The Mohammadian notion

One day passing a market gardener near Medina, Mohammed advised him to treat his palm trees in a certain way. But later he saw the same market gardener again, even though he had abandoned the recommended method because it did not give the best result. Mohammed admitted this perfectly and even advised, on the spot, that individual experience should take precedence over the advice of a man, even the Prophet (1).

However, legally, the advice that Mohammed gave to the market gardener is a “hadith” and as such, it represents an almost absolute value in the eyes of exegetes and doctors of law. However, we see the Prophet himself canceling this “hadith” in the face of the experience of a simple market gardener: thus establishing the primacy of reason and experience in the conduct of earthly activity.

However, there is not a single instance where Muhammad similarly sacrificed a Qur’anic precept to an individual’s experience, or even to his own experience. On the contrary, certain incidents in his history show his absolute intransigence on this point. At no cost did he ever sacrifice a Koranic precept: we see this particularly in the case of the pilgrimage of Year VII which he abruptly canceled after having carefully prepared it. He renounced it simply because the revelation had decided otherwise, although this almost created disorder in the Muslim camp.

We are therefore perfectly in the presence of two notions which present themselves with different values ​​in the eyes of the Prophet: the personal notion which relates to his human knowledge, and the Koranic notion which is revealed to him. It is natural to seek to make a clear demarcation here between these two notions in the consciousness of Mohammed in order to better illuminate the Koranic phenomenon.

This demarcation is also manifested in the other prophets as we were able to see in the case of Jeremiah. When one day he sees the “nabi Hanania” taking exactly the opposite view of his preaching, by reassuring the Jerusalemites about God’s intentions towards them; It happened that Hananiah, having met Jeremiah, cried out to him, breaking the yoke that he was wearing: This is what Yahweh says: “Thus I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.”

It was, in short, the most formal denial of all of Jeremiah’s preaching. But the latter responded spontaneously: “Amen. May Yahweh do as you say.”

MA LODS, who quotes this passage from the Book of Jeremiah, interprets his singular attitude in these terms: “He hoped, he thinks, that God had reversed his decision” (2).

This is undoubtedly the only reasonable interpretation to remove the contradiction which could otherwise appear in the attitude of the Prophet. The latter, in short, had preached his sinister warnings in the name of Yahweh, and it was also in the name of Yahweh invoked in the oracle of Hananiah that he thought it necessary to remain silent for a moment.

But this silence is not a notion revealed to Jeremiah; we must see only his personal notion: he judges that Hanania could really have had the inspiration of God. However, the revelation immediately corrects this judgment of the prophet who immediately takes up the favorite theme of his preaching.

However, this incident clearly distinguishes in Jeremiah’s consciousness the notion of the man in relation to that of the prophet, like the advice to the market gardener which separates the Mohammedan notion from the Koranic notion in the case of Mohammed. Moreover, the Koran perfectly locates in time, this relationship between the two notions, in the following verse: “This is how we revealed to you the spirit: before you certainly knew neither the Book nor the belief (of Islam)”. Horn. XLII V. 52.

So, “before” Mount Hira, Mohammed only had personal notions, but these do not appear – if, as we must, we give the verse above its full historical meaning – to have anything in common with Koranic notions. This verse incidentally fixes, but in a fairly clear manner, the origin of the Koranic notion, after Hira and in any case, not before “the revelation of the spirit”.

Historically, we should not be vague on this point, because the verse in question first passed through the conscience and self-criticism of Mohammed who certainly knew how to judge this demarcation necessary for his own conviction. , the Koran takes pleasure in reminding him and insistently emphasizing this demarcation which is the subject of numerous verses.

Here is one, in particular, which seems to underline the first: “Before the Koran, you did not know the Book and you had not written any of it with your hand…” (Cor. XXIX., 48). The history of the Koranic notion therefore begins after and not “before the Koran”. This seems to be the precise meaning of the verse.

Now, from a psychological point of view, in relation to the conscience of Mohammed, this verse further strengthens the last one to distinguish the Mohammedan notion from the Koranic notion. Moreover, the Koran places great emphasis on this point as we can see. again in the following verse: “We thus edify you (O Muhammad) on the things of the past: It is a grace on our part to give you this information”. Horn. XX – V. 99.

In other verses, the Koran seems to indicate a deliberate limitation of revelation on a specific point as if to thus suspend the interest and conscience of Mohammed on something which has not been revealed and which will not be revealed, perhaps -be. Here is an example: “We have sent many prophets before you: We have told you the story of some of them. But there are some whose stories we have not told you.” Horn. XL. – V. 78.

In this verse, the Koranic notion seems to go not only beyond the Mohammedan notion, but even beyond what is currently revealed. We can cite other verses – notably verse 45 (XLIII) – which have the same sense.

Sometimes, the demarcation in the Koran, between the Mohammedan notion and the Koranic notion, is made on the occasion of a banal incident offered by everyday life. This is the case in verse s
following: “If we wanted (O Mohammed), we would make you know these men so that you know them in their physical features”. Horn. XLIL – V. 52.

Sometimes finally, this demarcation is pointed out to us in connection with an opposition between the Mohammedan notion and the Koranic notion as in this verse, which we will analyze later (3) “Do not hasten to retain the Koran as long as its “revelation is not ‘is not yet accomplished’. Horn. XX. – V. 114.

We should also take into account, for this demarcation, another element – ​​this one external – which in turn underlines it: this is the style specific to the Mohammedan notion. It is said, no doubt rightly, that “the style is of the man himself”.

However, the Mohammedan notion and the Koranic notion represent two styles: each with its own character, its own style. The Koranic phrase has a rhythm, a musicality which already signals it to the ear. It has its own expressions and terms. It is not wrong to say that the Koranic style is inimitable. It is said that the great poet El-Muttanabi tried in vain to imitate him. In any case, history shows a certain test, that of the “Bayan El-Arabi” of the “Bab”.

But this was only an unfortunate attempt (4).

We cannot doubt that there is in all these examples a clear historical and psychological demarcation between the Mohammedan notion and the Koranic notion: a demarcation which, located in the consciousness of Mohammed – still sheds light on the Koranic phenomenon.

Notes:
(1) NDL: The anecdote of the market gardener is reported by the traditionist Muslem, who collected it in two different ways: one lesson according to Sufyan Ibn El-Ass and the other according to Anis.

(2) A. LODS: “The Prophets of Israel”, page 188.

(3) See the “Oppositions” paragraph below.

(4) Cheikh M. Tag: “Babism and Islam”.

Excerpt from the book “The Koranic Phenomenon” by Malek Bennabi