Muhammad said: I am ALL the Prophets

I am ALL the Prophets

This article is a work in progress. The final word is certainly not yet spoken. This is a suggestion for further discussion, and this topic is certainly worth a discussion. I welcome all feedback. Since most of these thoughts were originally posted on a discussion board, this article is largely in a format that directly and personally addresses the reader / discussion partner.

On the newsgroup (discussion forum) soc.religion.islam somebody mentioned a saying by Muhammad:

I asked the person who had posted this for a reference and he gave me this answer:

Whatever the authenticity of this saying, or its exact original meaning, I think it is the perfect title for some observations I want to bring to your attention.

Summary of past discussion, Talut (Saul)

In my article on the story of Talut, I mentioned that my observations on this passage are not restricted to only those verses but similar discoveries can be made in various stories throughout the Qur'an. I have not written up all of these in the same detail as I have done it for the analysis of the story of Talut, but I want to give you at least some more thoughts on this topic, so that you know what I am talking about.

I have argued that in the story on Talut there are many differences to the Biblical account. This alone is noteworthy but not in itself strong proof that the Qur'an is wrong, even though from a historical viewpoint it is more likely that the source nearer to the event is correct and not one that is removed by many centuries and a different nation in a different location. Muhammad was removed from the actual events in many ways, and from a scientific viewpoint (the way historians work with sources) his stories have no credibility over against the Biblical records. But let us assume, we have these stories and treat them both as possible. How do we decide between them?

I argued that there was no discernable reason for the Biblical writers to change the actual events. They lack motivation for such an elaborate forgery. On the other hand, I showed that most of the details in which the Qur'an differs from the Bible can be matched to actual historical events in Muhammad's life and those of his companions and consequently the Qur'anic text looks like a sermon to his companions, using the Biblical story only as a skeleton and transforming it into a contemporary parable in order to make it a message to the present listeners by including THEIR own current situation into the story so that it becomes immediately relevant. Muhammad uses story telling as a method of preaching to the Muslim community.

So far the summary of my argument. If you have not yet read my article on The Story of Talut, you might want to do so now, since I am assuming in the following that you are familiar with it.

In the following, I want to argue that these observations are not unique to the story about Talut, but that Muhammad projects himself into many of the stories from the Bible and even non-Biblical material, and in this sense the quotation chosen as title for this article is true, he is indeed "all the prophets" as they are presented in the Qur'an. Wherever we turn, we really read about Muhammad and his message, and not about the prophets whose names he bears in any particular story.

I will apply the same method as in my reflections on Talut. I will identify a few narratives refering to Biblical records, and observe which details are different (that is the part that needs explanation) and then match these differences to facts from Muhammad's life and prophetic career. The motivation for the differences becomes apparent as the desire to make the story "relevant for today" which might have been planned (as I am convinced it is in some of them) or subconscious as might be the case in others.

This should suffice as introductory explanation regarding the task and methodology of this article. Let us turn to further observations on the Qur'anic presentation of various other Prophets.

Noah

According to the the Bible only Noah and his household/family are saved (from the flood), i.e. Noah, his wife and their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, as well as their wives, eight people in all.

Why does the Qur'an change the story and claims that some family members of the prophet (his son [11:43] and his wife [66:10]) were lost? On the other hand, Muhammad seems to add some companions of Noah as being among those who are saved [11:27, 11:40].

Surah 66:10 claims that Noah's wife went to hell. This does not necessarily mean she died in the flood. She could have been saved at that time, but then later been "unfaithful" (disobedient to her prophet husband). In any case, the claim that his wife did go to hell is peculiar to the Qur'an and not found in the Bible.

Furthermore, why does the Qur'an speak about Noah as "driven out" by his people [54:9]? Nothing like that is found in the Bible, but it sounds, again, quite right for Muhammad. We have seen this same "theme" of being "driven out" in the story of Talut. And the flight from Mecca to Medina was seemingly a traumatic experience of Muhammad. No wonder it shows up ever so often. (In fact, the Qur'an itself forces the comparison between the rejection of Muhammad by the Meccans [54:3-8] and the rejection of Noah by his people [54:9-16].)

What about the family and companions issue? On the one hand, Muhammad's message is rejected from many in his family (clan) while on the other hand, he has companions/followers who believe his preaching. So, he tells his people that the companions of the prophet get saved, since what incentive would it be to the companions if only the family got saved?

On the other hand, why are Noah's son and wife lost? Muhammad didn't find faith in all of his family and sometimes even his wives conspired against him. So, he gives a clear warning against them via inclusion in the Qur'an: Being the prophet's wife won't help you if you don't shape up and obey.

The inclusion/exclusion of various lost or saved people on the ark of Noah is discussed in further detail in the article, Noah and his son.

Moses

We see a similar dynamic in the story of Moses before Pharaoh. One detail different to the Biblical account is the reaction of Pharaoh's magicians. The confrontation between Moses and the sorcerers is quite different in Qur'an and Bible, but let us not look at all the details, only one interesting bit. According to 7:120, after the first showdown the sorcerers immediately confess faith in Moses and the God of Moses and Aaron because of his superior powers (in the Bible, the magicians recognize to be confronted by a higher power only after the third plague Ex. 8:19, but they never confess true faith). The next events according to the Qur'an are not found in the Bible: Pharaoh threatens to torture them if they continue to confess faith in Moses and his God. In the Qur'an the magicians insist in their new faith and even preach "Muslim theology" to Pharaoh in response. In the Bible we find them still sticking with Pharaoh as his officials for many more plagues even after they recognized in between that this must be from God. But they do not become followers of Moses, like the Qur'an implicates.

This difference in the Qur'an again matches up with Muhammad's story in Mecca. There were a number of servants of powerful people who believed in Muhammad but their superiors did not and they were threatened and at times even tortured (like the slave Bilal was tortured by his master for his faith in Muhammad). This is the connection and sermon of encouragement in this story. Stay firm, like the sorcerers stood firm after they recognized the truth and they spoke of their faith to their master instead of giving in to his threats. Muhammad encourages his believers to do the same as these exemplary believers, who are praying to their Lord for constancy and patience. Good advise, without a question; however, it is not based on factual history, but made up to encourage the present listeners. (The passages regarding the Egyptian magicians are discussed in this article.)

A very similar observation can be made regarding Surah 66:11 where we read that Pharaoh's wife supposedly was a believer in Moses' message and God. This is not found in the Bible. What is the motivation? We know that some of the wives and sons of powerful men in Mecca believed Muhammad and they, like Pharaoh's wife, would have wished "O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to Thee, a mansion in the Garden. And save me from Pharaoh and his doings. And save me from those who do wrong." This is again, very "Qur'anic/Islamic" theology that is put into the mouth of Pharaoh's wife, just like a follower of Muhammad, persecuted by his/her own family would pray it, but it is not possible to connect this with anything in the Bible, and what is more, nowhere does Moses preach about "the Garden" which on the other hand is a prominent theme of Muhammad's message. Again, this is Muhammad preaching to his companions under the rule of powerful opposers to his message, not to give up but to be like the wife of Pharaoh (which he made up for their encouragement).

Also, in Sura 5:20, Moses is speaking with the viewpoint or the "time perspective" of Muhammad:

This is discussed in more detail in another article.

The Promised Land

Perhaps the most surprising element in the quranic version of the story of Moses and the Pharaoh is the fact that in the Qur'an the land promised to the Children of Israel is Egypt. The evidence for this conclusion is presented in the article Israel, the Quran and the Promised Land.

Here we want to ask: What is the message communicated to his audience when Muhammad preaches that "the Children of Israel took over the land of Pharaoh and his people"? The point is clear: The believers take over the land of the unbelievers. That is the principle, that is the final goal. That is what Muhammad practiced in his own life and mission. He conquered all of Arabia, and the unbelievers were either expelled or enslaved, but the land fell to the Muslims. In fact, the Qur'an states quite openly that Allah restores the belongings of the unbelievers to Muhammad (implying that they are rightfully his), and the hadith even says that the earth belongs to (Allah and) Muhammad, see this article.

In this framework, the quranic teaching of making Egypt the land promised to the followers of Moses is no longer really surprising; suddenly it makes sense. Even though it is historically wrong, it is simply the specific expression of the general Islamic principle that the believers take over the land of the unbelievers. Pharaoh and his council rejected the message of Moses. Therefore, the followers of Moses take over their land.

With this observation we have probably found the main motivation for this particular false claim of the Qur'an. [The article, Adoption by Adaption, provides a further element that may have contributed to it as well.] It is obvious that the author of the Qur'an is not interested to teach truth, but merely abuses past stories to preach to his present audience. He is usurping the history of God and rewriting it for his own purposes. He lies about the past in order to justify the present action and agenda. The author of the Qur'an is exposed as a manipulator, as a forgerer of history, as a liar.

Joseph

In the story of Joseph, we find him making the following statement:

How could Joseph have ABANDONED the religion of a people, when his father and grand- and greatgrandfather never worshiped other gods? You can only abandon what you were a part of. Otherwise it is "refuse to join" (the worship of gods in Egypt after he was sold as a slave to the Egyptians).

This statement does not fit the biography of Joseph, but it again fits perfectly with the life of Muhammad, showing again that it really is Muhammad speaking, who puts his own experience (abandoning the Arab pagan religion and following the religion of Abraham ...) into the mouth of Joseph.

Jesus

So far about Noah, Joseph and Moses. Let's have a quick look at the Jesus of the Qur'an as well. I don't remember where it was, but somewhere I read that Muhammad said something like "of all the prophets I am most like Jesus ..." And in other sources, he reported saying:

In the Injilu 't Tufuliyyah better known as the Arabic "Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ", an Arabic translation of an originally Coptic apocryphal fable from Egypt, from the 2nd century, we find:

In this fable of Jesus' birth, we find the claim that Jesus spoke in the cradle. This is a very unusual claim and might have come to the attention of Muhammad. Maybe some heretical Christian sect whom he encountered held this story to be true. However, notice both the similarities and the differences to the Qur'anic account in Surah 19:28-34:

Most of what Jesus supposedly says here are good things, but it is distinctly Muslim theology that comes from his lips. Clearly, Muhammad took the story of the speaking in the cradle, but he put different words into Jesus' mouth and made him preach "Muhammad's message". Even though in another passage the Qur'an retains the title "the word of God", Muhammad purged "the son of God" and "My Father" and "sent for the salvation of the world" from the account since this did not fit his theology.

However, the part that is most interesting to me here, is the following. Jesus is made to say as a newborn infant from the cradle:

The statement is in past tense. My question is: When did Jesus receive this book? When was he appointed a prophet? If one were to read this statement "logically" then this has to have happened before his birth.

On the other hand, Muhammad only becomes a prophet at 40 years old, and it takes him 23 years of receiving his book piece by piece. Doesn't that look strange in comparison? Well, I would propose, quite disinterested in "logical coherence" (we saw the same kind of incoherence in a few statements of Talut), Muhammad wants to preach a message to his listeners. And the message is that he is just like the earlier prophets. So, his main topic about himself is that "he is a prophet" and that "he has been given a book". And so this is what he puts into the mouth of the newborn Jesus even though this makes not much sense. The story of speaking in the cradle was around before and probably known to him, but he took some liberties in what Jesus was going to speak in support of Muhammad, making Jesus message identical to Muhammad's message, "confirming" himself by this method.

The main reason that the Qur'an speaks about "a book given to Jesus" is probably Muhammad's expectation that he will find greater acceptance if he is similar to an already accepted prophet. Since most Arabs did not know much at all about the Jewish or Christian holy books the "information" about these prophets that Muhammad gave them in the Qur'an was most of what they ever knew. Muhammad was not thinking about later times when this could become a "contradiction to the reality in the outside world". In fact, he might not even have known this himself. He was familiar with some broad ideas but not with the details of the scriptures. He only thought about his legitimation to the Arab tribes around him who knew nearly nothing about true Christianity.

I think that is also the reason that Muhammad found comparatively few converts among the Jewish and Christian minority in Arabia. They knew that his message did not match up with their scriptures. The Jewish tribes in Medina did not accept him and in response he expelled or killed them [see the articles about the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza].

The delegation of Christians from Najran visited and debated with him for several days but said in the end that he is not a valid prophet and left again. Muhammad was not pleased about that and later decreed that Arabia cannot contain people of different religions and that the people of the book have no place in the Hijaz. They were mostly expelled eventually, or even killed. He could not allow those around him who would constantly challenge his religious authority with their true scriptures.

And we even have the very strange formulation "Peace on me ...", something never found anywhere in the Bible. Maybe that is one source of saying "Peace be upon him", that Muhammad was so much desiring that people say that about him, he inserted it here, making Jesus not only saying it about others, but saying it about himself, giving Muhammad a reason to ask for the same from his followers. And it is practiced faithfully to this day.

It is also interesting that the Qur'an claims that both, Jesus and Muhammad, were saved by Allah from the plotting of the unbelievers and from death by means of "divine deception".

What does Allah's scheming look like? He makes it look like they crucified Jesus, but in reality Jesus is lifted to heaven.

And about Muhammad it is said:

Even Yusuf Ali recognizes that the story of Muhammad and Jesus is remarkably similar in various aspects, when he comments on 3:52:

Again, because not only their message but even their experience is so similar, therefore, Muhammad's message must be authentic and all people of faith should be Muslims.

Years after my own observations were written and published in this article, we discovered Neal Robinson's book, Christ in Islam and Christianity [State University of New York Press, Albany 1991], in which he clearly admits that Muhammad modeled Jesus’ life after his own. The following are a few excerpts that confirm my conclusions:

Making Jesus in the Qur'an a prophet who is calling his disciples to die "fighting in God's cause" and putting an emphasis on ritual prayer and zakat (fixed measures of almsgiving) into his mouth is a particularly strong indication that Muhammad modeled Jesus after his own, since these elements stand in contrast to Jesus' life and message as found in the Gospels. In stark contrast to Muhammad, Jesus explicitly stated that "my kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews." Nowhere do we find a command of Jesus to fight, use force or compulsion in order to spread his message or to establish his rule. He even forbade his disciples to use arms to defend him when the authorities came with the goal to arrest and to kill him Matthew 26:52-53. Muhammad, on the other hand, personally fought dozens of wars and commanded his followers to fight many more with the goal to subdue others under the rule of Islam. Jesus had a strong prayer life, but what we see reported in the Gospels is very different from what is called "salat" in Islam. It was not a fixed ritual but a very personal and intimate relationship with his Father. There is no indication that Jesus ever placed any importance on fixed prayer times, fixed text to be recited, or fixed rituals to be observed like the Muslim ablutions before salat, its prescribed numbers of prostrations etc. etc.

Robinson continues:

Robinson is very polite when he merely speaks of "remarkable parallels". Let's face it. Muhammad's remodelling of Jesus was perhaps very clever in his immediate environment, and it may even have had the desired effect on uneducated pagan Arabs who did not know the Bible and facts about the life of Jesus. To them these ‘parallels’ may have been authenticating Muhammad as a prophet from God, but to those who know the Bible they have opposite effect. This is not a triviality, this is not poetic license. This is lying about the factual history of the life of Jesus and twisting the revelation of God. Therefore these observations are strong evidence against the prophethood of Muhammad.

Still, there is much more. In discussing the similarities between what is said about Muhammad in S. 40:77, 10:46 and 13:40 with what is said about Jesus in 3:55 and 5:117, Robinson writes:

Again, significant is not only how similar the statements are about Jesus and Muhammad in the Qur'an, but how different at the same time they are in comparison to the Jesus of the Bible. Both together gives the measure of how much Muhammad changed and the extent to which he transformed the image of Jesus to make it subservient to his own purposes. Jesus throughout his ministry emphasized ever so often that it was the purpose of his life to die for mankind, to atone for their sin. His death was his goal. And there was no "scheming of God" involved at all. This is a concept very foreign to the Bible.

So far I have looked at things that were explicitly stated in the Qur'an, but there is one interesting item of absence which is different between the Bible and Qur'an. In the Biblical birth narratives there is one figure that seems to be strangely missing from the Qur'an. And that is Joseph, Mary's husband. Where has he gone? Why is he left out? He has an important role to play in the Bible.

What do we know about Muhammad? His father died before he was born. There was no father at his birth. And again Jesus becomes ever more similar to Muhammad ... I don't know yet the theological significance in this one, but it is nevertheless an interesting omission that perfectly fits my overall theory.

In the discussion of the story of Noah we already saw that Muhammad adjusted the story not only in regard to the prophet himself, but also in regard to his family and companions. Neal Robinson also makes a number of observations regarding similarities of the people "around Jesus" and "around Muhammad". He writes:

David, Prophet and King

In Surah 38:21-26 we read the following story about King David:

To somebody who does not know anything about the background of the story these verses will appear quite mysterious. What is the Qur'an talking about? Before we come back to the discussion of the Qur'anic version, we will turn to the report of these events in the Bible which presents us detailed record of this incident. To get a deeper understanding, we recommend to read the complete story at the Bible Gateway site: 2 Samuel 11-12. The next paragraph presents a summary of the story as it is reported in 2 Samuel 11:

David discovers Bathsheba, a beautiful woman and the wife of Uriah, who is currently abroad fighting in David's army. Although David knows that she is married, he sends for her, sleeps with her and she becomes pregnant. David seeks to cover up his sin, and calls Uriah home from the war front, hoping that he would sleep with his wife. However, the plan fails, Uriah is an upright man and refuses to enjoy the company of his wife while his comrades are fighting. Not knowing what else to do, David sends Uriah back to war front and gives instructions to the general that he should place Uriah in the very front lines where he would certainly be killed. This plan succeeds. Uriah dies. Chapter 11 concludes with verse 27:

This background information is completely missing from the Qur'an. We will have to ask: Why? More about this shortly. The event that follows after David's adultery and the murder of Uriah, is presented in both books, though with many and considerable differences between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Bible continues with this report:

After having become familiar with the Biblical record, carefully read Surah 38:21-26 again. What are the most striking differences?

Many observations could be made. A few examples are: Muhammad turns Nathan's parable into a historical event. The specific numbers of the 99 sheep and the one sheep were imported from Jesus' parable in Luke 15:3-7. Several details presented in the account of the Qur'an are hardly credible, even if we did not know the Biblical original. The reader of the Qur'an recognizes that David committed some kind of sin, since David has to ask for forgiveness, but is left completely in the dark what sin he had to be forgiven for. The story as written makes little sense if one does not know the Biblical background. Some of these issues are discussed in the article Islam and the Sins of the Prophets and need not concern us here.

Most striking are two omissions. The first is the removal of the Prophet Nathan from the story. The second one is that the sin of David is not named. As before, we ask: What could be the reason for those differences found in the Qur'an when compared to the Biblical record?

The second one is answered easily: Muhammad could not let David be judged explicitly for taking another man's wife, after killing her husband, even though he already had several wives. Why not? Because Muhammad had done this himself. Obviously, such a grave charge needs evidence. Some examples: Muhammad had Kinana tortured and killed, and within a few days marries his beautiful wife Safiyya (for details, see the articles Muhammad and the Death of Kinana and Mohammed without Camouflage). Muhammad married Raihana, a celebrated beauty who also had lost her husband at Mohammed's hands (see Mohammed without Camouflage). Zainab was the wife of Zaid, Muhammad's adopted son. One day Muhammad was struck by the beauty of Zainab. Soon after, Zaid divorced Zainab, and Muhammad married her. This caused an absolute scandal at the time. A revelation came to the aid of Muhammad and gave divine sanction (Surah 33:37) to this gross violation of moral standards.

No wonder, Muhammad did not want to mention any details regarding the sin of David! His own sins were too similar, and multiplied many times over in comparison to David. Nor did Muhammad want to mention the serious punishment that David received for his disobedience. In the Qur'an, David only had to prostrate before Allah, and whatever unnamed sin it was, it is forgiven immediately. No consequences to suffer for his transgression. Very convenient! The Muslim translator Yusuf Ali (whose translation was cited above) even goes so far as to insert the word "lapse" into his translation, trivializing David's sin even further.

What could be the reason for the disappearance of Nathan? To understand the comments we are about to make, we need to set the stage properly. This discussion on David is added in April 2003, about eight years after most of the rest of the article had written. Currently Gerhard Schrder is the Chancellor of Germany and George W. Bush the President of the USA. Both political leaders are very controversial in the countries they are governing. On TV and on the radio in Germany and in the USA, we can watch comedies and listen to satirical songs that make fun of Schrder or Bush. These expressions of disagreement with leading politicians are considered very distatestful by some, but it is one of the greatest achievements of modern political development and western democracy that it guarantees the freedom of speech, and allows its citizens to criticize the powerful and mighty without threatening the opponents with punishment or even assassinating them for their critique.

On the other hand, it is the hallmark of past and present dictators, whether right wing dictators like Hitler and Mussolini, or communist ones like Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, or cruel dictators of other political convictions and professing Islam like Idi Amin of Uganda and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, that they will not allow anyone to criticize them. Anyone daring to raise his voice with critique or in satire - in public or even in private - has to fear for his life. All of these people have the blood of many innocent people on their hands. People who have not committed a crime, but who have only raised critique whether in a calm factual manner or with an element of ridicule as in satirical articles or songs.

The last two paragraphs give the proper context for the observations that are about to follow. Muhammad was not able to suffer any critique either. Many who tried to stand up to him have been assassinated (this topic is discussed in detail in the section Muhammad and his Enemies). This background will help us to understand the above quoted Qur'anic passage about King David, and the reason for some of the considerable differences between the Biblical report and what Muhammad made of it in the Qur'an.

Back to our main question: What about the disappearance of Nathan? David was both prophet and king. Even though God spoke to David directly, and David received much prophetic revelation, he was not the main prophet in his day. There was at least one more important prophet in office during David's reign. Nathan is mentioned at crucial points of David's life, mainly when God rebukes David or denies him his desire (2 Samuel 7:1-14 and 2 Samuel 12:1-25). Nathan again plays an important role in the question of who will become David's successor (1 Kings 1).

Like David, Muhammad understood himself as prophet and as political ruler, but with an absolute authority which no Biblical ruler had ever been given. Muhammad was not willing to allow anyone to come up besides him, who could be seen as a rival to his exclusive authority.

Nathan denies David's wish to build the temple of God (2 Sam. 7), and Nathan rebukes David for his sin of adultery and murder (2 Sam. 12) and announces God's severe judgment on David for his sins.

This was absolutely unimaginable for Muhammad. Nobody should dare to challenge Muhammad. None of his followers and nobody among his opponents should ever get the idea that it would be acceptable to criticize Muhammad, the messenger of God! Therefore, Nathan had to be removed from the scene.

Own critical thinking? Even questioning Muhammad? No way! The Qur'an states very clearly: "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path." (33:36) Again, the Qur'an states that "it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah" (33:53) and even threatens in the strongest language: Those who annoy Allah and HIS MESSENGER - Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment. (33:57) In Muhammad's understanding, only absolute and uncritical obedience was acceptable.

This lesson Muhammad taught explicitly in the verses just cited, implicitly in the way he changed the stories of the Biblical prophets, and drastically by assassinating those who still dared to challenge him. Based on his life and his teaching, his name clearly does not stand for freedom of speech, or tolerance of differing opinions, or respect for the dignity of those who opposed him. There is no choice but to place his name among the cruel dictators of history.

Miscellanea

After I have found the described projection of Muhammad's life and circumstances into story of Talut, I now start to see similar comments not only in other Qur'an stories, but also in other articles which I have not consciously recognized before. Here is one scholar agreeing with my observations:

{This seems to promise many more such discoveries as I am going to read the Qur'an again looking out for these similarities now...}

Summary

Oftentimes Muslims point out that the message of the prophets was always the same. And if you read the Qur'an only, then I agree, IN THE QUR'AN the message of all the prophets is the same. But the explanation is easy. Muhammad makes them all sound the same. If you look at the Bible the prophets are individual characters, they are very much distinct personalities. None sounds like the other. They often have a unique emphasis in their messages. Just as we would expect it from real distinct people. When you look into the Qur'an, every prophet says (basically) the same ..... because it really is only Muhammad's message and not a genuine record of the message of those earlier prophets.

So, the fact that "all prophets had the same message" is no surprise to me, and it is certainly no evidence that Muhammad's message is authentic. After all, it is Muhammad who made them all say the same and put his message into their mouths.

Why do all the prophets look alike in the Qur'an, even though they are very different in the Bible? Because Muhammad (re)created them all in his own image.

As this article illustrated again and again, under every subheading, the author of the Qur'an is not really interested in historical truth in regard to past events, he merely uses the story of the earlier prophets in order to preach to his current audience. In order to make the story relevant, he has no problem to "adjust" past history so that it may become more similar to the current situation and message. Muhammad projected current events back into the stories of the past.

One could formulate this principle: The Qur'an is Muhammad's situation and theology wrapped into "stories of former prophets" in order to justify Muhammad's current actions and commands.

The above presented material are insights that I have realized in my own thinking about the Qur'an. I have never read this anywhere before. It makes sense, I am excited about these discoveries and would love to get feedback and discuss the pro and contra of these arguments in detail.

The Bible says, as iron sharpens iron, so men sharpen each other. Let's sharpen our understanding through reasoning about these observations.

May the Lord give us his guidance and insight into the truth of his word.

Jochen Katz

Sources of the Qur'an
Answering Islam Home Page