرونَ

وَسَخَّرَ لَكُم ما فِى السَّمٰوٰتِ وَما فِى الأَرضِ جَميعًا مِنهُ إِنَّ فى ذٰلِكَ لَـٔايٰتٍ لِقَومٍ يَتَفَكَّرونَ
.
قُل لِلَّذينَ ءامَنوا يَغفِروا لِلَّذينَ لا يَرجونَ أَيّامَ اللَّهِ لِيَجزِىَ قَومًا بِما كانوا يَكسِبونَ

مَن عَمِلَ صٰلِحًا فَلِنَفسِهِ وَمَن أَساءَ فَعَلَيها ثُمَّ إِلىٰ رَبِّكُم تُرجَعونَ

وَلَقَد ءاتَينا بَنى إِسرٰءيلَ الكِتٰبَ وَالحُكمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ وَرَزَقنٰهُم مِنَ الطَّيِّبٰتِ وَفَضَّلنٰهُم عَلَى العٰلَمينَ

وَءاتَينٰهُم بَيِّنٰتٍ مِنَ الأَمرِ فَمَا اختَلَفوا إِلّا مِن بَعدِ ما جاءَهُمُ العِلمُ بَغيًا بَينَهُم إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَقضى بَينَهُم يَومَ القِيٰمَةِ فيما كانوا فيهِ يَختَلِفونَ

ثُمَّ جَعَلنٰكَ عَلىٰ شَريعَةٍ مِنَ الأَمرِ فَاتَّبِعها وَلا تَتَّبِع أَهواءَ الَّذينَ لا يَعلَمونَ

إِنَّهُم لَن يُغنوا عَنكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيـًٔا وَإِنَّ الظّٰلِمينَ بَعضُهُم أَولِياءُ بَعضٍ وَاللَّهُ وَلِىُّ المُتَّقينَ

هٰذا بَصٰئِرُ لِلنّاسِ وَهُدًى وَرَحمَةٌ لِقَومٍ يوقِنون

أَم حَسِبَ الَّذينَ اجتَرَحُوا السَّيِّـٔاتِ أَن نَجعَلَهُم كَالَّذينَ ءامَنوا وَعَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ سَواءً مَحياهُم وَمَماتُهُم ساءَ ما يَحكُمونَ

وَخَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالأَرضَ بِالحَقِّ وَلِتُجزىٰ كُلُّ نَفسٍ بِما كَسَبَت وَهُم لا يُظلَمونَ

أَفَرَءَيتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلٰهَهُ هَوىٰهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلىٰ عِلمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلىٰ سَمعِهِ وَقَلبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلىٰ بَصَرِهِ غِشٰوَةً فَمَن يَهديهِ مِن بَعدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرونَ

Is this alright for you to do?.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

truth

Peace,

I think there is cautious acknowledgement of the fact by sectarians that the Quran prophet's recorded first wife had a cousin 'Waraqa' who was either a Christ believer (Nasara) or follower of some other tradition familiar with the teachings and ideas on Jesus and so on. The text of The Quran itself would argue that there must have been a wider familiarity with these stories as there would be little impact in relaying this information about past prophets, and especially 'Jesus, son of Mary' to a community whose people were not familiar with the topics already.

Given this acknowledgement, the cautiousness surrounding these topics by sectarians is because too much focus on a Christ believer / Nasara origin undermines the official narrative that the prophet was from the Arab background that he is nowadays wrapped in, in the sectarian narratives.

The sectarian position ends up tying itself in knots however, over these delicate points, as well as their position on the alleged illiteracy of the prophet to try and 'enhance' the revelation and distance him as much as possible from any familiarity with Christ believer knowledge or ability to read or write it. This is to distinguish and establish the prophet amongst a broader group of ignorant polytheist Arabs whom they themselves claim to (and probably do) come from.

The attachment to illiteracy is an interesting and ironic point since it would be far more miraculous for a person who is genuinely non-Arab in ethnicity and lingual ability, ie. a foreigner, to be suddenly able to recite perfect revelations in a language that they were not 'versed in' so to speak.

My impression on the topic, based on my own research is that the prophet was from a small community of Christ believers, hence his first marriage to an older 'Hadija' who was also acknowledged to be linked to this community (based on her established relationship to 'Waraqa' and was not an ethnic Arab himself, speaking Arabic as a non primary language. This would explain at least where the sectarian positions of 'illiteracy' come from.

Medieval views of the prophet by writers such as Dante Alighieri (d. 1321 CE), writing in his 'Divine Comedy' (considered the finest literary work in the Italian language) see Muhammed as first and foremost a Christ believer who was astray from the canonical/orthodox teachings. This was the prevalent view of Muhammed prior to the ascendancy of the Ottoman Empire and its influence on Europe. Europeans saw 'islam' after that point as distinct and as the Turkish religion (not Arab).

This kind of discussion is obviously completely against the official narrative and therefore resisted vehemently as if it could invalidate their entire position. There is the rub. If the background of a prophet, or discussions of it are enough to completely dislocate the entire basis of your beliefs then they are not standing on secure ground to begin with.

Even if the true origin of the prophet is lost to history or debated endlessly, it makes not a bit of difference to the fact that we have today the Book of provable Divine origin that he was given the task of transmitting to humanity.

This proof is based on mathematics and the number nineteen that transcends both time and language; and makes these kinds of polemic attacks on the basis of the ethnicity or origin of the prophet completely moot with respect to the origin of The Quran from The God.

good_logic

funny how the author of Qoran was aware of these kind of tales
The purity and perfection of the Arabic language in the text is astonishing and impossible to come from another foreign language copied/translated ...

"When we substitute one revelation in place of another, and God is fully aware of what He reveals, they say, "You made this up!" Indeed, most of them do not know.

Say, "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the Muslimeen"

We are fully aware that they say, "A human being is teaching him!" The tongue of the source they hint at is non-Arabic, and this is a perfect Arabic tongue."

Also funny how the author hints clearly at the correct mindset to have and condemns the Jewish mindset , Cristian mindset or any other man s religion mindset

Abraham was indeed an exemplary vanguard in his submission to God, a monotheist who never served/followed idols.
إ
Because he was appreciative of His Lord's blessings, He chose him and guided him in a straight path.

We granted him happiness in this life, and in the Hereafter he will be with the righteous.

Then we inspired you to follow the religion of Abraham,* the monotheist; he never was an idol worshiper.

Example of Abraham s way and wisdom to follow

You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.

GOD bless.
Peace.

Anoushirvan

Peace Iyyaka,

I quote you verses of the Quran and you quote me Tabari! What is the logic ?

The logic is that the way you interpreted the verses you have quoted to me was made possible because of the Islamic tradition that makes Muhammad the heir of Abraham and Ismael by lineage.
Once you are detached from this tradition, it is not obvious at all that those verses have this meaning.

I only mentioned Tabari for reference and example because he is one of the most well-known for reporting this tradition. He was not the only one.

I am not a sectarian person (at least I try not to be).
Only the TRUTH matters to me, and if some informations from the Islamic Tradition or Tabari is true (with the Qur'an as the Utimate criterion) then I have no problem with that.

But you take it the wrong way IMO. Or more accurately you take it as exactly as in traditional Islam you make Qur'an a text that merely sanctifies Sunna and tradition, gives it an divine anointing (>>(with the Qur'an as the Utimate criterion)<&lt.

I put you the 4 verses together (FM translation), so that you can reflect on the fact that Muhammad is the messenger quoted in verse (from ishmael and Abraham's descendants)

2127 And as Abraham raised from the Sanctuary its foundations, along with Ishmael
"Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable."
2128 "Our Lord, and let us submit to You and from our progeny a nation submitting to You, and show us our rites, and forgive us; You are the Forgiver, the Merciful."
2129 "Our Lord, and send among them a MESSENGER from among themselves, that he may recite to them Your revelations and teach them the Book and the wisdom, and purify them. You are the Noble, the Wise."
1437 "OurLord, I have resided part of my progeny in a barren valley (uncultivated arable land/valley) near your Restricted Sanctuary. Our Lord, that they may hold the contact prayer, so let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks."

Again, you are taking those verses as a prophecy that Abraham would have made thousand years ago that there would be a messenger (Muhammad) in Arabia somewhere in the 7th CE in Arabia from his progeny.

But this is not at all the meaning of those verses.

The inheritance relationship implied in those verses between Abraham, Ismael, and the Qur'an preacher is not all about bloodlines and lineage like you and the Islamic tradition hold.
It is about the fact that the Qur'an preacher and his community view themselves as the heirs of Abraham and of the God's promise because they behave exactly like Abraham did.

Compare with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke where Jesus is the heir of Abraham and David by bloodline and the genealogy is given (whether real or imaginary).
Whereas in Qur'an there is no genealogy given.

Qur'an clearly views bloodline and genealogies as suspicious, not totally bad, but clearly suspicious, at least when it comes to prophecy (e.g. the son of Noah, that the Children of Israel are descendant of those saved by the ark, so should be believers, yet they spread corruption on earth, etc.).

In addition, regarding the generation of Abraham, Isaac, Ismael, Jacob and his sons, Qur'an concludes the sequence of verses from 2124 to 2133 by
2134 That is a nation that has passed away; to them is what they have earned, and to you is what you have earned; and you will not be asked regarding what they did.

So clearly the intent of verse 2128 is not to recall an hypothetical prophecy made by Abraham that Muhammad would come one day. The generation of Abraham is over, the generation of the Qur'an preacher bears its own responsibility and the one of Abraham bears no responsibility on that of the Qur'an preacher and vice-versa.

"though it is not said so" BECAUSE "it is not said so" ! (the figurative meaning).
Only physical elements are enumerated here, and also before this verse.
So evident and simple..

As I said, both meanings, literal one and allegorical one coexist together.
You want to stick to the literal meaning because you don't know how the recognize the intended allegorical meaning, and also because doing so would imply a lot of things on your side.

No it is not so clear as you said.
Different contexts !
The signs (ayat) of creation, like the Quranic signs (same term = ayat), are elements of teaching about God, and how it is THE sublime and THE only one.

Sorry, no. Again, this is the teaching of Islam and Islamic tradition that Qur'an would have been revealed to explain how great God is and that He is the only one.
This is not doing justice to the text to hold such simplistic view of it, and I even believe it is on purpose that the Islamic tradition has long striven to dismiss the true message of Qur'an.

In addition, there were no more polytheists in Arabia in the 7th CE, this is what archeology and historical research teach us. So writing a text to explain that God is the Only One and how great He is was pretty pointless in that context.

Ayat / signs are not elements of teaching about God, they are elements of teaching about salvation and eschatology.
Again, this is fully in-line with Jewish background of Qur'an.

Yes i can read french and thank you for these different links (to sudy !).
BUT your example (in bold above) are not an example of the use of a metaphor.
Indeed, the word "desert" is used in the text into its proper sense...that is a desert in its physical sense.

No !
The characters of the text do not live in a desert. They live in India, according to the text, in a country where there is wood, water and even an aqueduct (!).
King Gondophares (Gundaphorus) was an historical figure, king of Taxila (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxila), near Rawalpindi.
At the end of the Acts of Thomas, Thomas is said to have been killed with a spear, after having converted Mygdonia, the stepsister of King Misdaeus, Tertia the wife of the king, Iuzannes the son of the king, etc. Other accounts than this one narrate that he was killed in Mylapore in South India (https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylapore).
South India is not a desert.

Iyyaka

Peace Anoushirvan,

I have nothing to add (kind of intellectual impasse)

Just one question to satisfy curiosity

134 And on the earth are neighboring pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, some of which may be twin sharing the same root, or single, even though they are being watered with the same water source; and We make preference for some of them over others in what they consume. In that are signs for a people who comprehend.

Qur'an says that different pieces of land with gardens of grapes and plants and palm trees, watered with the same water source, but producing fruits, some of them having better taste than others, is an ayat for people who reason.

Since Qur'an is not a course on agronomy, this is a hint that crops and alike should have a figurative meaning here as well though it is not said so.

So, according to you, what is the figurative meaning of the textual elements put in bold above ?

Fusion

Hello Friend,

What you expressed about Waraqa is the same and more I heard from an Arabic friend of mine 7 years ago. I did not really understand it then or pay any attention. Now you are the second one who mentions the name Waraqa.
At that time, that person used to say that Waraqa and the prophet together wrote the Quran initially or some part of it and when he dies, the Quran revelation stopped until after some time it was continued, hinting that it was Waraqa who inspired in writing of book because of his knowledge about Christians and Jews and the scriptures.
Moreover, that person also mentioned that prophet's marriage to Khadija happened in a church as per Christian law.. not sure if true.

As per Wikipedia both Waraqa and Khadija were Arabs from Quraish tribes.

Moreover, the concept of the prophet being illiterate was made up. else how could a person perform business if he does not know how to read or write or count else Khadija would not have appointed him to perform her business. All of this was made up to ensure that an illiterate person can not possibly know such knowledge or write such a book as Quran. Many Salafi schools of thought at times quote Bukhari hadith for prophet's illiteracy.
https//sunnah.com/bukhari1913

Therefore I would like to know what is your own opinion about this matter?

Good logic has quoted some of the verses which are so beautiful that one wonders if this book really written by a person? In addition, the whole Quran itself with all its linguistic glory could not have been written by a human how advanced at the time. What was the motive of the prophet then? he leads a simple life with a very good character which even his enemies vouch for. All of the ills came after he passed away and his followers went on a violent version of the interpretation of the book and then the book of hadiths and we all know what happened in Islamic history full of bloodshed.