C. G. Pfander, D. D

^s Air Muslims know that His tomb at Medinah is empty: not so Muhammad's.

³ Heb. vii. 25.

U

CHAPTER V

AN INQUIRY INTO MUHAMMAD'S ALLEGED MIRA­CLES, IN ORDER TO LEARN WHAT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM TO BE A PROPHET OF GOD IS THEREBY AFFORDED

In order to prove that a man is really a prophet, it is by no means necessary to show that he wrought miracles. Many prophets have come without miracu­lous power, and, on the other hand, men who had no Divine commission have done what seemed miraculous. For instance, in Moses* time the magicians of Egypt did some things which to the polytheists of that country seemed quite as wonderful as Moses' miracles (Exod. vii. 10-13, 22; viii. 7, 18). Besides this, we are told of false prophets who shall work miracles (Mark xiii. 22 ; Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Rev. xvi. 13, 14 ; xix. 20), especially one who is still to come, and who is probably the Dajjil of whom Muslims speak. Of the true prophets, very few have wrought miracles. In the Old Testament miracles are not mentioned as wrought by anyone until the time of Moses. As Moses was not only a great prophet, but had also to introduce a new Revelation, he was empowered to work certain miracles mentioned in the Taurat. These were necessary to prove his claim to come with a message from God, to speak with God's authority, and to bring a Divine Revelation. Elijah and Elisha too had this power granted them, because they lived at a time when the true Religion was almost extinct, and because their task was to call the people back to their God. But we are not told that the power of working miracles was given to David, Jeremiah, or other leading prophets. Of John the Baptist, who was greater than any pre­ceding prophet (Matt. xi. 11 ; Luke vii. 28), the Jews said, apparently with truth, "John did no miracle" (John x. 41). It is clear, therefore, that only at great crises, or when a new Revelation was being given, did God grant a great prophet the power of working miracles in proof of his Divine commission.

But, if Muhammad's claims were well-founded, he was the Seal of the Prophets, the last and greatest of them all, sent to the Arabs, a people among whom no prophet had ever before risen, as far as is known to us. He asserted that he was the bearer of an unique message from God, a Revelation greater than any that had preceded it, and that the Qur'&n which he recited had been dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, who on the Night of Power had brought it down from the highest heaven, where it had been inscribed by God's command upon a Preserved Tablet. Moreover, Mu­hammad claimed that his message was for all men, and was never to be superseded. It was necessary, there­fore, that he should work miracles in order to substan­tiate this lofty claim. Otherwise his claim could not be proved true, since (as has been shown above) he uttered no prophecies. We naturally therefore inquire what miracles he wrought.

Here the Qur'&n itself gives us a very clear and concise answer. He wrought none. This is evident from not a few passages. One of the most decisive of these is Silrah xvii. 61: "And nought hindered Us from sending the signs except that the ancients called them false." In his Commentary upon this verse A1 Baiz&wi says¹: " Nothing turned Us from sending the signs which the Quraish demanded except the fact that the ancients called thern false, those who were like them in disposition, like 'Ad and Thamild: and verily, if they had been sent, they would surely have called them false, just as those people did, and would have rendered their own extirpation necessary, according as Our rule runs: and We had decreed that We would

¹ Vol. i, p. 543. u 2
not extirpate them, because among them are those who will believe, or who shall beget those who will believe." 'Abb&si gives very much the same explanation of the passage. In fact, there can be no doubt about its meaning. It tells us that God had not given Muham­mad the power of working such miracles as the Quraish demanded, because He knew that the latter would refuse to accept him as a prophet, even were his claims thus supported.

¹ Vol. i, p. 81.

Besides this there are other verses which somewhat less clearly state the same thing. For instance, in Stirah ii. 112, 113, it is written : " And those who know not have said, ' (We shall not believe) unless God speak to us, or there come to us a sign.' Thus spake those who were before them, the like of their speech : their hearts were similar. We have made the signs clear to a people that seeks certainty. Verily we have sent thee with the truth as an evangelist and as a Warner." On this passage A1 Baiz&wi says¹ that the Quraish were dissatisfied because signs did not come to them. Instead of those which the people demanded, in the second part of ver. 112 they are offered verses of the Qur'an as a proof of Muhammad's mission, That the "signs" (i^UNl) in this part of the verse mean this is clear from the context, and also from Sflrah ii* 146 : "According as we have sent among you an Apostle from among yourselves, who reads aloud over you Our² signs (LslSt*)" These "signs" then were not wonderful works or miracles, such as his opponents demanded, they were merely verses of the Qur'&n, for otherwise the verb " reads aloud " would have no proper meaning. So too in Stirah ii. 253 : " Those are God's signs: We read them aloud over thee in truth, and verily thou art indeed of the Messengers "; and in Siirah ii. 93 : " And indeed We have sent down unto thee evident signs, and none shall disbelieve in them except the dissolute." The verb " We have sent down "

^s Compare also Sfirah xxix. 50.
(G3p*) shows that the "evident signs" are Qur'&nic verses, which are always spoken of as " sent down". Similarly in Stirah vii. 202, the word £jt^z, " sign," clearly means a verse of the Qur'&n. It is possible that the meaning of Silrah vi. 124—"And when there came to them a sign they said, ' We shall never believe until we are brought the like of what the Apostles of God were brought'—is that the Quraish demanded, instead of verses of the Qur'Sn, some such miracles as those which some of the Prophets and Apostles had wrought. This is supported¹ by SClrah vi. 37, and still more clearly by Stirah vi. 109: "And they swore by God, the utmost of their oaths, Surely if a sign come-to them they will surely believe in it. Say thou : ' Verily the signs are with God, and what will make you under­stand that, if they come, they will not believe ?'" This amounts to a declaration that Muhammad had not been given the power of working miracles. The kind of sign which the Quraish demanded is clearly shown in Silrah xiii. 30 : " 'And if there were a Qur'dn by which the mountains would be removed or the earth cleft or the dead addressed . . .!' Say thou : ' To God be- longeth the matter altogether.'" In his commentary on this passage A1 Baizawi tells us at length what was the challenge which the Quraish offered to Muhammad on this occasion. In Silrah xvii. 92-95 we find some­thing similar: " And they said,' Never shall we believe thee, until thou causest a fountain to spring forth from the earth for us, or till thou shalt have a garden of palm-trees and grapes: therefore shalt thou cause the rivers to gush forth according to their nature in gushing forth; or till thou shalt cause the sky to fall upon us in fragments, as thou hast fancied, or till thou bring God and the angels as a surety; or till thou hast a house of gold, or thou climbest up into the sky; and we shall never believe in thy climbing up, until thou shalt cause to descend upon us a book which we shall

¹ A demand for a miracle is made also in SOrahs x. 21; xiii. 8, 27, and in other places.

read.' Say thou : ' Praise be to my Lord : have I been aught but a human being, an Apostle ?' " From this passage it is clear that the Quraish were not satisfied with the statement (verse 90) that the Quran could not be equalled, and was a sufficient proof of Muham­mad's commission. Hence they demanded a miracle of the kind here mentioned. In reply Muhammad is told to say that, being merely a man, he could not show such a miracle as they desired. Hence it is clear that the accounts of the Miraj and of the water which Muhammad is said in certain Traditions to have caused to gush forth from the ground, and even from his fingers,¹ cannot be relied upon, since, if they were historical, no such answer would have been given to the demands of the Quraish as is given in this passage. Instead of this, the answer would have been a declara­tion of his ability to do such things. In SGrah xxix. 49, 50, we find the same demand for a miracle, and the same refusal to give any sign except the Qur an itself. "And they said, ' Unless there be sent down upon him signs from his Lord . . .' Say thou : ' Verily the signs are with God, and verily I am an evident warner.' Hath it not sufficed them that We have sent down upon thee the Book ? It is being read aloud over them : verily in that is surely mercy and warning to a people whq believe."

From these passages it is clear that the Quran teaches us that Muhammad had no power to work miracles, and that the verses of the Qur'an (for this very reason called "signs"—^l/) are sufficient proof² of his being a Prophet. We have already in a previous³ chapter inquired into this matter, and have seen that something more than mere elegance of style is needed to prove that a book has really been sent down from God Most High.

Some Muslims, however, assert that in the Qur'an itself two special miracles of Muhammad are definitely

¹ See pp. 318, 319. ² Surah xvii. 90.

" See above. Part III, ch. iii.

mentioned. One of these is the alleged Splitting of the Moon. It is true that in Surah liv. i it is written : " The Hour hath drawn near, and the moon hath been split." But for many reasons this verse does not prove that any such miracle was wrought by Muhammad, (i) If it meant this, it would contradict Surah xvii. 61 ; whereas Muslims deny that there is any self-contradic­tion in the Qur an. (2) Muhammad is not mentioned in this verse in connexion with the splitting of the moon: neither in SOratu'l Qamar nor in any other Surah is he said to have had anything whatever to do with it. Nor does the Qur'in call it a miracle, nor does it say that the Splitting of the Moon was in any way a sign of Muhammad's Divine commission. If the Qur'in had meant that Muhammad wrought so stupendous a miracle, it would have said so, just as the Old Testament and the New clearly record certain definite miracles wrought by Moses, Christ, and His Apostles respectively. (3) If Muhammad had split the moon asunder, the Qur'in would certainly have stated this in answer to the demands of the Quraish in Sfirahs xiii. 30 and xvii. 92-95, for commentators agree in holding that Stirah liv. " descended" before either of these two. (4) Injury done to a creature of God like the moon would be a sign of great power, but it would not necessarily prove that the person who exercised that power had a commission from God. (5) Had any such phenomenon occurred, it would have been observed all over the earth, and would have been recorded in the histories of many nations as a most astounding event. Those who know from Astronomy the size of the moon, and what effect its splitting in two and the wide separation of the portions from one another would have had upon the earth, will not con­tend that this really occurred. (6) Moreover, no history records such an event, or even the appearance of the moon being split in two, and some leading Muslim commentators deny that the Sfiratu'l Qamar implies that anything of the kind ever occurred. A1 Baiziwi, in his commentary on Silrah liv. i, prefers¹ the view that the moon was_o actually split asunder because of the reading JlilT ¿li! ^ (which,² however, differs from that adopted in the usual text of the Qur'&n), but he informs us that " If has been said that its meaning is, It will be split on the day of the Resurrection". Now there could be no doubt whatever about the matter, had it actually occurred, and were the Tradition³ cor­rect that states that Muhammad showed the people of Mecca the moon split in two, so that Mount Hir& was visible between the parts, or, as another Tradition⁴ says, one part appeared above the mountain and the other beneath it. In the margin of the Mishkdt an attempt is made to avoid the obvious difficulty caused by the fact that the world in general did not notice the strange sight. The writer of the note says that the event occurred at night when men were asleep, and in a moment, and that therefore it would not necessarily be observed in all parts of the world. (7) The ex­pression " The Hour" (LcLJl),with the definite Article, has a very distinct and special meaning in both the QurAn⁵ and the Traditions.⁸ It always in them means the day of the Resurrection, as AI Baiz^wi admits. Now it is clear that the Resurrection Day was not near at the time when the SClratu'l Qamar was written, for this S ft rah was dictated a long time ago, before the Hijrah itself. Hence, as in this verse the Splitting of the Moon is said to be so closely associated with the Resurrection Day's approach, the meaning must be that, when the Resurrection draws nigh, the moon will be split. Both the verbs in the past tense in the verse

1. 
   Vol. ii, p. 296.
   
2. 
   This is Hudhaifah's reading, as Zamakhshari tells us in his com­mentary. He thus renders the verse : " The Hour has drawn nigh, and of the signs of its approach this has already arrived, that the moon has been split."
   
3. 
   From Anas, Mishkdt. p. 516.
   
4. 
   From Ibn Mas'fld : ibidem.
   

¹ Compare Sflrahs xx, xxii, xlii, &c.

⁶ Compare Mishkdt, pp. 464-469, &c., &c.

are thus used with a future signification which is a usual idiom in Arabic. We have seen that, even in Al Baizáwi's time, some people thus explained the verse ; and the very fact that we are still alive to-day, so many years later, shows that this sign of the ap­proach of the Resurrection Day had not then appeared. Hence 'Abbásí well says that the Splitting of the Moon and the appearance of Dajjál will be signs of the near­ness of the Resurrection, when they occur.

From all this we see that the Qur'án does not assert that Muhammad performed the miracle of Splitting the Moon. Therefore this verse cannot justly be quoted as a proof that he wrought • such a miracle, nor can a miraculous event which has not yet occurred be adduced as a proof that Muhammad¹ was an Apostle sent by God.

The one other miracle of Muljammad which some suppose to be referred to in the Qur'án is an event which some assert to have occurred at the battle of Badr, though others deny this and say that it took place at the battle of Hunain, or at Uhud, or at Khaibar. It is said that a miracle is referred to in the words: " And thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but God threw " (Súratu'l Anfál—Súrah viti.—ver. 17). Al Baizáwt informs² us that Gabriel told Muhammad at Badr to cast a handful of earth at the Quraish. When the battle was joined, he threw some gravel in their faces, saying, " Let the faces be disfigured." Then their eyes all became full of the gravel, and they fled, pursued by the Muslims. When the latter were afterwards boasting of their victory and of the number they had slain, this verse is said to have been sent

¹ In some Arabic editions of the Muallaqdt, in a poem ascribed to Imra'u'l Qais, are found the words: ^«alT icLJI which

exactly agree in meaning with the first verse of Súratu'l Qamar. As Imra'u'l Qais died about a. d. 540, considerably before Muhammad's birth, it is clear that he did not quote from the Qur'án. Some deny that the poem referred to is really by Imra'u'l Qais. But many of the Ulamá' are puzzled about the matter.

⁸ Vol. i, p. 362.

down. A1 Baiz&wi says that it means: " And thou threwest not, [O Muhammad, a throw which thou wouldest cause to reach their eyes, and thou couldest not do so], when thou didst throw [i.e. when thou earnest with the appearance of throwing], but God threw [effected what was the object of the throw, and caused it to reach the eyes of them all]." But A1 Baiz&wl adds : " It is said that its meaning is, ' Thou didst not cast fear when thou didst cast the gravel, but God cast fear into their hearts.' And it is said that it came down in reference to a spear with which he ¹ pierced Ubai ibn Khalaf on the day of Uhud, and there proceeded no blood from him²; he began to grow feeble until he died : or about the shooting of the arrow which he¹ shot on the day of Khaibar near the fortress ; it reached Kindnah³ ibn Abl'l ft uqaiq on his horse. And the great majority are in favour of the first view." From this commentary it is clear that there is no certainty that the passage which we are considering refers to Badr. In fact, it may refer to Uhud or Khaibar, and not to the gravel which Muhammad threw, but to an arrow which he shot or a spear which he hurled. But in any case it does not prove that a miracle was wrought by Muhammad on any one of these occasions. Nay, the passage denies that Muhammad succeeded in casting the gravel into his adversaries' eyes or in killing Ubai or Kinanah, saying that the agent was not Muhammad, but God. If we accept the verse as referring to the battle of Badr, we must remember that it is not at all a rare thing for a general to act in some such way, in order to encourage his followers and disconcert his foes. If the result is a victory, no one ever fancies that it is thereby proved that there was anything super­natural or miraculous about the action referred to. Nor can the shooting of a man with an arrow or the piercing of a man with a spear (if we accept the other traditions) be regarded as miraculous.

Besides these two passages some Muslims are of opinion that the words " evident signs" (^Llo ^AM«) which occur in certain other places in the Quran, imply that miracles were really wrought by Muhammad. If so, it is very strange that in no such passage does a description of any such miracle or a single detail regarding it occur. When the Qur an refers to Christ's miracles, on the contrary, it tells what some of them were (Sfirah iii. 43). But let us examine some of the passages in which it is asserted that the words " evident signs' denote miracles of Muhammad.

One of these is SGrah lxi. 6 : " Accordingly, when he came to them with the evident [signs], they said, ' This is manifest sorcery.' " This may refer to what is said in the context regarding the promise of the coming of someone called Ahmad.¹ Or it may refer to Jesus, who is mentioned in the former part of the verse. A1 Baiz&wi takes the latter view, for in his commentary ² he says : " The reference is to that with which he came, or to himself: and the entitling it sorcery is by way of hyperbole. And this view is supported by the reading of Hamzah and A1 Kas&'i, ' This is a sorcerer'; so that the reference is to Jesus." If this commentator's explanation is cprrect, then this verse cannot be said to prove anything about Muham­mad's miracles. Otherwise here and elsewhere the "evident signs" denote the verses of the Qur'&n, which (as we have already pointed out) are in passage after passage called " signs " and " evident signs".

Should any one say that the mention of " sorcery" or " sorcerer " in SQrah lxi. 6, shows that some super­natural work was performed, and that such words could not be used regarding eloquent verses like those of the Qur'in, the answer can readily be given from the Quran itself. For example, in Sfirah xxxviii. 3, we read : " They wondered that there had come to

¹ No such promise is to be found in the Gospel. ² Vol. ii, p. 330.