Did The Quran Plagiarize From The Infancy Gospel of Thomas?

By

Bassam Zawadi



Several Christian polemicists keep putting forth this argument (*,*,*,*).

Yet the problem that many of these Christians don't realize is that they are employing double standards. Christian apologists are continuously answering critics who claim that Christianity was influenced by paganism and several of its myths. However, Christian apologists are either replying back saying:

- This is an act of Satan's deception: Many of the early church writers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian claimed that the similarities between Christianity and paganism were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry", which means that Satan purposely ensured that stories similar to what would be included into the future Gospels would be pre-recorded in pagan sources so that it appears that Christians copied from the earlier pagan sources. They view this as some kind of pre-emptive strike from Satan against Christianity. It's also possible that Satan's deception could be that he is whispering into the ears of skeptics and tempting them to opt for the belief that Christianity was influenced by pagan myths.

- Similarity does not equal sameness: Christian apologists would claim that just because there are similar features between one story and another that doesn't necessarily imply that they are the same story, since it's very likely that a story told could be similar to another story in certain aspects, yet not totally the same.

- There is no evidence that pious Christians would have copied off pagan sources: Christian apologist Sam Shamoun said (bold emphasis mine):

If Smith wants to prove that Christianity borrowed from these pagan religions, not the other way, then he must establish the following:
· He must provide some pre-Christian evidence, whether archaeological inscriptions, artifacts etc., showing that these pagan stories existed before the time of Jesus.
· He must also show that such stories were not just in circulation, but that they were circulating in first centuryPalestine.
· He must then demonstrate that God-fearing, monotheistic Jews such as Christ's followers would be interested in plagiarizing such myths in the first place. (Sam Shamoun, The Alleged Pagan Origins of Christianity: Examining More of Abdullah Smith's Continuing Intellectual Suicide Mission, Source)

They also have other responses such as appealing to chronology and trying to illustrate that it is Christianity that influenced many of these pagan beliefs and not the other way around.
So Christian polemicists putting forth the claim that the Qur'an plagiarized from the Infancy Gospel need to be consistent and:
- Prove that this is not merely a Satanic attempt where Satan tried to ensure that the story of Jesus eating in the cradle didn't find its way into any first century sources because he knew that many historians in the future would adopt a historical method that would drive them to say that this story is a forgery. Or that Satan is currently the one responsible whispering into the ears of skeptics that the obvious conclusion to derive from a story being found in both the Qur'an and Infancy Gospel is that the Qur'an plagiarized the story.
- Prove that the story found in the Qur'an and Infancy Gospel are the same and not merely similar.
- Using Sam Shamoun's similar words: "Demonstrate that a God-fearing, monotheistic believer such as Muhammad (peace be upon him) would be interested in plagiarizing such myths in the first place."
It appears that Christians have no way of performing all the above three tasks, hence why do they apply double standards?
For instance, let's look at the third point mentioned above regarding Shamoun's comment.
We know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a sincere person. Almost everyone who has studied the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would non-hesitantly admit that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sincere. Regardless of whether he was sincerely right or wrong or whether any another aspects of his character could be criticized, they would admit that he was at least subjectively sincere and believed that he was receiving revelations from God.
W. Montgomery Watt states:

His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad. (W. Montgomery Watt, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52)

Sir William Muir said:

It is strongly corroborative of Mahomet's sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were not only of upright character, but his own bosom friends and people of his household; who, intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which ever more or less exist between the professions of the hypocritical deceiver abroad and his actions at home. (Sir William Muir, The Life of Mahomet, page 54)

And:
I agree with Sprenger in considering 'the faith of Abu Bakr the greatest guarantee of the sincerity of Mohammedin the beginning of his career' - and, indeed, in a modified sense, throughout his life. (Ibid., page 56)
J.W.H. Stobart said:
Abu Bakr was a man of the purest character. His friendship for Mahomet, and unwavering belief in his mission, are a strong testimony to the sincerity of the prophet. (J.W.H. Stobart, Islam and its Founder, page 209)
Tor Andrae said:

The genuineness and sincerity of Mohammed's piety, and the honesty of his belief in his religious call, are indisputable. (Tor Andrae, Mohammed: The Man and his Faith, page 185)

John Gilchrist said:

We can safely reject the view that Muhammad was a deliberate impostor. Throughout the twenty-three year period of his assumed ministry, he held to the unflinching conviction that he was called to be a prophet and that the revelations he was receiving were coming to him from above. (John Gilchrist, Muhammad and The Religion of Islam, Chapter: A Study of Muhammad's Personality: An Assessment of His Personality)

Arthur Glyn Leonard said:

If ever a man on this earth found God, if ever a man devoted his life to God's service with a good and great motive, it is certain that the Prophet of Arabia (Muhammad) is the man. Muhammad was not only the greatest but truest man that humanity has ever produced. (Arthur Glyn Leonard, Islam, her moral and spiritual value: A Rational and Psychological Study, pages 18-19)


Here we see that even non-Muslim critics of Muhammad (peace be upon him) had to at least admit that he was sincere and believed he was receiving revelation from God. In that case, it is difficult to imagine that the Prophet (peace be upon him) knowingly plagiarized material and included it into the Qur'an.

Now citation of scholars isn't enough and it's important to also look at some evidence pointing to the Prophet's (peace be upon him) sincerity. Let us see some highlights of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) life, which make it clearly evident that he was truly sincere.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) bore a son by the name of Ibrahim. Approximately a year and a half after his birth he died. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was very distressed by the death of his son. The day the Prophet's (peace be upon him) son died there was an eclipse:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 2, Hadith no. 153

Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu'ba:

"The sun eclipsed in the life-time of Allah's Apostle on the day when (his son) Ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of Ibrahim. Allah's Apostle said, "The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of some-one. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah."


Notice how the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) erroneously believed that the sun had eclipsed due to the death of his son. If Muhammad (peace be upon him) were a false prophet and insincere, he would have easily used the opportunity to take advantage of the situation and affirmed what his companions were saying and that is that the sun was eclipsing due to the death of his son. However, we see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was forthright and denied that this was the case and that the sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death of anyone. Here, we see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sincerely speaking the truth instead of using the chance to impress the people by affirming their statements.

Another instance occurred after the Prophet (peace be upon him) migrated from Mecca to Medina. The Meccans were planning to assassinate the Prophet (peace be upon him), thus the Prophet (peace be upon him) had bodyguards to guard him until Allah revealed the following verse:

Surah 5:67

O Messenger! deliver what bas been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.


After this verse was revealed the Prophet (peace be upon him) told his bodyguards to stop guarding him for he received a promise from God that he would be protected. (See Sunan Al Tirmidhi [Hadith Number 3046] Sheikh Al-Albani said it is authentic from the way of Aisha in Saheeh Al-Tirmidhi under Hadith Number 3046; Al-Mustadrak fi al Saheehayn [Hadith Number 3221]: Imam Al Dhahabi said it is authentic as well as Al-Hakim; U'mdat Altafseer(an abridged commentary on Ibn Kathir's commentary) [Volume 1, page 710]: Ahmad Shakir said the narration is authentic.)

If Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not sincerely believe that he was a Prophet of Allah would he have ordered such a thing especially when he knew that his life was in actual danger and shouldn't take any risks? The answer is no.

Allah Almighty revealed the following verse: