While we’re on the topic of absurdity let’s more closely consider your theory that you appear to have gleaned and extrapolated from just one Hadith. Of all the testimonies from all who knew Muhammad find me one Hadith that supports your theory. Then find a reputable scholar that supports it.
This misses the point entirely. The Islamic tradition (and particularly the Baha'i rehashing due to Abdu'l Baha that you quoted in your OP) insists that the revelation occurred to Muhammad amidst the
jahiliya (time of ignorance) of the immediately pre-Islamic period of Arabian history and was, predominantly - at least initially - directed towards correcting the barbarous, ignorant and polytheistic tribes of Arabs among whom Muhammad had grown up. It further insists that the transmission of elements of the Qur'anic revelation that happen to correspond to elements of Jewish and Christian traditions was miraculous and was not influenced (at all) by human transmission from Jews or Christians that Muhammad might have met and/or conversed with before or during the period of the revelation. And yet - here in the very tradition that makes these bold assertions* - the very first man to whom the revelation was made known was not only a Christian, but immediately - even according to the tradition that insists there was no such influence - starts linking Muhammad's reported experience to that of Moses!
This is perhaps not even the earliest suggestion that Muhammad may have learned about monotheistic religion and Jewish and Christian traditions from men. The Qur'an itself says that people were saying so (Qur'an 16:103).
And the idea that the source of "Muhammad's revelation" was in Jewish and/or Christian, or Jewish Christian traditions that were represented by Jews/Christians/Jewish Christians has a persistent presence throughout the modern period starting from John Toland, who wrote in 1722
"...you'll discover some of the fundamental doctrines of Mahometanism to have their rise...from the earliest monuments of the Christian religion." (Toland,
Nazarenus, p.5) to the rather more recent work of scholars such as Patricia Crone, who concluded that Jewish Christians were the "most obvious candidates" for the transmission of a number of Qur'anic themes (Patricia Crone, "Jewish Christianity and the Qurʾān (Part One)," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, no. 2 (October 2015): 225-253.
https://doi.org/10.1086/682212).
There is, in fact, a fairly well-established "revisionist school" in the field of Islamic studies and whilst not all of them concur on the "Jewish Christian" origins idea, there is an overall impetus to apply the same historical-critical methods of textual analysis to the Qur'an that have for much longer been the staples of much investigation into the origins of the Christian and Jewish revelations. I am guessing, since you seem to favour the historical-critical method for other religious texts, you would not object to this for the Qur'an - or, dare I even suggest, the writings of Baha'u'llah? Of course I'm not saying you have to agree with the findings - but Islam in general opposes the method irrespective of the findings by definition - because it has the hierarchy of Qur'an ... hadith .... sirah ... for answering such questions - rarely, if ever, would any other scholarly method or historical evidence be required - and especially so on matters pertaining to revelation.
The problem in their field (textual and historical criticism of the Qur'an) is that it is impossible to engage in such studies without being accused of taking sides - one way or the other. To support the idea that the Qur'an was influenced (at all by any other tradition) is to invite the ire of Muslims and to oppose the idea is tantamount to being a Muslim apologist in the eyes, not only of fundamentalist Christians, but even of other scholars. And obviously, no faithful and practicing Muslim is going to engage in historical-critical analysis of the text of the Qur'an - at least not without inviting the ire of his Muslim brothers or abandoning his faith altogether - at which point anything further he might say on the matter will immediately be labelled "apostasy" (and trust me - I know how that works, having been labelled "apostate" myself - thereafter, every word that seems to contradict the faith is met with "well he would say that wouldn't he" and "what else can you expect from someone who abandoned his faith"...and then completely unfounded accusations on some kind of imagined impropriety that has made one turn away from the faith). It is a fraught field of study to be sure.
But my point is that even within the tradition itself, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the "revelation" came in circumstances in which the influence of Jewish and/or Christian traditions was clearly present. If that were not the case, why did the Qur'an itself feel the need to refute such influence and why does the next most-trusted authority after the Qur'an have a Christian scribe as the very first man to accept the Prophet's status as messenger and why does it say it was this man (and Waraqa is generally revered in Islam as a companion of the Prophet) that mentions Moses - long before Muhammad ever recited any revelation about him?
*It is worth noting that all of your hadith quotes came from the same source as mine - the Sahih Bukhari - which itself was compiled 200 years after Muhammad's death and the oldest surviving manuscript seems to date to about 150 years after that - that's fully 350 years after the period of revelation it is discussing in the parts both you and I quoted from. This book - despite the couple of centuries separating the alleged quoters from the reported quotations - is considered to be second only to the Qur'an as an authoritative Islamic text.
