MUHAMMAD, THE PROPHET LIKE MOSES ?
2008; Duquesne University Press; Volume: 43; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
2162-3937
Autores Tópico(s)Archaeology and Historical Studies
ResumoIntroduction One of the Islamic positions in respect to Jews and Christians is that they follow revealed by the one God. Chief among those who received were the prophets Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad (570-632 C.E.). However, Muslims have held, and not without basis in the Qur'ain, that the Tawrat (Torah), Zabur (Psalms), and Injil (Gospel) (1) do not exist in their pristine form, for corruption has crept into them. (2) The presence of more than one version of the Bible, the lack of agreement among different Christian denominations over the specific number of books in it, and the presence of multiple manuscripts with apparent internal conflicts are some of the bases for the belief in the corruption of the Bible. (3) The Hebrew Bible, on its own, has not been any less prone to the charge of corruption. (4) Notwithstanding the assumed corruption, many Muslims hold that extant scriptures still contain truth insofar as the Jews and Christians have not been able to obfuscate entirely the content that points to the final Muhammad (cf. Sarah 6:91). Among others, Is. 29:11-13 and 40:6 and Dt. 18:14-20, for instance, are deemed to be unambiguous biblical testimonies about the prophethood of Muhammad. Arguably, Surat 96 and 74 contain the earliest contents of Muhammad's call experience. The Isaiah passage does sound strangely similar to Surah 96:1-5, while, reminiscent of Dt. 18:14-20, the parallel narrative expositions of the supposed earliest Surat in the early Sirat (biography of Muhammad) explicitly compare Muhammad with Moses. It appears that, as consistent with a good part of the history of Islam's relations with Christianity and Judaism, current Muslim use of biblical material is largely explicitly polemical. Among others, the particular passages highlighted in this essay are ones from Isaiah and Deuteronomy, with an assumed connection with qur'anic passages from Surat 96 and 74. The main argument of this essay is that the parallel narrative exposition of these Surat in canonical traditions and the earliest Sirat suggests a relational, not a polemical, tone involving the issue of Muhammad's identity as a Moses. The point is that the addressing of the issue of Muhammad's prophetic identity, early on, was inextricably linked to the Jewish and Christian traditions of Moses. Evidence of a change from a relational to a polemical approach, however, may owe to the early post-Meccan developments in Islam. I. Shared Tradition The word Mosaic better describes the familial characteristics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; however, both scholars and interfaith practitioners employ the idea of Abrahamic for these religious traditions. (5) In contrast to the approach suggesting that these three traditions represent separate and impermeable spheres, the words Abrahamic and Mosaic denote a common root or zone of contact among them. (6) This zone, whether conceived in terms of theology (for example, monotheism), narratives (common narratives), or role models (prophets such as Abraham or Moses), can result in both conflictual and positive relations, as the shared history of these religions shows. (7) In Judaism, is a central figure in the story of Israelite liberation from Egypt, but, more than this, his centrality resides in his being the recipient of the Torah at Sinai and the one who hands this on as a of the law of God for the Hebrews. (8) Moses' centrality in the very self-identity of the Hebrews gave rise to the hope of a prophet like him, which evolved into the idea of a Messiah. (9) In Christianity, this tradition of law is fulfilled by a different kind of law and a different kind of prophet, Jesus. The covenant makes way for the spiritual covenant in Jesus (see Matthew 5-7). The Christian Bible suggests that the early Christians saw Jesus as the prophet Moses (see Acts 3 and 7). …
Referência(s)