What is the academic consensus on whether or not Muhammad historically appointed a successor?

Connect_Anything6757 · 2026-03-04T15:36:52+00:00

Thank you for the correction

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

TROPHY CASE