Just some ramblings this morning.
We see lots of scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus and early Christianity. It is much harder to find analogous work regarding Muhammad and Islam. The following is my synopsis of some of that scholarship, as I interpret it. It is NOT intended to be a broad overview of all theories, and I admit that it excludes theories that I see as having no basis, such as the theory that Muhammad ibn Abdullah never existed. I will also try to limit my discussion to sources outside Islamic canon, unless there is some non-canon confirmation of the canon.
First, let's look at the political/cultural situation. People in the West (and most Muslims) tend to think that Muhammad was born into a culture consisting almost entirely of polytheistic Arab tribes. My reading is that this is not remotely the case. The Arabian peninsula is adjacent to Palestine and Egypt, which were both populated largely by Christians during Muhammad's lifetime. Recall that (at this time), both areas remained part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in which Christianity (in its various forms) was the official State religion. Both regions also had HUGE Jewish communities. Obviously, these communities also had a presence in the Arabian peninsula.
For example, a large part southern Arabia (initially based in modern Yemen) actually constituted a JEWISH kingdom until a few decades prior to Muhammad (they were actually converts from a few hundred years earlier, rather than ethnic Jews), and IT was actually conquered by a Christian kingdom from modern Eritrea. The Red Sea was the principal trading route with the East, and all of the major ports (on both the Arabian side of the Sea AND the other side) were diverse and multi-cultural.
Add Zoroastrianism to the Judeo-Christian background. The Byzantines were the Western neighbors of the various Arabian polities, but their Eastern neighbors were the Sasanid Empire. That empire ALSO had huge Christian populations (Oriental/Nestorian, largely), but its primary religion was Zoroastrianism, which is ALSO a monotheistic faith.
In other words, Muhammad would have been exposed to monotheistic traditions for his entire life. I think that it is entirely possible that Muhammad actually started his life as a follower of one of the "other" monotheistic traditions in the region. Certainly he was influenced by them. I guess my point is that it is highly-unlikely that he walked into that cave as a polytheist and left it as a monotheist.
Next, let's look at Muhammad himself. I have come to believe that this was not his NAME, but rather a title and that his original given name is lost to history. The word "muhammad" translates as "blessed one," and there is evidence that it was frequently used as a reference for Jesus in Nestorian Christian practice. In fact, I have not found ANY instance of this word being used as a given name PRIOR to the man now known as Muhammad ibn Abdullah. I have found a number of non-Islamic references to the "Arabs led by Muhammad" in connection with the conquest of Palestine and the Arab defeats of the Byzantine armies in that region, but no contemporaneous reference to a new religion among his followers. There is significant documentation that he actually PROTECTED Christian monasteries and places of worship. Would he have done that, if he and his followers had not had SOME kinship with that faith?
Who WERE his followers? Some historical records seem to indicate that his armies included Arabs, Nestorian Christians AND Jews. Why? Well, the first conquests outside Arabia were ... the "Holy Land." Were Muhammad and his followers actually embarking on the first "Crusades" ... seeking to free the "Holy Land" FROM the Byzantines and make it available to all of the monotheistic religions, rather than just the Chalcedonian Christians under Constantinople? It is simply not possible to ascertain motives behind the conquest from the scant historical record, but we CAN look at some other evidence.
Mosques. Most people today understand that a mosque is designed to be oriented toward Mecca, the "Holy City" of Islam. But was that always the case? No. Many of the earliest mosques seem to have been instead oriented NORTH, toward ... Jerusalem. This does not appear to have changed until the 800s. Is it possible that JERUSALEM was the original "Holy City" of Islam, and that this changed over time as the new, developing religion sought to distinguish itself from its Judeo-Christian roots? And why would the Quran have its prophet ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem, if that city were not holy to him and his followers?
DID Islam have Judeo-Christian roots? Well, there are more than fifty individual characters (and their stories) in common between the Bible and the Quran. Islam even incorporates Jesus ... as a prophet, rather than as a divine being from conception. This seems antithetical to modern Christians, but it was NOT considered absurd by MANY early followers of his teachings, including many Jewish Christians.
One such school of thought was called "Adoptionism." It was declared a heresy in the Second Century, but it keeps re-appearing through history. Going back to the beginning, many scholars view the Gospel of Mark as perhaps reflecting partially Adoptionist view. Other (non-canon) Gospels are more so, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was the antithesis of the Adoptionist line of thought, and his side won the theological war ... largely because the Jewish Christians (originally led by Jesus' physical brother) were all killed by the Romans in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Saul/Paul WAS marketing to a non-Jewish audience, and the idea of a deity incarnate was consistent with their pre-existing worldview.
So, could Adoptionist, Jewish-Christians have been among Muhammad's followers, along with Nestorians and "exiled" Jews? Might HE have been a follower of one or moreo of those lines of religious thought ... or at least influenced by them?
We see lots of scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus and early Christianity. It is much harder to find analogous work regarding Muhammad and Islam. The following is my synopsis of some of that scholarship, as I interpret it. It is NOT intended to be a broad overview of all theories, and I admit that it excludes theories that I see as having no basis, such as the theory that Muhammad ibn Abdullah never existed. I will also try to limit my discussion to sources outside Islamic canon, unless there is some non-canon confirmation of the canon.
First, let's look at the political/cultural situation. People in the West (and most Muslims) tend to think that Muhammad was born into a culture consisting almost entirely of polytheistic Arab tribes. My reading is that this is not remotely the case. The Arabian peninsula is adjacent to Palestine and Egypt, which were both populated largely by Christians during Muhammad's lifetime. Recall that (at this time), both areas remained part of the Eastern Roman Empire, in which Christianity (in its various forms) was the official State religion. Both regions also had HUGE Jewish communities. Obviously, these communities also had a presence in the Arabian peninsula.
For example, a large part southern Arabia (initially based in modern Yemen) actually constituted a JEWISH kingdom until a few decades prior to Muhammad (they were actually converts from a few hundred years earlier, rather than ethnic Jews), and IT was actually conquered by a Christian kingdom from modern Eritrea. The Red Sea was the principal trading route with the East, and all of the major ports (on both the Arabian side of the Sea AND the other side) were diverse and multi-cultural.
Add Zoroastrianism to the Judeo-Christian background. The Byzantines were the Western neighbors of the various Arabian polities, but their Eastern neighbors were the Sasanid Empire. That empire ALSO had huge Christian populations (Oriental/Nestorian, largely), but its primary religion was Zoroastrianism, which is ALSO a monotheistic faith.
In other words, Muhammad would have been exposed to monotheistic traditions for his entire life. I think that it is entirely possible that Muhammad actually started his life as a follower of one of the "other" monotheistic traditions in the region. Certainly he was influenced by them. I guess my point is that it is highly-unlikely that he walked into that cave as a polytheist and left it as a monotheist.
Next, let's look at Muhammad himself. I have come to believe that this was not his NAME, but rather a title and that his original given name is lost to history. The word "muhammad" translates as "blessed one," and there is evidence that it was frequently used as a reference for Jesus in Nestorian Christian practice. In fact, I have not found ANY instance of this word being used as a given name PRIOR to the man now known as Muhammad ibn Abdullah. I have found a number of non-Islamic references to the "Arabs led by Muhammad" in connection with the conquest of Palestine and the Arab defeats of the Byzantine armies in that region, but no contemporaneous reference to a new religion among his followers. There is significant documentation that he actually PROTECTED Christian monasteries and places of worship. Would he have done that, if he and his followers had not had SOME kinship with that faith?
Who WERE his followers? Some historical records seem to indicate that his armies included Arabs, Nestorian Christians AND Jews. Why? Well, the first conquests outside Arabia were ... the "Holy Land." Were Muhammad and his followers actually embarking on the first "Crusades" ... seeking to free the "Holy Land" FROM the Byzantines and make it available to all of the monotheistic religions, rather than just the Chalcedonian Christians under Constantinople? It is simply not possible to ascertain motives behind the conquest from the scant historical record, but we CAN look at some other evidence.
Mosques. Most people today understand that a mosque is designed to be oriented toward Mecca, the "Holy City" of Islam. But was that always the case? No. Many of the earliest mosques seem to have been instead oriented NORTH, toward ... Jerusalem. This does not appear to have changed until the 800s. Is it possible that JERUSALEM was the original "Holy City" of Islam, and that this changed over time as the new, developing religion sought to distinguish itself from its Judeo-Christian roots? And why would the Quran have its prophet ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem, if that city were not holy to him and his followers?
DID Islam have Judeo-Christian roots? Well, there are more than fifty individual characters (and their stories) in common between the Bible and the Quran. Islam even incorporates Jesus ... as a prophet, rather than as a divine being from conception. This seems antithetical to modern Christians, but it was NOT considered absurd by MANY early followers of his teachings, including many Jewish Christians.
One such school of thought was called "Adoptionism." It was declared a heresy in the Second Century, but it keeps re-appearing through history. Going back to the beginning, many scholars view the Gospel of Mark as perhaps reflecting partially Adoptionist view. Other (non-canon) Gospels are more so, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews. Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) was the antithesis of the Adoptionist line of thought, and his side won the theological war ... largely because the Jewish Christians (originally led by Jesus' physical brother) were all killed by the Romans in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. Saul/Paul WAS marketing to a non-Jewish audience, and the idea of a deity incarnate was consistent with their pre-existing worldview.
So, could Adoptionist, Jewish-Christians have been among Muhammad's followers, along with Nestorians and "exiled" Jews? Might HE have been a follower of one or moreo of those lines of religious thought ... or at least influenced by them?