Verse 94 is, in some ways, the most interesting verse in this surah. It is presented as a word of instruction not to Muhammads listeners, but to Muhammad himself. It is worthwhile to view the entire verse here:
So if you are in doubt concerning that which we have revealed to you, then ask those who are reading the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt. (Islamic translations make it clear that the you here is Muhammad.)
Verses 95-100 reinforce the sentiment of v. 94. The text instructs Muhammad not to belie the Ayat of Allah (Ayat is capable of meaning verses, lessons, natural revelation, and supernatural revelation).
It would seem that Muhammad was wavering about two things: first, after preaching so long in Mecca, without dissuading most of the Meccans from their idolatry, he was beginning to wonder if he really was the one who -- according to his previous beliefs -- the Torah and the Injil had spoken of as (in the Torah) a prophet like Moses from among the Jews brother-nations, and as (in the Injil) the Helper, the Parqaleeta whom Jesus promised would come. If only someone had shared the book of Acts with him, he would have found his answer, and the answer would have been No.
Muhammad was not the promised Prophet like Moses. Moses prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 about the coming prophet, while applicable on a collective scale to all true prophets of Israel, was applied specifically to none other than Jesus in Acts 3:19-26. And what Muhammad had imaged was a re-rendering of the meaning of Muhammads name (praiseworthy) in the Injil -- Parqaleeta -- was actually a misspoken transliteration of the Greek word Paracletos, which means One called alongside to help. The prophecy of the coming of the Paracletos which Jesus spoke to His disciples was fulfilled in the days of His disciples when the Holy Spirit descended upon them; the details of where and when and how this happened are recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts in the New Testament.
It seems evident that Muhammad never encountered the book of Acts, and that his knowledge about the ministry of Jesus was obtained secondhand from someone who knew the Diatessaron, a composition which was made by Tatian in about the year 172 by combining the contents of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into one continuous narrative. The Arabic translation of the Diatessaron is extant, and it is notable that where it reflects the contents of the Gospel of Johns uses of the Greek word Paracletos, that word is transliterated rather than translated.
So if Muhammad, at some point during the 40 years before he began preaching, heard someone (say, someone like Waraqa Ibn Nawfal) who was making a translation-reading of the Diatessaron -- that is, reading a copy of the Diatessaron that was written in Syriac but speaking in Arabic, translating as he read -- mistranslate the Syrian text that stood for the Greek word Paracletos as Parqaleeta, Muhammad could easily form the impression that Jesus had prophecied that someone with a name that had the same meaning as his own name would come and guide people into all truth.
To gain reassurance that his understanding that the Injil really did prophecy about him, Muhammad is instructed by the text to ask those who are reading the Book before you. More than one Jew could have misinterpreted the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18 to refer to a prophet from a non-Israelite nation, and thus confirm to Muhammad that Moses had spoken of such a person. And some ex-Christians who had encountered the Gospel of John in second-hand or third-hand ways, from freely-translated Arabic sources that had been based on Syriac sources, could likewise vaguely recollect that the Injil did say something about the prophecied coming of someone referred to by a term somewhat like the meaning of Muhammad'sname.
To Muhammad, their testimonies were reassuring. That reassurance is expressed in this verse. However, to Jews and Christians who knew what they were talking about -- and to Christians who knew what the Diatessaron was and how it was made, and in what language the Gospels were written, and so forth -- comparisons between Muhammads claims and the contents of the Old Testament and New Testament were just the opposite; they indicated that Muhammads claims were false. When their resultant rejection of Muhammads claim to be the Prophet and Parqaleeta was made clear to Muslims and to Muhammad, Muhammad responded with conviction.
Unfortunately it was an uninformed and misinformed conviction. Instead of taking the time to investigate the texts directly, he insisted that the Jews and Christians had made a cover-up to excuse themselves from obeying (some of) his teachings. And the apologists of Islam to this day still use the same approach, claiming that the Jews and Christians have altered their Scriptures in a grand conspiracy to deny that the Torah and the Injil prophecy the coming of Muhammad. (Some Christians have boldly replied by pointing out that Muhammads coming actually was prophesied, because Jesus predicted that there would be many false prophets.)
Muhammad also seems to have been wavering about his tactics. He had been peaceful -- practically pacifistic -- and it seemed as if the Meccans took this as a sign of weakness rather than of strength. Was his non-compulsory approach working? Should he change tactics? Verses 96-100 are presented as reassurance that compulsion is not the answer. There was only one group of people that ever believed Allahs message because they were compelled to do so: the people of Nineveh, after Jonah (Jonah = Yunus; this is the one time he is mentioned in this surah, which is named after him) had preached to them. If Allah was in the business of compelling people to believe, he would have made believers out of everyone on earth. So (v. 101-103 conclude) Muhammad should continue to teach Allahs lessons, and wait for the judgment of Allah, at which point there will be vindication of those who believed the divinely-given lessons and warnings.
By the way, you might be wondering what v. 98 (the one that mentions Jonah) is talking about when it says that the faith of the people of Jonah saved them after they had seen their torment-filled punishment coming at them. The text here is alluding not to the Biblical account of Jonah, but an embellished traditional account of the same story, in which after Jonahs warning, the citizens of Nineveh saw their city overshadowed by a fiery black cloud. Being afraid that this cloud would fulfill Jonahs statement that their city would be overthrown, the citizens pleaded for God to spare them, and they repented on the spot. Then the cloud passed by harmlessly.
So in the case of the people of Jonah (the citizens of Nineveh), Allah allowed them to repent at a point when it was obvious that if they did not repent, they would be zapped. But this is mentioned as an /exception/ which Muhammad is not to regard as Allahs normal mode of operation.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
So if you are in doubt concerning that which we have revealed to you, then ask those who are reading the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt. (Islamic translations make it clear that the you here is Muhammad.)
Verses 95-100 reinforce the sentiment of v. 94. The text instructs Muhammad not to belie the Ayat of Allah (Ayat is capable of meaning verses, lessons, natural revelation, and supernatural revelation).
It would seem that Muhammad was wavering about two things: first, after preaching so long in Mecca, without dissuading most of the Meccans from their idolatry, he was beginning to wonder if he really was the one who -- according to his previous beliefs -- the Torah and the Injil had spoken of as (in the Torah) a prophet like Moses from among the Jews brother-nations, and as (in the Injil) the Helper, the Parqaleeta whom Jesus promised would come. If only someone had shared the book of Acts with him, he would have found his answer, and the answer would have been No.
Muhammad was not the promised Prophet like Moses. Moses prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 about the coming prophet, while applicable on a collective scale to all true prophets of Israel, was applied specifically to none other than Jesus in Acts 3:19-26. And what Muhammad had imaged was a re-rendering of the meaning of Muhammads name (praiseworthy) in the Injil -- Parqaleeta -- was actually a misspoken transliteration of the Greek word Paracletos, which means One called alongside to help. The prophecy of the coming of the Paracletos which Jesus spoke to His disciples was fulfilled in the days of His disciples when the Holy Spirit descended upon them; the details of where and when and how this happened are recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts in the New Testament.
It seems evident that Muhammad never encountered the book of Acts, and that his knowledge about the ministry of Jesus was obtained secondhand from someone who knew the Diatessaron, a composition which was made by Tatian in about the year 172 by combining the contents of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into one continuous narrative. The Arabic translation of the Diatessaron is extant, and it is notable that where it reflects the contents of the Gospel of Johns uses of the Greek word Paracletos, that word is transliterated rather than translated.
So if Muhammad, at some point during the 40 years before he began preaching, heard someone (say, someone like Waraqa Ibn Nawfal) who was making a translation-reading of the Diatessaron -- that is, reading a copy of the Diatessaron that was written in Syriac but speaking in Arabic, translating as he read -- mistranslate the Syrian text that stood for the Greek word Paracletos as Parqaleeta, Muhammad could easily form the impression that Jesus had prophecied that someone with a name that had the same meaning as his own name would come and guide people into all truth.
To gain reassurance that his understanding that the Injil really did prophecy about him, Muhammad is instructed by the text to ask those who are reading the Book before you. More than one Jew could have misinterpreted the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18 to refer to a prophet from a non-Israelite nation, and thus confirm to Muhammad that Moses had spoken of such a person. And some ex-Christians who had encountered the Gospel of John in second-hand or third-hand ways, from freely-translated Arabic sources that had been based on Syriac sources, could likewise vaguely recollect that the Injil did say something about the prophecied coming of someone referred to by a term somewhat like the meaning of Muhammad'sname.
To Muhammad, their testimonies were reassuring. That reassurance is expressed in this verse. However, to Jews and Christians who knew what they were talking about -- and to Christians who knew what the Diatessaron was and how it was made, and in what language the Gospels were written, and so forth -- comparisons between Muhammads claims and the contents of the Old Testament and New Testament were just the opposite; they indicated that Muhammads claims were false. When their resultant rejection of Muhammads claim to be the Prophet and Parqaleeta was made clear to Muslims and to Muhammad, Muhammad responded with conviction.
Unfortunately it was an uninformed and misinformed conviction. Instead of taking the time to investigate the texts directly, he insisted that the Jews and Christians had made a cover-up to excuse themselves from obeying (some of) his teachings. And the apologists of Islam to this day still use the same approach, claiming that the Jews and Christians have altered their Scriptures in a grand conspiracy to deny that the Torah and the Injil prophecy the coming of Muhammad. (Some Christians have boldly replied by pointing out that Muhammads coming actually was prophesied, because Jesus predicted that there would be many false prophets.)
Muhammad also seems to have been wavering about his tactics. He had been peaceful -- practically pacifistic -- and it seemed as if the Meccans took this as a sign of weakness rather than of strength. Was his non-compulsory approach working? Should he change tactics? Verses 96-100 are presented as reassurance that compulsion is not the answer. There was only one group of people that ever believed Allahs message because they were compelled to do so: the people of Nineveh, after Jonah (Jonah = Yunus; this is the one time he is mentioned in this surah, which is named after him) had preached to them. If Allah was in the business of compelling people to believe, he would have made believers out of everyone on earth. So (v. 101-103 conclude) Muhammad should continue to teach Allahs lessons, and wait for the judgment of Allah, at which point there will be vindication of those who believed the divinely-given lessons and warnings.
By the way, you might be wondering what v. 98 (the one that mentions Jonah) is talking about when it says that the faith of the people of Jonah saved them after they had seen their torment-filled punishment coming at them. The text here is alluding not to the Biblical account of Jonah, but an embellished traditional account of the same story, in which after Jonahs warning, the citizens of Nineveh saw their city overshadowed by a fiery black cloud. Being afraid that this cloud would fulfill Jonahs statement that their city would be overthrown, the citizens pleaded for God to spare them, and they repented on the spot. Then the cloud passed by harmlessly.
So in the case of the people of Jonah (the citizens of Nineveh), Allah allowed them to repent at a point when it was obvious that if they did not repent, they would be zapped. But this is mentioned as an /exception/ which Muhammad is not to regard as Allahs normal mode of operation.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
