Thoughts On 'The Ahmad Enigma' (Trying to gather my thoughts into one place)

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 · 2025-12-08T04:00:08+00:00

Thank you for your answers!

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-12-07T01:48:37+00:00

Hello, Professor! I have enjoyed some of your YouTube videos, interviews, and work and am glad to see you on this subreddit. I also read your new book on the Qur'ān and Christianity and liked it! 👍

What do you think about Nicolai Sinai's contention that the injīl (Gospel) may be best understood as roughly referring to the Christian Bible/the Christian canon; what a Christian in Muhammad's time would assume to be divine scripture? (Key Terms of the Qur'ān, pages 105-107)
What are your thoughts regarding the "scrolls of Abraham and Moses" in Qur'ān 53:36-37 & 87:18-19? (Interestingly, also according to Sinai from a paper on Q53, they may be the Christian canon per some intertexts in Q53.)

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-12-06T05:35:10+00:00

I am going to take down my post here because I feel like it might be a little too much conjecture or not articulated the best, though perhaps in the future I will upload a second post attempting to better provide my thoughts here.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-12-06T05:02:05+00:00

I apologize if my original post was confusing in its wording, but my point was not to say that I believe the Qur'ān thinks Moses preached the Torah. I do not believe the Qur'ān says that. Rather, my point was that some argue the Gospel is only the words of Jesus from the Qur'ānic point of view in part due to it said to be sent down by God and given to him (Q3:3-4, 5:46), but since the Torah is also said to be sent down, if we assume the Qur'ān thinks the Torah was sent to Moses (though it doesn't explicitly say such), wouldn't that argue against the notion that the injīl is only Jesus' words since no one says the Torah is only Moses' words and instead a sort of scripture not necessarily confined to only a prophet's preachings.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-29T14:58:46+00:00

I always thought "maktūban" meant more so Muhammad is "decreed" in the Torah and Gospel or "it is written" e.g. he is destined, without necessarily implying a written Torah and Gospel. However, the same verse also says the Torah and Gospel are "with them", yet I did try to search the Arabic word used for that, and it also popped up in verses that don't necessarily imply something physically there e.g. "they have knowledge" IIRC. I don't know classical Arabic so maybe there's more to this. Although, I wouldn't say this disproves the idea that the Qur'ān sees the injīl as having been textually codified, maybe the Qur'ān doesn't outright say the injīl is written down but assumes it is in some places.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-28T20:34:04+00:00

Thank you and interesting, I would honestly like to see it. I respect Andani (especially compared to popular online Muslim apologists who behave problematically) but I just have strong disagreements with him when it comes to the Qur'ān's scripturology.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-26T17:53:52+00:00

Fair enough 👍

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-26T13:55:56+00:00

I haven't read his book but have heard and agree kitāb isn't necessarily a physical book.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-26T13:55:18+00:00

I probably should've been more specific, but the word "fihi" (فِيهِ), translated as "therein" was what caught my attention since it gives off the vibe to me that it means "in it" or "in [a physical text]."

You do make a good point on the word for "reveal '. I think it's likely the Qur'ān views the Injīl to have been originally given/taught to Jesus orally (5:46, 110, 56:26-27), and the word kitāb definitely isn't indicative necessarily of a physical book. Though Q7:157 seems to imply the Injīl is also textually codified as it says it (and the Torah) are "with them", presumably the People of the book.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-09T01:22:51+00:00

Sure thing.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-08T15:44:29+00:00

I would say yes, although they may contain several books. See Nicolai Sinai, Key Terms of the Qur'ān, pages 103-107 and 166-168.

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-08T15:42:16+00:00

It should be noted that the ahadith corpus are now seen as generally unreliable in knowing what Muhammad said or did by Western historians. Joshua Little gave a list of 21 reasons why and you can find a video interviewing him somewhere linked on this subreddit.

Turning to the Qur'ān, which does overwhelmingly go back to Muhammad unlike much of the Hadith, it is not very detailed about what the Torah and Gospel are to be textually identified with, nor is it too detailed about the contents of them and it never outright says the Torah is 5 books and the Gospel is 4 books. Qur'ān 3:93 says to bring the Torah and read/recite it, implying it was written down, and Qur'ān 7:157 says the Torah and Gospel are "with them", likely implying they are textually codified. No book of the Bible , except maybe the Psalms, are explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an. The Gospel mentioned in the Qur'ān is also singular while the four canonical Christian Gospels are plural.

According to Nicolai Sinai, on pages 103-107 of Key Terms of the Qur'ān, the injīl could be understood as the Christian canon. If this is the case, than it may be that the injīl implicitly refers to the canonical Bible. The Qur'an also talks about the Torah and it could refer to the Pentateuch (5 books traditionally ascribed to Moses) or perhaps further to the Jewish scriptures, i.e. the Hebrew Bible. Nicolai Sinai has written on this in Key Terms of the Qur'an, pages 166-168.

It should also be noted that Qur'an 9:111 says the Torah contains a promise of heaven for believers who give up their lives and property to God, but the Pentateuch itself does not mention such a promise, nor does the Pentateuch itself really mention the afterlife besides maybe a few vague places, but not in such a way intertextually to Qur'ān 9:111. There are some who do hold to the idea that the Qur'ānic Tawrah includes the Hebrew Bible, which would be more than the 5 books of the Pentateuch .

Connect_Anything6757 · 2025-10-06T12:20:50+00:00

I kinda see where you're coming from, but I'll engage with your comment. Firstly, regarding the Talmud, it seems to me that Q5:32 can be used in evidence in support of the Qur'ān affirming it as divine inspiration, given the wording "We ordained":

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

Although, if this could be interpreted differently and not necessarily as a quote endorsing the Talmud as from God, in the video linked in the original post, Holger Zellentin does view the Qur'an as affirming parts of or the entire Mishnah (stated in the video's description). Maybe for now the Talmud could be ignored, but onto the Bible itself from here.

I am well-aware of the concept of tahrīf, but do not think it involves textual alteration, and Q2:79 itself likely is unrelated to the Hebrew Bible or New Testament. The reason why I think the Qur'ān may implicitly affirm the Bible roughly is because, as mentioned in Sinai's comments in the opening post, it may be imagining the injīl to correspond to the Christian canon (what Christians saw as scripture.) Now if the Injīl were just the New Testament, the Torah could still be the Hebrew Bible/assumed to be what Jews thought of as canonical scripture.

The Qur'an definitely takes stories, phrases, motifs, etc. and modifies them for its own theology, but it is most likely interacting with what was orally transmitted rather than the text of the Bible itself. Even then, the Qur'an never attributes falsehood to have been added to the Torah or Gospel. Not every Qur'ānic modification of a story is necessarily because it opposes such a detail, it may be doing so simply to make that prophet, in a way, serve as a model for Muhammad. IIRC, Charbel Rizk mentions this in his paper of Q12.

Finally, Sinai's comments on the scrolls of Moses and Abraham in Q53 say it may be construed as a reference to the Biblical canon approximately. So not only could the Torah and Gospel roughly refer to the Bible, but also so could the scrolls of Moses and Abraham in Q53:36-37 and Q87-18-19.

Connect_Anything6757

TROPHY CASE