Note: This file is about 140K in size so may take a few seconds to load,
    depending on your server.
     
     
          TOWARDS
           
                          AN

             UNDERSTANDING
     

        OF MUHAMMAD
     
     
                Some Notes
                      for
          Christian Reflection
     
     
     

                                  Victor Bissett
     

     


    This booklet was originally prepared to provide notes for those who attended
    the teaching sessions on this topic given to the International Fellowship of
    Christians, Abidjan, and for their interested friends. It is now available in French,
    entitled Pour comprendre Muhammad. It is hoped that some general comments
    on Islam as well as notes on the Pillars and communicating the Gospel to Muslims
    may be prepared later to supplement these remarks on Muhammad and the Qur’an.

    Be advised that the Course on the Qur’an, currently available in French or English,
    has a considerably more detailed and better documented treatment of a number
    of points raised in this booklet. For your comments on the present booklet, or to buy the the
    Qur’an Correspondence Course (105 pages) or the Cours sur le
    Coran, a 144 page book coauthored with the late Jeremy Hinds of
    the Bible Society of Nigeria, please use the following address:
    Dr Victor Bissett, Coopération et Documentation Missionnaires,
    08 B.P. 424, Abidjan 08, Ivory Coast. Internet: [email protected]
     

    Quotations from the Qur’an are generally taken from Mohammed
    Marmaduke Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran: An
    Explanatory Translation (New York: Mentor, 1961). Some other
    remarks are from this source, used with the permission of
    Unwin Hyman Ltd, 15 Broadwick Street, London.
     

    First printing May 1989.
    Expanded revision November 1989.
    Revised printing October 1990.
    Internet e-mail edition 1997.
    Web text edition first posted June 15, 1998.

    All rights reserved.

    Copyright (c) Victor Bissett, 1998
    COOPERATION ET DOCUMENTATION MISSIONNAIRES
    08 B.P. 424, ABIDJAN 08, Ivory Coast.
     



     

    SUMMARY

    Introduction
    The Early Life Of Muhammad

    Muhammad’s Contemplations
    His Early Revelations
    The Revelation Tested

    The Salman Rushdie Novel: The Satanic Verses
    The “satanic Verses” Of The Qur’an

    Doubts About The Revelation
    The Real Nature Of The Qur’an
    The Early Meccan Teaching
    The Meccan Opposition
    The Hijra
    Muhammad At Medina
    Muhammad’s Night Flight

    Muhammad And The Jews
    Muhammad In The Bible?
    Muhammad Against The Jews
    The Muslims Turn Towards Mecca

    Entry To Mecca
    The Death Of Muhammad
    Muhammad The Paradox

    Three Influences At Work
    The Name “Allah”
    Idolatrous Background

    The Feast Of The Ram
    Jewish Influences
    The Death Of Christ

    Christian Contacts
    Muhammad’s Christian Relatives
    The Poor Christian Witness
    Islam, A Christian Heresy?

    The Nestorian Controversy
    The Nestorians And The Cross
    The Virginal Conception
    Conclusion

    Select Bibliography


    The author:

    Victor Bissett started teaching in 1965. He has taught in
    secondary and tertiary institutions in Australia and France,
    and also in Niger Republic in 1981-82. There he was the first
    missionary professeur accepted to teach in a State lycee,
    and he was made a member of the jury for the Baccalaureat
    in 1982. He then taught courses for three years with SIM
    in the Bible School at Niamey.

    His university studies were initially in Philosophy and
    modern languages. He did secondary teacher training,
    graduated B.A., and was later awarded an M.A. with Honours
    in French. He completed his Th.L. while teaching in the
    government Lycee Montesquieu in Bordeaux, France, in 1969-70.
    Afterwards he did graduate B.D. studies, with a special
    option in Comparative Religion and in Islam in particular.
    He also did Australian College of Theology Scholar of Theology
    (Th.Schol.) examinations in Dogmatics and Comparative Study
    of Living Faiths, writing papers in the area of Christology
    and on The Points of Contact beween Islam and Christianity
    Today. He has completed a Ph.D. in New Testament Gospel studies
    and has done cross-cultural courses in Detroit, Michigan. With
    the late Jeremy Hinds (of the Bible Society of Nigeria),
    Victor Bissett is co-author of the Cours sur le Coran edited
    in Abidjan.

    Victor Bissett is married to Stephanie and they have three
    daughters. Having come to Cote d’Ivoire as missionaries in 1985,
    their financial support comes mainly from friends in churches
    in Australia. They help various churches in Abidjan and elsewhere
    and collaborate with groups like the Groupes Bibliques
    Universitaires d’Afrique Francophone and the International
    Institute for Pastoral Training in a Bible teaching
    ministry and in leadership training as well as editing and
    desk-top publishing. Various courses are conducted,
    Victor participates in retreats and church conferences,
    and some dozen books and booklets have been prepared in French.

    This text is now made freely available for your reflection.
    We only request honest use and acknowledgement of quotations.
    May God bless you richly.

    This present text is still available in booklet form from CDM.

    (c) 1998, Victor Bissett. [email protected]
     



     
     
      TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING
                     OF MUHAMMAD
     
     
      INTRODUCTION
       
    This study of Muhammad’s life is important because,
    as followers of Christ, we are people of the Truth and must
    not misrepresent positions adopted by another faith nor cast
    unwarranted aspersions on its religious leader. So often when
    Christians talk about Islam, there is more heat than light,
    because the traditional approach, perhaps even of missionaries,
    has been one of attack and confrontation. Such an approach may
    well come from the difficulty we have as non-Arabs to understand
    many of the historic and cultural features at the beginning of
    Islam in the 7th Century after Christ. We have enough trouble
    imagining what life and religion was like in Europe at that time!

    However, it will be evident to most people that we cannot
    understand Islam and its development theologically and throughout
    the world without understanding the role and place of Muhammad.
    It is possible, even probable, that Islam, owing to its particular
    Traditions, developed in ways quite different from the thinking
    of Muhammad, perhaps under the pressure of circumstances and
    polemic situations encountered after his death. This is a frequent
    phenomenon, and can be seen in a parallel situation where,
    for example, many Calvinists after the Reformation of the 16th
    Century have certainly been more Calvinist than John Calvin.

    Time therefore needs to be taken during these studies
    to correct certain erroneous and slanderous ideas. We will all
    need to at least admit, after studying the evidence, that
    Muhammad must have been a man of great talent and versatility,
    otherwise he would never have had the success as military leader,
    social reformer, statesman and religious figure that he did.
    Surely he was also a model of admirable moral integrity in the
    Arabia of his day. We need always to speak of him with respect,
    as Muslims do of Christ, and should not cloud the issues and
    raise unnecessary barriers to contact and discussion with Muslims.

    In this particular presentation, it will quickly be
    evident that the subject of Muhammad and Islam is approached
    from a definite Christian perspective to inform Christians.
    Note that this is not therefore a booklet intended to be passed
    on to Muslims to convince them. (The Qur’an Course may be of
    some help in that direction -- though there too it will quickly
    be perceived that the Muslim notion of revelation has not
    been accepted.)

    Here I will simply try to share some conclusions
    I have reached about Muhammad over the last seventeen years
    since my first Scholar of Theology examinations in Islamics
    and point ways to a better understanding of him and Islam than
    is sometimes witnessed among Christians. I will try to be
    positive, seeking to show ways of getting inside the mind of
    Muslims. In due course this may help us all in the more
    adequate presentation of our message of God’s redemptive
    love to them, just as Muslims seek to present the message
    of the One transcendent God to us. However, to really
    appreciate Islam in its modern forms, we must obviously
    accept Muslims and get to know them as friends.

    Instead of naming Muhammad all the time, the term
    “the Prophet” (short for “the Prophet of Islam”) may often
    be used for simplicity’s sake. Christians also often speak
    of Muhammad’s “Revelations”. No more significance need be
    read into these terms than what many Protestants may imply
    when they speak, for example, of the “Virgin” Mary, of
    “Saint” John, or when they use “Father” or “Monseigneur”
    as the title of a Roman Catholic priest.

    References to the Qur’an are usually given from
    the Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall translation: The Meaning
    of the Glorious Koran. This translation is generally highly
    regarded and its introductory notes and footnotes are very
    helpful. It is readily available. The paperback French
    translation of Kasimirski, Le Coran (Garnier-Flammarion,
    Paris), is usually available in Abidjan at the Librairie
    de France, for those interested. The revised 3rd edition
    of our Cours sur le Coran has been reprinted and this takes
    the reader through the Qur’an by themes and so gives a good
    understanding of what the Qur’an actually teaches. It also
    provides indices and a glossary of main Muslim terminology.
     
     

      THE EARLY LIFE OF MUHAMMAD
       
    Bearing the name meaning “Praised One”, Muhammad was
    born in 570 at Mecca into a polytheistic idol worshipping
    society. Thus he has something like the pagan background of
    Abraham (cf. Josh. 24.2). His father ‘Abd Allah died before
    Muhammad’s birth, and his mother died six years later. We
    should note that his father was named “Servant of God”, after
    the main God of their pantheon. (This name, Allah, is of course
    used to this day in Arabic by Christians, Jews and Arabs to
    designate God.) Muhammad was raised by his grand-father, then
    later by a pagan uncle, Abu Talib of the great Quraysh tribe
    at Mecca.

    Muslim tradition -- our only source for much of the
    background -- maintains that Muhammad was given to a Bedouin
    woman to suckle and that he spent his early years in nomad
    tents. When aged twelve, he went to Syria with Abu Talib and
    is supposed to have met there a Christian monk named Bahira.
    Did anything of this rub off on the impressionable adolescent
    that he no doubt was? We might well imagine so. Muhammad was
    later employed by a rich widow, Khadija, and was put in charge
    of her caravans. For this reason he travelled frequently and
    no doubt multiplied his contacts. His faithfulness to his task
    was rewarded by Khadija’s hand in marriage.

    All of this is not certain as much is based on
    Traditions. But tradition plays an important part in padding
    out the historic background to Islam as we know it does in
    Christianity (for instance, in our deciding just who were
    the authors of the Gospels or of many of the New Testament
    books). In any case, he was no doubt an orphan (cf. sura
    93.6ff). He married at age 25 to a widow traditionally given
    as aged 40 and took no second wife till her death 25 years
    later, being fifty at that time.

    He was hardly motivated by the passions of youth, and
    so we should not see his later marriages as taints on his
    character. In his marriages there were no doubt a number of
    cultural factors involved that we can probably ill appreciate
    today. Ayeshah is the best known of his wives, and she was
    married as a young girl out of friendship to Abu Bakr. Other
    marriages were often for reasons of state or to take care of
    widows (cf. the levirate marriages in the Old Testament, which
    we would probably have difficulty accepting). As an example,
    the governor Muqauqis of Alexandria presented to Muhammad the
    slave-girl Maryam the Copt who bore him a son Ibrahim (who
    predeceased him). Of a number of children, Fatima alone
    survived. She later married ‘Ali.
     
     

      MUHAMMAD’S CONTEMPLATIONS
       
    I suggested that young Muhammad may have been an
    impressionable youth when he had early Christian contacts
    in Syria. It is clear that Muhammad later showed in all
    respects a very religious disposition and enthusiasm. All
    witnesses point to fact that he was reflective and
    introspective. Even Pickthall speaks at one stage
    of his early “distress of mind”.

    We might well ask why he was like that. What troubled
    him? Perhaps it was the situation of Arabia caught between the
    two great powers of Constantinople and Persia. Maybe he was
    struck by the human condition, the question of the meaning
    of life, the pagan atrocities of those about him, or even
    by the middle-age crisis, if Third World people experience
    that. Perhaps his inner anguish was a result of combination of
    all these, particularly if Muhammad looked to accomplish
    something concrete for his Arab people. It may be that having
    a sense of national destiny, he felt he ought really to be
    able to do something significant.

    Anyway, he went regularly to a cave near Mt Hira close
    to Mecca for contemplation. (We can hardly say that it was
    meditation.) There he fasted and experienced vivid dreams
    or visions (an important element in some cultures, including
    those of the Bible, both Old Testament and New). He was
    dissatisfied with the polytheism, idolatry and injustices of
    Mecca and became convinced of the existence and mighty
    transcendence of the one true God.

    In his spiritual pilgrimage was there Jewish and
    Christian influence? Apparently so, and it seems to have
    often been rather Talmudic and Apocryphal in character, as
    we will see. In addition there were different Christian
    heresies surely known to him. A Monophysite form of
    Christianity (emphasizing the single nature of a divine
    Christ, “the Word”) was rampant in the Arab kingdom of
    Ghassan. The Byzantine church had hermits about the Hijaz.
    The Nestorians, believing that Jesus Christ was two persons,
    and who separated the Logos from the suffering man, Jesus,
    had a strong presence at Mecca, apparently, as well as
    around Al-Hira and in Persia. These factors will have to
    be considered in greater detail later, in view of their
    importance.

    We also need to remember that Jewish tribes were
    numerous and had influence in Medina (at that stage known
    as Yatrib) and the region, and in the Yemen. Reading the
    Qur’an definitely leads us to believe that Muhammad had
    absorbed much Jewish Talmudic teaching, and that he had
    had contact with some forms of Christianity. For example,
    Jesus’ “miracle” in sura 3.49 where we read, “I fashion
    for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe
    on it and is is a bird,” is without any doubt based on the
    account in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. Statements like
    that of 5.116: “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto
    mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?”
    show that Muhammad’s “trinity” comes from Christian contact
    of sorts. This could hardly come from revelation! Scholars
    point out that the number of Ethiopian loan words found in
    the Qur’an may also be an indication of Christian influence,
    if we bear in mind that the early Muslim contacts with
    Abyssinia were very positive.

    We can also suppose that Muhammad’s adoption of
    monotheism was probably the result of a conviction arising
    from these contacts and a reaction to the idolatry, excesses
    and spiritual darkness in Mecca at the time. We should remember
    that Mecca was a city important for international trade and
    therefore gave opportunity for all sorts of contacts. Note
    that in the pre-islamic period there were, however, a few
    known Arab monotheists, Hunafa (sing. hanif), and also at
    the time of Muhammad, and they were neither Jewish nor
    Christian. Nevertheless it was only later that the term Hunafa
    was to come to be applied to the Muslim faithful.
     
     

       HIS EARLY REVELATION
    Writing of Muhammad’s first revelation, the Pakistani
    Islamic scholar Fazlur Rahman says: “This inner process of
    religio-moral experience culminated in his Call during one
    of these deep contemplative moods.” Was Muhammad in a a state
    of trance at the time? It is hard to say. In any case, he is
    reported to have said: “Then I woke up.” This “authenticated"
    tradition is found in the life of Muhammad, the Sira of Ibn
    Hasham.

    At age about 40, his first “reading” or “recitation"
    came to Muhammad, i.e. al-Qur’an, which can be translated "the
    recitation”. It is to be found in sura 96.1-5 of the Qur’an:
    “Read: In the name of thy Lord who createth, createth man from
    a clot. Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, Who teacheth
    by the pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not.”

    According to an important tradition, Muhammad replied,
    “I am no reader.” Another tradition has him reply, “What am I
    to recite (or read)?” This tradition resembles, and may have
    even been moulded by an Old Testament passage like Is. 40.6:
    “A voice says, Cry! And I said, What am I to cry?”

    Although Muslims place a good deal of emphasis on the
    idea that Muhammad could not read, and therefore for them the
    Qur’an is a miracle “the Reading of the man who knew not how
    to read,” Pickthall says), this point is not certain. The word
    used in the Arabic may simply mean Gentile or untaught, in the
    formal sense. In the Bible something similar was said of Jesus
    and also of Peter and John. It did not stop the last-named from
    writing quite a large part of our New Testament. In the case of
    Muhammad we are looking at a predominantly oral society, and he
    is said to have “recited” his revelations which others later
    recorded on palm-leaves, skins, camel bones and pieces of wood.
    Some evidence has however been put forward to indicate that
    Muhammad himself was directly involved in the writing process.

    A little later -- remember that, like the letters of
    Paul in the New Testament, the Qur’an is organised more in
    reverse order of length of units (called suras) rather than
    by chronology -- we read in 94.1-3: “Did We not open up your
    breast and relieve you of the burden which broke your back?”
    Tradition and much Muslim belief sees this as a physical
    opening and cleansing by God, but everything seems to point
    to an understanding of such revelations in a deeply spiritual
    and probably visionary sense.

    Apparently quite a time passed, then Muhammad went
    through a period of serious spiritual depression, doubt and
    uncertainty. He had at first wanted to commit suicide. The
    vision of the angel Gabriel sent him distressed back to his
    wife Khadija for reassurance. He is then supposed to have
    heard 74.1 (sometimes considered the very first revelation):
    “O thou enveloped in thy cloak, Arise and warn! Thy Lord
    magnify, Thy raiment purify, Pollution shun! And show not
    favour, Seeking worldly gain!”
     
     

      THE REVELATION TESTED
       
    Khadija took him to see her cousin Waraqa Ibn Naufal,
    an old man “who knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians”,
    as the tradition records. Waraqa saw in the revelation the same
    sort of manifestation as at the Burning Bush, and believed that
    Muhammad had been called as a prophet to his Arab people. He
    apparently did not see the call as universal, nor as making
    demands on him as a Christian believer. Khadija is then
    supposed to have “tested the spirit” and was able to reassure
    Muhammad that he had been called to be a slave of Allah. Her
    feminine perspicacity guided her marvellously in this. She
    entered into an intimate embrace with the Prophet during one
    of Muhammad’s revelation experiences. When the angel messenger
    then departed, she concluded that the spirit could not have
    been an evil one, as a satanic messenger, tempted by being
    able to witness such intimacy, would not have shown such modesty
    as to withdraw.

    Muhammad’s early revelation, as we have indicated,
    seems, in spite of tradition, to have been an inner and
    somewhat mystical experience. This is made fairly explicit
    by the statement, “We sent him (the Angel) down upon your
    heart that you may be a warner.” (Cf. 26.194; 2.97.) It was
    probably not a physical manifestation, although tradition
    often has the tendency to add to the supernatural to make
    it even more fabulous. This is so even in Christian thought,
    as can be seen in the way angels develop wings in paintings
    and during our Church plays, without any real biblical
    warrant. (In that regard, the Word of God leads us to
    believe that angels look just like men, as in the case
    of Abraham’s three visitors and in the gospel Resurrection
    accounts. And, let us admit, it would be rather surprising
    if you could “entertain unawares” an angel who knocked on
    your door if he had wings folded behind his back
    [cf. Heb. 13.2]!)

    These first “recitation” passages mark the
    assumption of the prophetic mantle. Western Islamicists
    often find other poetic passages in the Qur’an which they
    date earlier as reflecting the spiritual seeking of a mystic.
    It is every bit as difficult to date parts of Qur’an as it is
    to date accurately the Bible books.
     

    THE SALMAN RUSHDIE NOVEL: The Satanic Verses

    Having mentioned Muhammad’s uncertainty about his
    revelations, it is no doubt appropriate to consider the
    famous “satanic verses”. But perhaps in the present climate
    this cannot be done without first commenting on Salman
    Rushdie’s sensational book, a long allegorical novel
    rather in Kafka’s style. It has some 549 pages (London & New
    York: Viking Penguin, 1988) and took its title from the two
    so-called qur’anic “satanic verses” of which a narrative account
    is given on page 114-115 of the English edition.

    This novel, set basically in the 20th Century and
    starting off with the explosion of a plane, certainly had a
    number of good reasons to shock Muslim sensibilities. But some
    things could only have irritated those who were particularly
    well-educated and informed. It seems to have been they who
    then stirred up ignorant and nominal believers who did not
    need much provocation. For example, one thing noted was the
    name for “the Messenger”, Mahound, which was commonly used in
    European Christian medi‘val plays to portray and caricature
    Muhammad. We can safely say that not everyone would be aware
    of such an association!

    However, in the novel Mecca is also given the
    unfortunate name Jahilia, which is Arabic for “Darkness”.
    And Rushdie has the prostitutes in a brothel named Hijab
    (Arabic for “Head Veiling”, but given as “Curtain” in the
    English text) mockingly bearing the names of Muhammad’s
    wives and in time they take on their identity. In addition,
    according to the novel, Mahound has a malicious scribe who
    deceptively distorts the qur’anic text while recording
    Gibreel’s revelations. This scribe, deserving even in
    the novel of the death penalty, has the name Salman the
    Persian (Iranian?). Surely that was not very smart on
    the author’s part!

    It is no doubt this blatantly provocative and
    rather devastating and negative nature of the book which
    shocks Muslims most. And remember that the novel -- a work
    of fiction, it is true, but as cynical as Voltaire’s works
    in French -- was written by an apostate, a former Muslim!
    As a result of all this, perhaps we can understand that
    fanatical Muslim reaction which we saw, without condoning it.

    When Martin Scorsese’s film The Last Temptation of
    Christ appeared in 1988, some Christians in Abidjan and other
    cities of Africa and Europe signed petitions against this
    film without perhaps really knowing what it contained that
    was so offensive. In France at least three cinemas showing
    the film were burned. Christians should never act with such
    violence, but with this experience in mind we are no doubt
    better able to appreciate what pushed so many Muslims into
    book-burning, riots, etc.

    A word of warning is appropriate concerning a document
    of nine pages in wide circulation. This gives a purported
    summary and “extracts” from Rushdie’s book. This document
    is a cynical spoof and is perhaps a university joke or a
    deceitful effort to stir up fundamentalists. But it is
    deceiving even pastors although certain things should
    immediately strike the alert reader (e.g. the striking
    introductory exaggeration that “Rushdie is at present the
    best protected man in the world, with 1,600 (sic!) Scotland
    Yard agents guarding him day and night”). What President in
    the world has ever had such constant protection? Some Arabic
    is used to better deceive, but the novel does not have a
    single character of Arabic! Nothing in the brochure is true,
    neither concerning Rushdie (born in 1947, but said to be
    doing university studies in 1952 and writing books quite
    different from those he actually wrote!), Muhammad (depicted
    as a lewd murderer and a homosexual) nor the novel The
    Satanic Verses (described as a “tiny pocket book” of 102
    pages). Even the chapters listed do not correspond to
    Rushdie’s novel!

    The writer of these deceptive pages that he wishes
    to have accepted as extracts knows virtually nothing about
    Rushdie, has never seen the novel Rushdie wrote, and has
    not even documented basic points about the Prophet’s life. He
    says that the Muhammad was born in 632, a ridiculous error,
    as everyone knows the Muslim calendar starts from the year 622.
     
     

      THE “SATANIC VERSES” OF THE QUR’AN
       
    So much for Rushdie’s fiction and the fiction about
    Rushdie’s novel. Let us now consider the actual “satanic
    verses” of the Qur’an that gave Rushdie’s novel its name,
    an expression that probably goes back beyond W.M. Watt who
    used it in 1955. These are the two qur’anic verses linked
    to the occasion at Mecca when Muhammad apparently made
    something of a concession to paganism in reciting sura
    53.19-20 concerning Al-Lat, Al-‘Uzza and Manat (who were
    the goddesses of the Sun, of Venus and of Fate respectively)
    in a distinctively syncretistic form.

    The translation is muted or the text is changed in
    most versions. For example, Mohammed Pickthall gives the
    paraphrase: “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza, And
    Manat, the third, the other?” However, the essence of what
    Muhammad said, according to Arabist Alfred Guillaume,
    apparently is, “Al-Lat, Al-‘Uzza and Manat are exalted
    virgins whose intercession can be counted upon.” This
    corresponds closely to the text of the early Muslim writer
    Waqidi. Kasimirski adds an explanatory foot-note (p.263) to
    his French translation, saying that Muhammad, to the glee of
    the infidels, absent-mindedly or sleepily recited: “They are
    beautiful and distinguished maidens who deserve worship.”

    Such a text form has reliable evidence dating back
    a thousand years to the great Muslim historians At-Tabari
    and Ibn Sa‘d, among others. This would seem to accept the
    idea of intermediaries and at the same time the validity
    of other shrines. In the end it could not help but jeopardize
    the worship of the One God at the Ka‘aba.And this Muhammad
    would have quickly realized.

    This syncretism at first won over some Meccans,
    but any sympathy gained in the city of Mecca was lost when
    Muhammad’s rethinking shown by the revelation of 22.52
    disavowed this as not having been revealed by God but by
    Satan! Exegesis suggests that 17.73 may be a reminder of
    this unhappy incident: “And they indeed strove hard to
    beguile thee away from that wherewith We have inspired
    thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against
    Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.”

    It needs to be added that many modern-day Muslim
    scholars reject this embarrassing historical account
    provided by the Muslim Tradition. However, as Watt says,
    it is surely unthinkable that the story was at some stage
    merely invented by the Muslims or inserted by fraud into
    the accounts.
     
     

      DOUBTS ABOUT THE REVELATION
       
    We must dwell somewhat on this important question
    of the source of the Qur’an. Muhammad was clearly at times
    uncertain of the source of these special revelations. This
    comes out in the depression following the initial occasion
    or occasions. At that stage he really wanted to know whether
    he was possessed by one of the jinn or genii. These are the
    Arab equivalent for poets and fortune-tellers of the muses
    who are met in Greek myths, the nine daughters of Zeus who
    presided over and inspired the arts and sciences. He found
    some reassurance from Khadija, as we have learned.

    Note that Muhammad was in a sort of epileptic state
    when the revelations occurred. But this was not usually a
    problem for him, so we can be fairly sure that he was not
    suffering from a medical condition. Some would hastily suggest
    that the trances are related to possession, but should the same
    thing be said then also of those who enter extraordinary trances
    during certain types of church services? It is no doubt true,
    however, that the occult element in this cannot be completely
    ruled out.

    It should be mentioned that Muhammad was reassured
    in his uncertainty. His qur’anic revelations told him that
    prevailing doubts were to be overcome by his consulting the
    people of the Book, the Jews and Christians, and his
    followers were to do the same! This important point can be
    seen in 10.95; 16.43; 21.7. These are verses that have sent
    many a Muslim into an enlightening study of the Bible. We
    need quote only the first: “If thou art in doubt concerning
    that which we reveal unto thee, then question those that read
    the Scripture that was before thee.”
     
     

      THE REAL NATURE OF THE QUR’AN
       
    Soon Muhammad was to have many divine revelations
    to propound representing the ipsissima verba dei, the very
    words of God communicated by the angel Gabriel who, in the
    Qur’an, is confused with the Holy Spirit. In parts and as
    needed, the Qur’an was “descended” from heaven through this
    angelic intermediary.

    Muslim teaching is that the revealed Qur’an is but a
    copy of the Mother of the Book, the perfect Qur’an which is
    said to be uncreated and has always existed with God in heaven.
    (You might realize that this generally held Muslim doctrine
    has enormous inherent philosophical difficulties, since it
    postulates the existence of something uncreated alongside
    of Allah.)

    If this point about the nature of the revelation
    is grasped, we can see that for the Muslim, the Qur’an is
    the “Word” revealed. So it is equivalent in fact to Jesus
    in Christianity, and it is really Muhammad who has the role
    of our Bible, himself providing the model and teaching
    needed by the faithful. The Tradition then provides much
    of what in Christianity is derived from the Acts of the
    Apostles and the Epistles. We should note that the roles
    of the Bible and the Qur’an are therefore very different.
    These books are so often compared during Christian
    discussion of Islam, but they are not really comparable
    in character.
     
     

      THE EARLY MECCAN TEACHING
       
    In terms of their teaching, the early Meccan
    qur’anic suras (placed towards the end of Qur’an, being
    shorter and less developed) reveal a greater simplicity.
    We there find the principal early themes of the moral
    response of man to Allah (sura 107), opposition to shirk
    (i.e. associationism), predictions of the Day of Judgment,
    and images of the tortures of the damned and the delights
    of a sensual paradise. Then the transcendence of the one
    true God also becomes a dominant theme.
     
     
      THE MECCAN OPPOSITION
       
    Response to Muhammad’s revelations was poor. His
    few converts included Khadija, his cousin ‘Ali, his adopted
    slave son Zayd plus some others. The leaders of the Quraysh
    tribe, influenced by their religious past and the economic
    considerations of the pagan rites and hajj pilgrimage to
    Mecca, scorned him. They mocked him about his poor social
    standing, incredulous that God could not chose someone
    more appropriate to the prophetic task.

    We must remember that they had the Ka‘aba, a shrine
    filled with idols, which also had a black meteorite stone
    “fallen from heaven”. This stone still exists to this day,
    having an important place in the pilgrimage. The shrine had
    something of the financial value and interest of the Our Lady
    cave at Lourdes in France in terms of a money-earner. We can
    understand that his teaching concerning social justice and the
    poor was not appreciated by the wealthy, any more than Amos’
    hearers took notice of his messages about social justice. This
    led Muhammad to begin more and more to talk of the Old Testament
    and of other prophets, pointing out that they too were without
    honour but that judgment came inevitably on their mockers. So
    the nature of the messages of the Qur’an seems to have changed
    and developed.

    It is clear that Muhammad must have already known these
    biblical stories about the Prophets in some form or other.
    Otherwise he would not have been able to make sense of them
    when the various revelations came to him. We will be able to
    look somewhat more closely at his religious contacts later.
     
     

          THE HIJRA
           
    The year A.D. 622 is a crucial one. It is the year
    of the hijra, i.e. the departure or leaving for Yathrib. The
    word does not really mean flight, although there was something
    of that about the event. In any case, in that year Muhammad
    withdrew to Yatrib 120 miles north of Mecca with about 200 of
    his followers. From then on Yathrib became known for its
    illustrious resident and chief as “Medina al-Nabi”, the City
    of the Prophet. (This name is also that of the old district
    of Tunis, called Medina.)

    There was in this town a group who had met him during
    their pilgrimage. They had somewhat accepted his claims, but
    probably more for his moral qualities than because of his
    statements about his revelations. They had been looking for
    a charismatic leader able to stop their tribal feuds, and
    they thought Muhammad seemed to have the qualities they were
    seeking.

    Their welcome extended to him became the turning
    point of his career and of Islam itself and therefore this
    can be said to be the start of the Muslim era. Consequently
    Muslims date events A.H., i.e. Anno Hegirae, or after the Hijra.
    If need be, you can roughly convert to our calendar dates by
    adding 622 and deducting three years per century to allow for
    lunar months.
     
     

      MUHAMMAD AT MEDINA
       
    Whereas he had been in Mecca the rejected prophet,
    pointing to the one God and warning of judgment, now he becomes
    a statesman, legislator and judge, and the Qur’an has to give
    new appropriate verses. To some extent he now had a role like
    that of a Hausa Emir or Chief, and he has been said to have
    become “the executive as well as the mouthpiece of the new
    theocracy”. The suras now have an emphasis on legislation and
    especially on obedience to and respect of the prophet, as can
    be seen if you refer to 3.31, 132; 4.17-18; 24.62-63; 33.40, 57;
    49.2-5; 58.12-13.
     
     
      MUHAMMAD’S NIGHT FLIGHT
       
    Some time later apparently, although possibly it took
    place before the Hijra, Muhammad had some great mystic
    transforming experience or experiences when he is said to
    have been carried “by night from the Inviolable Place to the
    Far Distant Place of Worship” (17.1). This brief account may
    be a reference to some vision or even some out-of-body
    experience when he was transported from Mecca to Jerusalem,
    as Pickthall notes.

    In any case, the ahadith (Traditions) have developed
    this into the physical mi‘raj or Ascension of Muhammad,
    together with details of the animal he rode, his sojourn
    in each of the seven heavens and his conversations with Adam,
    Jesus and other prophets. Some of our countries have a public
    holiday to commemorate the event, following an all-night vigil.
     
     

      MUHAMMAD AND THE JEWS
       
    During the next few years, relations with the Jews are
    crucial for the Qur’an. At first, references to the Peoples of
    the Book are generally very favourable and prayer was said in
    the direction of Jerusalem (2.136-145), as was apparently so
    in the period of the Jewish Exile for Daniel, as Daniel 6.10
    shows.

    It seems clear that Muhammad highly esteemed Jerusalem.
    Notice where his Ascension (17.1) took him. A Tradition quotes
    Muhammad as looking forward to a day when Jerusalem would be the
    seat of Islam rather than Medina. He is supposed to have said:
    “Islam has begun by being expatriated (to Medina) and it will
    finish up expatriated (to Jerusalem). And blessed will be the
    members of Muhammad’s community who will be expatriated with
    it.” This is found in the Hadith Al-Ghorba, i.e. Speak of the
    Exile, and is quoted by Vincent Monteil in L’Islam, p.44.

    Muhammad then became disillusioned that his message
    was not immediately received by the important Jewish population
    of Medina. He saw himself certainly not as God or a god but as
    the messenger of Allah proclaiming and reviving the one, true
    religion of Ibrahim and the other prophets (7.158; 10.95;
    28.52-53; 42.13 -- “He hath ordained for you that religion
    which He commended unto Noah... and that which We commended
    unto Abraham and Moses and Jesus saying: Establish the
    religion”; 61.9-11).
     
     

      MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE?
       
    Muhammad even claims that Jesus prophesied concerning
    him, saying: “I am the messenger of Allah... bringing good
    tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is
    the Praised One” (61.6; cf. Jn 14.16). Here it is a matter
    of a certain Ahmad, the form as found in the Prophet’s name,
    Muhammad. The argument from the Greek is subtle but important.
    If the reference is genuine (which the Islamics scholars G.
    Parrinder and W.M. Watts both question), it perhaps shows
    that Muhammad knew more about the Scriptures than he is often
    given credit for. Ahmad (i.e. praised, illustrious) is in
    Greek “periklutos”, while Jesus spoke rather, according to
    John’s Gospel, of the “Parakletos” (the advocate, “Comforter”)
    as being promised, the Spirit. The Greek New Testament
    scriptures do not support the Muslim reading, and the 4th
    Century manuscripts that we have could not very well have
    been corrupted in anticipation of the Muslim argument!
     
     
      MUHAMMAD AGAINST THE JEWS
       
    The Jews ridiculed Muhammad’s confused understanding
    of the Old Testament. However, there is often very precise
    Biblical detail and knowledge to be seen in the confusion,
    which shows some considerable knowledge of the Old Testament.
    For example, Haman is presented as minister of Pharaoh (40.36).

    Even more striking perhaps is the Family of Imran 3.33
    and 19.28, of which Maryam the mother of Jesus is a member.
    This needs to be compared with 1Chron. 6.3 (5.29 of the Hebrew
    text) for its relevance to be appreciated. There we learn that
    Moses, Aaron and Miriam are the daughters of Amram/Imran. Is it
    therefore all that surprising that the Qur’an says that Aaron
    is Mary’s sister and Imran was her father, if you remember that
    in Arabic there is no different form for Mary and Miriam?

    Other examples could be multiplied of the sort of
    thing that outraged the Jews. As a final case we can mention
    that the account of the struck rock giving twelve springs in
    sura 2.60 seems clearly to be a mixture of two separate Bible
    stories, those of Horeb in Ex. 17.6 and of Elim in Ex. 15.27.

    This Jewish ridicule about his accounts, Muhammad could
    not and was not prepared to accept. He believed he was reciting
    the revelation of Allah and denied learning them from human
    sources. The point is now made in the Qur’an that the Jews
    corrupted or at least misinterpreted their Scriptures
    (2.75, 78-79, 174, 176-177; 3.78; 4.46; 5.15; 6.92). However,
    in Muhammad’s eyes there is still salvation for Jews and
    Christians, as 2.62 shows.

    Sura 98 probably marks the definite break with the
    Jews who refused to believe. Now the Jewish tribes are
    banished or attacked. This is so particularly of the tribes
    guilty of betrayal or those (e.g. Bani Nadir, and later the
    Qurayza) that rejoiced or took part in Muhammad’s military
    discomfiture.
     
     

      THE MUSLIMS TURN TOWARDS MECCA
       
    Islam now turns in prayer towards Mecca. As we
    have mentioned, from A.D. 624 the qiblah or prayer
    direction is towards the Ka‘aba and no longer towards
    Jerusalem. In the face of the charge of inconsistency
    “What hath turned them from the qiblah which they
    formerly observed?”), Muhammad is obliged to justify the
    change. It is the revelation in reply to this that we
    find in 2.136-145, with the essence in the wise statement:
    “Unto Allah belong the East and the West,” so the change
    is of little consequence for God. Muhammad feels that
    he must now affirm that his religion is neither Jewish
    nor Christian but that of Abraham, that is, it is the
    original religion, the basic religion of man (2.129-130,
    135; 3.65-67, 84, 96-97). The pagan pilgrimage to the
    Ka‘aba, which is supposed to date from Abraham, is now
    converted to become the Muslim duty (3.96-97; 22.27f).

    This was no doubt a step towards his acceptance
    in Mecca. In the Qur’an account there are skirmishes
    (2.217), hesitations (16.126) and stand-offs. There
    are important battles that become religious wars. At
    times attack by the Muslims was considered the best
    means of defence. The important Battle of Badr took
    place in A.D. 624 when 300 Muslims defeated 1000 Meccans.
    The following year was that of the Battle of Mt Uhud when
    Muhammad was injured. In 627 the Meccans with Bedouin
    nomads form an army of 10,000 against Muhammad. This Battle
    of the Ditch led to dissension between the allied enemies
    and they lifted their siege and went home. The end was
    in sight for Muhammad.
     
     

        ENTRY TO MECCA
         
    Soon Muhammad is finally allowed the conditional
    freedom of the city of Mecca for a pilgrimage. In 9 A.H.
    he entered Mecca with his faithful and they smashed the
    idols at the Ka‘aba. This was a great victory. After this
    Islam quickly became established throughout the Arabian
    peninsula before his death in 11 A.H.

    Just before his death Muhammad had given his
    farewell address at Arafat at a pilgrimage in A.D. 632.
    It is no doubt the very last verse of the qur’anic
    revelation (5.3): “This day have I perfected your religion
    for you and completed my favour unto you, and have chosen
    for you as religion AL-ISLAM.” It has something of the idea
    of Jesus’ “It is finished” about it and gives assurance to
    the Prophet that his religion is now “perfected”. In that
    year the Christians of Najran submitted to a tribute and
    the Muslims guaranteed them protection of their persons,
    goods and worship. According to Muhammad there were to be
    no forced conversions among the Peoples of the Book, for,
    the Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2.256).
     
     

      THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD
       
    The traditional details of his death are worth
    relating to get some idea of why they might impress Muslims.
    Pickthall gives a vivid account of the events. It is said
    that during his last pilgrimage in 10 A.H. Muhammad had his
    revelation which became his farewell address (5.3). He saw
    this as preparing and announcing his coming death. Just
    after his return to Medina, he became ill, and the news
    of his sickness spread like wild fire throughout much of
    Arabia now won to his cause. To the general relief of his
    disciples, at dawn on the last day of his life, Muhammad
    came out of his room adjoining the mosque at Medina, and
    took part in the prayers where Abu Bakr was now acting as
    imam (prayer leader) since the beginning of Muhammad’s
    sickness.

    Later in the day the rumour went about the Muhammad
    had in fact died. ‘Umar threatened to punish severely
    those who propagated this rumour, and declared that it
    was a crime to think that the Prophet of God could die.
    Abu Bakr came into the mosque at that moment and overheard
    him. He went into the bedroom of his daughter Ayeshah,
    where Muhammad was lying. There he realized that the
    Prophet was indeed dead. After kissing his forehead he
    went back to the mosque. The people were still listening
    to ‘Umar who was explaining that the Prophet was too dear
    to God and the people, and that he could not be dead.

    Abu Bakr failed to get ‘Umar’s attention, so he
    called to the people who gathered around him. After
    praising God he said the moving words, “O people, as for
    those who are in the habit of worshipping Muhammad, Muhammad
    is dead. But for those who are in the habit of worshipping
    Allah, know that Allah is alive and does not die.” To conclude,
    he then recited the verse 3.144: “Muhammad is but a messenger;
    messengers have passed away before him. Will it be that, when
    he dieth or is slain, ye shall turn back on your heels?”
    According to the witnesses, it was as if the people heard
    this for the first time, and it is said that ‘Umar’s legs
    failed him and he fell to the ground, all the while calling
    for God’s blessing upon Muhammad.
     
     

      MUHAMMAD THE PARADOX
       
    We can say about Muhammad that there was in him
    more of the charismatic warrior leader than the great
    religious personality. In some respects his experiences
    might remind us of Constantine who also made religion a
    matter of state after a vision of sorts. However, as
    Christians we can clearly see that, without any doubt,
    Muhammad was also rather like a biblical model we know
    well, the Judge. In Old Testament times he was very much
    a ruler over the people of God and at the same time a
    war-leader. Therefore, in view of this perspective, the
    story of Muhammad’s life and work should not surprise us
    too much. More closer at hand in an African context, the
    Muhammad had something about him of the sacred tribal
    chief who combines perhaps moral and religious authority
    with rule and civil judgments.

    To best appreciate Muhammad’s experiences and
    his prophecies, and all the mystic and cultural factors
    concerned, I think you would have to be an extremely
    sensitive religious Arab back in the 7th Century. You
    would also need to have something of an Arab nationalistic
    spirit, and at the same time be deeply touched by the
    ignorant polytheism and idolatry of your people. Such an
    appreciation is hard on our part, because our world today
    is just ever so different. In addition, sadly, so often
    even the blind idolatry and impiety of our very own friends,
    relatives and compatriots leave us largely unmoved.
     



     
      JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN
       
      INFLUENCE ON MUHAMMAD
       
            AND THE QUR’AN
     
     
     
      THREE INFLUENCES AT WORK
       
    We have already suggested that the best Christian
    understanding of Muhammad himself and his revelations
    may come from taking into account the psychological
    factors no doubt at work in the Prophet’s life as well
    as the social and political features of the time. He was
    an extremely sensitive person, even if he gave all the
    outward signs of a imposing personality. There is no
    doubt that Muhammad, as a result of early contacts or
    experiences, had an intense preoccupation with God and
    moral issues. This apparently developed into some sense
    of compulsion urging him to declare what he understood
    to be the will of God coming to him for a large part
    through visions related to those trances he often entered
    at times of personal crisis, conflict and even of war.

    This present topic concerning the influences at work in
    his life is of considerable importance to us all if we wish
    to understand something of Muhammad’s religious development.
    If we do not accept that the Qur’an is divine revelation,
    for us it will undoubtedly throw some light on the sources
    of the Qur’an. It will also help us to see a little how conflict
    with Jews and Christians later arose and became ever so bitter,
    because the refusal of the Prophet’s message was just like a
    betrayal. However, before looking at Jewish and Christian
    influences on Muhammad’s life, it is necessary to make some brief
    remarks about the pagan or polytheistic situation at the time.
     
     

        THE NAME “ALLAH”
         
    Allah was worshipped among the Arabs at and before the time
    of Muhammad. It is surely appropriate at this point to say something
    about Allah, and indicate why Arab Christians and Jews have had
    no difficulty in using this name for the Lord Almighty. Even the
    Hausa Bible of Nigeria and Niger follows this practice. The word’s
    etymology should not be considered a matter of over-great
    consequence any more than we link our English form “God” to
    sacrifices, or the name “Easter” to the European pagan dawn or
    fertility goddess! It is not always understood in word studies,
    biblical or otherwise, and needs to be stressed, that what matters
    with words is how we (or writers) use them, not how they used to
    be used!

    A case can be made for seeing in “Allah” a link with the
    Hebrew word for God, El, apparently pronounced Il in Ancient
    Babylonian. In Arabic the form for God became Ilah, which gives
    “Allah” when one elides the “i” and adds the word for "the”, Al,
    i.e. Al-Illah became “Allah”. The three monotheistic religions of
    Arabia use this name to designate the supreme being, The God.
    We can be fairly sure that it was so understood in Mecca at the
    time of Muhammad, otherwise the Qur’an would never have made
    sense or would have been very ambiguous to its hearers as a
    result of its straightforward use of this term without further
    explanation.

    It is true that Allah is more remote, more transcendent,
    than the God that we Protestants know. In this regard the titles
    of a couple of testimonies by converted Muslims, I Dared to Call
    Him Father and Dieu etait si lointain (i.e. God was so far
    away) are revealing. You may know that French Catholics have
    gone through a stage of calling God “vous” rather than "tu”.
    So we might say that in the Islamic understanding God resembles
    more the remote God of the common Catholic position, where
    mediators such as Mary or the Saints are often thought to be
    necessary. Yet even in this regard few Protestants would say
    that Catholics do not pray to the same God as us, any more
    than they would assert that animists have no belief in the
    Supreme Being.
     
     

      IDOLATROUS BACKGROUND
    As was general throughout the world, including much
    of Europe at the time, the 7th Century Arabs were largely
    animistic. Similar to many African tribes, they had their
    sacred trees, rocks and watering places. Blood may be shed
    on a stone which was then licked or touched, and a
    blood-brotherhood was thus established as well as some
    holiness being imparted. Here we are not far from the
    supposed merits of statues and of Holy Water, etc. The
    Qur’an condemns many such practices. Ironically, kissing
    the Black Stone is still part of the Muslim pilgrimage.
    The Khalif ‘Umar, the Saint Paul of Islam as he has been
    called, is said to have stated in regard to the Black Stone,
    “Had I not seen the Prophet kiss you, I would not kiss you
    myself.”

    There were quite a number of idols or gods worshipped
    among the Arabs, and sura 71.23 bears witness to this.
    There is also that surprisingly frank account in the
    Qur’an of the occasion when the Prophet apparently made
    somewhat of a concession to paganism in reciting sura
    53.19-20 concerning Al-Lat, Al-‘Uzza and Manat, the goddesses
    of the Sun, of Venus and of Fate respectively. There is no
    need to go over our discussion of the so-called “satanic
    verses”. However, it is obvious that idolatry was rife at
    the time of Muhammad. He was not going to have an easy time
    convincing his people of the existence of one true God.

    Worship of Al-Lat was extremely widespread, and her
    means “the goddess”. The footnote given by Pickthall under
    name the first sura of the Qur’an seems therefore to be more
    of a dogmatic nature than factual when he says that Allah has
    no feminine form. Furthermore, many would suggest, something
    of Manat’s character as the predestinating and arbitrary
    destroyer seems also to have been transferred to Muhammad’s
    understanding of Allah.

    There are other elements of paganism connected with
    Islam apart from the jinn spirits, Fate, and the Black Stone.
    Entire books have been written on this subject, as the
    bibliography shows. It has struck me as somewhat surprising
    that Islam, never over-tolerant of representations of the
    creation, has the moon crescent as its symbol. This is perhaps
    a further element kept from early paganism.

    Mention has already been made of the annual pagan
    pilgrimage to the Ka‘aba at Mecca, where many idols were
    adored. This was as important a socio-economic factor in
    the town as was the worship of Artemis or Diana in Ephesus
    mentioned in Acts 19.23-40. Anyone who challenged the vested
    interests of the day was looking for trouble. It is
    therefore not hard to imagine why the Meccan leaders
    and traders rejected Muhammad’s monotheistic messages.
     
     

      THE FEAST OF THE RAM
    There seem to have been sacrifices, and even human
    sacrifices, at the time of Muhammad. However, the Arab
    sacrifices had for the most part the aspect of community
    feasts, and so it is in Islam today. Even the great feast
    of Tabaski, as it is known here, Aid El-Kabir, the Feast of
    the Ram (originally of the Camel -- cf. s.22.36-37 “And the
    camels... Mention the name of Allah over them...”), has
    nothing of a sacrifice about it. Being the memorial of
    Abraham’s being prepared to offer his son (Does the Qur’an
    say it was Isaac or Ishmael? Cf. sura 37.102-107), it
    resembles much more the Jewish Passover or our Lord’s
    Supper, than the Old Testament blood sacrifices or the
    Catholic Mass. There is certainly nothing in the Qur’an
    about it which should prevent our eating the meat a Muslim
    might offer us. In this respect sura 22.37 is of particular
    interest, denying, as it does, any merit attaching to the
    flesh or the blood.
     
     
        JEWISH INFLUENCES
    We have already mentioned the Jewish presence in
    the regions of Arabia. What has not been stressed is the
    antiquity and the extent of it, which probably put its
    roots deep. As with the Aswan Jewish community in Egypt,
    Israelite presence in Arabia in considerable numbers may
    well go back even to the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C. In any
    case, the Romans were ruthless against the Jews after the
    fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and also later with the Bar
    Kochba uprising. This caused a further great scattering of
    the Jewish people, the Diaspora.

    There is no doubt that, about the time of Muhammad,
    the Jews dominated much of the economic life of the Hijaz,
    and, like much of the best arable land in various oases, the
    market at Medina was under the control of a Jewish tribe.
    Alfred Guillaume says that they must have made up at least
    half the population of Yatrib/Medina, and they no doubt had
    proselytes and kinsfolk among the Arab tribesmen. Consequently
    we can say that Muhammad could not have avoided contact with
    Judaism, even if he had wanted to.

    Old Testament allusions or stories are frequent in the
    Qur’an, as are those taken from the Jewish Talmud (the rabbinic
    traditions) or midrashic (i.e. interpretive) legends. As examples
    we can mention sura 18.61-62 -- the story of the wise man of
    Al-Khedr and the fish, and sura 2.63 -- relating to a rabbinic
    legend that had developed the very words of the Hebrew "under
    the mountain” of Exodus 19.17 to have Sinai tower over the
    people of Israel, threatening them if they did not accept
    the Torah! There is also the strange account in sura 2.64,
    because David was said by the rabbis to have transformed into
    apes those who fished on the Sabbath!

    We have seen that ritual prayer was at first said
    towards Jerusalem. Anti-Jewish elements appear only in the
    later Qur’an as a reflection of Muhammad’s profound
    disillusionment resulting from the Jewish refusal of his
    messages, from their mockery, and more especially from their
    betrayals and their alliances with his enemies. After all,
    the prophets of Allah had always been rejected by the proud
    people, Muhammad recalled (cf. s.2.87-89, 91).
     
     

      THE DEATH OF CHRIST
    In the Qur’an, a case can be made to show Muhammad
    does not clearly oppose the fact of Christ’s crucifixion,
    and there is perhaps a reference to his Resurrection or
    Ascension. In sura 19.33 we read of Jesus: “Peace on me
    the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall
    be raised alive!” We cannot conclude from this verse alone
    that it speaks of Jesus’ Resurrection, apart from at the
    Last Day, since s.19.15 uses exactly the same terms to speak
    of John the Baptist. However, in context, fairly obviously
    the death reference should normally have the same meaning as
    for John the Baptist.

    Muslim scholars have been divided on this over the
    centuries, with even some notables accepting the truth of
    Christ’s death (at least for a few hours). It is worth
    noting that the doctrine of the Ahmadiyya sect depends
    on the fact that it was indeed Jesus who was crucified.
    Sayyad Ahmad Khan of India developed the theory that it
    was Jesus, but he only swooned on the cross and was taken
    down alive after only a few hours. This idea was later
    mixed with a supposed visit of Jesus to Tibet. Much has
    been made of this escape theory. Ghulam Ahmad has had a
    great success with this story, particularly since he pointed
    out a grave in Kashmir which he claimed to be that of Jesus!

    Tradition and Muslims in general have of course
    developed the doubts about the Crucifixion and the qur’anic
    teaching somewhat, resulting in the idea of some sort of
    most unlikely substitution, perhaps with Judas or Simon
    of Cyrene on the Cross. The relevant qur’anic verses are
    sura 4.156-159 and sura 3.54-55.

    We read in s.4.157-158: “And because of their
    saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s
    messenger -- they slew him not nor crucified, but it
    appeared so to them... They slew him not for certain,
    but Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty,
    Wise.” With that compare Kasimirski’s translation (in his
    version, sura 3.47-48): “The Jews imagined tricks against
    Jesus. God worked some out against them, and God is certainly
    cleverer. God said to Jesus: I will make you undergo death,
    and I will raise you up to myself.” In context, Muhammad may
    not be opposing the death of Christ as such. He seems rather
    to be scoring points against the unbelieving Jews, who should
    not take arrogant credit for crucifying the Messiah. Allah
    is sovereign, and the suggestion may be that the Jews should
    not think they can act against him and his Prophet.

    In any case Muslim scholars are divided as to
    whether Jesus was dead before being raised to God, i.e.
    before the Ascension, or whether he was not. You might like
    to know that the Sale translation of the Qur’an helpfully
    details some of this in the note on p.51-52, mentioning
    those who acknowledge that Jesus died a natural death and
    continued in that state for three or seven hours before
    being resurrected and taken to heaven. We know that yet
    other Muslims propose that Jesus will return to earth,
    marry, and then die.

    This whole subject is a matter of considerable
    confusion as a result of the qur’anic references’ being
    so enigmatic. We have probably given enough details for
    the purposes of these brief notes. However, we can come
    back to this matter of the Crucifixion during our
    discussion of the Nestorian ideas current among Arab
    Christians at Muhammad’s time.
     
     

      CHRISTIAN CONTACTS
    The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were
    respected by Muhammad, as everybody knows. However, it is
    important to note that the Scriptures appear regrettably
    not to have existed in Arabic at the time of Muhammad. The
    earliest known Old Testament in Arabic dates to about A.D. 900,
    while the New Testament was done by a Copt about A.D. 1271.
    Apparently in the Arab churches the service was in the
    vernacular, but the Scriptures were read either from the
    Syriac or Hebrew, which disadvantaged Arabs greatly.

    The influence of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures was
    widespread among the Arabic God-fearers. As early as forty
    years before Muhammad’s call, even the idolatrous Ka‘aba had
    on a stone a proverbial quotation from Matthew 7.16. Worship
    at the Ka‘aba was supposed to have been based on the tradition
    of Abraham, which became so important to Islam in due course.
    During the cleansing of the Ka‘aba, when Muhammad ordered
    all idolatry to be removed from the shrine, he made an
    exception in the case of pictures of Mary and Jesus which
    were on the wall, according to Ibn Ishaq. These were still
    visible to eyewitnesses as late as 683, when the Ka‘aba was
    destroyed by fire and had to be rebuilt.

    Muslims often seem to be thoroughly anti-Christian
    and mistrustful of Christians. This may come as a natural
    enough reaction from their family upbringing and their
    historic experiences (the Crusades and, in Africa,
    Catholic-civil colonial pressures). But it may also result
    from the fact that they understand very little about their
    own faith and their religious heritage, and perhaps even less
    about biblical Christianity. This may give the impression that
    relations have always been like this. But we need to recall
    that Muhammad undoubtedly had close and frequent contact with
    Christians and Jews. Mecca had so many Christians at the time
    of the Prophet that they apparently had a cemetery of their
    own. They included slaves from Ethiopia, but there were also
    Arabs won to the Coptic faith. Even Khadija’s hairdresser
    was apparently a Christian.

    It is important to note this cosmopolitan character
    of wealthy Mecca. For example, Abbas, an uncle of the Prophet,
    had a Greek concubine. He presented Muhammad with a Coptic
    slave named Abu Rafi. The Tradition teaches that Muhammad
    was informed of some things by two Christians, Jubra and
    Ysara, and for this reason the idolatrous Qureshites rejected
    him and mocked saying, “It is only a mortal that teaches him.”
    The Prophet used to stop and listen to these two Christians as
    they recited aloud from the Torah and the Injil. We can probably
    only appreciate the importance and impact of this if we grasp
    the significance of recitation and memorisation in a society
    where orality was the main means of passing on tradition and
    learning.

    Christian monks, healers and travellers passed
    through Mecca, and from the age of 25 Muhammad is supposed
    to have travelled a lot with Khadija’s caravans. Someone of
    his religious disposition would surely have sought out
    opportunities for discussion like that he had when, as early
    as age twelve, he went to Syria with his uncle Abu Talib and
    there met a Christian monk named Bahira. Let us not forget
    either the importance and power of Damascus in the early
    Christian world. Christianity anything but died out there
    with the exit of Paul through that hole in the wall
    (Acts 9.25)! However, it is a fact of history that Persia
    long dominated Syria. Then, just in time for the Muslim
    era, the Byzantine Greeks took Syria with a terribly
    cruel oppression. When, soon after, the Arabian Muslim
    forces showed themselves, they were of course welcomed
    as liberators. That is the way it was to be throughout
    much of North Africa.

    Arabia had a surprisingly large number of
    Christians prior to and around Muhammad’s time. Though
    the bedouin of the Hijaz region were pagan, many tribes
    of Arabia had accepted some form of Christianity. Even
    two tribes of the Hijaz were Christian. The tradition
    says that Muhammad wore long gowns given to him by desert
    monks there. While Muhammad was a youth, even King Nu‘man
    of Hira converted to Christianity.

    Remember that after his initial revelations,
    Muhammad did not know whether he had become a poet or
    possessed, or the both at once, a state greatly feared
    by Arabs at the time. Khadija went, apparently with
    Muhammad, to see her cousin Waraqa Ibn Naufal, an old
    man “who knew the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians.
    ” He had even written down the Gospels “in Hebrew”.
    Waraqa saw in the revelation the same sort of
    manifestation as at the Burning Bush. Waraqa’s word
    to Khadija was: “So he will assuredly be the prophet
    to his own people. Tell him so and have him stand firm”
    (Al-Tabari). It is worth noting the precise wording of
    Waraqa’s understanding, because Waraqa remained a
    Christian all his life. We can note at this point that
    Khadija had another Christian cousin Uthman ibn
    Al-Huwayrith who became a Christian at the Byzantine court.
     

    MUHAMMAD’S CHRISTIAN RELATIVES

    Even more significant in Muhammad’s contacts with
    Christianity in one form or another may be three other of
    his relatives. Ubaidullah ibn Jash, one of the early Hunafa,
    became one of the first Muslims, and he married Umma Habiba,
    daughter of Abu Sufyan. He was among the Companions of the
    Prophet who fled the first bitter Meccan persecutions and
    sought refuge in Abyssinia. There he soon renounced Islam
    and became a Christian, and he used to testify to the
    Companions of the Prophet who were there, saying, “We see
    clearly, but you are blinking,” because a whelp blinks
    when it is trying to open its eyes to see (as Ibn Ishaq
    relates). Ubaidullah died in Ethiopia, maintaining his
    Christian faith to the end, and in due course Muhammad
    married his friend’s wife. Umma Habiba no doubt brought
    with her something of her first husband’s understanding
    if not his convictions. Another of Muhammad’s widow-wives,
    Sawda, had also been married to a Christian, but this
    marriage may have taken place because she did not espouse
    the position of her husband.

    The third much-loved relative to consider is Zaid
    ibn Harith. He was from a southern Syrian tribe, the Bani
    Kalb. While still young, he was taken and sold into slavery
    and eventually came into the hands of Khadija who gave him
    to Muhammad. The Prophet developed such a love for him that
    he freed him. He took him to the Black Stone of the Ka‘aba.
    There he swore, “Bear testimony, all ye present. Zaid is my
    son; I will be his heir and he shall be mine.” Zaid had no
    doubt brought with him something of his religious heritage,
    and it would surely have been most natural for Muhammad to
    have conversed with his wives and with Zaid about the
    Christian and biblical stories. In this regard, let us
    not forget the possible further influence of the wife
    often called Muhammad’s favourite, Maryam the Copt,
    given to the Prophet by the Governor of Alexandria.
     
     

      THE POOR CHRISTIAN WITNESS
    As with all leaders, especially religious (cf. the
    case of Calvin), Muhammad should be judged on his
    merits, and not from either the understanding or the behaviour
    of his disciples. It is possible that, especially in matters
    relating to Christianity, Muslims in general and Islam in
    particular, following Tradition, may have taken a course
    somewhat different from that of their Prophet. We will be
    able to see this better, perhaps, when we look at the qur’anic
    text more closely. In Muhammad and Islam we have something of
    a parallel with the prophet Harris and the Harrists in Cote
    d’Ivoire, if you know the story of this latter prophet. We
    must always judge such men by their fruits, not by their
    posterity.

    The tragedy is that with the vision and the natural
    revelation that Muhammad had, and with his desire to root
    out idolatry and polytheism, his contact with Christianity
    and Judaism, and even more so with Christians and Jews, was
    so deficient and did not seem to provide a very positive
    witness to the truth and grace of God. Christianity then,
    as now (especially in the case of Protestants and
    evangelicals), was far too divided and gave a much too
    diversified and even conflicting testimony. In fact, sadly,
    Muhammad may have had every reason to believe that he was
    propagating the true religion and the will of God for his
    creation when we consider the state of Christianity at
    the time. When we talk nowadays of folk Islam, let us
    remember that in Arabia as well as Europe at the time,
    this seems to have been the period of doctrina publica
    rather than doctrina ecclesia, as it has been put. That
    is to say, Christian common understanding and superstition
    too often carried the day, no matter what the Bible or the
    official doctrine the Church said.
     
     

      ISLAM, A CHRISTIAN HERESY?
    In Muhammad’s day Christianity was going through
    a period of superstition and idolatry, of docetism and
    polytheism. The adoration of the saints and martyrs was
    important for mediation, and Cyril of Alexandria writes:
    “Also remember those who have fallen asleep, the Patriarchs,
    Prophets, Apostles and Martyrs, that God through their
    prayers and intercessions may accept our supplication”
    (see his Fifth Catechism). The Church might officially
    have made -- and might still make -- some distinction in
    this adoration, including the cult of the Virgin Mary.
    But official pronouncements do not easily do away with
    public beliefs and misunderstanding. Errors often continue
    to be reinforced even in the churches. To illustrate, the
    presentation of angels as bird-men and the handling of the
    story of the Three Wise Men in our churches shows this.
    (Were there three, and were they Kings?) Almost every
    Christmas play or story has them at the stable (alongside
    the shepherds?). But Matthew 1.11 says otherwise; the wise
    men found Jesus in a house. Luke seems to agree with Matthew
    because he has an account of an intervening visit to
    Jerusalem (Lk. 2.22-38).

    It was said by C.S. Lewis (in God in the Dock)
    that “Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies.”
    This could with some reservation be considered a fairly
    accurate assessment, since Islam has a lot of the features
    of, say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Branhamists. It is
    also not all that dissimilar to judaistic thinking. As with
    most heresies, Islam’s principal differences from biblical
    Christianity relate to the Trinity and the person and work
    of Christ. It has a definite leader figure. A consideration
    of the Pillars of Islam shows that salvation or acceptance
    with God is also very much related to works rather than
    grace by faith, as the Bible teaches us.

    A reflection on this may help our thinking. It
    may also explain something of our difficulty of
    communicating effectively among Muslims since, habitually,
    Christians seem to have tried by argument to convince and
    win over members of the sects. Perhaps it is the “more
    excellent way”, that is needed (cf. 1 Corinthians 12.31).
     
     

      THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY
    To some extent Muhammad was caught in the middle
    of a most complex Christian argument, and he was trying
    to make the best of it that he could. The Qur’an bears
    witness to this. We might better understand his position
    and difficulty if we imagine ourselves as non-Christians
    listening to rabid Arminians and Calvinists arguing, or
    Baptists and p‘do-baptists for that matter. Such discussions
    would be easy to follow in comparison with the intricacies
    of the christological debate such as Muhammad encountered
    it in Arabia during his conversations and his travels. And
    christology has never been an easy doctrinal field to master!

    Church history with its divisions had borne fruit in
    Arabia. There the Nestorian church was especially strong to
    the extent that some historians can say that, at least prior
    to A.D. 547, the “Church of the east”, i.e. the Nestorians,
    held all of Arabia, as both J. Stewart and Samuel M. Zwemer
    maintain. In this regard let us say that although the Nicean
    consultations in A.D. 325 had formulated a doctrine of the
    Trinity that confessed that God was in Christ reconciling
    the world to himself, this had certainly not ended the arguments.

    This positive step led to discussion concerning the
    relationship between the divine and human natures of Jesus
    Christ. In this question, as so often happened,
    Alexandrian-Antiochan ecclesiastical rivalry was to take
    a prime position. Although the matter is complex, because
    it so shaped Muhammad’s thinking we need to give it some
    consideration to appreciate the nature of the dispute about
    God and Christ of which Muhammad was a witness.

    The actual theological questions were phrased in
    the form: after the Incarnation were these natures of
    Christ fused or distinct? And did the divine nature suffer
    on the Cross? Cyril of Alexandria was the hero of the one
    united-nature camp, and this involved especially Mary.
    For Cyril, Mary was “Theotokos”, the bearer of God, which
    he translated as Mater Theo, i.e. mother of God. The
    great weakness of his theology was that he did not give
    enough account of the role of the humanity of Christ.
    There was, according to this group, only one composite
    nature in Christ, the divine Word. The monophysites
    followed this position, and there was subsequently a
    real cult of the Virgin, of which the Qur’an gives
    disapproving mention.

    Nestorius of Antioch (428, Patriarch of Constantinople)
    was concerned about the gross misunderstanding that such terms
    could give to non-Christians and pagans, and in this at least
    he was surely right. He was advised in this by refugee
    Egyptian monks. He said, “The form that received God, let
    us honour as divine together with the Word of God. But the
    Virgin who received God, let us not honour as God together
    with God...It is sufficient to honour Mary that she gave
    birth to the humanity which became the instrument of God.”
    Nestorius vehemently opposed the use of the word Theotokos
    and preferred the term Christotokos (i.e. bearer of Christ),
    if one was not prepared to join to theotokos the word
    anthropotokos (bearer of man).

    In A.D. 431 the Council of Ephesus took up a
    position against Nestorius, and the Council of Chalcedon
    basically affirmed the position of Cyril in its historic
    decision of A.D. 451. But the daggers remained drawn among
    the different followers, even after Nestorius’ death in A.D.
    431 and that of Cyril in 444.

    Nestorian Christianity was strongly represented in
    Arabia at the time of Muhammad, and, most significantly,
    mong other things it stressed the Day of Judgment which
    became a real leitmotiv of the Prophet’s teaching. Muhammad
    bought into the argument concerning Mary and the Godhead,
    it would appear, and this probably explains the terms of
    the verse 5.72, which may well be the expression of an
    opposition to the Theotokos (God-bearer) idea of the
    Monophysites: “They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah
    is the Messiah, son of Mary.”

    We need also to remember that in the historic
    Nicean Creed Mary is placed next to the Holy Spirit,
    and this may be no accident. At the Nicean Council there
    were church leaders who looked on her as the bride of
    the Holy Spirit or, worse still, who held to a notion
    of her divinity which may not be far from some modern
    Catholic views. However, these Marionites thought there
    were in fact two gods besides the Father, Christ and the
    Virgin Mary, as the historian Eusebius shows. Some of
    these adepts seem to have later been in Scythia and also
    Arabia where they were known as Collyridians, according
    to Ephiphanius. It was this sort of argument which probably
    led to Muhammad’s appeal in sura 3.64: “O People of the
    Scripture! Come to an agreement between us and you: that
    we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe
    no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others
    for lords beside Allah.” It is even clearer in sura 5.116:
    “O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me
    and my mother for two gods beside Allah?” Thus Muhammad
    clearly rejects the divinity of Mary.
     
     

      THE NESTORIANS AND THE CROSS
    Concerning the Crucifixion, there is what may be
    considered a plausible explanation linked to the Nestorian
    controversy concerning the person of Christ. The Monophysites
    often said that one of the Trinity suffered on the Cross,
    because they link, as we saw, Christ’s divine and human
    natures into one. The Nestorians taught, on the other hand,
    that Jesus died in his humanity “His human nature felt the
    pains of torture and death”), as the body alone can be killed
    (Matthew 10.28).

    Looking at the Crucifixion account, Abdul-Haqq finds
    the Qur’anic position and language very close to that of the
    Nestorians and also the expression of Paul in Romans 8.3.
    He translates the important expression in sura 4.157 thus:
    “They slew Him not nor crucified Him but only his likeness
    of men (or flesh).” By this sort of language, the Nestorians
    would have meant that the Jews did not and could not kill
    or crucify Jesus Christ so far as his divine nature was
    concerned. Muhammad may have been repeating a catch-cry or
    even their language. But could he really have been saying
    the same thing as they?

    It is possible that here, as elsewhere in the Qur’an,
    Muhammad gives his understanding of the matter without its
    being totally coherent. We have seen that sort of thing in
    relation to certain Old Testament stories. Another example
    that seems to stand out is Muhammad’s opposition to a trinity
    which is not the Christian Trinity (cf. s.5.116, quoted above).
    In any case, in his commentary Al-Baidhawi even provides
    interpretive options which are hardly normal Muslim ones:
    “Some said that he was taken up to heaven; and others that
    his manhood only suffered, and that his Godhead ascended
    into heaven” (Sale, p.94). The historian Ibn Ishaq says
    that part of Muhammad’s calling was to resolve such
    disputes: “And He sent down the Criterion, that is the
    distinction between truth and falsehood about which the
    sects differ in regard to the nature Jesus Christ and
    other natures” (p.272).

    It may reflect something of Muhammad’s quiet
    thinking on these areas that he was at least able the
    accept the idea of Jesus being in some sense the Word
    from God (sura 3.34; sura 4.171 -- in French, le Verbe).
    This is somewhat of an enigma because it is well-known
    that he rejects the divinity of Christ. And in this he
    has had many friends among “Christians” over the centuries!

    Part of his problem concerning the sonship of Christ
    seems to come from his firm opposition to associating anyone
    with God (called in Arabic the sin of shirk), and more
    specifically to the idea of God copulating with anyone
    to have a physical Son. Most Muslims seem to object to
    the idea of God’s Son basically because of this physical
    idea. We therefore need to be very clear about what we mean
    as well as always make clear precisely what we mean when we
    use the expression “Son of God” within Muslim hearing.
     
     

      THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION
    It is clear from the qur’anic Annunciation account
    that Muhammad accepted that Jesus was born as a result of
    the miraculous intervention of the Most-High, as Mary’s
    question makes clear: “How can I have a son when no mortal
    hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?” (s.19.20).
    It is often not realized how close the parallel with the
    account of Luke’s Gospel is (cf. sura 3.42-48; 19.16-21;
    Luke 1.26-38). We perhaps need to point out to our Muslim
    friends that the virginal conception only makes sense if
    Jesus was unique in more ways than being without sin (which
    the Qur’an teaches in s.19.19 when it describes Jesus as “a
    faultless son”). He was in fact, as Yahya (John the Baptist)
    pointed out (John 1.36) the Lamb of God sent by the Almighty
    and Merciful to atone for our sin, as only he could do.

    A comment may be added here about the Gospel
    differences. Muslims may have all sorts of different
    backgrounds. But in initial work with educated Muslims,
    it has often been found that Luke’s Gospel shocks them
    less with its expressions than Mark’s (cf. Mark 1.1) or
    John’s. Even the terms in Luke 1.35 have been accepted
    with its explanation of the work of the Most-High.
     
     

          CONCLUSION
    Christianity at the time of Muhammad was deeply divided
    if not thoroughly corrupted. This could not at all contribute
    to his understanding of the Gospel realities. The disputes of
    the period were very heated and bitter, and this was particularly
    so in the case of the discussion of the doctrine of Christ.
    These divisions are mentioned in sura 5.14: “With those who
    say: Lo! we are Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot
    a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have
    stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of
    Resurrection.” Things are always very bad when non-Christians
    are moved to comment on and condemn our divisions.

    How different may things have been if Christians had
    in the 7th Century been united around the truth of the Word!
    We can see illustrated ever so clearly in Muhammad’s case the
    importance of what Jesus said in his prayer recorded in
    John 17.21: “That all might be one... so that the world might
    believe that you sent me.” The disunity of Christians was no
    doubt a stumbling block to Muhammad in his time.

    Surely the same is true for Muslims today. Islam today
    is faced with, on our side, such a confusion of churches and
    sects as never seen before. With our multiplicity of churches
    and rather perplexing emphases on secondary distinctives, we
    Christians found only too often what are in reality rather
    legalistic religious organisations and Missions rather than
    fellowship communities where believers are really instructed
    and built up in their faith. The organism known as the Body
    of Christ is everywhere supplanted by an organisation with
    rules and regulations. The letter so easily replaces the Spirit.

    However, weak and such as we are, we must try to
    understand better the Muslims around us. As followers of
    Jesus the Messiah, committed to the service of God and to
    doing his will, we must intelligently and wisely reach out
    to the much more united world of Islam in order to present
    Jesus Christ as the one and only Way. This is a task and
    responsibility we dare not neglect. Muslims need to be able
    to hear and heed the message of the Gospel. After all, our
    Lord Jesus once said, “I am the way, the truth and the life;
    no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14.6).
     



     

    Towards an Understanding of Muhammad.

    SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim,
    Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis, 1980.
    Youssouf Agboola, Ma conversion au chemin du salut, n.d., 32pp.
    M. Al-Ashmawy, L’islamisme contre l’islam, La Decouverte,
    Paris, 1989.
    Ameer Ali, The Spirit of Islam: A History of the Evolution
    and Ideals of Islam, Chatto and Windus, Londres, 1978.
    J. Norman D. Anderson, Islam in the Modern World: A Christian
    Perspective, Apollos, Leicester, 1990.
    ----, The Teaching of Jesus, section: ’The Book’ and the
    ’Traditions’ of Islam, IVP, Downers Grove, 1983.
    ----, ed., The World’s Religions, chapter: Islam, p. 90-135,
    IVP, Leicester Grove, 1985.
    Tor Andrae, Mahomet, sa vie et sa doctrine, Adrien-Maisonneuve,
    Paris, 1945.
    Muhammad Arkoun, Ouvertures sur l’Islam, Grancher, Paris, 1989.
    ----, Pensee arabe, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris,
    1975.
    Roger Arnaldez, Jesus dans la pensee musulmane, Desclee,
    Paris, 1988.
    ----, Jesus, Fils de Marie, prophete de l’Islam, Desclee,
    Paris, 1980.
    ----, Mahomet ou la predication prophetique, Seghers,
    Paris, 1970.
    ----, ed. Recherches d’islamologie, Peters, Louvain, 1977.
    ----, Trois Messagers pour un seul Dieu, Albin Michel,
    Paris, 1983.
    Jean-Claude Basset, “Musulmans et chretiens: Quelle rencontre
    et quelle mission?”, Perspectives Missionnaires, 1987, No. 13,
    p. 19-37.
    Richard Bell, Introduction to the Qur’an, University Pr.,
    Edinbg, 1953.
    ----, Origins of Islam in Christian Environment, Macmillan,
    Londres, 1926.
    Victor Bissett, Towards an Understanding of Muhammad: Some Notes
    for Christian Reflection, Cooperation et Documentation
    Missionnaires, Abidjan, 1989/1990.
    Regis Blachere, Le Coran, Presses Universitaires de France,
    Paris, 1983.
    ----, Le Coran, G.-P. Maisonneuve/Max Besson, Paris, 1957.
    ----, Le probleme de Mahomet, P.U.F., Paris, 1952.
    Henri Blocher, “Le Christianisme face aux autres religions du
    livre”, Ichthus, 10/1984, 1984/7, p. 26-33.
    Harry R. Boer, A Brief History of Islam, Daystar, Ibadan, 1969.
    M. Borrmans, Orientation pour un dialogue entre chretiens et
    musulmans, Cerf, Paris, 1984.
    A. Brisaud, Islam et chretiente: Treize siecles de cohabitation,
    Laffont, Paris, 1991.
    Frants Buhl, Das Leben Muhammads, Quelle u. Meyer, Heidelberg,
    1955.
    R. Caspar, Pour un regard chretien sur l’islam, Centurion,
    Paris, 1990.
    Colin J. Chapman, “Thinking Biblically about Islam”, Themelios,
    4/1978, 3/3, p.68-78.
    Commission Episcopale des Relations entre Chretiens et Musulmans,
    Connais-tu ton frere?: Pour mieux comprendre les musulmans en
    Afrique, Dakar, 1989.
    ----, Freres dans la foi au Dieu unique, Dakar, 1988.
    Ann Cooper, ed., Le peuple du Coran, MENA/MARC, Montpellier, 1989.
    Kenneth Cragg, Islam from Within: Anthology of a Religion,
    Wadsworth, Belmont, CA., 1980.
    Anne-Marie Delcambre, Islam, Ed. Decouvertes, Paris, 1990.
    ----, Mahomet: La parole d’Allah, Gallimard, Paris, 1987.
    E. Dermenghem, La vie de Mahomet, Charlot, Paris, 1950.
    Francis Assie Djahi, Musulmans et chrétiens devant Jesus,
    C.D.M., Abidjan, 1994.
    James Paul Dretke, A Christian Approach to Muslims: Reflections
    from West Africa, Wm Carey Library, Pasadena, CA., 1979.
    A.D. Eldjazairi, La voie musulmane: Foi, savoir vivre, ethique,
    pratiques religieuses, rapports sociaux, Aslim, Paris, 1986.
    John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, Oxford University
    Press, Oxford, 1988.
    Gulshan Esther avec Th. Sangster, Dieu etait si lointain, L’Eau
    Vive, Geneve, 1987 (eng.: The Torn Veil, Marshall, Morgan &
    Scott, Basingstoke, G.-B., 1984).
    C. G. Fry/ J. King, Islam: A Survey of the Muslim Faith, Baker,
    Grand Rapids, 1981.
    Louis Gardet, L’islam: Religion et communaute, Desclee de Brouwer,
    Paris, 1970.
    ----, Regards chretiens sur l’Islam, Desclee de Brouwer, Paris,
    1986.
    Helmut Gatje, The Qur’an and Its Exegesis, Routledge and Kegan
    Paul, London, 1976.
    M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Mahomet, Albin Michel, 1957.
    C.-Virgil Gheorghiu, La Vie de Mahomet, Plon, Paris, 1962.
    Cyril Glasse, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Stacey
    International, Londres, 1989.
    Ida Glaser, “The Concept of Relationship as a Key to the
    Comparative Understanding of Christianity and Islam”,
    Themelios, 1/1986, 11/2, p.57ff.
    ----, “Towards a Mutual Understanding of Christian and Islamic
    Concepts of Revelation”, Themelios, 1/1982, 7/3, p.16-22.
    Martin Goldsmith, La croix et le croissant, Vida, Miami, Floride,
    1987 (eng.: Islam and Christian Witness, Hodder, Londres, 1982).
    Groupe de Recherches islamo-chretien, Ces Ecritures qui nous
    questionnent: La Bible et le Coran, Centurion, Paris. 1987.
    Alfred Guillaume, Islam, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1956.
    ----, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press, Londres,
    1975. [Early biographies from d’Ibn Ishaq (Ibn Hicham)
    and Al-Waqidi.]
    Louis Bahjat Hamada, Understanding the Arab World, Thomas
    Nelson, Nashville, 1990.
    Muhammad Hamidullah, Le Prophete de l’Islam, 2v., Vrin, Paris,
    1959.
    Michel Hayek, Le Christ de l’Islam, Ed. du Seuil, Paris, 1959.
    Jeremy Hinds, Qur’an Correspondence Course, PROCMURA, Jos,
    Nigeria, 1990.
    Jeremy Hinds/Victor Bissett, Cours sur le Coran, C.D.M., Abidjan,
    1987/1990.
    Mark J. Hinton, comp., Ministering among Muslims in Africa:
    An Annotated List of Practical Materials, AEA, Nairobi,
    1992.
    Jonquil Hole/Borge Schantz, The Three Angels and the Crescent:
    Adventist Approaches to Islamic People, Islamic Studies
    Centre/Stanborough Press, G.-B., 1993.
    S. Jargy, ed., Le defi du fondamentalisme islamique, Labor et
    Fides, Geneve, 1988.
    ----, Islam et chretiente: Les fils d’Abraham entre la
    confrontation et le dialogue, Labor et Fides, Geneve, 1981.
    Arthur Jeffery, Islam : Muhammad and His Religion, Liberal
    Arts, New York, 1971.
    Jacques Jomier, La Bible et le Coran, Desclee de Brouwer,
    1964.
    ----, Pour connaitre l’islam, Ed. du Cerf, Paris, 1988.
    Sultan Muhammad Khan, A la recherche de la verite des Saintes
    Ecritures, C.M.Ba., Abidjan, 1989.
    Badru D. Kateregga/David W. Shenk, Islam et christianisme:
    Dialogue entre un musulman et un chretien, Editions HAHO,
    Lome, Togo, 1987.
    Moussa Kone, I was a Muslim..., C.D.M., Abidjan, 1995.
    H. Lammens, L’Arabie occidentale avant l’hegire, Impr.
    Catholique, Beyrouth, 1928.
    H. Laoust, Schismes dans l’Islam, Payot, Paris, 1965.
    Charles-J. Ledit, Mahomet, Israel et Christ, La Colombe,
    Paris, 1956.
    B. Lewis, Les Arabes dans l’Histoire, La Baconniere,
    Neuchatel, 1958.
    Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life, Based on the Earliest Sources,
    Islamic Texts Society, Londres, 1983.
    Robert Mantran, L’expansion musulmane (VIIe-XIe siecles), P.U.F.,
    Paris, 1969.
    Charles Marsh, Le musulman mon prochain, Telos, Fontenay-sous-Bois,
    1977.
    Abd El Massih, Au seuil de l’islam, Ed. CLE, Yaounde, 1975.
    Ali Merad, L’islam contemporain, Presses Universitaires de
    France, Paris, 1984.
    Andre Miguel, L’islam et sa civilisation, Armand Colin, Paris,
    1990.
    William M. Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam, STL, Bromley,
    1986.
    C. Molla, L’islam, c’est quoi?, Labor et Fides, Geneve, 1989.
    V. Monteil, L’islam noir: Une religion a la conquete de l’Afrique,
    Ed. du Seuil, Paris, 1980.
    Rene Luc Moreau, Africains musulmans: Des communautes en mouvement,
    INADES, Abidjan, 1982.
    Georges Chawkat Moucarry, Un Arabe chretien face a l’islam,
    Bergers et Mages, Paris, 1991.
    ----, “Communiquer l’Evangile au musulman”, Ichthus, 10/1979, 87,
    p.5-10.
    ----, “La Doctrine islamique et ses rapports avec la foi
    chretienne”, Perspectives Missionnaires, 1987, 13, p.6-18.
    ----, La Foi en questions: Au carrefour du christianisme et de
    l’islam, Presses Bibliques Universitaires, Lausanne, 1984.
    Bill A. Musk, The Unseen Face of Islam, MARC, Monrovia, CA.,
    1989.
    Gerhard Nehls, Christians Answer Muslims, SIM International,
    s.l., 1988.
    ----, Comparer, considerer, conclure, C.M.Ba., Abidjan, 1990.
    Rudi Paret, Mohammed und der Koran, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1957.
    Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an, Oxford University Press,
    New York, 1977.
    Phil Parshall, Beyond the Mosque: Christians within Muslim
    Community, Baker, G. R., 1985.
    ----, Bridges to Islam: A Christian Perspective to Folk Islam,
    Baker, Grand Rapids, 1983.
    ----, The Cross and the Crescent: Reflections on Christian-Muslim
    Spirituality, Tyndale, 1989.
    ----, The Fortress and the Fire: Jesus Christ and the Challenge
    of Islam, Gospel Lit. Service, Bombay, 1976.
    ----, New Paths in Muslim Evangelism, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1980.
    Quand nos voisins sont musulmans: Analyses et perspectives
    chretiennes, coedition Editions du Soc/Perspectives
    Missionnaires, No. 25, 1993, Geneve.
    Fazlur Rahman, Islam, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
    1979.
    ----, Major Themes of the Qu’ran, Bibliotheca Islamica,
    Minneapolis, 1980.
    Andrew Rippin, Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices,
    Routledge, Londres, 1993.
    Maxime Rodinson, Mahomet, Ed. du Seuil/Le Point, Paris,
    1961/1982.
    Patrick J. Ryan, Imale: Yoruba Participation in the Muslim
    Tradition, Scholars, Missoula, 1978.
    G. Ryckmans, Les religions arabes preislamiques, Publications
    Universitaires et Bureaux du Museon, Louvain, 1951.
    Ismaël Sadok, Guide pratique pour evangeliser les musulmans,
    Empreinte, Besançon, 1988.
    J. Sauvaget, Introduction de l’histoire de l’Orient musulman,
    Adrien-Maisonneuve, Paris, 1961.
    M. Savary, Coran traduit de l’arabe et La vie de Mahomet,
    Garnier, Paris, 1983.
    Borge Schantz, Votre voisin musulman et vous: Manuel pour
    l’evangelisation personnelle, Ed. Vie et Sante,
    Dammarie-les-Lys, 1994.
    Bilquis Sheikh, Dieu... j’ai ose l’appeler Pere!, L’Eau vive,
    Geneva, 1981 (eng.: I Dared to Call Him Father, Chosen Bks,
    Lincoln, Virg., 1978).
    Anis A. Shorrosh, Islam Revealed, Thomas Nelson, Nashville,
    1988.
    Dominique Sourdel, Histoire des Arabes, P.U.F., 1985.
    B. Spuler, Der Vordere Orient in islamischer Zeit, Francke,
    Berne, 1954.
    M. Thomas Starkes, Islam and Eastern Religions: A Christian
    Response, Convention, Dallas, 1981.
    M. Talbi/M. Bucaille, Reflexions sur le Coran, Seghers, Paris,
    1989.
    Don Tingle, Islam and Christianity: Jesus and his Followers in
    the House of Islam Ä A Companion Study Guide for the Video
    Series, Good News Publica tions, Joplin, MI., 1988.
    W. St Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Quran, S.P.C.K.,
    Londres, 1911.
    Oumar Traore, La Bible est-elle falsifiee?, C.D.M./Peuple du Livre,
    Abidjan, 1994.
    ----, Les chretiens sont-ils des idolatres: Croient-ils en trois
    dieux?, C.D.M./Peuple du Livre, Abidjan, 1994.
    ----, Comment partager l’Evangile avec les musulmans: Quelques
    conseils pratiques presentes dans le contexte de l’Islam,
    C.D.M./Peuple du Livre, Abidjan, 1993.
    ----, Plus de doute, Plus de “peut-etre”, C.D.M./Peuple du Livre,
    Abidjan, 1994.
    ----, Pour mon frere musulman: Le pardon de Dieu, C.D.M./Peuple du
    Livre, Abidjan, 1994.
    ----, Le salut: “Jesus ou Muhammad” ou tous les deux?, C.D.M./Peuple
    du Livre, Abidjan, 1994.
    Emory Van Gerpen, Notes sur l’islam, Centre de Publications
    Evangeliques, Abidjan, 1991.
    W. Montgomery Watt, Mahomet a la Mecque, Payot, Paris, 1958, reimpr.
    1977.
    ----, Mahomet a Medine, Payot, Paris, 1959.
    ----, What is Islam?, Longmans Green, Londres, 1968.
    E. Weber/G. Reynaud, Croisade d’hier, Djihad d’aujourd’hui,
    Cerf, Paris, 1991.
    Warren W. Webster, “A Selected Bibliography for Christian
    Muslim Workers”, Evangelical Review of Theology, 4/1979,
    3/1, p.68-81.
    Edward Westermarck, Pagan Survivals in Mohammedan Civilization,
    Macmillan, Londres, 1933.
    John Alden Williams, ed., Great Religions of Modern Man: Islam,
    Washington Square, New York, 1969.
    J. Dudley Woodberry, “Contextualisation Among Muslims: Reusing
    Common Pillars”, in Dean S. Gilliland, ed., The Word Among Us,
    Word, Dallas, 1988, p. 282-312.
    Samuel M. Zwemer, The Influence of Animism on Islam: An Account
    of Popular Superstitions, Macmillan, New York, 1920.

    * * * * * *

    (c) 1998, Victor Bissett. [email protected]
     

    Update and HTML Modifications: 5/07/1998
     

    CLICK HERE to go BACK to Home Page
     

    visitors
    LE FastCounter