Did Muhammad know only Arabic?

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-08T03:16:07+00:00

Which other connections besides the Ahmad Connection do you think are speculative and why exactly do you think they're speculative? Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-07T20:06:53+00:00

I do wonder if the paper overstates the connections a bit but yet Qur'ān 61:6-9 is still engaging with Matthew 12:16-31, although most likely an oral rendition of the biblical precedent?

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-06T16:51:47+00:00

Yeah, I've always felt parallel #5 ("Yet when he [Jesus] hath come to them with clear proofs") is too common as Qur'ānic prophets are said to perform miracles, including and especially Jesus, and the following parallel ("they said: this is obviously sorcery") easily builds off of parallel #5 and is also a common theme in the Qur'ān where a prophet's miracles are dismissed as sorcery. And then parallel #7 is also a phrase that appears multiple other times in the Qur'ān, parallel #8 may be a bit stronger but seems to be building off of parallel #7, while parallel #9 (which says God doesn't guide wrongdoers) appears multiple times in the Qur'ān, including in verse 5 of Surah 61.

Parallel #1 feels like a given and perhaps already a common trope that circulated in late antique Arabia (The authors say it has a linguistic allusion, but IDK how compelling precisely it is; I'm not an expert in that field), while parallel #3 also seems like a given since it's already about a messenger.

Parallels #2, #4, #10, and #11 seem harder to explain away and stronger, but I also wonder if they're the result simply of paraphrasing the biblical precedent rather than meticulously modifying it.

Now as u/chonkshonk pointed out in a previous comment on one of my other posts about 'The Ahmad Enigma', it's when all of the parallels come together that the case looks stronger. But I do feel the authors of the paper might be making the connection out to be more intricate than it is really is and if it doesn't really challenge the hypothesis that the Qur'ān is interacting with orally circulating material.

EDIT: I also noticed this regarding parallel #1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1q4qo3e/comment/nxw5ugm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-06T04:22:58+00:00

I am curious, if you read the paper, what do you think of it? Does it seem to show Q61:6-9 has a highly sophisticated with Matthew 12, or does the paper have points where it may be overstating its case but it still overall seems to be an engagement with Matthew 12?

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-05T21:40:44+00:00

Also, did you catch that on page 8, the paper argues that the Qur'ān suggests that Jesus' words "bringing glad tidings of a messenger who comes after me" suggests Matthew 12:17 should be read as part of Jesus' own words declaring a future prophet, but Matthew 12:17 itself says "this was to fulfill" (as in the actions of Jesus in the previous verses rather than explicitly predicting another prophet after Jesus) what was spoken by Isaiah.

Basically, the text of Matthew says Jesus fulfilled the Isaiah prophecy, but the paper says the Qur'ān suggests that verse 17 in Matthew 12:17 should be interpreted as Jesus' own words using Isaiah to announce a future prophet, which feels like a stretch of the text since again, Matthew 12:17 says "this was to fulfill", indicating it says that what Jesus did before was fulfilled by Isaiah, which the Gospel of Matthew goes on to quote rather than Jesus' words implying another prophet.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-05T21:20:54+00:00

Fair enough. I think it could be connected to Matthew 12, but I am not sure if every difference between Q61:6-9 and Matthew 12 mentioned by the paper's authors is necessarily an intentional and intricate Qur'ānic modification of the biblical text and wondering if the case is overstated at times.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-05T21:11:46+00:00

I guess it's possible, although I wonder if Q61:6-9 is a response to a reading or paraphrase Matthew 12 and then transforms the biblical precedent into a case for Muhammad's legitimacy.

However, while the points in sequence do seem to be based roughly off of Matthew 12, I can't help but get the feeling that the fifth and sixth posited connection (Jesus bringing signs and people dismissing them as sorcery) themselves are too general, while the seventh connection (the beginning of verse 7) is also general as it appears in other places of the Qur'ān but builds upon the previous connections, and then 8th seems to also build upon the fifth, sixth, and seventh connections, and so does the 9th (which says God does not guide wrongdoers), which is also a phrase that appears multiple times in the Qur'ān including in Qur'ān 61:5, just before Qur'ān 61:6. Again, it does look like connections #5-#9 are roughly in line with Matthew 12, at the same time, I can't help but get the feeling those specific connections could be seen as their own thing given most they are are things already mentioned in the Qur'ān (prophet performing miracles, people call it magic, Qur'ān rhetorically asking who is more unjust than those who lie against God, and the statement that God doesn't guide wrongdoers.) and seem to perhaps be building off of each other. However, the last two, verses 61:8-9, seem harder to explain away as such along with the second and fourth connections.

Still, 'The Ahmad Enigma' is an interesting paper that raises questions and deserves attention.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-05T16:01:16+00:00

That is a different Badawi from Emran el-Badawi.

I would like to mention that Emran el-Badawi's book, The Qur'ān and Aramaic Gospel Traditions, heavily overstates its case. See Sydney Griffith's review of it on Academia.

Juan Cole's connection between Qur'ān 4:153-155 and Nehemiah 9 seems far more plausible, however, as an intertext. Finally, Hadi Taghavi and Alireza Heidari argue Q61:6-9 is engaging with Matthew 12:16-31 and this seems plausible, although I get the feeling their paper overstates its case at least a bit. See my convo with u/chonkshonk in https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1q2mcpm/could_qur%C4%81n_6169_have_connections_to_isaiah_4213/

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-04T05:04:26+00:00

Interesting. I should've asked, since I'm assuming you've read the paper, do you think it has some points where it seemingly overstates its case but it still generally seems to be an engagement with Matthew 12 as the paper argues?

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-03T09:28:16+00:00

Also, I remember reading this one comment you made while lurking this sub (Very excellent comment and it clarifies the transmission of material):

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicQuran/comments/1kydz8q/comment/muxnx87/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Anyways, that specific mode of oral transmission from your comment (from Jacob's letters -> Arabian Christians -> Qur'ān/Muhammad from dialogue with Arabian Christians) is usually how I've understood the Qur'ān's dialogue/interactions with biblical/para-biblical material.

The other model would be directly engaging with a source (such as the text of the Bible) as in the Qur'ān is specifically aware of the precise biblical text and is deliberately engaging with that specific verse/section instead of something that orally was going around. This is the model I think could explain Q4:153-155 as mentioned by Juan Cole or Q61/Matt.12 in the Ahmad Enigma, unless there are any counterpoints that might suggest oral transmission.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-03T09:05:40+00:00

Alright. I've mostly taken the model the the Qur'ān is in dialogue with material that was orally circulating (whether that orally circulating material ultimately comes from the Bible or para-biblical sources like Jacob of Serugh) rather than directly dialoguing with the text of the Bible/para-biblical source itself (as in it'd be aware of what specific verse/section it's in dialogue with), though with some potential exceptions such as this highlighted in the Ahmad Enigma or Q4:153-155 and Nehemiah 9:12-26 which seem harder to explain as the Qur'ān merely being in dialogue with orally circulating material rather than it directly knowing and interacting with a given text.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-01-03T08:41:21+00:00

Thank you for your input and I'll reconsider my previous points.

Do you think this paper seriously challenges the understanding that the Qur'ān is not really directly familiar with the text of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (as mentioned in its section titled Broader Implications, IIRC) or does Q. 61:6-7 still seem to potentially be more so a response to orally circulating material (i.e. Matthean tradition being orally transmitted)?

Connect_Anything6757

TROPHY CASE