i’m not quite sure how anyone who has read the commentary by Onkelos or quotes from the Torah in the Talmud that vary slightly from the Masoretic text can not believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. What’s wrong with believing such a thing? What do you think Onkelos meant when he said “some versions say ‘in the image of the Elohim'” rather than ‘in the image of YHVH’? This means there were Yahwist (Southern) and Elohimist (Northern) tribal variant tellings of the Torah accounts that were harmonized by Ezra and that still had variant expressions. Is this anything other than a miracle in and of itself?

So what? Were you this upset when you found out the tooth fairy wasn’t real? Or is it because Maimonides told you that you can’t be a Jew if you question the Masoretic text? Sorry but his Thirteen Principles have been disputed and refuted by prominent rabbis all the way up to Rav Kook and even beyond today. See See Marc B. Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised

So what, you think that Ha’Shem let SIX MILLION Jews die in the death camps and didn’t part the heavens to intervene but Hu did intervene to maintain the perfect preservation of the written Torah?

Are you even serious?

The same goes for Muslims who just don’t even care to research the fact that the oldest Qur’anic manuscripts we have are in fact different from the Cairo standard text used today… Not just the Sana’a Manuscripts, which they are TERRIFIED to release publicly as a whole, but the Samarqand Codex and nearly a dozen others. See `Abd Allah Ibn Sulayman Sijistani’s (Author) and Arthur Jeffery’s (Editor) Materials for the History of the Text of Qur’an: The Old Codices : The Kitab Al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud, Together With a Collection of the Variant Readings from the Codices of Ibn Masud, Ubai, Ali for an cataloge of the known variations.

What does this tell you? It tells me that there is a Documentary Hypothesis for ALL ancient scriptures.

If you are Shi`i, then you should already know this, as there are hundreds of ahadith that say point-blank that this is true, but your `Usulite maraji` are practicing taqiyyah and putting on a more Sunni face so they don’t get electrocuted to death on Hajj any more by the Wahhabis. If you are Sunni (and if you read ahadith), then you will know that the Orthodox position of your sect maintains that for years and years there were at least seven variant Qur’anic collections, in completely different tongues (read that, dialects or even languages), and Uthman ordered them burned… does this sound like God “preserving” the text? Was Uthman a prophet? Either way, if God “preserved” the written oration (“qur’an”) then why are the earliest manuscripts we have today different? That hardly seems like “preservation”.

Maybe, just maybe, God “preserves” the original through the intellects of scholars who critically investigate the original meaning and probable texts?

It’s time for us all to spiritually grow up.

The term Muslim (مسلم‎) is used throughout the Qur’ān to indicate the practice of numerous prophets and their followers. It is the active participle of the same verb, aslama, which Islām is the infinitive. This term Islām too is used throughout the Qur’ān, in a verbal manner. This is not merely speculative, but can be clearly seen by anyone with even a modicum of knowledge in Arabic grammar. That is, Islām, from the verb aslama is conjugated as a verb, throughout the Qur’ān, making it clear that the term is not a noun.

The term is often explained as a “verbal noun”, which causes some to forget that verbal nouns are verbs which are not used as verbs in a given sentence. Islam is a verb and is conjugated as a verb. It is however, referenced as an activity as a verbal noun in one instance (5.3). The appropriate verbal noun translation would thus be “the act of submitting”. A verbal noun, we should not be so lax as to forget, is not the same thing as a proper noun. Furthermore, as we will later see from the survey of third party sources, there was not a single reference to Islām or Muslims as a separate religious affiliation, or members of a separate community in the first century following Muḥammad. The most consistent term used by third parties refers to the Ishmaelite forces as Muhājirīn, a term which must be analyzed separately.

In addition to the term Muslim, we find another, more prominent term in the Qur’ān and in early references from the proto-Muslim Ummah. That term, Mū’min (مؤمن‎) is an Arabic term literally meaning “believer”, and a cognate of the Hebrew Mā’mīn (מאמין). The term Mū’minīn (مؤمنين) was commonly used amongst Jews for self-description, as Believers (Mā’mīnīm, מאמינים), until around the 10th century CE. It is no secret amongst Muslims that the Qur’anic level of the Mū’minīn or what Shaykh Bawa Muhaiyaddeen calls “Īmān Islām” is higher than the state of Islām.[1] The Qur’ān thus describes the activity of Muslimīn and that of Mū’minīn, with Mū’minīn always ranked at a higher state. The practice of the verbal Islām is the bare minimum; Īmān is what we are to strive for. Carl Ernst explains this matter in his Following Muḥammad:

The Arabic term Islām itself was of relatively minor importance in classical theologies based on the Qur’ān. If one looks at the works of theologians such as the famous al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the key term of religious identity is not Islām but Īmān (faith), and the one who possesses it is the Mū’min (believer). Faith is one of the major topics of the Qur’ān; it is mentioned hundreds of times in the sacred text. In comparison, Islām is a less common term of secondary importance; it only occurs eight times in the Qur’ān. Since, however, the term Islām had a derivative meaning relating to the community of those who have submitted to God, it has taken on a new political significance, especially in recent history.[2]

This dichotomy between Islām and Īmān can be found throughout later commentary by Muslim scholars noting the tiers of religious observance in the Qur’ān. The most often cited Qur’ānic distinction is noted from Surat al-Hujurat.

The `Ᾱrāb (الْأَعْرَابُ) say,[3] “We believe” (تُؤْمِنُوا, tū’minū) Say: You do not believe; but rather [you should] say, “We submit;” (أَسْلَمْنَا, aslamnā) for the faith (الْإِيمَانُ, al-Īmānu) has not yet found its way into your hearts. But if you obey God and His Messenger, he will not allow you to lose any of your actions: for God is Indulgent, Merciful. (49.14)

 

قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا ۖ قُلْ لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَٰكِنْ قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ تُطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ لَا يَلِتْكُمْ مِنْ أَعْمَالِكُمْ شَيْئًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ

Here we see unequivocally that the Qur’an distinguishes between a lower tier of Islām and a higher Īmān. But who are these Mū’minīn? Are they only the spiritual elite from amongst the Muslims? According to the Qur’an itself, Mū’minīn are not restricted to the community of the Qur’an, but may be found amongst the faithful Ahl al-Kitāb, or “The People of the Bible” or “Tanakh”.

You are a good (خَيْرَ) Ummah (أُمَّةٍ) raised up for humankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe (وَتُؤْمِنُونَ) in Allah; and if the Ahl al-Kitāb believed (آمَنَ) it would have been better for them all; from them are al-Mū’minūn (الْمُؤْمِنُونَ) and [yet] many of them (أَكْثَرُهُمُ) are lawless individuals (الْفَاسِقُونَ). (3.110)

 

كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ ۗ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ ۚ مِنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

Particular attention should be paid to the fact that the Qur’ān acknowledges that the state of some from the Ahl al-Kitāb transcends and includes the state of Islām, and is in fact the state of Īmān. The Qur’ān itself tells us that Islām is the minimal state, as we have seen, and that Īmān is the higher state. In the case of Īmān, the Mū’min must not only believe in the Oneness of God, and submit to the minimum regulations of the Qur’ān for Muslimīn, but must additionally accept previous revelations of the Kitāb Allāh; those Biblical accounts which the Qur’ān calls the listener to “remember” so many times. In Surat Al-Nisā’ we read the following proof text:

O you who believe! Believe in God, and His Messenger, and the Book which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Book which He sent down to those before, and whosoever disbelieves in God, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away. (4.136)

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ مِنْ قَبْلُ ۚ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا

Thus we see that the Mū’min must believe in the Oneness of God, in his Messenger, and in the Book or Bible sent to those Messengers before. More generally, we can surmise that the Qur’ān here is speaking of belief in the notion of continued revelation. Muḥammad is implied, but not named, seemingly indicating that Īmān was a universal acceptance of truth, wherever it might manifest, and from whomever’s mouth it might be uttered. In a famous narration, known as the Ḥadīth Jibrīl, we read the following confirmation from later-documented oral traditions. It is reproduced in full, due to the importance of the subject.

On the authority of ‘Umar, who said:

“While we were one day sitting with the Messenger of God there appeared before us a man dressed in extremely white clothes and with very black hair. No traces of journeying were visible on him, and none of us knew him. He sat down close by the Prophet, rested his knee against his thighs, and said, ‘O Muḥammad! Inform me about Islām.’

The Messenger said, ‘Islām is that you should testify that there is no deity save God and that Muḥammad is His Messenger, that you should perform the prayer, pay the charity, fast during Ramadan, and perform the Hajj to the House (al-Ka`bah) if you can find a way to it (or find the means for making the journey to it).’

The man said, ‘You have spoken truly.’

We were astonished at his thus questioning him and telling him that he was right, but he went on to say, ‘Inform me about Īmān (faith).’ He answered, ‘It is that you believe in God and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate, both in its good and in its evil aspects.’

He said, ‘You have spoken truly.’

Then he (the man) said, ‘Inform me about Ihsan.’[4] He answered, ‘It is that you should serve God as though you could see Him, for though you cannot see Him yet He sees you.’

He said, ‘Inform me about the Hour.’

He said, ‘About that the one questioned knows no more than the questioner.’

So he said, ‘Well, inform me about the signs thereof.’

The Messenger said, ‘They are that the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress, that you will see the barefooted ones, the naked, the destitute, the herdsmen of the sheep (competing with each other) in raising lofty buildings.’

Thereupon the man went off. I waited a while, and then he said, “O ‘Umar, do you know who that questioner was?” I replied, “God and His Messenger know better.” He said, “That was Gabriel. He came to teach you your religion.’”[5]

The Ḥadīth Jibrīl serves a clear purpose in articulating a newly formed Islamic theology and the requirements thereof. Besides this literary function, however, the ḥadīthpreserves the original differentiation between the two statuses. That the Mū’minīn were not subject to the same role as the lower, general Muslimīn, is indicated by the Qur’ān rhetorically asking why the Mū’minīn would come to Muḥammad with questions which they already have the answers to in the Bible. For the Muslimīn, of whom belief in the previous Scriptures was not obligatory, we should expect deferment to Muḥammad, but for the Mū’minīn who the Qur’ān tells us must, by definition, accept previous revelations, Muḥammad’s role was only as a reminder to “remember” what had already been revealed.

“And why do they come to you for a decision while they have the Torah, in which is the Decision of God; yet even after that, they turn away. For they are not Believers (Mū’minīn/Mā’minīm).” (5.43)

 

وَكَيْفَ يُحَكِّمُونَكَ وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا حُكْمُ اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يَتَوَلَّوْنَ مِنْ بَعْدِ ذَٰلِكَ ۚ وَمَا أُولَٰئِكَ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ

Here then we see that true Believers do not waver from their faith in the Torah. Had this not been enough, we find the following example from later-documented Ḥadīth oral narrations, that Muḥammad revered the Sefer Torah as it existed in his time. Contrary to later views and tafāsir, there is absolutely no indication that Muḥammad viewed the Jewish Torah as having been corrupted in his day. We read the following illustrative example, from Abū Dāwūd who narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:

A group of Jews invited the Messenger of God to a house. When he came, they asked him: O Abū Qāsim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman, what is your judgment against him? So they placed a pillow and asked the Messenger of God to set on it. Then the Messenger of God proceeded to say: bring me the Torah. When they brought it, he removed the pillow from underneath him and placed the Torah on it and said: “I believe in you and in the one who revealed you,” then said: bring me one of you who have the most knowledge. So they brought him a young man who told him the story of the stoning. (Book 38.4434)

 

وقال أبو داود: حدثنا أحمد بن سعيدالهمداني، حدثنا ابن وهب، حدثنا هشام بن سعد أن زيد بن أسلم حدثه عن ابن عمر قال: أتى نفر من اليهود فدعوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى القف، فأتاهم في بيت المدارس، فقالوا: ياأبا القاسم، إن رجلاً منا زنى بامرأة فاحكم. قال: ووضعوا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسادة فجلس عليها، ثم قال «ائتوني بالتوراة، فأتي بها، فنزع الوسادة من تحته ووضع التوراة عليها، وقال «آمنت بك وبمن أنزلك» ثم قال «ائتوني بأعلمكم» فأتي بفتى شاب ثم ذكر قصة الرجم نحو حديث مالك عن نافع.

How is this Ḥadīth viewed by the `ulemā’? Naturally it is rejected by many today, as it is dissimilar and theological embarrassment to the mainstream. In historical-critical Revisionist scholarship, however, this only strengthens the probability of such an account. Traditionalists focus their contentions with this narration, on a transmitter Hishām ibn Sa’ad Al-Madanī. These later contentions notwithstanding, Hāfith Ibn Hajr says about him in his Taqrīb, that he was “Honest” though had “mistakes, and delved into Shī’ism.” While many polemicists detest him, Abu Zura’ah said, “His status is honesty” and Al-`Ijlī said, “His traditions are permitted, and are Hasan Al-Ḥadīth.”[6]

It is clear, from the Qur’ānic examples, that this is true even for Mū’minīn, some of which are said therein to be Ahl al-Kitāb. With this established, as well as the lower designation of Muslim in relation to Mū’min¸ it is thus clear that the Qur’ānic understanding of Islamwas one that saw itself within the framework of existing traditions, not outside of it.

Notes

[1] M.R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, The Four Steps to Pure Iman (Fellowship Press, 2004)

[2] Carl Ernst, Following Muhammad, University of North Carolina Press, 2003, p. 63

[3] This term is typically rendered “desert Arabs”. However, though Arabic would maintain that there is no plural for Arab, this fits exactly within the six irregular plural patterns of Qur’anic Arabic, which seem to derive from Ethiopian Ge`ez. With that in mind, I have chosen to leave the term intact, and untranslated.

[4] Ihsan represents the highest spiritual state of the mystic.

[5] Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 60, No. 300; Muslim: 1st hadith

[6] Entry 7294 of Tahrīr Taqrīb published by Mu’assasat al-Risālah 1997