No Power over God's Bounty: A Christian Commentary on the "People of Scripture" In the Quran (Christian Commentaries on Non-Christian Sacred Texts) 9042941774, 9789042941779

Citation preview

Christian Commentaries on

Non-Christian Sacred Texts

No Power over God’s Bounty A Christian Commentary on the “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān

by

Pim Valkenberg

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON THE “PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE” IN THE QUR’ĀN

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES ON NON-CHRISTIAN SACRED TEXTS

General Editor Catherine Cornille Editorial board David Burrell, Francis Clooney, Paul Griffiths, James Heisig Editorial advisors Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Leo Lefebure, Daniel Madigan, Joseph O’Leary, Nicolas Standaert, Paul Swanson, Elliot Wolfson

The series “Christian Commentaries on Non-Christian Sacred Texts” provides a forum for Christian reflection on the meaning and importance of sacred texts (scriptures and religious classics) of other religious traditions for Christian faith and practice.

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY A CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON THE “PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE” IN THE QUR’ĀN

BY

PIM VALKENBERG

PEETERS

LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4177-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4178-6 D/2021/0602/29

Copyright © 2021 by Peeters Publishers All rights reserved

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements.................................................................... IX Preface......................................................................................... XI Abbreviations............................................................................... XVII Chapter One: The Opening....................................................... 1 1:1 The opening of the opening............................................. 3 1:2-5 Praise and worship........................................................ 8 1:6-7 Seeking guidance........................................................... 11 Chapter Two: People of Scripture.......................................... 17 2:2 That is the Scripture – sent down to you and before you.17 The term Ahl al-kitāb (“People of Scripture”)........................ 21 People of Scripture.................................................................. 28 Chapter Three: God’s Generosity........................................... 35 2:143 A Middle Community.................................................. 35 2:79 Those who write their own Scripture............................. 38 2:85 Believers in a part of Scripture....................................... 41 2:101 A part threw the Scripture of God behind their backs.43 2:104-9 The greatness of God’s generosity............................. 45 2:113-41 The jealousy of Jews and Christians........................ 58 2:142-52 The knowledge of the People of Scripture.............. 60 Chapter Four: An Equitable Word......................................... 63 3:3-4 God sends confirmation................................................ 65 3:19-23 Knowledge and divergence about Scripture............... 68 3:48-50 Jesus as teacher of Injīl (and Tawrāt)........................ 69 3:64 The “common word” verse............................................. 71 A threefold proposal................................................................ 84 A Common Word or an Equitable Word?............................. 89 Two – or Three – hermeneutical approaches to dialogue....... 90

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Five: Arguing about Abraham................................... 97 3:65-68 Arguing about Abraham............................................ 97 3:69-72 God’s hand is open................................................... 112 3:75-79 Trustworthy and unreliable People of Scripture........ 123 3:98-104 Holding fast to the signs and the rope of God........ 130 3:110-115 The best community and an upright community.135 3:180-87 God is poor while we are rich................................. 143 3:199 True Believers............................................................... 144 Chapter Six: A Moderate Religion.......................................... 151 4:44-55 Buying misguidance.................................................. 154 4:123-26 Following the Faith of the Friend of God............... 161 4:153-59 The People of Scripture slander Mary and the Prophets.................................................................................. 168 4:171 Do not exceed the boundaries of your religion............ 179 Chapter Seven: God sends Confirmation............................... 191 5:15-19 Children of God and His beloved............................. 197 5:44-48 God sends confirmation and final authority............. 209 5:59-69 People of Scripture under Muhammad’s authority... 217 5:77 Do not exaggerate in your religion................................. 230 5:82 Devoted to learning and not arrogant............................ 236 5:114 A Feast from Heaven.................................................... 238 Chapter Eight: People of Remembrance................................. 243 10:1-15:1 The Announcements.............................................. 244 Scripture as expression of God’s Eternal Knowledge............... 248 Scripture related to Moses and other Prophets....................... 251 A contested Reminder or Recitation....................................... 253 6:20 Recognizing Scripture as their children.......................... 259 7:169 People of Moses: hiding Scripture while studying it.... 260 9:29 Fight them until they pay voluntarily while humbled.... 262 10:94 Ask those who recited the Scripture before you............ 266 13:36 Those given the book rejoice over your message.......... 268 16:43 Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know... 269 19:16 Call in Remembrance from the Scripture Mary........... 272 21:7 Ask the People of the Reminder..................................... 273 28:52 Those to whom We gave the Scripture before believe in it .................................................................................... 276



TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

C hapter Nine: Dispute in the best Manner............................ 279 29:46 Dispute the People of Scripture with what is best........ 282 30:2-3 The Byzantines have been defeated but will win......... 295 31:20 Debaters without knowledge, guidance, and Scripture.296 32:23 A Guidance for the Children of Israel.......................... 297 33:26 God brings down the supporters of the confederates... 298 Chapter Ten: No Power over God’s Bounty......................... 311 Scripture as expression of God’s eternal knowledge................ 314 Scripture related to Moses and other Prophets....................... 314 A contested Reminder or Recitation....................................... 316 35:32 We gave the Scripture as inheritance............................ 319 39:1 A sending down of the Scripture from God................... 321 41:3 An elaborated Scripture, an Arabic recitation................. 323 42:14 Those who were made heirs to the Scripture................ 325 48:29 A likeness of the believers in the Torah and the Gospel.326 57:29 The People of Scripture have no power over God’s bounty.................................................................................... 327 59:2-11 The faithless among the People of Scripture............. 338 Chapter Eleven: Clear Evidence.............................................. 347 Scripture as expression of God’s eternal knowledge................ 347 Scripture revealed to Moses and other prophets..................... 349 A contested Reminder or Recitation....................................... 350 61:6 Jesus confirms Torah and announces Aḥmad................. 353 66:12 Mary accepted as true the Words and the Scriptures... 355 81:10 When the scrolls will be unrolled................................. 356 98:1-6 Division despite clear evidence.................................... 358 Conclusion: God’s Involvement.............................................. 375 Bibliography................................................................................ 381 Index A: Islamic and Christian Sources.................................. 401 Index B: Names, Subjects, and Terms....................................... 417

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This is a book that is long overdue. I promised to write it, somewhat rashly, when I first visited Boston on October 20, 2004 – a memorable day for baseball fans – and heard about the series in which this book appears while meeting with Catherine Cornille, Frank Clooney and others at Boston College. After our first meeting at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, guided by the long and intense friendship of David Burrell, C.S.C, I have collaborated with Asma Afsaruddin to make it a commentary-in-dialogue on texts about the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān, but after ten years we had to give up our endeavors to secure a collaborative research grant. Even though I am solely responsible for the mistakes and idiosyncrasies in this commentary, it owes a great debt to Asma’s scholarly historical approach in the choice of sources and themes. Thanks to the many colleagues who made it possible for me to teach about the contents of this book on many occasions, including courses at Loyola University Maryland and The Catholic University of America. Special thanks to Fritz Bauerschmidt, Claire Mathews McGinnis, Jim Buckley, Chuck Jones, Bill Dinges, Mark Morozowich and Sidney Griffith. Some of my students have by now become scholars in their own right, and I am especially grateful for the contributions by my Muslim students and assistants, Salih Sayilgan and Nadeen Alsulaimi. Thanks also to the colleagues who invited me to lecture on parts of this book, including Faris Kaya (Istanbul), Yazid Said (Dublin), Ulrich Winkler (Frankfurt), Richard Jones (Washington D.C.), Gösta Hallonsten (Uppsala), Marianne Moyaert (Amsterdam), Matthew Tapie (Tampa), and Reuven Firestone (Zürich). I was able to finish most of this book while enjoying the friendship and collegiality of Jim Heft, Reuven Firestone, and Amir Hussain at the University of Southern California in the fall of 2016 and again during my sabbatical leave as the Cardin Chair of Theology at Loyola University Maryland during the academic year 2017/18. Staying in the Jewish households of Reuven and Ruth, and Jessica and Nathan helped me immensely to be aware of the danger that a Christian commentary on an Islamic text might end up being at the expense of the Jewish partner whom so much of Christian and Islamic theology seeks to supersede.

X

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A final thank you to Salih Sayilgan who helped me in preparing the analysis of Tafsīr Mujāhid and Tafsīr Muqātil, to Amy Feira, Ghada Ghazal, and Kate Middleton who helped me with the final editing, and to Sidney Griffith, David Marshall, ­Daniel Madigan, David Burrell, and Catherine Cornille who were willing to look over the manuscript. Baltimore, ‘īd mīlād al-Masīḥ (Feast of the Nativity of Christ), 2017

PREFACE That is the Scripture – no doubt in it; guidance for those who are watchful (Q.2:2) Quite a few scholars have addressed the way in which the Qur’ān presents itself rather self-consciously, and indeed the quotation translated above seems to suggest a strong self-awareness. Even though I will make the case that the self-assertion is not as blatant as it may seem, yet the fact remains that the Qur’ān seems to exhibit abundant confidence in its role in the communication between God and humankind. In a similar way, the Qur’ān is aware that God has communicated God’s guidance before to prophets and through them to people, often summarized as ahl al-kitāb, “People of the Book,” or as I prefer to say, “People of Scripture.” This book contains a Christian commentary on the texts in which the Qur’ān refers to or addresses these “People of Scripture”. Since the Christian who comments on these texts is also addressed in them, this commentary on a non-Christian sacred text is part of an ongoing dialogue in which the Christian voice gets the last word on the qur’ānic texts but only after having heard the sometimes incisive critique of the Qur’ān on the Jewish and Christian traditions. Even though the ultimate goal of this commentary is to contribute to better mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians, the terrain that it seeks to cross in order to get to this goal is full of doubts, ambiguities, question marks and even polemical passages. It might have been easier if I could have written it in actual dialogue with a Muslim scholar, but lack of time and funding made this impossible. Even though I hope that some Muslims may accept this Christian interpretation as a possible contribution to future dialogues, I have no illusion about being counted among the traditional mufassirūn or exegetes of the Qur’ān. Not being a practicing Muslim and not having received classical education in Arabic, I am deficient in the basic prerequisites for traditional exegesis. Moreover, I do not always agree with the mufassirūn and sometimes criticize them strongly. Yet, some of my deficiencies may be compensated by my education as a Christian theologian in the Catholic tradition with a substantial knowledge of

XII

PREFACE

Christian – Muslim relations. This book is based on the conviction that a theological approach to the Qur’ān is best suited to do justice to the fundamental theological claims that the Qur’ān makes in its discussion of the People of Scripture. As will become clear, this discussion with the “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān is quite different from the idea of a common ground between Jews, Christians and Muslims that is often envisaged when people refer to the term “People of the Book” in present interfaith relationships. Just like the term “Abrahamic religions,” what is often thought to be a description of a commonality turns out to be an indication of how deeply the three religions diverge in their uses of similar words and concepts. One of the characteristics of the qur’ānic discourse directed at the People of Scripture is that it uses what is thought to be common between Scriptural religions as an argument against them. Some of the texts that address the People of Scripture are outright polemical, some are ambivalent, and some are friendly. But most of them present a mixed picture – as is true for the history of the relations between Judaism, Christianity and Islam generally. Since this commentary discusses texts that are themselves comments on the relationship between the different peoples of Scripture, even addressing these people of Scripture directly, it involves some fairly complicated relationships that I will try to unravel in the course of this commentary. The Islamic tradition acknowledges the Qur’ān as the Word of God. Muslims believe that God is its author, and that the prophet ­Muhammad is the recipient of what God sent down by the mediation of Gabriel. This divine voice in Arabic cannot be found in this commentary, even though I started my commentary by listening to it and pondering on it, respecting it as guidance for Muslims but at the same time considering it as a source of doubt and ambivalence for a Christian commentator. The commentary starts with a possible translation in italics centered to the middle that stays close to the meaning of the Arabic text and thus keeps open possibilities for multiple interpretations that follow in the commentaries. Let me give an example of these possibilities for multiple interpretations by giving a preliminary observation on the text translated at the beginning of this preface. In Arabic the text begins with the word dhālika (“that”), where one would expect the word hādhā (“this”). Most translators gloss over the difference and suggest that the Qur’ān presents itself here as a Scripture without doubt. Yet translating “that” leaves



PREFACE

XIII

open multiple interpretations, for instance that “that” may refer to the heavenly exemplar of the Scripture of which the orally transmitted version on earth is a faithful copy in the mode of a human voice. While the position of the Muslim confronted with the qur’ānic claim might be characterized as assent accompanied with little or some doubt about what exactly the guidance for the watchful implies, the position of the Christian reader might be that of doubt mixed with some acceptance. It is the interplay between acceptance and doubt that makes a scholarly commentary by a Christian theologian of this foundational text for ­Muslims possible. In this commentary, I distinguish between 31 core texts that explicitly address or refer to the “People of Scripture,” and a larger number of texts that use similar phrases. While the latter category will be discussed only to give a richer array of meanings, the explicit references will receive a more extensive commentary so that the implied voices of acceptance and doubt can be distinguished. The first layer, “explanatory notes,” tries to explain some of the meanings of the Arabic words in the text. The second layer, “Islamic interpretations,” gives an impression of the tradition of tafsīr or qur’ānic exegesis on the verses under consideration, and the final layer, “Christian resonances,” evokes the main parallels or associations within the Christian tradition. The juxtaposition of these three layers of remarks will have the effect, I hope, of distinguishing the voices but discovering the possibilities of further dialogue between them as well. A few words must be said about the main sources for these three layers of commentary on the core texts concerning the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān. In the explanatory notes that immediately follow the translation, I use contemporary translations and interpretations by Muslims and non-Muslims in the Western academic context (for abbreviations see the list immediately after this preface). I also use the results of rhetorical and structural analyses of the sometimes long-winded Medinan surahs in hopes of discovering a principle of interpretation that might elucidate the nature of the Qur’ān’s texts concerning the People of Scripture. The Islamic tradition of qur’ānic interpretation is addressed in the second layer that focuses on the tafsīr tradition. I have chosen to consult only a limited number of commentaries, in order not to make this book too burdensome. I have consulted two untranslated Arabic sources that give us information about the earliest strata of Islamic exegesis in the first

XIV

PREFACE

two centuries after the hijra: the Tafsīr Mujāhid and the Tafsīr Muqātil. Apart from these relatively concise sources, I have consulted a number of later sources that give an overview of the Islamic tradition of interpretation. Some of them can be found on the website www.altafsir.com sponsored by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan. From this source I have consulted two translated commentaries published in the series Great Commentaries on the Holy Qur’an: the popular Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, and al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl that forms a classical source for the traditional historical settings of many passages in the Qur’ān. A summary of the most reliable classical Islamic sources can now be found in English translation in the Study Quran published in 2015 under the editorship of Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The final type of sources that I consulted are English translations of Qur’āncommentaries that are easily accessible to Muslims in the United States; I bought them in bookstores associated with Islamic organizations that are dialogue partners of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Most of the sources that can be obtained in this way tend to be traditional in nature, such as the Tafsīr by Ibn Kathīr. Some have a clear political agenda, such as the commentaries by influential twentieth-­ century scholars Sayyid Quṭb and Sayyid Abul A‘lā Mawdūdī. The final commentary that I accessed online (www.almizan.org) is by the Iranian Shi’a scholar Muḥammad Husayn al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī. His Tafsīr al-Mīzān comes closest to a contemporary theological commentary. Even though these sources are numerous, they often do not give any details about the texts concerning the ahl al-kitāb in the Qur’ān as this was not included in their primary field of interest. I will therefore have to be somewhat eclectic in my use of these sources (see the list of sources and abbreviations after this preface). The third and final layer of the commentary gives what I will call Christian resonances. The history of Western scholarship on the Qur’ān has been – and still is – preoccupied with efforts to find sources for the Qur’ān in the Bible, Jewish traditions, or Syriac Christianity. I will not look for sources, but I will try to find biblical, liturgical, doctrinal and theological resonances and sometimes parallels in the Christian theological tradition for what the Qur’ān has to say. My findings here will inescapably be limited by my own theological training that is most familiar with the Latin medieval tradition, and Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa in particular. While I often include biblical authors and contemporary Western theologians, I left unexplored many Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox writers since their works are becoming



PREFACE

XV

more available elsewhere. The longer I worked on this commentary, the more I became convinced that many resonances can be found in the liturgical prayers and readings of the Latin Christian tradition with which I am most familiar. At the same time, my conviction grew that there are strong theological parallels between the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture and the way in which Saint Paul in the New Testament critiques so-called “Judaizing” tendencies in the Christian community. At certain points, I even venture to find an analogy with the famous Religionskritik (critique of religion) by the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth. A final word about the structure of this book: as stated before, the core of this commentary is a discussion of the 31 texts from the Qur’ān that explicitly mention or address the “People of Scripture,” and I will do so in the “canonical” order in which the Qur’ān is traditionally printed. Most of these texts can be found in the quartet of long surahs 2-5 and these will form the subject matter of chapters 3-7. The other surahs of the Qur’ān that contain less explicit texts about the “People of Scripture” will be discussed in chapters 8-11. The relation between the 31 texts that explicitly relate to the “People of Scripture” and a number of similar expressions in the Qur’ān will be discussed in the second chapter that will introduce the terms ahl (“People”) and kitāb (“Scripture”) in order to get an idea of the semantic fields implied in these words. Yet before that, I wish to open the Qur’ān in the traditional way by commenting on its opening prayer, surah al-fātiḥah (“the opening”). I believe that experiencing this prayer and reflecting on it gives a good point of departure to endure the doubts, the polemics and the denials that will follow in the rest of the book. A dialogue needs to start with a point of departure, and invoking the name of the One who has given Muslims and Christians guidance to walk the straight path – even though we interpret this path differently – gives such an opening.

ABBREVIATIONS ad loc. ad locum: refers to the place in a commentary on a text AQI Ayoub, The Qur’ān and its Interpreters BC Boisliveau, Le Coran par lui-même CB Cuypers, The Banquet CCI Calder et al., Classical Islam DMB Donner, Muhammad and the Believers d. year of death (according to Hijri/Christian calendar) EQ Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, ed. McAuliffe FSQI Farrin, Structure and Qur’anic Interpretation H. Hijri (year according to Islamic calendar) MQS Madigan, The Qur’ân’s Self-Image MTUQ Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qur’ān n. note (in commentary); number (of ḥadīth) NAB New American Bible (Senior / Collins, Catholic Study Bible) NHQ Nöldeke et al., The History of the Qur’ān NKTS Neuwirth, Der Koran als Text der Spätantike NQC Neuwirth et al., The Qur’ān in Context NRSV The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version NSPC Neuwirth, Scripture, Poetry, and the Making of a Community Q.0:0a/b Al-Qur’ān (sūrah:āya) = (chapter:verse); a/b first/second half Q (AA) Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur’ān: A Contemporary Translation Q (AH) M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an Q (AJ) Alan Jones, The Qur’ān Q (Ar) A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted Q (Dr) A.J. Droge, The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation Q (MA) Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān Q (P) M.M. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’ān QSQ Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’ān QST Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Neuwirth / Sells RNPQ New Perspectives on the Qur’ān, ed. Reynolds RQBS Reynolds, The Qur’ān and its Biblical Subtext SQ The Study Quran, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr et al. Tanakh translation (Berlin / Brettler, Jewish Study Bible) T TbM al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Tafsīr al-Mīzān

XVIII

ABBREVIATIONS

TCQ al-Ṭabarī, Commentary on the Qur’ān, tr. Cooper TIK Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (abridged) TJJ Tafsīr al-Jalālayn TMJ Tafsīr Mujāhid ibn Jabr TMS Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān tr. translation WAN al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb al-Nuzūl

Chapter One

THE OPENING 1  in

the name of God the merciful, the mercy-giver 2  praise to God, lord of the worlds 3  the merciful, the mercy-giver 4  master of the day of judgment 5  you we serve and you we ask for help 6  guide us the straight way 7  the way of those you favored not of those on whom is wrath nor of them who go astray (Q.1:1-7) Since the title word fātiḥa (“opening”) is not mentioned in the text of this first sūrah (chapter) of the Qur’ān, it must describe the function of this text: it opens not only the book but, more importantly, the minds of those who are about to become receptive for the Word of God. Whereas almost all other surahs in the Qur’ān speak in the name of God, here the faithful speak to God in the form of a prayer. To say that every Muslim is supposed to know the Arabic text of this prayer together with its meanings is almost an understatement, since it forms a part of every rak‘ah of the prescribed daily prayers and therefore is prayed at least seventeen times every day.1 It makes sense to begin this Christian commentary on texts concerning the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān with a short reflection on this prayer that opens the Qur’ān, primarily because it enables the readers to become aware of the most important relationship that Islam and Christianity have in common: the appeal to God as One who guides us. While most of the following chapters of this book will discuss texts that emphasize differences between people who have each received God’s revelation, the opening 1  If one adds the voluntary prayers in which the fātiḥa is prayed as well, the number may become about forty times a day, see Zeki Saritoprak, “Insider’s Commentary” on surah 1 in Pim Valkenberg (ed.), World Religions in Dialogue: A Comparative Theological Approach (Winona MN: Anselm Academic, 2013) 108.

2

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

prayer of the Qur’ān helps us to focus on God’s mercy and guidance. Even though the differences between Islam and Christianity are disconcertingly deep, the two religions share the awareness that it is God who created us and that God is the One to whom we will return. For the Muslim, this is expressed in the opening by the words “lord of the worlds” and “master of the day of judgment.” For the Catholic Christian, it is expressed in the words of the Second Vatican Council that remind us that Christians and Muslims together “acknowledge the Creator” and “adore the one and merciful God who on the last day will judge mankind.”2 The Christian commentary on this opening chapter of the Qur’ān will consist of three layers as explained in the preface. First, I will give explanatory notes on key terms in the Arabic text translated at the beginning of this chapter.3 Second, I will discuss some of the most important elements from the Islamic tradition of interpretation.4 Even though the format of this commentary does not allow for a wide diachronic selection of Islamic sources, the multitude of perspectives and approaches represented will nevertheless undermine the often ideologically-motivated position that Islamic thought is univocal and ossified, enhancing the perception that there is a fundamental “clash of civilizations” between a monolithic Islamic world and a monolithic West.5 Finally, I will discuss some resonances in the Christian tradition to the texts from the Qur’ān. The word “resonances” indicates that I am not looking for sources or literary parallels but for functional parallels: texts that function in the Christian tradition in a way similar to the function of the text discussed in the Islamic tradition. For instance, quite a few scholars have observed that the Lord’s Prayer (the “Our Father”) seems to have a similar function in Christianity as sūrat 2  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 16, translation in the archive on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/ 3  Some of the explanatory notes have been taken from the excellent footnotes in the Qur’ān-translations by Muhammad Asad (MA), A.J. Droge (Dr), and the Study Quran (SQ). For the meanings of the Arabic key terms, I have usually consulted the dictionaries by Wehr, Lane, and sometimes the Lisān al-‘Arab. 4  In the choice and the interpretation of these Islamic sources I have been helped by several years of collaboration with Dr. Asma Afsaruddin. The Study Quran contains a good first overview of these sources. See also the contributions by Claude Gilliot, Nicolai Sinai and Andrew Rippin in Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual History: Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre, eds. Andreas Görke and Johanna Pink (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). 5  For a model discussion of this approach, see Asma Afsaruddin, Striving in the Path of God: Jihād and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).



THE OPENING

3

al-fātiḥa has in the Islamic tradition.6 Many of the resonances from the Christian tradition will be found either in the Scriptures of the Christian tradition, or in the Christian liturgy. In both cases, the Hebrew Bible forms an important source and later Jewish interpretations may be relevant as well. It is my hope that the identification and the discussion of such Christian resonances may lead the readers of this book to add their own associations and resonances to the ones mentioned in this book, thus contributing to intertextual foundations for future Christian – Muslim dialogue. 1:1 The Opening of the Opening 1  in

the name of God the merciful, the mercy-giver

Explanatory Notes This opening verse is known as the basmala, a contraction of the first three words in Arabic, bi-ismi llāhi (“In the name of God”). It is used very often by Muslims to open any meaningful event in a spirit of Godmindedness. The basmala opens every surah in the Qur’ān (with the exception of the ninth surah) but it is only numbered as a separate verse at this place. Bismi: “in the name of” or “by the name of” begins the invocation. The concept of “name” is important because this is how God can be known by human beings: because God decides to reveal God’s name or, in the plural, names. The Qur’ān often tells its hearers to call on God by the most beautiful names (al-asmā’ al-ḥusna, see Q.7:180; 17:110; 20:8; 59:24). In fact, the Qur’ān begins with three such names. Allah: the first and greatest of the names of God. According to most scholars, this name is a contraction of the definite article al (“the”) with the Semitic name for a deity: ilah. A literal translation of the name Allah therefore would be “the (one who is) God.” The first line of the Islamic creed (shahāda) in fact says: lā ilah ill-allāh, “there is no deity except the One who is God.” Some translators prefer to translate the word allāh as “God” while others prefer to leave it untranslated: Allah. This is an 6  Angelika Neuwirth, “Sūrat al-Fātiḥa (Q.1): Opening of the Textual Corpus of the Qur’an or Introit of the Prayer Service?” (NSPC 164-83) mentions several scholars on page 165. More recent examples in Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur’án (Ashland: White Cloud, 1999) 43 and Alain Feuvrier, S.J., “Lectures Croisées: lecture chrétienne de la sourate de l’Ouverture”, Christus 214 (2007) 193-97.

4

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

important theological decision with wide-ranging consequences.7 As a general rule, it can be said that those who translate “God” tend to stress the possibility for overlaps between Islam and other religious traditions, while those who leave the word untranslated tend to stress the specificity of the Islamic concept of God. Ar-raḥmān: the merciful. The consonantal root of this word, r-ḥ-m indicates mercy; a cognate word is raḥim, womb. God’s mercy is described in language that evokes a mother carrying a child. This is the second name of God in the basmala. In some texts, the Qur’ān uses the word raḥmān as a preferred name for God.8 Ar-raḥīm: the mercy-giver. Often this word is translated as “the compassionate,” however, the combination “the merciful, the compassionate” fails to evoke the strong effect of the repetition of two very similar words from the same root. Some languages are able to imitate this effect, but in English this is more difficult.9 The combination “the merciful, the mercy-giver,” though less eloquent, preserves something of this repetitive effect. The repetition of these two very similar words raises the issue of the exact difference between them; this is one of the topics traditionally discussed in the Islamic interpretations of this verse. Islamic Interpretations As is usual with every sūrah or chapter of the Qur’ān, the Islamic commentators begin with a series of general questions concerning the name or specific characteristics of the surah, and the specific circumstances or “occasions of the revelations” (asbāb an-nuzūl). In the case of sūrat al-fātiḥa, the commentators generally agree that this prayer has been revealed to Prophet Muhammad in Mecca as one of the earliest revelations because it is hard to think of the early Islamic community without this prayer.10 Even though the Islamic tradition is aware of the fact that the fātiḥa was omitted in some of the early manuscripts of the Qur’ān, it states that this chapter forms an integral part of the Qur’ān.11 7  See, among others, Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (New York: H ­ arperOne, 2011), and Bruce B. Lawrence, Who Is Allah? (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015). 8  Neuwirth (NKTS 472) writes about a middle-Meccan “Raḥmān-period” during which this became the usual name for God, until it was substituted by the name Allah. 9  In German: der Barmherzige and der Erbarmer; in Dutch: de barmhartige, de erbarmer. 10  Abū Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabari (d.H.310/923), Jami’ al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ay al-qur’an; English interpretation in AQI 1:41. 11  See AQI 1:42.



THE OPENING

5

The question of the names of sūrat al-fātiḥa has been much debated since many names have been given to this chapter, which is, according to al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), a sign of its excellence.12 Some of these names are allusions to other verses of the Qur’ān, such as umm al-kitāb (“The mother of the book”, Q.3:7) and sab‘ al-mathāni (“the seven oftrepeated”, Q.15:87).13 As stated before, sūrat al-fātiḥa is the most important prayer in the Qur’ān and in the Islamic tradition. A closer look at this prayer, and at its first verse, the basmala, should start with the awareness that this prayer is usually recited rather than read, in accordance with the meaning of the word qur’ān itself, which means “recitation” and is most probably derived from the Syriac word qeryânâ, which refers to a liturgical “reading”.14 In this context, it is relevant to know that in a recitation of the fātiḥa the basmala is preceded by another verse, a‘udhu bi-llāhi min as-shayṭān al-rajīm, “I seek refuge with God from the accursed Satan.” This custom goes back to the Qur’ān itself which says: “[Prophet], when you recite the Qur’an, seek God’s protection from the outcast, Satan.”15 The Turkish theologian Ali Ünal adds this verse as a preamble to his translation of al-fātiḥa and adds that this “is a prayer for God’s protection and help during the recitation against evil suggestions from Satan.”16 It helps the one who prays, recites or starts another good work with the fātiḥa to carve out space and time for the encounter with God. It also helps to enter into the prayer with the proper intention (nīya), which is necessary for the prayer to be valid. The custom of isti‘ādha or “seeking refuge with God” is therefore an important part of the Islamic discussion of the meanings of the first surah.17 12  Jalāl-al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Suyūṭī, The Perfect Guide to the Sciences of the Qur’ān (Al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān), transl. Ḥamid Algar et al. (Reading: Garnet, 2011) 123-27. 13  This last verse is interesting since it states: “We have given you the seven oftrepeated and the mighty qur’ān,” which seems to suggest that the seven oft-repeated verses of the Opening are not part of the Qur’ān. 14  See Madigan (MQS 130); Boisliveau (BC 55). Both refer to an earlier article by William A. Graham, “The Earliest Meaning of Qur’ān”, Die Welt des Islams 23-24 (1984) 361-77. 15  Q.16:98 (AH). 16  Ali Ünal, The Qur’ān with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English (Somerset: the Light, 2008), 2. 17  See, for instance, TCQ 46-47; Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (TIK 1:50-59); The Spiritual Cure: An Explanation to Sūrah al-Fātiḥah prepared and translated by Abū Rumaysah (Birmingham: Daar us-Sunnah, 2006) 35-55; M. Fethullah Gülen, Fatiha Üzerine Mülâhazalar (Izmir: Nil yayınları, 2007) 73-91.

6

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

As mentioned, one of the questions in the tafsīr tradition about the basmala is the difference between the two names of God, raḥmān and raḥīm. Looking at the specific form of the two words, most exegetes of the Qur’ān distinguish between raḥmān as the intensive form of the noun, and raḥīm as a more regular form, and conclude from this distinction that raḥmān refers to God’s mercy for the entire creation, while raḥīm refers to God’s specific mercy for God’s faithful servants.18 Christian Resonances If the basmala is the opening of the most important prayer in Islam, it makes sense to look for a Christian resonance associated with prayer as well. As Angelika Neuwirth suggests, the fātiḥa prayer presents itself as a new prayer for a new community, introduced most probably in the middle Meccan period because of the extensive parallels with sūrat al-ḥijr (Q.15) and the frequent use of the name Raḥmān for God.19 Moreover, she suggests that such a new prayer formula must be solemn in its structure and encompassing in its themes, as is, for instance, the enarxis or introit in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.20 Another parallel might be the first Psalm that also functions as opening of a prayer book.21 The parallel between the fātiḥa and the Lord’s Prayer will be considered later; at this place it suffices to point to a remarkable parallel in Christianity that presents a big challenge as well: the Islamic tradition of the names of God and the Christian tradition of the Trinity. When Christians initiate their prayer, they will usually open it with the following formula “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or: Ghost)”. It is very suggestive to make the following juxtaposition: In the name of God the merciful the mercy-giver

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

 AQI 1:43. Al-Ṭabarī (TCQ 55-59) mentions a number of different opinions.  See NKTS 371. On the parallels with sūrat al-ḥijr (Q.15), see Carl W. Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an: a New Guide with Select Translations (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011) 111. 20  See NSPC 177-79. 21  See Michel Cuypers, “Analyse rhétorique et critique historique: Réponse à Guillaume Dye,” MIDÉO 31 (2015), 55-82, at 72. Also, The Qur’an Seminar Commentary / Le Qur’an Seminar, ed. Mehdi Azaiez et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 48-49. 18 19



THE OPENING

7

The two opening formulas are very similar – and entirely different at the same time. In the Islamic prayer, the one God is invoked with three different names, while in the Christian prayer the one God is invoked in three nodes of relationship, commonly identified as three “persons” in God.22 In the history of Christian-Muslim encounters, Christian theologians have often tried to use the Islamic traditions of the names and the attributes (ṣifāt) of God as a model to explain the Trinity, but Muslim theologians have generally not been inclined to accept this “bridge” between the two traditions.23 So it would be wrong to think that Christians and Muslims intend to say something similar when they say the basmala or invoke the Trinity. However, the two formulas may be seen as having a parallel function: they express the intention to focus on the One God whom the two religions worship in different ways.24 This becomes even clearer when one brings to mind the origin of the Trinitarian formula in the practice of baptism according to Matthew 28:19: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.”25 In many churches, the confession of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit that developed in answer to the baptismal questions, “do you believe in the Father / the Son / the Spirit?” comes after a series of apotropaic questions (“do you reject Satan / and all his works / and all his empty promises?”) that sound very similar to the formula “I seek refuge with God from the accursed Satan.” These opening rites – and in the case of the Qur’ān a closing rite as well in Q.113 and Q.114 that contain similar prayers of refuge – draw our attention to the fact that we are going to listen to what is believed to be the Word of God indeed, so a special form of attention and listening is required.26 22  Many Christian theologians, among them Karl Rahner and Karl Barth, have pointed out that the word “person” easily leads to misunderstandings, since the modern concept of the word suggests there being three individualities in God, which would be a form of tritheism. 23  See David Thomas, s.v. “taṭḥlīṭḥ (Trinity)” in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. X (­Leiden: Brill, 1999) 373-75. 24  Neuwirth speaks about “eine radikale Umdeutung der christlichen Invokation der Trinität” (NKTS 241). 25  Matthew 28:19 NAB. 26  For the parallels between the first surah of the Qur’ān and the last two, see Raymond Farrin, Structure and Qur’anic Interpretation: a Study of Symmetry and Coherence in Islam’s Holy Text (White Cloud Press: Ashland OR, 2014 = FSQI) 7-8. As Angelika Neuwirth (NSPC 169) remarks, Q.113-114 were not part of Ibn Mas’ud’s pre-­Uthmanic codex, just like the fātiḥa.

8

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

1:2-5 Praise and Worship 2  praise to God, lord of the worlds 3  the merciful, the mercy-giver 4  master of the day of judgment

5  you

we serve and you we ask for help

Explanatory Notes “Praise to God” are the opening words of the Qur’ān according to those who think that the basmala should not be counted as a separate verse, or that it was added later (FSQI 2-3). Muslims often say “Al-ḥamdu lillāh,” not only as a sign of thanks when something good happens, but also as a sign of acceptance in adversity. The verb ḥamida means to praise or extoll someone; the names Aḥmad and Muḥammad are derived from this root as well. The repetition of “the merciful, the mercy-giver” (ar-raḥmān, ar-raḥīm) in verse 3 is seen by some as an indication that the basmala in verse 1 has been added later, while others consider it as a festive repetition of God’s mercy, balancing the emphasis on God’s power in verses 2 and 4 (FSQI 6). The word “master” (or “king” with a different vocalization) in verse 4 expresses a notion of authority over something, and therefore it forms a parallel with the word rabb (“Lord”) in verse 2 that indicates that God is in control over the inhabitants of the earth (‘ālamīn or “worlds”). “Day of Judgment” (yawm al-dīn) is an important expression that refers to the moment when God will pass judgment over all human beings. One can find many references to the eschatological reality of the “Day of Judgment” or “Day of Resurrection” or – more simply – “the other world” or “the hour” in the Qur’ān. The Turkish scholar Said Nursi argues that the reality of Resurrection is one of the main themes of the Qur’ān, together with the Oneness of God, Prophecy, and Justice.27 The beginning of the last verse with the emphatic iyyāka (“you”) as a separate word instead of a suffix points to the centrality of God as the One on whom everything else rests. This is expressed in two verbs in the first person plural: na‘budu and nasta‘īn. The root ‘-b-d indicates a relation of servanthood or even slavery, and it is often used in names that describe this relationship such as ‘Abdullah, “servant of God.” The translation here 27  See his Ishārāt al-I‘jāz fi Mazann al-Ijāz, English translation: Signs of Miraculousness. The Inimitability of the Qur’an’s Conciseness (Istanbul: Sözler Publications, 2004).



THE OPENING

9

opts for the more general category “serve”, instead of the more specific “worship” as many translators do. Even though the root can have this meaning (‘ibāda means “worship”) it is better to keep the different possibilities for interpretation open and therefore to choose the broader expression. The final verb means “to try to find help”. Islamic Interpretations Aṭ-Ṭabarī discusses the authorship of these verses: if we believe that the Qur’ān is the word of God, how can God praise Himself? He answers that God in these verses teaches us how to praise Him (TCQ 63). Some commentators argue that an implicit “say:” needs to be added in front of the verse, which would make the praise an answer to a divine command (TJJ 1). The commentators wonder why the plural word ‘ālamīn (“worlds”) is used. Al-Ṭabarī (TCQ 64) remarks that the singular ‘ālam is a collective noun that refers to a community, but al-Qurṭubī adds that it more specifically refers to rational beings, so an old tradition, following the early exegete Ibn ‘Abbās (d. H.69/689) says that the plural refers to the world of human beings and the world of the jinn (spirits). Whereas the rest of creation follows its own nature in praising God, humans and jinn have a free will and therefore need a reminder to praise God (FSQI 3). The commentators also discuss the two variant readings in verse 4, mālik (“master”) and malik (“king”). Al-Ṭabarī actually prefers the latter reading since it is derived from a word that means “sovereignty” and it indicates God’s absolute sovereignty on the Day of Judgment (TCQ 67). God is the only one who is able to pass judgment or, as many interpreters translate, “reckoning”, referring to the account of all created beings that will be laid open on that day.28 Verse 5 makes the transition from praise to supplication by mentioning the human attitude that is in keeping with the praise: an attitude of humility and submissiveness. While others emphasize the aspects of fear and hope in these verses, al-Ṭabarī (TCQ 69) highlights the aspects of humility and submission. Christian Resonances This part of the fātiḥa starts with a praise of God that addresses God’s greatness (“Lord”, “master”) and mercy. At the end, God is addressed 28  Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, ed. Aḥmad Farīd (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmīya, 1424/2003), I:24.

10

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

directly with an emphatic “you” and asked for help. The combination of what Neuwirth characterizes as hymnal praise and communal petitionary prayer is well known in the Christian tradition that, in its turn, derived this mode of prayer from the structure of many Jewish prayers.29 While the Jewish prayer from the New Testament known as the Lord’s Prayer has a similar structure, the best resonance with the transition from hymnal praise to worship may be found in one of the opening prayers in the Latin rite of Christianity, the “Gloria” prayer. Its core goes back to one of the scenes surrounding the nativity of Christ in the Gospel according to Luke, where the angels sing the following hymn: “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”30 In its liturgical form, the Gloria or “Greater Doxology” is sung or recited at the beginning of the Mass – except during Advent and Lent – after the introductory rites and the Kyrie prayer. The Gloria prayer is much longer and even more solemn and festive in its tone than the fātiḥa prayer, but it is not difficult to find some interesting resonances. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God almighty Father. Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father, Amen.31

Again, we find ample common ground, mainly in the beginning and the end, but also significant differences. Almost all concepts in the lines of the fātiḥa can be found in the Gloria as well albeit not in the same order: God – praise – earth / world – Lord – King – mercy – prayer – seated (in judgement). Even though these are common concepts in almost all monotheistic religions in which God is seen as transcendent and yet involved in creation, it makes sense to flag such common concepts as  Neuwirth (NSPC 177).  Luke 2:14 NAB. The Greek anthrōpois eudokias (“People of favor”) resonates with Q.1:7 (“those you favored”); this resonance is lost in the Latin “People of good will.” I owe thanks to Daniel Madigan for this reference. 31  Text of the English translation from the Latin Gloria according to the New English Roman Catholic Mass (introduced in 2011), retrieved from CatholicBridge.com on July 7, 2015. 29 30



THE OPENING

11

possible points of departures for Christian-Muslim dialogue. The Second Vatican Council has mentioned some common points in the relation between the Church and Islam several times, first in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium (1964) and later in the declaration Nostra Aetate (1965). Lumen Gentium 16 says the following: “[t]he plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”32 Nostra Aetate 3 builds on this description and adds a few extra elements while retaining the same four basic affirmations that bind Christians and Muslims together: One God – merciful – creator – judge on the last day. Whereas the Gloria prayer joins the fātiḥa prayer in addressing God and asking God for help, it also contains elements that Muslims would not recognize as important or even admissible in their relation to God. These are the Trinitarian formulae in the middle and the end, as well as the phrase about taking away the sins of the world, which implies a theological notion that is alien to Islam. Whereas both Christianity and Islam emphasize the idea of God’s Lordship and God’s Oneness, Christianity worships God as the Son who takes away the sins of the world. In contrast, Islam worships God as the One who gives guidance to human beings. 1:6-7 Seeking Guidance 6  guide us (to/on) the straight way 7  the way of those you favored

not of those on whom is wrath nor of them who go astray Explanatory Notes The first word, ihdina (“guide us”) explains the kind of help that the previous verse asked for: hudan or “guidance.” This is an important concept in the Qur’ān, and it will recur in the very beginning of the next surah: “That is the Scripture – no doubt in it; guidance for those who are watchful.” (Q.2:2). Hudan specifically refers to right guidance, as is 32  Second Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 16, translation according to Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/ (last accessed January 8, 2018).

12

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

expressed in the remainder of the verse: al-ṣirāt al-mustaqīm, “the straight way”.33 However, it is not clear whether we ask to be guided “to the straight path” or “on the straight path,” since the Arabic has no preposition.34 The difference matters theologically since, if we ask to be guided to the straight path we presuppose that we do not yet know this path, while if we ask to be guided on the path, we infer that we are already somehow on this path. But then again, what exactly does the metaphor of “path” refer to, and how are we to receive guidance concerning this path? The Islamic interpretations will discuss these questions. A related discussion concerns the exact meaning of the three groups mentioned in the last verse. The first group is those who are favored (an‘amta: “you have favored”) by God. Some translations suggest a material favor but in the context of the Qur’ān the blessings likely refer to God’s giving the opportunity to follow the straight path. Muhammad Asad translates “the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings” and adds a footnote, remarking that this means that God has provided them with prophetic guidance.35 The second group is “those on whom is wrath.” The important word here is maghḍūb (the object of anger). While many translators add between brackets “(Your) anger”, Abdel Haleem translates “those who incur no anger” and adds a note indicating that the anger is not attributed to God here.36 The final group is “those who go astray”; the verb is ḍalla (“to err, to go astray”) and the last word of the verse, ḍāllīn with its two long vowels, is extended significantly in recitation, indicating that one who does not follow the straight path is really wandering very far astray. Islamic Interpretations The mufassirūn (exegetes, those who practice tafsīr) discuss two main questions with reference to the last two verses of the fātiḥa. The first question is the identity of the “straight path”. Al-Ṭabarī mentions a few interpretations by close companions of Prophet Muḥammad: 33  The Arabic language frequently employs different words to indicate concepts of “way, path” with specific religious meanings, such as sabīl, ṭarīq(a), ṣirāt and sharī‘(a). 34  Some translators leave the preposition out (often translating “show us the straight way,” Yusuf Ali), some translate “guide us to the straight path” (Abdel Haleem, Droge), some translate “keep us on the right path” (Shakir, also Rodwell and Sahih International). 35  Q.1:7 (MA). 36  Q.1:7 (AH). His translation favors the possibility that the Qur’ān mentions one group here (not three).



THE OPENING

13

it is the Book of God (Abdallah Ibn ‘Abbās), it is the religion of God (Jābir ibn Abdallah) or it is the Prophet of God (Ḥasan al-Basri). From a Shi’a perspective, the straight path can be identified as ‘Ali, the first imām, or the House of the Prophet.37 The second question relates to the identity of the three groups mentioned. While it is evident that the Muslims are “those on whom God’s favor is” according to the Islamic interpretations, the identification of Jews and Christians as the two other groups needs some explanation. We find this interpretation already in the early commentary attributed to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, conceived around 150 after the hijra (770 A.D.). He interprets Q.1:6-7 as follows: The “straight path” is the religion of Islam, because outside of the religion of Islam there is no straightness; the “way of those you favored” refers to the prophets on whom God bestowed prophethood (Q.19:58). “Not on those on whom is wrath” means: lead us on a religion, not of the Jews, on whom God’s wrath was, since He made them apes and swines (Q.5:60). “Nor of them who go astray” means: and not the religion of the associators, that is of the Christians.38

The source of this identification of Jews and Christians as people referred to in Q.1:7 can be found in the Qur’ān itself as interpreted by some prophetic sayings transmitted in ḥadīth-collections. Al-Ṭabarī summarizes this traditional method of interpreting the Qur’ān by way of tradition (tafsīr bi’l ma’thūr or “interpretation based upon transmitted sources”39). The first step of this method is to find a parallel text in the Qur’ān that can be used to interpret the phrase at hand since it uses the same vocabulary. In this case the verse refers to “[w]homsoever God has cursed, and with whom He is wroth (ghaḍiba ‘alayhi).”40 Since this verse does not give a direct interpretation, al-Ṭabarī mentions a few traditions – the second step of the method – that identify the Jews as the people upon whom God’s wrath is. The same procedure is used with reference to “those who go astray”: in a verse quite close to the verse just cited, 37  See TCQ 74 and AQI 1:49 respectively. I follow the Islamic custom of referring to “Prophet Muhammad” when discussing Islamic interpretations. At other places I follow the non-Islamic custom of referring to “the prophet Muhammad”. 38  TMS 1:25-26, my summarizing translation with references added. On the possible origin of the statement that God made the Jews apes and swines, see RQBS, 106-17. 39  See Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “The tasks and traditions of interpretation” in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 181-209, at 189. 40  Q.5:60 as translated in TCQ 77.

14

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the Qur’ān addresses the “People of Scripture” as follows: “People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, other than the truth, and follow not the caprices of a people who went astray before, and led many astray, and now again have gone astray from the right way.”41 This verse seems to form a parallel because of the use of the verb ḍalla in combination with “right way,” but the group is not clearly identified, so al-Ṭabarī once again quotes a number of traditions that identify the Christians as the ones who go astray. This then becomes the default interpretation of which Ibn Kathīr (d. H.774/1373) gives the following summary: These two paths are the paths of the Christians and the Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from the proper resources. This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allāh said about the Jews, “Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allāh and His wrath” (5:60). The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allāh said about them, “Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path” (5:77).42

In this way, the association with Jews as those who incurred (God’s) anger and Christians who went astray becomes part of the traditional interpretation of the last verse of the fātiha, even in the case of Muslim scholars who are known to be open to dialogue with Jews and Christians, such as Fethullah Gülen.43 It is also discussed in the footnotes of traditional Muslim interpretations of the meanings of the Qur’ān in English.44 The Study Quran gives the following summary: “Based upon a saying attributed to the Prophet, though not considered to be of the  Q.5:77 as translated in TCQ 78.  TIK 1:87. 43  Gülen, Fatiha Üzerine, 244-47. 44  See Interpetation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’ān in the English Language by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996) 14 n. 1. Michael Sells showed me that this association is even inserted (between brackets) in the interpretation itself in some editions of the Khan/Hilali text! 41

42



THE OPENING

15

highest degree of authenticity, one interpretation given by a number of commentators is that those who incur wrath and those who are astray refer to Jews and Christians, respectively.”45 Christian Resonances When I teach a class on Islam or on Christian-Muslim relations, I usually start by letting the students write a response paper to sūrat al-fātiḥa in which I ask them to give their personal response to this short prayer. After that, I teach them about the main concepts of this text and its place in the religion of most Muslims. This enables students not only to register their first reactions to a text from the Qur’ān with which they are unfamiliar, but also to notice what they have learned about Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at the end of the course by looking back on this first response. Since many students identify as faithful Catholics, they often ask themselves whether they could pray this prayer as Christians, and usually they do not see many obstacles to such prayer practices since nothing in the text seems to run counter to what Catholics or other Christians believe. Yet, when I tell the students about traditional Islamic interpretations, some are shocked and immediately ask if this idea that Jews incur God’s wrath and Christians go astray is really in the text. Were this the case, the prayer that they embraced as a beautiful expression of monotheistic faith would immediately lose its attraction. In my classes I use this as a teaching moment about the intricate relation between text and interpretation: on the one hand, an historical approach to sūrat al-fātiḥa tells us that the association of Jews with wrath and of Christians with going astray is not a part of the original text – even though we do not know much about its origins – but brought into the text by a later tradition of interpretation that presupposes the existence of three clearly distinguishable religions in a state of antagonism.46 On the other hand, this later tradition is evidently part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of the text itself and therefore cannot be totally separated from 45  SQ 11 (on Q.1:7). The commentators added between brackets are Ibn Kathīr, Jalālayn, Qurṭubī, al-Ṭabarī, and Zamakhsharī. This procedure is characteristic for the Study Quran: it shows that there is substantial support for this interpretation in the Muslim tradition, however, this is based on a weak ḥadīth and does therefore not have the highest authority. 46  According to Fred Donner, the boundaries between the faithful followers of the qur’ānic revelations on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other were quite porous until the end of the first century after the hijra. See Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: at the Origins of Islam (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).

16

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

it. Any Christian commentary on the fātiḥa has to deal with this complicated history in which layers of later interpretations have shaped the present situation in which we try to read this text as part of a dialogue. So – I tell my students – this example makes clear how important it is to see that texts always have been interpreted differently and that even our English translations show very specific interpretations of the Arabic text. After this intermezzo about the awareness of traditional forms of interpretation as an integral part of the reception of a text, I want to finish with the juxtaposition of the Fātiḥa to the prayer with which it is functionally equivalent, viz. the “Our Father” or the Lord’s Prayer in Christianity. This prayer has its core in the prayer of Jesus according to the Gospel of Matthew (6:9-13).47 The parallel between the Fātiḥa and the Lord’s Prayer is not a textual but a functional parallel: the two texts function in a similar manner as a generally accepted prayer formula for Muslims and for Christians respectively.48 They also have some parallels in prayer form, such as invocation, praise and petition. In the name of God the merciful, the mercy-giver

Our Father in heaven

praise to God, lord of the worlds the merciful, the mercy-giver master of the day of judgment you we serve and you we ask for help

hallowed be your name your kingdom come

 

your will be done on earth as it is in heaven

guide us on/to the straight way give us today our daily bread the way of those you favored and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors not of those on whom is wrath and do not subject us to the final test nor of them who go astray but deliver us from the evil one

47  Tr. NAB. This translation differs from the text of the Lord’s Prayer as used in the liturgy; different Christian denominations use different prayer texts; there are ecumenical translations as well. The Gospel according to Luke (11:2-4) has a different and much shorter text. 48  See Cuypers, “Analyse rhétorique et critique historique,” 72.

Chapter Two

PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE 1  Alif

Lām Mīm 2  That is the Scripture – no doubt in it guidance for those who are watchful 3  who believe in the unseen and position the prayer and from what we provided them they spend 4  and who believe in what was sent down to you and what was sent down before you and of the hereafter they are certain 5  those are upon guidance from their lord and those are they who are successful (Q.2:1-5) 2:2 That is the Scripture – sent down to you and before you As an introduction to the analysis of the term ahl al-kitāb or “People of Scripture” that I will provide in this chapter, I want to come back to the first five verses of the second surah of the Qur’ān, sūrat al-baqara. The Arabic title of this surah is usually translated as “the cow” since it refers to a discussion between Moses the prophet and his people in Q.2:67-74 concerning a cow that needs to be sacrificed. The story is rather detailed and complicated yet it clearly fits into a pattern in which the “children of Israel” (banū isrā’īl) are addressed as people who are blessed by God but impertinent and unthankful.1 Much of this surah discusses events related to the Jewish people, and Muslim exegetes have often paired the second and the third chapters of the Qur’ān together, in the understanding that Q.2 mainly refers to debates with Jews, while Q.3 mainly refers 1  The address to the “People of Israel” can be found in Q.2:40 but also Q.2:47 and Q.2:122. The term refers to the people of Israel as partners in God’s covenant at the time of the Hebrew bible, or in terms of the Qur’ān, the Tawrāt. But at the same time, the term refers to the Jewish tribes that prophet Muhammad was to address in his recitation of the revelations received by him.

18

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

to debates with Christians. As Raymond Farrin observes, “both chapters were revealed in Medina during the prolonged debate with Jews and Christians about fundamental beliefs. Accordingly, Chapter 2 deals especially with the contentions of Jews, whereas Chapter 3 deals especially with contentions of Christians; as a pair, they respond to arguments by the People of the Book.”2 Explanatory Notes The first five verses of sūrat al-baqara contain many important concepts that have raised some interesting questions. In the context of this commentary I can only point to a few major concepts that will be important for the further analysis. Alif Lām Mīm: Q.2 begins with three detached letters that do not form a word. Many scholars think that these letters contain an indication of certain subject matters or that they indicate the place where the surah would fit in the collection of fragments of the Qur’ān. Islamic scholars usually say that God alone knows the exact meaning of the detached letters.3 “That is the Scripture” (dhālik al-kitāb) is as enigmatic as the detached letters themselves.4 One would have expected a form of self-presentation (“This is an important book; read it!!”) but in that case the phrase would have been “this is the Scripture in which there is no doubt”.5 The reference to Scripture cannot denote a physical book with text, since such a physical book (muṣḥaf or “codex”) was not in existence when the words were recited. Some translators obviously do not notice this problem, and interpret the verse as a case of self-presentation: “This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt” (AH) or “this is the Book free of doubt” (AA). This is in line with the majority opinion among the mufassirūn (commentators) that dhālika (“that”) equals hadha (“this”).6 Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, for instance, says that God revealed another  FSQI 24.  I will come back to the detached letters in the section “The Announcements” in chapter 8 of this commentary. For a recent overview of hypotheses, see Devin Stewart, “The mysterious letters and other formal features of the Qur’ān in light of Greek and Babylonian oracular texts,” RNPQ 323-48. 4  Stewart (RNPQ 344-45) notices that the combination of the detached letters and the words dhālika or tilka (female) for “that” occurs more often in the Qur’ān, among others at the beginnings of Q.10, 12, 13, 15, 26, 27, 28 and 31. 5  On the concept of self-presentation, see Madigan (MQS) and Boisliveau (BC). 6  See AQI 1:62. 2 3



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

19

Scripture after Moses, and “this is the Scripture that the Jews disbelieved.”7 In this way, the polemics with the Jews is introduced from the very beginning. However, many Islamic exegetes noticed that it would be too simple to interpret “that” as “this”, and they tried to explain this word in a number of different ways. The first opinion was that kitāb (“Scripture”) here refers to earlier revelations to the prophet Muhammad, or that it refers to the detached letters as a symbol of these; others have said that it refers to earlier revelations to other prophets, and to the Torah and the Gospel in particular. A third opinion is that it refers to what God has prescribed for Himself, namely that His mercy would precede His wrath.8 The fourth opinion is that it refers to an original version of the Scripture that is with God in heaven.9 This notion of an original kitāb that would be the source of the different revelations on earth is related to two phrases that have been important in the Islamic theology of revelation. In the first place, there is the notion of a “preserved tablet” (lawḥ maḥfūẓ) according to Q.85:21-22, “it is a glorious recitation (qur’ān) on a well-preserved tablet.” The other notion is that of a “mother of the book” (umm al-kitāb) according to Q.13:39 “with God is the mother of Scripture.” The fact that the Islamic tradition of interpretation, despite its tendency to immediately identify kitāb with the Qur’ān, preserves a number of other traditions, points to the multiple meanings of this word, to which we will return soon. “Guidance for those who are watchful” (hudan li-l-muttaqīn). The word hudā (guidance) is derived from the same root as the verb ihdinā (“guide us”) in Q.1:6, and it summarizes what Muslims ask from God: guide us on the right way. Muslims believe that God has sent the Qur’ān in answer to this prayer. Those who are willing to be thus guided are characterized as muttaqūn, a word derived from the root w-q-y that basically means “to guard, to protect.” The noun derived from one of the forms of this verb is taqwā, which is usually translated as “fear of God” or “Godliness;” other possible translations are “being mindful of God” or even “devoutness” or “piety.” While the word has a very important religious connotation, it is rather difficult to translate, since “God-­fearing” is often misunderstood, and “devout” or “pious” severs the connection with the basic meaning of  See TMS 1:28 on Q.2:2.  “My mercy precedes my wrath” comes from a well-known ḥadīth. The association with Scripture comes from the verb kataba (“to write”) in Q.6:54 “God has prescribed mercy for Himself”. 9  The four opinions in AQI: 62-63 are derived from al-Ṭabarī. 7 8

20

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the verb. I decided to translate “watchful” in order to preserve the basic meaning of being wary or guarding oneself against some evil. Yet in order not to restrict its meaning to a religious connotation, I did not add a reference of God here, even though it is obviously intended.10 The following verses (Q.2:3-5) describe three forms of belief (īmān) implied by “being watchful:” belief in the unseen, in what has been sent down, and in the hereafter. It also implies two forms of practice (islām): prayer and giving.11 “Who believe in what has been sent down to you and what has been sent down before you” (yu’minūna bimā unzila ilayka wa unzila min qablika) is one of the elements of belief. Islamic interpreters connect these words with belief in the prophet Muhammad, but also the prophets before him. In the later tradition it will be phrased as belief in the kutub (Scriptures) in the plural: not only the revelation sent down to prophet Muḥammad who is apparently addressed here, but also the revelation sent down before him. Muqātil identifies “what has been sent down before you” as the Torah (tawrāt), the Gospel (injīl) and the Psalms (zubur).12 nazala, “to come down” is a verb that is used very often in the Qur’ān in contexts that imply an act of revelation.13 In Q.2:4, the forth form of the verb is used in its passive voice, unzila, in order to indicate God as the implied subject of the sending. Such a passivum divinum is used quite often in the Qur’ān, indicating that God is always related to whatever happens, but differently from the way in which created actors are related to what happens.14 At this place, the most remarkable aspect is that the same construction is used for the revelation to the prophet Muhammad and the revelation to previous prophets. 10  For an analysis of the central importance of the notion of taqwā in the Qur’ān, see chapter six, “Lateral and Hierarchical Religious Difference in the Qur’ān” in Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Never Wholly Other: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). She bases her analysis on prior work by Asma Barlas and Toshihiko Izutsu. 11  For an analysis of the notions of imān, islām and iḥsān, see Sachiko Murata and William Chittick, The Vision of Islam (New York: Paragon House, 1994). 12  See TMS 1:29. 13  See Daniel Madigan, “Revelation and Inspiration,” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān vol. IV (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 437-48; Pim Valkenberg, “Das Konzept der Offenbarung im Islam aus der Perspektive Komparativer Theologie,” in: Komparative Theologie: interreligiöse Vergleiche als Weg der Religionstheologie, eds. Reinhold Bernhardt, Klaus von Stosch (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009) 123-45. 14  For the consequences of the distinction between God’s way of acting and the ways in which creatures act, see David B. Burrell, C.S.C., Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993).



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

21

The combination of verse 2 (“that is the Scripture”) and verse 4 (“what has been sent down to you and before you”) offers a first glimpse of the complicated situation addressed in the notion of the ahl al-kitāb or “People of Scripture:” on the one hand, Scripture exists as something without doubt with God; on the other hand, it exists on earth in multiplicity, sent down from heaven to different prophets and different people. Muslims believe not only in the Qur’ān as the Scripture sent down to Muḥammad, but also in other Scriptures sent down by God to other prophets and their peoples. The term Ahl al-kitāb (“People of Scripture”) The remainder of this chapter will focus on the use of the word combination, ahl al-kitāb, usually translated as “People of the Book.” I will give an analysis of the two words that form the combination and their occurrence in the Qur’ān. Since there are a number of parallel expressions and other uses of the two words in the word combination, I will consider a sizeable number of parallel expressions in the Qur’ān as well, in order to get a good overall picture of the possible meanings implied. This investigation will enable me to better focus on the separate texts with the word combination in the other chapters of this book.15 Ahl al-kitāb or “People of Scripture” is the most important term used in the Qur’ān to indicate both the commonalities and the differences between the people to whom the prophets Muhammad, Moses and Jesus announced the revelations they received. The term expresses by and large the same commonalities and differences as the modern term “Abrahamic religions.” In both cases, the terms are often used one-sidedly; while the negative connotations of the terms were predominant in the history of the encounters between these religions, the positive connotations are often dominant in modern-day interreligious discourse. A closer inspection of the term “People of Scripture” will show how the positive and the negative connotations can be seen as two sides of the same debate 15  While editing this book, I was given access to two dissertations on the ahl al-kitāb, by Richard L. Kimball (“The People of the Book, ahl al-kitāb: A Comparative Theological Exploration”, PhD thesis defended at Trinity College, Dublin in 2017, now published New York: Peter Lang, 2019) and by Mohsen Goudarzi (“The Second Coming of the Book: A Radical Rethinking of Qur’anic Scripturology”, draft of a thesis defended at Harvard University in 2018). To my knowledge, Goudarzi’s research has not yet been published.

22

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

on what it means to have received God’s revelation, thus adding an important dimension to the Qur’ānic discussion of religious otherness.16 The term “People of Scripture” does not exclusively refer to members of these older religions that have received revelation before Muhammad and, following him, the Muslim faithful, but in the Qur’ān the term either refers to Jews, or to Christians, or to both. Yet the term is deliberately vague and leaves open the possibility that other people have received revelation in the past as well. At several places in the Qur’ān, Christians and Jews are mentioned together with adherents of other religions, such as the Sabians and the Magians, in order to indicate the possibility that other monotheists might be on their way to God as well. A case in point is Q.2:62, “Verily, those who have attained to faith [in this divine writ], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith, and the Christians, and the Sabians – all who believe in God and the Last Day and do righteous deeds – shall have their reward with their Sustainer; and no fear need they have, and neither shall they grieve.”17 This is one of a handful of texts in the Qur’ān in which followers of different religions are juxtaposed as being capable of receiving reward from God if they follow the right faith and the right practice. However, most texts that address such believers explicitly as “People of Scripture” limit this capacity for eternal reward to only some of them. Therefore, even though the Qur’ān seems to address a similarity when it describes religious others as having received revelation and thus being people of Scripture, it in fact addresses a deeper difference that separates the real faithful from those who only claim to be heirs of a religious tradition. In this sense the Qur’ān does not escape from but rather reinforces the historical reality in which rival religions fight over their claimed inheritance. Again, the term “Abrahamic religions” may serve as a parallel here. In both cases, the supposed common ground between Muslims, Jews and Christians reveals a deeper rivalry originating in the claim to be the true followers of God’s guidance.18 However, the deliberate vagueness about the 16  See Mun’im Sirry, Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’ān and Other Religions (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) and Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Never Wholly Other. 17  Translation Muhammad Asad, Q (MA) 21. Asad remarks that the Sabians are probably followers of John the Baptist, to be identified with the Mandaeans in Iraq. Q.5:69 has a similar text, and Q.22:17 adds the Majūs, to be identified with Zoroastrians (the “Magi”). 18  On the term “Abrahamic religions”, see the balanced exposition by Karl-Joseph Kuschel in Streit um Abraham: Was Juden, Christen und Muslime trennt – und was sie eint (München: Kösel, 1994). For a discussion from the point of view of a comparative



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

23

boundaries of who can be counted among the “People of Scripture” may also serve to remind us that human beings often want to draw untimely boundaries in situations where the final decision is up to God who “will make us truly understand all that on which we used to differ.”19 After this first delineation of the theological importance of the term “People of Scripture,” I will now take a closer look at the word combination. I prefer to translate “People of Scripture” rather than “People of the Scripture” or “Scriptures” because I take “Scripture” here as an indefinite collective noun that sometimes refers to a specific Scripture – either the Scripture revealed to Muhammad (some 70 times in the Qur’ān), or to an earlier Scripture (108 times, mostly the tawrāt, sometimes the injīl) – but quite often to an indefinite Scripture (76 times) that is sacred, with God, or revealed by God.20 The translation “Scripture” instead of “Book” will be explained below. The Arabic words ahl al-kitāb together form what grammarians call a status constructus or a construct state in which a noun (ahl, meaning “people” or “family”) is modified or specified by a second noun, in this case kitāb, which basically means “something written.” Since both words are quite common and have different shades of meaning, it is important to first have a closer look at them separately. Ahl The Concordance of the Qur’an mentions “people, family, folk, household, owner(s), inhabitant(s)” as basic meanings.21 This concordance gives a list of 124 occurrences of this word in the Qur’ān, a quarter of which in the combination “People of the Book”. According to the Arabic – English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, the word ahl has the basic meaning of “people” or “family”. In Q.2:126, for instance, Abraham asks God to bless the land (balad) and its people (ahl) sociology of religion, see Reuven Firestone, Who Are the Real Chosen People? The Meaning of Chosenness in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Woodstock VT: SkyLight Paths Publications, 2008). For a somewhat exaggerated critique of the misuse of the term “Abrahamic religions,” see Aaron W. Hughes, Abrahamic Religions: on the Uses and Abuses of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). 19  See Q.5:48. For an extended interpretation of this verse, see chapter seven. 20  For Scripture as an indefinite collective noun, see SQ 254 (on Q.4:136): “Although Book is used in the singular here, it refers to all previous revealed books, that is, to “scripture” used as a collective noun. The numbers attached to the different uses of kitāb are taken from Boisliveau, Le Coran par lui-même, 273. 21  Accessed through www.oxfordislamicstudies.com on February 20, 2014.

24

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

– at least, those who believe in God and the Last Day. It has a narrower meaning in Q.28:12 where Moses’s sister tells the wet nurses associated with Pharaoh that she knows a household (ahl) that would be able to feed him and take care of him. In a more general sense, ahl can also mean “owners of” (as in Q.4:58) or “inhabitants of” (as in Q.18:71). In many cases, the word ahl is used as the first part of a construct state, and in that case the word can have a literal meaning such as “the people of the city” (ahl al-medīna, Q.9:120) or “the people of the house” (ahl albayt, Q.11:73). But in some cases, the word ahl can mean “worthy of” or “deserving of”, for instance in ahl al-nār meaning “the inhabitants of hellfire” (Q.38:64).22 Among the combinations of ahl in construct state with another word, the combination ahl al-kitāb is the most frequent; this combination can be found 31 times in the Qur’ān.23 The large majority is found in the longer surahs that are printed in the beginning of the Qur’ān. The combination occurs most frequently in the third surah, Āl ‘Imrān, that contains a number of discussions with Christians and – to a lesser extent – Jews. The term ahl al-kitāb is used twelve times in this chapter of the Qur’an (Q.3:64-65, 69-72, 75, 98-99, 110, 113,199). It is used twice in surah al-baqara (Q.2:105, 109), four times in al-nisā’ (Q.4:123, 153, 159, 171) and six times in al-mā’ida (Q.5:15, 19, 59, 65, 68, 77). This means that the four longest surahs of the Qur’ān contain more than three quarters of the number of references to ahl al-kitāb. The other seven references to ahl al-kitāb can be found in Q.29:46, Q.33:26, Q.57:29, Q.59:2, Q.59:11, Q.98:1, and Q.98:6. While these 31 verses from the Qur’an will be the focus of the commentary in the next chapters, there are a number of parallel expressions that need to be taken into consideration as well, such as “People of the Gospel” (ahl al-Injīl, Q.5:47) and twice “People of the Remembrance” (ahl al-dhikr, Q.16:43 and Q.21:7). While the reference to “People of the Gospel” occurs in surah al-mā’ida that has six references to “People of Scripture” as well, the two texts about “People of the Remembrance” 22  Elsaid M. Badawi, Muhammad Abdel Haleem, Arabic – English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage (Leiden: Brill, 2008) s.v. ahl, p. 61. 23  M. Sharon, “People of the Book,” in: Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, volume 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 36-43 enumerates 31 verses; Sidney Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: the Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam (Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013) mentions “some fifty-four times” (p. 29). Ismail Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” Islamic Studies 47:3 (2008) 301-325, gives a list of 33 similar expressions (302).



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

25

occur in surahs that have no references to the “People of Scripture.” Yet the word “remembrance” (dhikr) seems to function as a synonym of “scripture” since it may refer to a form of revelation that is sent by God to messengers before, just like the term Scripture (kitāb) as we will see below.24 Since the two surahs that contain the references to ahl al-dhikr are believed to be Meccan surahs revealed between 610 and 622, while almost all references to ahl al-kitāb occur in surahs revealed in Medina after 622, it is quite possible that there is a shift in terminology between different phases of the qur’ānic revelations.25 Angelika Neuwirth supposes that the term dhikr, just like the term qur’ān, refers to texts that were recited in a liturgical setting. This seems to be the background of the frequent use of the incitement, wa’dhkur (“and mention” or “relate”), which was originally used for a recollection of biblical history in such a liturgy.26 Gradually, references to these liturgical texts become less important, and they are replaced with references to the kitāb as the heavenly source of these recitations. “Since, at this time, there was no corpus of written Qur’anic texts for the later Meccan suras to draw upon, the frequent use of the term scripture in those suras most likely refers to an entity beyond a concrete book. This entity may be taken to be the heavenly scripture that was made available for recitation (qur’ān) and remembrance (dhikr) (Q.19:2, Q.19:51), and from which texts were now being proclaimed intermittently.”27 Another hypothesis claims that the Qur’ān may contain two similar notions with different connotations: while most texts about the ahl al-kitāb have a negative and sometimes even polemical tone,28 the texts about the ahl al-dhikr seem to have a much more positive connotation, since they seem to refer to those who have received revelation and are therefore able to give clarification: “ask the ahl al-dhikr if you don’t know.” For this reason Abdel Haleem translates ahl al-dhikr as “those who have knowledge”: “[Prophet], all the messengers We sent before you were simply men to whom We had given the Revelation: you [people] can ask those who  MQS 130-31; BC 59-68.  According to Neuwirth (NKTS 360), the notion of kitāb as means of divine revelation becomes important in the middle Meccan period. 26  Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 61. 27  Neuwirth, “From Recitation through Liturgy to Canon: Sura Composition and Dissolution during the Development of Islamic Ritual” (NSPC 141-63) at 149. 28  The late-Meccan surah 29 al-ankabut (“the spider”) contains the first reference to ahl al-kitāb in verse 46 (NKTS 144) but this reference already presupposes a form of polemics with the People of Scripture (NKTS 376). 24 25

26

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

have knowledge if you do not know” (Q.16:43); “And even before your time [Prophet], all the messengers We sent were only men We inspired – if you [disbelievers] do not know, ask people who know the Scripture” (Q.21:7).29 A similar idea is expressed in Q.10:94, but this time the word kitāb (Scripture) is used, together with the verb qara’a (to recite or to read) from which the word Qur’ān is derived. “If you [Prophet] are in doubt about what We have revealed to you, ask those who have been reading the Scriptures before you.”30 Because of these overlaps between semantic fields, the commentary needs to take into consideration such possible synonyms. Kitāb The word kitāb is used very frequently in the Qur’ān, and it has a rich variety of meanings. The Concordance of the Qur’an mentions a frequency of 261, and the Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage gives no less than 13 meanings for the word kitāb.31 Some of the uses of kitāb can refer to any type of written document, such as the letter written by Solomon to the queen of Sheba (Q.27:28) or scrolls rolled up (Q.21:104) but in most cases the kitāb is associated with a divine origin. A typical example is Q.17:93 where the disbelievers refuse to accept Muhammad’s ruqī (ascension) unless he sends down some Scripture for them to recite. Kitāb is used very often with verbs indicating “coming down” (nazala), “bringing” (’atā) and “coming” (jā’a), the implication being that the kitāb comes from elsewhere and usually from above. Two types of references to a kitāb with God in heaven can be distinguished.32 The first type refers to God’s encompassing knowledge of everything that happens: it is all in a clear Scripture (fī kitāb mubīn, Q.6:59). The idea that nothing can happen unless it has been recorded by God (Q.57:22) entails the theological idea of predestination which gives kitāb a number  Q (AH) 273, 323.  Q (AH) 220. 31  Arabic – English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, s.v. kitāb, 796-98 gives the following list of meanings: as noun: (1) written document, text; (2) letter; (3) divine record containing the grand design and knowledge of all; (4) divine record of all that takes place; (5) individual record of each person; (6) divine revelation; (7) particular revealed books: Torah, New Testament, Qur’an; (8) teachings, divine writ; (9) decree, verdict, ordinance; (10) appointed time; (11) prescribed period of time; (12) decreed or predestined lot, prescribed punishment; (13) written scrolls; (14) plural: writing; as verbal noun: the act of writing; [jur.] contracting a slave to work for her/his freedom. 32  In his article “Book” in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān (vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 2001, 242-51) Daniel Madigan makes a similar distinction between kitāb in relation to divine knowledge and authority, and kitāb in relation to revelation. 29 30



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

27

of meanings such as: appointed time (Q.13:38), determined period of time (Q.2:235), and predestined lot (Q.7:37). Another aspect of this notion of something eternal and fixed with God leads to the idea of a divine decree (Q.8:68) and even to the use of the verb kataba in an expression such as “your Lord has prescribed on Himself mercy” (kataba rabbukum ‘ala nafsihi r-raḥmat, Q.6:54). The second type of meanings attributed to the word kitāb in the Qur’ān is related to the idea of revelation: God “sends down” or “gives” or “brings” Scripture to human beings. The recipients of Scripture are called messengers (rusul), which includes both messengers from the past (Moses and Jesus are most often mentioned, but others have received God’s revelation as well) and Muhammad as messenger in the present. Many phrases in the Qur’ān suggest that God has sent down God’s Scripture several times, and that the last sending confirms the Scriptures that were sent before. For instance, at the beginning of sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, the text says: “Step by step, He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people”.33 The same idea can be phrased without the word kitāb as well: “what was sent down to you and what was sent down before you” (Q.2:2). In the qur’ānic use of the word kitāb, the divine origin of the Scripture is very important, and this divine activity is expressed either in the passivum divinum (“what was sent down”) or in the mediation by Jibrīl (Gabriel), for instance in Q.2:97 (AH): “[Gabriel] who by God’s leave brought down the Qur’ān to your heart, confirming previous scriptures as a guide and good news for the faithful.” This divine origin is also expressed in two special terms, umm al-kitāb (“mother of Scripture”, Q.3:7; 13:39; 43:4) and lawḥ maḥfūẓ (“preserved tablet”, Q.85:22) that are considered by the tafsīr tradition to be the heavenly original of these earthly Scriptures. While the words “sending down”, “bringing” and “giving” describe the divine origin of the Scriptures, the human activities that are evoked by receiving them can go in two opposite directions. Either people recognize them, recite them, and act according to the truth contained in them; or they disbelieve in them, reject them, “cast them behind their backs” or “sell them for a paltry gain.”34 These two possibilities determine the qur’ānic view on the People of Scripture as well: quite often, the texts indicate that  Q.3:3-4a (AH).  See Q.2:101; 3:77; 5:44. On the tendency towards polarization in the Qur’ān, see Kate Zebiri, “Argumentation” in The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’ān, ed. Andrew Rippin (Malden MA: Blackwell, 2006) 266-81, at 267. 33 34

28

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

some of them believe, but some of them do not. This explains why the People of Scripture are sometimes addressed as faithful, sometimes as unbelievers, and often as a mixture of both. Jerusha Lamptey explains this as the effect of the distinction between lateral religious difference (the semantic field of umma, “community”) and hierarchical religious difference (the semantic field of taqwa, “watchfulness” or “God-consciousness”).35 It also explains why it is so difficult to pinpoint the qur’ānic attitude with respect to the People of Scripture: some texts show a largely positive approach; some texts show a rather negative approach, while quite a few texts show a mixed approach.36 People of Scripture The large majority of references to kitāb in the Qur’ān indicates a divine origin: “In qur’ānic usage the word represents a quintessentially divine activity and applies only rarely to human writing.”37 Because of this relationship with divine revelation, Daniel Madigan argues that the translation “book” does less justice to the complex background of “kitāb” than “scripture,” even though the latter translation may import Jewish and Christian understandings of their own sacred Scriptures into this qur’ānic usage. When we talk about “book” we usually think about what in Arabic would be called a muṣḥaf (“codex”): a number of sheets of paper bound into a readable format. Even though the internet age tends to change this, we usually think about books as physical objects that we have in our possession and that we can take (or borrow) if we want to read them. When the Qur’ān mentions kitāb, it does not refer to a human possession but to a divine prerogative. The term may be used by Jews and Christians to claim access to God’s kitāb, yet they did not “possess” such Scripture but heard and saw it being used in a liturgical context by monastic or ecclesial communities for “reading”  Jerusha Tanner Lamptey, Never Wholly Other, 139-81.  On the positive texts with respect to Christians, see Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); on the negative texts, see Mun’im Sirry, Scriptural Polemics, and Mehdi Azaiez, Le contre-discours coranique (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015). Finally, on the mixed approach, see Pim Valkenberg, “The Dynamics of the qur’ānic Account of Christianity” in: Routledge Handbook on Christian-Muslim Relations, David Thomas (ed.) (London – New York, 2018), 49-56. 37  Madigan, “Book,” EQ 1:242-43. 35

36



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

29

in the liturgical sense of that word. The only books around were lectionaries.38 The debate that seems to be reflected in many texts about “Scripture” and “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān starts with the claim by Jews and Christians to be in possession of such a kitāb, and the counterclaim by the author of the Qur’ān to be able to produce something similar or even better. However, at the time of that debate the Qur’ān only existed as an oral tradition. Even if there were copies of a written text around, they were usually thought of as having lesser value than the oral tradition, both because of the imperfect material that was to carry the script and because of the defective form of the script (rasm) itself. Nowadays most Western scholars of Islam accept the superiority of oral tradition over written tradition in the early history of the Qur’ān. “Throughout the entire era of the first generations of Muslims … the most authoritative mode of reading, transmitting, preserving and studying the Qur’ān remained oral and aural.”39 Since this point about the orality of the Qur’ān will be important for my later analysis, I want to focus on some of the most interesting recent approaches to what is usually called the self-referentiality of the Qur’ān: what does the Qur’ān mean when it refers to itself as a kitāb as it so often does, mainly in opening lines of many surahs – as in the second surah quoted at the beginning of this chapter – that seem to contain an important proclamation about itself?40 Daniel Madigan writes: The term kitāb … does not indicate that the Qur’ān is to be understood as a closed corpus of text, codified in writing; it used that language of itself long before it was either closed or written. The Muslim community used the same term while at the same time preserving the text primarily in oral form. The word kitāb rather expresses a claim as to the origin of the words on the Prophet’s lips: they are kitāb because they come from God, from the realm of God’s knowledge and authority, as these are symbolized by writing.41

Despite its self-identification as kitāb the experience of the Qur’ān was from the beginning and for many Muslims still is, in the lapidary expression by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, “primarily sound, not script.”42 Therefore, it is better to translate ahl al-kitāb not as “People of the Book” but 38  In this respect it is interesting to note that the Syriac word for such a liturgical reading, qeryana, has most probably influenced the use of the Arabic word qur’ān (“recitation” or “reading”). See MQS 130. 39  Anna M. Gade, The Qur’an: An Introduction (Oxford: Oneworld, 2010), 67. 40  Madigan, “Book,” 249. Broader argumentations in MQS and BC. 41  Madigan, “Book,” 250-51. 42  NKTS 169; McAuliffe, Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān, 6.

30

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

as “People of Scripture,” in order to indicate the divine origin of the message that they have received.”43 This term avoids the connotation of a physical book ready to be read individually, and refers to the liturgical use and the divine origin of the Scriptures while not prejudging the exact relationship between the kitāb revealed by God and the people receiving it.44 That is why some translators do not use the common “People of the Book” but variants such as “People of the Scripture” (Pickthall), “followers of the Book” (Shakir), or “People of earlier revelations.”45 The polemical argument that people do not have any power over God’s Scripture, which they received as a gift from God, forms the theological core of the debate with the “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān. This is expressed in the suggestion that they no longer possess the Scripture that they claim to have, since they have hidden it, sold it, distorted it, or even written a replacement with their own hands (Q.3:78; 2:79).46 Daniel Madigan summarizes: “Ahl al-kitāb should probably be understood as those who have been given not possession of but rather access to and insight into the knowledge, wisdom and sovereignty of God.”47 While the Qur’ān recognizes this access and insight, it gives the term a polemical twist at the same time, which is an often-overlooked dimension of the Qur’ān’s rhetoric according to Sidney Griffith.48 In such cases, “the Qur’an may not intend so much to report or transmit earlier discourses as to comment on and critique the views of the ‘People of the Book’ or others in its own rhetorical style and within the horizons of its own concerns.”49 43  “Notre analyse du sens que l’«auteur» a voulu donner à l’objet «Coran» en employant le terme kitāb montre qu’il n’a cherché à le qualifier ni d’«écrit» ni de «prescription», mais bien d’«Ecriture sainte» à la façon des Ecritures juives et chrétiennes”, Boisliveau, BC 37. Sidney Griffith (The Bible in Arabic, 29) argues in favor of “Scripture People” but “People of Scripture” remains closer to the traditional “People of the Book”. 44  The translation “People of the Scripture” still suggests the possibility to identify a specific piece of writing, while the reference to God’s revelation makes clear that the divine origin of this Scripture outweighs its eventual physical presence. That is why I prefer “People of Scripture” over “People of the Scripture”. 45  The Glorious Qur’an translated by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall (Elmhurst N.Y.: Tahrike Tarsila Qur’an 2006); The Qur’an translated by M.H. Shakir (Elmhurst N.Y.: Tahrike Tarsila Qur’an 2004). “People of earlier revelations” is used by the translators of Sayyid Qutb’s commentary fi ẓilāl al-Qur’ān. 46  Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” 311 gives more references. 47  Madigan, “Book,” p. 247. 48  Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 24; see also Id., “Al-Naṣara in the Qur’ān: a hermeneutical reflection,” RNPQ 301-22. 49  Griffith, “Foreword”, in: Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: a Study in the History of Muslim Thought (Oxford: Oneworld, 2009), x.



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

31

In the context of Islamic jurisprudence, the term ahl al-kitāb is sometimes translated as “scriptuaries.” This term is used to designate Jews and Christians (and possible other monotheists) as a separate category between Muslims on the one hand, and unbelievers on the other.50 In a similar way it is used by some Muslim theologians writing about relations between Muslims and the ahl al-kitāb, such as Asma Afsaruddin and Mona Siddiqui.51 This specific terminology in English might go back to Majid Khadduri who states that the term scriptuaries includes not only Christians and Jews, but also Magians (or Zoroastrians), Samaritans, and Sabians.52 However, the use of the term ahl al-kitāb in a legal context to describe the relation between different religions presupposes the relative stability of boundaries between these religions, and this cannot be assumed to have been the situation at the period when the qur’ānic terminology was coined.53 This is the reason why I refrain from using the term “scrip­ tuaries” when translating the qur’ānic texts addressing the ahl al-kitāb.54 The relationship between the kitāb received by Jews and Christians and the kitāb received by the prophet Muhammad is complicated. On the one hand, the three Scriptures are very similar because they are all earthly 50  In an article on Islamic jurisprudence and regulation of armed conflict, for instance, Nesrine Badawi distinguishes four different types of warfare as follows: “fighting non-Muslims who are not followers of one of the holy religions, fighting scriptuaries (believers in one of the holy books, the Torah and the Bible, and according to some the Zoroastrians), fighting apostates, and finally fighting rebelling Muslims.” Nesrine Badawi, “Islamic Jurisprudence and the Regulation of Armed Conflict” (2009); last accessed May 19, 2016 at Harvard University’s Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research: http://www.hpcrresearch.org/publications. 51  See Asma Afsaruddin, “Taking Faith to Heart: Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Islam”, in: Spiritual Dimensions of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur, ed. Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi‘, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 213-29, at 223; Mona Siddiqui, Christians, Muslims & Jesus (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2013) 21. 52  Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955) 176. See also Gordon Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia (Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989). I owe these references to Reuven Firestone who has used the term as well, among others in an article on “Muslim – Jewish Relations” in the online Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion (religion.oxfordre. com, last accessed May 23, 2016). 53  See Fred Donner, Muhammad and the Believers (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). 54  The famous Anglican bishop and theologian Kenneth Cragg (1913-2012) sometimes used the word “scripturists” but he uses “scriptuaries” as well. See his A Certain Sympathy of Scriptures: Biblical and Quranic (Brighton – Portland OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 75 and 124 n. 16.

32

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

manifestations of the same Scripture that is with God. On the other hand, the Qur’ān accuses Jews and Christians of not living in accordance with the promises they made when receiving their Scriptures, and therefore they do not live according to their own Scriptures. The ambiguity between basic identity of Scriptural message and human negligence, or even misuse, of this message determines the ambiguity in the qur’ānic use of the term ahl al-kitāb. It might be possible to partly solve this ambiguity by pointing out that the first texts referring to the “People of Scripture” were revealed to the prophet Muhammad and his first followers in Mecca, while the large majority of the texts concerning “People of Scripture” were revealed in Medina.55 Angelika Neuwirth, for instance, argues that the term is used for the first time in the Meccan surah 29:46 where the tone is friendly but already presupposes a difference of opinion: “[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God is one [and the same]; we are devoted to Him’.”56 She adds: The name ahl al-kitāb introduced here for adherents of other religions may come as a surprise, because it seems to retrieve a characteristic that is shared by the qur’ānic community as well. Even though at this place a suggestion of devaluation is not yet implied, the expression might represent a selfreference by Jews and/or Christians that may be suitable precisely as an indication of the most important distinction: the written status of the Jewish-Christian [revelation] over against the oral status of the qur’anic Word of God.57

According to Neuwirth, the term is used without negative connotations in this early text, but at the same time it already shows the debate between Jews and Christians who claim to possess a written and therefore authoritative version of God’s revelation, and the community of the Qur’ān that claims an equal status of authority for its revelation that had not yet been written down at this stage. In the later surahs that were revealed to the prophet Muhammad in Medina after his hijra or migration (622) from Mecca, the references to ahl al-kitāb become more numerous and more polemical in nature. Some of these polemics are clearly directed at Jews – for instance in the 55  See Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” 305-308 (Meccan period) and 308-318 (Medinan period). 56  Q.29:46 (AH). 57  NKTS 145, my translation.



PEOPLE OF SCRIPTURE

33

second surah al-baqara – while others seem to be directed at Christians – for instance in the third surah Āl-‘Imrān – while still other texts are not so clearly addressed at one of the two groups.58 In these texts, it becomes clear that the term ahl al-kitāb acknowledges that God has given a Scripture to Jews and Christians, yet this does not imply that they are possessors of this Scripture. Quite the contrary, they have not lived up to what God entrusted them with. This is indicated in expressions such as “they threw the Book of God over their shoulders” (Q.2:101); they “hide the truth that they know” (2:146) and finally they “conceal the Scripture that God sent down and sell it for a small price.” (2:174). So, the words ahl al-kitāb do not indicate what Jews and Christians possess, but what they have often lost. Yet such a diachronic reading of the term ahl al-kitāb as evolving from a relatively friendly notion in the few texts revealed in Mecca toward a decidedly polemical turn in the many texts revealed later in Medina does not seem to be satisfactory. In the first place, such a chronology is far from certain and is heavily contested nowadays among scholars of the Qur’ān. One of the problems with the traditional chronology is that it is based on traditional collections of ḥadīth that tend to make a construction of the different phases of the revelations of the qur’ānic texts in which the interlocutors in Mecca are Arabic polytheists, while the main interlocutors in Medina are a number of powerful Jewish tribes. Such a reconstruction fails to explain how a basic familiarity with Jewish and Christian stories is presupposed not only in the Medinan surahs, but already in the Meccan surahs.59 In the second place, a diachronic reading of the qur’ānic texts would miss an important point highlighted in a synchronic analysis of the texts, viz. that the term “People of Scripture” is one of the notions that imply a lateral difference, while the Qur’ān always judges on the basis of hierarchical difference.60 It is remarkable that the Qur’ān, in addressing or describing the People of Scripture, very often makes distinction between those who are faithful and those who are not. Quite often, it states that some of the People of Scripture do not listen to the revelation from God and do not put into practice what they have received, whereas others do listen and act accordingly. The fact that the Qur’ān judges on the basis of taqwā or God-awareness as the  Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” 308.  See Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012) 154; Sidney Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 29. 60  See Lamptey, Never Wholly Other, 139-81. 58 59

34

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

most important (“hierarchical”) criterion implies that it approaches lateral differences as not decisive. Thus, a positive text such as Q.29:46 adds a negative restriction: “[Believers], argue only in the best way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly.” At the same time, quite a few of the negative texts add positive notes such as Q.3:199: “Some of the People of the Book believe in God, in what has been sent down to you and in what was sent down to them: humbling themselves before God, they would never sell God’s revelation for a small price. These people will have their rewards with their Lord: God is swift in reckoning.”61 One of the hotly contested areas in the tradition of Muslim exegesis of the Qur’an (tafsīr) is the question whether these “good” People of Scripture are real Jews or Christians, or in fact only those who have converted to Islam.62 In the following chapters, I will analyze the context of the most important texts concerning the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān. In my analysis of these texts, I will not use a diachronic analysis that starts with the text that is supposed to be revealed first, but I will use a synchronic analysis that follows the canonical order of the surahs. In chapters 3-7 of this book, I will start with the second, third, fourth and fifth surahs that contain the most frequent references to the People of Scripture. In chapters 9-11 I will concentrate on other surahs (29; 57; 59; 98) that contain explicit references to the People of Scripture. Only these explicit references will be discussed extensively, using the three-layered structure of explanatory notes, Islamic interpretations, and Christian resonances. In between I will discuss some of the relevant parallel texts about “those who have received the Scripture” or “those who have been given Scripture” or, finally, “those who recite the Scripture” as well, but I will only sporadically refer to Islamic interpretations and Christian resonances in these discussions. This will also be the case in chapter 8 where I discuss texts about the “People of the Gospel” or “People of remembrance.”

 Q.3:199 (AH).  See AQI 2:414-15. See also McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians.

61 62

Chapter Three

GOD’S GENEROSITY and when a messenger came to them from God confirming what was with them, a part of those to whom the scripture was given threw the scripture of God behind their backs as if they had no ­knowledge (Q.2:101) Even though the second surah in the Qur’ān, sūrat al-baqara, is the longest, it contains only two explicit references to ahl al-kitāb, People of Scripture, in Q.2:105 and Q.2:109. Yet much of the entire surah discusses the religious customs of the banū Isrā’īl (“Children of Israel”). In the course of these discussions, many references are made to their receiving the Scripture, usually as part of a polemical argumentation. The verse that I quoted at the beginning of this chapter, Q.2:101, contains many of the characteristics of this polemical argumentation, and therefore I will start my commentary here. Before doing so, however, I need to pay some attention to the surah in its entirety as the context for the passage Q.2:101-9, that will be discussed more in depth. A Middle Community (2:143) Scholars working in the western academic context have recently started analyzing the literary structure of the longer surahs in the Qur’ān, such as sūrat al-baqara.1 One of them, Neal Robinson, suggests that the very center of this long surah, Q.2:143, also indicates its main topic: And thus have We willed you to be a community of the middle way, so that [with your lives] you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind, and that the Apostle might bear witness to it before you. And it is only to the end that We might make a clear distinction between those who follow the Apostle and those who turn about on their heels that We have appointed 1  See Nevin Reda, The al-Baqara Crescendo: Understanding the Qur’an’s Style, Narrative Structure, and Running Themes (Montreal: McGill – Queen’s University Press, 2017).

36

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

[for this community] the direction of prayer which Thou [O Prophet] hast formerly observed: for this was indeed a hard test for all but those whom God has guided aright. But God will surely not lose sight of your faith – for, behold, God is most compassionate towards man, a dispenser of grace.2

The community of believers is characterized as an ummatan wasaṭan, a “middle community.” This designation can be interpreted in different ways, but many Muslims like to think of it as a “moderate” or “balanced” or “just” community.3 Being a middle community means to bear witness to the truth, and to pray in a specific direction. This direction is a test from God and a sign of distinction; the Islamic tradition of interpretation explains that the direction of the prayer was changed towards the masjid al-ḥarām, the “sacred mosque” in Mecca, which at that time was still a place of pagan worship according to the Muslim tradition that indicates the second year after the hijra from Mecca to Medina as context for these verses.4 Since the Muslims had been praying towards Jerusalem before that, this can be seen as a moment that makes distinction between those who follow Muhammad, and those who are questioning him about it. The verse justifies this change of direction by indicating that for those who have faith, even praying towards a pagan sanctuary instead of Jerusalem is not decisive, since “God’s is the east and the west; He guides whom He wills onto a straight way.”5 Raymond Farrin, who has made an extensive analysis of the structure of this surah, indicates verses 142-52 as the center of a ring composition with a three-layered mirror-construction around it:6 A: 1-39 B: 40-112 C: 113-41 D: 142-152 C’: 153-77 B’: 178-242 A’: 243-86 2  Q.2:143 (MA); see Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 201-23. 3  See Asma Afsaruddin, “Finding Common Ground: ‘Mutual Knowing,’ Moderation, and the Fostering of Religious Pluralism,” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James L. Heft, S.M., Reuven Firestone, and Omid Safi (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 67-87. 4  See WAN 17, on Q.2:142. 5  Q.2:142 (MA). 6  See Raymond K. Farrin, “Surat al-Baqara: A Structural Analysis,” The Muslim World 100 (2010) 17-32; id. FSQI,10-21. Carl W. Ernst gives a summary in Appendix B of his How to Read the Qur’an, 223-26. For a critical review, see Nicolai Sinai, “Review Essay: Going Round in Circles,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 19/2 (2017) 106-22.



GOD’S GENEROSITY

37

The aspect that interests me most in this structural – or rhetorical – analysis is that it draws attention to the center of such a concentric composition that often has a very important function.7 According to the first and second laws of Biblical scholar Nils Lund, the center is the turning point, meaning that it often introduces a change.8 Farrin states: In the middle section … the Muslims are identified as a median community. Here the chapter highlights Islam’s position among the revealed religions, between the formalism of Judaism, as illustrated in B through the example of the cow, and the exaggerated belief or doctrinal extravagance of Christianity, highlighted in the previous section. Islam is positioned as a golden mean.9

According to Farrin, section B of the surah (Q.2:40-112) uses the episode of the cow in Q.2:67-82 to exemplify “two spiritual faults of the Children of Israel: their tendency to disbelieve prophets and their formal, legal approach to religion.”10 By contrast, section C (Q.2:113-41) focuses – among other things – on the assertion that God would have taken a son (attakhadha llāhu waladan, Q.2:116). Yet, despite these differences and even implied polemics to which I will return soon, Farrin indicates a more hopeful message at the center of the surah in his analysis: “Every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself: for, verily, God has the power to will anything.”11 If this analysis is correct, the Qur’ān indicates two important principles in this central verse. In the first place, even though the differences – instantiated in different directions of prayer – may lead to contention between religions, ultimately they are all directed to God as their focus. In the second place, the differences between religions should be incentives to do better than the other. Both messages will be repeated in the fifth surah of the Qur’ān: as God has created meaningful differences between us, we should use these differences to become better believers.

7  See Michel Cuypers, “The Centre of Concentric Composition,” in id., The Composition of the Qur’an: Rhetorical Analysis (London: Bloomsbury, 2015) 109-31. 8  Cuypers, Composition of the Qur’an, 109-10. 9  FSQI 14-15. 10  FSQI 13. 11  Q.2:147 (MA).

38

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Those who write their own Scripture (2:79) The two explicit references to “People of Scripture” occur in the context of what Farrin distinguishes as section B (Q.2:40-112) that discusses the spiritual faults of the Children of Israel. This is also the context of most of the implicit references to the People of Scripture.12 So it makes sense to focus on this section that ends with the two explicit references to People of Scripture. It begins by recalling the covenant between God and the banū Isrā’īl (“Children of Israel”), a term that usually refers to the Jews as receivers of God’s revelation in the past. God is introduced speaking: “O children of Israel! Remember those blessings of Mine with which I graced you, and fulfill your promise unto Me, [whereupon] I shall fulfill My promise unto you; and of Me, of Me stand in awe!”13 This summarizes the implications of the covenantal relationship: God has bestowed God’s favors (ni‘ma) upon them, something that they should remember (adhkurū) but that requires them to fulfill their promise (‘ahd) as well.14 Before considering the qur’ānic critique that the Children of Israel have partially failed to do so, it is important to point out that this is one of the texts in which the Qur’ān clearly recognizes the special relationship between God and the Jewish people.15 Yet a special relationship implies special knowledge received through revelation, and special responsibility, and therefore Jews are held to a higher standard compared to the ’ummiyyūn, the “illiterates” who have not received a divine Scripture. Q.2:44 says: “Do you bid other people to be pious, the while you forget your own selves – and yet you recite the divine writ? Will you not, then, use your reason?”16 The implication is that, because the Jews read aloud (talā, “recite”) the Scripture (kitāb) they should know how to act in accordance with it. 12  I found 38 such references in this surah; 16 of them in section B (3 in section A; 7 in C; 5 in D; 4 in C’; 2 in B’ and 1 in A’). 13  Q.2:40 (MA). 14  The order of the words here suggests that God will fulfill God’s promise only if the children of Israel fulfill their promise. Some scholars suggest that God’s covenantal promise to Israel in the Qur’ān is not unconditional, while it is unconditional in the Tanakh. See Jon Levenson, Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity & Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); also, The Call of Abraham. Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, eds. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013). 15  See Alwani Ghazali, Muhammad Kamal, Zamrie Ibrahim, “Holistic-textual Approach to Qur’anic Verses on Muslim-Jewish Relationship in the Qur’an”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7 (2017) 166-74, accessed through www.hrmars.com in December 2017. 16  Q.2:44 (MA)



GOD’S GENEROSITY

39

What makes the Jewish people different from others is their having received knowledge. Quite a few times, the Qur’ān states: “We have given Moses the Scripture and the Criterion,” (Q.2:53) where Scripture (kitāb) is obviously the Torah, and Criterion (furqān) is usually interpreted as a means to distinguish (faraqa, “to separate”) between truth and falsehood.17 At the beginning of this surah, the Qur’ān discusses the relation between the knowledge from revelation given to the Children of Israel and the knowledge from revelation given to prophet Muhammad as one of endorsement and confirmation: “(they) believe in what has been sent down to you, and what has been sent down before you” (Q.2:4). Yet if Muslims are to believe in what was sent down before the Qur’ān, the mutual confirmation implies that the Children of Israel are to believe what was sent down later; therefore, they are addressed as follows: “believe in that which I have sent down, confirming that which you have with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And sell not My signs for a paltry price, and reverence Me.”18 The commentary in the Study Qur’an gives two potential interpretations of the idea of confirmation here: either the new revelation supports the revelation given before, or the new revelation fulfills what was foretold concerning this new revelation in the earlier books.19 The question as to which interpretation is most probable here depends partly on the meaning of the somewhat puzzling expression, “sell not My signs for a paltry price,” which will be explained below. In the context of the story of the cow (Q.2:67-82), the Qur’ān comes back to the situation of those who are not truly faithful to what they have received in revelation, and it uses the metaphor of them writing their own Scripture and pretending that it is from God: […] there are among them unlettered people who have no real knowledge of the divine writ, [following] only wishful beliefs and depending on nothing but conjecture. Woe, then, unto those who write down, with their own hands, [something which they claim to be] divine writ, and then say, ‘this is from God,’ in order to acquire a trifling gain thereby; woe, then, unto them for what their hands have written, and woe unto them for all that they may have gained!20 17  TMJ 15 n. 17; TMS 1:49. In later tradition, the criterion is sometimes seen as a characteristic of the Prophet (SQ 28 on Q.2:53). 18  Q.2:41; SQ 25. 19  TMJ 14 n. 14 explains “what you have with you” in Q.2:41 as “the Gospel” which seems a bit out of context, but it might refer to the fact that the Gospel is the latest revelation before the Qur’ān. 20  Q.2:78-79 (MA).

40

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

A similar expression occurs later in the sūrah: “Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain – they but fill their bellies with fire.”21 The first text describes “unlettered people who have no real knowledge of the divine writ.” The word used here in Arabic is ’ummī, usually translated as “illiterate”, and later used to characterize the Prophet as “illiterate” (not able to read or write); yet in the Qur’ān the word ’ummī is used to indicate those who have not received any revelation (compare goyim in Hebrew, or gentes in Latin).22 The ’ummiyyūn are usually distin­ guished from the ahl al-kitāb because they have not received revelation; yet at this place the context indicates that the expression is used for the “children of Israel”. This is probably a rhetorical construction in which some of the Children of Israel are designated as “illiterates” who have no knowledge of their own Scripture because their behavior is not in accordance with what God bestowed on them.23 So the Qur’ān is critical of some of the Israelites who do act according to what has been revealed to them but follow their own wishes and pretend that this is what God revealed to them: they “write their own scripture.” The Qur’ān connects this unfaithfulness to God’s Scripture with gaining economic benefits in this world, and it warns that such behavior is short-sighted since it will not help them in the ākhira, the world of the hereafter in which God will pass judgment on what they did (see Q.2:86). The Qur’ān indicates a connection between unfaithfulness and economic gains in this world – whether we should take these gains metaphorically or literally.24 Behind their unfaithfulness is a false sense of religious security that is expressed in Q.2:80 (MA): “And they say, ‘the fire will most certainly not touch us for more than a limited number of days.’ Say [unto them]: ‘Have you received a promise from God – for God never breaks his promise – or do you attribute to God something which you cannot know?’” Even though it is uncertain what exactly is at stake here, we may surmise that  Q.2:174a (MA).  See Q.2:78 (Dr 9 n. 89). Al-Ṭabarī (TCQ 410) reports the interpretation of ’ummiyūn as people who reject God’s scriptures and messengers by Ibn ‘Abbās, but prefers the interpretation “people who cannot write” since this is according to the common speech of the Arabs. 23  Muqātil b. Sulaymān explains that there were Jews who did not read (or: recite, qara’a) the Torah except what their leaders related to them. See TMS I:59 (on Q.2:78). 24  Droge (The Qur’ān 9, n. 90, 91) seems to take both the “writing with their own hands” and the “selling for a small price” literally in his improbable proposal that some of the Jews tried to sell their forgeries to the Prophet. In its commentary on Q.16:95-96, the Study Quran notes that this is “a common metaphor in the Quran.” (SQ 683). 21

22



GOD’S GENEROSITY

41

the Qur’ān in fact discusses a form of Jewish theology of election: on the basis of God’s promise (‘ahd) to them, they think that the punishment will only be temporary.25 The Qur’ān tells them that this mistake is the reason why they are ’ummiyyūn, people without knowledge who act on the basis of their wishes instead of God’s kitāb. However, we need to bear in mind that this critique does not relate to the Jewish people in its entirety but only to the ’ummiyūn among the Jews. Later commentators such as Sayyid Quṭb and Sayyid Abul A‘lā Mawdūdī tend to extend the qur’ānic criticism to all Jews, but this is to forget the difference between the historical banū Isrā’īl and the contemporary Jews (alladhina hādū, see Q.2:62) as well as the difference between lateral and hierarchical religious difference that was discussed in the previous chapter.26 Believers in a part of Scripture (2:85) Q.2:85 uses a different metaphor in its critique of the Children of Israel: “Do you, then, believe in some parts of the Scripture and deny the truth of other parts?” The context makes clear that ba‘ḍ ul-kitāb (“some [parts] of the Scripture”) must refer to what God revealed in the Torah, since the previous verses (Q.2:83-84) refer to a covenant (mīthāq) between God and the Children of Israel. The first covenant is rather general and sounds like a shortened version of the Ten Commandments, but the second covenant is quite specific: “do not shed your blood and do not chase your people from your homes.”27 Yet this is precisely what they are doing; Q.2:85 asserts that they kill their people, chase them from their homes, and yet if they return as captives, ransom is paid to set them free. Al-Ṭabarī explains that there was a conflict between two Jewish parties in Medina. God censured them because they killed one another contrary to the ruling given to them in the Torah.28 More precisely, the Study Qur’an adds, killing and expelling your own people is contrary to the covenant but paying ransom 25  See Reuven Firestone, “Is there a notion of ‘divine election’ in the Qur’ān?” RNPQ 393-410. For discussions about the length of the punishment in Jewish sources that might be referred to in this verse, see Newby, The Jews of Arabia, 63, and Haggai Mazuz, The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 71-72. 26  See QSQ 1:109; Sayyid Abul A‘lā Mawdūdī, Towards Understanding the Qur’ān: English version of Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, translated and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari (Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1999); 1:88. 27  Q.2:84, my translation. 28  TCQ 1:431-32.

42

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

is in accordance with the covenant, so the Children of Israel follow part of the covenant but neglect another part.29 The Qur’ān associates such unbelief with a commercial metaphor: these people “buy the life of this world at the price of the world to come.” (Q.2:86). Accepting only a part of the Scripture means that human beings claim to discern what is good for them and what not. Yet in doing so, they neglect God’s guidance: We gave Moses the Scripture and We sent messengers after him in succession. We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit. So how is it that, whenever a messenger brings you something you do not like, you become arrogant, calling some impostors and killing others?”30

God sends God’s messengers with Scriptures time and again, but the people often will not accept them since they want to follow their own inclinations instead of the guidance from God. The defense of those who refuse to accept God’s guidance is: “our hearts are covered” (qulūbunā ghulfun, Q.2:88), which is an expression that has been translated and interpreted quite differently.31 Most interpretations look at Q.4:155, where Jews are introduced using the same expression in the context of their rejection of God’s guidance: “And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting God’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying, ‘Our minds are closed’ – No! God has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little.”32 In both cases, the covering of the hearts is reason for the Qur’ān to conclude: “they believe only a little.”33 In such a case there is no total disbelief, but just a remnant of real faith, since, as the Study Qur’an remarks, “[a] soul that laments its being sealed is not completely sealed, since one cannot be aware of or believe in God unless God allows it.”34 The Qur’ān adds that God has rejected the Children of Israel because of their unbelief: “When a Scripture came to them from God confirming what they already had, and when they had been praying for victory against the disbelievers, even when there came to them something they knew [to

 SQ 41-42.  Q.2:87 (AH). 31  “Our hearts are already full of knowledge” (MA); “our hearts are impenetrably wrapped [against whatever you say]” (AH); “our hearts are hardenend” (P). Reynolds (RQBS 147-55) remarks that the original meaning of ghulf is “uncircumcised”, which is a well-known biblical trope to indicate a situation of disobedience to God. 32  Q.4:155 (AH). I will come back to this verse in the sixth chapter of this commentary. 33  Fa qalīlan ma yu’minūn in 2:88; lā yu’minūn illa qalīlan in 4:155. 34  SQ 43 (on Q.2:88). 29 30



GOD’S GENEROSITY

43

be true], they disbelieved in it: God rejects those who disbelieve.”35 The most important word in this verse is muṣaddiq (“confirming”): the new revelation given by God confirms what they already knew, so they know that it is truth. Because they are a “People of Scripture,” they should recognize the truth when it is revealed to them. If they refuse to believe it, they are disbelievers and rejected by God.36 The word “confirming” shows how the Qur’ān understands itself: not as a new revelation, but as a confirmation of what has already been revealed to the people of Israel. The metaphor of “accepting only a part of Scripture” as a form of unbelief is used in this passage at two levels. The first level is addressed in Q.2:84-86: accepting only a part of the Torah revealed to Moses implies a refusal to accept the entire truth of the revelation. The second level is addressed in Q.2:87-89: accepting only the revelation that is already there implies a refusal to accept revelation by God that confirms the earlier revelation, and thus a refusal to accept the entire truth of the revelation. The play between the two levels of the metaphor of “part” versus entire revelation also implies that the present and the past may coincide: the form of unbelief that the children of Israel displayed against Moses is the form of unbelief that the Jewish tribes in Medina display.37 Q.2:91-92 (AH) summarizes this as follows: When it is said to them, ‘Believe in God’s revelations,’ they reply, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us,’ but they do not believe in what came afterwards, though it is the truth confirming what they already have. Say [Prophet], ‘Why did you kill God’s prophets in the past if you were true believers? Moses brought you clear signs, but then, while he was away, you chose to worship the calf – you did wrong.’

A part threw the Scripture of God behind their backs (2:101) The final part of section B of this surah includes two texts in which the People of Scripture are mentioned explicitly. But first, Q.2:101 introduces a new metaphor for the refusal to accept the Scripture of God: throwing it behind one’s back. This is the first of eight references to the  Q.2:89 (AH).  The same phrase, “believe in what I have sent, confirming what was already with you” (muṣaddiqan lima ma‘akum) was already addressed to the children of Israel at the very beginning of section B of this surah, in Q.2:41. 37  See also Firestone, “Is there a notion of ‘divine election’ in the Qur’ān?”, RNPQ 405. 35 36

44

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

People of the Scripture, according to Neal Robinson.38 These references can be located toward the end of section B, yet there is no common opinion as to the boundaries of this part of the text; according to Farrin, it ends at Q.2:112 but according to Robinson, it ends at Q.2:121.39 Despite these differences, it seems reasonable to start the commentary with Q.2:104 and discuss Q.2:101 separately before that. 101  and

when a messenger came to them from God confirming what was with them, a part of those to whom the scripture was given threw the scripture of God behind their backs as if they had no knowledge Q.2:103 describes the hypothetical contrast: 103  and if they had believed and been watchful a reward from God would have been better if only they knew

“To believe” and “to know” both imply accepting the message that confirms the Scripture that was already with “them” – the Jews of Medina, according to most interpreters – yet not accepting this message implies not only being unfaithful and ignorant, but also hiding and rejecting the Scripture of God.40 The Qur’ān states that the refusal of the Jews to accept Muhammad’s message in fact implies a rejection of their own Scripture. The metaphor of “throwing behind their backs” can have two closely connected meanings: the act of throwing seems to suggest a rejection, while the location “behind their backs” seems to suggest a hiding.41 The t­ radition 38  Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an, 222. He mentions six references, apart from the two explicit references in verses 105 and 109: 101, 113, 121, and 144-146. 39  Mahmoud Ayoub (AQI 1:128-43) takes verses 99-102 together, and discusses 103-4 separately, continuing with 105-8 and 109-13. Sayyid Quṭb (QSQ 1:310-20) separates 75-103 from 104-123, while Ṭabāṭabā’ī (TbM) discusses 108-115 together, but most of the verses before that separately. Among the translators, Yusuf ‘Ali distinguishes 97-103, 104-12 and 113-21 as sections, and Muhammad Asad has a similar distinction (97-103, 104-10, 111-117 and 118-21). 40  David Marshall, “Christianity in the Qur’ān,” in: Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), 3-29. 41  al-Ṭabarī (TCQ 1:474) suggests that “behind their backs” is a metaphor meaning “to be rid of something” but he also suggests that it means them being unjust toward Muhammad out of envy. In Q.11:92 Prophet Shu‘ayb reproaches the people of Midian of “casting God behind their backs” and not being “mindful of Him” (TJJ on Q.11:92). The metaphor is used in the Hebrew Bible as well. See Reynolds, The Qur’ān and the



GOD’S GENEROSITY

45

of tafsīr, represented by Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, interprets the word muṣaddiq (“confirming”) as a confirmation of what the Tawrāt contained about the prophethood of Muhammad, thus shifting the focus from the message to the messenger as being foretold in the Torah. Consequently, “the Scripture of God” is interpreted as “what was in the Torah concerning Muhammad.”42 Similarly, Ṭabāṭabā’ī gives the following interpretation: “The verse points to the Jews’ adverse attitude towards the truth: they were so steeped in falsehood that they concealed the foretelling of the Torah about the Prophet of Islam, and refused to believe in the Qur’ān which verified that which they had in their hands.”43 The Islamic tradition of interpretation suggests that this rejecting and hiding means that the Jews refused to acknowledge the places where the Torah speaks about Muhammad as future messenger of God, thereby suggesting a corruption (taḥrīf) of the text or its meaning. As will be elucidated later, this notion of taḥrīf has determined the Islamic interpretation of the relationship with Jews and Christians to a large extent, but it is not a qur’ānic notion. The qur’ānic critique of Jews – and Christians – is not about corruption of the text or its meaning, but about refusal to accept that God can send a new revelation, confirming older revelations. This is what the two explicit texts on the People of Scripture will confirm: God is great in His beneficence. The Greatness of God’s Generosity (2:104-109) 104  O you who have faith Do not say “observe us” but say “regard us” and listen And for the unbelievers a painful punishment 105  Not want those who disbelieve from the people of scripture and not the associators that comes down over you any good from your lord and God favors with his mercy whom he wants and God is of great generosity 106  we do not delete any sign or make it be forgotten unless we give something better than it, or similar; Bible, 149. Some places are: I Kings 14:9, Psalm 50:17, Ezekiel 23:35 and Nehemiah 9:26 (thanks to Daniel Madigan for these references). 42  TMS 1:67 on Q.2:101. 43  TbM on Q.2:100-1. English translation at www.almizan.org, last accessed February 1, 2018.

46

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

do you not know that God is over all things powerful? do you not know that God’s is the reign of heaven and earth? And not is there for you beside God a protector and not a helper 108  or do you want to question your messenger as Moses was questioned before? And whoever changes to unbelief from faith– for sure has strayed from the path 109  many of the people of scripture want if they could bring you back after your having come to faith to being ­unbelievers out of envy in their hearts after has been made clear to them the truth Yet forgive and pardon until God gives his command Since God is over everything powerful 107  Or

Explanatory notes

104  O

you who have faith Do not say “observe us” but say “regard us” and listen And for the unbelievers a painful punishment

The people addressed in Q.2:104 are “you who have faith”; it is not immediately clear whether this refers to the faithful among the Jews or to the faithful community of Muslims, or to both. The Islamic tradition leaves open the possibility for multiple interpretations. The two words, rā‘inā and unẓurnā, can both have the meaning “look at us” or “regard us,” so the difference between them is not clear either.44 Abdel Haleem decides to leave the words untranslated and refers to Q.4:46: “Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words” (yuḥarrifūna l-kalima), pronouncing them with twisted tongues, so as to deride the words of the revelation.45 In both cases the Qur’ān asserts that unẓurnā should be used instead of rā‘inā, apparently because the latter word can be misused. The Qur’ān sees such misuse as a lack of faith, since Q.4:46 ends with “they believe very little” – just before explicitly addressing the People of Scripture as is the case here. In 2:104 the rebuke is even sharper: “for the unbelievers is a painful punishment.”

44  I chose the translation “observe us” / “regard us”, following Arberry and Droge. For more details on these words, see the commentary on Q.4:46 in chapter six. 45  Q (AH) 17 (on Q.2:104) and 87 (on Q.4:46).



GOD’S GENEROSITY

47

105  Not

want those who disbelieve from the people of scripture and not the associators that comes down over you any good from your lord and God favors with his mercy whom he wants and God is of great generosity

If it is correct to interpret Q.2:104 in light of Q.4:46 as Abdel Haleem does, the reference to “the unbelievers among the People of Scripture” seems to indicate a commonality even though a different matter is addressed here. Two groups are juxtaposed as opposing “those who have faith”: first, the kāfirūn from the People of Scripture. The verb kafara and the noun kufr are used to indicate those who do not accept God’s revelations. The literal sense of the verb is “to cover” or “to hide” – which immediately brings to mind the metaphor of “throwing behind their backs” of Q.2:101. The word refers to those who do not accept what is given to them by God, and are ungrateful.46 The second group consists of the mushrikūn, derived from the verb sharika meaning “to share” or “to associate.”47 In the Qur’ān, mushrikūn are those who associate others with God, which leads to the translation “associators,” which I prefer to more theologically explicit and anachronistic translations such as “polytheists” or “idolaters.” The grammatical construction of Q.2:105 makes clear that the unbelievers from the People of Scripture and the associators are two different groups, but they share the same attitude of not wanting any good or mercy from God to come over the group addressed in this verse. The unbelievers from the People of Scripture are charged with a double rejection: not only do they refuse to accept what God has given them through the revelation in Scripture, but they also refuse to accept that others can receive mercy and bounty from God.48 106  we

do not delete any sign or make it be forgotten unless we give something better than it, or similar; do you not know that God is over all things powerful? The verb translated as “delete” comes from the same root as the noun naskh that is usually translated as “abrogation.” In the later Islamic tradition, this verse is seen as one of the classical sources of the doctrine of  Lamptey, Never Wholly Other, 197.  Ibid., 190. 48  Boisliveau (BC 271) concludes that they are jealous, which seems to be suggested by Q.2:109 as well. 46 47

48

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

abrogation, meaning that some earlier verses in the Qur’ān have been abrogated by verses revealed later. Yet the context makes it quite unlikely that Q.2:106 refers to abrogation, because the word āya, often translated as “verse,” does not yet have that meaning in the Qur’ān.49 In the Qur’ān, āya usually means “sign,” and more specifically “wondrous sign.” The general purport of the verse is that God is able to replace one sign with another sign that is similar or better. If we read this verse in context, “similar or better sign” must refer to God’s mercy and God’s help. 107  Or

do you not know that God’s is the reign of heaven and earth? And not is there for you beside God a protector and not a helper This verse is tightly connected to Q.2:106 by the repetition of the same phrase: “do you not know?” Those who believe should know two things: God is powerful and reigns over the entire creation; God is able to help and protect. The word walīy literally means someone who is close, and can have different meanings such as “friend”, “protector” or “helper”; it is used here in parallel with naṣīr, which means “helper” or “protector”. 108  or

do you want to question your messenger as Moses was questioned before? And whoever changes to unbelief from faith – for sure has strayed from the path This verse makes a parallel between the behavior of the Children of Israel towards prophet Moses, and the behavior of the addressed towards “your prophet,” probably Muhammad. The questioning of Moses refers to the story of the cow, discussed in Q.2:67-71, and in that context “questioning” is seen as a sign of unbelief. People question prophets if they do not accept their message without a miracle, or a sign from God, such as a Scripture from heaven.50 The last sentence refers to the situation of those who first believe but then change their faith into unbelief. “Straying from the path” evokes the last two verses of sūrat al-fātiha on the “straight path” and those who go astray.

 See BC 76 and 271.  See Q.4:153; 74:52. The New Testament offers parallels as well, for instance Mark 8:12. We will have opportunity to come back to these parallels in later chapters. 49

50



GOD’S GENEROSITY

49

109  many of the people of scripture want if they could bring you back after your having come to faith to being unbelievers out of envy in their souls after has been made clear to them the truth Yet forgive and pardon until God gives his command Since God is over everything powerful

The beginning of Q.2:109 forms a contrast to Q.2:105, where the unbelievers from the People of Scripture did not want that something good happens to the believers from God; this verse states what many of them want: bring back the believers to unbelief out of envy. The phrase “out of envy in their souls” means that they dislike sharing their privileged position as being favored by God with newcomers to the faith. The notion of envy (ḥasad) suggests that they should have known better, since “the truth has been made clear to them”. Both the noun “truth” (ḥaqq) and the verb “make clear” (tabayyana) are often used in the context of a revelation from God, most notably the Qur’ān itself. The idea is that reverting to unbelief, let alone making others revert to unbelief, is a grave mistake and a sign of ignorance. One would therefore expect a reminder of the miserable destiny that awaits such people because of God’s judgment, but instead the mood suddenly changes: the believers are not to retaliate but wait until God gives his “command” (amr). So, being reminded that God is powerful over everything, the believers know that they can reciprocate the evil sentiment of jealousy with the good sentiment of forgiveness. Islamic Interpretations The discussion of the Islamic interpretations of Q.2:104-9 is rather limited in scope, since questions that are central for the early generations of mufassirūn (interpreters) are quite different from the questions that are central in this commentary.51 In their interpretation of Q.2:104, the mufassirūn generally reiterate the context of dispute with Jews as a reason for the command not to say “rā‘inā” but “unẓurnā”. Tafsīr Muqātil, for instance, says that the word rā‘inā was used as an expression in the time of ignorance (jāhiliyya) but in the language of the Jews it sounded like a vilification, and therefore 51  TMJ for instance, is silent with regard to Q.2:105 and 109, but it has relevant materials with regard to Q.2:104 and 108.

50

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

they were eager to use it to ridicule what the Arabs were saying; by using the word unẓurnā which has a similar meaning but a different sound, the interlocutors of the Prophet could avoid this problem.52 Al-Ṭabarī, however, has his doubts about this tradition, mainly since the verse addresses the believers and the way in which they are to address the Prophet, so a possible use of the word by Jews is not directly relevant here.53 In this way, the two categories that are explicitly addressed in Q.2:105, “the disbelievers among the People of Scripture, and the associators” are imported into the literary context of this verse. The main question is: what does the category “disbelievers” (kāfirūn) among the People of Scripture mean, and how does it relate to “associators” (mushrikūn)? Unfortunately, most interpreters do not address this question since they immediately jump to the matter of naskh or “abrogation” supposedly addressed in Q.2:106. Tafsīr Muqātil gives the context of Q.2:105 as follows: the Anṣār (the “helpers” in Medina who did not migrate from Mecca) called the Jewish leaders to Islam, but the Jews responded “you do not call us to something better than what we have, and we wish you to be on a guidance.”54 The word “unbelievers” is interpreted as those among the Jews who refused the invitation to Islam, based on the idea that “nothing is better than what we have,” thus refusing to accept that God can send something better. The Jews want the Muslims to share their “guidance” (hudan), rather than the other way around. This is the impasse that the last part of the verse seeks to address. Muqātil interprets “God favors with His mercy” as “God favors with His religion of Islam”, adding that “He admits whoever He will into His Mercy.”55 In this manner, the general theological notion of God’s mercy (raḥmatihi) is explained as the concrete reality of God’s religion, Islam (dīnihi al-islām) echoing the claim of the Jews: God has favored the believers for His religion. Other mufassirūn add to this the Prophethood of Muhammad, so that the Mercy of God does not only indicate the chosen religion of Islam, but also the chosen prophethood of Muhammad.56 The Study Quran concurs with this interpretation: “The ‘singling’ out thus refers to the giving  TMS 1:69 (on Q.2:103-4); see also AQI 1:137-38 and WAN ad loc.  See SQ 48 (on Q.2:104). 54  TMS 1:70 on Q.2:105. 55  TMS 1:70, quoting Q.76:31. 56  See Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās and Tafsīr al-Jalālayn on www.altafsir. com (accessed August 23, 2016). 52 53



GOD’S GENEROSITY

51

of the office of prophet to Muhammad rather than to someone from another group more agreeable to the idolaters or People of the Book.”57 The Islamic interpretations of Q.2:106 focus on the idea of abrogation (naskh), which is evoked by the verb used, nansakh or “we delete”. Since the word āya is used as well, the verse can be interpreted as “we do not abrogate or cause to be forgotten any verse unless we give something better or something similar,” making it one of the traditional prooftexts for the doctrine of abrogation, together with Q.3:7 which we will encounter in the next chapter. However, the doctrine of abrogation – meaning that God abrogated a matter of law in a revealed verse by sending a new revelation with a different matter of law – is post-qur’ānic and the word āya in the Qur’ān generally does not mean “verse” but “sign” or “message” or “miracle”.58 Because of the context, the āya or sign in this verse must refer to the favor that God has given to the People of Scripture, yet God is able to give something similar or better to others. Thus the Study Quran suggests, after a long discussion of the mainstream interpretation of naskh that there is a minority interpretation that makes the case that naskh takes place between religions, “meaning that God replaces one religion with another.”59 Discussing the questioning of prophet Muhammad that is likened to the questioning of Moses before him, Muqātil b. Sulaymān refers to a similar passage in Q.4:153 where the People of Scripture are addressed as well: they “demand that you [Prophet] make a book physically come down to them from heaven, but they demanded even more than that of Moses when they said, ‘Show us God face to face,’ and were struck by the thunderbolt for their presumption.”60 A similar type of demand by the Children of Israel is referenced in Q.2:55, “[r]emember when you said, ‘Moses, we will not believe you until we see God face to face.’ At that, thunderbolts struck you as you looked on.”61 Other interpretations state that the inhabitants of Mecca asked the prophet for a type of miracle that would not only show his prophethood but also bring them profit, for instance turning the hill of Ṣafā into gold.62 In all cases, the  SQ 48 (on Q.2:105) with further references to Q.3:179; 16:2 and 40:15.  See Israr Ahmad Khan, “Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critique”, in: Contemporary Approaches to the Qur’an and Sunnah, ed. Mahmoud Ayoub (Herndon VA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, 1433/2012), 3-25. 59  SQ 49-50 (on Q.2:106). 60  Q.4:153 (AH). 61  Q.2:55 (AH). 62  TMJ 18 n. 40 and TJJ 16, on Q.2:108. 57 58

52

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

questioning betrays a refusal to accept God’s revelation as brought by God’s messenger. Tafsīr Muqātil again gives a concrete occasion for Q.2:109, “many of the People of Scripture want to bring you back from your faith…” by telling that a party of the Jews, among whom Finhas and Zayd b. Qays invited (the Muslims) Hudhayfa and Umar after the battle of Uhud to turn to their religion by saying that they faced a test on the day of the battle of Uhud and it would be better for them to turn to the religion of the Jews, because “our religion is better than your religion.”63 The Jews proceeded to invite Umar and Hudhayfa to follow their religion, but both answered by saying that their pledge of loyalty to their Lord and to their Prophet and to their Scripture is stronger than the loyalty of the Jews to what has been given to them by Moses. After this dispute, the Muslims go to tell the Prophet about it, and he asks them what they answered. They use this to give a summary of the Islamic faith: “God is our Lord; Muhammad is our prophet, and the Qur’ān is our faith; God we obey; Muhammad we emulate, and the Scripture of God we strive to perform.” The Prophet praised them and God revealed this verse to warn the believers.64 The same Tafsīr also gives an interpretation of the last part of the verse, “forgive and pardon until God gives his command.” This interpretation tells the Muslims to leave the Jews and turn away from them, until God will give the opportunity to fight and capture the people of Qurayẓa (a Jewish tribe in Medina) and to expel the people of Naḍīr (another Jewish tribe) from their houses and chase them unto Syria.65 Tafsīr al-Jalālayn also interprets “until God gives His command” as the command to fight them.66 In this interpretation, the notion of forgiveness becomes a mere avoidance until God gives the opportunity to kill and expel the Jewish tribes. The Study Quran highlights the importance of the notion of envy in this verse, and mentions the following ḥadīth in which the Prophet says: “Let there be no envy except in two things: a man who has been given wealth by God and then spends it in the way of God, and a man who 63  TMS 1:71, on Q.2:109. On the fate of the banu Qurayẓa and the banu Naḍīr according to the traditional Muslim historiography, see Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam, 45. 64  TMS 1:71-72. 65  TMS 1:72. The word al-Shām is usually translated as “Syria” but it also includes the Holy Land. 66  TJJ 16.



GOD’S GENEROSITY

53

has been given knowledge by God and acts in accord with it and imparts it to people.”67 In this context, the Study Quran also refers to Q.3:19 that addresses a similar situation: “Those who were given the Book differed not until after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves. And whosoever disbelieves in God’s signs, truly God is swift in reckoning.”68 It seems that the Qur’ān sees envy as a human phenomenon signaling divisiveness and disbelief. Receiving God’s revelation may bestow knowledge but human beings do not always use this in the right way. Knowledge can be used to act righteously, and in that case, it produces a good form of envy as the hadith says. But it is often used by the People of Scripture to disallow others participation in the knowledge gained by revelation, and that leads to claims that “our religion is better than yours.” The Study Quran summarizes this possibility as follows: One might say that the application of knowledge is a double-edged sword and that with guidance comes the possibility of misguidance … Just as each vice is, in a sense, a warped virtue, so too can truth be misrepresented or misinterpreted so as to be misused; when truth is used as a means to achieve false ends, rather than an end in itself, strife and schism ensue.69

Christian Resonances The tension expressed in these verses between the unbelievers from the People of Scripture and the faithful commonly arises between older and newer forms of faith.70 When it explicitly addresses the behavior of a large group from the People of Scripture, the Qur’ān suggests that they are jealous or envious. Those who think that they possess revelation from God (“Scripture”) use this prerogative as an instrument to make a distinction between themselves and those who – they claim – did not receive such revelation. They do not want these newcomers to become recipients of God’s grace and bounty similarly to themselves, and therefore they ridicule them (Q.2:104) and question them (Q.2:108). From the perspective of the Qur’ān, Jews and Christians want the newcomers to go back to unbelief, whether that be the form of paganism that they embraced before their  SQ 51.  Q.3:19b (SQ). 69  SQ 135 (on Q.3:19). 70  See Reuven Firestone, “Chosenness and the Exclusivity of Truth,” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James L. Heft, S.M., Reuven Firestone, and Omid Safi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 10728; id., Who are the Real Chosen People? and id., “Is there a notion of ‘divine election’ in the Qur’ān?”. 67 68

54

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

coming to faith, or their own Jewish and Christian traditions that can be characterized as unbelief as well in so far as they have strayed from the path and the truth that has been made clear to them (Q.2:108-9). Against this feeling of election or superiority, the Qur’ān argues that God is powerful over everything (Q.2:106) and Lord of heaven and earth (Q.2:107), and therefore God is able to give to whomever God wants to give. I will later come back to the theological argument that the Qur’ān makes here, but at this place I want to draw attention to the specific situation of the Christians who hear the claim of the newcomers to the faith who argue that they have been given something “similar or even better” (Q.2:106) from God, while being aware of the fact that they once were themselves newcomers to the faith with a similar claim. What Firestone calls the tension between older and younger forms of faith is called the tension between “law” and “grace” by Saint Paul in the New Testament. I propose to concentrate on a text that has been a central focus in the rethinking of relationships between Christians and Jews, namely Romans 9-11.71 If this central text has facilitated better relationships between Jews and Catholics (and other Christians) in the recent past, as the document Nostra Aetate shows, it might also resonate well with the qur’ānic approach to Jews and Christians as “People of Scripture.” Moreover, in order to do justice to the deep ambiguity of the term “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān, I also want to pay attention to some resonances with the commentary on the letter to the Romans by the famous Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), because I am convinced that there is a very strong parallel between Barth’s critical approach to the phenomenon of religion and the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture.72 I want to begin my reflections on the resonance of the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture in Christian theological reflections by focusing on the notion of envy (ḥasd, Q.2:109) that has clear negative connotations but can be turned into something positive in certain situations when it incites people to act righteously as was the case in the hadith on “no envy except in two things” quoted in The Study Quran. I want to draw attention to a Christian theologian who has developed a similar notion in the context of ecumenical and interreligious dialogues. 71  See John Connelly, From Enemy to Brother: the Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews 1933-1965 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011). 72  See chapter five of this commentary and Pim Valkenberg, “Comparative Criticism: The Qur’ān and Karl Barth,” in: Comparative Theology, ed. Ulrich Winkler (Frankfurter Zeitschrift fūr islamisch-theologische Studien, Special Issue 1. Berlin: EB Verlag 2017), 71-88.



GOD’S GENEROSITY

55

“Holy envy” is a phrase that is coined by the Swedish scholar Krister Stendahl who was at the faculty of Harvard Divinity School as professor of New Testament Studies and dean before he became the Lutheran bishop of Stockholm in 1984.73 Stendahl was very active in the World Council of Churches and its consultation on the Church and the Jewish People, and the words “holy envy” are often mentioned in ecumenical and Jewish-Christian dialogues. It is, however, quite difficult to locate this phrase in Stendahl’s published works. He is said to have used these words at a press conference in Sweden in 1985, when he formulated three rules of interreligious understanding, namely (1) when trying to understand another religion, ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies; (2) do not compare your best to their worst; (3) leave room for “holy envy”.74 In an interview with the Harvard Divinity Bulletin in 2007, Stendahl explained that holy envy means to find beauty in the other so that you try to give it a place in your own faith as well. Since Krister Stendahl was a scholar of the New Testament and of Paul in particular, it is not difficult to find the place where he found the inspiration for his “holy envy” rule in interreligious understanding. It is part of the text that has become famous as the source of new and better relationships between Jews and Christians, namely the letter to the Romans, chapter 11 where Paul reflects on the mystery of the unbelief of the Jews as a way to bring about greater salvation: “Through their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make them jealous” (Rom. 11:11). Paul makes this assertion about the role of the Jews and the role of the Gentiles in a long passage in which he reflects on the relation between the two peoples. Christians have often perceived this reflection as a negative judgment about the Jews, yet present-day reflections in the context of Jewish-Christian dialogue have substantially modified such perceptions. Nevertheless, there is a parallel between what is sometimes called Paul’s “deliberate misrepresentation of Judaism arising from the need to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism”75 and a similar qur’ānic negative approach to the ahl al-kitāb in order to show the truth of God’s new revelation to Prophet Muhammad. 73  See the obituary on the website of Harvard Divinity School: hds.harvard.edu/ news/2011/02/07krister-stendahl-1921-2008 (accessed on August 26, 2015). 74  The press conference was related to opposition to the building of a temple by the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, better known as Mormons. 75  Lester Dean, “Paul’s ‘Erroneous’ Description of Judaism,” in: Bursting the Bonds? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul, ed Leonard Swidler et al. (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1990), 136-42, at 138.

56

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

In Romans 9-11 Paul begins by indicating the privileged position of the children of Israel, but he makes a similar distinction as the Qur’ān does: “not all who are of Israel are Israel, nor are they all children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (Romans 9:6b-7a). Paul discovers a specific design in God’s elective plan (Rom. 9:11) viz. that God does not elect people on the basis of their standing but on the basis of God’s call. This is the reason why God often chose the younger over the older, for instance Isaac over Esau. God’s freedom to do so is undergirded by quotations from Scripture, in this case from the Torah (“I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will”, Ex. 33:19 as quoted in Rom. 9:15) and the Prophets (“Those who were not my people, I will call ‘My people’, and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved’”, Hosea 2:25 as quoted in Rom. 9:25). Both the Qur’ān and Paul recognize that the children of Israel have the position of an elected people, but nevertheless they argue that God has freedom to extend God’s gifts to others who are not thus privileged. This theological argument about the freedom of God goes hand in hand with an argument concerning human failure. The Qur’ān uses the metaphor of hiding and throwing away what the children of Israel received; Paul uses the metaphor of hardening of their hearts (Rom. 11:7; 11:25) yet in both cases it is not the entire people that commits these faults, but a (large) part. Nevertheless, the consequence is that only a few reach their goal: “What Israel was seeking it did not attain, but the elect attained it; the rest were hardened” (Rom 11:7). In the end all Israel will be saved, but only after “the full number of the Gentiles comes in” (Rom. 11:25). So, both in the Qur’ān and according to Paul, God’s mercy given to the Gentiles, those who are not the People of Scripture, makes the majority of the ahl al-kitāb jealous, so that they want to attain salvation as well. The Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament contain many stories in which the oldest son is removed from the position of the sole inheritor and all prerogatives that come with it, while God’s election is transferred to the younger son. These stories have often been interpreted as referring to the removal of the Jews from their privileged position in favor of the Christians. Saint Augustine, for instance, explains the story of the “lost son” or the “prodigal son” in Luke 15:11-32 in this fashion: “A father had two sons” (Luke 15:11) refers to God’s having two people: the older son is the Jewish people; the younger son is the pagan people.76 When interpreting the conversation between the older son and the 76  Augustine, sermo de Scripturis 112A; Latin text in G. Morin, ed., sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti (Roma 1930), 256-64.



GOD’S GENEROSITY

57

father, Augustine interprets the attitude of the older son as one of jealousy. The father recognizes the enduring faith of the older son (“you are here with me always; everything I have is yours,” Luke 15:31) but asks him to get over his jealousy and to join the party with his younger brother. In this way, Augustine’s interpretation of Luke’s story contains an interesting parallel to the qur’ānic text on the People of Scripture. The statement by Paul in the letter to the Romans and the statement by the Qur’ān in surah al-baqara have in common that they reflect on a situation in which the Jews are said not to remain true to the covenant that God made with them; for that reason, salvation has been offered to others as well, which is a source of jealousy for them. Such jealousy is seen as a negative characteristic in the Qur’ān and possibly in Paul, yet it becomes a positive characteristic in Stendahl’s “holy envy”. In surah al-mā‘ida (Q.5:48) the Qur’ān seems to leave open the possibility of such a positive understanding of “holy envy” or – as I prefer to call it – “spiritual emulation” as part of God’s design for humankind, according to which the diversity of religions may serve as an incitement to enhance mutual understanding as a way towards doing good and serving God. The final important element in this text is the remarkable call to the faithful not to retaliate but to “forgive and pardon until God gives his command.” While the Islamic tradition as exemplified by Tafsīr Muqātil interprets this command as God’s license to kill or expel the Jewish tribes,77 a more dialogue-oriented interpretation may be given as well by connecting the “command” with the notion that God will pass judgment, since the word amr is often connected to God’s future judgment in the Qur’ān.78 Those who are faithful know that the judgment is God’s and not theirs, so that they are in no way better than those whose attempt at religion they see falter. This is one of the major themes in Barth’s discussion in his commentary on the letter to the Romans. But Paul seems to suggest a similar attitude to the faithful: “do not become haughty but stand in awe” (Rom. 11:20). As the Qur’ān reminds us here and in Q.5:48, God will have the final say about the difference between the religions. But in the meantime, the differences may serve as stimuli to “vie with one another in doing good” (Q.5:48). 77  Even the Study Quran follows this tradition by stating that “the Command could indicate the military defeat of either the Quraysh or those Jews who opposed the Prophet or refer to the legal status afforded the People of the Book in 9:29” (SQ 51-52, on Q.2:109). The legal status in Qur’ān 9:29 is that of the ahl al-dhimma, the “treaty people” who pay the jizyah tax. 78  David Marshall, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers (Richmond, 1999), 129.

58

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The Jealousy of Jews and Christians (2:113-41) After these verses about the People of Scripture, in the next section (C) the Qur’ān discusses the behavior of both Jews and Christians. This behavior can be characterized as a form of exclusivism, both against one another and against others. The Qur’ān sees jealousy as the source of differences between religious groups. In a noteworthy verse that is almost a summary of the entire sūrat al-baqara, the Qur’ān states the following: The people were one community. Then God sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and as warners; and He sent down with them the Scripture with the truth, to give decisions between the people about that on which they differed. Only those who had been given it differed about it after the clear proofs had come to them, through outrage amongst them. God guided, by His permission, those who believed to that truth about which they differed. God guides those whom He wishes to a straight path.79

In this verse the differences between people are seen as a refusal to accept the revelation (kitāb) given by the prophets, and as a sign of their jealousy. The differences began after they were created as one community; God sent prophets with revelation, but the disagreements persisted even after the truth had been given. Yet, a straight path is possible for those who want to be guided. The history of humankind sketched here calls to mind the contrast between Adam and Christ that Paul sketches in the letter to the Romans 5:12-20: through one person, sin entered the world; the law entered so as to increase the transgression, but where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more. In the Qur’ān, as in Paul, one may get the impression that the divine gift of revelation (law; Scripture) that was meant as an antidote against sinfulness and division, in fact increased sin and divisiveness. Yet, at the same time, God’s final revelation (Christ; straight path) makes a different outcome possible if human beings want to be guided by truth. In the verses following immediately after 2:105-109, Christians and Jews are mentioned by name, and the connection between these two groups, their differences and their failure to follow God’s revelation is made very explicit: The Jews say, ‘The Christians have no ground to stand on;’ and the Christians say, ‘The Jews have no ground to stand on,’ though they (both) recite  Qur’ān 2:213 (AJ).

79



GOD’S GENEROSITY

59

the Book. In this way, those who have no knowledge say something similar to their saying. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences.80

Jews and Christians deny each other’s point of view, even though they recite Scripture (wahum yatlūna l-kitāb). The Qur’ān seems to imply that the revelation that they received is certainly in harmony, so if they recite the same Scripture, they should agree. The verb used here, talā (“to recite, to read aloud”) forms the root of the noun tilāwa, a public recitation of the Qur’ān in the later history of Islam. So, the verb seems to refer to a liturgical practice, and maybe even to the fact that the Christians include the Jewish Scripture in their liturgy, since the word kitāb here is singular. The same verb occurs a bit later as well: “Those to whom We have given the Book recite it as it should be recited. Those (people) believe in it. But whoever disbelieves in it – those (people) – they are the losers.”81 The disagreement between Jews and Christians is a form of mutual exclusivism, meaning that they both hold their own religion as the only true faith: “The Jews and the Christians will never be pleased with you unless you follow their ways.”82. Jews and Christians try to convince others that they must share their ways. “They say, ‘Become Jews or Christians, and you will be rightly guided’.” (Q.2:135a). Against such claims, however, the Qur’ān appeals to the religion of Abraham: “Say [Prophet]: ‘No, [ours is] the religion of Abraham, the upright, who did not worship any god besides God’.”83 The term “upright” (ḥanīf, often translated as “true monotheist” or “upright worshiper”), and the addition that he was not among the mushrikīn (“associators”) seem to imply that Abraham is a model because of his true monotheism.84 The Qur’ān refers to the self-awareness of the prophet Muhammad and his followers to be in continuity with the pure monotheism of Abraham because they accept all revelations from God and therefore all prophets. “Say: ‘We believe in God, and what has been sent down to us, and what has been  Q.2:113 (Dr).  Q.2:121 (Dr). The words yatlūnahu ḥaqqa tilawātihi can also be translated as “they follow it as it ought to be followed” (MA). 82  Q.2:120 (AH). The word milla, translated as “ways,” can also refer to the belief system of a specific religious group. 83  Q.2:135b (AH). 84  Droge mentions another interpretation of the word ḥanīf, which associates this word with the Syriac word ḥanpā which refers to a gentile, someone who is not part of the People of Scripture (Dr 14); see also RQBS 85. 80 81

60

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

sent down to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit’.”85 A true believer should accept all revelations from God without making distinctions between them, as Jews and Christians do. Their mistake is that they narrow down God’s revelation to their own interpretation of it: “Or do you say, ‘Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes were Jews or Christians?’”86 The best believers are therefore those who accept all messages and all prophets, and do not make distinction between them or try to narrow them down to their own interpretation. As we will see, the Muslim community thinks of itself as the middle community because it follows the straight path of accepting all revelations from God. However, a Christian reflection on these claims should add that it is important to distinguish between true and false prophecy, because not every claim to prophethood can be aligned with the canonical criteria of true revelation. Once Christianity has formulated its canonical basis in Christ and the apostolic witnesses, it started to deny new claims to prophethood. The Qur’ān seems to argue in favor of accepting its new prophetic authority, yet once this authority has become canonical, the religion of Islam excludes the validity of new claims to prophethood. In this sense, the qur’ānic criticism of Jewish and Christian exclusivist tendencies will be severely weakened by exclusivist tendencies in Islam on the basis of the authority of the same Qur’ān. The knowledge of the People of Scripture (2:142-152) According to Farrin’s analysis, verses 142-52 constitute the middle section of sūrat al-baqara and thus contain a central message: [T]he center of the chapter orients the faithful, distinguishing Muslims as a new median community. Yet at the same time, the text downplays the importance of their specific prayer direction. Here the Qur’an affirms that all people, regardless of their prayer direction or spiritual orientation, should vie in goodness and God will bring them together.87  Q.2:136 (Dr).  Q.2:140 (Dr.) Droge adds: “the point is that Judaism and Christianity are later than, and hence inferior to, the religion of Abraham and the patriarchs (cf. the apostle Paul’s similar privileging of Abraham in Galatians 3 and Romans 4).” 87  FSQI 21. 85 86



GOD’S GENEROSITY

61

The central verse about the “middle community” (umma wasaṭ) serves as reminder that the most important part of faith is not ritual exactness but enacting justice; therefore, the Islamic tradition often interprets wasaṭ as “just”. As the Study Quran remarks, many Muslims will consider themselves the “people of the middle,” in between two extremes: Indeed, Muslims have argued that while Judaism emphasizes the Law and Christianity emphasizes love and mercy, Islam creates a balance between the two or between emphasis on the exoteric and the esoteric; Islam also creates a balance between the concerns of this world and the demands of the Hereafter.88

In this context, the Qur’ān mentions “those who were given the Scripture” a number of times, confirming that they received truth from their Lord, yet also implying that their knowledge of true revelation gives them the responsibility to act on the basis of that knowledge. This stress on knowledge is a remarkable feature in three consecutive verses about the People of Scripture: Those who were given the Scripture know with certainty that this is the Truth from their Lord: God is not unaware of what they do. Yet even if you brought every proof to those who were given the Scripture, they would not follow your prayer direction, nor will you follow theirs, nor indeed will any of them follow one another’s direction. If you [Prophet] were to follow their desires, after the knowledge brought to you, you would be doing wrong. Those We gave Scripture know it as well as they know their own sons, but some of them hide the truth that they know.89

Some of the themes discussed above return here. First of all, the knowledge of a certain Scripture occasions divisiveness, exemplified here by the different prayer directions: to Jerusalem or to Mecca: the change in prayer direction is obviously the occasion for the revelation of verses 142 and following. Second, humans often follow their own desires that go contrary to what has been revealed. Third, some of the People of Scripture hide the truth even though they know it very well. The simile used here is quite striking: they know it as well as they know their own children. While the Islamic tradition interprets this as a reference either to the Ka‘ba as the prayer direction for Muslims or to Prophet Muhammad,90 it seems plausible that the suffix in ya‘rifūnahu (“they know it/him”)  SQ 64 (on Q.2:143).  Q.2:144d-146 (AH). 90  SQ 66 (on Q.2:146). In that case, the translation is “know him as they know their children.” 88 89

62

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

refers to the word immediately before it: kitāb or Scripture. In that case the message is: the people to whom the Scripture has been given, know its contents very well; and yet they hide the truth that they know.91 Whenever they conceal the truth they received through revelation, the People of Scripture will be held accountable, because they should know better and therefore they knowingly and willingly hide the truth. Yet after having mentioned divisiveness in prayer direction, the Qur’ān adds that such differences are not decisive but can be used for holy envy, knowing that God has the power to unite them: “Each community has its own direction to which it turns: race to do good deeds and wherever you are, God will bring you together. God has power to do everything.”92 On the one hand, the Qur’ān repeatedly criticizes the divisions between the People of Scripture, for instance in Q.2:176 (AH): “This is because God has sent the Scripture with the Truth; those who pursue differences in the Scripture are deeply entrenched in opposition.” Yet, on the other hand it suggests that such differences will not be overcome in this world, and that they may be used to emulate one another in spiritual zeal, in the awareness that God will tell the final truth about these differences. After such criticism, the Qur’ān often adds a qualifier: if they repent, God will be merciful (Q.2:160). Christians who listen to these qur’ānic criticisms may be inclined to reject them, arguing that they do not hide the truth that is known to them in their Scriptures. Yet, at the same time, they may be aware that Christians have often criticized Jews for not recognizing the truth about Christ in their Scriptures, and this may give them pause for reflection, considering that it is indeed true that human beings do not possess the fullness of truth that will only be revealed to them at the end of times. They will add, however, that it is Christ who will pass the final judgment.

91  Something similar is repeated later in Q.2:159-160a (AH): “As for those who hide the proofs and guidance We send down, after We have made them clear to people in the Scripture, God rejects them and so do others, unless they repent, make amends, and declare the truth.” 92  Q.2:148 (AH).

Chapter Four

AN EQUITABLE WORD Say: O people of scripture, come to an equitable word between us and between you that we worship only god and not associate anything with him and that we do not take one another as lords beside god and when they turn away, say, witness that we are submitters (Q.3:64) The first verse in the Qur’ān that directly addresses the People of Scripture is the famous “common word” verse. This verse merits a central place in a separate chapter since it has given its name to a contemporary process of interreligious encounters between Muslims and Christians. However, the so-called “common word” verse cannot be read and interpreted separately from its literary context, and that is why I will start with a short consideration of sūrat Āl ‘Imrān in its entirety. Another reason to distribute the discussion of Āl ‘Imrān over two chapters in this commentary is that this surah contains the most explicit references to People of Scripture: no less than twelve out of a total of 31.1 The first seven explicit references occur in Q.3:64-75; two others in Q.3:98-99 and two more in Q.3:110-113. A final, isolated but very important reference can be found towards the end of the surah, in Q.3;199. The “common word” verse seems to function as a hinge in the entire third surah. Even though most contemporary analyses see Q.3:64 as the beginning of a new section in the surah, the classical tradition of asbāb al-nuzūl (“occasions of the revelations”) sees it as the culmination of a Christological dispute between prophet Muhammad and a delegation of 1  In his introduction to the third surah, Sayyid Quṭb remarks that the situation of the People of Scripture is one of the major issues in the first part of the surah, covering verses 1-83. He describes the situation of the People of Scripture as one of “deviation from their Scriptures,” and goes on to mention thirteen verses that refer explicitly or implicitly to the situation of the People of Scripture. See Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān (Beirut: Dār al-Shurūq, 1425/2004), 353.

64

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Christians from Najrān close to present-day Yemen. Later exegetes of the Qur’ān, such as Sayyid Quṭb often discuss the “common word” verse as the final word in a discussion concerning prophet Jesus, while Q.3:65 starts a new discussion concerning prophet Abraham.2 For that reason, I will twice pay attention to the “common word” verse: in this chapter, it will be discussed as the end of the first section in Q.3, and in the next chapter it will be resumed as the start of a new section. Many contemporary Western scholars see Q.3:64 as the beginning of a new section. Raymond Farrin observes a concentric structure with three rings surrounding a core unit, as follows:3 A: 1-30 B: 31-63 C: 64-99 D: 100-109 C’: 110-117 B’: 118-179 A’: 180-200

The core message is expressed in the central verse 104 (AH): “Be a c­ ommunity that calls for what is good, urges what is right, and forbids what is wrong”. Neal Robinson4 gives a slightly different structure: Preliminary matter: 1-32 Central core: 33-179 (1) The status of previous prophets: 33-99 a- Jesus and his entourage: 33-63 b- The religion of Abraham: 64-99 (2) The Muslim experience of death and defeat: 100-79 Ending: 180-200.

Matthias Zahniser and Angelika Neuwirth distinguish three basic parts in the surah: 1-62 // 63-99 // 100-200.5 So does Sayyid Quṭb, but in his case, the parts are 1-120 // 121-79 // 180-200.6 Robinson remarks that the phrase “People of the Scripture” marks the beginning (3:64) and the ending (3:99) of section (1 b) on Abraham. Moreover, references to the People of Scripture can be found in nine  Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān, 405-7; English translation: QSQ 101-4.  See FSQI 75-91. Farrin sees a strong parallel between surahs 2 and 3 in this respect. 4  Neal Robinson, “Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Those with the Greatest Claim to Abraham”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 6/2 (2004) 1-21, at 1-2. I corrected the verse numbers for the central core. 5  See NSPC 360. 6  QSQ 2:xv. 2 3



AN EQUITABLE WORD

65

verses in this section, while they are only found in three other verses.7 This implies that texts discussing the People of Scripture are concentrated in the section discussing the religion of Abraham. Farrin observes that the Islamic tradition has long acknowledged the complementarity between Q.2 and Q.3; hence their traditional name of “the two luminous chapters” (zahrawān).8 Among many parallels between the two surahs are discussions with adherents of earlier revelations and references to contemporary historical context. In the case of the second surah, the interlocutors are mostly Jews, while the relation between the community of the faithful and the Meccan polytheists as well as the possibility of battle with them forms the historical context. In the case of the third surah, the interlocutors are both Jews and Christians, and the historical context induces a reflection on the battles of Badr and Uhud. The debate with Jews and Christians starts immediately in the introductory verses of the third surah. 3:3-4 God Sends Confirmation 3  He

has sent to you the scripture with the truth confirming what was before and he sent the torah and the gospel 4  before as a guidance for the people – and he sent the distinction since those who do not accept the signs of god for them is a heavy suffering and god is strong in punishment While Q.2 began with a reference to a kitāb without doubt as guidance for those who are watchful, Q.3 begins with a reference to the kitāb with the truth that God has sent to “you,” presumably the Prophet since the suffix refers to a masculine singular person. The threefold repetition of the verb “to send” (nazala) suggests a repetitive action from God. First, God sent down the tawrāt and the injīl, and now God sends down a confirmation and guidance in the form of a new Scripture. The verb form used in connection with “Scripture” suggests an iterative sending down of the Qur’ān, which may distinguish this sending down from the

7  The same is true for three other phrases: ashraka (“to associate”), shahida (“to witness”) and aslama (“to submit”). Robinson, Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān, 2. 8  FSQI 24; Suyūṭī, The Perfect Guide to the Sciences of the Qur’ān, 127.

66

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

revelation of earlier Scriptures.9 Similarly, the word “distinction” (furqān) may indicate the “piecemeal character” of the revelation of the Qur’ān in sections.10 Even though God sends guidance, the people often do not accept these signs of God, yet God is able to punish those who refused. Just like the previous surah, the beginning of Q.3 creates an opposition between truth and guidance on the one hand, and human nonacceptance and disbelief on the other. While suffering and punishment are the consequences of this human behavior, God keeps sending down the same message, and therefore the Scripture with the truth is a confirmation of what was sent down before, even though human beings did not accept this truth. While the term furqān suggests that the revelation of God makes distinction between human beings, or that it comes in iterations, it has also been taken as one of the names for the Qur’ān by many Muslim interpreters, or as a fourth revelation.11 The most important distinction, though, is between the truth revealed by God and the human refusal to accept this truth. A little further in this introductory section, Q.3:7 announces a specific characteristic of the Scripture that has been revealed to “you” (Muhammad): in it are “decisive signs” (āyāt muḥkamāt) – these are identified as the umm al-kitāb (literally, “mother of the book”) – and “ambiguous signs” (āyāt mutashābihāt). This verse is one of the most discussed verses in the Qur’ān for a number of reasons, among which the question about the difference between “clear verses” and “allegorical verses” looms large. However, it is questionable whether this verse discusses characteristics of verses (āyāt) at all, since the word āya in the Qur’ān usually does not have the technical meaning of “verse” that it receives later when the Qur’ān is codified and verses are used to refer to the units of its ­chapters.12 Yet it is possible that the word indicates some part of the revelation 9  Abdel Haleem (AH 51), for instance, translates: “Step by step, He has sent down the Scripture to you [Prophet]…” This interpretation goes back to Zamakhsharī, see AQI 2:10. See also TJJ 47. 10  For this interpretation, see Walid Saleh, “A Piecemeal Qur’ān: Furqān and its Meaning in Classical Islam and in Modern Qur’ānic Studies,” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 42 (2015) 31-71. Thanks to Daniel Madigan for this reference. 11  Furqān thus may refer to the disagreements among Christians concerning the person of Jesus (al-Ṭabarī), to the Psalms of David (Zamakhsharī) or to the miracles connected with the revelations (al-Rāzī). See AQI 2:16-19. The mufassirūn, especially al-Ṭabarī and al-Rāzī, usually consider more possibilities than the ones named in the text. 12  See BC 76.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

67

received by Muhammad, and that Q.3:7 distinguishes between parts that are decisive (muḥkamāt) and therefore the basis or “mother” of Scripture, and other parts that are multi-interpretable or ambiguous (mutashābihāt). Neuwirth states that the debate about the ambiguity of certain parts in the revealed Scripture must be connected to the debate with Jews and Christians. In a fascinating but highly speculative study, she posits a twofold thematic emphasis in Q.3:1-62: “the discourse of revelation and scriptural meanings, on the one hand, and of procreation and genealogy, on the other.”13 Neuwirth connects the discourse focused on revelation and interpretations of scripture with Talmudic discussions on the possibility of plural understandings of scripture (a parallel to mutashābihāt or “ambiguous” passages) in contrast to a reading that relies on a meaning that is firmly rooted in the “mother of Scripture” (a parallel to the clear muḥkamāt that are the umm al-kitāb). The other possible interpretation of “mother of Scripture” is Mary whose son Jesus is the focus of extended Christological discussions in this surah. In the Byzantine tradition, Mary is described as an unambiguous symbol of faith for believers, but a source of ambiguity for unbelievers.14 Even though these associations with Jewish and Christian conceptions of Scripture and Christology are far from established connections, they do point to the double relationship that is indicated in the term People of Scripture as well: debates with Jews – and, to a lesser extent, Christians – on the revelation that they have received, and debates with Christians specifically on the function of Jesus, son of Mary. The commentary in the Study Qur’an points to another possible connection between the interpretation of the Qur’ān and the relations with Christians. It refers to a tradition that tells about a debate between prophet Muhammad and a group of Christians as the specific occasion for the revelation of this verse, and more specifically the word mutashābihāt or ambiguous passages. When the Christians pointed to Q.4:171 as stating that Jesus is the Word of God and a Spirit from Him, and the Prophet acknowledged that this verse had indeed been revealed to him, the Christians thought they had convinced him of their Christology. Yet God subsequently revealed this part of Q.3:7, “the perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own,” as if to declare that the concepts “Word of God” and “Spirit of God” are ambiguous 13 14

 NSPC 365.  NSPC 367.

68

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

c­oncepts that have been explained errantly (fi qulūbihim zayghun – “in their hearts is deviation”) by Christians.15 3:19-23 Knowledge and divergence about the Scripture A next cluster of texts in the introductory section argues that those who have received Scripture are divided in opposition to the strict monotheism of true submission to God.16 Behold, the only [true] religion in the sight of God is [man’s] self-surrender unto Him; and those who were vouchsafed revelation aforetime took, out of mutual jealousy, to divergent views [on this point] only after knowledge [thereof] had come unto them. But as for him who denies the truth of God’s messages – behold, God is swift in reckoning.17

It is not exactly clear what the point of divergence is; Asad’s additional words suggest that the divergence is about the oneness of God, and this is confirmed by the context of these verses. Yet the second part of Q.3:19 suggests that it is a denial of the truth of God’s āyāt, which seems to refer to revelation. The most puzzling statement, however, is that the recipients of revelation began to differ after knowledge had come to them. This seems to indicate that the ‘ilm (knowledge) that comes with being recipients of revelations may cause differences because knowledge of God’s truth makes one accountable to act accordingly. Instead of focusing on the oneness of the only true God, they decide to focus on differences between them – out of jealousy or desire (baghyan) between them. The notion of jealousy or desire again imports a negative connotation of wishing something that is impure and thus contrary to the truth revealed by God.18 In the previous chapter we encountered a similar notion – but different terms – in Q.2:109 where the People of Scripture are said to bring back others to unbelief “out of envy in their hearts.” Even more striking is the similarity with Q.2:213 (MA): “… the selfsame people who had been granted this [revelation] began, out of mutual jealousy, to disagree about its meaning…”.

 Q.3:7b (AH); SQ 131.  See Q.3:18 “God bears witness that there is no deity except God”. 17  Q.3:19 (MA). Note the translation of islām as “self-surrender” (not “Islam”). 18  Neuwirth (NSPC 369) notices the frequency of gender-related terms in this part of the surah. 15 16



AN EQUITABLE WORD

69

Revelation bestows knowledge, but knowledge implies accountability and may create division. Christian readers of this text may hear some resonance in Saint Paul’s reflections on the mystery that the introduction of the Law as a sign of the covenant seems to multiply the transgressions (Romans 5:20). For Paul this multiplication of sins is the black foil against which the grace of Christ shines more brightly. In a similar way, the Qur’ān argues that the increase of knowledge caused an increase of differences and arguments. Those who have received revelation know more than those who remained outside of revelation. Yet having received revelation does in no way guarantee the right submission to the one God. After a reminder of the chastisement that awaits those who deny and kill the prophets, Q.3:23-24 (MA) suggests that the different people received a share (naṣīb) of revelation: Art thou not aware of those who have been granted their share of revelation [aforetime]? They have been called upon to let God’s writ be their law – and yet some of them turn away [from it] in their obstinacy, simply because they claim, ‘The fire will most certainly not touch us for more than a limited number of days’, and thus the false beliefs which they invented have [in time] caused them to betray their faith.

We might be inclined to connect the idea of the differences between those who have received revelation before with the notion that they received a share of revelation, however such a view would imply that they each received a different message and that seems contrary to what the Qur’ān intends to say. Ṭabāṭabā’ī, for instance, argues that the faith that the different people received through the prophets is the same, even though the specific matters concerning legislation might be different.19 Yet there is not only difference but also refusal among those to whom the revelation was given: they turn away, thinking that the punishment will not be forever.20 The Qur’ān criticizes such false hopes (“the fire will only touch us temporarily”) as an excuse to not answer the call of the true faith. 3:48-50 Jesus as teacher of Injīl (and Tawrāt) The second section of the surah, starting at Q.3:33, discusses the family of ‘Imrān that gave the surah its title. It mentions a number of people  See AQI 2:71.  We have discussed this qur’ānic interpretation of possible rabbinic notions of election in the previous chapter. See Q.2:80 and the literature (Firestone, Newby, Mazuz) ad loc. 19 20

70

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

whom God selected (iṣṭafā) above all humankind: Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of ‘Imrān. This passage seems to highlight Mary and her family more than Jesus, discussing her birth from her parents, her relation to Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, and finally her relation to Jesus. The angel tells Mary about his calling as a messenger from God: “He will impart unto thy son revelation, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the Gospel, and [will make him] an apostle unto the children of Israel.”21 God will teach (yu‘allim) him four things: the kitāb, the wisdom (ḥikma), the Torah (tawrāt) and the Gospel (injīl). Scripture (or revelation, as Asad translates) and wisdom are mentioned here before the two concrete forms of revelation that have been given to Moses and Jesus, so the word kitāb seems to indicate the heavenly origin of the messages rather than a specific book. Mustansir Mir argues that this verse mentions not four but only two instances of revelation: “He will teach him the book and wisdom, that is: the Torah and the Gospel.”22 The Islamic exegetical tradition as represented by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), however, associates kitāb with a specific way of writing: “the art of writing he practiced with his own hand”, while ḥikma refers to the habitual ways (sunna) of the prophets whom God sent without a Scripture.23 God first taught Jesus how to write, and he taught him the rational and legal sciences, and after that He taught him the Torah that had been revealed to prophets before him, and finally the Gospel. Ṭabāṭabā’ī (d. 1401/1981), on the contrary, argues that kitāb in combination with wisdom generally refers to the heavenly revelation that is meant to abolish dissension among the people.24 In this line of reasoning, Scripture and Wisdom and Torah and Gospel are different instances of the same divine message, ultimately confirmed by the last of the prophets and the revelation given to him. This confirming function is true for Jesus as well, as he states in the words of Q.3:50: “And (I come) confirming what was before me of the Torah, and to make permitted to you some things which were forbidden to you (before).”25 Jesus confirms the Torah in line with what he says in a famous passage from the Gospel according to Matthew: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the  Q.3:48-49a (MA).  Mustansir Mir, Understanding the Islamic Scripture: A Study of Selected Passages from the Qur’ān (New York: Pearson Longman, 2008) 86, arguing that the second wāw (“and”) indicates an explication and divides the entire phrase in two equal parts. 23  AQI 2:139. 24  Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Tafsīr al-mīzān, on 2:213 and 3:48 as quoted in AQI 2:140. 25  Q.3:50 (Dr). 21

22



AN EQUITABLE WORD

71

law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”26 He seems to adhere to even the tiniest minutiae of the Law (“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place”, Matthew 5:18). Yet elsewhere he seems to allow his disciples to break some of the laws, such as the law of the Sabbath (Luke 6:2). This is reflected in the qur’ānic conviction that Jesus mitigated some of the laws, and made permissible some of the foods forbidden to the Jews. One of the central convictions in both sūrat al-baqara and sūrat al-mā’ida is that the community of the believers establishes itself as a “community of the middle” (Q.2:143) between Jewish strictness and Christian leniency. Whereas some exegetes like aṭ-Ṭabari say that Jesus made the law more lenient, others like Ibn Kathīr go further and say that Jesus abrogated part of the laws of the Tawrāt.27 3:64 The “common word” verse 64  Say:

O people of scripture, come to an equitable word between us and between you that we worship only god and not associate anything with him and that we do not take one another as lords beside god and if they turn away, say, witness that we are submitters This text is the first place in the Qur’ān – according to its canonical order – in which the People of Scripture are addressed. The address is mediated by the singular person addressed in the first word, “say”, traditionally identified as Muhammad, the receiver of God’s revelation. He is to address the People of Scripture and call them to come to a statement that is common, or rather equitable, to the word of the party that addresses them. This “common word verse” – as it is usually called – has been an important stimulus for an initiative by a large group of Muslim scholars, the “Common Word Document” issued in Amman in 2007, in order to promote dialogue between Christians and Muslims.28 Therefore, the verse merits some special attention in the rest of this chapter,  Matthew 5:17 (NAB)  TIK 2:165. 28  See the informative website of the Common Word Initiative, www.acommonword. com (last accessed February 13, 2018). 26 27

72

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

while the other texts addressing the People of Scripture in sūrat Āl ‘Imrān will be discussed in the next chapter.29 I will discuss the dialogue between the prophet Muhammad and a group of Christians from the city of Najrān close to present-day Yemen that is adduced in the Islamic tradition to explain the meaning of this verse. Since the People of Scripture are addressed in this verse, the Christian resonances will be a central element throughout. Explanatory Notes The Arabic text of the “common word” verse begins as follows: Qul: yā ahla l-kitābi ta‘ālaw ’ilā kalimatin sawā’in baynanā wa-baynakum. “Common word” is the usual translation for the Arabic words kalima sawā’. While the meaning of the word kalima here is relatively clear, since the “word” refers to a kind of statement, the word sawā’ is not so clear. It is derived from a root (s-w-y) that means “to be equal, to be equivalent, to be at the same level.” Hence, “equal” or “even” is its basic meaning, and I have chosen to translate this word as “equitable” because the Islamic interpretations discussed below strongly suggest the possibility of such an interpretation. Moreover, in the section on Christian resonances I will show how the translation “equitable word” leads to an approach to the relationship between Muslims and Christians that differs from the kind of relationship suggested by the usual translation “common word.” Another important matter is the meaning of the plural arbāb (“lords”) in the phrase “that we do not take one another as lords beside God.” The Qur’ān often uses rabb to designate God as “Lord”, and this might be the intended meaning if the Christians are cautioned not to associate anything with God. In the Christological debate in this surah, associating Jesus with God as second person of the Trinity is seen as a grave error of Christians, and thus they need to agree with the Muslim creed repeated in this verse “that we worship only God and not associate anything with Him.” Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, for instance, interprets the word rabb as referring to Jesus, since “Christians take Jesus as lord”.30 However, the phrase “that we do not take one another as lords beside 29  An earlier version of this commentary on the “common word verse” was presented at a conference at the Mater Dei Institute of Education at Dublin City University in December 2013, now published as “A Common Word or a Word of Justice? Two Qur’anic Approaches to Christian-Muslim Dialogue” in The Future of Interfaith Dialogue: Muslim–Christian Encounters through A Common Word, eds. Yazid Said and Lejla Demiri (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 192-203. 30  TMS 1:174.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

73

God” seems to indicate that at this place the reference is to specific human beings who are unduly seen as lords. In this context, Neal Robinson draws attention to the fact that “the Arabic word rabb, ‘lord’, is of common Semitic stock and was used by the pagan Arabs of their human chiefs and great men without implying that they were divine.”31 If that is the case, the request not to take one another as lords besides God may refer to an ecclesial instead of a divine hierarchy. The final word of the verse, “submitters” (muslimūn), deserves some attention as well. The word may of course refer to the adherents of the religion of Islam, and therefore be translated as “Muslims.” However, the word islām in most – if not all – texts from the Qur’ān does not refer to an institutionalized religion but to a specific attitude: being submissive or rather aligning oneself to God. “In the Qur’an, the term ‘submitting’ – islam – is not yet used as the name of one ‘religion’ as opposed to others …”32 The Islamic traditions about the historical context of this specific verse indicate that the identity of the true muslimūn is precisely the topic of the debate between prophet Muhammad and the Christians from Najrān: both parties claimed to be the true submitters to God, and therefore the verse ends with the words “if they turn away, testify that we are submitters.” If the Christians withdraw from the dialogue, Muhammad and his followers have reason to claim their identity as true muslimūn. A short survey of Islamic interpretations of this verse will show how they claim this identity by showing that the Christians failed to establish such an identity as true submitters to God. Islamic Interpretations Among the oldest interpretations of this verse, Tafsīr Muqātil gives the following glosses: “equitable word” means “a word of justice,” and that is sincerity (ikhlāṣ). “Anything” in “not associate anything with him” refers to God’s creature; “that we not take one another as lords” is said because they took Jesus as lord. “If they turn away” means: “if they refuse tawḥīd” (proclaiming the unity of God). Finally, “witness that we are submitters” means: “we are devotees to the unity [of God]”.33 In this way, Muqātil makes an implicit connection with sūrat al-ikhlāṣ that contains a clear affirmation of God’s unity (“Say, He is God the One”) but also a rejection of divine generation (“He begot no one nor was He begotten”) that can  Robinson, “Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Those with the Greatest Claim to Abraham,” 3.  Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an, 179-80. 33  Tafsīr Muqātil, 174 (on Q.3:64). 31 32

74

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

be construed as a refutation of the Christian Creed (genitum non factum, “begotten not made”).34 After that, Muqātil tells part of the story concerning Christians from Najrān that will be discussed below. One of the most important hermeneutical tools that can assist in giving a context for certain verses in the Qur’ān is the tradition of the asbāb al-nuzūl, usually translated as “occasions of the revelations.” According to this procedure, the contents of specific verses are explained by references to specific events in the life of Prophet Muhammad and his companions. In this case, Q.3:64 is connected with the preceding Christological discussions in Q.3:33-63 by making it the final proposal that ended this discussion. Imam al-Wāḥidī (d. 468/1075), the most famous collector of these “occasions of the revelations,” writes that a delegation of Christians from Najrān came to see Muhammad in Medina to hear about his new teaching that seemed to involve a specific reverence to Jesus as a prophet yet falling short of their Christian designation of Christ as the Son of God. The tradition tells that Muhammad received them hospitably and allowed them to pray in his mosque. After this, Muhammad told them to surrender to God, using a verb that in its Arabic form (aslama) immediately evokes the invitation (da‘wa) to become Muslims. The Christians answer with a counter-claim, saying: “We have already surrendered to God!”, yet Muhammad retorts: “Three things prevent you from surrendering to God: claiming that God has a son, worshiping the cross, and eating pork.” After a long disputation in which the Christians confess that Christ is both Son of God and a human being in the womb of Mary, Muhammad replies that he cannot be the Son of God if he is a human being at the same time. According to al-Wāḥidī, this story forms the occasion of the revelation of Q.3:1-81.35 The context of Q.3:64 is thus a debate is about the identity of the true muslimūn. While Muhammad claims that he has been given the true message of submission to God, the Christians claim that they already possess this true faith. Al-Wāḥidī focuses his interpretation on Q.3:61 where Muhammad is told to challenge the Christians by proposing an ordeal (mubāhala) in which both parties will submit to God’s curse if they tell lies: If anyone disputes this with you now that you have been given this knowledge, say, “Come, let us gather our sons and your sons, our women and

 Q.112:1,3 (AH).The Latin phrase is from the Nicene Creed.  WAN 44.

34 35



AN EQUITABLE WORD

75

your women, ourselves and yourselves, and let us pray earnestly and invoke God’s rejection on those of us who are lying”.36

Even though the text is not very specific, the Islamic tradition has associated this verse with the specific practice of an ordeal in which both parties solemnly curse one another in the expectation that God will side with the party that is right, while destroying the party that is wrong.37 Al-Wāḥidī tells that Muhammad was prepared to bring his son-in-law ‘Ali, his daughter Fatima and his grandsons al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn to this invocation of God’s rejection, but the Christians of Najrān were afraid to expose themselves to God’s judgment. This report suggests that Muhammad is determined to bring the most important members of his own family to this ordeal. Confronted with such confidence, the Christians of Najrān decide to elude the contest, thus delegitimizing themselves as true believers. Muqātil tells us that al-‘Āqib, the deputy chief of Najrān and political leader of the delegation, considered that a mutual cursing would not work for them. “If Muḥammad is a liar, his curse would not work; but if he is truthful, we are in trouble because God destroys the liars.” So they decided to pay a ransom rather than enter into the mutual curse.38 After Muhammad heard that the Christians evaded the test, he is reported to have said: “By Him Who has sent me with the truth, had they agreed to summon Allah’s curse on the liar, fire would have rained on the valley [where the delegation of Najrān had camped].”39 Al-Wāḥidī adds that Muhammad interprets the refusal by the Christians from Najrān to engage in the mubāhala as a sign of their weak faith. He uses this weakness to impose a levied tax – the famous jizya – on them.40 It is quite clear that this later tradition is used as a justification of a situation in which Christians recognize Muslims as their superiors by agreeing to pay the jizya tax.41 Yet in the Qur’ān, they turn away and evade the challenge. This evasion is evoked in the “common word” verse once again: “If they turn away, say: ‘witness that we are those who have surrendered to God’.”  Q.3:61 (AH).  See AQI 2:188. 38  TMS 1:174 (on Q.3:64). 39  WAN 49. TJJ 55 mentions “consummation by fire” as well. 40  Ibid. 41  Similarly, al-Ṭabarī relates a tradition that says: “God commanded the Prophet, when the people of Najran refused the mubāhalah, to invite them instead to something easier: Christians are to recognize that Muhammad has spoken the truth about what it means to be muslimūn, those who submit to God.” See AQI 2:202. 36 37

76

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

When we focus more closely at the contents of this proposed “common word” according to some mufassirūn (exegetes) of the Qur’ān, three elements may be distinguished: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and we take none beside God as lords. Thus the verse can be seen as a threefold repetition of the central notion of tawḥīd in Islam: to profess that God is one implies that there can be no partners for God and that none else can be assumed as lords beside God. Therefore, Muslim exegetes refer to the Muslim proclamation of faith (shahāda) as an explanation of what is meant here. While the first two elements of this “common word” – only one God, without partners – are quite straightforward, the third element – not taking one another as lords – is more complicated. According to the famous exegete Abu Ja‘far ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), these words refer to “the obedience which they accorded their leaders, and by which they committed acts of rebellion against God.”42 As often this interpretation is derived from another qur’ānic verse, this time directed at both Jews and Christians: “They took their rabbis and monks, as well as Christ, son of Mary, as lords instead of God.”43 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) states that the verse implies three errors by Christians: “They worship someone other than God, that is Christ. They associate others with Him, and that is because they say that God is three: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They have affirmed three equal and eternal divine personalities.”44 While the first error refers to the incarnation and the second to the Trinity, the third error refers to holy persons who are said to be perfect spiritual beings because “the effects of divine indwelling (ḥulūl) appear in them,” and therefore they are considered to possess the attributes of lordship. Some Muslim exegetes, like the traditionalist Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), add that Christians worshiped the cross and other idols.45 In his interpretation of this verse, twentieth-century political activist Abu l-A‘lā Mawdūdī (d. 1979) elucidates the point, saying: “The invitation here is for the two parties to agree on something believed in by one of them, the Muslims, and the soundness of which could hardly be denied by the other party, the Christians.”46  AQI 2:203.  Q.9:31. Another tradition, related by al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273) but purported to go back as far as ‘Ikrima (d. 105/723), states that Christians used to bow down before persons of high status. 44  AQI 2:206. 45  TIK 2:181. 46  MTUQ 1:262 n. 57. 42 43



AN EQUITABLE WORD

77

If the contents of the “common word” are in fact Muslim positions formulated against Christians after their avoidance of the ordeal, this does not seem to be a good point of departure for the dialogue between them envisaged by the “Common Word Document.” It seems that the text from the Qur’ān, read in its historical context and in continuity with the Islamic tradition of interpretation does not help the Common Word process at all. But before I discuss the possibilities to make this verse a point of departure for serious interreligious dialogue between Christians and Muslims instead of an invitation to Christians to enter common ground determined by Muslims, I will look at some Christian resonances first and include not only possible parallels in Christian Scripture and theology, but also possible “equitable words” that answer the invitation to come with a word of righteousness. Christian Resonances If Christians take the Islamic traditions about the encounter between the prophet Muhammad and the Christians from Najrān as point of departure, even though there is no historical evidence that such an encounter took place, there is an interesting historical resonance in the encounter between Saint Francis and Sultan Malik al-Kāmil in Egypt in 1219. In the case of the prophet Muhammad, the Islamic tradition states that he proposed an ordeal in which God is asked to pass judgment on the differences between the participants, whereas in the case of Saint Francis, it is the Christian tradition that mentions such an ordeal. The Islamic tradition states that a debate on Christology and the identity of the true muslimūn between a delegation of Christians from Najrān and Prophet Muhammad, his family and his companions in Medina gave the occasion for the “common word verse” in connection with the mubāhala verse (Q.3:61) that invokes the punishment of God on those who are incorrect in their assertions. This type of solution presupposes that one of the two parties is correct in its claim while – according to an exclusivist point of view – the other party must be deceitful in its claim. This claim that the other party has willingly subverted the truth has been the dominant perspective in the history of encounters between Christianity and Islam.47 Therefore, both parties assume that the other is not only 47  See, among others, Norman Daniel, Islam and the West (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1960); Hugh Goddard, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations (­Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000); Clinton Bennett, Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations: Past and Present (London – New York: Continuum, 2008);

78

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

ignorant but also malicious, and that God will punish such deceitful behavior. Such a situation in which God reacts differently to the offerings of two parties is described in the very first pages of the book of Genesis when the first two brothers, Cain and Abel, bring offerings to God that correspond with their different lifestyles: Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil. In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen.48

In the book of Genesis, no reason is given for God’s favoring Abel over Cain, apart from the recurring motif that God favors the younger brother over the elder, as in the story of Esau and Jacob where God speaks to their pregnant mother, Rebekah, as follows: “Two nations are in your womb, two peoples are quarreling while still within you; but one shall surpass the other, and the older shall serve the younger.”49 In the New Testament Saint Paul uses this story to point out that God does not look at human rankings but shows mercy to whomever God wants. In a reflection on what it means to become children of God, Paul argues: “… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.”50 So the firstborn – in this case, Jews who have first received the promises of God – have no first rights; quite the contrary, Paul refers to a quote that says “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.”51 The most important point is that God has a preferential love for those who are younger and thus have lesser rights of inheritance. The Qur’ān gives a different take on the story of the two sons of Adam.52 No names are mentioned; the text only states that “each offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them whereas it was not

The Routledge Reader in Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. Mona Siddiqui (London – New York: Routledge, 2013); Charles Tieszen, A Textual History of Christian – Muslim Relations: 7th – 15th centuries (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2015). 48  Genesis 4:2b-5 (NAB). 49  Genesis 25:23 (NAB). 50  Romans 9:8 (NAB). 51  Romans 9:13, quoting Malachi 1:3. 52  See Michael Lodahl, Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side (Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2010), 99-111.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

79

accepted from the other.”53 The focus is on the violence committed by one human being against another, culminating in the injunction given by God to the Children of Israel that who kills one soul, it is as if he killed humanity.54 In the case of Cain and Abel, offerings were made and violence was committed because one offering was accepted while the other was not, yet one party did not request God to judge the other as unfaithful. This element is an important motif in the story about prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the first book of Kings. It is a story that contributes to Elijah’s fame as a prophet of the one true God in a manner that contrasts sharply with the mighty king Ahab of Israel, and his wife Jezebel who made him worship rival deities (I Kings 16:31-33). Elijah confronts Ahab who says to Elijah: “Is it you, you disturber of Israel?” to which Elijah responds: It is not I who disturb Israel … but you and your family, by forsaking the commands of the Lord and following the Baals. Now summon all Israel to me on Mount Carmel, as well as the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table.55

The story presents Elijah as the only surviving prophet of the God of Israel, and thus in a minority position – the equivalent of the younger son. He sets up an ordeal on Mount Carmel with the following words: I am the only surviving prophet of the Lord, and there are four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal. Give us two young bulls. Let them choose one, cut it into pieces and place it on the wood, but start no fire. I shall prepare the other and place it on the wood, but shall start no fire. You shall call on your gods, and I will call on the Lord. The God who answers with fire is God.56

The prophets of Baal prepare their sacrifice and pray to their god, but nothing happens. Elijah taunts them with words that ridicule their practice: “Call louder, for he is a god and may be meditating, or may have retired, or may be on a journey. Perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened” (I Kings 18:27). The description of the prophets of Baal hopping around the altar and making strange sounds, “slashing themselves with  Q.5:27 (part; MA).  Q.5:32. Lodahl (Claiming Abraham, 109) gives the parallel text from the Talmud in synopsis. 55  I Kings 18:18 (NAB). 56  I Kings 18:22-24 (NAB). 53 54

80

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

swords and spears as was their custom” (I Kings 18:28) bears some likeness to the description that the Qur’an gives of the pagan Quraysh in Mecca during their prayers at the place of the Kaʻba in Mecca: “their prayer at the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands.”57 In both cases, the prophet contrasts the fuss of idolatry to the utter silence of the deity to which the prayers and sacrifices are directed. Similarly, prophet Abraham ridicules the idols: “Just ask them, if they are able to speak.”58 So, contrary to Cain’s offering, the sacrifice made to Baal is not rejected, since there is no one to accept it. The God of Elijah, however, accepts his sacrifice by sending down fire (I Kings 18:38). Al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl contains a hadith in which the prophet Muhammad says, “By Him who has sent me with the truth, had they agreed to summon Allah’s curse on the liar, fire would have rained on the valley [where the delegation of Najran had camped].”59 While the fire in the story of Elijah signaled God’s acceptance of the sacrifice, the destructive force of fire is associated with God’s curse on the liar in this interpretation of Q.3:61. The same fire is associated with an ordeal between Christians and Muslims much later in history when Saint Francis of Assisi met with Sultan Malik al-Kāmil in Damietta during the fifth crusade in 1219.60 This encounter between the famous saint and founder of the Order of Friars Minor and the Egyptian sultan is one of the most enigmatic encounters between Christians and Muslims in history since we do not exactly know the reasons for Francis to join the crusader army and then to cross the lines in order to engage in conversation with the sultan. Some contemporary protagonists of interfaith dialogue use the image of Francis as a man of peace to characterize his mission as a peace initiative; they symbolize this with the “kiss of peace” between the saint and the sultan.61 However, the historical context is more ambivalent. Jacques de  Q.8:35 (Dr.).  Q.21:63 (Dr.). 59  WAN 9. 60  The French Islamicist Louis Massignon (1883-1962) has made this association one of the pillars of his Catholic interpretation of Islam. See Christian S. Krokus, The Theology of Louis Massignon: Islam, Christ, and the Church (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017), 147. 61  The kiss of peace is prominently displayed on the cover of the book In the Spirit of Saint Francis and the Sultan, by George Dardess and Marvin L. Krier Mich (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2011). It is also used in several Franciscan media outlets, for instance the video In the Footprints of Francis and the Sultan: A Model for Peacemaking, produced by Kathleen Warren, O.S.F. (see http://shop.franciscanmedia.org, accessed May 17, 2016). 57 58



AN EQUITABLE WORD

81

Vitry, bishop of Acre, who was present in the crusader camp when Francis arrived in Damietta in 1219, gives us the following short description of what happened. The head of these brothers, who also founded the Order, came into our camp. He was so inflamed with zeal for the faith that he did not fear to cross the lines to the army of our enemy. For several days he preached the Word of God to the Saracens and made little progress. The Sultan, king of Egypt, privately asked him to pray to the Lord for him, so that he might be inspired by God to adhere to that religion which most pleased God.62

Writing just a few months after the event, the bishop gives a rather sober account: Francis preached to the sultan but made little progress, and in the end the sultan asked him to pray to God with a formula that does not identify which religion pleases God most. In his Historia Occidentalis, written a few years later, Jacques de Vitry has the sultan use almost the same formula: “Pray for me, that God may deign to reveal to me the law and the faith which is more pleasing to Him.”63 John Tolan, the translator of these words, adds: “It is tempting to imagine that al-Kâmil really said something along these lines, as a gracious and polite way to end the discussion with the Christian preacher and send him on his way.”64 These words, if spoken by the sultan, might betray a profound qur’ānic view of the role of religious differences between Muslims and the People of Scripture as an incitement to look for the better religion. Similar words will be discussed in chapter seven when explaining sūrat al-mā’ida. The ambivalent description of the encounter by Jacques de Vitry may serve as a pointer to historical realism: even though we may find it very important, the encounter did not change history, and Jacques de Vitry did not even mention it in his other letters.65 At the same time, the sultan’s willingness to leave the final word to God while he had the power to have Francis pay the price for his impetuosity may remind us of the Qur’ān words “forgive and pardon until God gives his command (Q.2:109). Saint Francis seems to be guided by a similar conviction that we need to leave the final decision to God in his first rule for the Friars 62  Quoted from a letter of Jacques de Vitry to Jean de Nivelles, dated 1220, in: John Tolan, Saint Francis and the Sultan: The Curious History of a Christian-Muslim Encounter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 19. 63  Quoted by Tolan, Saint Francis and the Sultan, 20. 64  Tolan, Saint Francis and the Sultan, 32. 65  Tolan, Saint Francis and the Sultan, 31.

82

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Minor, the Regula non bullata, when he writes about the behavior of the friars who want to live among Muslims. There are two ways to do this, according to Francis, and the first is that they are “not to engage in arguments or disputes but to be subject to every human creature for God’s sake and to acknowledge that they are Christians.”66 This echoes another famous text from the Qur’ān that we will have occasion to discuss later, “do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner.”67 The second way sounds like the way that Francis himself practiced when meeting the Sultan: “the other way is to announce the Word of God, when they see it pleases the Lord, in order that they believe in God almighty and be baptized.”68 The first way, which seems to be the default way, will later be characterized as “the simple presence and living witness of the Christian life,” while the second way involves explicit proclamation of the Gospel, but only in situations where such a form of mission is pleasing to God.69 What distinguishes both Jacques de Vitry’s summary and Francis’s later reflection is an attention to the situation in which we meet religious others, and a choice of the best possible means to preach the Gospel based on a theological judgment as to what pleases God most. The encounter between Muhammad and the Christians of Najrān might have been characterized by a similar attention and a willingness to leave the final word to God. Yet the Islamic tradition represented by al-Wāḥidī favored a description of that encounter in which a debate culminating in an ordeal would have served to distinguish true faith from false witness. The Franciscan tradition represented by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (1221-74) and Giotto di Bondone (1276-1337) did so as well. 66  Francis of Assisi, Earlier Rule, 16:6. Quoted according to Francis of Assisi: Early Documents. Volume I: The Saint, eds. Regis J. Armstrong, O.F.M.Cap., J.A. Wayne Hellmann, O.F.M.Conv., and William J. Short, O.F.M. (New York: New City Press, 1999) 74. 67  Q.29:46, translation in: Muhammad Shafiq & Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims (London and Washington DC: the International Institute for Islamic Thought, 1432/2011), 52. “Followers of earlier revelation” is their English translation for ahl al-kitāb. 68  Francis of Assisi, Earlier Rule 16:7, in: Francis of Assisi, Early Documents, I.74. 69  See the 1984 document The Attitude of the Church toward Followers of Other Religions: Reflections and Orientations on Dialogue and Mission by the Secretariat for nonChristians (to be renamed Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in 1988). English translation in Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Second Vatican Council to John Paul II (1963-2005), ed. Francesco Gioia (­Boston MA: Pauline Books, 2006), 1119.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

83

Bonaventure’s description of the life of Saint Francis was not the first Franciscan hagiography of the Saint, but it would become the most influential in the Franciscan Order because when Bonaventure was its minister general, the chapter of the order asked him to write such a life in 1260. In this Legenda Maior, Bonaventure wanted to correct earlier biographies and to give Saint Francis a public image in line with the further development of the order.70 Bonaventure discusses the encounter with the sultan in the context of a chapter on the fervor of Francis’s charity and his desire for martyrdom. In Bonaventure’s words, Francis addresses the sultan as follows: If you wish to be converted to Christ along with your people, I will most gladly stay with you for love of him. But if you hesitate to abandon the law of Mahomet for the faith of Christ, then command that an enormous fire be lit and I will walk into the fire along with your priests so that you will recognize which faith deserves to be held as the holier and more certain.71

Bonaventure presents Saint Francis as a hero of faith: he is willing to risk his life, whereas the sultan hesitates, knowing that his “priests” do not dare to respond. Francis offers to go into the fire on his own; if he comes out unharmed, the sultan and his followers will convert to Christ; yet, if he is burned, they should attribute it to Francis’s sins. It is this situation that is depicted in the upper basilica of Assisi at the end of the thirteenth century, possibly by Giotto.72 While the artist followed the Legenda maior as his major source of inspiration, he had his own pictorial program with a fire even though, according to Bonaventure, the sultan refused the challenge and thus no fire was lit. However, the trial by fire became one of Francis’s miracles, showing his victory in the confrontation with the sultan. While Francis could not do any such miracle according to Jacques de Vitry, he ended up victorious according to Giotto’s cycle of paintings in Assisi, much in the same way in which al-Wāḥidī made Muhammad victorious over the Christians of Najrān. In both cases, the presupposition is that only one party can tell the truth, and thus the other party must be willingly opposed to truth. That is why the Christians of Najrān (in the Islamic traditions on their encounter with Muhammad) and the sultan and his “priests” (in the Christian traditions on their encounter with Francis) are not just unbelievers but 70  Ewert Cousins, “Introduction”, in: Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey into God – The Tree of Life – The Life of St. Francis, translation and introduction by Ewert Cousins (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1978), 1-48, at 38. 71  Bonaventure, The Life of St. Francis, IX.8; translation Cousins, 269-70. 72  See the ninth chapter, “Trial by Fire,” in Tolan, Saint Francis and the Sultan, 135-46.

84

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

act against their better judgment. In the case of the Christians of Najrān, al-Wāḥidī indicated that the imposition of the jizya tax was the consequence of their behavior. In the case of the Franciscans, the consequence was a missionary strategy that sought to convert the Muslims. A Threefold Proposal After this consideration of the context of the “common word” verse, I will focus on its contents. The Muslim tradition distinguishes three elements: first, the worship of God alone (tawḥīd), second, the negation of any partner to God, and third the negation of any lordship beside God. From a qur’ānic point of view, the expectation is that true Jews and Christians, who are faithful to the revelations from God and thus worthy ahl al-kitāb, will confirm the truth of this threefold proposition, even though the Qur’ān remarks that some (or many) of the People of Scripture are oftentimes not faithful and thus ascribe partners to God. The expectation that Christians will find common ground with Muslims on the basis of the “common word” verse forms the explicit agenda of the “Common Word Document” (2007). Referring to the love of God and the love of neighbor as the first and the second commandment according to Jesus in Mark 12:29-31, the document interprets the contents of the “common word” verse as follows: The words: we shall ascribe no partner unto Him relate to the Unity of God, and the words: worship none but God, relate to being totally devoted to God. Hence they all relate to the First and Greatest Commandment. According to one of the oldest and most authoritative commentaries on the Holy Qur’an the words: that none of us shall take others for lords beside God, mean ‘that none of us should obey the other in disobedience to what God has commanded’. This relates to the Second Commandment because justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour.73

The large majority of Christian responses to the Common Word document have been positive, as exemplified by the “Yale Response”.74 However, many Evangelical Christians in the United States are unwilling to endorse 73  A Common Word between Us and You, retrieved at http://www.acommonword. com/the-acw-document/ on May 25, 2016. 74  Text and commentaries of both the Common Word document and the Yale response in: A Common Word: Muslims and Christians on Loving God and Neighbor, edited by Miroslav Volf, Ghazi bin Muhammad, and Melissa Yarrington (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010).



AN EQUITABLE WORD

85

the Common Word document because they deny the ­supposition that Christians and Muslims can find common ground in the love of God.75 This denial of common ground between Muslims and Christians recently led to serious consequences for a tenured political science professor at Wheaton College who was suspended and later terminated from her job because of her statement that “Christians and Muslims worship the same God.”76 Even though the professor, Dr. Larycia Hawkins, in fact quoted Pope Francis, the administrators of Wheaton College were of the opinion that the sentence in question contradicted the college’s statement of faith.77 The statement that “Christians and Muslims worship the same God” might be a familiar phrase, yet the wording is rather strange since “the same God” seems to presuppose the possibility of comparing singular instances of a general notion of “god,” arriving at the conclusion that the specific Christian instance and the specific Islamic instance of this genus are “the same” or not.78 While Christians and Muslims will probably disagree on a great number of things when asked to specify this statement, they will agree that there is only one God who is the creator of heaven and earth. Therefore, the common ground between Christians and Muslims can only be that they worship this one God, albeit in different manners. For Catholics like Pope Francis, the Second Vatican Council has given two clear statements: [T]he plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.79 75  For this reason, three Christian leaders at Wheaton College withdrew their signatures to the “Yale Response” after being criticized by some prominent Evangelical theologians. See http://www.acommonword.com/wheaton-college-leadership-retracts-support-for-commonword-response/ (last retrieved May 25, 2016); original published in Christianity Today on Feb. 11, 2008; the “Yale Response” was published with their signatures in November 2007. 76  See Christianity Today (12/15/2015) and npr (2/7/2016), both accessed on May 26, 2016. 77  See Time Magazine, January 9, 2016: http://time.com/4174229/wheaton-collegelarycia-hawkins-muslim-facebook/ (accessed on May 26, 2016). 78  The familiar phrase is central in two recent books: Do We Worship the Same God?, ed. Miroslav Volf, (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012); Jacob Neusner et al., Do Jews, Christians, & Muslims worship the same God? (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 2012). See also Pim Valkenberg, “God in Muslim and Christian Thought” in: Theological Issues in Christian – Muslim Dialogue, ed. Charles Tieszen (Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018), 1-14. 79  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964), §16; translation according to Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_ en.html (retrieved May 26, 2016).

86

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The Church also regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God, who is living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.80

The Council twice states that Muslims “adore (along with us) the one God.” There is clearly common ground in the worship of the one God, even though there is difference as well, since – as the Council says in the same paragraph of Nostra Aetate – Muslims do not acknowledge Jesus as God, and therefore they do not worship the one God in the same manner as Christians. I think that it is important that the documents of the Second Vatican Council leave no doubt that Christians and Muslims both worship the one God, while at the same time arguing that there are substantial differences in the manner in which they worship the one God. I agree with Miroslav Volf, the main Christian theologian behind the “Yale Response,” when he states that there is enough overlap between Christians and Muslims in the values that orient their lives, but I disagree that this implies that they have “a common God” or “the same God.”81 Not because I think that they have “a different God” but because I think the language is misleading here.82 Hence, the Christian answer to the qur’ānic invitation to come to “a common word” on the basis of the three elements of Q.3:64 must begin by saying that there is certainly enough common ground for many Christians to affirm the Oneness of God, His being without partner and His not sharing any lordship. Yet many Christians would add that there are decisive historical and theological reasons to be very hesitant in affirming the “common word.” In addressing the People of Scripture the Qur’ān explicitly denies some elements that are essential for the large majority of Christians, such as the incarnation of God and the Triune character of God. It seems that the invitation to come to a common word is helpful for some Christians in dialogue with Muslims, but not for other Christians. 80  Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate (1965), §3; translation Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P. in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli, eds. (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016) xx, with reference to a letter by Pope Gregory VII to al-Nazir, king of Mauritania. 81  Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 9 and 187. 82  Two essays in the volume Do We Worship the Same God?, ed. Miroslav Volf point to the complexities here: Christoph Schwöbel, “The Same God? The Perspective of Faith, the Identity of God, Tolerance, and Dialogue”, (1-17) and Denys Turner, “Christians, Muslims, and the Name of God: Who Owns It, and How Would We Know?”, (18-36).



AN EQUITABLE WORD

87

The second element follows more or less from the discussion of the Oneness of God. The assurance that we do not associate anything with God, or – in the words of the authors of the Common Word document – that we “ascribe no partner unto God,” might not create an issue for Christians who assert that God has no partner and who do not think about the Trinity as forming a partnership or association. They might need to add, however, that the language they use for the Trinity is quite specific and may lead to misunderstanding, because they take the word “person” as a description for what is unique and incommunicable in the relations between the three that together form the Trinity. Yet in modern parlance the word “person” is used to indicate a distinct consciousness and self-awareness. If the word “person” in its common use is applied to the Trinity, we would end up with three Gods, and that is not what Christians mean when they talk about three “persons” in one divine nature.83 When this rather widespread concept of “person” is paired with the idea that the words “Father” and “Son,” when used for two of the “persons” in the Trinity must import some family relationship instead of a relationship of origin, Christians might say such things as I heard a pastor saying during his sermon on Trinity Sunday: “Our religion is different from other religions because our God is a family!” Even though the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) has hardly anything good to say about Muhammad and his scripture, he does acknowledge that the terms “Father” and “Son,” indicating divine generation, should be understood as intellectual generation, so that it might be better to speak about “Word” rather than “Son.” The latemedieval theologian Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64) writes in an explicit reflection on the Qur’ān that it is possible for a Christian to read the Qur’ān as a confirmation of the Christian truth of faith, but also as a correction of possible misunderstandings. We should realize that “Father” and “Son” are words that import no real plurality in God, since God transcends all these names. Therefore, the Qur’ān may help the Christian to refrain from thinking about the Trinitarian God as a sort of community or family relationship.84 I should, however, add a 83  My frame of reference is determined by Karl Rahner, “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte”, in: Mysterium salutis: Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, eds. J. Feiner, M. Löhrer (Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag, 1967) II: 317-404; id., “Einzigkeit und Dreifaltigkeit Gottes”, in: Der Gott des Christentums und des Islam, ed. A. Bsteh (Mödling: St. Gabriel, 1978), 119-36. 84  Thomas Aquinas, De rationibus fidei, cap. 5; Nicholas of Cusa, De pace fidei, cap. 9. For complete references and discussion, see my “Can We Talk Theologically?

88

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

caveat here because the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church does refer to the Trinity as a family, for instance in Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.85 Quoting Pope John Paul II he says, “Our God in his deepest mystery is not solitude, but a family, for he has within himself fatherhood, sonship, and the essence of the family, which is love. That love, in the divine family, is the Holy Spirit.”86 This quotation rightly shows that relationality is at the core of the Trinity, and fatherhood, sonship and love are therefore words that describe relationships within the Trinity instead of constituting three individual “persons.” The third element, not taking lords beside God, may be taken to be directed against the Christian faith in the understanding that Christians often talk about Jesus as their Lord. Yet when Christians address Christ as “Lord,” they do not intend to address someone “beside God” since in Christ they address the One who is God and not “other than” God.87 While some translators suggest this by translating “take others as Lords” (Q.3:64 Ar), the literal translation of the Arabic is, “that we do not take one another (ba‘ḍuna ba‘ḍan) as lords (arbāban) beside God.” This expression seems to refer to an excessive respect for ecclesial hierarchies rather than to exceeding the limits of monotheism. Therefore, the writers of the Common Word document are in good company when they say that this third proposal refers to the love of neighbor, quoting the interpretation by the famous exegete al-Ṭabari, “that none of us should obey in disobedience to what God has commanded, nor glorify them by prostrating to them in the same way as they prostrate to God.”88 This interpretation seems to be not only more in line with the Arabic text, but also more conducive to the future of dialogue between Muslims and Christians.

Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa on the Possibility of a Theological Understanding of Islam” in: Rethinking the Medieval Legacy for Contemporary Theology, ed. Anselm K. Min (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014), 131-66. 85  Pope Francis, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2016). 86  Amoris Laetitia, nr. 6; English translation United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 87  Nicholas of Cusa makes this point in his Cribratio Alkorani I,11: filius autem dei est idem deus cum patre et non alius (Nicolai de Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L. Hagemann, Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1986), 50. 88  “A Common Word between Us and You”, in: A Common Word: Muslims and Christians on Loving God and Neighbor, 47 with reference to al-Ṭabarī. A similar translation in AQI 2:203.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

89

A Common Word or an Equitable Word? Despite these interpretations many Christians still shy away from acknowledging any theological common ground between Islam and Christianity on the basis of the “common word” verse; therefore, I suspect that the proposal to come to a common ground might in fact diminish the prospects of better Muslim-Christian relationships. This impasse may be avoided by pointing to a different possibility that is indicated in the title of this chapter: if we translate the words ta‘ālaw ’ilā kalimatin sawā’in not as “come to a common word” but as “come to an equitable word,” the invitation will have a different character. The translation “common word” suggests the possibility of common ground between the two parties. Since this word is addressed at the People of Scripture, and since they are invited to come to a statement that is common, the implication of this invitation would be that (Jews and) Christians would need to find common ground with the statement that Muslims make. However, the expression “equitable word” or “equivalent word” invites Christians to come with a statement that is on a par with the Muslim creed alluded to in this verse. In that case we do not aim for one common word, but for two words at the same level from both traditions. In the next section I will indicate the hermeneutical consequences for interreligious dialogue between Muslims and Christians, but first I want to show that the translation of kalimat sawā’ as “equitable word” instead of “common word” is very well possible according to Islamic interpretations. The famous interpreter al-Ṭabarī says that the word sawā’ means “just,” while al-Rāzī holds that “just” means “reasonable”: it is a rational approach that is acceptable to anyone with sound reason.89 Some presentday Muslim translators suggest similar meanings, for instance “come to a word that is just between us and you” (Khan and Hilali); “come to an equitable word between you and me” (Fakhry); “come to an equitable proposition between us and you” (Shakir), or “come unto a word [that is] equitable between us and you.”90 This possible interpretation is further supported by the fact that several Muslim commentators, such as al-Ṭabarī and al-Shawkānī (d. 1834), suggest that there is in fact a textual variant of this specific phrase that reads kalimatun ‘adl (“a word of justice).”91 Zeki  AQI 2:203 and 205.  Q.3:64 (MA) 91 n. 91  See Zeki Saritoprak, “How Commentators of the Qur’an define ‘Common Word’,” in: A Common Word and the Future of Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. John Borelli (Washington DC: Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, 2009), 34-45, at 40. 89 90

90

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Saritoprak, to whom I owe this reference, concludes that this interpretation, which connects the “word of justice” with dialogue around questions of righteousness and justice, might be of particular importance for contemporary Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Jewish dialogue. Finally David Burrell, an avid supporter of the Common Word process and a pioneer of Christian-Muslim-Jewish dialogue, suggested “appropriate (statement)” and “apposite (statement)” as possible translations for sawā’.92 With these suggestions in mind, it is opportune to look at the hermeneutical consequences of these different translations for the Common Word process. Two –

or

Three – Hermeneutical Approaches to Dialogue

We have seen that Q.3:64 and the idea of a “common word” between Muslims and Christians is associated in Islamic interpretations with the visit of a delegation from Najrān. The outcome of this event may be characterized as an agreement to disagree, but later interpretations read it as an invitation to accept Islam, so that the “common word” proposition is often understood as an invitation to submit to this new and dominant religion. Ibn Kathīr, for instance, mentions a letter that Prophet Muhammad allegedly sent to Heraclius, emperor of Byzantium. The reliability of the text of this letter and other letters to state leaders is widely accepted in the Islamic tradition but quite controversial outside of it; Ibn Kathīr quotes the following from this letter: From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allāh, to Heraclius, Leader of the Romans: peace be upon those who follow the true guidance. Embrace Islām and you will acquire safety, embrace Islam and Allāh will grant you a double reward. However, if you turn away from it, then you will carry the burden of the peasants; and, “O People of Scripture, come to a word that is the same between us and you…”93

After these introductory words, the second part of the short letter consists of a full quotation of the Common Word verse, thus making it into  Personal communication, April 2013.  TIK2:182. Ibn Kathīr gives no source but the tradition about the letters of Prophet Muhammad to a number of leaders of state can be found in traditional collections of ḥadīth, such as al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ, the life of the Prophet by Ibn Isḥāq, and al-Ṭabari’s Tārīkh al-rusul wa’l mulūk (History of Prophets and Kings). The word arisiyīn, translated as “peasants” in the Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr is translated as “heretics” elsewhere. See Gabriel Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam, 49-51. Reynolds is very skeptical about the historicity of these letters. 92 93



AN EQUITABLE WORD

91

an instrument of da‘wa or “invitation” to convert. In this first interpretation of the verse, there is nothing “common” about the word; it is in fact an Islamic word that the Christians are invited to accept since it supposedly represents the authentic teaching of Jesus and all prophets. Yet the differences between the two religions are neglected (or the Christian divergence is interpreted as malicious intent) and the result is mission, not dialogue – a state of affairs that is well attested in the history of relations between Christians and Muslims. Such a hermeneutical stance is perfectly illustrated by Mawdūdī’s commentary on the Common Word verse quoted before: “The invitation here is for the two parties to agree on something believed in by one of them, the Muslims, and the soundness of which could hardly be denied by the other party, the Christians. For this was the belief of their own Prophets and had been taught in their own scriptures.”94 It is quite clear that the authors of the Common Word document do not want to promote such a form of Islamic theological imperialism. Instead they express the intention to find common ground between Muslims and adherents of other monotheistic religions as instantiated by the twofold commandment to “love God” and “love your neighbor” which happens to include Judaism as well, since the greatest commandment as formulated by Jesus in the New Testament ultimately goes back to the Torah.95 However, as we discussed before, the idea of a common ground may prevent many Christians from engaging in such a dialogue because they are reluctant to admit that they worship one God together with Muslims. That this might be true not only for Evangelical Christians but also for Catholics may transpire from the history of Vatican reactions to the Common Word document. Even though Pope Benedict XVI was addressed as the first among Christian religious leaders, the Vatican did not officially react in the first months after the document was released, even though many other Christian religious leaders and theologians reacted positively.96 Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, until his death in 2018 the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue called the document “encouraging” and “eloquent,”  MTUQ 1:262.  The Common Word document refers to Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Matthew 22:3440 in its section on “love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible”, and to Leviticus 19:17-18 and Matthew 22:38-40 in its section on “love of the Neighbour in the Bible”. 96  See the timetable of different Christian reactions on http://www.acommonword. com (accessed on June 7, 2016). Responses by Cardinal Tauran between October 2007 and May 2008 are given under number 65 in the list of responses. 94 95

92

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

but he also expressed reservations about engaging in a theological dialogue with Muslims as long as they approach the Qur’ān as an unquestionable dictation from God.97 When the Vatican later decided to engage in a Catholic-Muslim Forum with the signatories of the Common Word document, it accepted the themes of “love of God” and “love of neighbor,” but it added a proposal to base the dialogue on common ethical principles such as human dignity, the value of human life, and freedom of religion. In his address to the participants in the first seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum at the Vatican in November 2008, Pope Benedict XVI said the following: Only by starting with the recognition of the centrality of the person and the dignity of each human being, respecting and defending life which is the gift of God, and is thus sacred for Christians and for Muslims alike – only on the basis of this recognition, can we find a common ground for building a more fraternal world, a world in which confrontations and differences are peacefully settled, and the devastating power of ideologies is neutralized.98

It seems that it is easier for the Vatican to engage in a dialogue on the basis of common ethical values than to engage in a theological dialogue. This is certainly in the line of the document Nostra Aetate that asked Catholics and Muslims to “make sincere efforts for mutual understanding, and so to work together for the preservation and the fostering of social justice, moral welfare, and peace and freedom for all humankind.”99 97  From an interview in the French daily La Croix, as released by Zenit.org on October 19, 2007 and mentioned in the list of responses. The original quotation from the interview in French (see http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Actualite/Cardinal-TauranLa-religion-fait-peur-car-elle-est-pervertie-par-le-terrorisme-_NG_-2007-10-18-527159) is (answering the question, “Peut-on avoir des discussions théologiques dans un tel cadre?”): “Avec certaines religions, oui. Mais avec l’islam, non, pas pour le moment. Les musulmans n’acceptent pas que l’on puisse discuter sur le Coran, car il est écrit, disentils, sous la dictée de Dieu. Avec une interprétation aussi absolue, il est difficile de discuter du contenu de la foi.” (accessed June 7, 2016). 98  See Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to Participants in the Seminar Organized by the “Catholic-Muslim Forum”, Nov. 6, 2008 on https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081106_cathislamic-leaders.html. For interpretations, see Pim Valkenberg, “Moslims & Christenen: Een gemeenschappelijk woord?” in Tijdschrift voor Theologie 50 (2010) 273-284 (summary 285). Also, Joseph Lumbard, The Uncommonality of ‘A Common Word’ (Brandeis University, Crown Center of Middle East Studies, Crown Paper 3, October 2009), 5. 99  Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate, § 3, translation by Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P., in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Valkenberg and Cirelli, xxi.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

93

Such an ethical dialogue may establish itself as a form of “common word” between Catholics and Muslims, but it is different from the contents suggested by the Muslim writers of the Common Word declaration: love of God and love of neighbor. More importantly, it tends to remove theological engagement from the Church’s list of priorities in dialogue with Muslims, and this has proved to be one of the most important unresolved issues between Catholics and Muslims, fifty years after Nostra Aetate.100 The fear of a theological common ground between Christians and Muslims is quite widespread among Christians and for some of them it is related to a theological approach that sees commonalities between religions as part of God’s creation and therefore as a result of God’s will. We will encounter such a form of pluralism in chapter seven; yet for many Christians it threatens to lead to a form of relativism.101 In order to avoid such relativism I propose a different hermeneutical approach in Christian-Muslim dialogue in which one tradition challenges the other to find an equitable or a just statement; this approach is based on the possibility to translate kalimat sawā’ as “an equitable” or “a just” word. This approach does not suggest that Christians agree with Muslims on their creed (the first interpretation), nor does it posit a common ground as basis for dialogue (the second interpretation). It suggests that Christians may find a kalimat sawā’ in their own treasures that has a similar function for them as the statement “we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords” has for Muslims. Such an equitable word from Christians would be any statement that recognizes the oneness of God, yet at the same time expresses the uniqueness of the Christian faith. I suggest that the beginning of the Gospel according to John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1) may serve as an equitable statement, because it expresses Christian faith in the Triune God without unduly adding terminology that is hard for Muslims to accept.102 This would be the case, for instance, with another 100  See the contributions by Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Sidney H. Griffith in Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years, 103-15 and 116-24. 101  This is particularly evident in the declaration “Dominus Iesus: on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published in 2000 (see http://www.vatican.va, accessed on June 8, 2016). 102  John 1:1 (NAB). For reflections on the possible role of Johannine theology in Christian-Muslim dialogue, see Daniel Madigan, S.J., “Particularity, Universality, and Finality: Insights from the Gospel of John”, in: Communicating the Word. Revelation,

94

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

famous creedal statement from John 3:16 “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” I do not wish to suggest that the first statement is somehow better than the second, but I argue that it functions better as an equitable statement in dialogue with Muslims. In this proposal I have been inspired by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who tried to interpret the Qur’ān in such a way that it would give glory to God without detracting from Christ.103 He interprets the Muslim critique implied in the “common word” verse as a reminder to Christians that they should speak about the Trinity in such a way that it does not imply any family relationship or heavenly society.104 When talking about the Trinity Christians should avoid language that can easily be misunderstood, not only by Muslims but also by other Christians. We know that some of the most common terms, such as “Father” and “Son” but also “person,” are likely to be misunderstood and therefore we should be careful not to raise any unnecessary obstacles in dialogue. Again, this is not to suggest that we avoid these words, but that we use them wisely and appropriately – and that is exactly the meaning of kalima sawā’ in Q.3:64. In this context, the Muslim theologian Joseph Lumbard says: ‘A Common Word’ does not seek to syncretize or to proselytize. Participants in this initiative have even taken pains to emphasize the need for recognizing the fundamental differences between the two traditions. Rather than watering down theological positions in the name of cooperation and thus bringing Christian and Muslim communities together at their margins, it asks both communities to speak from what is central and authoritative to each.105

This is what I mean by the proposed third hermeneutical approach: to propose something from the center of one’s own tradition that would serve as an equitable word to the word proposed by the other tradition. Translation, and Interpretation in Christianity and Islam, ed. David Marshall (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 14-25, and id., “The Gospel of John as a structure for Muslim – Christian Understanding,” in: Reading the Bible in an Islamic Context, eds. Daniel Crowther et al. (Abingdon – New York: Routledge, 2018), 253-70. 103  See Jasper Hopkins, “The Role of pia interpretatio in Nicholas of Cusa’s Hermeneutical Approach to the Koran,” in: A Miscellany on Nicholas of Cusa (Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994), 39-55. See also Pim Valkenberg, “Learned Ignorance and Faithful Interpretation of the Qur’an in Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464),” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James Heft, Reuven Firestone and Omid Safi (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 34-52. 104  Nicholas of Cusa, De pace fidei 9, quoted in Valkenberg, “Learned Ignorance and Faithful Interpretation…”, 43. 105  Lumbard, The Uncommonality of ‘A Common Word’, 9.



AN EQUITABLE WORD

95

One final remark that might be relevant here: as I explained before, an alternative reading of the text suggests “a word of justice.” This translation may open up new possibilities for a dialogue between Muslims and Christians that centers on matters of peace and justice rather than on dogmatic statements, not unlike the formula proposed to the Catholic-Muslim Forum by Pope Benedict XVI. Often such dialogues on social justice can be more fruitful than theological dialogues, especially in cases where religious minorities – Muslims in the United States or Christians in the Middle East – need to be empowered by actions rather than verbal exchanges. Yet theological exchanges are necessary as well. In the Qur’ān, the theological exchange continues by discussing an argument about Abraham and about the God of Abraham as a contested heritage between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, thus bringing together two terms that are nowadays often used to signify the common ground between Muslims, Christians and Jews: “People of the Book” and “Abrahamic religions.”

Chapter Five

ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM 65  People of Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel have been revealed only after him? Or have you no understanding? 66  You are the ones who argue about what you have knowledge of but why do you argue about what you have no knowledge of? God knows but you do not know. 67  Abraham was not a Jew, nor a Christian but he was a seeker, submissive and he was not among the associators 68  The people closest to Abraham are the ones who follow him and this prophet and those who believe and God is the friend of the believers (Q.3:65-68)

3:65-68 Arguing About Abraham The previous chapter ended with a long interpretation of the “common word” verse, not only because this is the first verse that explicitly addresses the People of Scripture, but also because it is an important source for Muslims engaging in dialogue with Christians nowadays. Yet the place of this verse in Q.3 is not entirely clear. While it can be seen as the conclusion of a Christological debate as al-Wāḥidī and others in the tradition of the asbāb al-nuzūl have proposed, most modern authors such as Neal Robinson and Raymond Farrin see it as the beginning of a new section of Q.3 in which the religion of Abraham is the central issue.1 Since Q.3:64 and Q.3:65 both address the People of Scripture, yet the latter introduces a new debate about the person of Abraham, the former seems to be the hinge that connects the previous part focusing on the house of Jesus and Mary (the Āl ‘Imrān of 1  See Neal Robinson, “Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Those with the Greatest Claim to Abraham”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 6/2 (2004) 1-21.

98

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the title) and the next part focusing on the house of Abraham.2 Q.3:65 continues to address the People of Scripture while introducing a new theme: disagreements about Abraham. As the context makes clear, both Jews and Christians are addressed here as People of Scripture, as will be the case several times in the remainder of Q.3. Following Farrin’s analysis of its structure, we find nine explicit references in section C (verses 64, 65, 69-72, 75, 98 and 99), and three explicit references in sections C’ (verses 110 and 113) and A’ (verse 199).3 In total, sūrat Āl ‘Imrān contains more than a third of the total number of explicit references to the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān, which is why I extend its discussion to two chapters in this commentary. I will start with explanatory notes verse by verse, and continue with Islamic interpretations and Christian resonances. I will take Q.3:65-68 as a unit, and continue with Q.3:69-72 as a second unit. Explanatory Notes 65  People of Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel have been revealed only after him? Or have you no understanding?

An important word in this passage is the verb “to argue” or “to dispute” (ḥajja). The People of Scripture disagree with one another about Abraham because they claim something about him on the basis of the revelation that has been given to them. Scripture bestows knowledge but also reason to disagree: “those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge.”4 Apparently, People of Scripture argue and disagree because every party thinks that it has the better access to divine revelation. The Qur’ān, however, rebukes such claims as being without reason or understanding (‘aql), since Abraham came before Torah and Gospel. 66  You

are the ones who argue about what you have knowledge of but why do you argue about what you have no knowledge of? God knows but you do not know.

2  Angelika Neuwirth sees in Q.3:33-63 “a female-based counter-tradition to the Al Ibrahim, the Jewish patriarchal tradition.” See her foreword in Hosn Abboud, Mary in the Qur’an: A literary reading (London – New York: Routledge, 2014), xvii. Also, “Mary and Jesus: Counterbalancing the Biblical Patriarchs. A Re-reading of Sūrat Maryam (Q.19) in Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān (Q.3)”, NSPC 359-84. 3  FSQI 27-30. 4  Q.3:19 (AH).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

99

While the People of Scripture often argue about matters of which they have received particular knowledge (‘ilm), in this case they do not have the knowledge, since the sources of their knowledge, Torah and Gospel, have been revealed after Abraham. As if to drive home this point, the Qur’ān adds: God knows while you do not know. 67  Abraham

was not a Jew, nor a Christian but he was a seeker, submissive and he was not among the associators.

This verse gives the reason why the claim by the People of Scripture to know about Abraham is unreasonable, and why they do not know while God does know: Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian. In other words: the claim that Abraham would be a part of the Jewish or Christian religious tradition is invalid. The verse uses five significant words to indicate religious groups. In the first place: Abraham was not a Jew. The singular yahūdī, “a Jew” is rather special, because most references to Jews are derived from the verb hāda, “to act as a Jew” or “to be a Jew.” The purport of the denial is quite clear: Abraham did not belong to the tradition of Judaism, and thus cannot be claimed for that tradition. The same is said with reference to Christians: Abraham was not a Christian. The word naṣranī, translated as “Christian,” refers to Nazareth as the place of birth of Jesus, so “Nazarene” would be a more exact translation. However, the plural naṣārā is the only word that the Qur’ān uses when referring to Christians, and it is probably used on purpose since in the Greek- and Aramaic-speaking world this word was often used by outsiders with a negative connotation.5 After this double negation, and before a third negation, a double affirmation follows: Abraham was a ḥanīfan musliman. This combination of words has been translated very differently, going from “one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto God” to “he was a Muslim and one pure of faith.”6 In later Muslim sources, the word ḥanīf is often explained as someone who is trying sincerely to serve the one true God, and thus has the connotation of “upright monotheist.” Western scholars point out that the word might be derived from the 5  See Sidney H. Griffith, “Al-Naṣārā in the Qur’ān: a hermeneutical reflection,” in RNPQ 301-22. 6  Q.3:67 (MA) and (Ar) respectively.

100

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Syriac ḥanpā, which can have the meaning of “gentile” and thus may refer to someone who does not belong to the People of Scripture.7 This is why I translate the word as “seeker.” Abraham does not belong to the People of Scripture, and since he does not belong to the associators (mushrikūn) either, he is likened to prophet Muhammad who came to submit himself to God by God’s calling but not through an established religious tradition. In this manner, the word muslim in the text has some intentional ambiguity: while Abraham was not a Muslim in the sense of an established religious tradition, he displayed the attitude of submitting himself to God, just like Muhammad and his followers. This is the conclusion that the next verse will draw. 68  The

people closest to Abraham are the ones who follow him and this prophet and those who believe and God is the friend of the believers

The central word in this verse is walīy, which is often used to describe close relationships between people. As an adjective it indicates closeness of followers of Muhammad and the believers to Abraham. As a noun it is used to indicate that God is the friend or ally of the believers.8 There is a direct relationship between believing and being close to God, and Abraham is the model for this relationship – this is why he is often called khalīl Allāh, “friend of God”. Taken together, Q,3:66-68 construe a counter-claim against the claim implicit in the argument of Jews and Christians about Abraham: they imply that they are closest to Abraham, but the Qur’ān argues that Abraham is closest to those who believe and follow him in believing, and that God is closest to those who believe. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Muqātil interprets “you argue with one another” in Q.3:65 as “to quarrel, to fight with one another.” Explaining why the quarrel was about Abraham, he tells us that the leaders of the Jews (by the names of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, Abū Yāsir, Abū l-Haqīq and Zayd ibn al-Tābūh) and 7  See RQBS 85. There may be a connection with Paul’s insistence in the New Testament that Abraham believed and was justified before being circumcised. 8  The word walī can be translated as “friend” or “ally,” depending on the context. See Q.5:51 (AH): “You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies: they are allies only to each other.”



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

101

the Christians from Najrān claimed that Abraham belonged to them in the first place, and that the prophets were of their religion, and that Muhammad only wanted that they would take him as lord. The Jews added: as the Christians took Jesus as lord, while the Christians added: as the Jews took Ezra as lord. Muhammad replied: “God forbid! I invite you to serve God altogether, without associating anything with Him.” In this manner, Muqātil connects Q.3:65 with the contents of the “common word” verse before it.9 In his interpretation of Q.3:67, Muqātil does not identify ḥanīf and muslim with an institutional religion but with an attitude of a God-seeker and someone who is devoted to God; yet he does identify the associators (mushrikūn) as people from the Jews and the Christians.10 Al-Wāḥidī gives two different occasions for these verses, both attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās. The first connects the verses to a debate between Prophet Muhammad and some Jewish leaders who said: “you know that we have the better claim to Abraham’s religion than you or anybody else; and you know that he was a Jew. You are only resentfully envious.”11 The second refers to the situation of a first group of Muslims led by Ja’far ibn Abī Ṭālib who migrated to Abyssinia to be under the protection of its Christian leader, the Negus. After a few years, the Meccan Quraysh sent a delegation led by ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ to the Negus, trying to end the protection now that the Quraysh were in battle with members of the newly established community of believers in Medina. They tried to convince the Negus that the revelation preached by Muhammad said negative things about Christ. At this point, ‘Amr wanted to provoke the Negus. He said: ‘They slander Jesus and his mother!’ The Negus said: ‘What do they say about Jesus and his mother?’ Ja’far read to them Surah Mary and when he recited the section which mentions Jesus and his mother, the Negus picked up a fragment from a tooth pick (siwak) – so small that it could get into one’s eye – and said: ‘By Allah, Jesus did not add to what you have said more than this [i.e. the fragment that he picked]’. He then turned toward Ja’far and his companions and said: ‘Go wherever you want in my land. You are safe. Whoever insults or harms you will face a penalty. Receive the good news and do not be afraid. Today, no harm shall ever befall the party of Abraham.’12  TMS 1:175 (Q.3:65).  Ibid. (Q.3:67). 11  WAN 49 (Q.3:68). 12  WAN 50 (Q.3:68). 9

10

102

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Because of the sizable overlap between the religion of Jesus and the new revelation, the Christian leader indicates the followers of this revelation as “the party of Abraham,” and when the people from Mecca protest – their tradition says that Abraham founded the Ka‘ba, so they consider themselves a “party of Abraham” as well – the Negus identifies “the leader who sent them and those who follow them” as the party of Abraham, which explains the occasion for the revelation of Q.3:68, “closest to Abraham are … the Prophet and those who follow him”. In his overview of the tafsīr tradition, Mahmoud Ayoub pays some attention to the interpretation of Q.3:65, “the Torah and the Gospel have been revealed after him” by the theologian Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) who often discusses rational objections to the text. If it is true that Jews and Christians cannot claim Abraham for themselves, the same holds true for Muslims, since the Qur’ān was revealed after Abraham as well. Rāzī responds to this objection that the Qur’ān correctly claims Abraham to have been a seeker (ḥanīf), submissive to God (muslim), while Torah and Gospel do not claim him to have been a Jew or a Christian. If later Jews and Christians put forward such a claim, they are evidently incorrect. Christians worship Jesus who did not exist in Abraham’s time, and therefore their faith cannot have been the faith of Abraham. Similarly, Jews observe certain laws brought by Moses, but if Moses brought them they cannot have been in effect at the time of Abraham. This refutes, Rāzī states, the argument of the Christians and the Jews.13 In his Tafsīr al-Mīzān, the Iranian scholar Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī (d. 1401/1981) says that the Qur’ān of course does not use the word muslim in the sense of someone who follows the commandments of the sharī‘ah, since such a use of the word to indicate the religion brought by Muhammad, is “a terminology which came up after the revelation of the Qur’an.”14 Similarly, the authors of the Study Quran notice that the term islām in the Qur’ān is broader than the institutionalized religion of Islam, and thus “refers to submission to God even if it is not in the context of Islam as the specific religion revealed through the Quran.”15

 AQI 2:209-10 (Q.3:65).  Tafsīr al-Mīzān, original edition Beirut 1973-74 in 20 volumes. I quote from the English translation on www.almizan.org, last accessed June 21, 2016. The quote is from page 13 of 42 in the commentary on Qur’ān 3:64-78. 15  The Study Quran, 135 (on Q.3:19). 13 14



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

103

Christian Resonances In Q.3:65-68 the Qur’ān refers to the history of rivalry between the three religions that are often called Abrahamic religions. Nowadays the phrase “Abrahamic religions” – not unlike “People of the Book” – is used to highlight common ground between the three religions, but historically it has more often been used to emphasize differences between them.16 In referring to the quarrels between representatives of the three traditions that claim to continue the Abrahamic form of monotheism, the Qur’ān insists that “Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian.” Karl-Joseph Kuschel argues that each of these traditions has preserved the memory of Abraham outside of the religious mainstream, even if they have often tried to make Abraham into a traditional Jew, Christian, or Muslim. As a religious outsider, Abraham can still function as a guide towards better understanding between religions.17 This might come close to what the Qur’ān means when it characterizes Abraham as a ḥanīf: an upright God-seeker outside traditions that claim special knowledge and revelation from God. Christianity is one of the religious traditions that has claimed Abraham as the founder of its faith, and no one has done this more insistently in the New Testament than Paul. In the letter to the Romans, for instance, he discusses Abraham at length as someone who is not only “our ancestor according to the flesh” but also someone “who did not doubt God’s promise in unbelief; rather, he was empowered by faith and gave glory to God.”18 Before that, Paul had given a similar discourse on Abraham as a model of faith against Galatians who were influenced by Judaizing tendencies. Against those who say that Abraham was justified by the works of the law – a group represented in the letter of James in the New Testament – Paul argues “that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.”19 While adopting the image of Abraham as ancestor in the physical sense of the word, Paul insists that the most important heritage of Abraham is his faith. This is a point on which Islam and Christianity generally agree, as confirmed by the references to Abraham in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. While the Qur’ān discusses Abraham and his heritage in quite a few places, the verses discussed here boil down to a counter-claim: Abraham 16  See Kuschel, Streit um Abraham; Levenson, Inheriting Abraham, and Hughes, Abrahamic Religions. 17  Kuschel, Streit um Abraham, 249-50. 18  Romans 4:1 and 4:20 (NAB). 19  Galatians 3:7 (NAB).

104

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

was not a Jew or a Christian, but a God-seeker, a submitter. Moreover, the ones closest to him are those who follow him. This claim is brought into play against Jewish and Christian claims that are mutually exclusive, resulting in a diversity and even a cacophony of incompatible claims. In the letter to the Galatians, Paul builds a similar counter-claim against the Jewish insistence that they are the children of Abraham through Sarah, the free woman, while others are children of Abraham through Hagar, the slave woman. He explains the biblical story as an allegory and turns it almost upside down by insisting that the Christians are the children of the freeborn woman, while others are the children of the slave woman. He argues the following: Tell me, you who want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the freeborn woman. The son of the slave woman was born naturally, the son of the freeborn through a promise. Now this is an allegory. These women represent two covenants. One was from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; this is Hagar. Hagar represents Sinai, a mountain in Arabia; it corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery, along with her children. But the Jerusalem above is freeborn, and she is our mother. For it is written: Rejoice, you barren one who bore no children / break forth and shout, you who were not in labor / for more numerous are the children of the deserted one / than of her who has a husband. Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise. But just as then the child of the flesh persecuted the child of the spirit, it is the same now. But what does the scripture say? Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son of the freeborn. Therefore, brothers, we are children not of the slave woman but of the freeborn woman.20

Paul employs a method of interpretation that tries to make the biblical story applicable to what he sees as the main challenges for his hearers: the claim that observance of the Jewish law is necessary for Christians in order to be faithful to the covenant with God.21 Paul inverts the claim of those who used the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar to make an argument about freedom: not the observance of the Law, but true faith brings freedom. Such a method of “targumization” is not primarily interested in a faithful rendering of the original text, but in a relevant 20  Galatians 4:21-31 (NAB). The quotations in italics are from Isaiah 54:1 (LXX version) and Genesis 21:10. 21  The classical interpretation of this text is C.K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians”, in id., Essays on Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), 154-70.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

105

­translation (targum in Hebrew; tarjama in Arabic) of its contents for a contemporary audience. Nicolai Sinai and Angelika Neuwirth have made the case that we encounter similar processes of “targumization” in the Qur’ān, and that the notion of kitāb plays a central role in these processes.22 According to this procedure, notions such as “freedom” and “slavery” can become relevant in a way never envisaged in the original story, for instance in liberationist, feminist and womanist interpretations.23 The history of Christian-Muslim relations is replete with such claims and counter-claims concerning Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. A good example is the use of an “Abrahamic framework” by John of Damascus, one of the first Christian authors to write against this new religion: There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites, which to this day prevails and deceives the people, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. It derives from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called ‘Agarenes’ and ‘Ishmaelites’. They are also called ‘Saracenes’, which is derived from ‘destitute by Sara’, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sarah hath sent me away destitute’.24

John of Damascus conceives this new religion as a heresy because his criterion to distinguish orthodox religion from false religion is the right confession of Christ as Son of God. Since the Qur’ān does mention Jesus as son of Mary but not as Son of God, it fails the test of orthodoxy and is classified as a heresy, even as “the forerunner of the Antichrist.” John knows this religion under three names that are related to the story of Abraham, yet he gives these names a negative twist. Ishmael, Abraham’s elder son, is less favored than his younger brother Isaac because of his mother Hagar who was sent away by Abraham and Sarah. This framework 22  See Nicolai Sinai, “Qur’ānic self-referentiality as a strategy of self-authorization”, in: Self-referentiality in the Qur’ān, ed. Stefan Wild (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006), 103-34; Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells, “Introduction”, QST 6-7. 23  See, among others, Elsa Tamez, “Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom”, Word and World 20/3 (2000) 265-71; Delores Williams, Sisters in the Wilderness (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1994); Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives, eds. Phyllis Trible & Letty Russell (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). 24  John of Damascus, “The Heresy of the Ishmaelites,” chapter 100 of the “Book on Heresies” in his Pege Gnōseōs or “Fountain of Knowledge,” written in the first half of the eighth century. Translation according to Adelbert Davids and Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites,” in: The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, eds. Barbara Roggema, Marcel Poorthuis, Pim Valkenberg (Leuven – Dudley MA: Peeters, 2005), 71-90.

106

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

also yields the explanation of the third name, Saracenes as “made destitute by Sarah.” The three names represent claims to be part of the Abrahamic heritage and thus have positive connotations for Arabs. “Ishmaelites” refers to the qur’ānic texts such as Q.2:125-27 that suggest how Abraham and Ishmael initiated or rejuvenated the cult of the one true God in Mecca at the Ka‘ba.25 The term “Hagarenes” as used by John of Damascus may go back to the Arabic term muhājirūn indicating “those who have made the emigration (hijra) from Mecca to Medina” as the oldest companions of Prophet Muhammad.26 The term Saracenes – the default name for Muslims in the Latin Middle Ages – may go back to sharqiyyūn, “people living in the East”, even though a derivation from the Greek “Arabs living in tents” is also possible.27 In all cases, John of Damascus turns self-descriptions or neutral descriptions into negative notions by using the Abrahamic narratives as an interpretive framework.28 A second example of a Christian theologian who confronts the qur’ānic claim to identify Abraham not as a Jew or a Christian but as a ḥanīf and a muslim comes from Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64). Working shortly after what the West calls the “fall of Constantinople” in 1453 – from the Islamic perspective, it is called the “opening” or “conquest” of the city – Nicholas decides, in conversation with his friend Juan de Segovia, to react with the pen rather than with the sword. He writes a fervent plea for the peace of faith in which the nations of the earth come together and beseech the Creator to end the war between the nations and to show the unity of faith beneath the different rites.29 This imaginary council and its plea for peace between religions is an astonishing work that seems to come very 25  On the Jewish and Islamic traditions concerning Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael, see Reuven Firestone, Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham – Ishmael Legends (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1990); Marcel Poorthuis, “Hagar’s Wanderings: Between Judaism and Islam,” Der Islam 90 (2013) 220-44. 26  The term “Hagarenes” is used in early Greek and Syriac texts, see Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 8-9. 27  For the first derivation, see Jean Damascène: Écrits sur l’Islam, ed. R. Le Coz (Paris: Cerf, 1992), 92. 28  See Pim Valkenberg, “Abraham: Conflicting Interpretations and Symbol of Peaceful Cooperation”, in: Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times, eds. Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist, (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2010), 313-26. 29  Nicholas of Cusa wrote his De pace fidei in 1453, only a few weeks after the events in Constantinople. For English translations, see Jasper Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, and H. Lawrence Bond, Nicholas of Cusa on Interreligious Harmony. Text, Concordance and Translation of De Pace Fidei (Lewiston NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

107

close to our modern awareness of religious pluralism and its theological roots.30 At the same time, it has its roots in the first Latin translation of the Qur’ān in the so-called Toledan Collection commissioned by Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, around 1140.31 After a few years, Nicholas wrote a more scholarly approach to the Qur’ān. This book, the Cribratio Alkorani or “Sifting of the Qur’ān” was meant to see if the Qur’ān contain any truth that could be used to confirm the truth of the Christian faith. Nicholas summarizes his approach as follows: Now, my intention is as follows: having presupposed the Gospel of Christ, to scrutinize the book of Muhammad and to show that even in it there are contained those [teachings] through which the Gospel would be altogether confirmed, were it in need of confirmation, and that wherever [the Koran] disagrees [with Christ], this [disagreement] has resulted from Muhammad’s ignorance and, following [thereupon], from his perverse intent.32

Nicholas’s endeavor to scrutinize the Qur’ān, though less irenic than his book on the Peace of Faith, can be characterized as one of the earliest Christian theological approaches to the Qur’ān in which the main intent is to derive some kind of truth from this book. Accordingly, Nicholas of Cusa pays much attention to the Qur’ān’s Christology (mainly in the first book) and to its attack on the Trinity (mainly in the second book). When he discusses the prophethood of Muhammad and of Abraham in the third book, he uses the qur’ānic claim of belonging to the Abrahamic heritage to tell the Muslims that they should value religious differences and follow their own book when it tells them to live in peace with Jews and Christians. He begins by saying that the Qur’ān (lex Alkorani) claims to follow the religion of Abraham (lex Abrahae), according to the command, “follow the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith who was not 30  On this aspect, see Pim Valkenberg, “One Faith, Different Rites: Nicholas of Cusa’s New Awareness of Religious Pluralism”, in: Understanding Religious Pluralism: Perspectives from Religious Studies and Theology, eds. Peter C. Phan and Jonathan S. Ray (Eugene OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 192-208. 31  See the Christian resonances of Q.5:48 in chapter 7; Pim Valkenberg, “Una Religio in Rituum Varietate: Religious Pluralism, the Qur’an, and Nicholas of Cusa”, in: Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, eds. Ian Christopher Levy, Rita George-Tvrtković and Donald F. Duclow (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2014), 30-48. 32  Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, prologue, 10. Translation Hopkins, 78-79. Original text in: Nicolai de Cusa Cribratio Alkorani (Opera Omnia, vol. VIII), ed. L. Hagemann (Hamburg: Meiner, 1986), 11-12.

108

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

an idolater.”33 Yet at the same time, Muhammad – whom Nicholas addresses as the author of the Qur’ān – admits that the religion (lex) of Abraham is revealed to Moses and to Christ as well, so he cannot honestly claim that the religion (lex) of the Arabs is the best religion. Since the Qur’ān admits at many places that Christ is favored by God, Muhammad’s claim in fact ignores Christ.34 Nicholas gives his own interpretation of the story of Abraham, taken from the book of Genesis but strongly influenced by St. Paul’s interpretations. One of the Pauline elements is the idea that whereas Ishmael is Abraham’s son according to the flesh, Isaac is Abraham’s son according to the promise.35 Now the promises made to Abraham have ultimately been fulfilled in Christ, as Mary sings in her Magnificat: “Being mindful of His own mercy, He has received His servant Israel, just as He promised to our fathers – to Abraham and to his offspring forever.”36 Speaking to the Jews, Jesus himself said that it is not important to belong to Abraham according to the flesh, but to do his works.37 The Qur’ān recognizes this by letting Abraham pray to send a mediator and a messenger, who can only be Christ.38 The Muslims, sons of Abraham through Ishmael according to the flesh, should try to follow Abraham in their works according to the spirit. At this point, Nicholas of Cusa directly discusses the claim of Qur’ān 3:67: But if you rightly understand, o Arab: it is not the case that Abraham existed before Christ – as the Koran alleges in a certain place and consequently denies that Abraham was a Christian. Instead, Christ, who is the Son of God and is coeternal with God His Father, existed before Abraham. 33  Cribratio Alkorani, III.11,195 (ed. Hagemann, 156). The Latin word Lex means “Law” but it is the word that is most often used for the modern equivalent “religion” in the Middle Ages. The quotation is from Qur’ān 16:123 (AH; Arabic: millat Ibrāhīm ḥanīfan). Robert of Ketton’s translation has: ut ipsius Abrahae legem sequaris. 34  Cribratio Alkorani III.11,197 (ed. Hagemann, 157). In the first chapter of this book, Nicholas of Cusa mentions Q.2:253 (AH) as an example of a text extolling Christ above all others: “We favoured some of these messengers above others. God spoke to some; others He raised in rank; We gave Jesus, son of Mary, Our clear signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit.” 35  Cribratio Alkorani III.13,205 (ed. Hagemann, 163), echoing Romans 9:8 and Galatians 4:28. 36  Ibid. 207 (ed. Hagemann, 164). Translation of Luke 1:54-55 (Vulgata) according to Hopkins 173. 37  Ibid. 208 (ed. Hagemann, 165). 38  Cribratio Alkorani III.14,210 (ed. Hagemann, 166). The reference here is to Qur’ān 2:129, “Our Lord, make a messenger from their own rise up from among them” which is read in Robert of Ketton’s translation as: ut misericors atque piissimus nostrae prolis filium, mediatorem prophetam excita.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

109

Thus, we read in the Gospel that Christ said: “Before Abraham was, I am.” Therefore, [Abraham] saw through a prophetic spirit that at some time the Messiah would come into the world as mediator and saviour. And Abraham believed that without the Messiah neither he himself nor anyone [else] would have access to God the Father. And so, Abraham was a Christian, and he hoped that by means of Christ he would certainly obtain immortal life. This is the sole and perfect faith of Abraham. It ought also to be [the faith] of all those who want to have a sound faith and who happily expect to be saved through faith.39

This passage gives a good idea of Nicholas’s procedure: he takes the claims from the Qur’ān seriously but counters them with claims derived from the New Testament. In response to the qur’ānic claim that the Gospel was revealed after Abraham, Nicholas quotes the famous saying by Jesus in his debate with the Jews according to the Gospel of John: “Before Abraham came to be, I am.”40 Being co-equal and co-eternal with God, Christ was before Abraham, and Abraham knew that He would come. Therefore, having faith in the coming of Christ, Abraham was a Christian, and those who want to follow Abraham should have his faith as well – an implicit counter-claim to what Q.3:68 says about the Abrahamic faith of the Prophet and those who follow him. In the next chapters, Nicholas of Cusa explains that the lex or religion of Abraham means having faith in the Triune God like Abraham did at the valley of Mamre – an allusion to Genesis 18. Yet at the same time the Qur’ān says many times that God could have made all people of one religion and rite (omnes eiusdem legis et ritus), but He permitted the difference.41 If God permits different religions, then why do the Muslims not allow religious diversity as they say God does? In this part of the Cribratio, Nicholas of Cusa repeats his plea in De Pace Fidei: let the differences between religions be used as an incitement to better worship of God instead of war. Muslims treat Christians more harshly than they should do on the basis of their own Scripture.42 Toward the end of his 39  Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani III.15,214 (ed. Hagemann, 169). Translation Jasper Hopkins (Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and Analysis, Minneapolis: the Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994) 176. 40  John 8:58 (NAB). The words “I am” are written in (small) capitals because the words in Greek (egō eimi) are understood to refer to God’s self-designation (“I am who I am,” Exodus 3:14) in Hellenistic Judaism. 41  Cribratio Alkorani III.16,218 (ed. Hagemann, 172): Quotiens dicit liber vester: Si deus vellet, omnes eiusdem legis et ritus essent, sed sic, uti videmus, permittit. Hagemann refers to Qur’ān 42:8, 16:93; 10:99; 11:118 and 13:31. 42  Nicholas uses this argument in a letter to the sultan. See Cribratio Alkorani III.17.

110

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

book, Nicholas discusses the possibility that Muhammad grew up as a Christian who held Christ and his mother Mary in high esteem, but after his death certain Jews inserted the idea of the religion of Abraham into the Qur’ān, in order to mislead the Muslims and to make Abraham the model to be followed instead of Christ.43 While Nicholas of Cusa accepts the possibility of a Christological reading of the Qur’ān, he does not believe that the “return to Abraham” as model of faith was present in the original book; he thinks that Jews later added this element to the Qur’ān. Yet half a century ago, some version of the conviction that the faith of Abraham can be a model for Muslims and Christians together found its way into the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, I want to pay some attention to Louis Massignon and his influence on the second Vatican Council’s teaching about Muslims and the role of Abraham.44 When discussing the “common word” verse that immediately precedes the discussion about Abraham in Q.3, I showed how the Second Vatican Council leaves no doubt that Christians and Muslims together worship the One True God. However, it is significant that in both texts in which the Council mentions this worship of the one God, it also mentions the claim by Muslims that this is in fact the faith of Abraham. The dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, says the following in 1964: “… the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.”45 One year later in 1965, the declaration on the relation between the Church and the nonChristian religions Nostra Aetate states: “the Muslims … strive to submit wholeheartedly even to His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam is gladly linked, submitted to God.”46  See Cribratio Alkorani III.18,227 (ed. Hagemann, 180).  See Sidney Griffith, “Sharing the faith of Abraham: The ‘Credo’ of Louis Massignon”, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 8 (1997) 193-210; Christian Krokus, “Louis Massignon’s influence on the teaching of Vatican II on Muslims and Islam”, Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 23 (2012) 329-45. 45  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964), §16; translation according to Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_ en.html (retrieved May 26, 2016). 46  Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate (1965), §3; translation Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P. in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016), xx. 43 44



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

111

Louis Massignon (1883-1962) was a French Islamicist who endorsed the Islamic claim to partake of Abrahamic heritage at two levels: the Arabs are connected with Abraham as their forefather through his elder son Ishmael, and the Muslims are connected with him through their faith in the one God of Abraham.47 Ever since a dramatic experience in which he rediscovered the Catholic faith of his childhood thanks to the hospitality of a Muslim family in Iraq, Massignon developed a strong spiritual devotion to Abraham as the father of all believers.48 His devotion concentrated on three prayers associated with Abraham on behalf of Sodom, Ishmael, and Isaac, and on a prayer sodality or badaliyya on behalf of the Muslims.49 He saw the Muslim faith as theologically important for Christians, since for him it was a prophetic revival of the faith of Abraham.50 Much has been made of Massignon’s possible influence on the texts quoted above from the Second Vatican Council about the relation between Islam and Abraham – even if the Council does not explicitly recognize this relationship, it certainly mentions and thus acknowledges the Muslim claim to such a relationship.51 Most of the evidence for the influence of Massignon is circumstantial, such as the fact that some of his students were bishops in the Middle East who gave important testimonies during the discussion of the documents; furthermore the fact that two of Massignon’s students were among the specialists consulted for the texts on Islam; and finally the fact that Pope Paul VI was a member of Massignon’s prayer sodality.52 A more direct clue for Massignon’s probable influence is the fact that one of the drafts of Lumen Gentium 16 made a parallel between the Jews as “sons of Isaac” and the Muslims as “sons of Ishmael”, a theme particularly liked by Massignon. However, the final text of Lumen ­Gentium  Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham,” 196.  See Lorenzo Perrone, “‘Abraham, père de tous les croyants’: Louis Massignon et l’oecuménisme de la prière”, Proche-Orient Chrétien 60 (2010) 100-33. 49  See Louis Massignon, Parole donnée (Paris: Lettres Nouvelles, 1962) and MaryLouise Gude, Louis Massignon: the Crucible of Compassion (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996). 50  Griffith, “Sharing the Faith of Abraham,” 201. 51  See Pim Valkenberg, “Nostra Aetate: Historical Contingency and Theological Significance”, in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016), 6-26, at 22. 52  Gavin D’Costa, “Vatican II on Muslims and Jews: The Council’s Teaching on Other Religions”, in The Second Vatican Council: Celebrating Its Achievements and the Future, eds. Gavin D’Costa and Emma Jane Harris (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 105-20; Krokus, “Louis Massignon’s influence on the teaching of Vatican II on Muslims and Islam”. 47 48

112

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

omitted this idea as the physical relationship through Ishmael was deemed to be historically quite implausible.53 Yet the fact that the first draft of what would become Lumen Gentium 16 did mention the double relationship suggested by the Qur’ān and endorsed by Massignon might be the strongest evidence that the Council considered both the physical and the spiritual relationship between Abraham and the (Arab) Muslims, but in the end decided that the spiritual relationship was important enough to be mentioned, while the biological relationship was deemed to rest on shaky grounds. In so doing, the Council discussed and partially adopted the claim of Q.3:65-68. 3:69-72 God’s Hand Is Open The Qur’ān immediately continues with another address to (a party of) the People of Scripture, in which God’s revelation is discussed once more. 69  A

party from the people of scripture would like it if they could cause you to go astray but they do not cause to go astray except themselves even though they do not notice 70  You people of scripture, why do you disbelieve the signs of god while you have witnessed? 71  You people of scripture why do you exchange truth with falsehood and hide the truth while you have learned? 72  A party from the people of scripture say: believe in what has been revealed to those who believe at the outset of the day, and disbelieve at its end; maybe they will return Explanatory Notes The passage Q.3:69-72 has a chiastic structure in which the People of Scripture are directly addressed in the middle verses with two parallel rhetorical questions: why do you disbelieve / why do you exchange truth 53  See Gavin D’Costa, Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 172. The Latin text in this draft was: … filii Ismael qui, Abraham patrem agnoscentes, in Deum quoque Abrahae credunt. See the commentary on Lumen Gentium by Alois Grillmeier in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche XII (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 206.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

113

for falsehood? In both cases, the suggestion is that the People of Scripture should know better since they have witnessed the signs of God and have learned the truth. The outer verses do not address the entire people of Scripture, but describe the wishes of a part (ṭā’ifa) of the people of Scripture: they wish to lead the followers of Muhammad astray, employing a specific strategy to do so: in the beginning, they pretend to believe in what has been revealed to the followers of the new revelation (“those who believe”), but later they retract their assent in hopes to revert the believers. The word for “party”, used in Q.3:69.72, is ṭā’ifa, and it is derived from a verb that has “to walk about, to walk around” as its root meaning. The word has a slightly negative connotation including “religious minority” and “sect.” The context suggests that the ṭā’ifa is a particularly aggressive group among the people of Scripture who want to deprive the faithful of the revelations and signs that they have received from God. Such behavior is characteristic of a group that the Qur’ān elsewhere names as munāfiqūn (“hypocrites”). While this term usually refers to people who pretend to be Muslims while they do not behave as such, in this case, it is the People of Scripture who behave in such a manner, feigning to believe but in fact undermining the faith of those who believe, the āminūn. This is a strong allegation: not only have these People of Scripture exchanged truth with falsehood, but they also want to lead the sincere believers back to unbelief. This situation foreshadows the later condemnation of apostasy in Islamic law, yet here the People of Scripture are to be condemned because they should know better: they have received revelation, witnessed the truth, yet they reverted to disbelief and persuade true believers to give up their faith as well. But why would they want to do so? The next verse in this sūrah suggests a theological motivation, as the People of Scripture are quoted saying: “do not sincerely believe in anyone unless he follows your own religion” and “do not believe that anyone else could be given a revelation similar to what you were given, or that they could use it to argue against you in your Lord’s presence.” Yet the Prophet is to retort: “True guidance is the guidance of God” and “All grace is in God’s hands: He grants it to whoever He will – He is all embracing, all knowing” (Q.3:73 AH). The ultimate argument against the People of Scripture – or a party of them – is a theological argument: God’s guidance and God’s ability to grant grace to whomever God wants to give His mercy.

114

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Islamic Interpretations In my survey of Islamic interpretations, I will pay special attention to the qur’ānic commentary al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān (published in 1973) by the Iranian shi’ite scholar Muḥammad Husayn al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī because I studied this commentary – in English translation available on the Internet – for a lecture together with the Iranian scholar Dr. Seyed Amir Akrami about the People of Scripture.54 The theological approach of these two Iranian scholars helped me to understand not only the issue at hand in these verses from the Qur’ān, but also the parallels with Karl Barth and his critique of religion that I will discuss later. Yet first I will focus on the early commentary tradition. Al-Wāḥidī and the Tafsīr al-Jalālayn tell us that Q.3:69 refers to an event in which three famous companions of the Prophet and early converts to Islam, by the names of Mu‘ādh b. Jabāl, Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān and ‘Ammār b. Yāsir, were called upon by a group of Jews to join their religion.55 Tafsīr Muqātil adds to the story that the Jews said: “our religion is better than your religion, and we are better guided than you on the way.”56 With respect to Q.3:70-71, the commentators make only a few observations. Tafsīr Muqātil glosses “signs (āyāt) of God” as “the Qur’ān,” and “you have witnessed” as “you have found that Muhammad is the messenger of God described in the Tawrāt.”57 Tafsīr al-Jalālayn agrees with this interpretation, but conflates the two by equating “the āyāt of God” with both “the Qur’ān” and “the descriptions of Muhammad.”58 Again, “exchange truth with falsehood and hide the truth” (71) means “distorting and falsifying Scripture,” more particularly “the descriptions of the Prophet.” Ibn Kathīr is even more emphatic: “you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know”: by hiding what is in your Books about the description of Muḥammad (ṣaw) while you know what you do.59

54  The lecture was the fifth annual Al-Alwani Lecture in honor of Dr. Taha Jabir Al-Alwani, organized by the Washington Theological Consortium at El-Hibri Foundation, Washington DC, on February 27, 2014. The Al-Alwani lectures, edited by Dr. Richard Jones, will be published by the International Institute of Islamic Thought. 55  WAN 51 and TJJ 56, on Q.3:69. 56  TMS 1:175-76 (on Q.3:69). A similar ḥadith is given for Q.3:99 (TMS 1:183). 57  TMS 1:183 (on Q.3:70-74). 58  TJJ 56 (on Q.3:70). 59  TIK 2:187 (on Q.3:69-74). The letters (ṣaw) form an abridged form of the usual eulogy, ṣallā Allah ‘alayhi wa-sallam (“may God bless him and give him peace”) after the name of Prophet Muhammad.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

115

In line with the tradition, these commentaries read the qur’ānic verses in the light of the (later) tradition of taḥrīf, according to which Jews (and Christians) corrupted the meanings or the letters of the descriptions of Prophet Muhammad in their own Scriptures.60 The Study Quran summarizes: “These verses are usually understood to refer to the rejection of the mission of the Prophet by Jews and Christians, even though he is foretold, according to Islamic belief, in their sacred books.”61 The commentaries write a bit more on Q.3:72. Mujāhid ibn Jabr relates that the persons who say, “believe in what has been revealed to those who believe at the outset of the day, and disbelieve at its end” were Jews who prayed with Prophet Muhammad at the beginning of the day (the fajr prayer), yet they disbelieved at the end of the day in order to convince others that following the Prophet was an error.62 Al-Wāḥidī gives the same story in somewhat more detail, adding that twelve Jewish rabbis conspired to join the religion of Muhammad at first while later openly declaring its falsehood in hopes of confusing the companions of the Prophet who esteemed the rabbis as people of Scripture.63 Rāzi broadens the scope by saying that Jews and Christians came together and tried to confuse the companions of the Prophet by first pretending to agree with the messages of the Prophet, yet later asserting that they disagreed with these messages after having studied their Scriptures.64 These stories have two points in common. First, Jews and Christians are seen as people who have knowledge of their Scriptures and therefore may confuse the early Muslim community if they say that the words of Muhammad are not in conformity with their Scriptures. Second, from the Muslim perspective, the initial faith (“in the morning”) of these People of Scripture cannot have been a true faith since no one can apostasize from the true faith; one can, however, leave a faith that has not been true from the beginning. Therefore, the behavior of the Jews (and maybe Christians) is generally described as a ruse, an act of deception. Ibn Kathīr summarizes this as follows: This is a wicked plan from the People of the Book to deceive Muslims who are weak in the religion. They decided that they would pretend to be  TJJ 56 (on Q.3:71).  SQ 49 (on Q.3:70-71) with reference to Q.7:157 and al-Ṭabari. 62  TMJ 39 n. 170 (on Q.3:72). 63  Another story connects Q.3:72 with the change of the qibla (prayer direction) as discussed in Q.2:145, and says that the Jews agreed to the direction of the prayer in the morning but disagreed in the evening. WAN 51 (on Q.3:72). 64  AQI 2:217 (on Q.3:72). 60 61

116

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

believers in the beginning of the day, by attending the dawn prayer with the Muslims. However, when the day ended, they would revert to their own religion so that the ignorant people would say, “They reverted to their old religion because they uncovered some shortcomings in the Islāmic religion”.65

In his translation, Muhammad Asad follows a different tradition according to which some Jews and Christians hope to confuse Muslims by accepting some truth in early qur’ānic revelations (“in the beginning”) while they categorically reject the later revelations (“what came later”).66 It is remarkable that the early mufassirūn generally limit themselves to a few remarks on Q.3:69 and 72 while neglecting the fourfold mentioning of People of Scripture in these verses. However, some later exegetes address the theological questions elicited by these verses, such as ‘Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī whose tafsīr by the name of Al-Mīzān was published in the 1970s.67 Mahmoud Ayoub, another shi’ite theologian characterizes Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s commentary as a scholarly work of philosophy addressed to young Muslim intellectuals.68 Ṭabāṭabā’ī was born in 1903 in Tabriz and studied philosophy in the holy city of Najaf in Iraq. Later he taught in Qum, where he combined the study of philosophy with a mystical approach as exemplified in the works of Mulla Sadra (d. 1050/1640). He also wrote about comparative mysticism and comparative study of religions. His exegesis pays more than usual attention to the connections between separate verses, and he is attentive to both grammatical and philosophical aspects while not neglecting traditional approaches. In his commentary, Ṭabāṭabā’ī discusses Q.3:64-78 in which the words ahl al-kitāb are used seven times as one textual unit. Unlike the traditions quoted above, he states that these verses relate to Jews and Christians in general. The discussion with them in the Qur’ān is mainly a discussion on ethical and practical matters, and this determines Ṭābāṭabā’ī’s interpretation of Q.3:69-72 as well. He stresses the significance of Q.3:70, which he interprets as “why do you disbelieve in the communications of Allah while you witness (them)?” He points out that there is a difference between disbelieving God and disbelieving God’s  TIK 2:188 (on Q.3:72).  Q (MA) 92 n. 54 (on Q.3:72). 67  The full title is: Sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, al-Mīzān fi Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1973-74. The English translation can be found at www.almizan.org (last accessed March 10, 2018). 68  AQI 1:7. 65 66



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

117

communications. The People of Scripture reject the divine communication after it has been made clear to them because they disbelieve “that the hand of Allah is open.”69 This metaphor is used in the Qur’ān to refer to God’s ability to bestow communication and grace on whom He wants, while the Jews want to reserve this for themselves – see Q.3:73: “All grace is in God’s hands; He grants it to whoever He will.” In sūrat al-mā‘ida the Qur’ān enters into a similar discussion with the ahl al-kitāb, and it is in the context of this discussion that the Jews say that “the hand of God is shackled” (yad Allāhi maghlūla) which means that God is not able to give anymore. Quite the contrary, counters the Qur’ān, “it is they who are tight-fisted and they are rejected for what they have said. Truly, God’s hands are open wide: He gives as He pleases.”70 Ṭābāṭabā’ī argues that Jews (and Christians, for that matter) make a theological error by stating that the revelation given to them safeguards them from the necessity to reckon with what God can do in the future. Jews trust that God remains true to the covenant with the people of Israel, so that there is no need to pay attention to any claim of a new covenant. Christians believe that God has revealed Godself in Jesus Christ in a definitive way, so that there is no need to look for any new revelation. According to Ṭābāṭabā’ī, the Qur’ān does not belabor Jews and Christians for their hiding verses from Scripture, but for their failing to follow through on the knowledge that they have received.71 This interpretation confirms my hypothesis about the meaning of the term ahl al-kitāb as discussed in the second chapter: when the Qur’ān addresses Jews and Christians as People of Scripture, it recognizes that they have received a specific revelation from God, but it denies that they possess this revelation. So, it uses the very term kitāb against them in telling them that they should have known from the revelation they received that God is not bound to what God has given: God’s hand is open, God is free to give mercy to whomever God wills. Therefore, Jews and Christians should be open to new revelation brought by Prophet Muhammad. Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s interpretation has opened my eyes for the possibility that the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture is based on a theological argument that counters religious exclusivism.72 It starts a theological  TbM on Q.3:64-78, 16 of 42.  Q.5:64 (AH). I am grateful to Dr. Amir Akrami for drawing my attention to this text and its interpretation. 71  TbM on 3:64-78, 17 of 42. 72  See also Mun’im Sirry, Scriptural Polemics. 69

70

118

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

debate on the question as to whether God is bound to limit Godself to covenantal partnerships in which God is engaged, or whether God is free to bestow God’s grace in the form of revelation on other people as well. The Christian theologian will recognize this debate as a core question in the writings of Saint Paul, most notably in his letter to the Romans. Christian Resonances In this section I want to focus on Paul’s letter to the Romans as the point of departure of a long theological tradition of interpretation that has determined quite a few important theological decisions in the history of Christianity.73 One famous example is a close reading of Romans 9-11 that has helped several Catholic scholars to find new ways to overcome classical supersessionism in Christian approaches to Judaism.74 Such a theological reading notices God’s specific promises to Israel while at the same time observing God’s faithfulness to humanity in its entirety: “What Paul is doing in Romans 9-11 is validating through Scripture a vision of a God who, along with allegiance to the covenant people of Israel, has a responsibility, as Creator, to the entire world.”75 The two forms of God’s faithfulness are to be held in creative tension, as Paul thinks that a final solution is not possible: “I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise [in] your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of Gentiles comes in, and thus all Israel will be saved…”76 While “[i]n respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account”; yet, “in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs.

73  See Reading Romans through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth, eds. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen (Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2005). In my own dissertation, I have shown how a theological reading of the Letter to the Romans helped Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) in his reflection on the soteriological meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and how this reflection resonates with modern retrievals of theological exegesis. See Wilhelmus G.B.M. Valkenberg, Words of the Living God: Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 221 with reference to The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Stephen E. Fowl (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997). 74  See John Connelly, From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933-1965 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2012); Matthew Tapie, Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2014). 75  See Brendan Byrne, S.J., “Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-‘New Perspective’ Perspective”, Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001) 227-41, here 240. 76  Romans 11:25-26a (NAB); this is followed by a quotation from Isaiah 59:20-21.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

119

For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”77 The last sentence is now used in Nostra Aetate and other documents to underscore the lasting significance of Judaism for Christianity.78 I propose to juxtapose Paul’s analysis of the “hardening of Israel in part” with the Qur’ān’s analysis of the disbelief of a part of the People of Scripture. On the one hand, Israel in Romans and the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān are the enemies of the believers since they disbelieve the new signs of God. On the other, they are still receivers of revelation and knowledge, and partners in God’s covenant. While God remains faithful to the covenant with Israel and the People of Scripture, God’s hand is still open and God may offer salvation to the Gentiles or the non-Scriptuaries. I will come back to this important text from the letter to the Romans when I discuss sūrat al-mā’ida in chapter 7; at this place, I want to focus on one particular theological interpreter of the Letter to the Romans, Karl Barth (1886-1968). Though I cannot do justice to the full theological impact of Karl Barth, I suggest that the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture resonates with Barth’s critique of religion as a translation of Paul’s critique of the “Law”.79 It is significant that Barth offers a theological interpretation of Scripture that claims to be a true historical interpretation because it is focused on die Sache der Schrift (“what Scripture is about”) or its theological focus.80 Barth argues that we do not need to reconstruct what Paul might have meant in categories of his time, but we need to address die Sache in contemporary terms.81 A clear instance of this hermeneutical  Romans 11:28-29.  See the document published by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in December 2015 under the title: “‘The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29): A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic-Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of Nostra Aetate”, on www.vatican.va. 79  “Law” is between quotation marks in order to indicate that the Pauline notion of “Law” refers not to Jewish observance of the Law, but to Christian missionaries to the Gentiles who seek to impose aspects of Jewish Law never intended for them. See Byrne, “Interpreting Romans Theologically,” 229. Moreover, present-day Jewish-Christian dialogue underscores the notion that Paul’s critique of certain aspects of the observance of the Law would be shared by most of his Jewish colleagues. See Gerard Sloyan and Lester Dean, “A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Paul,” in: Leonard Swidler et al., Bursting the Bonds: A Jewish – Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1990), 125-216. 80  Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief (Original second edition1922; reprint with new pagination Zürich: theologischer Verlag, 1984), xvii. 81  See Kenneth Oakes, Reading Karl Barth: A Companion to Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans (Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011). 77 78

120

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

approach82 is that Barth translates the Pauline notion of “Law” (Gesetz) as “Religion” (Religion). When Paul speaks about Judaism and the people of Israel, Barth translates: religious people and the Church. And when Paul speaks about the goyim, the Gentiles, Barth ventures to talk about those outside the Church who live in the world without God.83 Paul is a law-abiding Jew and Barth is a member of the Reformed Church; yet Paul writes that abiding by the Law and trusting in that accomplishment as a religious prerogative is dangerous, and Barth similarly argues that it is dangerous to be religious insofar as that always implies that people think that they can reach out to God.84 The basic impetus of dialectical theology is to deny this illusion: human beings cannot reach out to God; only God can reach them, and God has reached them in the person of Jesus Christ. God’s revelation in Christ is not an extension of religious longings, but it is the denial of religion. Barth has often been interpreted as arguing that Christianity is different from all religions, and there are some passages in his later work that go in this direction, such as his conclusion that Christianity is the “true religion”; yet the main thrust of his early dialectical thought is that Christianity as such is of course a religion.85 This means that we need to become a-religious before we can be receptive to God’s grace. This is the big decision that we need to make according to Paul in Barth’s interpretation.86 The church is good and pious, and it does many good deeds; yet it is also a form of religion that is proud of its liberal prestige and its many good works. Barth states emphatically: this means nothing in God’s eyes. Therefore, those who are outside without religion are perhaps better off in their relationship with God, since they do not claim to possess anything to show to God. The importance of religion for Barth is that it shows the failure of human beings who have nothing of which to boast.87 In my interpretation, this Barthian analysis of religion comes close to the critique in the Qur’ān: Jews and Christians count themselves rich 82  See Richard Burnett, Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The Hermeneutical Principles of the Römerbrief Period (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004; orig. German ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 2001). 83  Oakes, Reading Karl Barth, 16. 84  Barth, Der Römerbrief (1984), 235. 85  See Karl Barth, On Religion: The Revelation of God as the Sublimation of Religion, translated by Garrett Green (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 20. 86  Barth, Der Römerbrief (1984), 277. 87  Barth, Der Römerbrief (1984), 426.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

121

because they think that they possess the kitāb, God’s revelation, while those who are outside (the ummiyyūn in the Qur’ān; the non-religious in Barth) need to live without these prerogatives. Yet God does not depend on our religion; God is always able to send revelation outside of and even against our religiosity. In order not to cause a misunderstanding, I should add that Barth warns that the notions of “church” and “world” are dialectical notions, not historical ones.88 They mirror one another in a way similar to how Jews and Gentiles are made to be mirrors for each other in Paul’s letter to the Romans 9-11 and the People of Scripture in Qur’ān 5:48.89 Thus, the world is not better and the church is not better – but at least the world knows that it is not better than others. In contrast, the problem with religious people is that they tend to think that their religious feelings or practices bring them closer to God. Barth criticizes this mentality in his famous saying, Religion ist Unglaube, in volume I/2, section 17 of his Kirchliche Dogmatik.90 In the English translation, the Leitsatz – the sentence that summarizes the gist of what follows – says this: God’s revelation in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the judging, but also reconciling, presence of God in the world of human religion – that is, in the realm of attempts by man to justify and sanctify himself before a wilfully and arbitrarily devised image of God. The church is the site of the true religion to the extent that through grace it lives by grace.91

Scholars have discussed a possible shift in Barth’s position since he now admits the possibility of a true religion in the church, which he would have denied fifteen years prior in his commentary on Romans. Some of them hold that Barth’s approach to religion was dialectical in his commentary on Romans and became more analogical in his later work.92 This has important consequences for the translation of the title of section 17: Offenbarung als Aufhebung der Religion. If the negative aspect predominates, God’s revelation is primarily the abolition (Aufhebung) of religion – as older translations of the Kirchliche Dogmatik suggested – but if the analogical aspect becomes dominant, God’s revelation is  Ibid., 425.  Cf. Pim Valkenberg, Sharing Lights on the Way to God: Muslim-Christian Dialogue and Theology in the Context of Abrahamic Partnership (Amsterdam – New York: Editions Rodopi, 2006), 158. 90  Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik I/2: Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes (Zürich: Zöllikon, 1938), 304-97. 91  Barth, On Religion, transl. Garrett Green, 33. 92  See the introduction by Green in Barth, On Religion, 15. 88 89

122

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

­ rimarily the sublimation (Aufhebung) of religion, since it not only p negates but also confirms it by making it better. This makes Barth’s position in his Kirchliche Dogmatik in 1938 more difficult to rhyme with the qur’ānic criticism of the ahl al-kitāb than his position in the commentary on the letter to the Romans in 1922. At the same time, however, it opens up a new, fascinating possibility, viz. that Barth as an interpreter of Scripture might have had more affinity, on the basis of his concentration on what Paul wanted to say in his letter to the Romans, with the qur’ānic critique of the ahl al-kitāb, while the systematic theologian, in allowing for the possibility of Christianity as a true religion over against other religions, opened the door to exclusivism in a way similar to how the Muslim tradition has generally understood itself as “the best of communities” to the exclusion of others.93 It might be a sociological law that every new religion understands itself to be better than others, and that it does not expect God to be able to enter into special relationships with other religious communities.94 The Qur’ān criticizes the metaphor that expresses this mentality in saying that God’s hand (revelation, covenant) is closed (complete, sealed). Maybe every religion – including Islam – needs the prophetic critique of a new religion to remind it of the fact that God is always able to give God’s grace whenever God wants. This is what the Qur’ān states in the very next verse: “Say: All grace is in God’s hands. He grants it to whoever He will – He is all embracing, all knowing.”95 This text contains a reference to the all-encompassing nature of God’s grace. The word wāsi‘ – translated as “all embracing” by Abdel Haleem – literally means “wide,” so it may evoke in the mind of a Christian the title of one of the most famous hymns, “There is a wideness in God’s mercy,” penned by the English poet Frederick Faber (1814-63) who in his life combined the theological sensitivities of Calvinism, Anglicanism and Catholicism.96 The embracing nature of God’s mercy goes together with the encompassing nature of God’s knowledge in the Qur’ān. Similarly, for 93  It is this systematic theological position that has given Barth the label of an exclusivist theologian – for instance in Paul Knitter’s No Other Name? (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1985) – which does not do justice to the more nuanced position of Barth, both at the beginning and the end of his theological career. 94  See Reuven Firestone, “Is There a Notion of ‘Divine Election’ in the Qur’ān?”, RNPQ 301-22, at 307. 95  Q.3:73b (AH). 96  Information from C. Michael Hawn, “History of Hymns: There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy” at http://www.gbod.org/resources (accessed on August 14, 2014).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

123

Faber, the wideness of God’s mercy goes together with the “kindness of God’s justice / which is more than liberty.” 3:75-79 Trustworthy and Unreliable People of Scripture 75  There

is among the people of Scripture one who, if you entrust him with a great sum, he will give it back to you; and there is among them one who, if you entrust him with a coin, he will not give it back to you, unless you persevere standing over him. This is because they say: there is against us no recourse regarding the illiterates – they tell the lie about God, even though they know. After the repeated assertion that God is giving God’s grace to whom God wants, and that God is limitless in God’s bounty, Q.3:75 again makes a distinction among the people of the book, differentiating between some who can be trusted and others who are not reliable. The metaphor here is one of borrowing: some can be trusted with a sizeable sum of money, whereas others will not give anything back unless they are forced to do so. Explanatory Notes The text uses the double meaning of the Arabic verb āmana: “to believe,” but also “to trust.” Some of the People of Scripture can be trusted even though they receive a great sum of money, while others will not give it back unless they are forced to do so. The reason for this behavior seems to be a feeling of superiority by those who have received revelation, expressed in the saying “there is against us no sabīl regarding ummiyyūn”. The word sabīl means “way”, but can also indicate a course of action to hold someone responsible.97 The word ummī can have the meaning of “belonging to the common people” and thus of “uneducated” or “illiterate.” In the parlance of the People of Scripture, however, ummī indicates the othering of those who are different since they did not receive a revelation from God that entails a specific relationship with God. The word 97

 TJJ 56 (on Q.3:75) glosses “duty” and adds “possibility of acquiring sin.”

124

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

in fact translates the Hebrew notion of gōy or the Greek notion of ethnikos, meaning “gentiles” in the sense of not being part of a specific covenant with God.98 The People of Scripture think that the gentiles are not part of the covenantal people and therefore they have no specific responsibility toward them. The Qur’ān specifies that this is not the behavior of the entire People of Scripture, but only of some who cannot be trusted in religious and mundane matters.99 When it criticizes such a misuse of the notion of covenantal relationship, it specifies that this is not a necessary consequence of this relationship itself. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Muqātil identifies the “People of Scripture” here as “People of Torah,” and the persons who are to be trusted as Abdallah ibn Salām and his followers.100 Those who will not give back what has been given to them are the unbelievers among the Jews, such as Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf and his companions. These Jews felt no longer obliged to give back money to the Arabs who became Muslims, because they stated that such withholding of money was permissible according to the Torah. God, however, reveals that this is a lie against Him.101 The popular Tafsīr al-Jalālayn interprets the amounts of money as real financial transactions; it says that Abdallah ibn Salām borrowed “1200 plates of gold” and returned it, while Ka‘b ibn al-Ashrāf borrowed a dinar but did not give it back.102 In contrast, the Study Quran argues that the words qinṭār and dinar indicate a large and small amount of money, but these words are often used metaphorically. This explanation goes back to al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) who also explains that this case refers to a trade between Jews and other Jews who later became Muslims. Those who remained Jews claimed that they did not have to pay back the sum that was borrowed since the agreement with persons who were no longer Jews would no longer be valid according to the Torah.103 Qurṭubī continues to say that such behavior is not allowed according to Muslim law. In his interpretation, Ṭabāṭabā’ī draws attention to the  RQBS 85.  See Lamptey, Never Wholly Other, 168. 100  TMS 177 (on Q.3:75-76). Abdallah ibn Salām – see the commentary on Q.5:48 in chapter seven – is the most famous Jewish convert to Islam, so the persons to be trusted are those who have in fact converted to Islam, according to Muqātil. 101  TMS 177. 102  TJJ 56. 103  SQ 150-51. 98 99



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

125

theology of election that explains the behavior of the Jews mentioned in this verse: “they believed – as they do even today – that they were the chosen people; Divine Grace was their exclusive property; others had no share in Allah’s favour; Allah had given them Prophethood, the Book and the Kingdom; therefore they had precedence and excellence over all races, and had a right to subjugate the others.”104 Yet he adds that such ideas represent the prerogatives of the People of Scripture but not the teaching of Torah. The behavior criticized by the Qur’ān and the Islamic interpretations may become a possible pitfall not only for Jews but also for Christians and Muslims. In a discussion of these three religions, the Jewish scholar Irving Greenberg says the following: The historical problem has been that the humanistic moral values all too often end up being applied to the “in” group, to the believers, to those who practice a certain way and to those who share a certain set of religious assumptions. The excluded, the others, are not infrequently degraded; their exercise of a different religion or a different religious approach is used as proof that they are in fact evil.105

If religions are to become forces for reconciliation rather than violence, they need to see the violence in their own traditions first. A good example is a story in which some Muslims come to Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68/687), a cousin of the prophet Muhammad, and tell him that they are no longer bound to honor obligations to non-Muslims. Ibn ‘Abbās, however, tells them that they should keep their promises and pay back whatever they owe.106 Christian Resonances In the New Testament, Jesus uses a number of parables in which lending money and trustworthiness are addressed in a similar way as in Q.3:75. One could think of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27) where a man going on a journey entrusts some of his property (the Greek word talanta indicates a sizeable amount, just like qinṭār in the Qur’ān) to three servants. Two of them use the money 104  TbM on Q.3:64-78 (accessed at www.almizan.org on August 30, 2016). Also AQI 2:227. 105  Irving Greenberg, “Religion as a Force for Reconciliation and Peace: A Jewish Analysis”, in: Beyond Violence. Religious Sources of Social Transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. James L. Heft, S.M. (New York: Fordham University Press, 2004), 88-112, at 94. 106  SQ 151 (on Q.3:75-76).

126

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

wisely and succeed in adding more talents. The servant who received just one talent, though, hid it in the ground for fear of his master, who punishes him upon his return while praising the other servants. Another parable that may come closer to the qur’ānic verse can be found in the Gospel of Matthew only, where Jesus says the following: [T]he kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?’ And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.107

While using commercial terminology, this parable focuses on the importance of forgiveness as a characteristic of God (the king in the parable) that human beings need to follow in their behavior. The difference between the great sum of ten thousand talents – a debt that no person can ever pay108 – and the relatively small amount of a hundred denarii highlights the enormous difference between what human beings owe to God – this is why we are God’s slaves or servants – and what we might owe to one another. The parable stresses that a refusal to forgive one another will have serious consequences in the eyes of God. The parable and the verse from the Qur’ān have two important points in common. First, all human beings but certainly the People of Scripture 107  Matthew 18: 23-35 (NRSV), according to The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (Nashville TN: Catholic Bible Press, 1993). 108  In a footnote, the NRSV Bible adds that “a talent was worth more than fifteen years’ wages of a laborer”. Another footnote equals a denarius to the usual day’s wage for a laborer.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

127

have received an enormous gift from God. In fact, everything that we have and all that we are we have received from God. Second, this gift brings a serious responsibility for human beings and specifically the People of Scripture who will be accountable to God. Q.3:76-77 continues the distinction between those who are watchful, keep their bond with God and fulfill their promises on the one hand, and those who “barter away their bond with God and their own pledges for a trifling gain” on the other.109 The latter group focuses on the shortterm goal of this life, neglecting the higher focus on the long-term goal of the hereafter. Therefore, they will have no relationship with God in the end: “they shall not partake in the blessings of the life to come; and God will neither speak unto them nor look upon them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them of their sins; and grievous suffering awaits them.”110 For the Christian commentator, it is remarkable that this verse evokes a scene very similar to the end of the parable quoted on the previous page: God will not establish an ultimate relationship with us if we do not take care of the relationships with God and with other human beings in this life. The Qur’ān next describes more problematic behavior from a part of the People of Scripture. This time the problem is not that they hide part of what has been revealed to them, as in Q.2:101, or that they mix truth with falsehood, as in Q.3:71. It is that they add something to Scripture that is not revealed. In Q.2:79 the metaphor was “writing with their hands,” but here the metaphor is “twisting their tongues,” clearly suggesting an oral recitation of the Scriptures. Q.3:78 says the following: There is a party of them who twist their tongues with the Scripture that you may think it to be from the Scripture when it is not from the Scripture. They say, ‘It is from God’, when it is not from God. They speak lies against God, knowingly.111

Apparently they recite their own stories in the fashion of a recital of Scripture.112 The Muslim tradition of interpretation of this verse adduces a number of traditions arguing that Jews changed the description of Prophet Muhammad in the Torah, so that they could assert that Muhammad was  Q.3:77a (MA).  Q.3:77b (MA). 111  Q.3:78 (AJ). 112  See MQS 120. 109 110

128

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

not the future prophet described in the Torah.113 In this context, the Study Quran writes about “obfuscation of the prophecies fortelling [sic] the coming of the Prophet Muhammad” and “deception for worldly purposes of ignorant people who were told that the Torah says so-and-so when they did not have the ability to read the Torah for themselves.”114 In the context of this passage in Q.3, I do not see any reason to suppose that the “twisting of the tongues” is related to a description of the future prophethood of Muhammad in the Torah; from my Christian point of view I consider such an interpretation a form of reading a later situation into a text that is similar to the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament in the Christian Church. From the point of view of the Islamic tradition, such an interpretation may be legitimate, but from the point of view of the context of the Qur’ān it seems a case of what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) has named “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.”115 The Qur’ān does not discuss specific texts or descriptions here, but it discusses the unreliability of some of the People of Scripture. As the Study Quran states, the Arabs were not able to check the recitations of Jews and Christians, since there were no copies of such Scriptures available in Arabic.116 Therefore, it was easy for Jews and Christians to add phrases, or to recite phrases that according to the Qur’ān God could not have revealed in the original Scriptures. The next verse gives a salient example of such a contested phrase: “It is not for any mortal to be given the Scripture, the Judgment, and Prophecy by God and then [for him] to say to the people, ‘Be servants to me, to the exclusion of God’.”117 The point is that a prophet is supposed to know that God alone is to be worshiped, therefore Jesus – or any other prophet, for that matter –could never have said such a thing; if Christians attribute such words to him, they pass their own fantasies for recited Scripture as the previous verse stated. Like others before him, Sayyid Quṭb states that this verse was revealed about the Christians and “their invented misbelief about Jesus, son of Mary.”118 The Qur’ān states explicitly  WAN 52 (on Q.3:77).  SQ 151 (on Q.3:78) with reference to Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) and al-Ṭabarī. 115  This statement is generally taken to be “the error of mistaking the abstract for the concrete” (Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 64.72). See the entry on Whitehead in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/whitehead/ (accessed September 4, 2016). 116  SQ 151; Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 41-42. 117  Q.3:79 (AJ). 118  Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān 1:419; QSQ 2:128. 113 114



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

129

that Jesus would have disassociated himself from such a claim, and therefore, if Christians suggest that He (or His mother) is to be worshiped, they say something that Jesus never would have said.119 The second half of Q.3:79 specifies what should have been said instead of ‘worship me beside God’: ‘be people devoted to the Lord,’ (rabbāniyyūn), further specified as: “regarding what you had learned from the Scripture, and what you have been studying (tadrusūn).”120 In this context, it becomes clear that the Qur’ān considers the claim that Jesus is to be worshiped as based on lack of knowledge and study of the Scripture revealed to Jesus: the Gospel as confirmation of the Torah. Studying the Scriptures is to be commended since it enhances the knowledge of God’s revelation. If there is a general theme in this string of references to the people who received Scripture from God, it is the issue of their credibility or lack thereof; some of them can be trusted, but some cannot. They are held accountable because they have received knowledge from God, and they should act according to the Scripture that they have received, without subtracting from it or adding to it. It is remarkable that the criterion here clearly is the Torah, or the Torah and the Gospel. Jews and Christians should live according to their own revealed Scriptures, yet of course the Qur’ān supposes that it has been revealed to confirm the basic message of these Scriptures. So if God sends a new Prophet (nabī) or Messenger (rasūl), that person should be accepted because he only confirms what has been revealed before: “when a messenger comes to you confirming what is with you, you are to believe in him and you are to help him.”121 The correct response is believe in all the prophets without m ­ aking any distinction between them.122 Since all the prophets basically have been given the same message, accepting Moses but not Jesus is lack of belief by Jews, and accepting Jesus but not Muhammad is lack of belief by Christians. Those who make distinction between God’s prophets show their unbelief and 119  Ibn Kathīr (TIK 2:197, on Q.3:79) says that “[T]his criticism refers to the ignorant rabbis, priests and teachers of misguidance, unlike the Messengers and their sincere knowledgeable followers who implement their knowledge.” See also Q.5:116a and its discussion in chapter seven of this commentary. 120  SQ 152 (on Q.3:79) translates rabbāniyyūn as “sages” and connects it with Q.5:44.63. At these places, the word is used together with aḥbār which is usually translated as “rabbis”, and in this context it probably refers to the scholars of Law and/or Pharisees. Droge (The Qur’ān, 38) translates rabbāniyyūn as “be rabbis,” while Jones (The Qur’ān, 73) translates “be masters.” 121  Q.3:81a (Dr). 122  See Q.3:84.

130

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

they will be among the losers: “If anyone seeks a religion other than [islam] complete devotion to God, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.”123 This phrase is sometimes translated as: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam…” (Q.3:85 Dr), suggesting that Islam is the only religion that is accepted by God. Such a translation imports a form of exclusivism into the text of the Qur’ān, while the text most likely refers to islām as an attitude of self-surrender to God and not to the established religion of Islam.124 3:98-104 Holding Fast to the Signs and the Rope of God 98  Say:

you people of scripture, why do you disbelieve in the signs of god while god is witness to what you do? 99  Say: you people of scripture, why do you turn away from the way of god the one who believes, desiring it to be crookedness while you are witnesses? And not is god neglectful of what you do. 100  You who believe! If you are obedient to a group of those to whom the scripture was given, they will take you back to become disbelievers after your faith Explanatory Notes Q.3:98-99 form the climax of the second part of this surah that begins with a debate about Abraham and ends with references to the People of Scripture.125 The name of Abraham is mentioned in verses 65, 67, and 68, and again in 84, 95 and 97. It is interesting to see how these references to Abraham are more or less intertwined with references to the People of Scripture in verses 64, 65, 69-72, 75 and again 98-99. The issues in between relate to Jews more often than to Christians; for instance in Q.3:93 that says, “All food was lawful unto the Children of Israel, save what Israel had forbidden for himself, before the Torah was sent down. Say, ‘Bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful’.”126  Q.3:85 (AH).  See SQ 153-54 (on Q.3:85). 125  Robinson, “Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān”, 1-2; Farrin, Structure and Qur’anic Interpretation, 87-88. 126  Q.3:93 (SQ). 123 124



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

131

This was apparently directed against Jews who held that the dietary laws in the Torah were already valid before the revelation of the Torah. After a discussion of the relation between Abraham and the sanctuary in Mecca that predates the Torah, Q.3:98-99 warn the People of Scripture in words that are reminiscent of the warning in Q.3:69-71. While these verses probably form the climax of the inner ring (C) of the surah, the same terminology about Scripture and signs continues in Q.3:100-101, so that it is worthwhile to read on to what is, according to Raymond Farrin, the core of the surah: Q.3:104, “Be a community that calls for what is good, urges what is right, and forbids what is wrong: those who do this are the successful ones.”127 Verses 98-99 display a strikingly parallel structure: “Say, ‘People of Scripture, why do you disbelieve / turn away … yet God is witness / not neglectful of what you do’.” Q.3:98 is rather straightforward: the People of Scripture disbelieve the signs (āyāt) of God, while Q.3:99 comes back to the accusation of Q.3:69: they turn away those who believe from the way of God. Even though the verses that follow address the believers instead of the People of Scripture, they refer to the situation just mentioned: a group among those to whom Scripture was given tries to lead believers astray and make them into disbelievers.128 If they succeed, the believers end up in the same situation as the People of Scripture, and therefore Q.3:101 addresses them in a way similar to the People of Scripture in Q.3:98: “How can you disbelieve when God’s revelations are being recited to you and His Messenger is living among you? Whoever holds fast to God will be guided to the straight path.”129 The rejection in Q.3:98 and the disbelief in Q.3:101 are both related to the signs (āyāt) of God. The solution for the believers is to hold fast to God, which will bring them to the straight path. This admonition is repeated twice: “be mindful of God as is His due” and “hold fast to God’s rope all together; do not split into factions.”130 If the believers succeed in this unity, they will be the community praised in Q.3:104, the core of the entire surah. If not, they will  Q.3:104 (AH). See the notes on structure at the beginning of chapter four.  Q.3:100 seems to refer to the same situation as Q.3:72 and 78 where a group among the People of Scripture seeks to confuse the believers. 129  Q.3:101 (AH). 130  Q.3:102a.103a (AH). The somewhat enigmatic expression “rope of God” (ḥablu llāhi) is explained by Mustansir Mir: a rope was the sign of a treaty or pact in the Arab culture: when two parties wanted to establish a pact, each party took a rope and both parties knotted them together. In this sense, “rope of God” means the covenant of God, including its signs, foremost in the Qur’ān but also in the sharī‘ah and in the community itself. Moreover, a rope is a symbol of salvation from a dangerous place: who holds fast to the rope can be brought to safety. See Mir, Understanding the Islamic Scripture, 92. 127 128

132

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

be like “those who, after they have been given clear revelation, split into factions and fall into disputes: a terrible punishment awaits such people.”131 Forming a unified community that calls to what is best and avoids factions and disputes is a sure sign that salvation can be reached. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Muqātil glosses “signs of God” in Q.3:98 as “the Qur’ān,” and ahl al-kitāb in Q.3:99 as “the Jews.” The persons who are turned away from the way of God by them are the “people of faith” (ahl al-īmān).132 Muqātil refers to the story already mentioned on the occasion of Q.3:69: Jews invited Ḥudhayfa and ‘Ammar ibn Yāsir to their faith, saying: ‘Our religion is better than yours, and we are better guided than you on the way.’ In this way, Jews tried to lead two believers away from the religion of Islam by making it appear false.133 Al-Wāḥidī gives a long story to explain the contents of Q.3:100. He relates that two of the Medinan tribes, Aws and Khazraj had a history of fighting one another before they became Muslims. One of the Jews did not like this new unity among the non-Jewish tribes, so he started reciting poems from the times of warfare, and feelings ran so high that the tribes began to prepare for war. That is when God revealed this verse to Muhammad who was able to restore peace.134 Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) says that the passage Q.3:99-105 has been revealed on the occasion of the quarrels between the two tribes as related by al-Wāḥidī. He uses this occasion to warn Muslims not to accept any counsel or advice from the People of ­Scripture: “God also informed them that the people of the Book harbour towards them nothing but hatred, evil, envy, and hostility.”135 Christian Resonances The ambiguous attitude toward the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān is often expressed as admiration for their knowledge of Scripture paired with amazement at their division. This is expressed in statements such  Q.3:105 (AH).  TMS I:183 (on Q.3:98-99). 133  The Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās and the Tafsīr al-Jalālayn basically contain the same interpretations as the Tafsīr Muqātil. I limit myself to the Tafsīr Muqātil because this source has, to my knowledge, not yet been translated into English. 134  WAN 54-55 (on Q.3:100). He relates two different stories with almost the same plot. 135  AQI 2:273; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān 7:53-60 (on Q.3:99100). 131 132



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

133

as, “those who were given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them” (Q.3:19) and “be not like those who, after they have been given clear revelation, split into factions and fall into dispute” (Q.3:105).136 The ḥadīth tradition transmits many stories in which Prophet Muhammad warns that the same divisions threaten the religion of Islam, and that this will lead to its demise. In his commentary on Q.3:103, Abū ‘Abdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) has the Prophet declare the following: There will befall my community all that had befallen the Children of Israel, following closely their footsteps. Even if among the Children of Israel there was one who openly copulated with his mother, there will be one in my community who will do likewise. The Children of Israel were divided into seventy-two sects and my community will be divided into seventy-three sects; all except one will be in the fire.137

Similar stories are told elsewhere in the genres of ḥadīth and tafsīr, often including 71 Christian sects, in between 70 Jewish sects and 72 Islamic sects.138 The point is that such division is seen as the result of a human temptation to go after one’s narrow interpretation instead of focusing on the unity of God’s revelation. Christians have often considered this lack of unity as a scandal that needs to be overcome if Christianity is to regain any attractiveness and be plausible in its claim to truth. This has certainly been the view of the World Council of Churches since its foundation in Amsterdam in 1948. It has also been the view of the Roman Catholic Church, as expressed in many documents since the document Unitatis ­Redintegratio (“Restoration of the Unity”) promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1964.139 The desire for unity is most strongly worded in the title of Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (“That They May Be One”), published in 1995. These words go back to a very powerful prayer by Jesus that is known in the tradition as “the High 136  Other texts that describe the People of Scripture as having become divided after revelation had come to them can be found in Q.42:14 and Q.98:4. See SQ 159 (on Q.3:103). 137  Ḥadīth reported on the authority of ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Umar, quoted by al-Qurṭubī; see AQI 2:277 (on Q.3:103). 138  See Uri Rubin, Between Bible and Qur’ān: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image (Princeton NJ: The Darwin Press, 1999), 117-37. 139  For a survey of the similarities and differences between the documents Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate, dealing with intra-Christian and extra-Christian relations respectively, see Michael Root, “Nostra Aetate and Ecumenism,” in: Nostra Aetate, eds. Valkenberg and Cirelli, 27-40.

134

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Priestly Prayer” or “Jesus’s Farewell Discourse” according to the Gospel of John, chapter 17. It is this prayer that can be heard as a Christian resonance to Q.3:98-104, especially because the praying Christ grounds the unity of the Christian community in the unity between himself and the Father who sent him to the world. In this manner, Christ in his unique relationship to the Father forms the Christian parallel to the “signs of God” and the “rope of God” in the Qur’ān: Christians believe that the relationship with God that is necessary for our salvation can only be accessed through Him. On this point, Christianity and Islam are deeply different in content – and yet somehow similar in structure. It is well known that the Gospel according to John presents a point of view that is different from the other Gospels that have more material in common and are therefore called the “synoptic Gospels”. In his introduction to his commentary on the Gospel according to John, Thomas Aquinas says that John wanted to balance the attention to the humanity of Jesus Christ in the other Gospels with a more specific emphasis on His divinity.140 One of the moments in which John shows this specific emphasis is when he lets Jesus Christ reflect on his life and mission and his relationship with the Father in a long prayer just before his arrest that starts the events that will lead to his death on the cross. This prayer is called the “High Priestly Prayer” in the Christian tradition, because it highlights Christ’s function as intercessor and mediator between God and his disciples. In this manner, the prayer elucidates the function of Christ as “sign and rope of God” in a way that has some analogies with the text from the Qur’ān under discussion, even though the person of Christ is more intimately connected with God than a sign or a symbol. The prayer begins as follows: Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you, just as you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.141 140  Thomas Aquinas, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, prol. n. 10. See Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, tr. Fabian Larcher, O.P. (Latin/ English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, vol. 35, Lander WY: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2013), 4. 141  John 17:1-5 (NAB).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

135

After this beginning in which Christ addresses the Father and prays that his mission may be accomplished when all may know God and Christ and thus gain eternal life, he prays for his disciples in this world, that they may be preserved in truth (John 17:6-19). Finally, he widens his prayer to include those who will believe through the disciples: I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. Righteous Father, the world also does not know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me. I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them.142

The unity between Christ and the Father is very intimate and quite distinct from the distance that characterizes the relationship between God and all created beings in the Qur’ān. Yet the insistence on God’s sending Christ in order for the world to know God through his disciples has some analogy with the qur’ānic insistence on God’s sending his guidance to prophets and messengers so that the people of Scripture may know. In both cases, the unity of the followers and disciples is a sign of their intimate knowledge of God’s guidance and their holding fast to the signs and the rope of God. Conversely, the lack of unity is a sure sign that God’s guidance has not been fully understood and sometimes even rejected. For Christians, the desire for unity is ultimately grounded in the triune nature of God; for Muslims, the unity is grounded in the way of guidance shown to the final Messenger. 3:110-15 The Best Community and an Upright Community 110  you

are the best community that has been brought out for the people; you command the accepted, you prohibit the disapproved, and you believe in god;

 John 17:20-26 (NAB).

142

136

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

and if the people of scripture would have believed, it would be better for them among them are who believe, yet most of them deviate 111  they will not hurt you except damage and if they fight you, they will turn their backs on you; then they will not be helped 112  they are stricken by lowliness wherever they are found except with a rope from god and a rope from the people they bring in wrath from god and are stricken by poverty – that is because they used to disbelieve in the signs of god and they killed the prophets without truth; that is because they revolted and used to transgress 113  they are not equal – from among the people of scripture is an upright community that recites the signs of god all night long while they are bowing down Explanatory Notes After the central part around Q.3:104, the second panel of the ring construction (C’) contains eight verses (110-17) that mirror the longer part (C, 64-99) in which the religion of Abraham was a central theme.143 Those addressed here are praised as “the best community” that has been “brought out” (ukhrijat; “elected” in later interpretations) for the people (nās “humankind”). The addressed are the best because they command what is right (ma‘rūf, “known”) and forbid what is wrong (munkar, “unacknowledged”) – echoing the central verse Q.3:104. Again, the text presents the People of Scripture as a group whose majority deviates (fasaqa). Q.3:112 describes their lowly state as a consequence while pondering that it could have been different, had they been in a bond (ḥabl, “rope”) with God and with humankind. Their situation is sketched in strong terms: their poverty is seen as a result of the wrath of God, which is a consequence of their unbelief, their killing of the prophets, their uproar and their transgressing. Yet Q.3:113 seems to indicate another possibility: among the People of Scripture is an upright (qā’iman, “standing”) community that recites (talā, “to follow” or “to recite”) the signs of God in worship (sajada, “to worship, to bow down, to prostrate”). It is significant that this group among the People of Scripture performs an equivalent of Islamic worship: talā is one of the usual words for reciting the Qur’ān, while sajada is what Muslims 143

 See the analysis of the structure of the third surah at the beginning of chapter 4.



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

137

do in a masjid (“place of worship; mosque”). On the one hand, this shows that Muslims and People of Scripture have important elements of worship in common; on the other hand, we will see that the Islamic interpretations use the same words to argue that this group among the People of Scripture did in fact convert to Islam. Before I focus on these interpretations, I want to emphasize that the next verses continue the favorable discussion of a group among the People of Scripture: There are some among the People of the Book who recite God’s revelations during the night, who bow down in worship, who believe in God and the Last Day, who order what is right and forbid what is wrong, who are quick to do good deeds. These people are among the righteous and they will not be denied [the reward] for whatever good deeds they do: God knows exactly who is conscious of Him.144

The climax of this positive approach to this group among the People of Scripture is that they will attain the positive end that awaits them because of their God-consciousness and their good deeds. This raises two questions. First, is it possible to identify this group of people among the scriptuaries? Second, how is it possible that they seem to share so many characteristics that Muslims believe distinguish the true followers of the Prophet from others?145 I will now turn to some answers to these questions given by the mufassirūn. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Mujāhid glosses only a few words from these verses. Among them is the expression, “you are the best community that has been brought out for the people” (Q.3:110) which is paraphrased as: “You are the best of people for the people”; furthermore, “the accepted” (ma‘rūf) is interpreted as “professing one God” (tawḥīd), and “the disapproved” (munkar) as “giving associates to God” (shirk).146 The expression “a rope from God and a rope from the people” (Q.3:112) is interpreted as ‘ahd (“obligation” or “contract”) with God and with the people. Finally, the word “upright” (Q.3:113) is interpreted in an ethical sense: it means ‘ādilatun (“just, fair, equitable”).147  Q.3:113b-115 (AH).  Similar questions are posed in the book by Jane D. McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians. See also Asma Afsaruddin, “The ‘Upright Community’: Interpreting the Righteousness and Salvation of the People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” in: Jewish-Muslim Relations in Past and Present: A Kaleidoscopic View, ed. Josef Meri (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 48-71. 146  TMJ n. 182-83 on Q.3:110. 147  TMJ n. 184-85 on Q.3:112-13. 144 145

138

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Tafsīr Muqātil elaborates on the idea of chosenness or election that is behind the words “you are the best of people” by telling another story concerning a group of Jews and a group of believers. This time, Mālik ibn al-Ḍayf and Wahb ibn Yahūdha said to Abdallah ibn Mas‘ūd and Sālim, a client (mawlā) of Abu Hudhayfa: “Our religion is better than that to which you call us.” On that occasion, God sent the verse “you are the best of people that has been brought out for the people,” meaning: “in your time, even as God preferred (faḍḍala) the Children of Israel (banū Isrā’īl) in their time.”148 The second half of the verse, “and if the People of Scripture would have believed” is glossed as: “the Jews, in Muhammad and the truth that came through him.” The final part of the verse, “among them are those who believe, yet most of them deviate” is glossed as: some believed, such as Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions, but most of the Jews resisted the message.149 The leaders of the Jews started to harm Abdallah and his companions, but they could only insult them verbally.150 When these Jews said to Ibn Salām and his companions that they incurred a loss when they changed their (original, Jewish) religion for another religion, God revealed “they are not equal,” meaning that the unbelievers among the Jews and those in error are not of the same rank as Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions who follow the religion of God. Among them is a group that is “upright,” meaning truly honest followers of the religion of God, and they “recite the Word of God” (yaqra’ūna kalāma llāh) and perform the prayer (yaṣlūna) during the hours of the night.151 The choice of words by Muqātil makes clear that he thinks that this group performed the Muslim prayer (ṣalāt). So the “upright community” is in fact a group that converted to Islam.152 The Study Quran gives several possible interpretations of the words “you are the best community” in Q.3:110. If read in the present tense, the “best community” can indicate the Prophet and his Companions, but also the Muslim community in its entirety, when compared with other religious communities. Sayyid Qutb, who supports this interpretation, says that the verse can be seen as an “encouragement for people of earlier revelations to accept the faith of Islam.”153 However, the “best community” may also mean that they are the best in relation to other  TMS 1:186 on Q.3:110.  Abdallah ibn Salām is one of the few early Jewish converts to Islam. 150  TMS 1:186 (on Q.3:111). 151  TMS 1:187 (on Q.3:113). 152  See also Afsaruddin, “The ‘Upright Community’,” 56. 153  QSQ 2:173 on Q.3:110. 148 149



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

139

people, and that is why acting righteously is emphasized in this verse.154 The words, “if the People of Scripture would have believed” and “among them are who believe” leave open the possibility that their own religions form the criteria for distinguishing belief from unbelief. In other words, the People of Scripture are not held to criteria derived from the message of Prophet Muhammad, but they are held to criteria derived from their own Scriptures.155 Whereas many commentators interpret “among them are who believe” as prominent Jews (such as Abdallah ibn Salām) and prominent Christians (such as the Negus of Abyssinia) who became Muslims, the Study Quran adds the following caveat: Such interpretations depend on allowing the categories of “Muslims” (i.e., followers of the religion brought by Muhammad) and “People of the Book” to overlap. If ‘Abd Allāh ibn Salām was Muslim, then he was not in any sense one of the People of the Book unless these are political designations like “Arab” or “Byzantine.” By the same token, if one is among the People of the Book (i.e., one of them), then one is by definition not a Muslim. Although the terms “Muslims” and “People of the Book” can designate political entities, the Quran and Ḥadīth do not refer directly to a Muslim (i.e., a follower of Muhammad) as one of the People of the Book or vice versa. This fact does not prevent the scope of muslim – namely, one who submits to God – from embracing others beyond the followers of Muhammad.156

The Study Quran adds that most traditional commentators make the same problematic overlap between Muslims and People of Scripture with reference to “among them are those who believe” in Q.3:113. Two possible interpretations are given for “upright community”: qā’ima may refer to the standing position in prayer, or it may refer to justice. If the “upright community” is interpreted as describing a group among the People of Scripture, this passage may be seen as a parallel to the positive texts in Q.2:62 and Q.5:69 about Jews, Christians, and Sabeans: if they believe in God and the last day, and act righteously, they will have their reward with God. If, however, the interpretation argues that the “upright community” can only consist of Muslims, it raises all kinds of new questions, since it is unclear why Muslims would need such special reassurance. “The plain sense of the verse suggests more strongly that it is addressed to Muslims unsure of how to judge the belief and actions of  SQ 161 on Q.3:110.  Ibid., with reference to al-Rāzi and al-Ṭabarī. 156  SQ 161-62 on Q.3:110. See also the commentary on Q.3:85 in this chapter. 154 155

140

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the People of the Book when they are truly good and that they (the People of the Book) are not alike (3:113).”157 Christian Resonances The Study Quran asserts that the positive texts in the Qur’ān about a group among the People of Scripture indeed refer to People of Scripture and not to those who have converted to Islam. However, the Qur’ān shapes the identity of the (Jews and) Christians it describes in such a way that they become what Jane D. McAuliffe characterizes as “Qur’anic Christians.”158 Nevertheless, it is possible to recognize two elements in the Christian faith that are viewed positively if the verse can be interpreted to refer to a group of (Jews and) Christians. The exact shape of the Christian resonances in this case depends on the interpretation of the word qā’ima in the expression umma qā’ima or “upright community.” If “upright” refers to an ethical standard, it rhymes with a clear teaching in the New Testament. Yet if qā’ima is to be taken more literally and refers to a community that is standing upright, it might refer to a specific practice of prayer performed by Christians in the qur’ānic milieu. The first interpretation that takes “upright community” as an ethical qualification brings the community in Q.3:113 in line with the “best community” in Q.3:110 and with the community in Q.3:104: “Be a community that calls for what is good, urges what is right, and forbids what is wrong.”159 In all cases, the criterion for uprightness is commanding what is good and prohibiting what is wrong. The same emphasis on good deeds returns again in Q.3:114-15, so there is strong contextual support for the ethical interpretation of “upright community.” In line with the two verses quoted in the Study Quran, Q.2:62 and Q.5:69, believing in God and the Last Day, and acting righteously are sufficient for eternal happiness.160 A significant parallel in the Christian tradition can be found in Jesus’ words about the Judgment of the Nations according to the Gospel of Matthew, where the criterion for being accepted is clearly of an ethical nature: When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled  SQ 163 on Q.3:114-15.  See McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians, 287. 159  Q.3:104 (AH). 160  See Asma Afsaruddin, “Religious Dialogue and Interfaith Relations,” in: Contemporary Issues in Islam (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2015), 174-205, at 19495; ead., “The ‘Upright Community’”, 67. 157 158



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

141

before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’161

A similar exchange ensues with those who are sent away “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt. 25:41) because “what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me” (Mt. 25:45). It seems that the scene in Matthew is even more radical than the description in the Qur’ān, since the latter requires faith in God and the Last Day as well. Yet the text in Matthew is built upon a specific interpretation of the greatest commandment in which the love of God and the love of neighbor are closely connected; so, even if faith in God is not explicitly required, it is implicitly expressed in the love of neighbor.162 Even though not all Christians will agree with such an interpretation that seems to reduce faith to ethics, it is possible to read a famous text from the declaration on the Church Lumen Gentium by the Second Vatican Council in this fashion. In discussing how “those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the People of God,” the Council states: Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.163

The second interpretation that takes “upright community” literally as a community standing in prayer seems to make most sense in connection  Matthew 25: 31-40 (NAB).  On these two elements, see the “Common Word” verse (Q.3:64) and chapter four. 163  Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, no. 16. Translation on the Vatican website (www.vatican.va), accessed Sept. 23, 2016. 161 162

142

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

with the rest of Q.3:113: “that recites the signs of God all night long while they are bowing down.” In that case, standing and bowing would refer to prayer postures that were common in Christian and Jewish prayer. Therefore, it is possible that the verse refers to a particular community of people who used to recite the Psalms and other prayers while standing and occasionally bowing during the night.164 While this description reminds me of a Western Christian form of worship such as the liturgy of the hours prescribed by Saint Benedict of Nursia (480-543) in his famous Rule, I am not able to prove that Jews or Christians in the neighborhood of Mecca and Medina practiced such prayer rituals, and therefore this second possibility remains a mere hypothesis.165 Yet the Qur’ān seems to honor such Christian prayer practices elsewhere: “you are sure to find that the closest in affection towards the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ for there are among them people devoted to learning and ascetics. These people are not given to arrogance.”166 It is true that the Qur’an elsewhere says negative things about monks because of their asceticism (Q.57:27) or because of their enriching themselves (Q.9:34), but in their devotion to God they are certainly judged positively. While I cannot prove that the “upright community” refers to monks reciting a form of night prayer, such a possible reading would certainly enrich the possibilities for the “dialogue of religious experience” between Christians and Muslims.167 3:180-87 God is Poor while we are Rich The long section Q.3:118-179 is traditionally associated with the battle of Uhud and its consequences, and it contains only three verses in which 164  See Heribert Busse, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: Theological and Historical Affiliations (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1998), 51. 165  Chapters nine and eleven of the Rule of St. Benedict (written in the first half of the sixth century) contain instructions concerning prayer postures during the Divine Office. See also Oddbjørn Leirvik, “Prostrate and Erect: Some Christian-Muslim Reflections on Religious Body Language,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 16 (2006) 29-40. “Prostrating” (sujjadan) and “standing upright” (qiyāman) are mentioned as prayer postures in Q.25:64. 166  Q.5:82 (AH). Other translations give “priests and monks” for the words translated by Abdel Haleem as “devoted to learning and ascetics.” 167  For the dialogue of religious experience and other levels of interreligious dialogue, see the documents of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in Gioia, Interreligious Dialogue, 1116-29. For continuing initiatives, see the website of Monastic Interreligious Dialogue and the journal Dilatato Corde (www.dimmid.org).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

143

the word kitāb is mentioned.168 By contrast, the final section Q.3:180200 contains several references to earlier revelations. This section begins with a reference to a group of people who do not want to share what has been given to them: “they …. niggardly cling to all that God has granted them out of His bounty.”169 This theme of people hoarding their possessions instead of giving them has already been discussed in Q.3:71-75. As I have argued elsewhere, the theme of miserliness has three layers here.170 First, there is the economic layer in which the Qur’ān criticizes people who gather riches because of their lack in solidarity with the poor. Second, there is the ethical layer in which such behavior is criticized because it is not in keeping with the rules of the community of believers. Third, there is a theological layer in which people are criticized when they think that they do not need to pay attention to God’s messengers because they think that they already know everything God revealed to them. Such people are quoted in Q.3:181 (MA) as saying: “Behold, God is poor while we are rich!” These words are attributed to one of the Jews of Medina, Finhas ibn ‘Azura, who mockingly said this, according to al-Wāḥidī, when Abu Bakr came to invite the Jews in their beth midrash to join the believers with the words, “Who shall lend unto God a goodly loan?” (Q.2:245). If your God is so poor, Finhas suggested, he is not able to give, so “his hand is shackled” (Q.5:64).171 In my commentary on Q.3:69-72 I have suggested that such expressions show the unwillingness of (a group of) People of Scripture to accept that God is able to give revelation to others. They do not only mistrust God’s power and mercy, but also neglect His prophets (Q.3:184) and even slay them (Q.3:181b). Those to whom revelation was given before do not take it seriously: “And lo, God accepted a solemn pledge from those who were granted earlier revelation [when He bade them]: ‘Make it known unto mankind, 168  Q.3:118 tells the believers not to become intimate with people who are different from them; part of the reason for that is given in the next verse: “It is you who [are prepared to] love them, but they will not love you, although you believe in all of the revelation.” (Q.3:119 AH). The fact that Muslims believe in “the entire book” (bi-kitābi kullihi) makes it difficult for them to understand why they are not loved: they believe not only in what was revealed to them, but also in earlier revelations, while the People of Scripture refuse to believe in later revelations. 169  Q.3:180a (MA). 170  Pim Valkenberg, “Poverty and Asceticism in Islamic Theology and Spirituality” in: Armut als Problem und Armut als Weg / Poverty as Problem and Poverty as Path, ed. Willem Marie Speelman et al. (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag / St. Bonaventure NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2017), 359-373. 171  See WAN 63 on Q.3:181.

144

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

and do not conceal it!’ But they cast this [pledge] behind their backs, and bartered it away for a trifling gain: and how evil was their bargain!”172 Most of the characteristics of such objectionable behavior suggested by the metaphors of “casting behind their backs” and “bartering for a small gain” have been discussed in the third chapter of this commentary.173 The one theme that is new in these verses is the idea that the People of Scripture should make known (bayyana, “to make clear, to announce”) the message given to them. So concealing it, or hiding it is against the solemn pledge that they made. 3:199-200 True believers 199  And

among the people of scripture are those who believe in god and in what was sent down to you and what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before god they do not sell the signs of god for a small price; those are the ones for whom their reward is with their lord, since god is quick in reckoning 200  o you who believe, be steadfast, vie in forbearance, be lined up and aware of god, so that you may be successful.

The final explicit reference to the People of Scripture occurs in the penultimate verse of this surah. Q.3:199 seems to be rather isolated as there is no reference to People of Scripture in the verses around it. Yet there are some clear thematical connections with other verses discussed in this chapter. Explanatory Notes The elliptic construction of the first part of Q.3:199 is akin to the construction of Q.3:113: “among the People of Scripture (there are …)”. In this case, there is no mention of a specific group or ­community,  Q.3:187 (MA).  See the commentary on Q.2:101 and Q.2:79. Compare also SQ 683 on Q.16:9596: “Selling spiritually valuable realities for a paltry price is a common metaphor in the Quran, and other verses warn against selling God’s signs for a paltry price (2:41; 3:199; 5:44). To “sell” God’s pact and His signs for a paltry price is understood to mean trading the guidance, protection, and spiritual fecility they offer for the ephemeral goods of this world (al-Rāzī, al-Zamakhsharī), such as material wealth, power, and status.” 172 173



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

145

just “those who believe in God.” The verb āmana, “to believe” is often used to indicate those who believe in the true God (Allāh), a group of believers (mu’minūn) that can – in the surahs revealed in Medina – usually be identified with those who would later be called Muslims, while not excluding the possibility that Jews and Christians can be part of this group.174 The plural form of the verb seems to suggest that some among the People of Scripture are believers in God. This group has three characteristics: they believe in what has been revealed to you (plural: the believers) and what has been revealed to them (plural: the People of Scripture); they humble themselves before God (khasha‘a, “to be submissive, to humble oneself”); and they do not sell the signs of God for a small price. These are all characteristics that we have already encountered in Q.3. The first is that the People of Scripture are to pay attention to the revelations of all prophets, including those who came after the prophets sent to them, and make no distinction between them (see Q.3:84). The second is that they humble themselves before God, which can refer to a liturgical posture but also to a more general ethical attitude (see Q.3:113). The third is that “they do not sell the signs of God for a small price,” which may mean that they have their minds set on the future world instead of a small this-worldly gain.175 If they act according to these characteristics, they will have their reward with their Lord (ajruhum ‘inda rabbihim); this same expression is used in Q.2:62: Surely, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians – whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does righteousness – they will have their reward with their Lord. (There will be) no fear on them, nor will they sorrow.176

The last part of the verse suggests that God will surely give all believers their rewards, even though the word “reckoning” (ḥisāb) may be used with a negative connotation as well. The final verse Q.3:200 assures the believers that they will be successful if they persevere and are ready.177 In general, this verse seems to reflect one of the general themes of Q.3,  See DMB 69-70 with reference to Q.3:199 and Q.3:113-16.  This interpretation will be further developed in the “Christian Resonances” below. 176  Q.2:62 (Dr). A somewhat shorter form of this verse can be found in Q.5:69. 177  It is significant that two forms of the same verb (ṣabara and ṣābara) are used in quick succession, which has a strengthening effect: “persevere and vie one another in persevering.” The verb rabaṭa (“to tie up”; III “to be lined up”) is often used in preparation for battle with the general implication of “to be ready.” 174 175

146

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

namely encouragement after the shock of the lost Battle of Uḥud in the third year after the hijra to Medina. Islamic Interpretations As neither Mujāhid nor Muqātil give any interpretation of Q.3:199, I start with al-Wāḥidī and his Asbāb al-Nuzūl. He gives the following story that provides an occasion for the revelation of this verse. This was revealed about the Negus. When the latter died, Gabriel, peace be upon him, informed the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, about his death on the same day he died. The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said to his Companions: “Go out and perform the prayer of the dead on one of your brothers who died in a different land.” They asked him: “Who is he?” And he told them it was the Negus. Then the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, went out to the Baqi‘ and all that was between Medina and the land of Abyssinia was revealed to him such that he saw the bed of the Negus. He performed the prayer of the dead, uttering the expression Allahu akbar [Allah is the greatest] four times, and requested forgiveness for him. He then told his Companions: “Request forgiveness for him!” The hypocrites commented: “Look at this one, performing the prayer of the dead on a foreign Christian Abyssinian whom he has never seen and who does not even follow his religion.” Allah, exalted is He, then revealed this verse.178

Al-Wāḥidī adds a shorter version and notes: “Mujahid, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn Zayd stated that this was revealed about all the believers of the People of the Book”. The famous exegete al-Ṭabarī agrees with this more general interpretation: [a] verse may be sent down concerning a specific matter, but it would apply to all other similar matters. God may have, therefore, rendered the rule which He decreed concerning Najāshī applicable to all his servants who, like al-Najāshī, follow the Messenger of God and accept what he brought from God, and yet they follow what God had enjoined in the Torah and the Gospel.179

If, however, the meaning of the verse applies to all People of Scripture who follow Prophet Muhammad and his message, what does this imply? Ibn Kathīr is quite clear about the consequences of such an interpretation: “These qualities exist in some of the Jews, but only a 178 179

 WAN 66 on Q.3:199.  AQI 2:415 on Q.3:199, quoting al-Ṭabarī ad loc..



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

147

few of them. For instance, less than ten Jewish rabbis embraced the Islāmic faith, such as ‘Abdāllah bin Salām. Many among the Christians, on the other hand, embraced the Islamic faith.”180 Sayyid Quṭb concurs: “These are considered to have joined the ranks of the Muslims and adopted their ways.”181 In a long footnote, the Study Quran discusses three possible interpretations. The most widely accepted interpretation in the Muslim tradition is that the verse refers to those Jews and Christians who became Muslims. In the case of the Negus (or Najāshī) this creates a problem because he apparently died as a Christian, and that was why the hypocrites in the report related by al-Wāḥidī objected to the Prophet’s command to pray for him. The reverence shown by the Prophet is evidently based on his offering hospitality to the first group of Muslims fleeing from Mecca to Abyssinia.182 The second interpretation assumes that the People of Scripture addressed here share enough theological and ethical common ground with the Muslims for them to be included among those who accept what has been sent down to Prophet Muhammad. Yet – the Study Quran asserts – this may be too general an assumption that does not do justice to the specificity of the revelations “sent down to you” – Muhammad – and “sent down to them” – People of Scripture. This leaves a third possibility that has only recently been explored in the Muslim dialogue-oriented approaches, namely that one can remain a Christian while affirming the veracity of the Prophet Muhammad and of what was revealed to him. This possibility might have been alluded to in 5:82, which speaks in positive and praiseworthy terms of those who say, “We are Christians.” In 5:83 they are described in this way: When they hear that which was sent down unto the Messenger, thou seest their eyes overflow with tears because of the truth they recognize. Some commentators note that this may refer to Christians in general, not only those who would later become Muslims, and would include those who accepted the prophethood of Muhammad, but continued to live according to the “sharī‘ah of Jesus,” as discussed in 5:82-83c.183

This opens an intriguing possibility: Muslim interpreters begin to consider the possibility that some of the People of Scripture – unfortunately, usually limited to Christians, excluding Jews – can be seen as accepting the prophethood of Muhammad while remaining faithful to Jesus.  TIK 2:258 on Q.3:199-200. Ibn Kathīr refers to Q.5:82 in support.  Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān 1:551; QSQ 2:350. 182  See WAN 49-50 on Q.3:68, discussed earlier in this chapter. 183  SQ 186-87 on Q.3:199, italics in original, with reference to the commentary on Q.5:82-83. See also chapter 7. 180 181

148

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Christian Resonances As a Christian theologian, I need to consider the possibility offered by my Muslim colleagues seriously. Yet this cannot mean that Christians accept “what has been sent down to Muhammad” in such a way that it contradicts how they understand “what has been sent down to us.” This entails that Christians cannot accept the prophethood of Muhammad in the way in which Muslims understand it; nor can they live according to the sharī‘ah of Jesus in such a way that it would break with what the New Testament understands to be the “People of the way” of Jesus (Acts 9:2), as this would drastically change the traditional view of Jesus as the incarnate Word of God. Yet I would like to pursue the possibility of interpreting this verse in such a way that it may become a bridge for Christians and Muslims (and Jews) to come to a better mutual understanding. Such an interpretation may start by looking closer at the reason that the Qur’ān gives for indicating some among the People of Scripture as believers in all revelations: they “humble themselves before God” and “they do not sell the signs of God for a small price.” It is important to take a closer look at the meaning of the two verbs employed here: khasha‘a (“to be humbled”) and ishtarā (“to buy” or “to sell”).184 The last verb is often used to indicate an action by human beings expressing what they ultimately want. The metaphor of “selling” – or “buying” – something for “a small price” is often used in connection with people who set their minds on the world here and now (dunyā) instead of the world to come (ākhira), for instance in “who buy the life of this world at the price of the life to come” (Q.2:86).185 We find the same combination of awareness of God and not selling away His messages is Q.5:44 “Therefore, [O children of Israel,] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for a trifling gain.”186 The verb khasha‘a has as its basic meaning “to be hushed, to be humbled” and it can be said of voices, eyes, hearts, faces and people. The word can be used in connection with prayer, for instance in the beginning of Q.23: “How prosperous are the believers, those who pray humbly.” The same connection is made in Q.17:109 “they fall down upon their faces weeping; and it increases them in humility.” In its connection with the 184  I have used Hanna Kassis, Concordance of the Qur’an (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) available on Oxford Islamic Studies Online (accessed on Sept. 28, 2016). 185  A parallel expression is “buying error at the price of guidance” (Q.2:16) or “a denial of truth at the price of faith” (Q.3:177). See also Q.2:79; Q.2:102, and Q.3:187. 186  Q.5:44a (MA).



ARGUING ABOUT ABRAHAM

149

prayer posture of prostration, the verb khasha‘a comes very close in meaning to aslama, meaning “to submit oneself to God,” but the Qur’ān may want to avoid the latter term because the people involved are not Muslims.187 A similar statement about Christians is given in Q.5:83, “when they come to understand what has been bestowed from on high upon this Apostle, thou canst see their eyes overflow with tears, because they recognize something of its truth.”188 Muhammad Asad’s translation here seems to suggest the possibility that Christians may recognize “something of its truth” in the Qur’ān, and act like people who are deeply moved by this truth while not giving up their own faith tradition. I therefore propose to interpret Q.3:199 as describing an attitude by some of the People of Scripture that comes very close to the characteristics of the believers, as specified in Q.3:200: be steadfast, ready, aware of God. These characteristics of the People of Scripture (humble, focused on the afterlife) and Muslims (steadfast, ready, aware of God) amount to total dedication and trust in God. Centuries after the Qur’ān, the great theologian Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) has described these characteristics in the book on Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence in his Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn.189 The best Christian resonance of this qur’ānic description of convergence between People of Scripture and Muslims in humility and Godcenteredness has its origin in the words of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount according to the Gospel of Matthew: Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat [or drink], or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they? Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span? Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them. If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more 187  It is therefore remarkable that Jane Dammen McAuliffe translates khāshi‘īn as “submissive” in her discussion of this verse in Qur’ānic Christians. Consequently, the title of her chapter on this verse is “Steadfast and Submissive” (160-79). 188  Q.5:83a (MA). 189  See Abū Ḥāmid ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn (Cairo: al-Tawfikiya, 2007); David Burrell, tr. Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence. Kitāb al-Tawhīd wa’l Tawakkul, book XXXV of The Revival of the Religious Sciences, Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn (Louisville KY: Fons Vitae, 2001).

150

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

provide for you, O you of little faith? So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.190

“Seek first the Kingdom of God, and the rest will be given unto you”: this might be the best Christian resonance for these qur’ānic verses. In these words of Jesus there is a radical focus on God and the righteousness of God’s kingdom that comes very close to the description of the qur’ānic believers in their perseverance, their readiness and their awareness of God. Another text that shows this radical demand is the invitation to the rich young man in Matthew 19:21, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”191

 Matthew 6:25-34 (NAB).  Matthew 19:21 (NAB). A final resonance might be the perseverance and awareness of God as shown by the five wise virgins in the parable told by Jesus according to Matthew 25:1-13. Their decision to preserve the oil for their lamps until the moment they would need it forms an intriguing resonance for the qur’ānic language of not selling the signs of God for a small price, in contrast to the five foolish virgins who spend their oil prematurely and cannot go out to meet the bridegroom. 190 191

Chapter Six

A MODERATE RELIGION 4:171  people

of scripture, do not exaggerate in your religion and do not say about god except the truth because the messiah jesus son of mary is messenger of god and his word that he cast on mary, and a spirit from him So believe in god and his prophets and do not say “three” stop! is better for you since god is a single deity he is above that there be for him a child his is what is in the heavens and on earth and sufficient is god as trustee

Verse 171 of the fourth surah in the Qur’ān, sūrat al-nisā’ or “women” is the most direct address to Christians as People of Scripture, warning them about what they do wrong in their religion. It is interesting to note that the Qur’ān thinks that Christians go too far in their religion by exaggerating the status of Jesus the Messiah. I write these lines in a time in which Islam is continuously associated with “radical religion” and some people suggest that we need a “moderate religion” to mitigate the fervor of the Islamic State and other Islamist groups. Against this background, it is remarkable that the Qur’ān presents the religion that it commends as a religion that is more moderate than the exaggerated religion of the Christians. At the same time, the Qur’ān uses words such as “word” and “spirit” that seem to be consistent with the Christian faith, but we will see that it uses these words with a different twist. Yet, before I focus on this most controversial text in the history of Muslim-Christian relations, and on another very controversial text that seems to deny the crucifixion of Jesus (Q.4:157), I will focus on the structure of this surah and its most important subject matters. In his study on Coherence in the Qur’ān, Mustansir Mir investigates the structure and the theme of sūrat al-nisā’ according to the Muslim Pakistani scholar Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1904-97) who wrote an important exegesis of the Qur’ān in the Urdu language, in which he studied the

152

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

thematic and structural coherence of the surahs in the Qur’ān.1 Mir’s small booklet, published in 1986 as a revised version of his dissertation at the University of Michigan in 1983, formed the beginning of a small wave of interest in the coherence of thematic material in the surahs, and of pairs and groups of surahs.2 Western scholars of Islam such as Neal Robinson, Mathias Zahniser and Raymond Farrin have followed Mir in using important insights from Iṣlāḥī’s approach. Iṣlāḥī distinguishes three major sections in Q.4. The first (Q.4:1-43) discusses social reform. The unity of human beings and the notion of God-consciousness (taqwā) form the basis for a number of social regulations. The second section (Q.4:44-126) discusses the establishment of the Muslim community over against opposition to such social reform by different groups such as hypocrites. The third section (Q.4:127-176) comes back to some of the materials discussed in the beginning and tells the Muslims to be responsible and be wary of the opponents (hypocrites in Q.4:135-152, and People of Scripture in Q.4:153-162).3 In his observations on Iṣlāḥī’s method, Mustansir Mir shows how Iṣlāḥī follows his own teacher Ḥamīd ad-Dīn ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd al-Farāhī (1863-1930) in discerning an ‘amūd (“pillar”) as central theme in each surah.4 This is relatively easy for the usually short Meccan surahs that have a distinct central theme; it is, however, more difficult to discern such a unifying theme in the Medinan surahs that have a greater thematic diversity. While the Meccan surahs contain a limited number of clearly distinguished themes, the development of such themes in the Medinan surahs is usually more layered in such a way that particular sections of surahs contain a main idea but at the same time develop a germ idea that may become the main idea in a following section.5 Mir gives an example of such a discursive structure with reference to a text that I have discussed in the previous chapter: In S. 3, āl ‘Imrān (“The Family of ‘Imrān”), the section composed of vss. 64-71 invites the People of the Book to accept Islam. Vs. 69 in this 1  Iṣlāḥī’s most important work, the Tadabbur-i Qur’an, was written in eight volumes between 1959 and 1980. A partial translation of the work into English can be found on www.tadabbur-i-quran.org (accessed on July 3, 2016). 2  Mustansir Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān: A Study of Iṣlāhī’s Concept of Naẓm in Tadabbur-i Qur’ān (Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1406/1986). His influence is visible in Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an and Carl W. Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an. 3  Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 46-47. 4  Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 38. 5  Mir, Coherence in the Qur’an, 53.



A MODERATE RELIGION

153

section introduces the germ idea that a particular group from among the People of the Book is trying to mislead Muslims. The next section (vss. 72-76) takes up this idea and gives details of it.6

According to Iṣlāḥī, the ‘amūd or central theme of the fourth surah is the notion of social reform. The first part of the surah shows this reform in Medina, while the second part of the surah deals with opposition against this reform and the unity that the Muslim community needs to develop in response to this opposition. The third and final part functions as a conclusion by answering certain questions, giving warnings and consoling Muhammad. The Western scholar A.H. Mathias Zahniser uses Mir’s discussion of Iṣlāḥī’s work in his analysis of sūrat al-nisā’ even though his conclusions are somewhat different.7 He begins his observations by saying that the material concerning women – the title of the surah – can be found in three different places in the first 43 verses in the beginning, a summary (Q.4:127-35) in the middle, and a concluding verse (Q.4:176) in the end. He finds a second thematic unity concerning fighting in the way of God in Q.4:71-104. This leads to a division into five sections: A (1-43) Women B (44-70) C (71-104) Battle D (105-126) E (127-176) Women II

Zahniser signals the prominence of addresses to the People of Scripture in this surah. While the first and the last sections are addressed to people in general (“O you people” in Q.4:1.170.174), the People of Scripture are addressed specifically in Q.4:171-73. Other parts that specifically discuss the People of Scripture are to be found in the second sections (Q.4:44-58) and the middle part of the fifth section (Q.4:153-62).8 Zahniser comes to the conclusion that the surah has a double focus: on the one hand, it gives 6  Mir, Coherence in the Qur’an, 54 with reference to Iṣlāḥī, Tadabbur-i Qur’an, 1:711-12 and 719. 7  A.H. Mathias Zahniser, “Sūra as Guidance and Exhortation: The Composition of Sūrat al-Nisā’ ,” in: Humanism, Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff, eds. Asma Afsaruddin and Mathias Zahniser (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 71-85; “Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Sūras: al-Baqara and al-Nisā’,” in: Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. Issa J. Boullata (Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000), 26-55. 8  Zahniser, “Sūra as Guidance and Exhortation”, 80.

154

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

guidance to the community of faith on a number of subjects such as relationships, treatment of orphans, and the obligation to fight in the cause of God, mainly in sections A, C, and E. On the other, it also exhorts humanity in general and the People of Scripture in particular to purify their faith, mainly in sections B and D, but returning in E. The People of the Book are linked not only to humanity in general, but also to the community of the faithful, since they have asked the Prophet for guidance as well (Q.4:127 and 176).9 In a later publication, Zahniser focuses on Q.4:116-26 that show a ring structure in which the People of Scripture are referenced immediately after the core verses Q.4:121-122, and again in the hinge verse Q.4:127 introducing the final section.10 In my analysis of Q.4 I found 17 references to People of Scripture or similar words, four of them being explicit references: Q.4:123.153.159 and 171. The first important cluster of references can be found at the end of section D according to Zahniser, and at the end of the second section according to Iṣlāḥī, in verses 123-26. The second important cluster can be found in the middle of section E, in verses 153-62, while the final important verse comes toward the end of the entire surah, in verse 171. Yet before discussing these clusters in somewhat more detail, I will start with the first selection that Zahniser indicates as important for the discussion with the People of Scripture: Q.4:44-58. 4:44-55 Buying Misguidance After a long discourse in which the Qur’ān addresses social relationships in the Muslim community in Medina, a new subject-matter is broached in Q.4:44, “[Prophet], do you not see how those who were given a share of the Scripture purchase misguidance and want you [believers], too, to lose the right path?”11 Two expressions evoke the threat of going astray. First, a group described as “those who have been given a share of the book” (naṣīban min al-kitāb) are described as “buying error” (yashtarūna l-ḍalāla). The word “error” resonates with Q.1:7, where Muslims pray to be guided on the right path, not the path of those who go astray. The metaphor of buying is related to the choices that we make in our lives: is the world of the hereafter (ākhira) our final choice, or do we settle for the present world?  Zahniser, “Sūra as Guidance and Exhortation”, 85-6.  Zahniser, “Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Sūras”, 45. 11  Q.4:44 (AH). 9

10



A MODERATE RELIGION

155

Here people who have been given a share of the Scriptures are described as making the wrong choices: they buy error instead of guidance. Even worse, they also want (yurīdūna) that others stray from the path (taḍillu al-sabīl). Again, the terminology here evokes the final verses of the fātiḥa with its guiding metaphor of the choice between the straight path or going astray. In the previous chapter, a similar situation was addressed in Q.3:69-72. There is, however, an important difference between those verses and the text discussed here. In Q.3, it was a group (ṭā’ifa) from the People of Scripture who wanted to lure the believers away from the right path; here the text refers to “those who were given a share (naṣība) of the Scripture.” This expression can be interpreted to mean that they did not receive the entirety of this Scripture, but only “a portion.”12 One could argue that a group that has received Scripture cannot entirely go wrong since they have knowledge of the Truth – so the Qur’ān is likely to add some qualifier explaining why they go wrong even though they have received Scripture. In most texts, the qualifier is that only a group of them goes wrong, but here the qualifier is that they only received a share of Scripture. Another type of qualifier is added in Q.4:46: Some of those who are Jews alter words from their positions, and they say, ‘We hear and disobey,’ and ‘Hear, and do not hear,’ and ‘Observe us,’ twisting with their tongues and vilifying the religion. If they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Hear,’ and ‘Regard us,’ it would indeed have been better for them, and more just. But God has cursed them for their disbelief, and so they do not believe, except for a few.13

This verse describes the behavior of some who are Jewish (min alladhīn hādū, “of those who practice Judaism”). The text begins with a general accusation: they “distort the word from its places” (yuḥarrifūn al-kalima ‘an mawāḍi‘ihi). The verb used here in Arabic comes from a root, ḥ-r-f, that has a long history in Islamic accusations of Jews and Christians. Taḥrīf is generally translated as “corruption” and it is used to describe changes that Jews and Christians were supposed to have made in their revealed Scriptures with the effect that references to the future 12  A.J. Droge, who gives this translation of Q.4:44, adds a footnote saying “The reference to ‘a portion (Ar. naṣīb) of the Book’ (cf. Q.3.23; 4.51 below) may imply that no Book (Torah, Gospel, or Qur’ān) represents the heavenly archetype (or ‘mother of the book’) in its entirety; each is in some sense partial (cf. Q.2.285; 4.136; 5.44; 46.12; 98.3).” See A.J. Droge, The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation (Sheffield – Bristol CT: Equinox, 2013), 51 n. 48. 13  Q.4:46 (Dr).

156

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

­ rophethood of Muhammad in these Scriptures were obfuscated. This p accusation of taḥrīf can have two forms: corruption of the text (the very words of Scripture have been changed), or corruption of the meanings (the words are intact but the interpretation is corrupt).14 Even though the wording of this verse seems to suggest that the Jews literally tamper with the words and put them out of their places, the remainder of the verse strongly indicates that the real focus of this verse is an oral dispute about revelation.15 We hear about three expressions used by some Jews to indicate their unwillingness to listen: sami‘nā wa-‘aṣaynā (“we hear and we disobey”); asma‘ ghayr musma‘in (“listen [yet without listening]”) and rā‘inā (“observe us”). In doing so, the Qur’ān adds, they twist their tongues attacking religion; it would have been better if they had said: sami‘nā wa-aṭa‘nā (“we hear and obey”) and asma‘ (“listen”) and unẓurna (“regard us”). The expressions used indicate that the argument is not about the contents of revelation given to the Jews, but about their oral reactions that display a refusal to take seriously the new revelation given to Muhammad. In its homiletic and polemical rhetoric, the Qur’ān gives a lively picture of adversaries who respond politely to the qur’ānic revelation, while at the same time adding less polite responses among themselves.16 One can almost hear the stage directions in the text: the adversaries say “we hear”, yet add silently: “…and disobey”; “we listen”, yet whisper “not listening”. Some of these expressions may be chosen by Jews as a “multicultural play,” because they can be understood as having different meanings in Hebrew: sami‘nā wa-‘aṣaynā (“We hear and disobey”) in Arabic sounds very similar to the Hebrew words shamā’nu ve-asīnū (“We hear and obey”, Deuteronomy 5:24), so while the Prophet would understand the Arabic, fellow-Jews would also understand the double entendre: we hear and obey our own religion!17 In a similar 14  Clinton Bennett (Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations,117-26) discusses Ibn Ḥazm and Ibn Taymiyya as influential instances of these accusations in the history of Christian-Muslim relations. 15  Gordon Nickel discusses Q.4:46 and Muqātil’s tafsīr in Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’ān (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2011), 78-80. 16  For the Qur’ān as homiletic text, see RQBS 230-58 (with reference to Q.4:46 on 251). For polemical rhetorics in the Qur’ān, see Griffith, “Al-Naṣārā in the Qur’ān: A Hermeneutical Reflection”, in RNPQ 301-22, at 320. 17  Reuven Firestone, “Jewish Culture in the Formative Period of Islam”, in: Cultures of the Jews, Volume I: Mediterranean Origins, ed. David Biale, (New York: Schocken, 2002) 267-301, at 288. On “multicultural play,” see David Nirenberg, Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014) 5 (with reference to Q.2:93 and Q.4:153).



A MODERATE RELIGION

157

­manner, rā‘inā can be interpreted as a wordplay on the meaning of rā‘, “evil” in Hebrew, and so be understood by fellow-Jews to mean something as “it is evil to us”.18 Since this verse so clearly presupposes an oral exchange between Muhammad and a group of Jews, its context is different from the notion of written texts presupposed in the later doctrine of taḥrīf. Therefore, the accusation of “altering the word from its places” must refer to an unwillingness to accept the message of the Qur’ān. However, since the Qur’ān understands itself as confirming and guarding the truth of earlier revelations from God, unwillingness to accept this message must imply an intentional misunderstanding of these earlier revelations by the People of Scripture. In that sense, the metaphors of “altering the word” and “twisting their tongues” both indicate a refusal to accept the Qur’ānic message and therefore deliberate maligning of true religion.19 The People of Scripture cannot be excused since they should have known better. For that reason, God has rejected them. A Christian who listens attentively to the qur’ānic critique of some people who have heard the message yet refuse to listen despite their prior knowledge may be mindful of St. Paul’s sharp criticism in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse: for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.20

The next verse addresses the People of Scripture implicitly: O you who have been granted revelation [aforetime]! Believe in what We have [now] bestowed from on high in confirmation of whatever [of the truth] you already possess, lest We efface your hopes and bring them to an 18  See Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’ān, 79 n. 52; Sirry, Scriptural Polemics, 113-14. For this wordplay, see also the commentary on Q.2:104 in chapter three. 19  For a broad overview of contemporary Islamic interpretations of Q.4:46, see Sirry, Scriptural Polemics, 101-15. 20  Romans 1:18-21 (NRSV). This text has become an important foundation for the possibility of a natural knowledge of God, see Denys Turner, Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 2004). The context in the Qur’ān, however, is related to knowledge from earlier revelations.

158

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

end – or We reject them just as We rejected those people who broke the Sabbath: for God’s will is always done.21

The Qur’ān addresses the People of Scripture, using the passive form to indicate divine origin: “o you to whom the Scripture was given.”22 They are summoned to believe in what God has revealed as confirmation of what they already had. The basic idea here is that the new revelation from God confirms (muṣaddiq) the revelation that Jews and Christians already had, and so they are expected to believe in it. Therefore, refusal to believe brings serious consequences: rejection by God. The qur’ānic expression here is somewhat enigmatic; it literally says that God will efface their faces and bring them back to their ends, which can be understood metaphorically as “they will be blinded to the path to truth and so turned back toward error.”23 As an historical example, the Qur’ān refers to the “Folks of the Sabbath” (aṣḥāb al-sabt) whose story is told elsewhere in the Qur’ān in more detail.24 The point is here that the People of Scripture are punished if they do not keep the commandments in their own Scripture, such as the command to observe the Sabbath. While Q.4:47 seems to relate to Jewish receivers of earlier revelation, the next verse seems to envisage the Christians: “God does not forgive the joining of partners with Him: anything less than that He forgives to whoever He will, but anyone who joins partners with God has fabricated a tremendous sin.”25 The language in this verse is quite strong: God does not forgive (lā yaghfiru) if anyone associates [anything] with Him (yushraka bihi) but God will forgive anything else. This specific verse forms the origin of the Islamic tradition that shirk (giving associates to God) is the greatest sin and the only sin that will not be forgiven. Discussing this tradition, however, the Study Quran remarks that it does not only refer to the worship of idols, but also to worshipping human authorities or even loving or fearing other things instead of God.26 The tradition that God will forgive all sins except one particular sin has an interesting ­parallel in the Christian tradition where it is the “sin against the Holy Spirit” that is unforgivable. According to the  Qur’ān 4:47 (MA).  Abdel Haleem (ad loc.) translates “People of the Book” suggesting an explicit address. 23  Q.4:47 (SQ), with reference to al-Qurṭubī and al-Ṭabarī. 24  Asad (ad loc.) refers to Q.7:163-66 for the fuller story, and to Q.2:65 as parallel. 25  Q.4:48 (AH). 26  SQ 214-15 (on Q.4:48). Against the opinion of some mufassirūn that this verse addresses the failure of Jews to believe in the Qur’ān as a form of shirk, the Study Quran strongly argues that Jews and Christians should be seen as separate from “associators” or “idolators” (those who commit shirk). 21 22



A MODERATE RELIGION

159

Gospel of Matthew, Jesus casts out an evil spirit and is confronted by a group of Pharisees who say that the evil spirit has been cast out thanks to Beelzebul, the ruler of evil spirits. Jesus replies that he casts out evil spirits by the power of the Spirit of God, and continues: Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.27

In the context of this commentary, an analysis of what exactly constitutes blasphemy (speaking evil) against the Spirit, and why it is the only sin that will not be forgiven would lead us too far astray, but a remarkable parallel can be seen between Jesus’ words that a word against Himself (as the Son of Man) will be forgiven and the Study Quran’s assertion that a failure to believe in the Qur’ān is not tantamount to shirk. Q.4:49 is one of four places where a discourse about People of Scripture is introduced by a rhetorical question, “have you not seen?”28 The point at issue here is that they “claim purity for themselves” (yuzakkūn anfusahum). Al-Wāḥidī reports a tradition that connects this verse with a group of Jewish men who came to Prophet Muhammad to ask him about sinfulness. They assured him that “there is no sin that we commit during the day except that it is expiated comes the night, and there is no sin that we commit at night except that it is expiated comes the day.”29 The Study Quran follows Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) in saying that it is more likely that this verse refers to the People of Scripture in general when they assert that they are the children and the beloved of God, or that they have an exclusive claim on Paradise.30 The answer to such claims is clear in the Qur’ān: “they invent lies about God, this in itself is a flagrant sin!”31 Q.4:51 describes another problematic statement by People of Scripture: “Do you not see how those given a share of the Scripture, [evidently] now believe in idols and evil powers? They say of the disbelievers, ‘They are more rightly guided than the believers’.”32 These People of Scripture  Matthew 12:31-32 (NRSV). A parallel can be found in Mark 3:28-29.  alam tara; see also Q.4:44, Q.4:51 and Q.4:60. 29  WAN 74 (on Q.4:49). 30  SQ 215 (on Q.4:49-50). See Q.5:18 and Q.2:111 respectively. 31  Q.4:50 (AH). 32  Q.4:52 (AH). For the formula “a share of the Scripture” (naṣīban min al-kitāb), see the commentary on Q.4:44. 27 28

160

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

reverted to ignorance since they now believe in other deities, identified by Abdel Haleem as “idols” and “evil powers.”33 In the context of the entire passage, the words seem related to the concept of apostasy: even though they were given a share of the Scripture, some people not only started to worship falsehood, but also to prefer disbelievers over the believers. It is hard to imagine the situation addressed here, but in the Medinan context it could refer to some people among Jewish tribes who broke the covenant with the believers and switched their allegiance to the Meccan pagans.34 Q.4:54 adds the following reproval: Do they, perchance, envy other people for what God has granted them out of His bounty? But then, We did grant revelation and wisdom unto the House of Abraham, and We did bestow on them a mighty dominion: and among them are such as [truly] believe in him, and among them are such as have turned away from him.35

This verse introduces the reproach of being envious (yaḥsudūna) that we have already encountered in Q.2:109. The issue is that the House of Abraham has been granted Scripture (kitāb) and wisdom (ḥikma) and even a mighty kingdom (mulk ‘aẓīm) but they do not want this to be given to others, and thus they are envious if God gives others prophethood as well.36 Again, a division is made between those who truly believe and those who turn away.37 33  The Arabic words, however, are not very clear. The term al-jibt is not of Arabic origin, and it appears in the Qur’ān only at this place, so its meaning is basically unknown. See Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 131-32 for some theories. The term al-ṭāghūt is a bit more common in the Qur’ān (see Q.4:60.76; Q.5:60; Q.16:36 and Q.39:17, and refers to superstitious practices. The Study Quran remarks that the word “denotes a variety of false sources of authority, false objects of worship, and false causes.” For more details, see SQ 216 (on Q.4:51-52). 34  Such a situation seems to be addressed in one of the ḥadīth narrated by Al-Wāḥidī in his Asbāb al-Nuzūl. This story tells that after the battle of Uhud one of the leaders of a Jewish tribe in Medina by the name of Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf went to Mecca in order to forge an alliance with Abu Sufyan, one of the fiercest opponents of Muhammad among the Quraysh. When Abu Sufyan asserted that Muhammad had drifted away from the traditions of the forefathers, Ka‘b replied with the assertion referenced in verse 51: “You are more guided in your way than he is.” WAN 74 (on Q.4:51). 35  Q.4:54-55a (MA). 36  SQ 216 (on Q.4:54) interprets “bounty” as prophecy. 37  The Arabic text of Q.4:55 has āmana bihi and ṣadda ‘anhu, yet the referent of the suffix after the prepositions that go with the verbs “to believe” and “to turn away” is not expressed. Muhammad Asad says that “believe in” refers to Abraham with the understanding that the “House of Abraham” includes the lineage of Prophet Muhammad. The



A MODERATE RELIGION

161

4:123-26 Following the Faith of the Friend of God 123  It

is not in your wishes nor the wishes of the people of scripture that who does evil receives punishment for it and not does he find beside god a protector or a helper 124  and who does good among males or females – that person is a believer and they will enter the garden and not will they be treated unjustly even a bit 125  and who is better in religion than who commits his face to god he is a doer of good and follows the faith of Abraham the seeker and god has taken Abraham as friend 126  and god’s is what is in the heavens and what on earth and god is of everything encompassing

Explanatory Notes These verses form the climax of the second (Mustansir Mir) or the fourth (Matthias Zahniser) section of this surah. Q.4:123 refers to something that the people addressed here (“you” is in the plural) and the people of Scripture do not want, viz. that someone who does evil will be punished. We have encountered several texts that connected the wishes of the People of Scripture with turning believers into unbelievers (Q.2:109), leading them astray (Q.3:69) or barring them from the way of God (Q.3:99). Here, however, their wish seems to be that someone who does evil is not punished. The wish that is criticized here is not limited to the People of Scripture, but includes the addressees, most likely the community of believers forming around the prophet Muhammad. What these groups have in common is that they claim to have a special relationship with God, since God sent them prophets and messengers with divine guidance. They are tempted to think that God will protect them because of this relationship initiated by God. While the Qur’ān usually directs this criticism toward Jews, here it apparently includes some believers as well. Q.4:124-25 contrast these wishes with what will make one successful in the relationship with God: to do ṣaliḥāt (“good deeds”) and aḥsāna Study Quran, however, is of the opinion that the verbs refer to Muhammad or to the Qur’ān (SQ 217). In that case, however, the “true believers” among the House of Abraham would be only Muslims, giving an exclusivist interpretation to this verse – as exclusivist as the envy of the implied Jews here – while Muhammad Asad gives an inclusivist interpretation that would include all true believers in Muhammad among Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

162

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

(“to act righteously”). Abraham functions as model for this relationship with God, because of his faith as God-seeker. Q.4:125 gives some characteristics of Abraham: first his milla, a word that is often translated as “creed,” yet such a translation would be misleading for Christian readers, since the focus is not on a creedal formula but on a specific way of being religious, a specific community. Since Abraham was the first to profess and enact this specific form of religion, I prefer to translate this word as “faith”, yet even “spirituality” could be a possible albeit anachronistic translation. Second, Abraham is characterized as ḥanīf, a word that I have translated as “[God] seeker”38 because it indicates his not belonging to a community chosen by God in covenantal relationship. Third, and most specifically, God has made Abraham a friend, and therefore Abraham can be called “friend of God” (khalīlu llāhi). This terminology singles out Abraham as a very special messenger of God with an almost intimate relationship. Islamic Interpretations The Tafsīr Muqātil argues that Q.4:123 was revealed in the context of a dispute between Jews, Christians and believers, in which the three parties assert their claims. The Jews said: “Our Scripture was before your Scripture, and our prophet was before your prophets; we are better guided and closer to God than you are.” The Christians said: “Our prophet is the Word of God, and the Spirit of God. He revived the dead, and healed the blind and the lepers; and in our Scripture there is forgiveness and not retaliation. And we are closer to God than you, folks of the Jews and folks of the Muslims.” The Muslims said: “You are liars; our Scripture has abrogated all Scriptures; our Prophet (pbuh39) is the seal of the prophets, and we believe in your prophets and your books while you deny our Prophet and our Scripture. The situation between them and us is that we believe in your Scripture and act according to our Scripture; therefore, we are better guided than you, and closer to God than you.”40

Al-Wāḥidi gives a similar (but shorter) story about these three groups, yet adds a second story that seems to include a wider range of religious groups: “The people of the Book, the adherents of the Torah and the  See chapter five, with reference to Q.3:67.  The traditional eulogy ṣala llāhu alayhi wa-sallama after the name of Prophet Muhammad is usually translated in English as “peace and blessings be upon him,” abbreviated as: pbuh. 40  TMS 1:258-59 (on Q.4:122-25). 38

39



A MODERATE RELIGION

163

adherents of the Gospel, as well as the adherents of other religions sat together one day and each claimed that they were better than the others. This verse was revealed regarding this.”41 Tafsir al-Jalālayn tells us that this verse was revealed when the Muslims and the People of Scripture began to boast about God’s promises to them, yet God wanted to make clear that the matter does not depend on their desires but on their deeds.42 The Tafsīr attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās explains these desires in the statement, “whatever sins we commit during the day will be forgiven at night, and whatever sins we commit during the night will be forgiven in the day.”43 The Study Qur’ān agrees that a debate between adherents of different religions forms the occasion for this verse, because each religion claimed superiority or a specific form of divine leniency on the basis of their membership of a particular religious community.44 With reference to Q.4:124, the Study Quran adds that it is possible to understand the words “that person is a believer” to include not only Muslims but also faithful Jews and Christians, since the Qur’ān explicitly asserts that those who believe in God and the Last Day and act righteously will be blessed on the Day of Judgment.45 With reference to Q.4:125, Tafsīr Muqātil says that God revealed this verse when the Jews bragged about their religion to the believers of Medina. Therefore, God chose from all religions the religion of Islam, saying, “who is better in religion than who commits his face [that is: his religion] to God,” as Abraham dedicated his religion to God, whom “God has taken as friend,” that is: beloved. Muqātil adds the following explanation: “‘the friend’ (al-khalīl) is the beloved (al-ḥabīb), because God loved him (Abraham) in his breaking of the idols, and his dispute with his family, and God took him as a friend before the slaughter of his son.”46 The reason is that Abraham was willing to slaughter his son, and so the angels recommended him to God, but God had already taken him as a friend. Al-Wāḥidī adds that Abraham was chosen as a friend because of his empathy with others, his hospitality and his feeding of the hungry.47  WAN 86 (on Q.4:123).  TJJ 90 (on Q.4:123). 43  Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās, transl. Guezzou, accessed at altafsir.com on 9/20/2016. The same expression in WAN 74 (on Q.4:49). 44  SQ 247 (on Q.4:123-24), with reference to similar claims in Q.2:80, 3:24 and 5:18. 45  Ibid. with reference to Q.2:62 and 5:69. 46  TMS I:259 (on Q.4:125). 47  WAN 87 (on Q.4:125). 41 42

164

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The Study Quran suggests that Q.4:124-25 bring together the three levels of religious commitment suggested in the “hadith of Gabriel”: outward submission (islām), inward faith (īmān) and virtue (iḥsān) achieved through constant awareness of God.48 The last aspect is addressed by the idea of “committing one’s face to God,” and Abraham is mentioned as model of such virtue. Following al-Ṭabarī, Abraham’s being God’s friend is explained as follows: “Khalīl indicates a friendship so close that one loves and hates whatever one’s friend loves and hates and thus chooses allies and enemies in accordance with the allies and enemies of one’s friend.” Thus, Abraham prayed for his father to be forgiven, but “when it became clear to him that he was an enemy of God, he repudiated him.”49 Christian Resonances This last quotation from the Study Quran evokes an apparent difference between the Qur’ān and the Christian interpretation of the Bible: is God’s love for human beings conditional or unconditional? I will discuss this difference below but first I will address a similarity between the Muslim, Christian and Jewish religions in their interpretation of Abraham as “friend of God.”50 In a footnote in his translation of the Qur’ān, A.J. Droge points out that the idea of Abraham as friend of God is known in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as well.51 In this respect there seems to be some commonality between the sources of the three Abrahamic religions, even though the reasons for calling Abraham “friend of God” are rather different. In the texts from the Hebrew Bible, “friend” indicates a special relationship that is inherited by his descendants, while in the New Testament “friend” is mostly related to Abraham’s faith in God. The element of hospitality and giving to others that is mentioned by al-Wāḥidī as a reason to call Abraham “friend of God” is not entirely absent in the 48  SQ 248 (on Q.4:125). On the ḥadīth Jibrīl, see Murata and Chittick, The vision of Islam. 49  SQ 248. The quotation is from Q.9:114. 50  See Kuschel, Streit um Abraham; Levenson, Inheriting Abraham. 51  Droge, The Qur’ān, 57 n. 142 (on Q.3:125-26). He refers to three texts (NAB): Isaiah 41:8 (“But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, offspring of Abraham, my friend”); II Chronicles 20:7 (“Was it not you, our God, who dispossessed the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and gave it forever to the descendants of Abraham, your friend?”) and James 2:23 (“Thus the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called ‘the friend of God’”).



A MODERATE RELIGION

165

New Testament either, for instance in the letter to the Hebrews: “Do not neglect hospitality, for through it some have unknowingly entertained angels.”52 Yet there seems to be a rather clear difference between the love of God expressed in the relation of friendship with Abraham in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament on the one hand and the Qur’ān on the other. As the quotation from the Study Quran and its reference to Q.9:114 shows, Abraham is to hate God’s enemies, even if they are his own parents. Abraham has the very human tendency to pray for forgiveness for his father, yet “once he realized that his father was an enemy of God, he washed his hands of him.”53 In order to be a friend of God, it is necessary to cut some family ties, and this is still the point of view of the Muslim sharī‘ah: Muslims are to honor and respect their parents, except in cases where they are associators (mushrikūn).54 In the New Testament, Jesus seems to express an ambivalent attitude toward parents, for instance when he indicates that his own priority is not with family relationships. When he was twelve years old, he went with his parents to the Temple in Jerusalem and he stayed there while his parents started the journey back. Luke tells us: After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions, and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, ‘Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.’ And he said to them, ‘Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ But they did not understand what he said to them.55

Later in the same Gospel, Jesus uses even stronger terms: Then his mother and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd. He [Jesus] was told, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside and they wish to see you.’ He said to them in reply, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and act on it.’56  Hebrews 13:2 (NAB); Valkenberg, Sharing Lights, 6-11.  Q.9:114b (AH). 54  See Q.31:14-15 (AH): “Give thanks to Me and to your parents – all will return to Me. If they strive to make you associate with Me anything about which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them.” 55  Luke 2:46-50 (NAB). 56  Luke 8:19-21 (NAB). 52 53

166

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Yet there seems to be a rather clear difference between the love of God expressed in the relation of friendship with Abraham in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament on the one hand and the Qur’ān on the other. In the Qur’ān, quite a few prophets have family members who do not enter into the relationship with God, such as the wife of Lot (Lūṭ, see Q.66:10) or the son of Noah (Nūḥ, see Q.11:42-43).57 In these cases, the prophets are instructed to leave them behind since they are unbelievers. Meanwhile, Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount seems to contain an element that is specific for Christianity, at least in the way in which the Gospel according to Matthew construes it: You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.58

It needs to be said here that there is no command in the Torah to hate your enemy, but a few texts from the Hebrew Bible seem to suggest such an attitude.59 The Christian command to love the enemy, and to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) is often seen as specific for Christianity, even though it is not difficult to find very different views, even in the New Testament. Furthermore, apologists for Islam like to point out that the command to turn the other cheek is not very realistic. There is still another issue about Abraham as “friend of God” that might indicate a theological difference between Christianity – this time paired with Judaism – and Islam. The friendship between God and Abraham results in a covenant (see Genesis 15) that is transferred to Abraham’s children. As we have discussed in the previous chapter, Judaism and Islam both trace their origins back to Abraham’s children, yet the genealogies are different: Ishmael for Islam, and Isaac for Jews. However, the hereditary nature of the covenant is different in both cases. In the case of Judaism, the 57  On the role of the “sinful relatives” in the late-Meccan and Medinan surahs, see Nora K. Schmid, “Lot’s Wife: Late Antique Paradigms of Sense and the Qur’ān,” QST 52-81, at 69. Also, David Marshall, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers, 171. 58  Matthew 5:43-48 (NAB). 59  See Psalm 139:21-22, “Do I not hate, Lord, those who hate you? Those who rise against you, do I not loathe? With fierce hatred I hate them, enemies I count as my own.”



A MODERATE RELIGION

167

covenant remains even if the people of Israel do not remain faithful.60 Substantial parts of the Prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible, such as Isaiah and Hosea, tell this story in images of human unfaithfulness and divine mercy. In the New Testament, Paul summarizes this conviction in the significant expression that “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable,” even though Christianity has had great trouble acknowledging this.61 Yet the texts from the Qur’ān seem to indicate that God’s love is conditional: throughout the Quran God is said to love the virtuous, those who repent, the patient, those who trust, the just, those who fight in His way, and those who purify themselves, but He does not love disbelievers, transgressors, sinful ingrates, wrongdoers, the vainglorious, workers of corruption, prodigals, the treacherous, or the exultant.62

I do not want to use this quotation to construe a dichotomy between the Qur’ān as a book that has a very limited view of God’s love and the sayings of Jesus that have a much broader view of God’s love; nevertheless, it is rather clear that the two religions have developed different theological approaches to God’s covenantal love, even if one cannot draw the consequence that Christianity has historically shown this love more than other religions. In this respect, Muslims often rightfully point out that Christianity stands under the critique of its founder. Q.4:127 introduces the last part of sūrat al-nisā’ by coming back to some of the ordinances concerning women and orphans. One of the main themes in this part is the idea of continuity between what has been given in earlier revelations and what is enjoined to the believers: being mindful of God (Q.4:131). Consequently, faith in the earlier Scriptures is part of the new faith: You who believe, believe in God and His Messenger and in the Scripture He sent down to His Messenger, as well as what He sent down before. Anyone who does not believe in God, His angels, His Scriptures, His messengers and the Last Day has gone far, far astray.63

In its commentary on this verse, the Study Quran remarks that even though the Qur’ān uses the word “Scripture” in the singular, it is meant as a collective noun. Furthermore, the address is to “you who believe,”  See Levenson, Inheriting Abraham, 56.  Romans 11:29 (NAB). 62  SQ 71 (on Q.2:165). 63  Q.4:136 (AH). 60 61

168

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

which in the Qur’ān often (but not always) includes not only Muslims but also Jews and Christians. Some interpretations even say that this verse is specifically addressed to Jews and Christians “insofar as these two groups believe in the revealed scriptures, the Torah and the Gospel, respectively.”64 Even though this indicates some permeability of the boundaries between Muslims, Jews, and Christians, the Qur’ān hastens to add that true believers make no distinctions between the messengers of God (Q.4:152). In the next passage, the Qur’ān chastises the People of Scripture because they make distinctions between God’s prophets: the Jews accept Moses but they do not accept Jesus; Christians say that they accept Jesus but they do not really accept the message that he brought from God. 4:153-59 The People of Scripture slander Mary and the ­Prophets 153  the

people of scripture ask you that you send down on them a scripture from heaven; they have asked moses something greater than that when they said: show us god openly – yet lightning struck them for their iniquity then they took the calf after what he gave them as evidences; but we forgave them that and we gave moses a clear authority 154  and we raised above them the mountain with their covenant and we said to them: enter the gate bowing down, and we said to them: do not transgress the sabbath; and we took from them a solid covenant 155  and because of the destruction of their covenant and their unbelief in the signs of god, and their killing of the prophets without truth and their saying, our hearts are covered – yet god has stamped them because of their unbelief, and they believe but little 156  and because of their unbelief, and their saying against mary a grave accusation, 157  and because of their saying, 64  SQ 254 (on Q.4:136), with reference to al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) and al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210).



A MODERATE RELIGION

169

We have killed the messiah, son of mary, messenger of god – yet not have they killed him nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them; and those who differed about it are in doubt over it, and not have they any knowledge except they follow conjecture, and not have they killed him for certain 158  and god has taken him up to him, and he is mighty, wise 159  and there is not from among the people of scripture who will not believe in him before his death and on the day of resurrection he will be over them witness In the history of the relations between Muslims and Christians, Q.4:157 might have become one of the biggest stumbling blocks, together with Q.4:171 that I will discuss later in this chapter. This verse seems to deny the fact that Jesus has been killed and crucified, which is an essential article of faith for Christians, viz. that Christ “was handed over for our transgressions” because “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”65 However, in order to understand Q.4:157 correctly, it needs to be read it in its context. Explanatory Notes This passage starts with a request from People of Scripture: they ask for a scripture to be sent down from heaven. This type of questioning for physical evidence is a sign of mistrust that may refer to a situation in the life of Prophet Muhammad, yet at the same time it is related to an earlier situation referred to in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 19), when Moses came with his revelation from heaven. We heard a similar request in sūrat al-baqarah: “(Remember) when you said, ‘Moses! We shall not believe you until we see God openly,’ and the thunderbolt took you while you were looking on.”66 Some of the other elements in this passage have parallels in both the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’an as well, showing evidence that the people addressed here are Jews.67 Q.4:155 summarizes the history of their failure to trust Moses – repeated in their failure to  Romans 4:25; John 3:16 (NAB).  Q.2:55 (Dr); Droge refers to Exodus 19:21. 67  Taking the calf: Q.7:148-53 and Exodus 32; raising the mountain: Q.2:63 and Exodus 19:16-20; entering the gate: Q.2:58 and Q.7:161. See Droge, The Qur’ān, 59 n. on Q.4:153-54. 65 66

170

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

trust Muhammad –, in four misdeeds: their destruction (naqḍ) of the covenant (mīthāq); their unbelief (kufr) in the signs of God, their killing (qatl) of the prophets, and finally their saying “our hearts are covered.” While the third misdeed – killing the prophets – has the most serious implication, the last of the four wrongdoings requires some explanation. “Qulūbuna ghulfu” is an expression that human beings use to indicate that their hearts as seats of knowledge – according to the anthropology current in that period and culture – are unreceptive. The same term is used in a similar context in Q.2:87-88: Certainly We gave Moses the Book, and followed up after him with the messengers, and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, the clear signs, and supported him with the holy spirit. (But) whenever a messenger brought you what you yourselves did not desire, did you become arrogant, and some you called liars, and some you killed? And they say: ‘Our hearts are covered.’ No! God has cursed them for their disbelief, and so little will they believe.68

A.J. Droge explains that the word “covered” can be translated as “uncircumcised,” a biblical metaphor that indicates resistance to revelation.69 Gabriel Reynolds remarks that the expression “our hearts are uncircumcised” forms “part of a larger Qur’ānic trope in which the Jews’ violation of their covenant (i.e. their rejection of God) and their rejection of the messengers is associated with the condition of their hearts.”70 In slightly different words, we will find the same accusation at the beginning of the next surah. The final clause of Q.4:155 says that God has sealed (ṭaba‘a, “to print, to stamp, to seal”) their hearts because of their unbelief. It is not entirely clear what this verb means here, but the two parallel expressions in Q.2:88 and Q.5:13 say that God cursed them, continuing (in the case of 2:88) with the same conclusion, “and they believe but little.” So the expression “God has sealed their hearts” seems to suggest that God caused their hearts to be unreceptive. Even though this leads to intriguing theological questions (Does God cause unbelief? Does God react to their unbelief?), the text continues by indicating the slander against Mary (4:156), the claim to have killed Jesus (4:157) and the refusal to believe in Jesus as Prophet  Q.2:87-88 (Dr).  See, for instance Deut. 10:16 (T), “Cut away, therefore, the thickening about your hearts and stiffen your necks no more, circumcise therefore the foreskins of your hearts, and be stiff-necked no longer,” and Acts 7:51 (NAB), “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors.” Other places mentioned by Droge: Deut. 30:6; Jerem. 4:4 and 9:26; Ezek. 44:7 and 9; Romans 2:28-29. 70  RQBS 149. 68 69



A MODERATE RELIGION

171

(4:159) as instantiations of unbelief in the signs of God (4:155). According to this line of reasoning, the denial of the death of Jesus at the cross is subordinate to the central theme of Q.4:157, which is the denial of his mother as sign of God and of himself as prophet. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Mujāhid has no remarks on Q.4:153-55, but it explains that the “grave accusation” against Mary in verse 156 is that the mother delivered the boy in an improper fashion. The words “it was made to appear to them” in Q.4:157 are explained as “they crucified a man other than Jesus, but reckoned that he was Jesus (peace be upon him), so it was made to appear to them, but God raised Jesus to Him alive.”71 Mujāhid gives two interpretations of Q.4:159 (“there is not one among the People of Scripture who will not believe in him before his death”): “not one of them will die until he believes in Jesus (peace be upon him) even if he drowns or tumbles,” and “every follower of Scripture will believe in Jesus before the death of that follower of Scripture.”72 Tafsīr Muqātil gives the following story as occasion for the revelation of verse 153: “this was revealed concerning the Jews, because Ka‘b b. al-Ashraf and Finḥāṣ said to the Prophet: if you are truly a prophet, give us a book other than this, written in heaven all at once, such as Moses brought us.”73 The story of the golden calf is interpreted as a refusal to recognize the “nine signs” that Moses brought to the Jews.74 Yet God forgave them, meaning He did not annihilate them, but he gave Moses “clear evidence, viz. the hand and the staff.” This again refers to some of the miracles that Moses performed in front of Pharaoh, mentioned elsewhere in the Qur’ān. Muqātil interprets the saying “enter the gate bowing down” in Q.4:154 as a form of humiliation, thus connecting it with Q.2:58, and he explains the command to “not transgress the Sabbath” as a prohibition to go fishing on the Sabbath, which is an allusion to Q.7:163. In this way, he uses other places in the Qur’ān to interpret allusions that are not so clear in these verses, which is an example of the classical “interpretation by tradition” (tafsīr bi-l ma’thūr).75  TMJ 60-61 n. 300-301 (on Q.4:156-157).  TMJ 61 n. 302-303 (on Q.4:159). 73  TMS 1:268 (on Q.4:153). 74  The “nine signs” refer to Q.17:101, “We gave unto Moses nine clear messages.” For different interpretations in the Islamic tradition, see Q (MA) ad loc. 75  See Abdullah Saeed, The Qur’an: An Introduction (London – New York: Routledge, 2008), 178-79. 71 72

172

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The “destruction of the covenant” in Q.4:155 is interpreted as “the violations of their assurances concerning what is in the Tawrāt,” and “their unbelief in the signs of God” as “in the Injīl and the Qur’ān.” “Their killing of the prophets” is only glossed as “they knew that what the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said to them was the truth.” Because “their hearts were covered,” they said they could not understand what Prophet Muhammad was saying to them. The Tafsīr Muqātil has a remarkably negative interpretation of the words, “God has sealed [their hearts] because of their unbelief, for they believed but little” by saying, “how insignificant what they believed, for they did not believe at all.”76 Other interpretations explain this phrase as “only a few believed,” referring to ‘Abdallah ibn Salām and a few others who converted to Islam.77 The interpretation of the slander against Mary in verse 156 is that they accused her of sexual relations outside marriage.78 The crucial passage about their invalidated claim in verse 157 to have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is interpreted as follows: they did not kill him, and they did not call him a Prophet of God, but God called him a Prophet, and said that they did not kill him but a companion of theirs, and God made a likeness of Jesus, and they killed him. The one who was killed was the one who had hit Jesus while saying “I call you a liar to God, since you declared that you were his Messenger,” but when the Jews took him to kill him, he said: “I am not Jesus but so-and-so,” and his name was Yahudha. They called him a liar and said, “You are Jesus;” the Jews had made the person who was killed a guard over Jesus, but God threw the memory of his likeness over the guard, and they killed him.79

Finally, the phrase, “there is not from among the people of scripture who will not believe in him before his death,” is explained by Muqātil as referring to the Jews: they will all believe in Jesus as prophet and messenger of God before their deaths.80 Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās gives a different interpretation here: the People of Scripture are both Jews and Christians, and they will believe that Jesus is not a sorcerer or a son or partner of  TMS 1:269 (on Q.4:155).  See Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās and Tafsīr Jalālayn on Q.4:155, consulted through www. altafsir.com (accessed on Oct. 13, 2016). 78  TMS 1:269 (on Q.4:156). 79  TMS 1:269 (on Q.4:157). A short summary and interpretation of this exegesis in Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, 60. 80  TMS 1:269-70 (on Q.4:159). 76

77



A MODERATE RELIGION

173

God. “Before his death” refers to Jesus’s coming again: at that future time, every Jew will believe in him before he dies.81 These interpretations suggest that the People of Scripture in these verses are Jews and not Christians; this is the case in Q.4:153, where Jews asked Prophet Muhammad for a Scripture like the one revealed to Moses, but also in Q.4:159, where their unbelief in Jesus as Prophet of God will end before their deaths. If Jews are the persons slandering Mary (Q.4:156) and claiming to have killed Jesus (Q.4:157), it follows these verses do not directly discuss Christian soteriological statements, but Jewish enactments of unbelief in God’s signs and prophets. Yet, most later Islamic interpretations state that the Qur’ān argues against Christian soteriology, and more specifically against Christ’s death on the cross, as this would be at variance with God’s design for His prophets and messengers. Indeed, while “the Qur’ān itself is neutral on the subject of the historicity of the crucifixion and may indeed be read to affirm it,” the Islamic interpretations of Q.4:157 have explicitly denied the crucifixion because “the issue was Christian theories of salvation.”82 This explains the wide variety of theories concerning the interpretation of the crucial phrase shubbiha lahum, “it was made to appear to them”. Most early mufassirūn (Mujāhid; Muqātil) hold that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus, but that other person was made to appear like Jesus to the crucifiers. Meanwhile, Jesus was saved and exalted by God, until he will come again in the future.83 Other possible interpretations are akin to Christian docetic tendencies, for instance the interpretation that the humanity of Christ was crucified, while the divinity stayed alive.84 Finally, there are Muslims who agree that Q.4:157 does not have to be explained as denying the crucifixion of Jesus: “the critique is not aimed directly at the belief in Christ’s crucifixion and death, but rather at the Jews’ claim to have killed him.”85 Meanwhile, traditional Islamic commentators such as Ibn Kathīr use the words “God has taken Jesus up to Him” (Q.4:158) and “none from the People of Scripture will not believe in him before his death” (Q.4:159) to give an extensive list of aḥādīth (traditions) concerning the descent of Jesus before the Day of Judgment,  Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.4:159 (on www.altafsir.com, Oct. 13, 2016).  Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, 143-44. 83  See Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, 12 for a summary statement. 84  Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 322/933) in Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, 81-83. 85  SQ 262 (on Q.4:157). See also Mustafa Akyol, The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews became a Prophet of the Muslims (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017) 154. 81 82

174

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

and his mission to the People of Scripture.86 Sayyid Quṭb, on the other hand, gives a more rational approach, indicating two different interpretations of “his death”: Early Muslim scholars interpret this verse in different ways, according to the referent, in their view, of the pronoun in the phrase “his death”. Some maintain that every single person of the people of earlier revelations will inevitably believe in Jesus before his, i.e. Jesus’s death, considering that he will be back on earth before the Day of Resurrection. Other scholars maintain that every single one of the people of earlier revelations will, before his own death, believe in Jesus. This means that when this person is in the throes of death, he will be made to see the truth, when his own knowledge will no longer avail him. We are more inclined to take this second view. It means that the Jews who have denied Jesus and continued to deny his status, claiming to have killed and crucified him, will have this experience which tells them that Jesus was truly a messenger from God and that his message was the truth. They will then believe in Jesus but it will be too late for their belief to be of any benefit to them. On the Day of Resurrection, Jesus will be a witness against them.87

This passage shows Quṭb’s political agenda accusing Jews of not believing in Jesus, while refraining from accusing Christians of such unbelief. Even though he states that the Qur’ān denounces both Jews and Christians for their unbelief, he seems to single out Jews when explaining the concept “People of Scripture.” In the case of Q.4:153 it is evident that the ahl al-kitāb are Jews because they “have asked Moses something greater.” In Q.4:159, however, “none among the people of Scripture” does not need to refer to Jews only because the Qur’ān generally holds that most Christians do not adequately believe in Jesus as well. It is therefore entirely possible to interpret Q.4:159 as primarily directed against Christians: it is they who will believe in Jesus – as prophet and messenger of God, not as Son of God – before they die, and Jesus will witness against them on the Day of Resurrection, namely by telling them that he is not to be worshiped next to God.88 The Study Quran steers a middle course by applying the verse to both Jews and Christians: On the Day of Resurrection, Jesus will serve as a witness against all of the People of the Book. That is, he will bear witness that he delivered the Divine 86  See TIK 3:29-44. On these traditions, and their relation to the Qur’ānic message about Jesus, see Zeki Saritoprak, Islam’s Jesus (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2014). 87  QSQ 3:380 (on Q.4:159). 88  See Q.5:116-17. Even though Ibn Kathīr does not say this, the translators and editors of his work clearly suggest this by adding the title All Christians Will Believe in ‘Īsā Before He Dies to his exegesis of Q.4:159 (TIK 3:29).



A MODERATE RELIGION

175

message entrusted to him and that doing so he affirmed his own status as a human messenger of God (Ṭ), thus refuting both the claims of his divinity made by Christians and the rejection of his prophethood by the Jews.89

Christian Resonances The entire text of Q.4:153-59 gives opportunity to discuss a wealth of materials as Christian resonances. The most obvious choice would be to discuss the crucifixion of Jesus as the central saving event in Christianity, and add to it an extensive discussion of all the soteriological categories applied in the New Testament and in later Christian theology.90 Yet such a discussion would confirm the mistaken impression that the crucifixion is the central issue in this passage, while the focus is clearly on the refusal of the People of Scripture to accept the message sent down to the prophet Muhammad. Their obduracy shows itself in a number of ways, such as the requesting of an evident sign, the destruction of the covenant, the killing of the prophets, the slandering of women blessed by God, and finally the hardening of their hearts. The clearest Christian resonance with these words is Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem that comes at the end of a long series of denunciations of the scribes and the Pharisees according to the Gospel of Matthew: Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling! Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”91

Jesus laments the refusal of Jerusalem to listen to the prophets in the style of the Nevi’im of the Hebrew Bible. The imagery of the wings as a place of shelter is applied to God in the Psalms and has been applied to Mary as consolatrix afflictorum (“comforter of the afflicted”) who shelters the faithful under her wide cloak.92 Moreover, the image rhymes with the imagery of the motherly care of God as sketched, for instance, in Isaiah (49:15 and 89  SQ  264 (on Q.4:159) with reference to Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923). 90  One of the most extensive and subtle discussions of these soteriological categories can be found in Edward Schillebeeckx’s book Gerechtigheid en liefde (1977), translated into English as Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World (Edward Schillebeeckx Collected Works, vol. 7; London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2014). 91  Matthew 23:37-39 (NAB). 92  See, for instance, Psalm 91:4 (T) “He will cover you with His pinions / you will find refuge under His wings.”

176

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

66:13). The image of the desolate city reminds Catholics in prayer of the prophet Jeremiah and specifically of his Lamentations that form a central part of the “Dark Matins” in the days leading up to Good Friday. I suggest that this lament over the city of Jerusalem can be read as an important parallel to the complaints in verses 153-59, and that the last phrase of Jesus’ lamentation, “You will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” forms an intriguing parallel to Q.4:159, “none of the People of Scripture will believe in him before his death.” In the context of the Roman Catholic liturgy, the words of the blessing, themselves a resonance of Psalm 118:26, are incorporated in the Sanctus, sung at the beginning of the great Eucharistic prayer, answering the call of Isaiah, “Holy, holy, holy! The Lord of hosts! His presence fills all the earth!” In the context of the life of Jesus, they remind Christians of his entry into Jerusalem, greeted by the crowd as a prophet: “Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.”93 While Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem is celebrated by Christians on Palm Sunday, immediately foreshadowing his death, the words “you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” refer to the Last Judgment of Matthew 25. Read in this manner, the last verse of Jesus’s lament indeed forms a remarkable parallel to “none of the People of Scripture will not believe in him until his death,” which will be, according to the Islamic tradition, after his coming again when he will be witnessing against the People of Scripture. Another text that evokes Christian resonances is the request for signs signaling unbelief. Jesus complains about this unbelief as well: Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him: “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” He said to them in reply, “An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here. At the judgment the queen of the south will arise with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and there is something greater than Solomon here.”94  Isaiah 6:3 (T); Matthew 21:9 (NAB).  Matthew 12:38-42 (NAB). The same condemnation is repeated once again in Matthew 16:4. Parallels can be found in Mark 8:11-12 and Luke 11:29-32. 93

94



A MODERATE RELIGION

177

Matthew gives a double explanation of the expression “sign of Jonah.” In the first place, the three days and the three nights during which Jonah “remained in the belly of the fish” (Jonah 2:1) are interpreted allegorically as prefiguring the time during which Jesus remained in the tomb between his death and his resurrection. Matthew relates that the chief priests and the Pharisees asked the Romans for a guard, saying: Sir, we remember that this imposter while still alive said, “After three days I will be raised up.” Give orders, then, that the grave be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, “He has been raised from the dead.” This last imposture would be worse than the first.95

This allegorical interpretation refers to the death and resurrection of Christ, an issue on which Christians and Muslims disagree because of the traditional Islamic interpretation of Q.4:157. However, the other interpretation of the “sign of Jonah” connects the preaching of Jesus with the preaching of Jonah and Solomon. Since the preaching of Jesus represents “something greater than Jonah / Solomon,” the hearers who do not accept his words are held accountable more than the people of Nineveh (see Jonah 3) and the queen of Sheba (see I Kings 10:1-10). Consequently, the people of Nineveh and the queen of the South will arise and condemn the present generation at the judgment. This comes very close to the Qur’ānic statement that Jesus will witness over the People of Scripture on the Day of Judgment. The parallel is not perfect since it is not Jonah and the Queen of Sheba that will stand witness just like Christ, but there is a remarkable similarity in the fact that the people who ask for signs are the people who do not accept the words of those who are sent by God as prophets. We need to bear in mind that the Qur’ān supposes familiarity with the stories of Jonah and Solomon; so the resonance with requesting signs yields an entire tapestry of interesting cross-references throughout.96 In the third place, there is an interesting parallel between the text of Q.4:155 and the witness of Stephen, who describes the unbelief of the

 Matthew 27: 62-64 (NAB).  They are both mentioned in Q.4:163; for more details about Jonah or “the man of the fish”, see Q.21:87-88; Q.37:139-48; Q.68:48-50). The story of Solomon and the queen (Bilqis in the Islamic tradition) in Q.27:22-44. Furthermore, see Hannelies Koloska, “The Sign of Jonah: Transformations and Interpretations of the Jonah Story in the Qur’ān”, in QST 82-101. 95 96

178

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Jews in stark contrast to the faith in Jesus. Just before he is martyred by stoning, he addresses his Jewish adversaries as follows: You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They put to death those who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become. You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it.97

The fourth and final Christian resonance with Q.4:153-59 deepens the idea of the non-acceptance of the prophet of God by pointing to the specific way in which Christianity connects the mission of Jesus Christ with his death on the cross.98 The most eloquent testimony about this specific characteristic of Christianity has been given by Saint Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.” Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.99

These verses are possibly the strongest proclamation of the counter-cultural message of Christianity, summarized in the symbol of the cross of Jesus Christ, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. While Paul’s rebuttal to the demand for signs (associated with Jews) certainly is in line with the qur’ānic rebuttal in the text under discussion here, the later Islamic tradition would see the Christian worship of the cross as symbol of salvation brought by Jesus as a form of foolishness. In this respect, the tradition of Islamic apologetics certainly takes over some  Acts of the Apostles 7:51-53 (NAB).  See also David Marshall, “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in: Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 168-83. 99  I Corinthians 1:18-25 (NAB). The quotation is from Isaiah 29:14. 97 98



A MODERATE RELIGION

179

of the elements associated with Greeks here in saying that the Christian faith with its Trinitarian, incarnational and soteriological dimensions is not only contrary to true Monotheism, but also to true rationality.100 The last explicit address to the People of Scripture in this surah will make this point as well: saying “three” instead of “one” is a form of exceeding the boundaries in religious matters. Before I continue with the next passage, I wish to repeat what I said at the beginning of my discussion of Christian resonances. If Christian theologians want to reply to the Islamic tradition of interpretation of Q.4:157, they would need to highlight the utmost importance of the crucifixion of Christ as decisive moment in God’s desire to save humankind. On this issue, the chasm between Islam and Christianity remains. However, in the context of a Christian commentary on this specific verse from the Qur’ān such an apodictic statement is not necessary and possibly even counterproductive since the alleged denial of the crucifixion is not the main topic in this passage of the Qur’ān. 4:171 Do Not Exceed the Boundaries of Your Religion 171  People

of Scripture, do not exaggerate in your religion and do not say about god except the truth because the messiah jesus son of mary is messenger of god and his word that he cast on mary, and a spirit from him So believe in god and his prophets and do not say “three” stop! it is better for you since god is a single deity he is above that there be for him a child his is what is in the heavens and on earth and sufficient is god as trustee

Explanatory Notes After the criticisms of the People of Scripture in Q.4:153-59, the next passage begins a new commendation of Prophet Muhammad in line with previous prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Jesus, Jonah and Solomon. The terminology used is derived from the verb waḥā, “to inspire”, which 100  See, for instance, ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Critique of Christian Origins, eds. Gabriel Said Reynolds and Samir Khalil Samir (Provo UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2010).

180

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

implies a less visible and more intimate form of communication than the usual “sending down.”101 The Biblical personalities receiving this communication are called “prophets” (nabiyyūn) in Q.4:163, but “messengers” (rusul) in Q.4:164-65, while David is mentioned specifically as having received the zabūr (usually translated as “the book of Psalms”) while Moses has received the taklīm (divine speech). This series of divine inspirations culminates in the coming of the Messenger: “People! The messenger has brought you the truth from your Lord, so believe! (It will be) better for you.”102 Q.4:171, the verse under discussion, adds that one should not add anything to this truth, thus distinguishing between truth about Jesus, and falsehood. The truth is that he is Messiah (al-masīḥ) – or, translated into Greek, “Christ” – the son of Mary, a messenger (rasūl) of God, and His word (kalimātuhu) that He cast (alqā IV) on Mary, and a spirit (rūḥ) from Him. These positive statements about Jesus imply that the Qur’ān has a Christology (a “way of speaking about Jesus as the Christ”). Even though this Christology would be insufficient for most Christians, some of the concepts, like “word” and “spirit” seem to be used in a sense that can be interpreted as coming close to orthodox Christian categories. In the Christian resonances we will see how these categories have been used to give a Christian theological interpretation of the Qur’ān. Yet one could argue that the Qur’ān uses such categories precisely to transform them in a direction that steers them away from the excessiveness that the Qur’ān laments here. Such excessiveness is exemplified in the saying “[God is] three (thalātha),” and the Christians are explicitly summoned to stop saying that. Instead of that, they should believe in God and his prophet, and say that “[God is] one (wāḥid).” While it is clear what the Qur’ān defends here, it is not so clear what it exactly denies, since it does not use the technical terminology for “Trinity” but only says, “do not say ‘three’.” Since the Qur’ān adds that God is “above having a child (walad)”, it may seem obvious that the Qur’an here denies Christian views of incarnation and Trinitarian theology, yet the absence of more specific terminology opens the possibility for denying that the Qur’ān really envisages orthodox Christian confession here.103  See Daniel Madigan, “Revelation and Inspiration,” EQ 4:437-48.  Qur’ān 4:170a (Dr). 103  C. Jonn Block, The Qur’an in Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Historical and Modern Interpretations (London – New York: Routledge, 2014, 43) makes the case that the Qur’ān in 4:171 (and 5:73) addresses a non-trinitarian doctrine such as a form of monophysite tritheism associated with John Philoponus. She also points out (69) that John of 101 102



A MODERATE RELIGION

181

Islamic Interpretations Q.4:171 did not strike the early commentators as particularly important; Tafsīr Mujāhid and al-Wāḥidi’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl do not include it at all, and Tafsīr Muqātil has only a few glosses, one of them identifying the “People of Scripture” in this verse as the Christians (naṣārā).104 Explaining “a word that He cast on Mary, and a spirit from Him,” Muqātil refers to God’s saying, “‘Be’, and it was” (kun fa-kāna).105 He further remarks that the casting of the spirit upon Mary implies that “he was not from flesh;” at this occasion he also mentions that this was revealed concerning the Christians of Najrān. The words “do not say, ‘three’” are interpreted as: do not say about God that He is “the third of three” (thālith thilāthatin), an expression found in Q.5:73, another text that is traditionally seen as a rebuke of Trinitarian theology in the Qur’ān. The Tafsīr attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās explains that the Christians addressed were Nestorians from Najrān who claimed that Jesus was the Son of God, and that Jesus and the Lord are partners. The expression “do not say, ‘three’” is interpreted as: “son, father and wife.”106 The Tafsīr compiled by the two Jalāls strikes a more philosophical note: if Jesus possesses “a spirit from him [God]”, he must be a compound being, and therefore he cannot be God since God transcends being compound, and so no form of being compound can be attributed to Him.107 Ibn Kathīr explains that Christians often exaggerate in their religion since they elevate Jesus above the rank that God gave him, namely that of prophethood. In contrast to the earlier mufassirūn, he gives an elaborate explanation of what is wrong with such extremism. He explains “Jesus is His [God’s] word” as: “‘Īsā was not the word. Rather, ‘Īsā came to existence because of the word.”108 Similarly, “do not say, ‘three’” is explained as: do not elevate ‘Īsā and his mother to be gods with Allāh. The interpretation of this verse in Ibn Kathīr ends with a long discourse

Damascus was the first commentator on the Qur’ān to interpret Q.4:171 as a refutation of the Trinity. 104  TMS 1:273 (on Q.4:171). 105  This is a reference to God’s creative word; see Q.3:59 for the parallel between Adam and Jesus in this respect. 106  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās on Q.4:171, transl. Mokrane Guezzou, accessed through www.altafsir.com on October 24, 2016. 107  TJJ 95 (on Q.4:171). 108  TIK 3:58 (on Q.4:171), quoting Ibn Abi Ḥātim.

182

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

about different sects in Christianity, introduced by the following general condemnation: The Christians, may Allah curse them, have no limit to their disbelief because of their ignorance, so their deviant statements and their misguidance grows. Some of them believe that ‘Īsā is Allāh, some believe that he is one in a trinity and some believe that he is the son of Allāh. Their beliefs and creeds are numerous and contradict each other, prompting some people to say that if ten Christians meet, they would end up with eleven sects.109

After this, Ibn Kathīr continues with a short summary of councils and sects, arguing that all three sects (Melkites, Nestorians, and Jacobites) disagree about the manner in which divinity and humanity were related in Jesus, and that they all believe the others to be heretics, while Muslims believe them all to be disbelievers. The Study Quran somewhat apologetically states that this verse understands Jesus as a Messenger from God, which is in harmony with many verses from the Gospels. However, the verse extolls Jesus as well, giving him several special names, such as Rūḥ Allāh (“Spirit of God”) and Kalimat Allāh (“Word of God”); the latter term “has clear resonance with the Gospel tradition, where Jesus is identified as the ‘Word’ of God (see John 1).”110 However, the Christian and the Islamic traditions disagree about what the term “Word” exactly implies. For Muslims, it means that he is the bringer of the Gospel. Similarly, the term al-Masīḥ can be translated as “the Messiah” or “the Christ”, because it literally means “the anointed one,” but Muslims associate this term with purification from sin.111 Even though the commentary in the Study Quran discusses the traditional interpretation that associates “his [God’s] word that He cast on Mary” with God’s creative command “Be!” and thus with the virgin birth of Jesus, it also leaves room for a more speculative interpretation: while all created beings are brought into existence through God’s Word, Christ alone is specifically identified as ‘a Word from God.’ Some might argue, therefore, that Jesus, by virtue of being identified as God’s Word, somehow participates (uniquely) in the Divine Creative Command, although this is not the traditional Islamic understanding …112  TIK 3:60 (on Q.4:171).  SQ 266-68 (on Q.4:171) with many references to the Gospel according to John. 111  Ibid., 267. This interpretation can be found in al-Ṭabarī. 112  Ibid. 109 110



A MODERATE RELIGION

183

The more salient point in this verse is the command to desist saying “three,” yet here the Study Quran seems to avoid a straightforward polemical interpretation by italicizing as follows: “Here they are merely told to refrain from asserting this doctrine, as it is better for them.” After contrasting this verse to Q.5:73 as a more straightforward criticism of Christians, the commentary concludes: “[I]n both the present verse and 5:73, however, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as three ‘persons,’ or hypostases, ‘within’ the One God is not explicitly referenced, and the criticism seems directed at those who assert the existence of three distinct ‘gods,’ an idea that Christians themselves reject.”113 Finally, the commentary points out that Christians have always been considered monotheists of some sort according to Islamic Law, and not idolaters (mushrikūn). In this manner, “the clear distinction the Quran itself makes between idolaters … and the People of the Book” is clearly maintained.114 Christian Resonances It is quite clear that the Islamic tradition of interpretation has given widely different evaluations of the position of the Christians addressed as People of Scripture in this verse. If it is true that the Christians exceed the boundaries in their religion by saying “three” and thus casting doubt on the singularity of God, they might be seen as idolaters as Ibn Kathir says, or as some sort of monotheists, as the Study Quran implies. Yet the earliest Islamic interpretations do not mention this issue at all, and so it seems probable that Q.4:171 began to be scrutinized for its Christological implications only later. I will first discuss a hypothesis that it may in fact have been a Christian who first interpreted the words of Q.4:171 as directed against Trinitarian theology. After that, I will show how Nicholas of Cusa interprets this verse in his Cribratio Alkorani, trying to do justice to the qur’ānic critique of certain forms of Trinitarian theology while at the same time holding firm to a Christian interpretation of the Qur’ān. Finally, I want to pay attention to the way in which the German theologian Karl Rahner, S.J., explains Trinitarian theology as a form of consistent monotheism in view of a Muslim audience. In a recent monograph on The Qur’an in Christian-Muslim Dialogue, C. Jonn Block remarks that John of Damascus (between 650 and 750) was the first to interpret Q.4:171 as a refutation of the Trinity. John of Damascus, or Yannah b. Sarjūn b. Manṣūr, was born in Damascus as  Ibid.  Ibid., 268.

113 114

184

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

son of an influential Melkite family in Syria; since both his father and his grandfather were important officials under the new Umayyad rulers of Damascus, it is probable that John was educated at the court and gained knowledge of Islam in this way.115 John writes about Islam as a new religion in the 100th chapter of his collection de haeresibus (“on heresies”), which forms the second part of his work Pege gnōseōs (“Fountain of knowledge”). In this heresiology, written about 735 in the monastery of Mār Saba near Jerusalem, John introduces Islam as “the superstition of the Ishmaelites,” and associates it with the “forerunner of the Antichrist.”116 As I have discussed in the previous chapter, he uses references to the stories about Abraham and his family to disqualify this new religion as a valid Abrahamic religion. He references some of the most important statements of Muhammad as author of the Qur’ān concerning Christ and the Trinity as follows: He says that Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit entered into Mary and they begot Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God.117 … Moreover, they call us “Associators”, because, they say, we introduce an associate alongside God by declaring Christ to be the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: “The prophets and the scripture have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the prophets. So if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it down to us.” Some of them say that we have added such things, by allegorising the prophets, while others say that the Hebrews deceived us out of hatred by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: “As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being ‘Associators’?” For the Word and the Spirit are inseparable from that in which they naturally have existence. If, therefore, He [Christ] is in God as His Word, then it is obvious that He, too, is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by 115  For John’s writings on Islam, see Daniel Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: the “Heresy of the Ishmaelites” (Leiden: Brill, 1972) and Raymond Le Coz, Jean Damascène, Écrits sur l’Islam (Paris: Cerf, 1992). For a short presentation of the text, see Adelbert Davids and Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites” in: The Three Rings, 71-90; repr. in The Routledge Reader in Christian – Muslim Relations, 18-32. 116  John of Damascus, On Heresies, 100 (§1); tr. Davids and Valkenberg, “John of Damascus: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites”, in Rings, 74; Reader, 19. 117  John of Damascus, On Heresies, 100 (§2), tr. Davids and Valkenberg, 75; 20.



A MODERATE RELIGION

185

avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. For it would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him and introduce [Him] as a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruthfully when you call us “Associators”; we call you “Mutilators” of God.118

Using Christological criteria, John of Damascus interprets the denial of the Trinity as a consequence of the Qur’ān’s refusal to take seriously the meaning of “a Word and a Spirit from God.”119 While the Christian understanding of “Word” and “Spirit” is that they are “inseparable from that in which they naturally have existence,” namely the Triune nature of God, these concepts are understood by the author of the Qur’ān to refer to the manner in which Jesus was created by God as a human being, son of Mary. Consequently, John does not pay heed to the qur’ānic summons to stop saying “three”; quite the contrary, he polemically insists that, if Muhammad thinks that Christians exaggerate, he is wrong because Word and Spirit are inseparable from God. If Muslims call Christians “associators”, Christians could call Muslims “Mutilators” because they cut off what partakes of divine nature. John of Damascus tries to understand the words of the Qur’ān within a Christian frame of reference, and therefore he must see Q.4:171 as an attack on the Christian concept of a Trinitarian God. In the context of his heresiology, he comes to the polemical conclusion that the Qur’ān represents a heretical Christology, akin to Arianism and Nestorianism. That is why he suggests that Muhammad, “after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy.”120 In other words: John is able to interpret the Qur’ān as a form of heresy because it has a Christology that fails his criteria for orthodoxy. Both the Qur’ān and John of Damascus use phrases familiar to their opponents – “Ishmaelites”; “Hagarenes”; “Word”; “Spirit” – to make polemical points more effectively. It would be difficult to find a theologian in the Middle Ages who has done more to read the Qur’ān through a Christian framework than Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464). His Cribratio Alkorani (“Sifting  John of Damascus, On Heresies, 100 (§4), tr. Davids and Valkenberg, 77; 21.  See Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus and the Theological Construction of Christian Identity vis-à-vis Early Islam”, in: Jaarboek 2000 Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, ed. Henk Schoot (Utrecht: Thomas Instituut, 2001), 8-30. 120  John of Damascus, On Heresies, 100 (§1); tr. Davids and Valkenberg, 75; 19. 118

119

186

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

of the Qur’ān”) forms a unique Christian theological reading of the Qur’ān with the explicit intention to scrutinize the book of Muhammad and to show that even in it there are contained those |teachings| through which the Gospel would be altogether confirmed, were it in need of confirmation, and that wherever |the Koran| disagrees |with Christ|, this |disagreement| has resulted from Muhammad’s ignorance and, following |thereupon|, from his perverse intent.121

Just like John of Damascus, Nicholas thinks that a monk influenced Muhammad; he identifies this monk as Sergius, a Nestorian.122 Nicholas thinks that Muhammad lived and died as a Nestorian Christian, yet three Jewish plotters succeeded in influencing his teachings, and they made many changes in the text of the Qur’ān.123 Still, the text of the Qur’ān can be read as testifying to the Christian faith if read with a faithful interpretation (pia interpretatio), as Nicholas tries to do in his Cribratio Alkorani.124 In the first book of the Cribratio Alkorani, Nicholas discusses a number of Christological statements in the Qur’ān. Among these statements is the verse under discussion here: Again, |the Koran| elsewhere |speaks| as follows: “Jesus, the son of Mary, is God’s messenger and His spirit and the Word sent to Mary from Heaven.” Note that Jesus is the Messiah (or the Christ) and the Word sent 121  Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, prologue, n. 10. Translation in Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: translation and analysis by Jasper Hopkins, 78-79. Words between |strokes| are “supplied by the translator to fill out the meaning implied by the Latin text” (193). 122  Cribratio Alkorani, prologue, n. 11-12; Hopkins, 79-80. Both Christianity and Islam have stories about the meeting between Muhammad and a monk, named Bahira or Sergius. For Christians, this functions as a way to explain the heretic form of Christology in the Qur’ān; for Muslims, this serves as an early recognition of Muhammad’s prophethood. See Barbara Roggema, The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā: Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 123  Cribratio Alkorani, prol., n. 11; Hopkins, 79. This story is derived from one of the works in the Toledan Collection, a number of Arabic sources translated into Latin by a team of translators commissioned by Peter the Venerable around 1140. Nicholas of Cusa read the Qur’ān in a Latin translation by Robert of Ketton as part of the Toledan Collection. See James Kritzeck, Peter the Venerable and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964) and James E. Biechler, “Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa,” Manuscripta 27 (1983) 91-100. 124  He uses this expression four times in the second book of the Cribratio Alkorani: in chapters 1, 12, 13 and 19. See Pim Valkenberg, “Sifting the Qur’an: Two Forms of Interreligious Hermeneutics in Nicholas of Cusa,” in Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe, eds. D. Cheetham et al. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011) 36-46.



A MODERATE RELIGION

187

to Mary from Heaven. Hence, since He is the Word of God sent from Heaven (i.e., sent from the God of Heaven), then assuredly He is of the same nature as God, who sends |Him|. For since the Divine Word is the Word of God, we cannot say that it is something other than the most simple God. For God and His Word are not two gods but are |one and| the same most simple God. So then, it is evident that God, who sends, and His Word, who is sent, are of the same divine nature. But since God, who sends, does not send Himself and does not send another God, He who sends will not be He who is sent, nor will He who sends be one God and He who is sent another God.125

While the context of this passage is clearly Christological, it has Trinitarian consequences: the Word is not another god, but is Godself. In that sense, the Qur’ān is right to defend the unity of God, which Nicholas calls “the most simple God.” Yet it is incorrect to say that Christians are associators, since the Word is not “another God.” In the second book of the Cribratio Alkorani, Nicholas wants to show that the Qur’ān does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity if it is read pia interpretatione: with a faithful interpretation.126 Part of his argumentation is to say that the Qur’ān contains a number of Trinitarian statements, among which is Q.4:171, and if they are ambiguous, they should be explained with reference to the New Testament that is recognized by the “Arabs” as a clear and truthful revelation from God. Therefore, they should accept what the Qur’ān says about Word and Spirit from God in line with what the New Testament says.127 Moreover, the Qur’ān is right to say, “do not say three,” since in humanity three persons are indeed three, but in the divine “the three persons are three in oneness, not in number.”128 A few years before writing the Cribratio Alkorani, Cusanus had explained these matters in simpler terminology in his work De Pace Fidei, written immediately after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In this utopia, he sketches the possibility of a peaceful understanding between the religions. The Word presides over a council where the different people and religions on earth are represented. In the course of the deliberations, the Trinity is discussed and a Jew takes the floor to remind the others that one of their prophets had said that God, “who bestowed on others the fecundity of

 Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani I:12, n. 59; tr. Hopkins, 103.  Cribratio Alkorani II:1, n. 86. 127  Ibid., II:11, n. 112-114. 128  Ibid., II:10, n. 111. 125 126

188

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

begetting” could not be sterile.129 He continues: “although Jews shun the |doctrine of| the Trinity because they have considered the Trinity to be a plurality, nonetheless once it is understood that |the Trinity| is most simple fecundity, |the Jews| will very gladly give assent.”130 The Word then argues that the Arabs and all the wise will agree that to deny the Trinity is to deny divine fecundity and divine power, and “that to confess the Trinity is to deny a plurality, and an association, of gods.” Hence, “the Arabs will be much better able to grasp the truth |of the Trinity| in this manner than in the manner in which they speak of God as having an essence and a soul – adding that God has a word and a spirit.”131 After this allusion to Qur’ān 4:171, the Word goes on to explain that the Arabs and the Jews in fact confess a Trinity, even though they do not know it. Yet, it is important to listen to the Jewish and Qur’ānic critiques, since “in the manner in which Arabs and Jews deny the Trinity, assuredly it ought to be denied by all. But in the manner in which the truth of the Trinity is explained above, of necessity it will be embraced by all.”132 Even though I do not share Nicholas’s optimism that Jews and Muslims will embrace the notion of the Trinity if properly educated, I do share his idea that we can learn from Jews and Muslims about how not to explain the Trinity. It is quite evident that Nicholas of Cusa was an attentive reader of the Qur’ān, and that he had noticed the incongruity of more than one Creator, or the inappropriateness of talking about sharing divinity (shirk). While Christians should not change the concepts in which they express their faith in hopes of being better understood by others, they might distinguish between concepts that work well in certain dialogues and concepts that raise barriers, such as speaking about the Trinity in terms of family relationships. The criterion of pia interpretatio may help us to remain true to our own faith while trying to remove obstacles for understanding by other faith traditions. In fact, as I have tried to argue in chapter four, it is the right answer to the qur’ānic call to “come to an equitable word between us and you.” (Q.3:64) I have two reasons to end this chapter by discussing the theologian Karl Rahner, S.J., (1904-84) who has influenced Roman Catholic thinking about 129  Nicholas of Cusa, De Pace Fidei, 9 n. 25, tr. Hopkins, 46. The reference is to Isaiah 66:9. 130  Ibid.; Hopkins, 47. 131  Ibid., 9 n. 26; Hopkins, 47. 132  Ibid.



A MODERATE RELIGION

189

Trinitarian theology probably more than any other in the twentieth century. In the first place, Rahner has – together with the Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) – critiqued the usual mode of speaking about God as existing in three persons, saying that the modern concept of “person” presupposes an individual self-consciousness, and therefore leads to tritheism.133 Criticism of such tritheist tendencies not only removes obstacles in Christian – Muslim dialogue because it is in line with the qur’ānic critique of Christian excesses, but it is important for a form of Trinitarian theology that is consistent with monotheism as well. In the second place, Rahner has paved the way for most contemporary Trinitarian approaches in the Catholic theology of religions, exemplified by Jacques Dupuis, S.J., and Gavin D’Costa.134 Even though Rahner lived before the contemporary interest in both Trinitarian theology and theology of religions, he can be said to have contributed to the foundations of both these developments.135 The contribution that I want to highlight, as a Christian resonance to the qur’ānic critique of Christians exceeding in their religion by saying “three” (Q.4:171), is an essay that Rahner wrote in the context of one of the first organized Christian-Muslim dialogues on the European continent. In 1977 Rahner participated in a theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims, organized by the philosophisch-theologische Hochschule St. Gabriel in Mödling (Austria). The title of this conference was “God in Christianity and Islam,” and Rahner’s essay tries to show that Christian Trinitarian theology is in fact a consistent form of monotheism.136 His main point is that Christians together with Jews and 133  For Karl Barth, see George Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Trinity, and Some Protestant Doctrines after Barth”, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, eds. Gilles Emery, O.P., and Matthew Levering (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 294-313, at 300; for Karl Rahner, see Vincent Holzer, “Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Twentieth-Century Catholic Currents on the Trinity”, in ibid., 314-27, at 322. 134  For Dupuis, see his Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1997); for D’Costa, his The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2000). For a discussion of these concepts, together with a third approach by S. Mark Heim (The Depth of the Riches: a Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001), see Pim Valkenberg, “Christian Identity and Theology of the Trinity”, in: Identity and Religion: A Multidisciplinary Approach, eds. Ad Borsboom and Frans Jespers (Saarbrücken: Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik, 2003), 267-90. 135  See, among others, Gavin D’Costa, “The Trinity in Interreligious Dialogue”, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, 573-85. 136  Karl Rahner, “Einzigkeit und Dreifaltigkeit Gottes”, in: Der Gott des Christentums und des Islams, ed. Andreas Bsteh (Mödling: St. Gabriel, 1978), 119-36.

190

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

­ uslims worship one God who reveals God’s Word in history, yet they M connect this history with God in different manners. Each of these three religions has what Rahner calls a “incarnational singularity” (inkarnatorische Eigentümlichkeit); for Jews, the singular historical relationship with God is connected with the idea of Torah as the covenant revealed at Mount Sinai to Moses; for Christians, it is Jesus Christ as Word of God, while for Muslims the Word of God is revealed singularly in the Qur’ān. In order to understand how one can conceive of the Trinity as a coherent form of monotheism, Rahner argues that it is the same God who reveals Godself in the concrete historical person of Jesus of N ­ azareth, but also in the human receptivity of God’s grace everywhere in creation. In this manner, human beings can perceive the presence of God both in the unique and historically concrete person of Jesus of Nazareth (the Word of God) and in the universal anthropological openness to God’s Spirit. Yet it is the same God who communicates Godself in these two distinct “missions”, while remaining the source of these missions without change. Much has been written about the advantages and disadvantages of ­Rahner’s Trinitarian theology, both in itself and in dialogue with other religions.137 At this place, I limit myself to indicating that Rahner’s model of “incarnational singularities” might lead Christians – along with N ­ icholas of Cusa’s “faithful interpretation” – to give a fully committed but also fully open answer to the qur’ānic critique, “do not say ‘three’; that is better for you.” Christians may be able to agree with Muslims that it is better to say “one,” yet, they will continue to disagree about where exactly in history the most visible or hearable trace of God can be found.138

137  See Valkenberg, “Christian Identity and Theology of the Trinity”, and D’Costa, “The Trinity in Interreligious Dialogues”. 138  In this context it is relevant to note that the Qur’ān continues in Q.4:172 by saying that “the Messiah will not disdain from being the slave/servant of God” which might evoke Christian resonances in the tradition of kenotic Christology, starting with the hymn quoted by Saint Paul in his letter to the Philippians 2:5-8.

Chapter Seven

GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION 5:48  and

we have sent down to you the scripture with the truth as confirmation of what was before it of scripture and guarding over it so judge between them by what god has sent down and do not follow their inclinations from what has come to you of the truth for each of you have we made a law and a way of life and if god wanted, he would have made you one community yet to put you to the test on what he has given you – try to emulate one another in doing good to god is your return, altogether, and he will inform you on what you were disagreeing about This chapter begins with a text that only implicitly addresses the People of Scripture. Yet Muslims who want to give a qur’ānic foundation for a positive approach to religious pluralism very often quote this text. Since most texts that we have encountered thus far have been critical of the behavior of the People of Scripture, it is good to pay close attention to texts with a more positive approach, even if the positive tone is not without criticism. The fifth sūrah of the Qur’ān is called sūrat al-mā’ida, a word that can be translated as “table”, “banquet” or “feast,” and that is mentioned in a question posed to Jesus by his disciples: “Jesus, son of Mary, is your Lord able to send a table down to us from heaven?”1 Even though the identity of the mā’ida requested by the disciples is not exactly clear, it is evident that it is with God in heaven, and can be sent down to them. We will have occasion to look at this verse more closely toward the end of this chapter. First, it makes sense to pay attention to the structure of Q.5 in order to see if the structure gives indication of the importance of some texts about the People of Scripture as was the case in the previous chapters. The fact that we have six explicit references to the People of Scripture  Q.5:112b (AJ).

1

192

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

– second most after Q.3 – indicates that this is an important chapter for a Christian commentary. In his article, “Hands Outstretched: Towards a Re-reading of Sūrat al-Mā’ida,” Neal Robinson states that Q.5 consists of eleven main sections in a mirror-composition. The composition of the outer rings is a bit peculiar in that verses (A) 1-9 correspond with (A’) 87-108 and (B) 11-19 with both (B’) 69-85 and (B’’) 109-20. The three inner rings have a regular structure: (C) 20-26 corresponds with (C’) 59-68, (D) 27-32 with (D’) 51-58, and finally (E) 33-40 with (E’) 41-50. Robinson indicates three places where the People of Scripture are part of the issues discussed: Q.5:11-19 (B) and the corresponding Q.5:69-85 (B’) with Q.51-58 (D’) in between.2 Two of the explicit references to the People of Scripture (Q.5:15.19) are thus placed in section (B) of the surah, and one more (Q.5:77) occurs in the corresponding section (B’). These sections, together with the last section (B’’), focus on Jesus and the false beliefs about him.3 However, the third section (D’) that Robinson indicates as discussing the People of Scripture does not contain an explicit reference to them, while another section (C’) contains three explicit references in verses 59, 65 and 68. Robinson does indicate that addresses to the People of Scripture form the beginning and the ending of this section.4 Even though Robinson’s literary analysis of the transitions between the different sections and of the chiastic structures in core verses within these sections is quite interesting, I will focus on the elaborate analysis that Michel Cuypers, a Belgian Catholic religious, follower of Charles de Foucauld, has given in his book The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an.5 Applying a model of Semitic rhetorics, developed by Roland Meynet, S.J., at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Cuypers gives an analysis of both the structure and the intertextual setting of the surah.6 As we have seen in the analysis of Q.2 and Q.3, the 2  Neal Robinson, “Hands Outstretched: Towards a Re-reading of Sūrat al-Mā’ida”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies 3 (2001) 1-19. The plan of the Sūra and the references to the “Scriptuaries” are on page 2. 3  Robinson, “Hands Outstretched”, 15. 4  Robinson, “Hands Outstretched”, 6. 5  Michel Cuypers, Le Festin. Une lecture de la sourate al-Mā’ida (Paris: Lethielleux, 2007); English tr. The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an (Miami: Convivium, 2009). Referred to as (CB) 6  For the theoretical backgrounds, see Cuypers, La composition du Coran: Nazm al-Qur’ān (Pendé: Gabalda, 2012); English tr. The Composition of the Qur’an: Rhetorical Analysis (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

193

central verse in a ring composition often conveys a “universal principle” in contrast with the more particular messages surrounding it.7 In a similar manner one can read Q.5 as ending with a universalist vision in which the different religions have their place in God’s mysterious design for humanity. The sura is not simply a series of anti-Jewish or anti-Christian polemics, as a superficial reading might lead us to think – it also paves the way for what could well become a true ‘Qur’anic theology of religions’, as the structure of the text so clearly holds this meaning.8

The macro-structure of Q.5 according to Cuypers is as follows:9 A MUSLIMS, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS FACE THE COVENANT (1-11) A 1 The completion of the covenant in Islam (12-26) A 2 Jews and Christians refuse to enter into the covenant (27-40) A 3 The punishment of the rebel children of Israel (41-50) A 4 The Prophet’s jurisdiction over Jews and Christians (51-71) A 5 The status of Muslims and People of the Book B CALL TO CHRISTIANS TO ENTER THE COVENANT (72-86) B 1 Call to Christians to convert (87-108) B 2 A legislative code for the community of believers (109-120) B 3 Jesus’ and his apostles’ profession of monotheism10

According to this structure, which is quite different from the structure suggested by Neal Robinson, three of the explicit references to the People of Scripture can be found in the only sequence (A 5, Q.5:51-71) that has “People of the Book” in its title; two other references are found in the second sequence (A 2, Q.5:12-26) that has both Jews and Christians in its title, while the final reference in Q.5:77 can be found in sequence (B 1) that discusses the conversion of the Christians. While it seems that Cuypers does not give a clear mirror-structure in the way that Robinson does, he does work with symmetrical structures at the different levels of the text. I do not intend to discuss the value of Cuypers’s work, even though I have used it in stimulating discussions with students in seminars on “Comparative Readings of the Qur’ān.”11 I only wish to discern whether a­ nalyses  CB 32.  CB 32-33. 9  The capital letters refer to the two sections of the surah; the numbers behind the capitals refer to the eight sequences, and the numbers between brackets to the verses of the surah. For the terminology, see CB 47-49. 10  My summary of the Table of Contents of the book (CB 9-13). 11  PhD-seminars at the School of Theology and Religious Studies, The Catholic University of America, Spring 2012 and Fall 2013, 2015 and 2019. One of my students, 7 8

194

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

like Robinson’s and Cuypers’ can contribute to a better understanding of the references to the People of Scripture in this surah. Apart from the structuralist reading in the vein of Meynet’s rhétorique sémitique, Cuypers’ attention to intertextuality – or, as he says, “interscriptural context” – helps to understand how this particular surah “rewrites” phrases and concepts originating in biblical and parabiblical writings.12 The first verses of sūrat al-mā’ida have often been described as rather disorganized, since they seem to address different types of materials: dietary laws, prayer rites, covenant, completion of religion and hunting.13 In Cuypers’s analysis, however, the central theme is the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is celebrated “today” (al-yawma) as a new religious beginning, super-imposed on the “today” of the Christian celebration of Easter and the Last Supper.14 This “today” in “today I have perfected your religion for you” (Q.5:3 AJ) can be seen as the culmination of the entire Qur’ān, especially if one assumes that this surah and this verse are counted among the very last verses to be revealed. The Study Quran writes: According to most commentators, this verse was revealed as the Prophet was delivering his Farewell Sermon on Mt. ‘Arafat, which occurred on a Friday during his final pilgrimage … For this reason and because of its reference to the “perfection of the religion,” it is one of several verses thought to be among the last the Prophet received…15

In Q.5:5, the “today” formula introduces two forms of sharing with the People of Scripture: Today, all good things have been made lawful to you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful for you as your food is lawful for them. So are chaste, believing, women as well as chaste women of the people who Dr. Nadeen Alsulaimi from Saudi Arabia has used Cuypers’ approach in her analysis of Q.4 (sūrat al-nisā’) in her dissertation, defended in April 2018. 12  CB 30-31. 13  For an analysis of the editorial process in Q.5:1-11, see Nicolai Sinai, “Processes of Literary Growth and Editorial Expansion in Two Medinan Surahs,” in: Islam and Its Past: Jahiliyya, Late Antiquity, and the Qur’an, eds. Carol Bakhos and Michael Cook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 69-119. 14  “Today” is a significant word in Q.5:3 (twice) but also in Q.5:5. See CB 466-67 for correspondences between the beginning (Q.5:3) and the end (Q.5:114) of the surah. This interpretation juxtaposes the foundation of Islam as the religion of a new community and the foundation of the annual Christian feast of the giving of heavenly food. For the interpretation of Q.5:114 in the light of the discourse of the bread of life in the Gospel according to Saint John, chapter 6, see CB 419-25. 15  SQ 274 (on Q.5:5).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

195

were given the Scripture before you, as long as you have given them their bride-gifts and married them, not taking them as lovers or secret mistresses. The deeds of anyone who rejects faith will come to nothing, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.16

The people of Scripture are mentioned twice in this verse, in both cases as “those to whom the Scripture was given” (alladhīna ūtū l-kitāb), first in connection with their food, and then in connection with their women of good reputation. In contrast to many other verses, Q.5:5 does not limit possibilities for contact between the believers and the People of Scripture, but opens up possibilities, even more so than the Islamic law, which is, “as often, more restrictive than the Qur’an.”17 Morever, there seems to be a connection between the perfection of the religion today, and making lawful all good things today. Cuypers concludes that Q.5:111 “envisages the permanence of the People of the Book as two communities which are both close to and different from the Muslim community, but still living good neighborly relations with it” in a peaceful manner. He adds: “We should remember this when the sura takes on a harder, more polemical tone towards them.”18 The second sequence (Q.5:12-26) twice addresses the People of Scripture in the middle passage that has the sending of the Prophet to the People of Scripture as its central theme.19 Yet the beginning of this sequence sets the scene by referring to the covenant with the Children of Israel (banū Isrā’īl) and the promises God made to them if they are faithful. Yet, Q.5:13 adds the following rebuke: Because of their breaking their covenant, We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They change words from their places; and they have forgotten a part of that by which they were reminded. You will continue to observe treachery from them – except for a few of them. But pardon them, and forgive. God loves those who do good.20

There are some resonances here of what we have heard before: the breaking of the covenant (naqḍ mīthāq) and the hardening of the hearts have been discussed with reference to Q.4:155, while the curse of God and the distortion of the meanings have been touched upon with reference  Q.5:5 (AH).  CB 100. 18  CB 122. 19  CB 127. 20  Q.5:13 (AJ). 16 17

196

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

to Q.4:46. Yet a few words need to be added about “they change words from their places” (yuḥarrifūna l-kalima ‘an mawāḍi‘ihi), as this phrase has become a locus classicus for the accusation of taḥrīf (“corruption”) of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, alleging that People of Scripture purposefully changed the text or the meaning of the Scripture revealed to them so that the present-day books of Jews and Christians can no longer be trusted.21 However, it is quite probable that this accusation of corruption reflects a later situation in which Muslims found out that the text of the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures did indeed differ from the Qur’ān, and therefore the notion of taḥrīf was introduced to explain the difference.22 The context of this verse seems to suggest that the act condemned in this verse is forgetting the words rather than changing the text, even though the reference to “treachery” certainly connotes intentionality. Yet, the believers are called upon to pardon and forbear, just like in Q.2:109. The reason is that “God loves those who do good.”23 Verse 14 follows with a similar complaint about Christians: And [likewise,] from those who say, ‘Behold, we are Christians,’ We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore we have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, [to last] until Resurrection Day: and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.”24

This is the first time that those who say, “We are Christians” are explicitly discussed in the context of breaking the covenant and forgetting much of revelation. It is remarkable that the Qur’ān here (and elsewhere) uses the term Naṣārā (“Nazarenes”) and not a more straightforward 21  See Abdullah Saeed, The Qur’an, 148-55 for a discussion of the Islamic tradition of taḥrīf with reference to Q.5:13 in particular; Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering, 81 shows that Muqātil suggests that it was the description of Prophet Muhammad that was left away on purpose. 22  See BC, 288 with reference to Q.5:41 and 13b: “Il est possible que l’idée d’altération physique du texte des Ecritures par les juifs (et les chrétiens) n’ait pas été ici le sens explicite du texte coranique, et que c’est la tradition musulmane qui, a posteriori et en se trouvant confrontée à la réalité du texte des Ecritures des juifs et des chrétiens, ait établi cette idée.” 23  The Study Quran adds the following commentary: “The present verse, following shortly after permission is given to eat the food and marry the women of the People of the Book, may reflect a broader intention in this very late sūrah to reestablish normative and peaceful relations between Muslims and the People of the Book (SQ 283, on Q.5:13). In contrast, Tafsīr Jalālayn (TJJ 99) argues that this verse is abrogated by the “sword verse” (Q.9:5). 24  Q.5:14 (MA).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

197

description such as Masīḥiyyūn (“Christians”).25 It is even more remarkable that the construction is so laborious: “those who say, ‘We are Christians’”. Asad thinks that this is an implicit rejection of the claim to be real followers of Jesus.26 Even though their rejection of the covenant and the revelation has been similar to the Children of Israel, the Christians are punished differently with enmity and hatred, which seems to refer to the mutually exclusive interpretations of the Christian faith. This divisiveness can be seen as a divine punishment for their forgetting the truth of the revelation and saying false things about Jesus, son of Mary, because the divisions in Christianity arise exactly at the point where Christians go wrong according to the Qur’ān: in their Christological statements. Against this background, the Qur’ān continues with an appeal to recognize God’s message and to reconsider their refusal to hear. 5:15-19 Children of God and His beloved 15  O people of scripture, our messenger has come to you to make clear to you much of what you have been concealing from the scripture, and to dispense from much; from god a light has come and a clear scripture 16  with which god guides who follows his approval along ways of peace and he brings them out from the darknesses to the light with his permission and he guides them to the straight way 17  unbelievers are those who have said that god, he is the messiah, son of mary say: who will reign over god in anything? If he wanted, he could destroy the messiah, son of mary, and his mother, and who is on earth entirely; to god is the reign of the heavens and the earth and what is in between them; 25  See Sidney Griffith, “Al-Naṣārā in the Qur’ān: a hermeneutical reflection,” RNPQ 301-22. 26  Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 168 n. 26: “Thus the Qur’ān elliptically rejects their claim of being true followers of Jesus: for, by wrongfully elevating him to the status of divinity they have denied the very essence of his message.”

198

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

he creates what he wants and god is over everything powerful 18  And the jews and the christians have said: we are the children of god and his beloved; say: then why does he afflict you for your offenses? Yet you are human beings from what he has created; he dispenses whom he wants and he afflicts whom he wants, and to god is the reign over the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and his is the destiny. 19  O people of scripture, our messenger has come to you to make clear to you after an intermission of the messengers when you say, not has come to us a bringer of good news and not a warner. Yet has come to you a bringer of good news and a warner, and god is powerful over everything. Explanatory Notes Stylistically, this passage is quite remarkable; its sentences are quite long with some formulaic phrases: the first part of Q.5:15 is repeated in Q.5:19 (“People of Scripture, our messenger has come, making clear”), and parts of Q.5:17 are repeated in Q.5:18 (“to God is the reign of heaven and earth, and what is in between”), but there are repetitions between Q.5:17 and 19 (“God is over everything powerful”) as well. These repetitions give the passage a strong rhetorical and – in its praise of God – hymn-like quality. The People of Scripture are addressed at the beginning and at the end in the formulaic phrase “our messenger has come to you, in order to make clear” what was not evident. In Q.5:15, this making clear (bayyana) refers to what the People of Scripture had concealed (khafā IV, “to hide”); in Q.5:19, it refers to an interval of time (fatra, “pause”) between previous messengers and this messenger, characterized as bringers of good news (bashīr) and warners (nadhīr). The two verses appear to describe two different manners in which the People of Scripture react negatively to the messenger of God sent to them: they doubt his coming because of the time interval (Q.5:19), and they hide part of their message (Q.5:15).27 While the basic issue in the corner verses addressed to the People of Scripture is the form of revelation, the matter at issue in the middle verses of this passage is summarized in two enunciations attributed – implicitly – to 27  The Islamic tradition will explain that they hide the references to the future prophethood of Muhammad in the Scriptures given to them.



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

199

Christians, viz. “God, He is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary” (Q.5:17), and – explicitly – to Jews and Christians, viz. “We are the children of God and His beloved” (Q.5:18). These pronouncements are classified as clear signs of unbelief, because they blur the boundaries between God and all of creation. Therefore, the Qur’ān emphasizes that only God is the creator, and everything else exists by the will of God, so God can – as Q.5:17 emphatically asserts – destroy every creature, including Jesus and Mary. Consequently, the main theme in the discussion between the Qur’ān and the People of Scripture is the Islamic profession of tawhīd: there is only one God and nothing is to be put on a par with God. Muhammad has been sent as a messenger to make clear this central message, yet Jews and Christians do not accept it since they prefer to cling to their prerogatives of being elected by God to a special relationship, either by being his children and beloved, or – in the case of the Christians – by confessing Jesus as Son of God. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Muqātil explains that the Christians accepted a pledge in the Gospel to believe in Muhammad, since his description was written in the Gospel. Yet they neglected part of it, and this caused enmity among them between the Nestorians, Jacobites, and Melkites, until the Day of Resurrection. The Nestorians (Nasṭūriyya) say: “Jesus is the Son of God”; the Jacobites (Mār Ya‘qūbiyya) say, “God, He is the Messiah, son of Mary”, and the Melkites (‘ibāda al-malk) say, “God is the third of three: He is a deity, Jesus is a deity, and Mary is a deity”. In this way, they invented lies about God.28 This discourse about disagreements among Christians shows some knowledge of different Oriental Christian traditions; however, the expressions that Muqātil attributes to these traditions are derived from statements in the Qur’ān, not from Christological formulae espoused by these groups. “Much of what you have been concealing from Scripture” in Q.5:15 is explained as referring to the Torah, where the Jews have concealed the matter of stoning29 and the matter of Muhammad. The Tafsīr written in the name of Ibn ‘Abbās adds here “the traits and the description of  TMS 1:288 (on Q.5:14).  This refers to the Islamic tradition that the original punishment for adultery in the Torah was stoning; however, Jews changed that into flogging the adulterers and blackening their faces. Muhammad came to remind them of the original punishment. See, for instance, WAN 93-94 (on Q.5:41.44). 28 29

200

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the Prophet Muhammad”.30 Tafsīr Muqātil continues: God sent them Muhammad and his book in order to guide them from darkness – that is, shirk (“associating others with God”, usually translated as “polytheism” or “idolatry”) – to light, that is īmān (“true faith”).31 The words “unbelievers are those who say that God is the Messiah, son of Mary” in Q.5:17 are identified as having been revealed concerning the Jacobite Christians from Najrān.32 Against their saying that God is the Messiah, God in the Qur’ān asserts the truth about Himself, namely that His is the dominion over heaven and earth. The words “He creates what He wants” mean that God created Jesus without human interference (min-ghayr bashari).33 While the Tafsīr Muqātil construes Q.5:17 as being directed against Christians, it holds that Q.5:18 relates to both Jews and Christians, while the term “People of Scripture” in Q.5:19 relates to Jews. Q.5:18 is revealed about Jews in Medina (five names are mentioned in particular) and Christians from Najrān. They pride themselves over the Muslims, and say: “no one among the people has a greater place with God than us.” They say that they will be in the fire of hell only for a limited amount of time,34 yet God rebukes them, saying, “if you are the children and beloved of God, does a human being like to punish his child by fire? Yet God is more merciful than his entire creation.”35 The implication is: if you were really God’s beloved, He would never punish you this way. Human beings are creatures, and God can do with them whatever God wants to do: forgive them and lead them to His religion, or punish them and lead them to unbelief. The Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās interprets “[God] dispenses whom He wants” as “whoever repents from Judaism and Christianity”, and “[God] afflicts whom He wants” as “whoever dies professing Judaism and Christianity.”36  Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.5:15 at altafsir.com (accessed on October 30, 2016).  TMS 1:288-89 (on Q.5:15-16). 32  The term “Jacobites” (mār ya‘qūbiyyūn in Tafsīr Muqātil’s text) is no longer used to describe members of some Oriental Orthodox Churches because of its derogatory nature. Since they accept only one (divine) nature in Christ, their usual name is Monophysite or preferably Miaphysite Christians. C. Jonn Block (The Qur’an in Christian – Muslim Dialogue, 43) argues that the Christians from Najrān were in fact Monophysite Christians who held what he calls a form of “Philoponian Monophysite tritheism.” 33  TMS 1:289 (on Q.5:17-18). The word bashar usually means “man, human being”, but it has also the connotation of “flesh” and “sexuality”. At this place it means that no human father is involved. Christians and Muslims agree on the virgin birth of Jesus. 34  This is an allusion to Q.2:80 and Q.3:24, discussed in chapters three and four. 35  TMS 1:289-90 (on Q.5:18). 36  Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.5:18; accessed at altafsir.com on October 30, 2016. 30 31



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

201

As indicated before, the “People of Scripture” in Q.5:19 are identified in the Tafsīr Muqātil as Jews, and two of them are mentioned by name: Rāfi’ ibn abi Huraymila and Wahb ibn Yahudha. The “intermission” is explained as a period of 600 years between prophets Jesus and Muhammad.37 “Good news” is glossed as the message about the garden (of Paradise), while “warning” is glossed as the news about the fire (of Hell). Finally, “God is powerful over everything” refers to the sending of Muhammad as a messenger.38 The traditionalist Ibn Kathīr explains in his Tafsīr the claims of the Jews and the Christians to be the children and the beloved of God (Q.5:18) as follows: They claim: “We are the followers of Allāh’s Prophets, who are His children, whom He takes care of. He also loves us.” The People of the Book claim in their Book that Allāh said to his servant Isrā’īl, “You are my firstborn.” But they explained this statement in an improper manner and altered its meaning. Some of the People of the Book who later became Muslims refuted this false statement saying, “This statement only indicates honor and respect, as is common in their speech at that time.” The Christians claim that ‘Īsā said to them, “I will go back to my father and your father,” meaning my Lord and your Lord. It is a fact that the Christians did not claim that they too are Allāh’s sons as they claimed about ‘Īsā. Rather this statement by ‘Īsā only meant to indicate a closeness with Allāh.39

This statement will require some unpacking when we will discuss the Christian resonances. Ibn Kathīr goes on to explain the intermission between the messengers in Q.5:19 by stating that no prophet came between Jesus, who was “the last Prophet to the Children of Israel,” and Muhammad, who was “the Last Prophet and Messenger among the children of Ādam.”40 Because of this long interval of time, idolatry abounded on earth, and only a few remained loyal to the teachings of the true prophets. Sayyid Quṭb explains that the basic problem in this passage is that the banū Isrā’īl did not keep their promise to make no distinction between the messengers of God. They did not accept Jesus as Messenger of God, and likewise Christians did not accept Muhammad as Messenger of God. Quṭb interprets Q.5:15 as addressed to both Jews and Christians, yet differently: “[T]he Christians suppressed the very basic and fundamental principle of faith, namely, the concept of God’s oneness, and the  TJJ 100 (on Q.5:19) is more precise: 569 years.  TMS 1:290 (on Q.5:19). 39  TIK 3:134-35 (on Q.5:18). 40  TIK 3:136 (on Q.5:19). 37 38

202

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Jews suppressed many Divine legislations such as the punishment of adulterers with stoning and the total prohibition of usury. Both the Christians and the Jews also suppressed the news of the future mission of the unlettered Prophet…”41 In his Tafsīr al-Mizān, Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī takes Q.5:15-19 as a unit. He stresses the formulaic repetition of the words qad ja’akum (“Indeed there has come to you”) in addressing the People of Scripture twice in both Q.5:15 and Q.5:19. So the coming of the Prophet as a clarifier, a light, a giver of good news and a warner is the main theme of this passage, but the refutation of some specific sayings of Jews and Christians is an important secondary theme. Muhammad disclosed things that the People of Scripture had hidden, such as the stoning. But Muhammad passed over other errors in these scriptures (“dispensed from much”), such as anthropomorphisms and accusations against prophets as being sinners. He singles out the tawrāt as not mentioning the essential idea of Resurrection, while the injīl, specifically the one ascribed to John, is full of idolatry.42 With respect to “we are the children of God and his beloved” (Q.5:18), Ṭabāṭabā’ī remarks: “Neither the Jews nor the Christians put forward this claim in the literal sense. They called themselves sons of God metaphorically, as a mark of distinction. In their scriptures, a lot of people have been called sons of God, for example, Adam, Jacob, David, Ephraim, Jesus, and good-doing believers.”43 He argues that they claim a special status that would make them exempt from regular laws and regulations. More specifically, the sins of the Jews are their killing of the prophets, their breaking the divine covenants, and their altering the words from their places.44 Yet the sins and crimes of the Christians in history are no less than those of the Jews, and they are afflicted with the same punishments. Ṭabāṭabā’ī interprets Q.5:19 as a repetition of Q.5:15 that adds one new element: the word “making clear” (yubayyinu) is used in an absolute sense: the new revelation makes clear everything you needed to know, and therefore, “God has power over everything.” In fact, this is a rejection of an implicit objection by the Jews who thought that there would be no abrogation and no new beginning after the Torah.45  QSQ 4:61 (on Q.5:15).  TbM (on Q.5:15-19), pages 1-2 of 37 (accessed Nov. 3, 2016 at www.almizan.

41 42

org).

 TbM (on Q.5:18), page 5 of 37.  This alludes to descriptions elsewhere in the Qur’ān, for instance Q.4:155 and Q.5:13. 45  TbM (on Q.5:19), pages 9-10 of 37. 43

44



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

203

The Study Quran interprets “God is the Messiah, son of Mary” in Q.5:17 as a criticism of the Christian belief not only in the divinity of Jesus, but also possibly in the divinity of his mother. Even though these words are not the actual teaching of Christianity, and therefore might refer to an unorthodox form of Christianity, they point to and refute a consequence of the Christian belief that Christ is Creator rather than being created by God. That is why the Qur’ān stresses the fact that God creates whom He wants to create.46 While the idea that God would have a son or daughters is criticized quite often in the Qur’ān, the Study Quran remarks that Q.5:18 is the only place where the Qur’ān criticizes the idea that Jews and Christians would be “children of God.” It refers to a number of places in the Christian Gospels (Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 11:52) but also to some places in the Hebrew Bible, such as Exodus 4:22-23 and Psalm 2:7 and I Chronicles 28:6 for David and Solomon respectively. More specifically, the place where Jesus says, “I am going to my Father and your Father” (John 20:17) might be a source for this expression. The Qur’ān is aware that Jews and Christians use the claim to be “children of God” not in a literal sense but “they assert that it is a metaphorical and/or a genealogical extension of their respective claims about Ezra and Jesus being His ‘sons’.”47 The Study Quran continues to assert that the idea of God as Father is found often “in the Judeo-Christian scriptures” and “seems to have been well established in the Judaic context prior to the Gospel accounts.”48 Al-Rāzī refers to two other places in the Qur’ān where Jews and Christians claim to have access to a special divine mercy; yet at the same time, Jews and Christians accept that they will be punished for their wrongdoings.49 The Islamic interpretations give a number of quotations from the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in order to explain the backgrounds of the words “We are God’s children and His beloved” in Q.5:18, and the  SQ 285 (on Q.5:17) with reference to al-Zamakhsharī and al-Rāzī.  SQ 285 (on Q.5:18) with reference to Qur’ān 9:30 and Ibn Kathīr, al-Rāzī and al-Zamakhsharī. 48  SQ 286. The Study Quran does not give any sources for its assertion here, but it seems to me that it is influenced more by the Islamic tradition of interpretation and by Christian ways of speaking of God as Father than by Jewish sources. 49  Ibid. The two places are Q.2:111, “None will enter the Garden unless he be a Jew or a Christian”, and Q.2:135, “Be Jews or Christians and you shall be rightly guided”. See chapter three in this commentary. 46 47

204

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

claim of a special relationship with God implied by these words.50 Two metaphors are used to express confidence in a special relationship with God: “children of God” (abnā’u llāhi) and “His beloved” (aḥibbā’uhu). The verses immediately before the passage under discussion show that the Qur’ān recognizes this relationship by admitting that God made a covenant with the Jews and Christians, however, Jews broke their pledge and Christians forgot some of what they were told (Q.5:12-14). The pledge or covenant (mīthāq) is thus recognized as a reality, yet it is not unconditional, so if Jews and Christians do not keep it, they will lose the prerogatives connected with such a covenant. Therefore, the rhetorical question, “if you are children of God and His beloved, then why does He afflict you for your offenses?” (Q.5:18b) is a valid reply to the supposed prerogatives that are lost by breaking or forgetting the covenantal relationship.  Christian Resonances A Christian reflection on this text from the Qur’ān – enriched by the associations given in the commentaries by Ibn Kathīr and the Study Quran – should begin by listening to some of the basic textual backgrounds of the notion of “divine election” in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.51 The exodus from Egypt and the covenant at Mount Sinai form the background of two fundamental claims in the Hebrew Bible: Moses is sent by God to tell Pharaoh: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My first-born son.”52 More poetic is God’s message that Moses has to convey to the people at Mount Sinai: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Me. Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples.”53 Echoes of this text can be found at several other places in the Hebrew Bible, even though the phrasing is often somewhat different. A good example is Jeremiah 31:9 where God says, “For I am ever a Father to Israel, Ephraim is My first-born.”54 In the context of Christian resonances, the most important reference is given in the second Psalm, where the king who is enthroned and  Similar claims may be found in Q.2:80 and Q.3:24. See chapters 3 and 4 ad loc.  See the rich materials collected by Reuven Firestone, “Is there a notion of ‘divine election’ in the Qur’ān?”, RNPQ 393-410. 52  Exodus 4:22 (T). 53  Exodus 19:4-5a (T). 54  Jeremiah 31:9 (T). 50 51



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

205

anointed says: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord, he said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’.”55 This verse used to be chanted as introit during the mass on Christmas Eve, so this is one of the strongest Christian resonances, applied to Christ as Son of God and His anointed. Another enthronement psalm conveys the same idea: “The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, while I make your enemies my footstool.’”56 Historically, the enthronement of the new king was connected with the divinely bestowed renewal of the power of Zion57 and therefore of the entire people of Israel. This is symbolized in king David whose election becomes the central theme in Psalm 89: even as God is the mightiest in heaven, David is chosen (“I have made a covenant with my chosen one,” Ps. 89:4a) to be the mightiest king on earth. God says: “He shall cry to me, ‘You are my father, my God, the Rock of my salvation!’ I myself make him the firstborn, Most High over the kings of the earth.”58 The context of this psalm is a situation of war in which the king is in fact defeated, since the same Psalm later addresses God as follows: “You renounced the covenant with your servant, defiled his crown in the dust” (Ps. 89:40). The claim that David – and, in the name of David, his successors and the entire people of Israel – is God’s chosen one and the firstborn among other kings and peoples is asserted over against the historical dubiousness of such a claim. It is also held up high in hopes that God will once again come to the rescue of his firstborn and act according to His promises in the beginning of the Psalm: “I declare: ‘Your steadfast love is confirmed forever; there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness’.” (Ps 89:3). A very similar statement is made in the first book of Chronicles with reference to Solomon, David’s successor as king of Israel in Jerusalem.59 God gives the promise of a special relationship to Solomon, as God did with David; in both cases the terminology of “son” and “firstborn son” does not indicate any physical or genealogical relationship, but a functional relationship: God chooses the king, but the king must promise to keep the covenant.

55  Psalm 2:7 (NAB). In the Latin of the Vulgate translation: Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. 56  Psalm 110:1 (NAB). 57  Mount Zion as a symbol for Jerusalem is mentioned in the immediate context of the two verses: Psalm 2:6 and 110:2. 58  Psalm 89:27-28 (NAB). 59  See I Chronicles 28:5-7.

206

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The language about “sons” and “children of God” is more prominent in the New Testament than in the Hebrew Bible. Both Ibn Kathīr and the Study Quran refer to John 20:17 where Jesus after his resurrection says to Mary Magdalene: “Stop holding on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, my God and your God’.”60 The Latin translation of the first words of this verse, noli me tangere, has become the name for a manner of depicting the encounter between the risen Lord and Mary Magdalene, in which Jesus almost touches the hand of Mary Magdalene, yet holds back, pointing to the heavens as his final destination.61 Thomas Aquinas, commenting on this text, explains that Christ says “your father and my father, your god and my god” to point out that the reduplication of “father” and “god” signals that God is “my father” in a sense different from “your father”.62 Elsewhere, Aquinas summarizes this in the difference between Christ’s being “Son of God” in the way of what he calls a “natural sonship,” and others being “children of God” in the way of “adopted sonship.”63 Even a short survey of the different meanings in which the expressions “son of God” and “children of God” are used in the New Testament would lead us too far away from the qur’ānic context. Therefore, I want to focus on two texts that seem to give particularly meaningful resonances. The first text juxtaposes the idea of the “son” with the idea of “beloved”, as is the case in Q.5:18. It is a short statement from heaven, confirming the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist according to the Gospel of Matthew: “And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”64 This text is repeated 60  For the importance of John 20:17 in Muslim-Christian relations, see Martin Accad, “The Ultimate Proof-Text: The Interpretation of John 20.17 in Muslim-Christian Dialogue”, quoted in David Bertaina, Christian and Muslim Dialogues: The Religious Uses of a Literary Form in the Early Islamic Middle East (Piscataway NY: Gorgias Press, 2011), 220. The Qur’ān lets Jesus say a very similar phrase, “my Lord and your Lord,” in Q.19:36 and again in Q.3:52 where the earlier version from Q.19 is in fact repeated. See Hosn Abboud, Mary in the Qur’an: A literary reading (London – New York: Routledge, 2014), 88-89. 61  The most famous is the fresco by Fra Angelico in the Dominican Convent of San Marco in Florence (1442). 62  See Daniel Keating and Matthew Levering, “Introduction”, in St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Chapters 1-5 (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010), xiv-xvi. 63  See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III.23.2 ad 2. 64  Matthew 3:17 (NAB).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

207

at the Transfiguration, much later in the Gospel65; moreover, it alludes to two personalities in the Hebrew Bible that Christians have interpreted as prefiguring Christ. The first is Isaac, Abraham’s “only son, whom you love” (Genesis 22:2); the second is the “servant of God” (ebed Adonai) in Isaiah 42:1, “Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased.” Both the “binding of Isaac” (akedat Jitzhak) and the “song of the servant” are immensely relevant as prefigurations of Christ, and particularly of his passion.66 Again, the context of defeat and suffering evokes the claim of unique chosenness, and the significant determination of Isaac as the “only son” – in a situation in which he was in fact the second son of Abraham after Ishmael, as the Qur’ān reminds us – colors the Christian dogmatic proclamation of Jesus Christ as “onlybegotten Son of the Father” in the Nicene Creed. The second strong resonance comes from the Gospel according to John, in which the notion of being “children of Abraham” is discussed. It has to be noted that John, the author of the Gospel, places a discussion that had arisen in the Christian community to which he belonged back to the times of Jesus.67 Therefore, the entire passage with its fierce claims and counterclaims strikes a severe anti-Judaic note. At the same time, one may perceive how Jesus criticizes the claim to be “children of Abraham” in a way that is notably similar to the qur’ānic critique of Jews and Christians in Q.5:13-19. Jesus then said to the Jews who believed in him, “If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” Jesus answered them, “[…] I know that you are descendants of Abraham. But you are trying to kill me, because my word has no room among you. I tell you what I have seen in the Father’s presence; then do what you have heard from the Father.” They answered and said to him, “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. You are doing the works of your father!” [So]  Matthew 17:5.  The third reference to the beloved son in the Gospel according to Matthew comes in a quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 in Matthew 12:18-21. 67  For an analysis of this text, see Adele Reinhartz, “The Gospel of John: How ‘the Jews’ Became Part of the Plot”, in: Jesus, Judaism & Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, eds. Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 99-116, at 106-9. 65 66

208

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

they said to him, “We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me. […] You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. […] Whoever belongs to God hears the words of God; for this reason, you do not listen, because you do not belong to God.” The Jews answered and said to him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed?” Jesus answered, “I am not possessed; I honor my Father, but you dishonor me. […] Amen, amen, I say to you: whoever keeps my word will never see death.” [So] the Jews said to him, “Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’ Are you greater than our Father Abraham, who died? Or the prophets, who died? Who do you make yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ […] Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.68

It is possible to read the dispute between Jesus and the Jews as a dispute between a prophet and listeners who refuse to believe his words, which would bring it very close to the dispute between the prophet Muhammad and Jews and Christians in the Qur’ān. Some of the elements of this dispute, for instance the breaking of the promise/word, the killing of the prophets, and the threat of punishment for sins have parallels with Q.4:155; 5:13-14, and 5:18. Yet at the same time the text quickly reaches a heightened tension in which the claims (“we are descendants of Abraham”, “we are free”, “Our Father is Abraham”, “We are not illegitimate; we have one Father, God”) and counter-claims (“you will know the truth”, “I came from God”, “it is the Father who glorifies me”) begin to rise to the level of straight damning: “you belong to your father the devil” versus “now we are sure that you are possessed.” Jesus makes the point that those who are true children of God, or Abraham, will act accordingly, accepting the truth of a prophet sent by God. While this again comes close to the point that the Qur’ān makes, there is a difference as well. In this dispute told by John from the perspective of a later Christian community, Jesus outbids the claim to Abrahamic inheritance  John 8:31-59 (NAB). My cuts in the text are marked by […].

68



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

209

by saying that he brings eternal life, and by saying that he exists before Abraham came into being. Both claims are typical of Johannine theology, yet Jews perceive them as blasphemy, and therefore the scene ends in the threat of stoning and the flight of Jesus. At one level, the dispute about Abraham is not dissimilar from what we heard in the third surah about Abraham: he was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but an upright believer, and those who are closest to him are the true believers who follow in his footsteps (Q.3:65-68). On the other hand, Jesus heightens this debate to an unprecedented level by identifying himself with God, since the words “I AM” (egō eimi) in John are a clear reference to the holy name of God, YHWH. John 8 shows a scene in which Jesus summons his hearers to believe the truth of his words in a way that is quite similar to the Qur’ān; yet at the same time, John’s high Christology leads to a deep identification between Jesus and God that belongs to the core of the faith of many Christians, yet also leads to unsurmountable difficulties in their relations with Jews and Muslims. Other Christian reminiscences to the text of Q.5:15-19 can be found as well, for instance in the hymn of Zechariah according to the Gospel of Luke.69 The remainder of sequence A 2, Q.5:20-26, concentrates on the story of Moses and the entering into the Holy Land, thus going back to themes addressed in Q.5:12, before the middle part of this sequence that we have just discussed.70 5:44-48 God sends confirmation and final authority The third sequence (Q.5:27-40) in the structure as proposed by Michel Cuypers continues to focus on the Children of Israel and the punishment of their misdeeds, starting with the story of Cain and his brother, and continuing with a long text about crimes and punishments. The central theme of the fourth sequence (Q.5:41-50) is the jurisdiction of 69  Cuypers (CB 151) remarks that the terminology of “God guides on the ways of peace” in Qur’ān 5:16, together with the idea of “bringing from darkness to light” cannot be found anywhere else in the Qur’ān, but a very similar terminology can be found in Luke 1:68-79 where Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, praises the glory of God. The hymn itself is a reworking of Isaiah 9:1. 70  For the qur’ānic reworking of the story of entering the Holy Land, see Uri Rubin, Between Bible and Qur’ān (Princeton NJ: The Darwin Press, 1999), 55-76.

210

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the Prophet over Jews and Christians. Cuypers divides the sequence into three passages: 41-43, 44-47 and 48-50. The first passage introduces the theme of people who claim to believe but in fact do not listen to the Prophet. While some of them are identified as hypocrites in the Islamic tradition of interpretation, others are identified as Jews who “listen eagerly to lies” and “distort the meanings of [revealed] words.”71 Al-Wāḥidī tells the following story as “occasion” for the revelation of Q.5:41-47: a group of Jews punished a Jewish man accused of adultery by blackening his face and flogging him. Muhammad passed by and asked whether this was the punishment for adultery according to the Jewish law. Initially they refused to answer because they did not want to enact the punishment of stoning prescribed in Torah since the man involved was a notable Jew. Thereupon Muhammad ordered that the Jewish man be stoned.72 This story reflects a situation in which Muhammad possesses power of judgment over different religious communities, however the important issue here is that Jews are to be judged according to the Torah.73 The second passage (Q.5:44-47) juxtaposes the Torah and its function for the Jews with Jesus and the Gospel in their functions for the ­Christians. In Q.5:44 (MA), the Torah is a guidance (hudā) and a light (nūr). Verily, it is We who bestowed from on high the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On its strength did the prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God’s writ had been entrusted to their care: and they [all] bore witness to its truth. Therefore, [O children of Israel,] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for a trifling gain: for they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth.

The Torah is considered to be a source of judgment for the prophets and two specific groups of Jewish scholars: rabbāniyyūn and aḥbār. While the latter term is usually translated as “rabbis,” the former term is interpreted 71  Q.5:41 (AH); SQ 297. This is one of the “narratives of tampering” that alleges that Jews changed the words in their Scripture; the Islamic tradition generally connects this verse with verse 15 where Jews are said to have concealed elements of their Scripture. 72  WAN 93 (on Q.5:41-47); Gordon Nickel, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’ān, 82-87 (summarizing QMS). For the matter of stoning or flagellation as punishment for adultery, see SQ 297 (on Q.5:41). 73  See The Study Quran, 297 (on Q.5:41).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

211

as legal authorities, or ascetic seekers, or religious scholars – the equivalent of ‘ulamā’.74 Both groups are given knowledge of what has been entrusted to them of God’s Scripture, yet this knowledge is not perfect. Therefore, the Qur’ān adds the warning that God’s signs should not be sold away for a small price, meaning that they should aim at the ultimate price of the hereafter instead of going for a short-term gain. Verse 45 adds a reference to the ius talionis (“an eye for an eye”) in the Torah, which shows that the text is still concerned with punishments and judgments. Q.5:46 (MA) adds the person of Jesus to the prophets described in the previous verses. While the Jewish scholars are to judge according to the Torah, Jesus brings something new: And We caused Jesus, the son of Mary, to follow in the footsteps of those [earlier prophets], confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah; and We vouchsafed unto him the Gospel, wherein there was guidance and light, confirming the truth of whatever there still remained of the Torah, and as a guidance and admonition unto the Godconscious.

This verse clearly sketches the continuity between Jesus and what was before him: Jesus has been sent in the footsteps of the other Prophets, to confirm what was before him of the Torah.75 Similarly, the Gospel (Injīl) has been given to him, in order to confirm the truth of the Torah. Both Jesus and the Gospel are “confirming what was before in the Torah”, and the Gospel is “guidance and light” just like the Torah in Q.5:44. Q.5:47 continues with the consequence for those who follow Jesus and the Gospel. They are addressed here as ahl al-Injīl, “People of the Gospel” – and not Naṣara, as elsewhere in the Qur’ān – which makes sense in a text that is mainly concerned with legal authority and punishments: the source of the judgment is the Gospel as far as it confirms the Torah.76 Q.5:47 (MA) states: Let, then, the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what God has revealed therein: for they who do not judge in the light of what God has bestowed from on high – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!  SQ 298 (on Q.5:43-44).  The word used for “confirm” is muṣaddiqan, from the verb ṣadaqa, “to speak the truth”; the second form means “to accept as true.” 76  The Islamic tafsīr tradition states that the Gospel confirms the Torah insofar as it does not explicitly contradict (and thus abrogate) it. See SQ 299 (on Q.5:46), with reference to al-Ṭabarī and Q.3:50. 74 75

212

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

It is significant that the Qur’ān clearly states that Jews should judge in accordance with the Torah (Q.5:44) and People of the Gospel in accordance with the Gospel (Q.5:47). Whereas the tafsīr tradition tends to say that this holds true only until the coming of the Qur’ān, the Study Quran explicitly denies such a restriction since “[p]rophetic adjudication is not necessary (even during his lifetime) as long as they follow their own scripture.”77 We will see the importance of this remark in the discussion of Q.5:48 that switches to the situation of Muhammad and the Scripture revealed to him. 48  and

we have sent down to you the scripture with the truth as confirmation of what was before it of scripture and guarding over it so judge between them by what god has sent down and do not follow their inclinations from what has come to you of the truth for each of you have we made a law and a way of life and if god wanted, he would have made you one community yet to put you to the test on what he has given you – try to emulate one another in doing good to god is your return, altogether, and he will inform you on what you were disagreeing about The first part of this long verse can be read as the climax of the movement that has started in Q.5:44. God gave the Torah as light and guidance, and the prophets and scholars judged by it; God gave Jesus and the Gospel as light and guidance, confirming the truth of Torah, and the followers of the Gospel judged by it. Now, God sent down the Scripture with the truth to Muhammad, as a confirmation of what was before, and as an authority over it. Since this first part of the verse can be explained in two directions, much hangs on the precise understanding and translation of the two verbs.78 The first verb, ṣaddaqa II, “to accept as true” has already been mentioned in Q.5:46. At this place, it means “to declare truthful” (which refers to the status of earlier Scriptures)  See SQ 298 (on Q.5:43) and 300 (on Q.5:47).  Abdullah Saeed (The Qur’an: An Introduction, 153-55) gives two radically opposing views in the modern period of this verse, from the Salafi scholar Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid and the liberal scholar Ulil Abshar-Abdalla. 77 78



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

213

rather than “to confirm” (which refers to the contents of earlier Scriptures).79 The second verb, haymana, is interpreted as “to guard over, to control,” but this is the only occurrence of the verb in the Qur’ān. Boisliveau distinguishes three possible meanings: “to declare authentic,” “to preserve, secure” or “to guard.” She chooses the first meaning, bringing muhaymin close to muṣaddiq in the sense of “declare authentic.”80 Such a translation brings the Scripture revealed to Muhammad in line with earlier Scriptures, and we will see how this leads to a pluralist interpretation of Q.5:48. A translation that goes in the direction of “preserving” or “guarding” raises the Qur’ān above earlier Scriptures, and is therefore likely to be interpreted in a more inclusivistic sense.81 The Study Quran acknowledges the interpretation of the mufassirūn who say that Muhammad should judge in accordance with the Qur’ān. However, in the light of the second part of Q.5:48, it is more likely that “judge between them by what God has sent down” refers to the earlier revelations, while “do not follow their inclinations” refers to the capricious interpretations that Jews and Christians give of their Scriptures.82 The verse continues, “for each of you have We made a law and a way of life.” The important words here are shir‘ah (“a law”, from the same root as sharī‘ah) and minhāj (“a way”) which is used here, according to Cuypers, in its technical meaning of “way of life” or halakha in the Jewish tradition.83 The Study Quran announces this text as a radical form of universalism or even pluralism: while Q.5:41-47 assert “the validity of Jews and Christians judging by their own scriptures,” this verse “goes farther by asserting the providential nature of different religious communities and their distinct laws and practices.”84 While the Tafsīr tradition downplays the universal meaning of the words “a law and a way for each of you” by either saying that it is meant consecutively (each historical period has its own law and way: first the Torah, then the Gospel,  See Anne-Sylvie Boisliveau, Le Coran par lui-même, 265.  “Le sens le plus probable de muhaymin nous parâit donc être le premier, à savoir que le Coran déclare véridique ce qu’il y avait avant lui de l’Ecriture, et est donc un synonyme de muṣaddiq.” (BC 266). 81  A good example of this approach is Mustansir Mir who translates muhaymin as “keeper” and states that the verse claims a “hermeneutical privilege” according to which other Scriptures “ought to be interpreted in light of the Qur’ān.” Mustansir Mir, Understanding the Islamic Scripture: A Study of Selected Passages from the Qur’ān (New York: Pearson, 2008), 119 (translation) and 122 (commentary). 82  SQ 300 (on Q.5:48). 83  CB 242. 84  SQ 301 (on Q.5:48). 79 80

214

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

now the Qur’ān) or by saying that it in fact means “for each of you We have appointed the Qur’ān as a law and a way,” the Study Quran states that such exclusivist readings are inconsistent with “the verse’s clear implication that it is the Divine Will that there be multiple religious communities, as expressed in the next line of this verse, had God willed, He would have made you one community.”85 The second part of Q.5:48 is introduced by the lapidary sentence, “If God wanted, He could have made you one community.”86 The word for community here is umma, which normally refers to a religious community. Therefore, the implication is that God wanted multiple religious communities so that they may learn from one another by “trying to emulate one another in doing good.” Each community observes its own law and way of life, and in this way shows God’s will; the other communities, while observing their own laws and ways of life, will try to do good as well, and in this way a “competition of doing good” will help to fulfill the will of God better than if only one religious community existed. The Study Quran comments, “the present verse goes on to state a Divine purpose for this plurality of religious forms, namely, that He might try you in that which He has given you, by testing your obedience.”87 While religious differences are often seen as a problem in the Qur’ān, especially between people who have received the same revelation, here inter-religious differences are considered as a way to act in conformity with God’s will for each of us. Even though this pluralist interpretation is certainly not the only possible interpretation of Q.5:48, it certainly can be a helpful qur’ānic contribution to interreligious dialogue in our days.88 The idea of different religious communities trying to emulate one another in doing good seems to be quite analogous to the idea of “holy envy” that we discussed before.89 At this place I only want to reiterate  Ibid., with reference to al-Ṭabarī.  The same formula in Q.16:93. 87  Ibid., with reference to al-Ṭabarī. 88  SQ 301: “This verse carries enormous importance for the question of religious pluralism from an Islamic perspective. Since it is one of the key verses confirming the essential truth of different religious forms and indicating that the formal differences between religions have been Divinely ordained, it has played a central role in contemporary Islamic discussions of religious pluralism.” 89  See the commentary on Q.2:109 in chapter three. I have compared the form of religious pluralism in this verse with the form of religious pluralism that Saint Paul endorses in his thinking about the relationship between the Jews and the pagans in their coming to faith in Christ in Sharing Lights On the Way to God, 150-62. 85 86



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

215

that in his Cribratio Alkorani Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64) drew attention to this text as a source of evaluating religious plurality among Muslims. |Followers of Muhammad| also say that God sent to all nations indigenous messengers and that |through them| He admonished these nations regarding what they had to believe and had to do in order to be numbered, on the day of judgment, among those who are good and in order to attain unto the Paradise full of joy. |God admonished them| so that on the day of judgment they would have no basis for making excuses for themselves |by contending| that they had not received a teacher or an admonisher … Accordingly, |followers of Muhammad| conclude that if the variety of laws and of rites is found to be present in the identity-of-faith that is exhorted within the various nations by the messengers of God, then indeed this |kind of diversity| cannot at all prevent one who is obedient from obtaining a fitting reward at the hands of the most gracious and most just Judge.90

Ludwig Hagemann, the editor of the critical edition of the Cribratio Alkorani, has noted that this verse in the Qur’ān has been of great importance for Cusanus’s own theology of religions.91 It is clear that the words “variety of laws and of rites” (varietas legum vel rituum) form Nicholas’ interpretation of “for each of you We have made a law and a way of life” in Q.5:48. I believe that it is possible to demonstrate that these words are an indirect source of Nicholas’s famous words, una religio in rituum varietate (“one faith in a variety of rites”) which seem to come very close to the Muslim interpretation of Q.5:48 as favored in the Study Quran.92 Meanwhile, the next verse seems to suggest an interpretation of the previous verse that is supersessionist rather than pluralist because it addresses Muhammad as follows: “Hence, judge between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views; and beware of them, lest they tempt thee away from aught that God has bestowed from on high upon thee.”93 While it is true 90  Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani I.2 no. 27; tr. Hopkins, Nicholas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, 88. 91  Cribratio Alkorani, ed. Ludwig Hagemann, 223. 92  The direct source is an anonymous text transmitted in the Toledan Collection commissioned by Peter the Venerable of Cluny under the title Lex sive Doctrina Machumet (the Law or the Teachings of Muhammad). I have elaborated on the way in which Cusanus read the Qur’ān through the Toledan Collection in “One Faith – Different Rites” and “Una Religio in Rituum Varietate.” 93  Q.5:49a (MA). In a footnote (ad loc.), Asad adds that “followers of earlier revelation” (his usual translation of ahl al-kitāb) is his interpretation of the word “them” in “between them” (baynahum) in the Arabic text.

216

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

that the contents of the earlier revelations form the basis upon which they are to be judged, it is also true that Muhammad is the one to pass judgment on them because he has received the revelation that confirms and guards the earlier revelations. Such judgment serves to keep in check the errant interpretations that Jews and Christians give of their own Scriptures. This explains the negative tone of the following verses, most prominently Q.5:51: O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another – and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers.94

While the word awlīyā’ (plural of walīy, from the verb waliya, “to be close, to follow”) is sometimes translated as “friends”, so that “do not take Jews and Christians as friends” becomes a universal warning against interreligious friendship, the word indicates a partner in a transaction or an alliance, in this case a partnership in deviating from the true interpretation of what has been revealed to them.95 The basic suggestion here is that Jews and Christians cannot be trusted in their interpretations of their own Scriptures, and therefore they need to be guarded by the Messenger who has received the Scripture with truth.96 It is for this reason that Michel Cuypers indicates “the Prophet’s jurisdiction over Jews and Christians” as the general theme of sequence A 4 (Q.5:41-50). In this respect, Muhammad acts like Moses, but the difference is that Moses judged only his own people, while Muhammad is to extend his judgment “over Jews and Christians who are mixed in with the Muslim community which he leads.”97  Q.5:51 (MA).  The Study Quran suggests that the word does not mean “friends” nor “allies” but rather “protectors”, since the word “here more likely denotes those whom one would turn to as a protector or dominant authority.” It emphatically states that the prohibition against such relationships with Jews of Christians “likely had much to do with the fluid and somewhat precarious social and political situation of the fledgling Islamic community during the time of the Prophet.” Once the Islamic state was solidly established, it engaged in multiple alliances with Jewish and Christian communities. It is therefore incorrect to interpret this verse as forbidding friendly relations with Jews and Christians; this would contradict the message in Q.5:5 which allows for the most intimate personal relationships between believers and the People of Scripture. SQ 302-3 (on Q.5:51). 96  In his commentary on this verse, Sayyid Quṭb (QSQ 4:151) asserts that the alliance between Christians and Jews implies that Islam and its followers “continue to be at the receiving end of an unabating war launched against them and their faith by Jews and Christians all over the globe.” While these words were written some fifty years ago, it is not difficult to imagine their impact on Islamists worldwide in the years of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, ISIL or Daeesh). 97  CB 255. 94 95



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

217

5: 59-69 People of Scripture under Muhammad’s Authority Michel Cuypers divides the fifth sequence (Q.5:51-71) into three passages. The first passage (51-58) asserts that the believers should not make allies with Jews and Christians; the second passage (59-64) condemns the unbelief and perversity of most of the Jews, while the third passage (65-71) suggests the possibility of salvation for Jews and Christians who believe.98 In this sequence, we find three explicit references to the People of Scripture: one at the beginning of the second passage (Q.5:59), and two more in the third passage (Q.5:65.68). Though I will focus on these three verses, I wish to address an implicit reference in the first passage (Q.5:57) as well. The main message of this passage is not to take Christians and Jews as allies, since they are allies of one another. The passage concludes as follows: You who believe, do not take as allies those who ridicule your religion and make fun of it – whether people who were given the Scripture before you, or disbelievers – and be mindful of God if you are true believers. When you make the call to prayer, they ridicule it and make fun of it: this is because they are people who do not reason.99

These two verses give a further reason why the believers should not take Jews and Christians as their allies: without reason, they take their religion (dīn), and more specifically their prayer (ṣalāt) as something to be derided and to be laughed at. The “people who were given Scripture” are addressed together with the disbelievers (kufāra) as a group that tends to ridicule the believers, even though those who “have received the Scripture before you” should have known better. At this place, the second passage (Q.5:59-64) starts as follows: 59  Say: you people of scripture, are you hostile toward us only because we believe in god, and in what was sent down to us and what was sent down before, while most of you are straying?

Explanatory Notes The verb naqama may have the meanings of “to revenge oneself” or “to be angry with someone”. In both cases, the basic idea is one of hostility. 98 99

 CB 267.  Q.5:57-58 (AH).

218

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The reason for this hostility from the side of the People of Scripture is given in the verse itself: “we believe in God, in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent down before.” Again, we hear the general verdict that “most of you,” (People of Scripture), “are iniquitous.” The verb fasaqa has the general meaning of “to stray from the right course” but is often used in an ethical sense, indicating a life that is not in accordance with moral prescriptions. So what is it that makes most of the People of Scripture hostile and departing from the right way? Islamic Interpretations Muqātil ibn Sulaymān tells us that a large group of people came to Muhammad in order to question him about his faith in the Prophets. Muhammad answered with the words of Q.2:136: “We believe in God and what was sent down to us and what was sent down to Abraham and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes; and what was given to Moses, and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction between them and we are to Him submissive.” Yet when he mentioned the name of Jesus, son of Mary, they rejected his prophethood and said: “we do not believe in Jesus, nor in one who believes in him.”100 After this, Muqātil gives a second story in which Jews are quoted as saying to the believers: “we know not one from the people of these religions who is less lucky in this world and the next than you.”101 Al-Wāḥidī gives a similar story in his Asbāb al-Nuzūl, but in his version the group of Jews adds, “nor do we know of any other religion which is more evil than yours.”102 The context provided by these stories is that a group of Jews shows some interest in what Muhammad has to say in as far as it confirms their faith in the prophets of Israel, yet they refuse to accept Jesus and the people who believe in him, and that is why they disagree with Muhammad who asserts that no distinction shall be made between the prophets. Since the believers seem to accept the possibility of prophethood even after Jesus, their religion is dismissed as worse even than the religion of the Christians. This would explain the hostility of the People of Scripture toward those who accept later prophets not only as endorsement of previous revelations but also as having authority over them.  TMS 1:308 (on Q.5:59).  TMS 1:309 (on Q.5:60). 102  WAN 96 (on Q.5:59). 100 101



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

219

Sayyid Quṭb interprets the words “most of you are astray” as one of the reasons why the People of Scripture are hostile toward the believers: “Transgression motivates the transgressor to try to find fault with those who are keen to follow Divine instructions and not to violate God’s orders.”103 The other reason for the hostility is that Muslims refuse to follow the Jewish and Christian traditions, referring to Q.2:120, “Jews and Christians will not be pleased with you unless you follow their faith.”104 Ṭabātabā’ī says that the basic point of dissent between the believers and the People of Scripture is that the believers do not differentiate between the revealed Scriptures, while the People of Scripture believe in some but disbelieve in others, according to Q.3:72, “we believe in the first part of the day, and disbelieve at the end of it.”105 The Study Quran, finally, endorses the interpretation given by Muqātil and al-Wāḥidī, according to which the verse is addressed to a group of Jews “who broke with the Prophet because of his affirmation of the prophethood of Jesus.”106 Christian Resonances This is one of the many verses in which the term “People of Scripture” turns out to be mainly associated with Jews, and only tangentially with Christians. Usually the Qur’ān is more critical of Jews than of Christians, but this difference is especially noticeable in Q.5:82 in which Jews are decribed as “most hostile” and Christians as “closest in affection” to the believers, “because they are not arrogant.” While that particular verse will be discussed later in this chapter, it is important to reflect on some possible reasons for the specific hostility toward Jews in this surah. The fact that sūrat al-mā’ida is unanimously considered to be one of the last surahs to be revealed may explain its particular hostility as reflective of a growing tension between the group of the believers and a number of the Jewish tribes in Medina. So the differentiation between (hostile) Jews and (humble) Christians might reflect a local situation in which Jews had much more socio-political power than Christians, even though the end of the period of revelations in Medina also forms the beginning of preparations for battle against the outposts of the Byzantine Empire.107  QSQ 4:169.  QSQ 4:166-67. 105  ṬbM (on Q.3:57-66), accessed online on December 2, 2016. 106  SQ 309 (on Q.5:59). 107  DMB 35; 96. 103 104

220

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The second reason might be that Christians are perceived as more spiritual and more prone to conversion to Islam as Q.5:83 (MA) seems to suggest: “when they come to understand what has been bestowed from on high upon this Apostle, thou canst see their eyes overflow with tears, because they recognize something of its truth; [and] they say: ‘O our Sustainer! We do believe; make us one, then, with all who bear witness to the truth’.” It is remarkable that Christians seem to be perceived as spiritually inclined individuals whose Trinitarian faith apparently forms no obstacle for becoming witnesses to truth. However, the verse under discussion here seems to suggest a third reason why Christians might be less severely criticized than Jews: they accept more prophets than Jews and are therefore closer to the attitude of the believers who accept all prophets without distinction. That might be the significance of the hadith in Muqātil and al-Wāḥidī that refers to a group of Jews disagreeing with Muhammad because he accepts Jesus as a prophet. Here the Qur’ān echoes a critique that runs through the New Testament and the Christian tradition: because the majority of the Jews at the time of Jesus did not accept his prophethood – and the later claims that were built upon this claim – much of the Christian tradition has an antiJewish bias built into it. I have discussed some of this anti-Judaism in my discussion of the debate between Jesus and a group of Jews according to the Gospel of John earlier in this chapter. At this place I would like to point to a story quite early in the public life of Jesus, as reported by Mark. He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples. When the sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.” So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.108

Jesus returns to his home place, presumably Nazareth, and begins to teach in the synagogue, leaving people to wonder where he got the knowledge to do so. They doubt his ability to say wise things and perform mighty deeds, because they know his profession and his family, and 108

 Mark 6:1-6 (NAB).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

221

therefore cannot accept him as prophet. The Qur’ān displays similar doubts from the people in Mecca concerning the prophethood of Muhammad, yet the early Islamic tradition states that there is one difference: Muhammad was not able to show any miracle, except for the Qur’ān. However, Mark tells us that the same was the case with Jesus: he could not do any mighty deeds because of their unbelief. While Matthew gives the same story in almost exactly the same words (Mt. 13:54-58), Luke has a much more detailed version. For instance, he tells that Jesus stood up to read in the synagogue and was given the haftarah from the prophet Isaiah. Jesus reads “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.”109 What makes the scene in Luke much more dramatic is that Jesus sits down and says: “Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” The audience reacts with some enthusiasm, yet Jesus tells them that a prophet is not honored in his native place.110 Because of this refusal to cater to local needs, the amazement turns into fury and the people drive Jesus out of town and want to throw him from a hill. In Luke’s Gospel this story serves to identify Jesus as a Prophet who is not accepted by his own people, while foreshadowing the movement of the Church from the Jews toward the Gentiles as described by Luke in the book of Acts. In a comparative reading, the hostility of the people in the synagogue can be seen as analogous to the hostility of the People of Scripture in Q.5:59 because the prophet asserts that true belief in God is not limited to “what has been sent down before” but can extend itself beyond the boundaries of the people graced by God’s revelation. True belief asserts that God is able to reveal God’s guidance not only to the ahl al-kitāb (Jews and Christians) but also to the ummiyyūn (those without a kitāb). Q.5:60-64 address the hostility of the people of Scripture; if they are hostile toward the true believers, God will be even more hostile toward them, and will punish them severely.111 Transgression of dietary laws or  Isaiah 61:1-2a as quoted in Luke 4:18-19 (NAB).  Luke 4:26-27; he presses the point by referring to prophets Elijah and Elisha who were sent not to their own people but to a widow in Zarephat and to Naaman the Syrian. See I Kings 17:9 and II Kings 5:10. 111  Q.5:60 contains the enigmatic phrase that God has turned some of them into apes and swine because they worshiped evil deities. See the commentary on Q.4:51 in chapter six of this book. 109 110

222

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

monetary matters (Q.5:62-63), and miserliness (Q.5:64) are signs of this unbelief.112 This miserliness is expressed in the metaphor “God’s hand is shackled!” to which the Qur’ān replies that “[i]t is their own hands that are shackled; and rejected [by God] are they because of this their assertion. Nay, but wide are His hands stretched out: He dispenses [bounty] as He wills.”113 The main point in this verse is that God is free to bestow bounty – spiritual or material – because “his hands are outstretched.” 5:65  and

if the people of scripture had believed and were watchful we would pardon them their misdeeds and admit them to the gardens of felicity 5:66  and if they had upheld the torah and the gospel, and what was sent down from their lord, they would eat from what is above them and what is under their feet; among them is a community that steers a middle course but for many of them it is bad what they do. 5:67  you prophet, communicate what has been sent down to you from your lord, and if you do not do it, you do not convey your lord’s message and god protects you from the people, since god does not guide people who are unbelievers. 68  Say: people of scripture, you have nothing to stand on unless you uphold the torah and the gospel and what was sent down to you from your lord. And what has been sent down to you from your lord will increase many of them in oppression and unbelief; do not be distressed over people who are unbelievers. 112  SQ refers to Q.5:42 where the same words “consume what is unlawful” are used, and notes that this refers not to food but to illegal financial gain (following TJJ 103). 113  Q.5:64a (MA). In my commentary on Q.3:70 I have used ‘Allamah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s interpretation of this verse as a reference to God’s ability to bestow new revelation on other people; according to this interpretation, the metaphor “God’s hand is shackled” claims that God is bound to the covenant with the Jewish people, and not able to extend His grace to other peoples. However, it seems that this is a minority voice in the tafsīr tradition. The majority interprets the metaphor as referring to miserliness or niggardliness in a material sense: it reflects a situation in which Jews boast of their material prosperity while they mock the Muslims for their poverty. In this manner, they connect this verse with Q.3:181 where the Jews are quoted as boasting, “God is poor while we are rich.” See WAN 63 (on Q.3:181), as quoted in chapter five. Also, Michael A. Sells, “Finhās of Medina: Islam, ‘the Jews,’ and the Construction of Religious Militancy”, in: Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts, ed. J. Renard (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012), 101-34, at 114-15.



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

223

69  Those who believe and those who are jews, and the sabians, and those who are christians: who believes in god and the last day and who does good – no fear is upon them and not will they grieve.

Explanatory Notes The third passage – Q.5:65-71 in Cuypers’s analysis – widens the focus to the People of Scripture once more. They are mentioned explicitly in Q.5:65 and Q.5:68, and included separately – as Jews and Christians, together with the Sabians – in the list of people who may be saved in Q.5:69. However, the passage begins with a conditional construction, expressing an unlikely event in the past: if only the People of Scripture had believed and feared God, God would “cover” their misdeeds, and admit them to heaven. Q.5:66 adds: if they had persisted in the Torah and the Gospel and in what was revealed from God, they would profit from above and beneath them.114 Yet there is a distinction that will be explained in the Islamic Interpretations: among the People of Scripture, there is a community that steers a middle course (muqtaṣid, from qaṣada VIII, “to adopt a middle course”; “to be economical, frugal”) but most of them do commit evil. After a verse in which the prophet is told to convey the message since God will protect him from the unbelievers, Q.5:68 comes back to the situation of the People of Scripture. They have nothing to stand on (lastum ‘alā shay’in: “you are not on anything”) unless they uphold Torah and Gospel and what was sent down by God – the same series of three revelations mentioned in Q.5:66. Again a distinction is added: what was sent down by God will increase many of them in oppression (ṭughyān) and unbelief (kufr), which repeats the message that revelation causes increase in oppression and unbelief (Q.5:64b). Finally, Q.5:69 strikes a more positive note – almost identical to Q.2:62 – for those among the believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabians who believe in God and the Last Day, and who do good: they will have no fear and no reason to be sad. Islamic Interpretations The only elucidation that Tafsīr Mujāhid gives on these verses is a story that explains the origin of the phrase “and God protects you from the people” in verse 67b.115 114  The Qur’ān does not explain what “above and beneath” means here, but the tafsīr tradition associates this with spiritual and worldly benefits. 115  TMJ  69 n. 347 (on Q.5:66). The story, narrated by Abu Hurayra, tells that Muhammad was travelling with a number of his companions and that he went to rest

224

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Tafsīr Muqātil discusses Q.5:65-66, 67-68, and 69-74 separately. Q.5:65 is about the Jews and the Christians; “upholding the Torah and the Gospel” means “performing what is said in these two books about stoning and adultery and similar matters, and not changing the words from their places.”116 The Study Qur’an adds that the word “believe” (āmanū) must refer to belief in the Qur’ān and the prophethood of Muhammad.117 With reference to Q.5:66, Muqātil states that “upholding the Gospel” refers to the description of Muhammad (na‘at muḥammad), and “upholding the Torah” refers to the description of Muhammad, but also to the matter of stoning and retribution.118 Upholding “what was sent down from your Lord” refers to believing the descriptions of Muhammad in Torah and Gospel without changing them. ‘Allamah Ṭābāṭabā’ī says that “what was sent down from your Lord” cannot refer to the Qur’ān, but must refer to other Scriptures sent down by God, such as the Scripture sent to David.119 The Study Quran adds that this verse indicates the importance for Jews and Christians of following their own Scriptures.120 Muqātil gives an interesting exegesis of “eat from what is above them and what is beneath their feet”: it refers to rain and plants. Sayyid Quṭb, in contrast, interprets “from above and from below” as referring to spiritual and worldly rewards.121 The Study Quran also gives a spiritual interpretation, adding that nourishment “from beneath their feet” comes under the shade of a tree. A Bedouin came, took Muhammad’s sword and asked him: “Who will protect you from me?” Muhammad replied: “God will protect me from you, so lay down the sword,” and the man did so. This is the occasion on which God revealed “God protects you from the people”. 116  TMS 1:311 (on Q.5:65-66). For the matter of stoning and adultery, compare WAN on Q.5:41-47, quoted earlier in this chapter; for “changing the letters from their places,” see Q.5:13 and 5:41. 117  SQ 312 (on Q.5:65). It mentions Q.2:103 and Q.7:96 as parallels, and adds that the word “believe” “can sometimes be used in a more general sense, as in Q.2:62 and 5:69, but it usually includes only those who believe in all revealed Scriptures and prophets, including Muhammad and the Qur’ān. 118  The word used here is dimā’, the plural of damm (“blood”); in a later technical sense the plural gets the meaning of “homicide”, but here it is probably a reference to the ius talionis prescribed in Q.5:45. 119  TbM (on Q.5:57-66), accessed on December 10, 2016. 120  Some interpreters see the addition of “what has been sent down from your Lord” as meaning that they need to uphold the Qur’ān as well, implying that they should follow what is endorsed in the Qur’ān and refrain from what is forbidden by the Qur’ān; others state that “what has been sent down” can refer to other Scriptures such as the book of Daniel that is in the Hebrew Scriptures but not in the Torah. SQ 312 (on Q.5:66). 121  QSQ 4:177.



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

225

from their own Scriptures, while nourishment “from above” comes from the Qur’ān that brings spiritual nourishment both directly (rain) and indirectly (reviving their own scriptures).122 The “community that steers a middle course” is identified in Tafsīr Muqātil as the “people of fairness in their speech” (‘aṣabat ‘ādilati fī qawlihā) from among the believers of the People of Torah and Gospel. They are identified as Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions from among the People of Torah, and those who were in the faith of Jesus, son of Mary, from among the People of the Gospel: thirty-two people in total.123 Ibn Kathīr draws attention to a parallel, describing “a group among the people of Moses who guide with truth, and who act justly according to it”; with regard to the followers of Jesus, he refers to a parallel as well: “We gave a reward to those of them who believed.”124 The Study Quran, translating umma muqtaṣida as “a moderate community,” gives the interpretation of al-Ṭabarī and al-Rāzī, who say that the expression refers “to those People of the Book who neither exaggerate the station of Jesus by considering him to be the son of God (as do the Christians) nor underestimate his spiritual rank by refusing to consider him a prophet of God (as do the Jews); rather, they see him as a Divinely sent prophet, as he is presented in the Quran.” It does not mean, however, that they have become Muslims.125 In his commentary on “communicate what has been sent down to you” (Q.5:67), Muqātil says that Muhammad invited the Jews to Islam, but they mocked him and said: “do you want us to give you affection as the Christians gave Jesus, son of Mary?” Thereupon Muhammad became silent, but God told him not to be afraid to continue his message because God will protect him.126 The Study Quran connects this verse with the lengthy and critical discussion of the People of Scripture in this surah, and suggests “that the message the Prophet may have been hesitant to convey is the criticism of these other religious communities.”127  SQ 312-13 (on Q.5:66).  TMS 311 (on Q.5:66); The Tafsīr attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās adds a few more names here: Baḥīrā the monk; the Negus and his followers, and Salman the Persian and his fellows. Yet the majority of them were evildoers, and again the Tafsīr adds six names of well-known Jewish adversaries (Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās at altafsir.com, accessed on December 8, 2016). 124  TIK 3:226 with reference to Q.7:159 and Q.57:27 (AH). 125  SQ 313 (on Q.5:66). 126  TMS 1:311-12 (on Q.5:67). 127  SQ 313 (on Q.5:67), with reference to al-Ṭabarī. 122

123

226

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Ibn Kathīr explains “you have nothing to stand on” in Q.5:68 as: you have no real religion until you adhere to and implement the Tawrāh and the Injīl. That is, until you believe in all the Books that you have that Allāh revealed to the Prophets. These Books command following Muhammad (saw) and believing in his prophecy, all the while adhering to his Law.128

Sayyid Quṭb sees Q.5:68 as a message to the People of Scripture about their true situation: since they have “nothing to stand on until they have implemented the Torah and the Gospel” and “until they have adopted the final religion as a logical consequence of their implementation of their Scriptures,” they “cannot be described as followers of a Divine faith and they do not have a religion acceptable to God.”129 Confronting them with this message will make them increase in their arrogance and their disbelief. This is a hard but clear message that implies that Muslims can never have an alliance with the People of Scripture – or with nominal Muslims, for that matter. Muhammad is enjoined in verse 67 to preach this message in all its fullness, knowing that God will protect him against the resistant unbelievers.130 Finally, commenting on verse 69, Muqātil makes a very important restriction: “if someone believed and performed the duties before Muhammad is sent, the garden is his; but if he holds on to them after Muhammad, there is no faith unless one accepts Muhammad. So the sending of Muhammad establishes a separation between the works.”131 Ibn Kathīr explains similarly: they will have no fear only if they conform to Muhammad’s Law.132 Sayyid Quṭb says that no religion will be accepted except the religion that includes belief in Prophet Muhammad. Other religions might have been acceptable until the coming of the Prophet, but after his coming, only the religion of Islam is accepted.133 Yet the Study Quran draws the opposite conclusion because Q.5:69 is revealed in the middle of severe criticism of the People of Scripture. This present verse, however, situated as it is within a sūrah largely devoted to the People of the Book, and within a long section that discusses the People of the Book critically, represents one of the most important Quranic  TIK 3:231.  QSQ 4:192-93. 130  Ibid., 194-95. 131  TMS 1:313 (on Q.5:69). He also explains that the name naṣārā for Christians is derived from the village of Nāṣara (Nazareth), and that the Sabians were a group of Christians who inclined (ṣaba’a; the verb is used to explain the name ṣābi’ūn) toward the religion of Noah; yet they were mistaken because the religion of Noah is Islam. 132  TIK 3:232 (on Q.5:69). 133  QSQ 4:96-97 (on Q.5:69). 128 129



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

227

affirmations of the potential of those outside the Muslim community to achieve salvation. (…) This verse, along with v.5, which allows intermarriage between Muslim men and People of the Book, and v.48, which indicates that God has ordained more than one religious “law” and “way,” argues for the continued validity of Judaism, Christianity, and by extension other Divinely revealed religions, despite the strong criticism of certain Jewish and Christian doctrines and practices found here and elsewhere in the Quran.134

In his analysis of the passage Q.5:65-71, Michel Cuypers observes that Q.5:69 forms its center and therefore has a more universal message than the verses surrounding it.135 He explains the apparent tension between the universal message of Q.5:69 and the surrounding verses by appealing to a custom in Semitic rhetorics that singles out the center of a ring construction because it often contains a general theological truth in contrast to the particular situations alluded to in the surrounding verses.136 Even though the tafsīr tradition limits the application of Q.5:69, Muslim theologians such as Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) and exegetes such as Rashid Riḍā and Ṭabāṭabā’ī give the verse the universal application that its obvious meaning suggests.137 What is more, in his analysis of the entire section A (Q.5:1-71), Cuypers shows that verses 48 and 69 have a similar place in the second and third sub-sections, together with verse 23 for the first sub-section. While Q.5:23 contains a clear affirmation for the victorious nature of Islam, the two other verses state that adherents of other religions have their place in God’s design for salvation as well. One final quotation from Cuypers: “These three solemn declarations express the tension of what might be a Qur’anic theology of religions – an invitation to convert to Islam, ‘mission’ (da‘wa) or living alongside other religions, in ‘dialogue’ – to use modern categories.”138 Christian Resonances Two specific themes in the Christian scriptures resonate with what the Qur’ān says about the People of Scripture in these verses. The first is the seeming contradiction that God’s revelation leads to disunity rather than  SQ 314-15 (on Q.5:69).  CB 300. He also connects the words about the “moderate community” in Q.5:66 with “those who believe in God and the Last Day and who do good” in Q.5:69. 136  CB 303. See also his description in Cuypers, The Composition of the Qur’an: Rhetorical Analysis (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 109-31. 137  CB 301-2. 138  CB 321. 134 135

228

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

unity; the second is the discussion about the remaining relevance of earlier commandments under a new revelation. Both themes have been addressed in the New Testament in a way that resonates strongly with the qur’ānic discussion of these themes. Q.5:68b says that “what has been sent down to you from your Lord will increase many of them in oppression and unbelief.” Many places in the Qur’ān discuss the events of earlier prophets who were sent to different nations, yet these nations were not willing to listen and obey the messages. This genre of qur’ānic prophetic stories is often summarized under the category of the “punishment stories.”139 The theological problem that arises here is that God, in bestowing revelation on human beings, seems to bring greater disunity between them. For instance, in Q.2:213 – discussed in the third chapter – the Qur’ān states that God sent prophets with guidance, but the people disagreed because of their rivalry after the clear signs had come to them. Using the theological register of guidance the Qur’ān sets out to explain the mystery that not all people follow God’s message. In the New Testament, Saint Paul reflects on a very similar mystery when he discusses the fact that God’s gift of the Law (Torah, often translated as “guidance” as well) to the Jewish people did not seem to diminish their human state of imperfection. In contrast to the Qur’ān, Paul uses the theological register of death and sinfulness to explain this mystery, which serves as a black foil against which the light of the new life brought in Christ can shine. This is the background of the famous juxtaposition between Adam, the first human being who brought death in this world, and Christ, the new human being who brought life. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. In conclusion, just as through one transgression came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.140 139  See David Marshall, “Punishment Stories”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. Jane D. McAuliffe, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill), 318-22. See also Marshall, God, Muhammad, and the Unbelievers. 140  Romans 5:17-20 (NAB).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

229

The most remarkable theological construction that Paul makes here is that “the law entered in so that transgression might increase”; while this is the necessary foil for Paul to say that in Christ grace has increased over against human sinfulness, he reckons with the theological mystery that a gift from God might lead to greater sin, just as the Qur’ān reckons that God’s guidance in Scripture might lead to greater disagreement and rivalry. In this sense, both the Qur’ān and Paul try to distinguish the traces of God’s guiding hand in the crooked lines of human history characterized by disunity and rivalry. A second element of the text that may receive a strong Christian resonance is the remaining validity of Tawrāt and Injīl for Jews and Christians. As we saw, some mufassirūn interpreted “upholding Torah and Gospel” (Q.5:66.68) in such a way that their value remains for Jews and Christians, while others stated that other religions are no longer valid after the coming of the last Prophet. In the Christian theology of religions, these points of view are labeled as inclusivism and exclusivism respectively. While the new revelation to prophet Muhammad supersedes the old revelations, the inclusivist stance holds that they maintain some value, while the exclusivist stance denies any lasting value of the older revelations. The early Christian community has developed similar views with respect to the commandments of the Jewish law for Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ. The debate between the two main protagonists in early Christianity, James and Paul, is reported in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. The conclusion of this so-called Council of Jerusalem is given in the following statement: It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right.141

This means that gentiles who wanted to become Christians only needed to act in accordance with the so-called Noahide laws, but they did not need to share the halakha of the Mosaic laws. This was determined against those who said that it was necessary to be circumcised according to the Mosaic practice in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). The tendency to not burden people who want to follow Christ with unnecessary ordinances and to limit the obligations to the Noahide laws is in keeping with the general tendency of the New Testament to celebrate the new  Acts 15:28-29 (NAB).

141

230

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

freedom brought through Jesus Christ. The Qur’ān recognizes this tendency in the Injīl by having Jesus say the following: “I have come to confirm the truth of the Torah which preceded me, and to make some things lawful to you which used to be forbidden.”142 Conversely, the Qur’ān sees the Torah as a revelation that implies quite a few prohibitions which it conceives as punishments: “For the wrongdoings done by the Jews, We forbade them certain good things that had been permitted to them before.”143 In between these tendencies, the Muslim community is commended as a “moderate community” (Q.2:143). While Christians may be less strict than other groups in observing the commandments of the Law, they are certainly more rigorous in other aspects such as their asceticism but most importantly in the elevated position that they give to Jesus. This is the central topic in the second section of the surah that, according to Cuypers’s analysis addresses Christians in order to convince them of their errors and to invite them to enter the covenant.144 5:77 Do not exaggerate in your religion 5:77  Say: people of scripture, do not exaggerate in your religion without the truth and do not follow the fancies of a people that has erred before they have caused many to err and have erred from the straight way

The first passage (Q.5:72-77) of this second section of sūrat al-mā’ida contains a series of polemical statements that try to convince Christians of their errors. Q.5:72-73 construe two forms of disbelief in opposition to the true faith of Jesus. Those who say, “God is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have defied God. The Messiah himself said, “Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” … Those people who say that God is third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God.145

These two expressions are, from a Christian mainstream perspective, somewhat strange. In the first expression, the order of subject and  Q.3:50a (AH).  Q.4:160a (AH). See also Q.3:93. 144  CB 52. The second section encompasses Q.5:72-120. 145  Q.5:72-73 part (AH). 142 143



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

231

­ redicate seems to be reversed: while it would be correct to say “Jesus p Messiah is God,” saying “God is Jesus Messiah” is less correct. The second expression, “God is the third of three,” is somewhat strange as well, since being the third of the three divine persons would in the grammar of Christian Trinitarian theology be appropriated to the Spirit, yet there is no indication that the Spirit is meant here. While it is not impossible that some of these expressions reflect a liturgical usage of Syriac Christians, it makes more sense to recognize the rhetorical power of such expressions in qur’ānic polemics.146 The Qur’ān construes a sharp contrast between these Christian expressions and Jesus’s own witness, “worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” The last sequence of this surah will deepen this contrast in an exchange between God and Jesus in which God questions Jesus about the expression “take me and my mother as two gods alongside God” and Jesus explicitly denies ever having said such a thing but instead repeats once more “worship God, my Lord and your Lord.”147 Against this divinization of Jesus and Mary, Q.5:75 repeats once more that they are human beings who acted like other human beings. At the conclusion of this passage, Q.5:77 once more addresses the People of Scripture. Explanatory Notes Because of the context, it seems likely that the expression “People of Scripture” mainly refers to Christians in this passage. This is confirmed by the fact that the incitement to “not exaggerate in your religion” (lā taghlū fī dīnikum) has also been used in sūrat al-nisā’ (Q.4:171) in a very similar context (“do not say, ‘three’.”) In both cases, the main problem seems to be that Christians declare Jesus to be God next to God, and thus induce a plurality in God, which is against the basic qur’ānic teaching of tawḥīd (professing only one God).148 The problem, however, is not in the numbers but in the deviation from the true faith brought by Jesus, son of 146  See Sidney Griffith, “Christians and Christianity,” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 1 (Brill: Leiden, 2001), 307-16, at 313; Sirry, Scriptural Polemics, 47-48. 147  Q.5:116-17. SQ 316 (on Q.5:72) remarks that the closest parallel to the words “my Lord and your Lord” can be found in the Gospel of John 20:17. The same expression said by Jesus also in Q.3:51, 5:117, 19:36, 43:64. See also Accad, “The Ultimate Proof-Text”. 148  This plurality might be more manifest if saying “three” could be attributed to a very specific group of Christians who lived in Najrān, viz. Philoponian Monophysites who could represent a form of tritheism (Block, The Qur’an in Christian-Muslim Dialogue, 43).

232

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Mary. In other words: the tendency to exaggerate shows that Christians are no longer true to the revelation brought them by Jesus, who was a faithful prophet and therefore could never have asserted his divinity (Q.5:116). If my analysis is correct, it would explain why Christians are addressed as “People of Scripture” here, since this term refers to the revelation that they have received. It is to this revelation that they have been unfaithful – in contrast to Jesus who, as a true Prophet, remained faithful. The term “People of Scripture” also connects the Christians to the Children of Israel who have been unfaithful before. This is why they “follow the fancies of a people that has erred before.”149 What is worse, they did not only err from the straight way, but caused others to err as well. Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Mujāhid gives two short annotations: it asserts that “the people who say that god is the third of three” (Q.5:73) refers to the Christians (al-naṣārā), and that those who “have erred from the straight way” (Q.5:77) are the Jews (al-yahūd).150 Tafsīr Muqātil distinguishes between the different groups of Christians addressed in these verses. Saying, “God is the Messiah, son of Mary” is attributed to the Christians from Najrān who were Jacobites. Saying, “God is the third of three,” by contrast, is attributed to the Melkites.151 Q.5:76-77, however, are again addressed to the Christians of Najrān. “Do not exaggerate in your religion” is interpreted as “do not stray from the religion of Islam” by speaking “without the truth” about Jesus, son of Mary. Finally, the words “have erred from the straight way” mean that they missed the way of guidance on purpose.152 The Tafsīr al-Jalālayn argues that “People of Scripture” refers to both Jews and Christians, and therefore “do not exaggerate in your religion” must refer to Christians who give Jesus a higher place than truth permits, and to Jews who give him a lower place.153 Sayyid Quṭb draws attention to the words “follow the desires of a people that has erred before” and connects these words with the desires 149  The word ahwā’a is usually translated as “desires”, yet I prefer “fancies” (or “whims” or “caprices”) because the verb hawā is strongly associated with a lack of consistency and therefore it can be associated with tumbling, falling, but also loving and gliding in an air current. 150  TMJ 69 n. 349-350. 151  TMS 1:313-14 (on Q.5:72-73). 152  TMS 1:315 (on Q.5:77). 153  TJJ 107 (on Q.5:77).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

233

of the Roman rulers and the clerical synods. Their desires are in marked contrast with the true faith of Jesus. Consequently, because of these errors, “it is not open to any Muslim to consider such people as following a Divine faith.”154 There can be no alliance between Muslims and these Christians, or any form of mutual support against atheism. Al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī interprets the words lā taghlū as “be not unduly immoderate.” He connects this verse with Q.9:30-31 where Jews are quoted as saying, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” and Christians as saying “the Messiah is the son of Allah.” He admits that this belief is not found nowadays in Jewish communities, but it was part of the honor that the Jews gave to Ezra who brought them back after the Babylonian captivity, and rewrote the Torah after it had got lost.155 The Jews, however, did not take this expression literally, but they considered it an honorific title, even as the Christians nowadays call their priests and bishops “Father.” The Study Quran, finally, points to Q.4:171 as a text in which the command to “not exaggerate in your religion” is addressed to the People of Scripture, but specifically to Christians. The commentary gives two possible interpretations of “a people that has erred before”: this might refer to the Jews who rejected the prophethood of Christ, or it might refer to early Christian leaders who initiated the Christological and Trinitarian errors.156 Christian Resonances When Q.5:77 is read in its context, the invitation to “not exaggerate in your religion” addressed to the People of Scripture must be interpreted as directed at Christians who ascribe partners unto God by making Jesus (or Mary) a deity next to God, while Jesus himself clearly rejects such an assumption. In the Christian resonances to the “common word” verse (Q.3:64) we have already seen that mainstream Christians will not agree with the description of their faith in Jesus as Son of God as taking him as Lord “alongside” God or “other than” God (min dūni llāhi, Q.5:76), since for them the Son is one in being with the Father and thus no second lordship or deity is introduced. Catholics will, however, certainly agree with Q.5:75 in saying that Mary was “a righteous one” (ṣiddīqatun) and that both Jesus and Mary ate food, implying that they were human beings. The  QSQ 4:204.  TbM on Q.5:68-85 (accessed on Jan. 30, 2017). 156  SQ 317 (on Q.5:77), with reference to al-Ṭabarī for the first interpretation, and to Ibn Kathīr and al-Zamakhsharī for the second. 154 155

234

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

title “righteous one” is probably connected to Mary’s status as the virgin mother of a prophet, and thus, being truthful, she could never have suggested a divine status, even as Jesus could never have suggested this for himself and for his mother, according to Q.5:116-18. Though a superficial interpretation of the title theotokos or “God-bearing” might lead one to surmise a divine status for Mary, such an interpretation would ignore the Christological basis of this title: because the human and the divine nature of Christ are united in the very being of Christ (in technical terms: hypostasis or suppositum), the human and the divine properties of Christ can be spoken about as interchangeable. This so-called communicatio idiomatum may lead to statements that seem strange such as “God is man” or “a human being is God.”157 In a similar way, we can say that “God has suffered on the cross,” and by extension that “Mary is the mother of God,” since the human nature that was born from the virgin Mary and that died on the cross is hypostatically united with the divine nature, and therefore what can be said of the human nature can, according to the rules of the interchangeability of the properties, be said of the divinity as well. What exactly do Christians (and maybe Jews) do when they “exaggerate in their religion”? According to Q.5:77, they “follow the fancies of people who have erred before.” Exaggerating in religion means adding something fanciful to what should be straight and simple. The opposition here is between the true faith of the prophets and the fancies of their followers. The true faith of Prophet Jesus is summarized in Q.5:72 and Q.5:117 as “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord” (a‘budū llāha rabbī wa-rabbakum). The command to worship the only God who is the Lord of Prophet Jesus and of his followers is the norm of the true faith; anything that goes beyond that is exaggeration. The Study Quran notices: The only parallel in the Gospel to the words attributed to Jesus in this verse is found in John 20:17, where Jesus refers to God as ‘my father and your father,’ although this is not in the context of a command to worship God, as it is in the Quran, and the conception of God as ‘father,’ as noted elsewhere, is problematic from a Quranic perspective (see, e.g., 5:18, where Jews and Christians are criticized for their claim to be the ‘children of God’).158

The Study Quran is right: even though there might be a parallel between the Gospel and the Qur’ān, the expression “my Father” in the Gospel is different from “my Lord” in the Qur’an since it signifies a different type 157 158

 See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III q.16 a.1.  SQ 316 (on Q.5:72).



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

235

of relationship. In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary Magdalene: “Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”159 In the Qur’ān, Jesus refers to “my Lord and your Lord,” and the kind of relationship with the Lord is expressed by the verb ‘abada (“to serve, to worship”). In the New Testament, Jesus refers to “my Father and your Father” and “my God and your God” in a way that expresses a more intimate relationship. When Mary Magdalene uses the word “Lord,” she expresses some intimacy as well in saying “they have taken my Lord;” John quotes her words in Hebrew when she recognizes him: Rabbuni, which is from the same root as the Arabic rabbī, even though John translates it as “teacher” in Greek.160 The argument of a greater intimacy in the New Testament between God and human beings might have been misused in history to oppose Christianity as a religion of love to Judaism and Islam as religions of fear, yet it seems to fit here because it explains why the Qur’ān accuses Christians of exaggerating in their religion: they claim to be in a more intimate relationship with God, because God became a human being. Consequently, Christians tend to display greater familiarity and intimacy when speaking about their relationship with God. Christ is not only Son of God, but he has also made it possible for Christians to become children of God. This is expressed by Saint Paul in a quite lyrical passage in his letter to the Romans: For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, Father!” The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.161

This is a good example of the boldness of speech (parrhèsia in Greek), which characterized the first Christians, according to the Acts of the Apostles.162 John gives another example of such boldness that might indeed be perceived as excessive by others. Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God. We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us. God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. In this is love brought to perfection among us, that we have  John 20:17 (NAB).  See John 20:13 and 20:16. 161  Romans 8:14-17 (NAB). 162  See Acts 4:13.29.31 and Ephesians 6:19. 159

160

236

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

c­ onfidence on the day of judgment because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love. We love because he first loved us.163

The last sentence is important to indicate the origin of this boldness: God loved us first. Christians can experience the freedom of children of God because they have become co-heirs with Christ. In other words: because God sent the Son to become a human being, Christians have become children of God, not by nature but by adoption.164 In this way Thomas Aquinas explains the saying “My Father and your Father”: by adoption, we are made brothers and sisters of Christ, yet Christ is Son of God by nature, whereas we are children of God by adoption.165 5:82 Devoted to Learning and Not Arrogant After the critique of Christians and their errors in the first passage (Q.5:72-77), the second passage (Q.5:78-86) seems to take an unexpected turn by praising Christians while speaking more negatively about Jews.166 The contrast is introduced in Q.5:78 by two prophets, David and Jesus, son of Mary, who rejected (or “cursed”, la‘ana) the children of Israel because of their disobedience and their wrongdoings. The term “children of Israel” (banū Isrā’īl) refers to the Jews of old, but Jews contemporary to the Prophet are incriminated as well because they make common cause with unbelievers (Q.5:80). Contemporary Jews (al-yahūd) and those who associate (ashrakū) are designated as “severest in hostility toward those who believe” in Q.5:82. In contrast, those who say, “we are Christians” (innā naṣārā) are designated as being the “closest in affection” (aqrab mawaddatan “most near in love, friendship”) to the ­believers. The reason for this close relationship is given in the last part of Q.5:82: among them are qissīsīn and ruhbānan, often translated as “priests and monks.”167 As elsewhere, such a way of life is associated with  I John 4:15-19 (NAB).  See Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III q.23 a.3, quoting Romans 8:17. 165  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III q.23 a.2 ad 2. 166  CB 329. 167  The first word is derived from a verb (qassa) that has the meaning “to seek, to aspire”, while the latter comes from a verb (rahiba) meaning “fearing God”. In later parlance, the two words were used for specific religious functions among Christians: priests and monks. In both cases, the words express a God-centered way of life. Holger 163 164



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

237

humility: they are “not arrogant” (lā yastakbirūna, “they do not consider themselves great”).168 Q.5:83 continues: and when they listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears because they recognize the Truth [in it]. They say, “Our Lord, we believe, so count us amongst the witnesses.”169

The Islamic tradition of interpretation suggests a context similar to that in Āl ‘Imran (Q.3:199), viz. the asylum granted to a group of early believers by the Negus of Abyssinia on the basis of his faithful recognition of the Qur’ān. In both cases, a positive text from the Qur’ān suggesting a spiritual affinity between certain Christians and those who accept the message of Prophet Muhamad is interpreted as referring to Christians who converted to Islam.170 On the basis of her research into the tafsīr tradition, Jane McAuliffe suggests three characteristics of such Christians. First, they value learning (associated with the qissīsīn or seekers for knowledge); second, they value devotion (associated with the ruhbānan or God-fearers); third, they are not arrogant, which means that they are open to the truth of the Qur’ān.171 While the first characteristic – seeking knowledge – certainly holds true for Jews as well, attachment to a religious style of life may have been peculiar to Christians in the vicinity of Mecca and Medina. Lack of arrogance is quite often attributed to Christians in the Qur’ān, while it has a habit of characterizing Jews as stubborn and arrogant. The theological reason for this is that they refuse to accept the possibility of a new revelation from God, as we have heard quite often in surahs 2 and 4. The tafsīr ­tradition acknowledges that only a few Jews converted to Islam, while Christians did convert more often.172 Another reason for the trope of Jewish arrogance versus Christian humility may be the political power of the Jewish tribes in Medina in contrast to the lack of such power for Christians.173 Zellentin interprets these terms as indicating religious leadership. See his “Aḥbār and Ruhbān: Religious Leaders in the Qur’ān in Dialogue with Christian and Rabbinic Literature,” in: QST 262-93, at 273. 168  CB 342 translates “they are not puffed up with pride”. 169  Q.5:83 (AH). 170  The Study Quran, however, remarks that there is no historical evidence that the Negus converted to Islam so that the praise would only refer to Christians who converted to Islam: SQ 320 (on Q.5:82-83). 171  Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 238. 172  See, for instance, Rashīd Riḍā as quoted in McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians, 229. 173  On the situation of the Jewish tribes in Medina, see Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, chapters 5-6; Mazuz, The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina.

238

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

It is important to note, however, that the Qur’ān prefers to connect the notions of humility and arrogance with the willingness – or lack thereof – to listen to and be touched by the new revelation sent down to the prophet Muhammad. In that sense, psychological or economic characteristics of adherents of certain religions – most famously the association of Jews with haughtiness and reliance on material possessions – are secondary to the theological purpose of the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture. 5:114 A Feast From Heaven The final sequence (Q.5:109-120) addresses the situation of the Christians once more in a series of dialogues between God and the messengers (Q.5:109), God and Jesus (Q.5:110-111), Jesus and his disciples (Q.5:112-113), and again God and Jesus (114-115 and 116-119).174 The first dialogue is situated on “the day when God gathers the messengers,” which is the Day of Judgment according to the Islamic tradition, when the messengers of God will be asked about the communities that they represent. They will answer that only God has knowledge of the unseen. God then singles out Jesus: God will say, “Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man; how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel.”175

After this reminder of God’s special favors on Jesus and his mother – including teaching him Scripture and wisdom,176 Torah and Gospel – the verse continues by mentioning Jesus’ miracles, qualified by a repeated “by My permission” (bi-idhnī), highlighting the fact that if Jesus showed some special deeds, these were God’s gifts to him and not signs of his divinity as Christians tend to think. This denial of the divinity of Christ will be the central issue in the last dialogue between Jesus and God in Q.5:116-19. 174  On the importance of these dialogues, and Q.5:116-18 in particular, see David Bertaina, Christian and Muslim Dialogues, 46-47. 175  Q.5:110a (AH). 176  The same combination, al-kitāb wa-l ḥikma (“Scripture and wisdom”) is mentioned with respect to Jesus in Q.3:81 and with respect to other prophets in a few other places (for instance Abraham, Q.2:129); the Islamic tradition of interpretation usually explains kitāb as the Scripture given to a messenger, and hikma as the messenger’s knowledge thereof.



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

239

Meanwhile, in Q.5:111 the attention shifts to the disciples (ḥawāriyyūn) of Jesus. As Gabriel Said Reynolds has pointed out, their role in the Qur’ān is ambivalent.177 On the one hand, God inspired the disciples to believe in Him and His messenger, and they respond in kind: “We believe and bear witness that we devote ourselves to God.”178 Yet, even though they are believers and submitted themselves to God, they ask for a sign in the very next verse, which in the Qur’ān usually indicates unbelief. They request that the Lord send a table with food (mā’ida) down from heaven, in order to “eat from it; to have our hearts reassured; to know that you have told us the truth; and to be witnesses of it.”179 Meanwhile, Jesus points them to the meaning of real faith: “Be watchful of God if you are true believers” (Q.5:112b). In this context, these words must be interpreted as a rejection of their request, since true God-consciousness (taqwa) and faith (īmān) do not rest on signs. Nevertheless, Jesus complies with their request, and God promises to send down the mā’ida, yet points out that those who disbelieve after this will be severely punished. The table with food has given its name to the sūrah: al-mā’ida. Even though the dialogue between Jesus and his disciples may seem to concern matters less grave than the dialogue between God and Jesus that follows, the matter of the table with food clearly evokes some Christian resonances, even though these are not very evident. Cuypers remarks that many interpreters have paid attention to apocryphal sources whereas the many allusions to the Gospel of John in Q.5:109-11 have largely gone unnoticed.180 In particular, Cuypers mentions the Bread of Life discourse in John 6:26-34 as an important parallel for Q.5:11215.181 His conclusion is that “given that it repeats a number of things from ch.6 of John’s Gospel, the mā’ida pericope must be read in the light of John’s text.”182 177  Gabriel S. Reynolds, “The Quran and the Apostles of Jesus”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76/2 (June 2013), 209-27. 178  Q.5:111b (AH). 179  Q.5:113 (AH). 180  CB 410. He remarks that allusions to John 6 can be found in Muqātil’s Tafsīr. 181  CB 419-22. See also Reynolds, “The Qur’an and the Apostles of Jesus,” 12. 182  CB 424. This includes some of the sources from the Old Testament for the Bread of Life discourse, such as Psalm 78 and the description of the Jewish Passover in Exodus, even if these sources are read differently in the Qur’ān. TJJ 113 gives a ḥadīth that contains associations with the story of the manna in the desert and the failure to observe the Sabbath (see also Q.7:163-66).

240

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The last dialogue is, like the first, a conversation between God and Jesus on the Day of Judgment.183 This dialogue completes the qur’ānic Christology of this surah in which Jesus testifies against the Christians that he has never claimed that he – together with his mother – should be taken as gods beside God (Q.5:116). The denial of Jesus to ever have said “take me and my mother as two gods beside God” (attachidhūni wa-ummiya ilāhayna min-dūni llāhi) has sometimes been taken to reflect some deviant form of Trinitarian belief in which Jesus would be the divine son of a divine couple.184 Yet again, the Qur’ān does not describe Christian heresies here but construes a Christian position in which Mary receives special veneration (hyperdulia) as the Mother of God or “Godbearing” (Theotokos) as an aberration of the true faith of Jesus, son of Mary. Once again, Jesus claims that he has told the Christians only to “worship God, my Lord and your Lord.”185 In the penultimate verse of Q.5 God acknowledges this profession of faith by Jesus with an emphatic “This is a day when the truthful will profit from their truthfulness” (Q.5:119). In the immediate context of the series of dialogues, the “day” referred to in this verse is the Day of Judgment that leads to Paradise for those who are sincere believers (the “truthful,” ṣādiqūn). Q.5:119 continues to state their destination: the Garden of Paradise, but even more (“that is the supreme triumph”, alfawz al-aẓīm), God’s pleasure or contentment (riḍwān) with them, and their pleasure or contentment with God.186 In the larger context of sūrat al-mā’ida, this triumphant day serves as the ultimate consummation of what started as the completion of the religion in the occupation of Mecca – itself a fulfillment of the Landnahme as described in the Torah – and in Muhammad’s farewell sermon 183  Bertaina (Christian and Muslim Dialogues, 46-47) thinks that the dialogue needs to be situated in the past. I rather follow The Study Quran (336, on Q.5:116) here: “Some assert that God’s questioning of Jesus in this verse took place immediately after his ascension (3:55; 4:158). Yet the verse seems, rather, to bring the discussion back to God’s questioning the prophets, apparently on the Day of Judgment, about how people responded to their messages, as initiated in v.109.” 184  C. Jonn Block (The Qur’an in Christian – Muslim Dialogue, 48) claims that the qur’ānic statement is a “correction of the Monophysite Mariology of Abū Ḥāritha.” He was the bishop of Najrān and the leader of the Christians who debated with Muhammad about Christ according to the “occasion of the revelation” of the third surah (26). 185  See the discussion of Q.5:72 and the possible connection with John 20:17 earlier in this chapter. The same words occur in Q.3:51. 186  See also Q.9:72 and Pim Valkenberg, Renewing Islam By Service: A Christian View of Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015), 162-65.



GOD SENDS CONFIRMATION

241

in the plain of Mount ‘Arafat (“Today I have completed your religion,” Q.5:3).187 At the same time, this completion fulfills not only the frequent “today” of the book of Deuteronomy, but also the proclamation “this is the night” of the Jewish pesach seder and of the Christian Exultet hymn.188 While “this day” for Christians resonates with the joy of Easter day in the famous antiphon used as gradual in the Easter masses and vespers (haec dies quam fecit Dominus, exultemus et laetamur in ea, “this is the day which the Lord has made; let us be glad and rejoice therein”), the promised eschatological connotation of “today” rhymes with what Jesus says to the “penitent criminal” who was crucified together with him: “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”189 Finally, the setting of a dialogue on the Day of Judgment evocates for Christians the resounding significance of Jesus reminding the righteous on his right side that they encountered him and cared for him in “one of these least brothers of mine.”190 In both cases, Jesus bears witness to the truth, but this truth comes unexpectedly for those who trust their religious traditions instead of opening themselves for God’s ever greater glory that is to be found where one would not expect it. Listening to the Qur’ān in consonance with Cuypers’s intertextual and rhetorical suggestions, liturgical Christian resonances became almost overwhelming in the crescendo of this triumphant “today.”191 It might not be a coincidence that this crescendo takes place in these last verses from the penultimate sūrah of the Qur’ān according to the traditional chronology – with the “today I have completed your religion” of Q.5:3 traditionally taken as the ultimate āya to be revealed.192 The triumphant “today” of the complete religion engages Christianity in a triumphalist supersessionism that replaces the major Christian feast that is enacted daily in the Eucharist with the major Muslim feast that goes back to the very beginning: the submission of Abraham and his righteous son to the will of God. Yet, as we start to learn more and more, the qur’ānic supersession of an older religion can only succeed insofar as it both accepts and surpasses the religious evocations of that religion.  CB 85.  See CB 463. 189  Luke 23:43; the words “penitent criminal” are from the commentary in The ­Catholic Study Bible, 1399 (on Luke 23:39-43). 190  Matthew 25:40 part (NAB). 191  For the term “crescendo,” see Nevin Reda, The al-Baqara Crescendo. 192  SQ 274-6 (on Q.5:3). 187 188

242

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The newness of a religious tradition culminates in a liturgical celebration rather than in a reading of texts, and therefore liturgical resonances may be able to provide access to primary religious language that characterizes the singularity of such a tradition better than theological texts. In this sense, reading the Haggadah at the Passover seder or singing the Exultet hymn at the beginning of the Easter vigil may be the best parallel for the recitation of sūrat al-mā’ida.193

193  Marianne Moyaert argues in favor of a liturgical turn in comparative theology on the basis of a similar hermeneutical claim in “Comparative Theology: Between Text and Rite,” in: The Past, Present and Future of Theologies of Interreligious Dialogue, eds. T. Merrigan and J. Friday (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 184-200, at 198.

Chapter Eight

PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE 10:94  If

you are in doubt about what we have sent down to you then ask those who recited the scripture before you to you has come the truth from your lord and you should not be among those who doubt

After the crescendo of Christian resonances to the last verses of the fifth surah, the Christian commentary to texts about the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān continues in this chapter diminuendo to a much lower level because the People of Scripture are not explicitly mentioned between suwar (“surahs”) 6 and 29.1 Yet, as I discussed in chapter two of this commentary, they seem to be referred to as ahl al-dhikr (“People of Remembrance”) in a few important texts that will need to be discussed in this chapter, along with some texts that give additional clues about these people such as the text quoted above about “those who recited the Scripture” before Muhammad. The shape of this Christian commentary in its eleven chapters can be likened to a classical sonata in three parts, covering the 31 explicit references to the People of Scripture as its main musical themes. Most of these themes have been covered in chapters three to seven that discuss 24 explicit references to the ahl al-kitāb in the first four long suwar of the Qur’ān. After this long and intense first part (allegro con brio), a second shorter and less lively part (adagio meno mosso) follows in this chapter, while the third part (allegro vivace) gradually resumes some of the themes of the first part in its discussion in chapters nine to eleven of seven explicit references in five suwar (29, 33, 57, 59, and 98) that are spread out over the remainder of the qur’ānic text. In order to make sense of this discrepancy – 78% of the explicit references in the first 20% of the text, 22% of the references in the last 80% 1  Diminuendo is a musical term indicating decreasing loudness (the opposite of crescendo). Suwar is the plural of the word sūrah in Arabic.

244

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

of the text – I will first take a closer look at the specific characteristics of suwar 2-5 in comparison to the rest of the Qur’ān. Thus far, I have not paid much attention to theories about the chronology of the Qur’ān. Most scholars agree that texts referencing the People of Scripture have their origin in the situation of the first community of the believers in Medina after the hijra in 622 rather than in the time before that in Mecca. This is confirmed by the fact that suwar 2-5 are all believed to be Medinan surahs. The Pakistani Islamic scholar Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (1904-97) has given us two interesting theories to elucidate the coherence of the Qur’ān, after a time in which neither the tafsīr tradition nor Western scholarship seemed to pay much attention to this issue.2 The first theory is that most of the suwar come in couples, and so he describes relationships between the second and the third, and between the fourth and the fifth sūrah. The second theory is that the Qur’ān consists of seven groups of surahs, each consisting of a number of Meccan surahs, followed by a number of Medinan surahs.3 In the case of the first group, surah 1 is Meccan, while suwar 2-5 are Medinan. The second group consists of the Meccan surahs 6-7 and the Medinan surahs 8-9; these will be discussed in this chapter, just like the third group, consisting of the Meccan surahs 10-23 and the Medinan surah 24. Most of the references to the ahl al-dhikr (“People of Remembrance”) will be found in this large Meccan group. 10:1-15:1 The Announcements Before we enter into a discussion of these texts, however, I need to pay attention to a peculiar phenomenon that we find at the beginning of many of the suwar that will be discussed in this chapter, and also in surahs 2 and 3: the muqaṭṭa‘āt or “separated/disconnected/detached letters.” The reason why it is important to look at this matter is that often these detached letters are followed by a reference to Scripture or revelation. Even though the meaning of these detached letters is still unclear, the fact that they are often followed by references to a Scripture may 2  See Farrin, Structure and Qur’anic Interpretation; Reda, The al-Baqara Crescendo. In her PhD thesis at the Catholic University of America (April 2018), Dr. Nadeen Alsulaimi has given a substantial survey of works by mufassirūn and other Muslim scholars who paid attention to the matter of coherence in the Qur’ān. 3  See the overview in Mustansir Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 89.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

245

indicate that they refer to what the famous Orientalist Theodor Nöldeke has described as “an archetypal text in heaven.”4 More recently, Gerhard Böwering has stated that the disconnected letters are related to an ordering of the sūras … in the time when Muhammad collected sūras for liturgical purposes and began to take the first steps toward a written scripture. This rather general explanation of the function of the disconnected letters could be confirmed by the fact that certain groups of sūras introduced by the same letters … have been kept together in the actual order of the Qur’an … and by the fact that in almost all cases the disconnected letters are followed by a usually explicit or occasionally implicit reference to the revelation of scripture as a ‘Book’ sent down or a ‘Qur’ān’ made clear.5

In 25 of the 29 cases where the detached letters form the beginning of a qur’ānic sura, a reference to revelation follows immediately.6 Often these sequences come in groups of surahs with similar characteristics. For instance, the six suwar Q.10-15 all begin with the detached letters Alif, Lām and Rā, and contain a reference to Scripture (kitāb) immediately after that. 10:1  A 11:1  A

L R. Those are the signs of the wise Scripture

L R. A Scripture the signs of which have been determined then spread out from a wise, a knowing

12:1  A

L R. Those are the signs of the clear Scripture

13:1  A

L M R. Those are the signs of the Scripture, and what has been sent down to you from your Lord is the truth, yet many of the people do not believe 14:1  A

L R. A Scripture that we have sent down to you, so that you may lead the people from darknesses to light by permission of their lord to the way of the mighty, the praiseworthy 15:1 

A L R. Those are the signs of the Scripture and of a clear recitation

 NHQ 272-73.  Gerhard Böwering, “Chronology and the Qur’ān”, in Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 316-35, at 327. 6  The 25 cases where the detached letters are immeditately followed by references to revelation are: Q.2:1-2; Q.7:1-2; Q.10:1; Q.11:1; Q.12:1; Q.13:1; Q.14:1; Q.15:1; Q.19:1; Q.20:1-4; Q.26:1-2; Q.27:1; Q.28:1-2; Q.31:1-2; Q.32:1-2; Q.36:1-2; Q.38:1; Q.40:1-2; Q.41:1-2; Q.42:1-3; Q.43:1-5; Q.44:1-3; Q.45:1-2; Q.46:1-2; Q.50:1. 4 5

246

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Walid Saleh has characterized these six suwar as an important subgroup that begins with the same detached letters, but also with a common theme and a common reference to Scripture as well. He argues that this group of surahs is a late Meccan group that seems to reflect a transition period in the revelations. The prophetic annunciation to the unbelievers in Mecca can be described as a warning (nadhīr) to the unbelievers, but this group of surahs reflects a growing awareness that they will not listen; yet God does not punish them either. This is what Saleh calls a situation of despair in which “the futility of preaching and the cessation of conversion became central concerns.”7 In each of these surahs we find the term “Scripture” (kitāb) almost immediately after the detached letters, three times in the construction “signs (āyāt) of the Scripture.” The Scripture is further determined as being “wise” or “judicious,” and “clear” or “clarifying.” In surah 15, the phrase “clear recitation” (qur’ān mubīn) is added to “Scripture”; the word qur’ān, which is indefinite here, refers to a recitation of a text, probably in a liturgical context. According to Angelika Neuwirth, “clear recitation” refers to a reading here on earth of the signs of a heavenly Scripture.8 In her opinion, this verse “constitutes a liturgical introduction consisting of a metatextual formula by which the Qur’an comments upon itself.”9 Neuwirth thinks that such a formula indicates a process in which the meaning of the word kitāb begins to change from a heavenly writing in the sense of a register of human deeds towards a heavenly writing as source of the liturgical reading in the community of the believers.10 Q.40-46 form another group of suwar that begin with detached letters and references to revelation. Since they have the detached letters Ḥ and M at its beginning, this group of surahs is referred to as the Ḥawāmīm.11 7  Walid A. Saleh, “End of Hope. Sūras 10-15, Despair and a Way Out of Mecca”, in: QST 105-23, at 107. 8  NKTS 454. 9  Neuwirth, “Referentiality and Textuality in Sūrat al-Ḥijr (Q.15): Observations on the Qur’anic ‘Canonical Process’ and the Emergence of a Community,” NSPC 184-215, at 189. 10  NSPC 205-6. In this context it is relevant that the first word after the detached letters, tilka, means “those” and not “these” as we find in almost all translations. Just like dhālika in surah 2, the female form tilka – which is used for the plural of things as well – in suwar 10, 12 and 15 points to something far away, not to something nearby. See Devin J. Stewart, “The mysterious letters and other formal features of the Qur’ān in light of Greek and Babylonian oracular texts,” RNPQ 344. 11  See SQ 1138 (on Q.40:1). According to Iṣlāḥī, surahs 34-46 form the Meccan part of the fifth group of surahs in the Qur’ān. See Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 89.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

247

Islam Dayeh, who has studied the coherence of these seven suwar, argues that there is a strong textual and intertextual affinity between the seven surahs.12 The enigma of the detached letters has not been convincingly solved as of yet, but many scholars suggest that the letters and the indications that follow form a self-reference in which the Qur’ān points to itself: tilka āyātu l-qur’āni becomes “these are the verses of the Qur’ān.” I agree with a minority among the scholars that sees them as indications that point toward the heavenly origin of the text: tilka āyāti l-qur’āni becomes “those are the signs of the recitation.” As Devin J. Stewart has remarked, it is significant that in nine cases, a “far demonstrative” (dhālika or tilka for the feminine/plural) immediately follows the detached letters.13 Moreover, the words used to indicate the form of revelation primarily refer to other media of revelation.14 Stewart states: the terms ‘the Book’ and ‘the Qur’ān’ cannot refer to a physical, tangible codex, but rather to a text that is not tangible or immediately accessible and exists on another plane … The Qur’ān mentions ‘that Book’ or refers to ‘those verses/signs’ precisely because it refers to the supernatural text that exists on another plane and not to a physical codex that is within reach of the audience. The Qur’ān exists on an alternative or supernatural plane which is only accessible through revelation, and the mysterious letters are signs that represent sacred writing and therefore symbolize the scripture and its content.15

This conclusion is relevant for this commentary, because it suggests that references to kitāb or Scripture at the beginning of many suwar, certainly in combination with detached letters, often function as announcements that refer to a Scripture that exists with God in heaven and is revealed in different instances, to different prophets and messengers. Since the Qur’ān is not the first but – for Muslims – the most important and most reliable instance of such a Scripture, it is understandable that almost all 12  Islam Dayeh, “Al-Ḥawāmīm: Intertextuality and Coherence in Meccan Surahs,” in: NQC, 461-98. 13  Devin J. Stewart, “The Mysterious Letters and Other Formal Features of the Qur’ān in Light of Greek and Babylonian Oracular Texts”, in: RNPQ 323-48, at 344. See also the contribution by Daniel Madigan in Azaiez et al., The Qur’anic Seminar Commentary, 184. 14  In the 25 suwar that contain a reference to such revelation immediately after the detached letters, the word kitāb (Scripture) is used 17 times, āyāt (signs) 8 times, dhikr (reminder) 5 times, and qur’ān (recitation) 7 times, and a variant of the verb nazala (to send down) is used 10 times. 15  Stewart, “The Mysterious Letters,” 344-45.

248

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

translators make these announcements into self-references. Yet the text is notably ambiguous; to miss the reference to the surplus of the Scripture (kitāb) when compared to the present physical book (muṣḥaf ) is to narrow down the meaning of God’s revelation to a written text. In the remainder of this chapter and in the chapters that follow we will only come across a very limited amount of texts that explicitly refer to ahl al-kitāb or “People of Scripture.” I will discuss these few texts extensively but limiting myself to these texts only would leave enormous gaps in this commentary, since it would need to jump from Q.5 to Q.29 and Q.33, and then to Q.57 and Q.59, and finally to Q.98. I have therefore decided to pay some attention to different forms of expression in the suwar in between that use either the words ahl or kitāb separately, or use cognate phrases (dhikr, qur’ān, āyāt) to indicate a form of revelation to people before the revelation of the Qur’ān. I will do this in two different ways. I will begin each chapter systematizing many of the references, using three categories: • Scripture as expression of God’s eternal knowledge • Scripture related to Moses and other Prophets • A contested Reminder or Recitation Yet I will discuss some of the most important references separately if they consider an aspect that we have not yet discussed or are otherwise important in the history of the reception of the Qur’ān in Christian – Muslim relationships. I will continue to discuss these in the canonical order of the suwar in the Qur’ān. Scripture as Expression of God’s Eternal Knowledge Since the sixth surah (sūrat al-an‘ām or “cattle”) is believed to have been revealed in Mecca, it shows some traces of an older use of the word kitāb in the Qur’ān, where it refers to the stable nature of God’s knowledge of and determination about things. Accordingly, the word kitāb is often translated as “decree,” for instance “no single thing have We neglected in Our decree.”16 The verb kataba is translated as “prescribe” in the famous expression “Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy.”17  Q.6:38 (MA). See also Q.6:59.  Q.6:54 (Ar).

16 17



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

249

Surah 7 (al-’a‘rāf) contains a few references to kitāb in the context of divine determination as well. Wicked people are described in “giving the lie to God’s messages,” yet “their share of the Scripture will reach them.”18 A similar text is “[t]here is not a creature that moves on earth whose provision is not His concern. He knows where it lives and its [final] resting place: it is all [there] in a clear record.”19 At this place, kitāb mubīn refers to God’s providential knowledge of every creature. This “clear” or “clarifying Scripture” is a metaphor that shows how God knows everything, manifest or hidden: “Your Lord is bountiful to people, though most of them are ungrateful. He knows everything their hearts conceal and everything they reveal: there is nothing hidden in the heavens or on earth that is not in a clear Record.”20 Q.17 al-Isrā’ (“the night journey”) contains a number of references to Scripture as a metaphor of God’s eternal or heavenly destination of history. This is the case, for instance, in Q.17:58, “(There is) no town that We are not going to destroy before the Day of Resurrection, or are not going to punish (with a) harsh punishment. That is written in the Book.”21 Here, the word kitāb in combination with masṭūr (“lines drawn”) here has the connotation of “something determined by God, and thus unchangeable.” Similarly, the word kitāb has the connotation of a “(heavenly) record,” as is the case, for instance, in surah 22, “Are you [Prophet] not aware that God knows all that is in the heavens and earth? All this is written in a Record; this is easy for God.”22 At another place, God assures the people that they will not be wronged, and the kitāb here serves as a symbol of God as guarantee of the truth: “We do not burden any soul with more than it can bear – We have a Record that tells the truth – they will not be wronged.”23 The same ultimate truth is delivered to human beings on the Day of Resurrection. “On the Day when We shall call all people with their record, whoever is given his book in his right (hand) – those will read their book and they will not be done evil in the slightest.”24 Those who receive their Scripture in their right hands have found favor with God, while those who receive their Scripture in their left hands have not found  Q.7:37, my translation. For a similar text, see Q.8:68.  Q.11:6 (AH). 20  Q.27:73-75 (AH). 21  Q.17:58 (Dr). 22  Q.22:70 (AH). 23  Q.23:62 (AH). 24  Q.17:71 (Dr). 18 19

250

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

such favor in the final judgment.25 In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus Christ speaks of the Son of Man who will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.26 Similarly, the Qur’ān makes a distinction between those who are given the record of their deeds in their right hand and those who are given it in their left hand. The first will say, “Take (and) read my book. Surely I thought that I would meet my reckoning,” while the second will say, “Would that I had not been given my book, and not known what my reckoning is! Would that it had been the end!”27 In each case, those who are favored by God are told to read or recite their Scripture: the words yaqra’ūna in Q.17:71 and ’iqra’ū in Q.69:19 are derived from the same verb as the noun Qur’ān. This gives the notion of “reading/reciting” the Scripture a connotation of God’s grace that leads to human wellbeing and salvation.28 A similar reference to a Scripture indicating God’s determining the eschatological status of human beings seems to be suggested in Q.17:13-14 And every human – We have fastened his fate to him on his neck, and We shall bring forth a book for him on the Day of Resurrection, which he will find unrolled. “Read your book! You are sufficient today as a reckoner against yourself.”29

The Scripture that one gets to read or to recite is intimately connected with one’s own life and its destination. In reading one’s own book, one effectively renders judgment upon oneself; since the book is composed solely of one’s own deeds, all individuals can be said to be able to judge as to whether they deserve to enter the Garden or the Fire by ‘reading’ their own actions … This book can thus be understood as referring to one’s very soul, inscribed with its deeds in life.30

The notion of Scripture is intimately connected with both God and the human being: God’s knowledge about the lives of all human beings is 25  The opposition between right hand and left hand is a well-known cultural and religious trope that indicates favor and disfavor respectively – see for instance the name Benjamin (“son of the right hand”) and his role as the favored son and brother in the stories about Joseph: see Genesis 43-44 and sūrat Yūsuf 12:58-93. 26  Matthew 25:33. 27  Q.69:19b-20 and 69:25b-27 (Dr). In Q.84:7-12 the opposition is between those who receive the book in their right hands and those who receive it behind their backs. 28  One cannot help but connect this to the well-known beginning of Q.96:1, “Read in the name of God who has created you,” which is the very first revelation to the prophet Muhammad in the ḥadīth tradition. 29  Q.17:13-14 (Dr). 30  SQ 699 (on Q.17:13-14).



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

251

written down in a testimony that each human being will get to recite and thus to interiorize at the Day of Judgment. At that moment, our lives will become entirely clear to ourselves: “then every soul will know what it has brought about”, as the Qur’ān says in one of its most evocative texts about the Day of Judgment.31 Scripture related to Moses and Other Prophets One of the main topics in sūrat al-an‘ām is the prophetic witness of the oneness of God. Q.6:74 begins a discourse in which Abraham is sketched as defender of the oneness of God over against his people; he is one of the prophets of God, as Noah was before him, and Isaac and Jacob, David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron, Zachariah and John, Jesus and Elijah, Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah and Lot (Q.6:84-86a). The favors that God bestowed on them are summed up in Q.6:89: Scripture (al-kitāb), wisdom or judgment (al-ḥukm), and prophethood (nubūwwa). These three favors guide away from the tendency to ascribe divinity to anything beside God. At this point, the Qur’ān refers to the story of the Children of Israel who have been unfaithful to the revelation that Moses gave them. Q.6:91 says the following: They have no grasp of God’s true measure when they say, “God has sent nothing down to a mere mortal.” Say, “Who was it who sent down the Scripture, which Moses brought as a light and a guide to people, which you made into separate sheets, showing some but hiding many? You were taught things that neither you nor your forefathers had known.” Say, “God [sent it down],” then leave them engrossed in their vain talk.32

While Moses brought Scripture as a light and guidance, the Children of Israel started to treat it as “sheets of paper,” meaning that they display some of it as evidence while at the same time hiding much of it. We have seen this accusation before, addressed explicitly to Jews and related to the story of Moses at Mount Sinai.33 At this place, however, the focus shifts immediately to the people in Mecca: “This is a blessed Scripture that We have sent down to confirm what came before it and for you to warn the Mother of Cities and all around it. Those who believe in the 31  Q.81:14 (AH). On the consequences for people who have gone astray, see Q.18:49. 32  Q.6:91 (AH). 33  SQ 373 (on Q.6:91) refers to Q.2:42.140.146; 3:71.187; 5:15.

252

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Hereafter believe in this Scripture and do not neglect their prayers.”34 The confirmation of “this blessed Scripture” serves as a link between the story referred to in the previous verse and the actual situation in Mecca, “the mother of the cities.” A similar argumentation can be found at the end of Q.6 in verses 154-57: [154] Once again, We gave Moses the Scripture, perfecting [Our favour] for those who do good, explaining everything clearly, as guidance and mercy, so that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord. [155] This, too, is a blessed Scripture which We have sent down – follow it and be conscious of your Lord, so that you may receive mercy – [156] lest you say, “Scriptures were only sent down to two communities before us: we were not aware of what they studied,” [157] or “If only the Scripture had been sent down to us, we would have been better guided than them.” Now clear evidence, guidance, and mercy have come to you from your Lord. Who could be more wrong than someone who rejects God’s revelations and turns away from them? We shall repay those who turn away with a painful punishment.35

The deniers of revelation in these verses are not Jews or Christians but rather those who have not yet been receivers of any revelation and refuse the new revelation offered to them, usually identified with the local Arab tribes in Mecca. They say that only “two communities before us” have received such revelation, but they seem to be unaware of their studies. This last word, dirāsatihim, is derived from the verb darasa (“to study”) and it suggests a Jewish form of learning from Scripture, like in a beth ha-midrash or “house of studies.” It suggests a culture of learnedness concerning Scripture that we will encounter in the term ahl al-dhikr (“People of remembrance”) later in this chapter. It also confirms the important role of specific knowledge as the result of a sending down of Scripture. Consequently, those who turn away should have known better because the Scripture gives clear evidence, and thus they are liable to punishment by God. Q.26, sūrat al-shu‘arā’ (“the poets”) contains a long discourse about prophets and their stories in what Sidney Griffith has called a qur’ānic paradigm of God’s habitual sending of prophets and messengers.36 Q.26:196 concentrates on the confirmation of the new message in the “scriptures of those of old” (zubur al-awwalīna). The phrase is somewhat vague, since the plural zubur (“Scriptures”) is used in the Qur’ān as a general term, even though the singular zabūr is usually associated with the  Q.6:92 (AH).  Q.6:154-57 (AH). 36  Sidney H. Griffith, “The ‘Sunna of Our Messengers’: The Qur’ān’s Paradigm for Messengers and Prophets; a Reading of Sūrat ash-Shu‘arā’ (26)”, QST 207-27. 34 35



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

253

book of Psalms given to David.37 Those who do not accept Muhammad’s message generally use the word awwalūn (“ancients; those of old”) in a pejorative sense; they reject it as “fables of the ancients.”38 In this context, the “ancients” seems to refer to a general category rather than to People of Scripture specifically. Yet the next verse shifts the context by asserting: “was it not a sign for them that it was known to the learned of the Sons of Israel?”39 The point here is that revelation gives a specific kind of knowledge that is recognized by those who have received revelation before – in this verse, the learned or those versed in application of the Law (‘ulamā’, plural of ‘alim, “expert, scholar”) of the children of Israel (banī isrā’īl). Because of this shift from a rather general to a very specific category, Q.26:197 is sometimes seen as a Medinan interpolation in an otherwise Meccan surah, even though Asad thinks that it is not necessary to assume such a shift, since the Children of Israel were known in Mecca as well.40 In many texts, the kitāb is specifically associated with Moses: “We gave Moses the Scripture before you, but differences arose about it and if it had not been for a prior word from your Lord, a decision would already have been made between them, though they are in grave doubt about it.”41 We find the same association with Moses also in Q.23, “We gave Moses the Scripture, so that they might be rightly guided,”42 and in Q.25, “We gave Moses the Book, and appointed his brother Aaron to help him.”43 The parallel between the Scripture given to Moses and the Scripture given to Muhammad is one of the main subjects in surah 28, “the story”, and we will discuss it more fully below.44 A contested Reminder or Recitation The word “reminder” (dhikr) is used to indicate a revelation in Q.7:63 and Q.7:69: “Why, do you deem it strange that a tiding from your 37  For the general use of the plural zubur, see Q.3:184,16:44, 23:53 and 35:25. For the specific use of the singular zabūr, see Q.4:163 and 17:55. 38  See, among others, Q.8:31 and 16:24. 39  Q.26:197 (Dr). 40  Assad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 624 (introduction to Q.26). 41  Q.11:110 (AH). See also Q.11:17. 42  Qur’ān 23:49, transl. Abdel Haleem. 43  Qur’ān 25:35, transl. Abdel Haleem. 44  In his unpublished dissertation (Harvard University) on the notion of kitāb, Mohsen Goudarzi argues that the Qur’ān only recognizes two kitābs: the ones given to Moses and Muhammad.

254

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Sustainer should have come unto you through a man from among yourselves, so that he might warn you?”45 The verb “to recite” (qara’a) is used a number of times to indicate the specific manner in which Prophet Muhammad is supposed to convey the revelations given to him; very often this recitation meets with resistance, for instance in Q.10:15, “And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this, or change it’.” The word that Pickthall translates as “Lecture” is qur’ān and, even though many translators suggest that the opponents want to see a different Qur’ān, it must have the meaning of a specific recitation or liturgical reading here. This is also the case in Q.10:61, “And thou (Muhammad) art not occupied with any business and thou recitest not a Lecture from this (Scripture), and ye (mankind) perform no act, but We are Witness of you when ye are engaged therein.” 46 Q.15 contains a debate between the prophet Muhammad and the unbelievers in which they address him as “you to whom was sent down the reminder” (nuzzila alayhi al-dhikr, Q.15:6) and tell him that he is mad (or “possessed by jinn”, majnūn). They want the prophet to bring down angels in order to show the truth of what he is saying. Yet God testifies, “We have sent down the reminder and We will preserve it” (inna nahnu nazzalna al-dhikra wa-inna lahu la-ḥāfiẓūna, Q.15:9). The word combination of “to send down” and “reminder” comes very close to the word combination of “Scripture” (kitāb) and “to send down” (nazzala) in later suwar. While kitāb bears the connotation of something that exists with God in a definite form – see for instance kitāb ma‘lūm, “known Scripture” in the sense of “set time” or “known decree”47 – dhikr can have the same connotation, especially when God confirms – as in this verse – that God preserves the reminder.48 In the context of sūrat al-ḥijr (Q.15), the form in which the Word of God is made present to the community assembled for its hearing, is the ceremonial reading or recitation (qur’ān).49 Such a reading is mentioned together with the 45  Q.7:63a, repeated in Q.7:69a (MA). Other words with similar meanings are risālāt (“messages”) in Q.7:68, and alwāḥ (“tablets”) in Q.7:145 and again in 7:154 with reference to Moses. 46  Q.10:15 and Q.10:61 (P). 47  Q.15:4 (AH, Dr). 48  Human beings will later imitate this divine preservation when they memorize the Qur’ān in order to become a ḥāfiẓ, someone who knows the Qur’ān by heart and is thus constantly in the presence of God’s Word. 49  NSPC 189.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

255

sab‘an min al-mathāni – the “seven oft-repeated”, often seen as an equivalent for sūrat al-fātiḥa – as a “mighty recitation” (qur’āna l-‘aẓīm) in Q.15:87, thus possibly constituting, according to Angelika Neuwirth, two elements of the early liturgy of the community of believers.50 Some texts suggest that Muhammad recites a recitation, for instance Q.17:45, wa-idhā qara’ta al-qur’āna. Most translators (AH, Dr) tend to leave the last word untranslated, so that they have Muhammad recite the Qur’ān.51 However, it seems preferable to translate “when you recite the Recitation” as Alan Jones does,52 suggesting that the text recited is the reading – in front of the community of believers or in front of the unbelievers – of what has been previously revealed to the prophet Muhammad. In this manner, the word qur’ān in the Arabic text of the Qur’ān comes quite close to the notion of a liturgical reading (pericope), but it also connotes a rhetorical reading directed against adversaries.53 Other verses in Q.17 confirm the notion of a recitation that evokes opposition: “When you mention your Lord alone in the Recitation, they turn their backs in aversion.”54 The liturgical context shines through in two verses toward the end of this surah: “And [we have sent] a Recitation, which We have divided so that you may recite it to mankind at intervals, and We have sent it down. Say, ‘Believe in it or do not believe. Those to whom knowledge has been given previously fall down on their chins in prostration when it is recited to them.”55 Ismail Albayrak, who categorizes this text as a Meccan revelation – earlier than most other references to the People of Scripture – sees it as an acknowledgment of positive relationships between the believers and the People of Scripture, and also as a text that indicates a clear preference for them over the pagans in Mecca.56 These pagans in Mecca are addressed as unbelievers who will not have faith in the message bestowed on Muhammad unless he shows them this revelation. They are looking for signs such as “make a spring gush out of the ground for us … make the sky fall on us in pieces, as you claimed will  NSPC 204, 210.  Droge (179 on Q.17:45) adds a footnote saying “this seems to refer to an actual edition of the Qur’ān in the Prophet’s possession,” which seems rather anachronistic. 52  Q.17:45 (AJ). 53  Anne-Sylvie Boisliveau (Le Coran par lui-même, 47-57) distinguishes three aspects in the qur’ānic term qur’ān: it is recited and transmitted by God; it is recited and transmitted by Muhammad, specifically in situations of opposition; it is a liturgical recitation, not dissimilar from the term qeryānā in Syriac. 54  Q.17:46b (AJ). See also Q.17:41. 55  Q.17:106-107 (AJ). 56  Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān”, 306. 50 51

256

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

happen; or bring God and the angels before us face to face; or have a house made of gold; or ascend into the sky – even then, we will not believe in your ascension until you send a real book down for us to read.”57 Even though some of these challenges to Muhammad sound similar to the request for signs attributed to Jews elsewhere in the Qur’ān, the focus of these challenges is somewhat different because most of them are related to matters of eschatology that formed one of the major issues of contention between Muhammad and the pagans in Mecca. Yet the climax of these challenges is that Muhammad send down upon them a scripture (tunazzila ‘alayna kitāban) for them to recite (naqra’uhu). The specific vocabulary here suggests that such a sending down is God’s prerogative and therefore they will not trust an ordinary human being entrusted with such a message. The link with the divine origin of this message needs to be visibly established. Angelika Neuwirth suggests that the challenge derives its imagery from the parallel with prophet Moses who, according to the book of Exodus, went up the mountain and came down with a writing (Ex. 34:29).58 The challenge to make water flow in the desert is associated with Moses as well (Ex. 17:6 and Q.2:60). So it might be that the challenge by pagans in Mecca and the challenge by Jews in Medina coincide with one another at this place, or that the pagans are quoted as using objections that were familiar from Jewish spokespersons as well.59 In Q.18:27 Prophet Muhammad is told to “[r]ecite what you have been inspired (with) of the Book of your Lord. No one can change His words, and you will find no refuge other than Him.”60 The first word of this verse, wa-tlu, can be translated differently, since the verb talā has two different meanings: “to follow” and “to read aloud.”61 At this place, the Prophet is summoned to recite what he has been inspired with – the verb is waḥā, “to reveal, to inspire” and not “to send down” as in most of the cases – from the Scripture of the Lord. This verb may connote revelation, but it can be used for other forms of impenetrable non-verbal  Q.17:90.92-93a (AH).  NSPC 237 and 244. An important source for Neuwirth’s interpretation is Josef Horovitz, “Muhammeds Himmelfahrt”, Der Islam 9 (1919) 159-83. 59  This would follow from the suggestion by Patricia Crone, “‘Nothing But Time Destroys Us’: The Deniers of Resurrection in the Qur’ān,” Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 1 (2016) 127-47, that the differences between the Meccan “pagans” and the monotheists would be not so clear as supposed in most contemporary research. 60  Q.18:27 (Dr). 61  In the later Islamic tradition, tilāwa will become the technical term for a public recital of the Qur’ān. 57 58



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

257

communication as well.62 On the other hand, the construct phrase “Scripture of your Lord” (kitāb rabbika) and the partitive min (“of”) suggest that the Scripture is a larger entity with God from which parts have been revealed to the addressee. Q.25 is named sūrat al-furqān, a word that indicates something that makes a decisive difference between truth and falsehood, good and evil. The first verse of this surah suggests that the new revelation makes such a difference: “Hallowed is He who from on high, step by step, has bestowed upon His servant the standard by which to discern the true from the false, so that to all the world it might be a warning.”63 The tradition states that this surah has been revealed in Mecca, and the justification by the Meccan opponents for their refusal to accept the furqān is phrased in terms that are clearly distinguishable from the type of justification that we encountered in the Medinan opponents. They say the following: “This is nothing but a lie! He has forged it, and other people have helped him with it,” and a bit later: “Old tales! He has written it down, and it is dictated to him morning and evening.”64 The opponents clearly deny the divine origin of what the servant of God announces. Instead, they think that he regurgitates “old stories” (asāṭīru al-awwalīna, “fables of the ancients”) and that he writes down what he gets from human sources. The second reason for denying is that the servant of God is just a human being: “What is wrong with this messenger? He eats food and walks about in the markets. If only an angel were sent down to him to be a warner with him, or a treasure were cast (down) to him, or he had a garden from which to eat.”65 The third and final reason is that he is bewitched (masḥūr).66 In Q.25:5 the prophet is accused of writing down (aktatabahā) what is dictated to him twice daily.67 Such an accusation suggest human sources for the Qur’ān and goes agains the traditional notion that Muhammad was an unlettered (ummī) prophet.68 Therefore, most mufassirūn hold that the verse must mean “he has had it written down so that it (fa-hiya) may be read out to 62  See Daniel A. Madigan, “Revelation and Inspiration”, in Jane Dammen McAuliffe, ed., Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. IV (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2004), 437-48. 63  Q.25:1 (MA). 64  Q.25:4-5 (Dr). 65  Q.25:7-8 (Dr). 66  Similar arguments can be found in Q.8:31 and Q.21:5. For a general discussion of these arguments, see the discussion of the latter verse later in this chapter. 67  See also Michael Marx’s remark on Q.19:11 in “Glimpses of a Mariology in the Qur’an,” NQC 533-63, at 556. 68  Muhammad Asad and the Study Quran therefore translate the eighth form of the verb kataba as a causative: “he caused it to be written down” (MA 614) or “he had it

258

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

him twice daily.” This might match with later Islamic traditions that tell us how Prophet Muhammad recited what he had received to a group of followers who committed the revelations to memory or maybe wrote them down. However, the specific naming of “early morning” and “before sunset” may also suggest a prayer ritual, although the names are different from the words used for the Islamic prayers.69 Another reason to refuse taking seriously the message received by the servant of God is mentioned by the opponents in Q.25:32. “Those who disbelieve say, ‘If only the Qur’ān were sent down on him all of one piece’.”70 The argument here is that a true revelation would have been given by God at once, and thus have become immediately available as one revealed Scripture. The model might be the revelation of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai, where the revelation happens on one occasion – even though the Jewish tradition does not foreclose a longer process of revelation – and is clearly visible in the tablets.71 Judged against this model, the message given to Muhammad fails – yet the Qur’ān itself emphasizes in the next verse that this is the way it is revealed. This emphasis explains why Muslim translators often mention the gradual character of the revelation by translating the verb nazzala as “bestowing from on high, step by step.” In Q.23:71 the word “reminder” (dhikr) is used to refer to the message brought by Muhammad that evokes resistance. The beginning of Q.26 suggests that this resistance is systemic: “But no new reminder comes to them from the Merciful without them turning away from it.”72 Q.25 situates this resistance in an eschatological context, where God questions the idols if they led human beings astray, but they answer, “May You be exalted! We ourselves would never take masters other than You! But You granted them and their forefathers pleasures in this life, until they forgot Your Reminder and were ruined.”73 In the same context, the evildoer reflects, “Woe to me! Would that I had not taken written down” (SQ 891). Asad translates the last part of Q.25:5 as “so that they might be read out to him at morn and evening.” 69  Fajr and ‘asr are the prayer times first established in the Qur’ān. On their relation to pre-islamic prayers in Mecca, see NKTS 357-59. 70  Q.25:32 (Dr). 71  See A.J. Droge, The Qur’ān, 235 n. 38. For the Jewish traditions, see Benjamin D. Sommer, Revelation & Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2015). 72  Q.26:5 (AJ). 73  Q.25:18 (AH). SQ 893 (on Q.25:17-18) mentions that the dialogue between God and the objects of worship is similar to the dialogue between God and Jesus in Q.5:116-18.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

259

So-and-so as a friend! Certainly he led me astray from the Reminder, after it came to me. Satan is the betrayer of humankind.”74 6:20 Recognizing Scripture as their children The sixth surah of the Qur’ān, al-an‘ām (“cattle”) is traditionally dated toward the end of the Meccan period, which means that it has been revealed before the texts discussed in the previous chapters. According to the Islamic tradition of interpretation, the main interlocutors of Prophet Muhammad in Mecca were members of the local tribes, most of them “pagans” or “polytheists.” However, this assumption has come under severe criticism in present-day qur’ānic studies since it cannot be confirmed by outside sources. Moreover, the traditional assumption that Muhammad mainly dealt with polytheists in Mecca and with Jews – and, to a lesser extent, Chrstians – in Medina may well rest on the very fact that the expression ahl al-kitāb is mainly found in the Medinan surahs.75 For the purpose of this commentary we will look briefly at some of the references to earlier revelations in which a different terminology is used. Q.6:7 (AH) highlights the distinction between earlier relevations in the form of scriptures and the oral form of revelation to prophet Muhammad: “even if We had sent down to you [Prophet] a book inscribed on parchment, and they had touched it with their own hands, the disbelievers would still say, ‘This is nothing but blatant sorcery’.” The verse emphasizes the refusal of the disbelievers to accept evidence of revelation, even if this evidence could have been given in the form of a Scripture on parchment (kitāb fī qirṭās). This would have been the type of sign that the unbelievers often ask for, and the lack of such a sign indicates two challenges that Prophet Muhammad encountered. In the first place, the revelations came to him in a piecemeal fashion, only some verses (āyāt) or a recitation (qur’ān) at the time, instead of an entire book at once. In the second place, the revelation came in oral form, and not in the form of clear written evidence. In this text the  Q.25:28-29 (Dr).  For this reason, Q.10:94-97 is often considered as a Medinan insertion into an otherwise late-Meccan surah. In these verses, the word kitāb is used in a way that is similar to the other Medinan surahs that we have analyzed thus far, while other verses in this surah and the following ones use words like āyā (sign), qur’ān (recitation) and dhikr (reminder) to refer to similar means of revelation. 74 75

260

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

word kitāb indicates the material form in which earlier revelations have been preserved in contrast to the revelation given to Muhammad. Furthermore, it indicates a heavenly origin and a specific form of knowledge as Q.6:20 suggests: “those to whom we have given the Scripture know it as they know their children; those who have lost their souls, indeed they do not believe.” However, it is unclear what exactly those to whom Scripture was given know, since the phrasing in Arabic is ambiguous: the suffix in ya‘rifūnahu may refer to an object (“it”) or to a person (“him”). The tafsīr tradition discusses these two possibilities: “it” refers to the message of the Qur’ān, or “him” refers to Muhammad.76 Yet if “those to whom We have given the Scripture” are indeed the People of Scripture, as both the Study Quran and the Tafsīr ibn Kathīr assume, it would be more in line with the usual reasoning of the Qur’ān to assume that “it” refers to the contents of the Scripture that they have received.77 The message of this verse seems to be that the People of Scripture have been given clear knowledge but that many of them do not follow that knowledge yet instead go astray. A clear reminder of this situation is given later in the surah: [Say], “Shall I seek any judge other than God, when it is He who has sent down for you [people] the Scripture, clearly explained?” Those to whom We gave the Scripture know that this [Qur’ān] is revealed by your Lord [Prophet] with the truth, so do not be one of those who doubt.78

Since the earlier revelations give clear knowledge, and since the new revelation is a “clearly detailed book” (kitāb mufaṣṣal ), the people of Scripture should be able to recognize it as they recognize their own children. If they do not do so, it is a willful denial, not a lack of knowledge. 7:169 People of Moses: hiding scripture while studying it Surah 7, al-’a‘rāf (“the heights”) contains a lengthy discussion of the prophethood of Moses in confrontation with Pharaoh (Q.7:103-141), and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai (Q.7:142-158). At the end of this 76  See SQ 346 (on Q.6:20) with reference to Q.2:146 as parallel for the Qur’ān, and TJJ 116 and TIK 3:326 (on Q.6:20) for Muḥammad. 77  It is hard to believe that it refers to the Qur’ān here, since the inspiration of a qur’ān to Muhammad is mentioned in verse 19 (ūhiya ilayya hadhihi al-qur’āna), so it would be confusing if the same reality would be indicated with a different word in verse 20. 78  Q.6:114 (AH).



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

261

passage, God addresses Moses and the “people of Moses” (qawmu Mūsā, Q.7:148) as follows: My punishment I bring on whomever I will, but My mercy embraces all things. I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; who follow the Messenger – the unlettered prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel – who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful, and relieves them of their burdens, and the iron collars that were on them. So it is those who believe him, honour and help him, and who follow the light, which has been sent down with him, who will succeed.79

This text refers to people for whom God will “prescribe” God’s mercy; they believe in His signs (āyāt), including the messenger (rasūl) who is described as the “unlettered prophet” (al-nabī al-ummī), meaning that he does not belong to the people who have received revelation.80 Yet the people of Moses will find this prophet described (maktūban, passive participle of kataba) in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel (that is not yet with them). So, on the one hand, the prophet announced here is himself not part of the People of Scripture, but he is described in their Scriptures.81 Thus, if the People of Scripture do not recognize him, this must be because of an intentional change: “those among them who were bent on wrongdoing substituted another saying for that which they had been given.”82 The conclusion of this passage is a clear opposition between the heirs of the people of Moses who inherited the Scripture, yet chose the life of this world and so broke the pledge in their Scripture (mithāq ul-kitābi) to speak only truth about God while they study what is in it (darasū mā fīhi), and those who hold fast to the Scripture (yumassikūn bi-l kitābi) and perform prayer and taqwā. [169] and they were succeeded by generations who, although they inherited the Scripture, took the fleeting gains of this lower world, saying, “We shall be forgiven,” and indeed taking them again if other such gains came their  Q.7:156b-157 (AH).  See Hartmut Bobzin, “The ‘Seal of the Prophets’: Towards an Understanding of Muhammad’s Prophethood”, NQC 565-83, at 575: “The term an-nabī al-ummī is thus best rendered as the ‘gentile prophet’.” 81  As mentioned before, ummī is usually translated as “unlettered” in order to safeguard the message of the prophet from being influenced by Jewish and Christian sources. However, in its qur’ānic context the term is the opposite of ahl al-kitāb, people who have specific knowledge because of the Scriptures revealed to them. 82  Q.7:162a (MA). 79 80

262

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

way. Was a pledge not taken from them, written in the Scripture, to say nothing but the truth about God? And they have studied its contents well. For those who are mindful of God, the Hereafter is better. “Why do you not use your reason?” [170] But as for those who hold fast to the Scripture and keep up the prayer, We do not deny righteous people their rewards.83

This is one of the many places where the Qur’ān refers to events in the life of the Jewish people, using mercantile metaphors to criticize unfaithfulness in their reception of Scripture as trading away the riches they received for a paltry gain. However, it is important to notice that these texts never give an exclusively negative evaluation of the Jews, even though the large majority of them tend to be negative, as is the case – somewhat less often – with the Christians.84 One of the important exceptions is Q.7:159 that acknowledges a community guided by the truth among the “People of Moses”: “There is a group among the people of Moses who guide with truth, and who act justly according to it.”85 The Islamic tradition of interpretation has tried to identify this community (umma) that is guided by truth (yahdūna bi-l haqqi) among the Jews, often limiting the positive implication of this verse by stating that this holds true for Jews who separated from the majority religion, or that it only refers to Jews who converted to Islam.86 Such interpretations – not dissimilar from the “qur’ānic Christians” in Jane D. McAuliffe’s terminology – “contradict the plain sense of the verse, which indicates that a group among the people of Moses, in the sense of being followers of Jewish Law and ritual, continue to live and worship righteously according to the teachings of the Torah.”87 9:29 Fight them until they pay voluntarily while humbled The ninth surah, called al-tawba (“repentance”) or barā’at (“repudiation”), is traditionally counted as the last complete surah to be revealed to the prophet Muhammad in Medina. Even though this would make  Q.7:169-70 (AH).  See Farid Esack, “The Portrayal of Jews and the Possibilities for Their Salvation in the Qur’an,” in: Betweeh Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others, ed. Mohammad Hassan Khalil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 207-33. 85  Q.7:159 (AH). See also Q.7:168: “some of them are righteous”. 86  ‘Abdallah ibn Salām is most often mentioned in this context, see TJJ 151 (on Q.7:170). 87  SQ 462 (on Q.7:159). 83 84



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

263

the surah roughly contemporaneous with Q.5, there are some remarkable differences: Q.9 contains no explicit references to the “People of Scripture,” but quite a few texts about warfare. One of these texts refers to some of “those to whom Scripture has been given” (alladhīna ūtū al-kitāba), criticizing them severely. While this is not one of the explicit texts about the People of Scripture, this text requires some attentive reading and some Christian commentary because of its severe criticism and because of its special status: since it is believed to be the last text revealed about the People of Scripture, the principle of “abrogation” (naskh) – according to which the last text abrogates the legal status of previous texts – implies that this text abrogates all previous texts about relations with the People of Scripture. [9:29] Fight from among the people who have been given the Scripture those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and who do not forbid that which God and His messenger have forbidden and who do not follow the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, having been humbled. [30] The Jews say, “Uzayr is the son of God”; and the Christians say, “al-Masīḥ is the son of God.” That is what they say with their mouths, conforming to what was said by those who disbelieved before them. God confound them. How they are embroiled in lies! [31] They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords apart from God as well as al-Masīḥ, the son of Mary – yet they were commanded to serve only One God. There is no god but Him. May He be glorified high above what they associate with Him. [32] They wish to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses [to do] anything other than to perfect His light, even though the unbelievers dislike that. [33] [It is] He who has sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, to cause it to prevail over all [other] religion, even though the polythesists dislike that. [34] O you who believe, many of the rabbis and monks consume people’s possessions in vanity and bar [people] from God’s way. Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in God’s way – give them the tidings of a painful torment.88

While other texts in this surah, among them the much-discussed “sword verse” (Q.9:5) tell the believers to fight the associators (mushrikūn, “those who associate anything with God”), here the injunction seems to be to fight some People of Scripture, yet only those who qualify for such treatment. The translation above suggests that there are three reasons for fighting them: they do not believe in God and the Last Day (yawm al-ākhir); they do not forbid what God and His messenger have 88

 Q.9:29-34 (AJ).

264

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

f­orbidden; and they do not follow the religion of truth (dīnu l-ḥaqqi).89 Yet in Arabic the text says: “Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and who do not profess the religion of truth from those who have been given the Scripture…” This word order suggests that only the third reason for fighting is relevant with respect to those who have received Scripture: they do not profess the religion of truth. The fighting is enjoined in order to show them their place: they need to pay the jizya, which is a tax exempting them from poor tax and military service, but also implying their acknowledgement of Muslim superiority. They need to do so readily (‘an yadin “from hand”) while it diminishes their status (wa-hum ṣāghirūn, “while they are lowly”). A note of triumphalism is unmistakable in this verse, and it is reinforced by words such as “light” and “above” in the following verses. These following verses also give some indications as to what is deemed wrong with the receivers of Scripture here, and why they need to be humbled. Two main reasons can be discerned. In the first place (Q.9:30), both Jews and Christians go astray by claiming that ‘Uzayr and al-Masīḥ are sons of God, thus conforming to the lies of disbelievers before them. The objection to how Christians misinterpret Christ the Messiah as Son of God is fairly well-known and returns at a number of places in the Qur’ān; the parallel objection to how Jews misinterpret Ezra as Son of God is less well-known and certainly seems to be contrary to the monotheism of mainstream Judaism that is no less strict than that of mainstream Islam.90 There are two ways to explain this parallelism between the two religions: a historical source or a literary construction. Scholars have suggested the possibility of a historical source for the divinization of Ezra in certain strands of late antique Judaism such as the fourth book of Ezra.91 Yet the polemical point that the Qur’ān wants to make here allows for the possibility of a rhetorical ­parallel ­construction: 89  Some translators (AH, MA) add the word “truly” before “believe in God and the Last Day,” implying that they claim to believe in God and the Hereafter – as the Qur’ān admits elsewhere – but do not really believe. SQ 513 (on Q.9:29) adds that the verse should not be interpreted as saying that all People of Scripture should be fought against because they do not believe in God and the Last Day, as this is evidently not in agreement with what the Qur’ān says elsewhere. The commentary adds that this verse might have been revealed in the context of an expedition of Muhammad and an army from Medina toward Syria in order to fight the Byzantines there. 90  For this objection, see Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, “Ezra-‘Uzayr: The Metamorphosis of a Polemical Motif”, in: ead., Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 50-74. 91  See Firestone, “Jewish Culture in the Formative Period of Islam”.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

265

if Christians say ‘Isa ibnu llāhi, Jews say ‘Uzayr ibnu llāhi.92 Moreover, the main theological argument that I develop in this commentary suggests that the Qur’ān strongly criticizes a tendency by many Jews and Christians to limit God’s powers to God’s involvement in specific religious traditions.93 Christians say that God has become incarnate in Christ, thus limiting God’s engagement to those who recognize God’s Son; in a similar way, Jews have speculated that God has given Torah to them, thus limiting God’s engagement to those who study Torah; if Ezra can be taken as symbol for the reconstruction of Torah as determining Jewish religious life, his name can be used in connection with centering a religion on Torah rather than God.94 The second reason for the qur’ānic critique is stated in Q.9:31 and 34: the behavior of religious leaders who seem to be revered in an unbecoming way by their followers, while they commit social injustice. Jews and Christians, according to this criticism, treat their religious authorities as lords (arbāb, plural of rabb, “lord”), which echoes the “common word” verse that “none of us takes others beside God as lords” (Q.3:64). The two words used here to indicate these religious authorities are aḥbār and ruhbān. The first term indicates a non-Muslim religious leader, and can be translated as “rabbis,” but “bishops” is a possible translation as well. The word is derived from a verb that has “to embellish” as one of its meanings, so the connotation is that these religious authorities are highly regarded and possibly rich. The second term is derived from a verb that has “to fear” as one of its meanings, and it is usually associated with the ascetic lifestyle of monks, but it may be a more general term for religious leadership as well.95 The Qur’ān does not criticize the fact that they have religious authority, but it criticizes a situation where this authority has become excessive, as symbolized in their being treated as lords. In the New Testament, Jesus voices a similar criticism: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.96  See Sirry, Scriptural Polemics, 48-50.  This theological argument will be developed in the commentaries on Q.57:29 (chapter 10) and Q.98:1-6 (chapter 11), and resumed in the conclusion. 94  This could be the meaning of the Jewish saying, “God is poor and we are rich” in Q.3:181; see Azaiez, Le contre-discours coranique, 193. Also, Pim Valkenberg, “Joden en Christenen in de Koran: De literaire gestalte van een polemische dialoog,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58 (2018) 250. 95  Holger Zellentin, “Aḥbār and Ruhbān”, QST 262-93 convincingly argues that the two terms indicate religious leadership of Jewish and Christian groups. 96  Luke 22:25-26 (NAB). 92

93

266

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The Qur’ān adds another element in Q.9:34, namely that the religious authorities “wrongfully consume people’s possessions and turn them away from God’s path.” In a way similar to the Major Prophets of the Hebrew Bible, social ethics is immediately connected to right worship in the vein of an ethical monotheism that many Jews consider Judaism’s greatest gift to humanity. Once again, the Qur’ān uses metaphors to criticize the lack of true monotheism in some Christian and Jewish religious authorities: they “have sold the signs of God for a small price” (Q.9:9) and they “eat the wealth of the people wrongly” (Q.9:34). The criticism of Jews and Christians here has a strong oral connotation: they speak lies with their mouths (Q.9:30), try to extinguish God’s light with their mouths (Q.9:31) and consume the wealth of the people wrongly (Q.9:34). A Christian commentary on this important passage would need to emphasize that professing “Christ (al-Masīḥ) is Son of God” is as essential for mainstream Christians as professing “God is One” is for Muslims. However, treating Christian leaders as lords, let alone disregarding the misuse of their power, is certainly not part of authentic Christianity, as the words quoted from Jesus about “among you it shall not be so” make clear. In this respect, Christians and Muslims share traditions that go back to the “ethical monotheism” of the Major Prophets. 10:94 Ask those who recited the Scripture before you The tenth surah, Yūnus, forms the beginning of a series of Meccan suwar, and also the beginning of the third group of suwar as distinguished by Iṣlāḥi. As stated before, Walid Saleh analyzes this group of late-Meccan surahs as reflecting a growing awareness that the adversaries will not listen to the revelations, and that God does not punish them either.97 In this situation of what Saleh calls despair, some verses in this and similar surahs suggest that the People of Scripture might help solving this doubt. 10:94  If

you are in doubt about what we have sent down to you then ask those who recited the Scripture before you to you has come the truth from your lord and you should not be among those who doubt

 See also Marshall, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers, 60.

97



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

267

According to the tradition, the “you” in this verse is Prophet Muhammad, but the Study Quran suggests that these words are addressed, through him, to “the disbelievers or possibly people in general who are the intended audience.”98 In order to see what sort of doubt might be suggested by the word shakk, we need to go back to the stories about Noah (Q.10:71-73) and Moses (Q.10:74-93) told earlier in the surah. In both cases, the adversaries of these prophets denied their messages, thus providing a parallel to the situation of Prophet Muhammad whose message threatened to go unheeded as well (Q.10:39-42). The end of the story of Moses suggests that the People of Israel were favored by God, yet they started to differ: Certainly We settled the Sons of Israel in a sure settlement and provided them with good things. They did not (begin to) differ until (after) the knowledge had come to them. Surely your Lord will decide between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning their differences.99

Even though the transition between Q.10:93-94 is not very smooth, it is possible to connect the notion of doubt (shakk) in verse 94 with the notion of difference (ikhtilāf) in verse 93.100 The bestowal of revelation brings an increase in knowledge and this may lead to an increase in differences between people.101 Because of this knowledge, those who recite the Scripture might be consulted in order to relieve the doubt. The verb “to recite” (qara’a; qur’ān “recitation”) alludes to the fact that the knowledge from revelation is mainly associated with the liturgical use of texts from Scripture in recitation. After all, most Jews and Christians derived their knowledge of the Scripture from the liturgical readings and homiletic interpretations of Scripture.102 It seems obvious that the recommendation to consult those who recited the Scripture before in case of doubt serves to indicate the continuity between the biblical and the qur’anic revelations.103 Some ­Muslim 98  SQ 562 (on Q.10:94-95) with references to al-Kalbī (d. 741/1340) and al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1272) as sources for “disbelievers”, and al-Andalusī (d. 541/1147) and al-Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1154) as sources for “people in general”. 99  Q.10:93 (Dr). 100  It should be noted that some editions of the Qur’ān (such as the semi-official Cairo edition) argue that Q.10:94-97 probably belong to the Medinan period. 101  Compare the commentary on Q.5:68 in the previous chapter. 102  Some other verses from this surah seem to confirm the centrality of recitation as a way to convey the meanings of Scripture. See, for instance, Q.10:15 and Q.10:61, discussed earlier in this chapter. 103  See Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur’ān & the Bible: Text and Commentary (New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2018), 1.

268

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

commentators take this verse as a divine suggestion to consult people of earlier revelations so that they can shed light on what is not immediately understood – Muslims will refrain from saying that the Qur’ān itself might not be clear. Others, however, give an interpretation that seems to suggest almost the opposite. The Egyptian theologian Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazālī (1917-1996), for instance, gives the following commentary on this verse: Would this be a recommendation that Muhammad should seek counsel with, or direction from, those who advocate the doctrine of the Trinity or who claim that God appeared in human form? The answer must be a resounding “No!” Such queries by the Prophet as cited in the Qur’an are either rhetorical or polemical or for reasons of instruction and education.104

Such a removal of all doubt from the person of Muhammad reminds me of a certain high Christology that interprets all questions that Jesus asks in the Gospels as forms of divine instruction. Yet this seems to be a far cry from the historical situation in which Jesus and Muhammad lived. 13:36 Those given the book rejoice over your message According to the analysis of suwar 10-15 given by Walid Saleh, the beginning of surah 13 picks up the central theme of surah 12: “most of humanity will not believe.”105 The surah places characteristics of unbelievers and believers in opposition to one another. The unbelievers request that a sign be sent down to them, while those who believe are “secure in the remembrance of God.”106 Yet in this life a decisive proof cannot be given. Q.13:31, the central text of this surah according to Saleh, argues that God could have given a type of recitation (qur’ān) that would have been as convincing as a miraculous phenomenon in nature; yet, it is not according to God’s will that unbelievers come to believe. Consequently, the role of a Messenger is to warn or to bring good news, but it is up to God whether people will accept the message or not. Q.13:36 goes on to mention that “those to whom We sent the Scripture rejoice in what has been sent to you [Prophet]; some factions deny parts of it.”107 Even though the words sound very similar to a phrase that is often used to describe the People of  Muhammad al-Ghazālī, A Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an, 209-10.  Saleh, “End of Hope”, 115. 106  Q.13:28 (Dr). 107  Q.13:36 (AH). 104 105



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

269

Scripture in other places, the Islamic tradition states that the reference here is to the companions of the Prophet.108 However, the “parties” or “factions” (aḥzāb) who reject (nakara) parts of Scripture are identified as Jews and Christians, because they accept some parts of the new revelation that agree with their own revelations while rejecting parts that are different.109 The passage here focuses on the true nature of prophethood. If a messenger is given the ability to perform a miracle, it is done by God’s permission (bi idhni llāhi). Significantly, Q.13:38 continues with “for every time period there is a Scripture.” To the Arabic-speaking people God gave a Scripture in Arabic, as Q.13:37 states, implying that the Qur’ān is meant for a specific cultural setting but also for a specific time period (ajl).110 God may give a new revelation to a new messenger in a new period, wiping out or consolidating whatever God wills. In contrast to these revelations that are related to periods and cultures, the “mother of Scripture” (umm al-kitāb, Q.13:39) is with God, implying the notion that with God is forever what is on earth only temporarily. The notion of “mother of Scripture” suggests the existence with God of an eternal Word that has been revealed in different instances or versions to different peoples in different time periods. 16:43 Ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know In Q.16 al-naḥl (“the bee”), Muhammad receives a message about the sequence of human beings inspired with signs and messages. In this sequence, the word dhikr (“reminder”) is mentioned twice in two apparently different meanings: We have not sent (anyone) before you except men whom We inspired – just ask the People of the Reminder, if you do not know (it) – with the clear signs and the scriptures, and We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may make clear to the people what has been sent down to them, and that they will reflect.111

The main message in this passage is that every recipient of God’s inspiration (waḥy) is a human being – not an angel or another superhuman  See SQ 626 (on Q.13:36), with reference to al-Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1153).  SQ 626 with reference to Ibn Kathīr. 110  Q (MA) 411 (on Q.13:38). Asad refers to Q.5:48 (“for each of you have We appointed a law and way of life”) as a parallel. 111  Q.16:43-44 (Dr). 108 109

270

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

being – just like Prophet Muhammad. This seems to be an answer to those who found the presence of a mere human prophet insufficient, for instance in “Why has not an angel been sent down unto him?” or “What ails this Messenger, who eats food and walks in the markets? Why is there not an angel sent down unto him to be a warner with him?” or “Why has no treasure been sent down upon him, or an angel not come with him?”112 The reference to “People of the Reminder” here seems to imply that Jews and Christians will be able to tell that the messengers sent to them were human beings as well: Moses and Jesus. In an article on the identity of the ahl al-dhikr, Khaleel Mohammed asserts that modern Muslim exegetes often identify them with the scholars among the Muslims, mainly because of the second occurrence of the word dhikr.113 His own opinion, however, is that this term refers to the followers of Moses, not to the followers of Jesus, even though the “clear signs” (bayyināt) and the “scriptures” (zubur) mentioned in Q.16:44 usually refer to the Scriptures given to both Moses and Jesus. The main reason for this author to include the Jews and exclude the Christians from this identification is that the imperative “remember” (zakhor in Hebrew) is more important in the Hebrew Bible than in the New Testament.114 He states that remembering is not central to Christianity, because this religion has a soteriological focus, and therefore the Christian duty lies “not in remembering the past, but rather in patient waiting for a future event.”115 This statement needs some critical consideration since it seems to overlook the nexus between soteriology and ritual signified by the word “remember” in the Eucharist when Christians remember the central events in the life of Christ. The Greek term anamnèsis forms an equivalent with the Arabic dhikr and the Hebrew zikaron, and it refers to a part of the Eucharistic prayer in which the assembled Christian community remembers the salvific acts of Jesus, following his own 112  Q.6:8; 25:7, and 11:12; references and translation in SQ  667 (on Q.16:43). TIK 6:81-91 (on Q.17:90-93) contains a long interpretation, derived from al-Ṭabarī, that explains why the Quraysh insist on divine signs (angels, books, miracles) and cannot accept a human being who speaks Arabic and walks in the market as a Messenger from God. 113  Khaleel Mohammed, “The Identity of the Qur’ān’s Ahl al-Dhikr,” in: Coming to Terms with the Qur’ān: A Volume in Honor of Professor Issa Boullata, eds. Khaleel Mohammed, Andrew Rippin (North Haledon, NJ: Islamic Publications International, 2007), 33-45. See also SQ 667 (on Q.16:43). 114  Mohammed, “The Identity of the Qur’ān’s Ahl al-Dhikr”, 35-36. 115  Ibid., 37.



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

271

i­nstruction “Do this in remembrance of me.”116 However, according to a Catholic understanding of the sacraments, the Eucharist is more than simply remembrance; it makes the salvific events of life of Jesus present.117 Moreover, the readings from the Old Testament, the Epistle and the Gospel in the Christian liturgy form structural elements in the Christian liturgy in which the notion of “remembrance” is central – in a similar way as the weekly readings from the Torah (parsha) and the reading from the Prophets (haftarah) in the Jewish synagogues.118 This liturgical function may explain why the word dhikr is used in two apparently different meanings in this passage. In Q.16:43, ahl al-dhikr refers to people with knowledge of earlier revelations, but in Q.16:44 dhikr refers to the revelation sent down to the addressee – Muhammad – so that he can “make clear” (tubayyina) to the people what was sent down to them. Even as the Gospel is read after the other readings in the liturgy in order to give them a certain focus, so also the remembrance sent down to Muhammad comes after the knowledge given to the “people of remembrance” in order to make clear what was sent down to them. In both cases, the dhikr bestows knowledge, but the second dhikr serves to clarify the first. This specific use of the word dhikr as indicating a reminder sent down to Muhammad in order to make clear previous revelations brings it quite close to the word kitāb, as Q.16:64 shows. The formula “We have sent down to you the Reminder, so that you may make clear to the people what has been sent down to them” in Q.16:44 has a remarkable parallel in “We have not sent down on you the Book, except for you to make clear to them their differences” in Q.16:64.119 While the dhikr was sent down in order to make clear the previous revelations, the kitāb was sent down in order to make clear the differences, and also as a guidance and a mercy for people who believe. 116  Jesus’s instruction is connected to the institution of the Lord’s Supper in I Corinthians 12:23-25; also in Luke 22:19. For the role of anamnesis, see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 2nd ed. 2003), nrs. 1103-4 and 1354, 1362. 117  Archibald van Wieringen, Herwi Rikhof, De Zeven Sacramenten: een Bijbeltheologische en Systematisch-theologische Studie (Bergambacht: Uitgeverij 2vm, 2013), 257. 118  A similar liturgical function seems to be alluded to in Q.62:9-10 (AH), “Believers! When the call to prayer is made on the day of congregation, hurry towards the reminder of God (dhikri llāhi) … then when the prayer has ended, disperse in the land and seek out God’s bounty. Remember God (wa-dhkurū llāha) often so that you may prosper.” 119  Q.16:44b and 64a (Dr). In Arabic, the parallel is even clearer: anzalna ilayka l-dhikra li-tubayyina // mā anzalna ‘alayka l-kitāba illa li-tubayyina.

272

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

19:16 Call in Remembrance from the Scripture Mary Sūrat Maryam (Q.19) is named after Mary, the mother of Jesus. Her story is told in this surah, together with the stories of a number of prophets. The first of the stories is introduced as a dhikr (“reminder, account”) as follows: “This is an account of your Lord’s grace toward His servant Zachariah.”120 The following stories are introduced with the formula, wa-’dhkur fi kitābi, usually translated as “and mention in the Scripture” or “and remember in the Book.”121 The formula is repeated throughout the surah, introducing stories about Mary (Q.19:16), Abraham (Q.19:41), Moses (Q.19:51), Ishmael (Q.19:54) and Idrīs (Q.19:56). Several interpretations have been given of this particular formula, since it is not entirely clear what the Scripture is, nor what exactly is meant by the commission to call in remembrance. A.J. Droge mentions two possibilities: either the formula is meant to remind the audience that they may find the particular stories in Torah and Gospel, or it reminds the Prophet to mention this story in the Qur’ān.122 In her recent monograph on Mary in the Qur’ān, Hosn Abboud mentions a third possibility: kitāb refers to the heavenly book as source of the story.123 She is aware that she represents a minority position here, since all translations have a variant of “mention in the Scripture,” not “from the Scripture.” However, she remarks that most of them “have misinterpreted the meaning of this phrase by missing its liturgical context or implying the physical act of writing down a book or scripture at this period of Muhammad’s activity.”124 For this interpretation, she refers to Madigan’s insight that the word kitāb in the Qur’ān refers to a divine reality in heaven rather than to a concrete piece of writing, and to Neuwirth who says that kitāb in the Meccan period refers to the common heritage of the prophets and the memory of the history of salvation.125 It is useful to quote Neuwirth at some length here: Since, at this time, there was no corpus of written Qur’anic texts for the later Meccan suras to draw upon, the frequent use of the term scripture in those suras most likely refers to an entity beyond a concrete book. This  Q.19:2 (AH).  Q.19:16 (AH, Dr). 122  Droge, The Qur’ān, 194 n. 20 (on Q.19:16). 123  Hosn Abboud, Mary in the Qur’an, 20. 124  Ibid., 20-21. 125  Ibid., 21, with reference to Madigan, The Qur’ān’s self-image and Neuwirth, “Vom Rezitationstext über die Liturgie zum Kanon.” Neuwirth’s text is now published in 120 121



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

273

entity may be taken to be the heavenly scripture that was made available for recitation (qur’ān) and remembrance (dhikr) (Q.19:2, Q.19:51), and from which texts were now being proclaimed intermittently. According to the middle and later Meccan suras, the receipt of scripture was a distinction that had already been bestowed on earlier messengers from the Jewish and Christian traditions; however, the oral proclaimer does not have knowledge of these texts from books, but from oral communications ... The resulting pericope from the heavenly book, constituting the dhikr – made up predominantly of recollections of history – is framed by affirmations of the revelation as well as by hymnic and polemical passages. This particular structure thus created for the liturgical performance can be seen as a recapitulation of the Jewish or Christian liturgy, at the heart of which is the recollection of salvation history.126

According to this hypothesis that aligns with my discussion of the oral nature of kitāb and its heavenly origin in chapter two of this commentary, the dhikr constitutes a liturgical memoria or anamnesis of what has been revealed about the prophets in the heavenly Scripture. Thus, kitāb does not refer to a written source or to a book to be written by the Prophet, but to the heavenly Scripture that is at the origin of what has been revealed to the Prophets and is now called in remembrance.127 21:7 Ask the People of the Reminder As the name of Q.21, al-anbiyā’ (“the prophets”) indicates, stories about the prophets form a central theme. Q.21:2 discusses the situation of those who listen to a new revelation, but do not take it seriously. They give the following reasons for their refusal: “‘No’, they say, ‘(It is) a jumble of dreams! No! He has forged it! No! He is a poet! Let him bring us a sign, as the ones of old were sent (with signs)’.”128 This is one of the most vivid descriptions of what Mehdi Azaiez has labeled “qur’ānic counterdiscourse.”129 The adversaries use three forms of arguments: the person who brings this new reminder is just a human being (Q.21:3), his talk is not creditworthy (Q.21:5 specified as dreams, forgery, poetry) and he did English as “From Recitation through Liturgy to Canon: Sura Composition and Dissolution during the Development of Islamic Ritual”, in NSPC 141-63. 126  NSPC 149-50. 127  On the use of kitāb as source of the knowledge of the prophets, see also Q.19:12 (Yaḥya/John) and Q.19:30 (‘Īsā/Jesus). 128  Q.21:5 (Dr). 129  Azaiez, Le Contre-discours coranique, 234.

274

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

not bring a sign. We have seen the first and the third element before, for instance in Q.16. The second element seems to be more specific: “he is a poet,” possessed by demons; he did not really receive revelation but “dreamt it” or “forged it.”130 The Qur’ān replies by referring to past events: “Not one town which We destroyed before them believed. Will they believe?”131 Next, it addresses the messenger (first “you” in the singular) but also the people in general (“you” in the plural): We have not sent (anyone) before you, except men whom We inspired – just ask the People of the Reminder, if you do not know (it) – nor did We give them a body not eating food, nor were they immortal. But We were true to them in the promise, so We rescued them and whomever We pleased, and We destroyed the wanton. Certainly We have sent down to you a Book in which (there is) your reminder. Will you not understand?132

It seems that this assurance to the messenger serves two purposes. In the first place, it rebuts the argument that a human being cannot be a messenger. In the second place, it establishes continuity between Muhammad and the messengers before him, who were rescued while the deniers perished. In both cases, the word “reminder” (dhikr) contributes to the argument. First, the “People of the Reminder” (ahl al-dhikri) can be consulted if you (the people, plural) do not know. Judging from the context of these verses, the knowledge that the People of the Reminder possess refers to the fact that their messengers are human beings inspired by God.133 This may be specific for the situation in Mecca where the opponents of the revelation seemed to hold that any messenger of God should be angelic rather than human in nature; in contrast, Jews and Christians know that the messengers sent to them – Moses and Jesus – were human beings, so they can be consulted in this matter as ahl aldhikr.134 In contrast, the second use of dhikr in the argument points to continuity between the Meccan and the Medinan surahs, and also to the continuity between the Scriptures revealed before to the ahl al-kitāb and  See also BC 306-19.  Q.21:6 (Dr). 132  Q.21:7-10 (Dr). 133  We have seen a very similar appeal to the “People of the Reminder” in the context of a counter-argumentation to the idea that human beings cannot be messengers inspired by God in Q.16:43-44 discussed earlier in this chapter. 134  SQ 811 (on Q.21:7) argues that some of the most important Muslim commentators, such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī and al-Rāzī identify the ahl al-dhikr as Jews and Christians, more particularly the learned among them, who would be able to tell the Quraysh that God always sent human beings as prophets and messengers. 130 131



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

275

the Scripture revealed to Muhammad. The message that came to Muhammad is a “new reminder” (dhikr muḥdath, Q.21:2) but it is in continuity with what the “People of Remembrance” (ahl al-dhikri, Q.21:7) know. Q.21:10 confirms this continuity by asserting that God sent to the people “a Scripture in which is your reminder” (kitāban fīhi dhikrukum). Again, the presupposition is that people will recognize this reminder in the Scripture if they use their reason; therefore, the verse ends with “will you not understand?”135 The noun dhikr is mentioned, together with the verb kataba, once more toward the end of the surah in a text that comes close to being the only explicit reference to the Bible in the Qur’ān.136 The apocalyptic scene is introduced by the metaphor of rolling up the sky as if it were a scroll. On the Day when We shall roll up the sky like the rolling up of a scroll for the writings: as We brought about the first creation, (so) We shall restore it – (it is) a promise (binding) on Us. Surely We shall do (it)! Certainly We have written in the Psalms, after the Reminder: ‘The earth – My righteous servants will inherit it.’ Surely in this (there is) a delivery indeed for a people who serve.137

The main message of this text is that the righteous people will inherit the restored creation, as God has promised before. This promise is confirmed by what God has written (katabnā) in the zabūr that comes after the dhikr. Most interpreters say that the zabūr refers to the Psalms given to David (Q.4:163; 17:55), so that the dhikr coming before that must refer to the Torah given to Moses.138 Others, however, hold that the word zabūr may include all the writings given to the prophets, while dhikr here refers to the heavenly Reminder, or the “mother of the Book.”139 The promise to which this text refers can indeed be found in the Psalms (“the just will possess the land”, Ps. 37:29) but also in Jesus’s 135  The same continuity is expressed again in Q.21:24 (Dr), in the context of a new polemic against those who accept more than one deity: “Or have they taken gods other than Him? Say: ‘Bring your proof! This is a Reminder (for) those who are with me, and a Reminder (for) those who were before me.’ But most of them do not know the truth, so they turn away.” A distinction is made between those who accept the reminder – both the present reminder and the reminder of the past – and those who do not know the truth and thus accept gods besides the Truth. 136  Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 55; Reynolds, The Qur’ān and the Bible, 3. 137  Q.21:104-6 (Dr). 138  See Droge, The Qur’ān, 212n. 139  SQ 828 (on Q.21:105) with reference to al-Ṭabarī.

276

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew (“Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the land”, Mt. 5:5). 28:52 Those to whom We gave the Scripture before believe in it

The name of Q.28 is al-qaṣaṣ or “the story,” which refers to the story of Moses that is told at some length in this surah. In this context, the word kitāb is used quite often to refer to what was given to Moses, for instance in “after We had destroyed the earlier generations, We gave Moses the Scripture to provide insight, guidance, and mercy for people, so that they might take heed.”140 While Muhammad is given the assurance that “you too have been sent as an act of grace from your Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner has come before, so that they may take heed,”141 yet the difference between the kitāb given to Moses and the lack of such evidence for Muhammad causes some difficult questions from the opponents: Even now that Our truth has come to them, they say, “Why has he not been given signs like those given to Moses?” Did they not also deny the truth that was given to Moses before? They say, “Two kinds of sorcery, helping each other,” and, “We refuse to accept either of them”.142

God bestows truth two times, but twice it is refused; this parallel indicates that the opponents may be Jews, who also refused to heed the message given to them by Moses, as the Qur’ān often suggests. Yet, because of the context in which this surah was revealed, the opponents might also be Quraysh, a leading group in Mecca to which Muhammad was related.143 In one of the “challenge verses” Muhammad is told to challenge the opponents as follows: “Then produce a book from God that gives better guidance than these two and I will follow it if you are telling the truth.”144 Often the challenge is to produce a sūrah or a  Q.28:43 (AH).  Q.28:46b (AH). See also Q.28:86, “You yourself could not have expected the Scripture to be sent to you; it came only as a mercy from your Lord.” This assurance seems to match with the late-Meccan situation that Walid Saleh in his commentary on suwar 10-15 has characterized as a situation of despair. 142  Q.28:48 (AH). 143  See SQ 956 (on Q.28:47). 144  Q.28:49 (AH). Cf. Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an, 151. 140

141



PEOPLE OF REMEMBRANCE

277

­ umber of verses, and the implication is that the literary quality of the n Qur’ān is inimitable (the so-called i‘jāz al-qurān); yet here the challenge is to produce another book from God that will give better guidance. The implication is that God is reliable and sends revelation time and again, while the opponents will not be able to produce anything similar. At this point it is suggested that the People of Scripture actually believe in the new revelation: Those to whom We gave the Scripture before believe in it, and, when it is recited to them, say, “We believe in it, it is the truth from our Lord. Before it came, we had devoted ourselves to Him”.145

The parallel between Moses and Muhammad as receivers of divine revelation leads to a parallel in the receivers: they are believers (mu’minūn) and submitters, aligned with God (muslimūn). This positive reaction of the People of Scripture is quite possibly used here as an argument against the Quraysh: you are not willing to accept the message, yet the Jews (and possibly Christians) see the congruence between the two revelations, and therefore can be reckoned among the true believers. It is not clear whether these verses refer to real Jews (and possibly Christians) in Mecca who accepted Muhammad’s message, or whether they form a rhetorical construction meant to convince the opponents by appealing to a group with a long-standing monotheist tradition.146 The Study Quran thinks that the Qur’ān refers to real Jews and/or Christians who converted in Mecca, and it gives the traditional views by mufassirūn such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī and al-Rāzī: These verses are thought to refer to the People of the Book who believed in the Prophet Muhammad (Ṭ); that is, they were monotheists or believed in the coming of a prophet before the advent of the Quranic revelation (Q). Or it can refer to those who were devoted to their own religion before but followed Muhammad when he came, including people such as ‘Abd Allāh ibn Salām, who was Jewish, and Salmān al-Fārsi, who was Zoroastrian (Ṭ); others also mention certain Christian monks such as Baḥīrah and Waraqa, other Christians from Syria, or others from Abyssinia who returned with the Muslims who had sought refuge there before the Muslim community as a whole migrated from Makkah to Madinah (Q,R).147

 Q.28:52-53 (AH).  See McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians, 240-59; Marshall, “Christianity in the Qur’ān,” 9. 147  SQ 957 (on Q.28:52-53); see also TIK 7:420-24: “The Believers among the People of the Book”. 145

146

278

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Modern scholarship has highlighted the rhetorical power of the Qur’ān in its construction (rather than description) of Jews and Christians as its interlocutors; therefore it seems more likely that “the Meccan allusions to the People of the Book are based not (or at least not principally) on concrete encounters with specific people, as at Medina, but rather on theoretical assumptions about what Jews and Christians should be like and about how they can be expected to respond.”148

148  Marshall, “Christianity in the Qur’ān,” 9, italics in original. See also Griffith, “Al-Naṣārā in the Qur’ān”.

Chapter Nine

DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER 29:46  And

do not dispute the people of scripture except with what is best except those of them who do wrong and say, we believe in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to you and our god and your god is one and we align ourselves to him This verse from Q.29 al-‘ankabūt (“the spider”) contains one of the seven explicit references to the People of Scripture that remain to be discussed after the commentary on the first 24 texts from surahs 2-5 in chapters 3-7 of this commentary. The focus of this chapter will be on the two explicit references to the People of Scripture in Q.29 and Q.33; the next chapter will concentrate on three more texts from Q.57 and Q.59, and the last chapter will discuss two final texts from Q.98.1 Q.29:46 tells the addressees to dispute the People of Scripture only with what is best. It is often seen as one of the most important verses that are to determine relationships between Muslims on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other. It is explicitly mentioned in many of the “Covenants of the Prophet with the People of the Book” that may go back to the early history of Islam; even though historical evidence is weak, it can be presumed that the text of these covenants reflect important issues in the relations between the Muslim rulers and the Christian (and Jewish) communities that they governed.2 The verse is also quoted as a qur’ānic basis for contemporary interfaith relations; Asma ­Afsaruddin, 1  Next to the explicit references to the People of Scripture this commentary will also discuss the most important references to similar phrases in the canonical order of the Qur’ān. After the discussion of Q.6-28 in the previous chapter, Q.29-33 will be discussed in this chapter, Q.34-59 in the next chapter, and Q.61-98 in the final chapter. 2  References to Q.29:46 can be found in the English translations of a number of these covenants in Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet, ed. John Andrew Morrow (Newcastle u/Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2017), vol. 3: 3, 7, 17, 22, 27.

280

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

for instance, discusses it as a qur’ānic “hermeneutics of dialogic engagement.”3 The Turkish Muslim scholars Ahmet Kurucan and Mustafa Kasım Erol consider this verse, together with the “common word” verse (Q.3:64) as one of the foundations for the dialogue between the Abrahamic religions.4 Muhammad Shafiq and Mohammed AbuNimer remark that the term mujādala (a noun derived from the verb j-d-l used in this verse) initially referred to an attempt to use logical debate as a means to convert religious others. They assert that in this specific verse, “[t]he Qur’an reformed this practice by asking Muslims to display respect for others when engaging in such activities.”5 If one approaches the Qur’ān diachronically, it is particularly important to closely examine this specific verse in its context because Q.29 is generally considered to be revealed in Mecca. Since most scholars assume that almost all other suwār in which the People of Scripture are explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān have been revealed in Medina, Q.29:46 might very well be the first chronological reference to the category of the “People of Scripture.” Ismail Albayrak, for instance, makes a distinction between a limited number of references to the ahl al-kitāb in the late Meccan period of the revelations to Prophet Muhammad and the more numerous references in the Medinan period of the revelations.6 He remarks that the Qur’ān generally speaks about the People of Scripture in a rather positive way, as opposed to the negative view of the pagans in Mecca.7 In Medina, the relation with the People of Scripture begins to deteriorate, mainly because of the violation of treatises by the Jews in Medina. Even though some of the criticisms are directed at Christians, the large majority of texts criticizing the People of Scripture in the Medinan revelations refer mainly or exclusively to Jews.8 It is remarkable indeed that almost all surahs containing explicit references to the ahl al-kitāb or People of Scripture in the Qur’ān are classified among the latest Medinan surahs, both according to the traditional Islamic 3  Asma Afsaruddin, “Religious Dialogue and Interfaith Relations,” in Contemporary Issues in Islam, 174-205. 4  Ahmet Kurucan and Mustafa Kasım Erol, Dialogue in Islam: Qur’an – Sunnah – History (London: Dialogue Society, 2011), 34-35. 5  Muhammad Shafiq and Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, 52. 6  Ismail Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān”, Islamic Studies 47 (2008) 301-25. 7  Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” 305-8. 8  Albayrak, “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” 311-12.



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

281

or “Royal Egyptian” chronology and according to the chronology given by the German scholar Theodor Nōldeke in his famous Geschichte des Qurāns.9 All but one of the explicit references to ahl al-kitāb occur in Medinan surahs; only the reference in surah 29 occurs in a late Meccan surah.10 In her diachronic approach to the Qur’ān, Angelika Neuwirth describes the first occurrence of the term ahl al-kitāb in Q.29:46 as a transition between a late-Meccan virtual conflict with the adherents of older monotheistic traditions in which the summons to “dispute the People of Scripture with what is best” restrains the polemical impact, and a Medinan phase in which the category “People of Scripture” is used to characterize a more open rivalry.11 She remarks that the occurrence of the notion of the “People of Scripture” in these texts is remarkable, since it seems to suggest a shared “Scriptural” self-understanding, while in fact the Qur’ān remained, during Muhammad’s lifetime, oral in nature.12 Q.29 introduces a group of people who say that they believe while in fact they reckon to evade the test that comes with true faith. God, however, will make sure that these hypocrites will be judged differently from the believers.13 Therefore, true believers should not be afraid to suffer persecution for the sake of God because God is with them and will pass judgment. Such a reassurance makes sense in the situation of persecution in Mecca, just before the hijra or migration to Medina.14 The references to the stories of the prophets in Q.29 serve as a reminder that God’s messengers (Noah, 9  The words “Royal Egyptian” refer to the standard edition of the Qur’ān in Arabic under King Fu‘ad in Egypt in 1924/25. The headings of the surahs in this edition contain indications about the order of the revelations of the surahs (“Revealed in Mecca after surah X and before surah Y”). For Nöldeke’s chronology, see his Geschichte des Qurāns, first published in 1860 and supplemented by three of his students: Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf Bergsträßer and Otto Pretzl. For a rendering of the entire work in English, see the edition and translation by Wolfgang H. Behn, The History of the Qur’ān. 10  See Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an, chapters four (“Traditional Resources for Determining the Chronological Order of the Surahs,” 60-75) and five (”Western Attempts at Dating the Revelations,” 76-96). Also, Carl W. Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an, 39-41. 11  NKTS 144-45. The virtual character of the conflict may be connected to the literary character of the relations with the People of Scripture in Mecca, as discussed at the end of the previous chapter. 12  Ibid. 13  Q.29:11. Muhammad Asad (ad loc., 678) remarks that this is probably the first chronological occurrence of the word munāfiq or “hypocrite” in the Qur’ān. 14  “On the whole, it would seem that, historically, the sūrah marks the transition between the Mecca and Medina periods” (Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 676).

282

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Abraham, Lot, but also Shu‘ayb) have not been accepted before, yet God has destroyed the civilizations of unbelief.15 In the midst of these stories, there is a remarkable reference to Abraham and the promises made to him and his heirs: “We gave Isaac and Jacob to Abraham, and placed prophethood and Scripture among his offspring. We gave him his rewards in this world, and in the life to come he will be among the righteous.”16 At the same time, however, the prophets did not succeed in convincing their adversaries, and therefore the people to whom the prophets were sent have been destroyed. The vulnerability of human beings in the face of God is then sketched in the form of a parable (mathal): they are like the house that a spider builds, which is the frailest of all houses. After this discussion of human frailty in front of God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, attention shifts to the situation of the proclaimer of the message in the present. The command to “recite whatever you have been inspired (with) of the Scripture,” and to pray constantly suggests that human beings need constant remembrance of God (dhikru llāhi) in order to act righteously, being aware that God is forever greater. This is the context in which Q.29:46 prescribes a specific way to communicate with the People of Scripture. 29:46 Dispute the People of Scripture with what is best While the commentary focuses on Q.29:46 because it explicitly refers to the People of Scripture, this verse needs to be read in context since the preceding and subsequent verses mention Scripture a few times as well. Some interpreters let the section start with verse 46 and imply a new subject in the plural for this verse, but others let the section start with verse 45 and continue the implied subject in the singular.17 29:45  Recite

what has been revealed to you of the scripture and perform the prayer since prayer holds back from what is excessive and disapproved  See Marshall, God, Muhammad, and the Unbelievers.  Q.29:27 (AH). The promises here have more similarities with the promises to Abraham in the book of Genesis than elsewhere in the Qur’ān. 17  Abdel Haleem (The Qur’an, 402-3) sets Q.29:45 apart with [Prophet] as implied subject, and [Believers] as implied subject for Q.29:46. Asad (The Message of the Qur’ān, 684-85) assumes that the two verses are not only addressed to the Prophet, but to the believers in general, which would explain the shift from the singular to the plural in Q.29:45b. 15

16



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

283

yet the remembrance of god is greatest and god knows what you produce 29:46  And do not dispute the people of scripture except with what is best except those of them who do wrong and say, we believe in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to you and our god and your god is one and we align ourselves to him 29:47  and thus have we sent down to you the scripture and those to whom we have given the scripture believe in it and from these [there are] who believe in it and not do they deny our signs except those who are disbelievers 29:48  and not were you reciting before it from a scripture nor were you writing it with your right hand in that case those who talk idly would doubt 29:49  No! these are clear signs in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge and not deny our signs except the wrongdoers 29:50  and they say: if only signs were sent down to him from his lord say: signs are with god and I am a clear warner 29:51  is it not enough for them that we have sent to you the scripture that you recite to them because therein is mercy and reminder for people who believe Explanatory Notes Q.29:45 begins with an imperative form of the verb talā that refers to a recitation by the addressed (singular, probably Prophet Muhammad). Since the next imperative form refers to the performance of prayer, it seems that the recitation is supposed to be performed in the context of prayer, or in conjunction with prayer. The clause “what has been revealed to you of the scripture” seems to imply that the part that needs to be recited is coming from a larger Scripture. This may either refer to the traditional conviction that the Qur’ān has been revealed by bits and pieces, or to the idea of a heavenly Scripture that contains more than what has been revealed to individual prophets. The first alternative seems to be likely because of the connection between recitation and liturgy, yet it is remarkable that the verb used here is “to inspire” (waḥā) and not the much more common “to send down” (anzala), as in Q.29:47.

284

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

In Q.29:46, the verb jādala prescribes a certain way of relating to other religious people, even though it makes an exception for those who commit evil (ẓalama). The way of relating that is prescribed is formulated negatively: “do not argue except with what is best” (aḥsan). I will look first at the basic meaning of this verb, and next at the qualification added. The basic meaning of the verb jadala is “to twist firmly” and “to strengthen,” but the third and sixth forms of this verb are used to indicate a reciprocal speech act: “to quarrel, debate, contest.”18 In the history of relations between Muslims and Christians, mujādala (or jidāl) has become one of the basic forms of communication: it refers to a disputation between two parties in which both sides try to convince the other that they are right. In the Qur’ān itself, the word is often used with a negative connotation, for instance: “God has heard the words of the woman who disputed with you [Prophet] about her husband and complained to God: God has heard what you both had to say. He is all hearing, all seeing.”19 In this case, the word mujādila refers to a woman who complained about a rude form of divorce to Prophet Muhammad, and her argument was interpreted as a form of disputation since she did not want to cede her place until the case was brought before God. In quite a few cases, disputation is prohibited in the Qur’ān as a form of behavior that is unseemly in a religious context. This is the case, for instance, in the negative evaluation of people “arguing about God” while they have no knowledge, or people who argue with the Prophet as a way to stay away from true faith.20 The Qur’ān frequently addresses those who dispute about the signs of God as willful unbelievers.21 While the notion of debating can have a positive meaning when prophets such as Noah (Q.11:32) debate with unbelievers, God tells Abraham to cease debating with Him in favor of the people of Lot (Q.11:76). Jane McAuliffe summarizes the qur’ānic usage of the root j-d-l and its synonyms as follows: “Taken together the qur’ānic vocabulary associated with this topic demonstrates that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, debate and disputation are assessed negatively.”22 18  For more details, see Jane D. McAuliffe, “Debate with them in the Better Way”, in:  Myths, Historical Archetypes and Symbolic Figures in Arabic Literature, eds. Angelika Neuwirth et al. (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999), 163-88; ead., “Debate and Disputation”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. J.D. McAuliffe, vol. I (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 511-14. 19  Q.58:1 (AH). 20  See Q.22:3.8 and Q.6:25-26. 21  See, for instance, Q.40:4. 22  McAuliffe, “Debate and Disputation,” 513.



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

285

This negative connotation of the verb “to dispute” may explain the phrasing of Q.29:46: disputing with the People of Scripture should only be done in the best possible way. An interesting parallel of this qualifier can be found in Q.16:125 where Muhammad receives a more general assignment: Call thou [all mankind] unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner: for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided.23

While the words “argue with them in the most kindly manner” (jādilhum bi-llati hiya aḥsanu) are almost identical to Q.29:46, the imperative that precedes them is different: “call to the path of your Lord” (’d‘u ilā sabīli rabbika). The verb da‘ā (noun: da‘wa) is traditionally used for the activity of calling someone to Islam – an equivalent to the notion of “mission” in Christianity. This juxtaposition between missionary work and disputation gives both notions an antagonistic qualification, which needs to be softened by additions such as “with wisdom and kindness” and “in the best possible manner.”24 In Q.29:46, the verb “to dispute” or “to argue”, even if modified by “in the best possible way” still seems to be somewhat in tension with the contents of the second half of the verse that imply some common ground between the two parties involved: “we believe in what was sent down to them and what was sent down to us; our God and their God is one; to Him we are muslimūn.” The three aspects of this “common word” between the believers and the People of Scripture – except those who commit injustice – will be discussed further in the Christian resonances. Q.29:47 seems to allude to multiple groups of people who have received the Scripture and who believe in it. The first group is described in “those (alladhīna) to whom we have given the Scripture believe in it,” and the second in “from these (hā’ulā’i) [there are] who believe in it.” We will see how the Islamic interpretations identify these two groups. The final word of the verse (kāfirūn) is usually translated as “unbelievers” or “disbelievers”, but the root meaning of the verb k-f-r is “to cover, hide” and “to be ungrateful.”  Q.16:125 (MA).  A similar antagonism-with-qualification can be found in Q.16:126 (MA) as well: “if you have to respond to an attack [in argument], respond only to the extent of the attack leveled against you; but to bear yourselves with patience is indeed far better”. 23 24

286

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.29:48 states that the source of revelation to Muhammad truly was God, answering the charge that he had prior knowledge of earlier revelations or that he manually copied them. The verse mentions two possible ways of conveying such traditions: either by reciting (talā), or by writing (khaṭṭa), echoing an imputation such as “it is just ancient fables, which he has had written down: they are dictated to him morning and evening.”25 Q.29:49 sharply denounces such allegations by pointing to clear signs received and understood (“in the breasts of those who have knowledge”), so that those who deny them are committing injustice (ẓulm). Q.29:50 discusses a second charge, namely that a true prophet is someone who brings signs or miracles. Against this charge, the prophet defends himself by saying that it is God who gives signs while Muhammad’s function is that of a warner (nadhīr). The final verse adds that the Scripture should be enough for people who believe, since therein is a mercy (raḥma) and a reminder (dhikr). The purport is that real believers do not need signs or miracles but they understand the Scripture that has been given to them. Islamic Interpretations In my discussion of the commentaries on Q.29:45-51, I will start with the two oldest commentaries (Mujāhid and Muqātil) separately, and will discuss the later commentaries together. In his gloss on Q.29:46, Mujāhid ibn Jabr seems to presuppose a polemical context, since he explains “do not dispute the People of Scripture except with what is best” as: “if they say something bad (sharran), then say something better (khayran).”26 The exception for “those of them who do wrong” is explained as follows: “they say, ‘there is a deity with God; He has a son; He has a partner; His hand is shackled; He is poor;’ and they trouble Prophet Muhammad, and these are the People of Scripture.”27 In this gloss, qur’ānic terms are used to identify the different forms of “doing wrong” or “committing injustice.” The expressions used are clearly associated with Christians and Jews, even though the terminology does not exactly match qur’ānic usage. The idea that God has a son (walad) or a partner (sharīk) echoes criticisms directed at Christians in the fourth and fifth surahs. The idea that God’s hand is shackled  Q.25:5 (AH).  TMJ 205 n. 1267 (on Q.29:46). 27  TMJ 205 n. 1268. 25 26



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

287

(maghlūla) and that God is poor (faqīr) echoes criticisms directed at Jews in the fifth and the third surahs.28 The third element in Q.29:46 that Mujāhid explains is the phrase “And say, ‘We believe in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to you’.” This is interpreted to mean that Muslims should tell the People of Scripture who did not come to this insight before that their faith confirms the faith of Jews and Christians.29 Muqātil ibn Sulaymān restricts the meaning of Q.29:46 to only the scriptuaries who believed, that is: Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions.30 He explains “except with what is best” as “tell them about the Qur’ān and inform them about it.” Yet again, he restricts the meaning of this verse by adding that it has been abrogated by the “sword verse” that says, “Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day.”31 The words “except those of them who do wrong” refer to the iniquity of the Jews; “what was sent down to us” is the Qur’ān, and “what was sent down to you” is the Tawrāt; “our God and your God is one” is paraphrased as “our Lord and your Lord is one,” and finally “we align ourselves to Him” means “we are devoted (mukhliṣīn) to saying, ‘God is one’ (bi-l tawḥīd). The glosses given by Muqātil on Q.29:46 seem to display different strategies. The first strategy is to limit the positive significance of the verse by saying that it only applies to those who have in fact converted to Islam. The second strategy is to limit the verse specifically to a debate with Jews, since – even though many Jews have acted iniquitously – the principle of monotheism is shared by most Jews and Muslims, and therefore the second half of the verse can be seen as a common devotion to saying “God is one.” Yet a third strategy seems to undercut the remaining positive significance of Q.29:46 by declaring it abrogated by the “sword verse” that prescribes fighting instead of debating.32 Muqātil 28  Mujāhid adds another tradition about the words “except those of them who do wrong”, saying, on the authority of Saīd ibn Jubayr, that these are the “People of War” (ahl al-ḥarb) with whom there is no treaty (‘ahd); instead, they need to be engaged by the sword (jāhidūhum bi’l sayfi). TMJ 205 n. 1269 (on Q.29:46). 29  TMJ 206 n. 1270. 30  Abdallah ibn Salām is often mentioned in the tafsīr tradition as the earliest and most famous Jewish convert to Islam. See commentary on Q.3:110, Q.4:155 and Q.28:52-53. 31  TMS 2:521 (on Q.29:46); the “sword verse” is Q.9:29. 32  It is interesting that Muqātil refers to Q.9:29 as the “sword verse” (āyat al-sayf) while the verse that became most commonly known as the “sword verse” is Q.9:5. For interpretations of this verse, see Asma Afsaruddin, Striving in the Path of God, 71-75 (on Q.9:5) and 75-79 (on Q.9:29).

288

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

refers to Q.9:29, discussed in the previous chapter, that contains the command to fight the unbelievers among those to whom the Scripture has been given until they are humbled and pay the jizya tax.33 For that reason, Q.9:29 is sometimes referred to as the jizya verse that would have abrogated Q.29:46. Yet many Muslim interpreters of the Qur’ān hold that the concept of abrogation does not apply in matters of relations between religions.34 Muqātil explains Q.29:47 as follows: this is about the Jews who believe, such as Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions. They have been given the tawrāt, and they have come to accept that the Qur’ān of Muhammad is from God. The next part, “from these [there are] who believe in it” refers to the believers of Mecca who also accept that the Qur’ān is from God. The final group mentioned, “those who deny the signs and are disbelievers,” are people who have knowledge of the signs, and therefore know that Muhammad is a prophet, and yet some among the Jews deny it.35 In Q.29:48, the Qur’ān defends Muhammad against the charge of having recited or written anything before he received the Qur’ān. If he had done so, the Jews would have said that what he wrote comes from his own mind (min tilqā’i nafsihi). They are indeed unbelievers and doubters since they find a description of Muhammad in their own tawrāt, viz. that he is an illiterate (ummī) who is not able to recite or to write with his hand.36 Therefore, according to Muqātil, the “clear signs” in Q.29:49 refer to clear indications in the Torah that Muhammad is an illiterate who could not recite or write. Those who are knowledgeable about these indications are Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions. Whereas Q.29:48-49 discussed the refusal of the majority of the Jews to accept the prophethood of Muhammad, Q.29:50-51 discuss the refusal of the Meccans to do so. In Muqātil’s analysis, the two groups of believers distinguished in Q.29:47 form a minority among two groups  See the discussion of this verse in the previous chapter of this commentary.  See Asma Afsaruddin, Contemporary Issues in Islam, 192; Farid Esack, The Qur’an: A User’s Guide (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005), 127; Reza Shah-Kazemi, The Other in the Light of the One: the Universality of the Qur’ān and Interfaith Dialogue (Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2006), 169; Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 29-34. The Study Quran (978, on Q.29:46) adds that al-Ṭabarī denies abrogation in this case since there is no definite proof for it. 35  TMS 2:521 (on Q.29:47). 36  TMS 2:521-22 (on Q.29:48). 33 34



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

289

of unbelievers – the Jews and the Meccans – and each of their objections receives a separate discussion: the Jewish objection (this does not come from God but from his own mind) in Q.29:48-49, and the Meccan objection (he did not bring signs) in Q.29:50-51. Commenting on the words “People of Scripture” in Q.29:46, the Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās argues that it refers to both Jews and Christians. “Disputing with what is best” is glossed as: “dispute by the Qur’ān.”37 The Tafsīr al-Jalālayn agrees with this: it means “calling [them] to God by [reference to] His signs and pointing out His arguments.”38 Ibn Kathīr makes the reference explicit by pointing to the parallel in Q.16:125, “invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching.”39 Al-Ṭabarī, in contrast, interprets the words “with what is best” as: even if others speak badly, Muslims should speak well.40 Ibn ‘Abbās indicates a very specific context for the words “except those of them who do wrong,” stating that it refers to wrongdoers among the delegation of Christians from Najrān. In their case, the disputation proceeds “by means of mula‘ana” (“mutual cursing”), which probably refers to the “verse of mubāhala” (Q.3:61), traditionally explained as a mutual cursing.41 The Tafsīr al-Jalālayn indicates that the exception refers to those who wage war and refuse to pay the jizya tax. In these cases, the disputation needs to be done by means of the sword – this interpretation brings the two Jalals close to Muqātil.42 Ibn Kathīr connects the words “we believe in what was sent down to us and what was sent down to you” with a specific ḥadīth that interprets these words as a sign of hesitation instead of common ground. According to this tradition, the Prophet would have said, “Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them,” and then continued to quote the final three lines of Q.29:46. Thus, the implied meaning becomes as follows: [I]f they tell you something which you do not know to be true or false, say to them: We do not hasten to say it is a lie, because it may be true, and we do not hasten to say it is true because it may be false. We believe in it 37  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās on Q.29:46, transl. Mokrane Guezzou, at www.altafsir.com (accessed July 3, 2017). 38  TJJ 380 (on Q.29:46). 39  TIK 7:495 (on Q.29:46). 40  See SQ 978 (on Q.29:46). 41  Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās on Q.29:46. For the mubāhala verse and its interpretation, see the commentary on the “common word” verse (Q.3:64) in chapter four. 42  TJJ ad loc.

290

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

in general, under the condition that it has been revealed and has not been altered or deliberately misinterpreted.43

This traditional interpretation shows how the doctrine of taḥrīf (corruption) modified the words from an indication of commonality to an indication of detachment and suspicion.44 This modification is even clearer in a second tradition collected by Bukhārī that says – on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās – that it makes no sense asking the People of Scripture about anything since Muslims have a book that is more recent, pure and without contamination.45 Following Muqātil, some of the mufassirūn interpret Q.29:47 in a way that separates it from the previous verse, explaining the first part as referring to Abdallah ibn Salām and other Jews who became Muslims. The Study Quran, however, argues that this text refers to Jews and Christians who recognize the signs yet without becoming Muslims.46 The Tafsīr al-Jalālayn singles out the Jews and “those for whom it was apparent that the Qur’ān was the truth and that the one who brought it was truthful” as the disbelievers indicated at the end of the verse, because they knew the signs but still denied them.47 Discussing Q.29:48, Ibn ‘Abbās gives a wider interpretation, identifying those who doubt and talk idly as “Jews, Christians and idolaters … for it is mentioned in the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians that you are unlettered.”48 While Muqātil singles out the Jews, Ibn ‘Abbās includes the Christians as well, arguing that there are references to the illiterate status of the Prophet in their Scripture. Ibn Kathīr quotes Q.7:157 in support: “Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the unlettered about whom they find written with them in the Tawrāh and the Injīl – he commands them with good; and forbids them from evil.”49 Tafsīr Jalālayn associates the doubters with Jews since they know that the coming prophet would be unlettered according to their Scriptures.50 43  TIK  7:496. The reference in this edition is to Fatḥ al-Bāri (a commentary on al-Bukhārī’s Ṣaḥīḥ collection of aḥādīth by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani) 8:20. 44  For the role of such modifications, see Clinton Bennett, Understanding Christian – Muslim Relations. He makes a basic distinction between conciliatory and confrontational approaches towards the other religion in the history of Christian – Muslim relationships. 45  TIK 7:497 (on Q.29:46), with reference to hadith 7363 in Bukhārī’s collection. 46  SQ 978-79 (on Q.29:47). See its commentary on Q.3:199; 3:110-15; 5:82-83. 47  TJJ 380 (on Q.29:47). 48  Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās on Q.29:48. 49  TIK 7:499 (on Q.29:47-49). 50  TJJ 380, tr. Hamza: “‘those who follow falsehood’, the Jews, ‘would have had doubts’, about you and would have said, ‘What the Torah states is that he will be unlettered (ummi), unable to read or write.”



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

291

The same difference continues in the commentary on Q.29:49: Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās gives a general application (Jews, Christians, and idolaters), yet Tafsīr al-Jalālayn includes the Jews only, since “they denied [the signs] after they were manifested to them.”51 Ibn Kathīr tells us that the “clear sign in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge” refers to the Qur’ān, memorized by the scholars of Islam: it is preserved in their hearts and on their tongues.52 Al-Ṭabarī gives another possible interpretation: the “clear signs” are references to prophet Muhammad visible to the People of Scripture in their own books.53 The two Jalāls say that the speakers of the words “if only signs were sent down to him from his lord” in verse 50 are the Meccan disbelievers. They refer to signs such as the she-camel of Salih, the staff of Moses, or the table of Jesus.54 It is interesting to see that the Quraysh are supposed to know about these stories, both biblical (Moses, Jesus) and non-biblical (Salih). Yet the answer to this questioning for signs is that signs are with God and Muhammad is but a warner. As the Study Quran indicates, both the request for signs and the reply that Muhammad is only a warner are recurring themes in the Qur’ān.55 In summary, it is remarkable that the tafsīr tradition constantly oscillates between two groups addressed in these verses: Jews (and Christians) on the one hand, and Meccan Quraysh on the other. One might argue that such interpretations confirm the traditional chronological allocation of this surah as a late-Meccan surah, but the causal relation might very well work the other way around: the chronological allocation of the surah is a factor in the oscillating interpretations. Christian Resonances The most important text to reflect on for possible Christian resonances is the beginning of Q.29:46, “do not dispute the People of Scripture except with what is best.” As I explained before, the verb jadala is often used in situations where there is a tension or discord; yet the addition  TJJ 380 (on Q.29:49).  TIK 7:501 (on Q.29:49). 53  SQ 979 (on Q.29:49). 54  TJJ 380 (on Q.29:50). Ibn Kathīr gives the reference to the she-camel, given by God as a sign to the people of Thamud according to Q.17:59. In a similar way, Moses was given his staff as a sign confronting Pharaoh (see Q.7:106-7), and Jesus was given the table as a sign (Q.5:114). See TIK 7:502 (on Q.29:50-52). 55  SQ 979 (on Q.29:50). Request for signs also in 2:118; 10:20; 13:7; 17:90-93; 20:133; “only a warner” also in 13:7; 22:49; 35:23; 38:70; 46:9; 67:26; 79:45. 51 52

292

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

to do it in the best possible way softens the tension, and the result is what seems to be formulated as a common ground in the second half of the verse. Almost all mufassirūn explained the text as a summons to call Jews and Christians to the religion of Islam on the basis of the Qur’ān as the best this religion has to offer. It is very well possible that there is influence here from the parallel verse Q.16:125, where the aspect of a call (da‘wa) adds a missionary element to the notion of disputation. The same parallel might also explain interpretations of the words “except with what is best” as: in a friendly or courteous way. Possible Christian resonances to this specific text might originate from different directions, depending on the specific interpretation of the text from the Qur’ān. If “dispute with what is best” resonates mainly with “with wisdom and kindness” from Q.16:125, it becomes an invitation to respond with an openness to the religious other that is visible in some of the examples from the Christian tradition that we have already mentioned: a “holy envy” in the spirit of Krister Stendahl, or a pia interpretatio in the spirit of Nicholas of Cusa. Even stronger resonances can be found in the words of Jesus, “whoever is not against us is with us” (Mark 9:40), or in the words of the Second Vatican Council that it regards Muslims with esteem (cum aestimatione). If, however, “dispute with what is best” resonates mainly with the invitation (da‘wa) to consider the Qur’ān as the best means of interreligious engagement, the loudest Christian resonance may be found in the famous great commission at the end of the Gospel according to Matthew: The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”56

The resonance is strong but also vague because there is a big difference in context – apart from the fact that the risen Jesus is talking to his disciples – since the commission to make disciples and to baptize extends to all nations, while Q.29:46 specifically relates to the People of Scripture. In that sense, this resonance fits the more general exhortation from Q.16:125 better. Yet it is interesting to think about the parallel between  Matthew 28:16-20 (NAB).

56



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

293

the Qur’ān as the best possible way to dispute for Muslims and making disciples and baptism as the best possible way to proceed for Christians. Some theologians might be inclined to point to the strongly interpersonal and communal dimensions of the Christian faith, expressed by the ideas of discipleship and ecclesial community, and foremost by Jesus’ assurance to be with his disciples until the end of time. Or they might assert that this text strongly expresses the Trinitarian nature of God by using the formula that would become the traditional baptismal formula with the thrice-repeated name of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This might indeed lead to a classical debate about God between adherents of the two religions, since the second half of Q.29:46 in the Qur’ān is equally explicit in saying “our God and your God is one, and we align ourselves to Him.” So under what circumstances can Christians agree with this confession of one God (tawḥīd) that makes us all muslimūn? Or under what circumstances can Muslims become disciples of Jesus in such as way that they recognize the oneness of God as triune?57 Another important Christian resonance to the verse “do not dispute the People of Scripture except with what is best” is taken from the first letter of Peter in the New Testament. This text brings together the two different possible resonances that I distinguished above: interreligious and missionary engagement. It is a text that is traditionally associated with Christian apologetics as a way to give account of one’s faith. Just like the verb jadala in Arabic, the term “apologetics” may not seem the best form of communication with religious others, since it is mainly concerned with a defense of one’s own religious point of view. Yet the letter of Peter adds the idea that such giving account of one’s faith should be done with gentleness and reverence, which parallels the “best way” (aḥsan) in the text from the Qur’ān. Now who is going to harm you if you are enthousiastic for what is good? But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For 57  For a challenging essay discussing possibilities and limits, see James Cutsinger, “Disagreeing to Agree: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word’,” in: Muslim and Christian Understanding. Theory and Application of “A Common Word”, eds. Waleed ElAnsary and David K. Linnan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 111-30. See also Pim Valkenberg, “God in Muslim and Christian Thought”.

294

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.58

This text addresses a situation in which Christians proclaim their faith – a parallel with the da‘wa or invitation from Q.16:125 – in a society that is not very receptive to this message. In this situation Peter invites them to answer all questions and to explain the hope that is in their hearts, however, they need to do so with gentleness (Greek: prautètos, “meekness”) and reverence (Greek: phobos, “fear”) having a good conscience (syneidèsis). The contents of the message may be strong, yet the manner in which the message is given should be considerate. The main resonance with the text of Q.29:46 is the combination of strength in faith and courteousness in presentation that might be an important asset for present-day Muslim – Christian dialogue.59 The final resonance in the Christian tradition of an aspect mentioned in the text relates to the fact that the people of Mecca refused to accept Muhammad’s message as long as God did not give him signs (Q.29:50). The Qur’ān retorts forcefully: “is it not enough for them that We have sent to you the Scripture that you recite to them?” In other words: Scripture should have been enough as a sign from God. Abraham gives a very similar retort in the story of Lazarus and the rich men in the Gospel according to Luke.60 In this story, the rich man ends up in the netherworld where he is in misery and sees Abraham with Lazarus at his side.61 He asks for a drop of water, but Abraham reminds him that he did not share his wealth with Lazarus when alive. When the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to warn the rich man’s brothers, Abraham responds: “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.” The rich man presses his point by saying that his brothers will repent if they see someone from the dead, but Abraham retorts: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should  I Peter 3:13-17 (NAB).  On the history of apologetics and forms of dialogue, see also Pim Valkenberg, Sharing Lights on the Way to God, 87-97. 60  See Luke 16:19-31. 61  The image of Lazarus at his death being “carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) is probably one of the most powerful expressions of (Jewish and) Christian hope. Its liturgical expression is found in the last sentence of the In Paradisum antiphone, sung when the body of the deceased is carried out of the church: Chorus angelorum te suscipiat et cum Lazaro quondam paupere aeternam habeas requiem (“may the choir of angels take you up, and like Lazarus who once was poor may you have eternal rest”). 58

59



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

295

rise from the dead.”62 The argument is basically the same argument that the Qur’ān often makes against those who do not open themselves for its message: if you do not believe your own Scriptures, and act accordingly, no signs and wonders will convince you. Taken together, these resonances may sometimes be perceived as dissonances: on the one hand, “dispute” rather than “dialogue” has certainly characterized the majority of relationships between Muslims and Christians; on the other hand, a willingness to seek “the best” way to enhance these relationship is part of the present-day awareness of many Muslims and Christians that “our God and your God is one.” If we are truly willing to align ourselves with God, we should not allow our relationships to be determined by historical fractures. Yet it will take some effort to search our Scriptures and listen to Moses and the prophets, in order to practice the Word of God.  30:2-3 The Byzantines have been defeated but will win The name of surah 30, al-Rūm, refers to Christians not in a theological but in a political sense. The word Rūm refers to the inhabitants of the east-Roman or Byzantine Empire. Q.30:2-3 are among the few verses in the Qur’ān that seem to refer to contemporary historical events: “Defeated have been the Byzantines in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding their defeat, shall be victorious within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last.”63 The mufassirūn have seen this as a reference to the battles between the Byzantine and the Persian Empires, in which the Persians got the upper hand at the beginning of the seventh century, conquering Damascus and Jerusalem in 613-14; yet some ten years later, the Byzantines succeeded in defeating the Persians.64 In their commentaries they refer to a theological dimension that is relevant for this Christian commentary since it uses the Scriptural base as a bond of sympathy between Muhammad and his companions and the Christians. Al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl, for instance, relates the following: The Persians defeated the Byzantines. The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, and his Companions heard this while in Mecca and felt  Luke 16:29.31 (NAB).  Q.30:2-4 (MA). 64  See Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 24-27. 62 63

296

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

sad about it. The Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, disliked that the Magians, who did not have a revealed Scripture, have the upper hand over the Byzantines who were people of the Book.65

This text suggests that the early Muslims saw themselves as belonging to the People of Scripture, together with Christians and Jews, and therefore aligned themselves politically with the Byzantines in their battles with the Persians. When the fortunes reversed and the Byzantines started to defeat the Persians in the period 622-627, the believers saw this as a fulfillment of the prophecy of the Qur’ān, and they connected it with their own first major victory after the hijra, the battle of Badr in 624 AD or 2 AH.66 In this manner, political and military events gained a theological significance – even though later losses as in the battle of Uhud necessitated a rethinking of this type of theology. 31:20 Debaters without knowledge,

guidance and

Scripture

Q.31 (sūrat Luqmān) is named after a person who is introduced in verse 12 as having received wisdom from God. In verses 13-19 Luqmān – tradionally associated with Aesop – teaches wisdom to his son in a manner that is reminiscent of the wisdom tradition in the biblical books of Proverbs and Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). After this wisdom teaching, the Qur’ān addresses the situation of those who do not pay attention: Do you not see that God has subjected to you whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth, and has lavished on you His blessings, both outwardly and inwardly? But among the peope (there is) one who disputes about God without any knowledge or guidance or illuminating Book.67

The first half of the verse is addressed to a group of people who are doing well because God has bestowed God’s blessings on them; the second half of the verse is addressed to those among humans who dispute about God (yujādilu fī llāhi) without knowledge or guidance or Scripture.68 This is one of the many places where Scripture (kitāb) is mentioned in connection with “knowledge” (‘ilm) and “guidance” (hudan), emphasizing the  WAN 179 (on Q.30:1-3).  See Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 693n.3 (on Q.30:4-5). 67  Q.31:20 (Dr). 68  Similar phrases about knowledge, guidance and Scripture in Q.22:3 and Q.22:8. 65 66



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

297

notion that the reception of Scripture causes a growth of knowledge and wisdom. This is contrasted to the behavior of those who debate about God without a solid basis in knowledge and revelation. Once again, it shows that the verb jādala (“to debate”) usually has a negative connotation, unless it is mitigated by a type of knowledge that is brought to human beings by an enlightening Scripture. That is why the debate between the People of Scripture can be conducted in the best possible way: they share with one another the basis of sound knowledge and guidance, based on God’s Scripture. 32:23 A Guidance for the Children of Israel Surah 32, al-sajda (“bowing” or “prostration”) is a good example of the way in which many Meccan surahs appeal to the Torah given to Moses and the children of Israel as a positive model: “Certainly We gave Moses the Book – so do not be in doubt of the meeting with Him – and We made it a guidance for the Sons of Israel.”69 Even though the words between the dashes have been interpreted differently, the interpretation that these words refer to Moses’s encounter with God at Mount Sinai fits best with both the immediate context and the qur’ānic use of the term liqā’ as “meeting with God.” As the Qur’ān relates elsewhere, Moses encountered God and God spoke to him directly.70 The meeting with God on Mount Sinai and the giving of Torah to Moses are immediately connected, so any doubt about the meeting would cast the divine status of the Torah into doubt. Against that suggestion, the Qur’ān gives one of its strongest endorsements of the foundation of Judaism: God gave Moses the Scripture and made it a guidance (hudan) for the People of Israel. Against the doubts of the Meccan opponents, the Qur’ān argues that the giving of Scripture to Muhammad resembles the giving of Scripture to Moses. In Medina the situation is different because the Jewish tribes do not accept Muhammad’s claim to a similar prophetic status, and therefore the positive texts highlighting similarities give way to negative texts that react to refusals to acknowledge this claim. Consequently, the term “People of Scripture” develops from a moderately positive notion that highlights the common status of being endowed

69 70

 Q.32:23 (Dr).  See Q.7:143 and Q.4:164.

298

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

with God’s revelation into a much more critical notion in Medina. We will see a striking example of this in the next text. 33:26 God brings down the supporters of the confederates The title of surah 33, al-aḥzāb (“the confederates”) is related to a specific political situation in Medina. In order to understand this situation, and the explicit reference to the People of Scripture in this surah, a short exposition of the political context occasioning the divine intervention in this surah according to the Islamic tradition of interpretation may be useful. The term aḥzāb refers to an alliance between the Meccan Quraysh and a number of other tribes who tried to undermine the political position of Muhammad and the believers in Medina.71 The Islamic descriptions of the life of Prophet Muhammad (sīra) and the military conquests of his followers (maghāzī) tell us that the powerless preacher in Mecca rapidly became an important leader of the community (umma) in Medina.72 Muhammad could become successful as a religious and political leader in Medina because he established an agreement between various Medinan clans, called anṣār or “helpers,” and the believers who made the hijra or “migration” from Mecca to Medina in the year 622 (the first year of the hijra calender). The so-called “constitution of Medina” (also called “the umma document”) is believed to be a historically reliable transcription of this agreement.73 The “umma document” mentions the muhājirūn (those who have made the hijra/migration from Mecca) from the Quraysh by name, together with a number of Medinan tribes, and it specifically names the Jews of some of these tribes as being in community with the Believers.74 However, the intensifying skirmishes with the Meccan Quraysh led to mounting tensions between Muhammad and some of the Jewish tribes, the banū Qaynuqā‘, the banū Naḍīr and the banū Qurayẓa that were not mentioned in the “umma document.”75 This began when Muhammad decided to attack a Meccan Quraysh caravan  See SQ 1017-18.  For a short summary, see Jane McAuliffe, “Introduction”, in ed. ead., The Qur’ān (Norton Critical Editions, New York – London: W.W. Norton, 2017), xv. 73  Fred Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 44. For a translation of the text of the umma document, see ibid., 227-32. 74  See translation in DMB 228-29 and 230-31. The tribes are identified as banū alNajjar, banū l-Harith, banū Sa’ida, banū Jusham, banū l-Aws, and banū Tha‘laba. 75  DMB 73. 71 72



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

299

in the year 624 (H.2) in order to give his muhājirūn some extra income. The success of this battle, the battle of Badr, led to mounting tensions with the important Jewish clan of Qaynuqā‘ who had engaged in trade with the Quraysh. Ultimately, the banū Qaynuqā‘ were expelled from Medina.76 After the battle of Uhud in 625/H.3, Muhammad turned against a second powerful Jewish clan in Medina, the banū Naḍīr, after a report that some of them had tried to kill the Prophet. They were forced to withdraw to Khaybar, a largely Jewish oasis to the north of Medina. Finally, the battle of the Trench in 627/H.5 formed the beginning of some severe measures against the banū Qurayẓa who were accused of treasonous contact with the Meccans during the siege of Medina culminating in the battle of the Trench.77 This reconstruction of the mounting tensions between the young community of the believers and the three sizeable Jewish tribes in Medina is based on Islamic sources that do not allow us an exact idea of the importance of these Jewish tribes in local politics. Since there are no Jewish – or Christian – sources describing the situation of Jews in the Arab peninsula, scholars use these Islamic sources as main frame of reference in reconstructing the history of these Jewish tribes in Medina and in Arabia at large.78 The usual description of the population in Medina says that it consists of five large tribes, two of them labelled as Arab pagans – the banū Aws and the banū Khazraj – and three others as Jewish – the banū Qaynuqā‘, the banū Naḍīr and the banū Qurayẓa.79 However, the identification of these tribes as either pagan Arab or Jewish gives a misleading impression, since in an urban environment they often live together and do not preserve their identity as they would do in a rural setting. Nevertheless, Newby argues that there is no reason to think that the Jewish tribes in Medina would not practice a mainstream form of Judaism, since we hear stories about conversions, and many Muslim sources – the Qur’ān included – use words that clearly refer to Jewish leaders such as rabbāniyyūn (religious scholars) and aḥbār (juridical scholars).80 When Muhammad and his companions migrated from Mecca to Medina, they did so at the invitation of members of the two pagan Arab  DMB 46.  DMB 47. 78  See Haggai Mazuz, The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina, 1. 79  See Gordon Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 51. 80  Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 57; Mazuz, Jews of Medina, 7 and 21. 76 77

300

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

tribes who hoped to gain more political independence from the dominant Jewish tribes in Medina.81 If we accept the “umma document” as an authentic document that regulates the internal relationships between the tribes of Medina, we may see Muhammad as a central political figure who is entitled to expect loyalty from the tribes in the umma, including a considerable number of Jews, even though the three main Jewish tribes are not mentioned in this document. In the first years after the hijra the community of the believers likely followed many aspects of the Jewish halakha, including dietary laws, marriage practices, certain moments of prayer and days of fasting and the direction of the prayer toward Jerusalem.82 Nevertheless, the majority of the Jews did not accept Muhammad’s message and this caused mounting tensions, especially when Muhammad and his followers gained the upper hand in a number of battles with the Meccan Quraysh. The “unfaithfulness” of the Jews – their refusal to accept Muhammad’s message – was translated into accusations of treason, using the biblical trope of their not remaining true to the covenant. After the battle of Badr Muhammad gained enough prestige to oust the mighty banū Qaynuqā‘ from the city because of their secret association with the Meccan adversaries, and the same happened to the banū Naḍīr and the banū Qurayẓa a few years later. Yet, Newby points out that the expulsions of the Jewish tribes were the results of political battles, not of an anti-Jewish tendency as such. Some Jews remained in the Medinan community, and the “umma document” was never revoked.83 Newby comes to the conclusion that “Muhammad was willing to tolerate a non-Muslim population in his ummah as long as it was willing to submit to the Muslim will.”84 The traditional context for Q.33 is the political situation immediately after the “battle of the Trench” in the year 627/H.5. It was the final battle between Muhammad and his community of believers in Medina and a confederation between Meccan Quraysh and other Jewish and Arab tribes. The confederates were numerous and besieged Medina, but the community of believers defended itself by digging a trench. When the Meccans could not cross the trench, they tried to persuade the Jewish tribe of banū Qurayẓa to let them pass through their lands, yet Muhammad and his party found out about the negotiations and were  Mazuz, Jews of Medina, 79.  Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 83. 83  Ibid., 93. 84  Ibid., 95. 81 82



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

301

able to avert this stratagem. Having been victorious in the Battle of the Trench, the believers besieged the banū Qurayẓa and forced them to surrender. Their men were killed and the women and children were taken captive. This particular punishment, which is more severe than the expulsion of the other Jewish tribes after the battles of Badr and Uhud, has been contested because of its harshness.85 The Qur’ān, however, is not interested in an impartial historical take of the matter, but it wants to teach a theological lesson and this explains the somewhat unexpected use of the theological term “People of Scripture” instead of a historical description of the name of the specific tribe. In this specific situation a Jewish tribe has shown signs of betrayal of the covenant, and this fits into a recurring pattern of unfaithfulness that goes back to biblical times: God engages in a covenant with the People of Israel, yet they become unfaithful. 33:25  god

turned back those who were unbelievers in their anger; they did not reach anything better, and god is enough for the believers in battle and god is strong, mighty 33:26  and god brought those who were their helpers from the people of scripture down from their strongholds, and he cast in their hearts fright a group you killed and you took a group captive 33:27  and he made you inherit their land and their houses and their riches – a land that you have not yet taken possession of – and god is over everything powerful Explanatory Notes These three verses belong together and describe the final outcome of what happened after the Battle of the Trench. God is the main acting subject, but the believers are addressed as actors as well. The unbelievers are described as people in anger, while their helpers from the People of Scripture are described as rich and proud in their fortresses. The word “helpers” (from the third form of the verb ẓ-h-r) is significant since it construes an opposition between them as “helpers” of the confederates 85  See Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 74; Farid Esack, “The Portrayal of Jews and the Possibilities for Their Salvation in the Qur’an”, 213; John Kaltner, Introducing the Qur’an for Today’s Reader (Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2011), 179-80.

302

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

(the aḥzāb in the title of Q.33) and the people of Medina who served as “helpers” (anṣār) to the people who migrated from Mecca (muhājirūn). God and the believers (addressed as “you” in the plural), however, defeated the alliance between the confederates and their helpers in Medina by frightening them (God is actor here) and by killing a group of them and taking another group as captives. One of the consequences is highlighted in the next verse: the gain of land (arḍ) and houses and riches. Again, the collaboration between God and the believers is manifest here: God makes the believers inherit land that they never possessed, because God is all-powerful (qadīr is associated with God’s omnipotence), and the believers take possession of this land. The notion of taking possession of new land seems to foreshadow future conquests, first the conquest of Mecca and later the conquest of the holy land (al-arḍ al-muqaddasa) of Jews and Christians.86 Islamic Interpretations Tafsīr Mujāhid gives two glosses that are at the basis of the Islamic history of interpretation of these verses. The people who are “turned back” by God in Q.33:25 are identified as “the confederates” (al-aḥzāb), while the people who are brought down from their strongholds in Q.33:26 are identified as the Qurayẓa.87 Tafsīr Muqātil discusses Q.33:25 in the context of Q.33:21-27 as a unity and tells us that it is about Abu Sufyān – the leader of the Quraysh – and his alliance of the confederates. The next verse is about the people of Qurayẓa who helped the associators (mushrikūn) on the day of the trench in their endeavor to kill the Prophet.88 The phrase “God brought down the helpers among the people of Scripture” is explained with the following story: God defeated the idolaters from the trench by sending a wind and a group of angels with Gabriel. Muhammad asked Gabriel about the dust that had gathered because of the wind, and Gabriel told him that God had sent the wind to defeat Abū Sufyān and the people with him. Muhammad wiped the dust from his horse and saddle, and Gabriel told him to attack the 86  For the conquest of Mecca and its association with the Landnahme of the Holy Land, see the discussion of the fifth surah in chapter seven of this commentary. Even though the notion of “Holy Land” is somewhat anachronistic here (contemporary Muslim sources would rather refer to al-shām or Syria), it is important for the Christian resonances. 87  TMJ 215 n. 1331-32 (on Q.33:25-26). 88  TMS 3:42 (on Q.33:25).



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

303

banū Qurayẓa’. So Muhammad attacked the Jews of the banū Qurayẓa’ and besieged them until they sent Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh (one of the Anṣār – “helpers”) as a mediator. Sa‘d judged that the fighters among them should be killed and their dependents should be taken captive.89 This story is probably inserted to explain how God acts in this situation by mediation of Gabriel, the stormwind and its dust, Muhammad and his troops, and finally Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh; similar stories can be found in the descriptions of the life of the Prophet.90 The Tafsīr Muqātil proceeds to gloss the different words in Q.33:26; the “helpers” are the Jews who helped Abū Sufyān, the “People of Scripture” are the banū Qurayẓa, and the “strongholds” are fortresses. The commentary attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās gives somewhat more detail about the “helpers” from the People of Scripture: not only banū Qurayẓa, but also banū Naḍīr, and more specifically Ka‘b ibn Ashraf and Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab and their hosts.91 Finally, the “land that you have not yet taken possession of” is identified as Khaybar, an oasis to the north of Medina that was home to a sizeable number of Jews and the place where the majority of Jews of the banū Naḍīr tribe had settled after their expulsion from Medina in 625 AD. Shortly after the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad and his followers besieged and took Khaybar in 628.92 Tafsīr Jalālayn gives a somewhat different translation for the word kafā (“(God) is enough”) in verse 25, namely “God spared the believers from fighting,” and adds: “by [unleashing] the wind and the angels.” It associates the “land that you have not yet taken possession of” with the territory of Khaybar, explaining that this land would be captured after the land of the Qurayẓa.93 Tafsīr ibn Kathīr relates a handful of stories (aḥādīth), in accordance with the traditional nature of this commentary.94 Some of these stories relate to the role of the two persons mentioned in the tafsīr attributed  TMS 3:43 (on Q.33:26).  See Ibn Ḥishām’s version of Ibn Isḥāq’s Life of the Prophet. English translation in A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), 461-68. 91  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās on Q.33:25-26, through www.altafsir.com (accessed August 2, 2017). 92  Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 90 and 94-95. 93  TJJ 398 (on Q.33:25-27). 94  SQ ad loc. is largely dependent on the tafsīr by Ibn Kathir; therefore, I will not discuss this commentary separately. 89 90

304

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

to Ibn ‘Abbās: Ḥuyayy b. Akhṭab was the leader of the banū Naḍir, and he joined the banū Qurayẓa, trying to convince them to join forces with the tribes of the confederation. After some exchanges, the leader of the banū Qurayẓa, Ka’b b. Asad agreed with it and decided to break the covenant with Prophet Muhammad.95 Another story tells that Muhammad was laying down his weapons after the Battle of the Trench, but Jibrīl (Gabriel) came to him and said that the angels had not put down their weapons, and that God commanded him to go after the banū Qurayẓa. After the siege of their territory had gone on for 25 days, they agreed to mediation by Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh, the leader of the ‘Aws who had been allies of the Qurayẓa before they accepted Islam. However, Sa‘d had been hurt during the Battle of the Trench and he wanted to clear his conscience before dying, so he was harsh on the Qurayẓa who chose him as mediator.96 After these stories, Ibn Kathīr proceeds to give a number of short glosses on specific words in these verses. With regard to the words ahl al-kitāb (People of Scripture), he gives the following gloss: “of the People of the Scripture” means, Banu Qurayẓah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Ḥijāz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrāh and Injīl.97

Christian Resonances I will take this interpretation of the words “People of Scripture” by Ibn Kathīr as point of departure for some Christian resonances because it tries to answer the question why the Qur’ān at this place uses these words instead of referring to the banū Qurayẓa by name. Ibn Kathīr explains that the forefathers of the Jewish tribe had settled in the Arabian Peninsula because they were looking for the prophet who was described in their Scriptures.98 This prophet is characterized as “unlettered,” meaning that he is not among the “People of Scripture” but rather a “pagan.” Ibn Kathīr tells this story about people who know about Muhammad because their Scriptures in their original form referred to him, because  TIK 7:667 (on Q.33:26-27).  TIK 7:667-70. 97  TIK 7:670. Note that Ibn Kathīr seems to suppose that they read the Gospel. 98  Expecting the Prophet in Arabia on the basis of reading their Scriptures is often given as the reason why so many Jews settled there. Cf. Reuven Firestone, “The Problematic of Prophecy: 2015 IQSA Presidential Address”, in: Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 1 (2016) 11-22, at 13. 95 96



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

305

he wants to explain why the Qur’ān mentions “People of Scripture” in this verse. As I have noticed before, “People of Scripture” implies ­knowledge about the future prophet, and therefore political opposition against him implies betrayal of God’s revelation. As the Christian theologian David Marshall has suggested before, the reason why the Qur’ān mentions the generic term “People of Scripture” rather than the specific term banū Qurayẓa is its theological agenda.99 The Qur’ān wants to explain why the severe punishment was in keeping with God’s will and in fact justified by God. The Qur’ān describes God as actively involved in the fight against the confederates and their “helpers from the People of Scripture” because it uses a theological framework to interpret historical events. The fact that the People of Scripture have become unfaithful to the alliance with the Medinan believers is to be understood against the background of their being unfaithful all the time, as the Qur’ān often states with respect to the People of Scripture, and to Jews in particular.100 A supposed historical situation of betrayal triggers the theological notions of “unfaithfulness” and “breaking the covenant” as characteristics of Jewish “People of Scripture.” Confronted with such texts and theological interpretations, the primary task of a Christian reader is to refrain from unwittingly taking over such negative connotations, but to look into our own history of using theological notions to label others negatively. Since the history of Christianity is replete with negative connotations applied to Jews in particular as well, any Christian involvement with qur’ānic language about Jewish unfaithfulness might run the risk of reinforcing such anti-Judaic or antiSemitic language. The first time that I personally remember noticing this phenomenon was when I tried to analyze Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation of the Gospel texts about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the Gospel stories, usually read on the Second Sunday of Easter, begins with the following sentence from the Gospel according to John: “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, ‘Peace be with you’.”101 I had never questioned the text or its translation until it suddenly dawned on me that the words “for fear of the Jews” are very strange since the disciples were themselves  See David Marshall, God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers, 149.  Some of these references have been discussed before: Q.2:63-65 and Q.4:153-55. 101  John 20:19 (NAB). 99

100

306

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Jews! So the words in Greek, dia ton phobon tōn Ioudaiōn, reflect the later situation of the Johannine community in a tense relationship with J­ ewish communities; for this reason, one cannot find the same terminology in the other Gospels. So the translation “for fear of the Jews” makes sense in the context in which John wrote his Gospel. If one wants to do justice to the context in which the disciples lived, one should rather translate “for fear of the Judaeans” since the disciples came from Galilee and went back to Galilee after the events in Jerusalem, and so they might have feared the people from Judah (who could be called Ioudaioi in Greek as well). Or, alternately, one could interpret “for fear of the Jews” as “for fear of the Jewish authorities.”102 The use of certain religious names to promote a specific theological agenda is well attested in Christian apologetic and polemical writings against Jews and Muslims. One example that readily comes to mind is the use of names connected with the stories around Abraham and his family. Paul gives a famous example of such usage in the antithesis he construes between Hagar and Sarah as an allegory of slavery and freedom. John of Damascus gives another example in his use of the words Hagarenes, Saracenes and Ishmaelites to characterize the new religion brought by Prophet Muhammad.103 The examples just mentioned all relate to the literary genre of religious polemics that may easily lead to negative stereotypes that are too familiar in the history of encounters between religions, not the least between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. However, there are also situations in which religious terminology is used to condone and justify physical violence against others, even if the root causes of historical conflicts are hardly related to religion.104 This phenomenon of religiously legitimated violence determines contemporary relationships between Muslims and Christians in the public media to such an extent that it overshadows all other forms of relationships between adherents of the two religions in

102  For a recent discussion of different translations of Ioudaioi here, see Matthijs de Jong, “Joden of Judeeërs? Over de vertaling van het word ‘Ioudaioi’ in het Johannesevangelie en elders”, Met Andere Woorden: Vakblad Bijbel en vertalen 36/1 (mei 2017), 7-19. 103  The texts from Galatians (4:21-31) and from John of Damascus have been discussed in the Christian commentary to Q.3:65-68 in chapter five of this commentary. 104  For a broad and insightful overview, see Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence (fourth edition, Oakland CA: University of California Press, 2017).



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

307

the public media.105 Against this background, the qur’ānic use of religious terminology (“People of Scripture”) in order to defend a military solution of an apparent conflict of loyalties between different tribes in Medina (and their relationship with tribes in Mecca) seems deeply problematic. Yet, any Christian commentary on this text needs to start with the confession that Christians have too often done the same, to such an extent that for many people the symbol of the cross can be used effectively – together with the symbol of mount Zion – to refer to Crusaders and Zionists as the epitome of Western imperialist powers.106 The writings and messages of Osama bin Laden are a case in point.107 While most people associate the events in Paris, January 2015 with the bloody attacks on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the attack on a Jewish kosher supermarket was specifically problematic in that it targeted Jews in their religious identity. Something similar happened when Jacques Hamel, a French Catholic priest was murdered while celebrating the Eucharist in his parish in Normandy in July 2016. From the perspective of someone living in the West these seem exceptional atrocities, but Copts in Egypt have been targeted in this way quite often. On the other hand, some of these atrocities may lead us to a better and deeper understanding of Christian – Muslim relations, such as the response by many French and Italian Muslims to attend Catholic masses in order to show their disagreement. My main point in describing this example is to show how one can look at many contemporary events as reasons for despair about Christian – Muslim relations, yet at the same time – often unnoticed by public media – one can often find hopeful faith-based initiatives as well.108 While it is the task of the scholar of religion to correct biases and misunderstandings, and to give a picture of interreligious encounters that is as broad and accurate as possible, the Christian theologian has a normative  God en geweld, ed. Pim Valkenberg (Budel: Damon, 2002).  See Islam and Enlightenment: New Issues, eds. Erik Borgman and Pim Valkenberg (= Concilium 2005/5). 107  See Messages to the World. The Statements of Osama bin Laden, ed. Bruce Lawrence (London – New York: Verso, 2005). 108  One of the most famous examples is the witness of the monks of Tibhirine in Algeria, made famous by the French film des Dieux et des hommes (“of Gods and Men”) directed by Xavier Beauvois (2011). Several writings of Christian de Chergé, the prior of this Cistercian community have been published, for instance in Christian Salenson, Christian de Chergé: A Theology of Hope (Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012). Another example is the witness of Paolo Dall’Oglio, S.J., before his kidnapping in 2013 leader of a mixed religious community in Deir Mar Musa in Syria. See his Amoureux de l’Islam, croyant en Jésus (Paris: Les Éditions de l’Atelier, 2009). 105 106

308

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

task to fulfill as well on the basis of the Scriptures that give witness of Jesus Christ as God’s ultimate model for human behavior. In this respect I am convinced that the Catholic version of the Christian tradition is too often narrowed down to the rules and regulations of the just war tradition as defined by great theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, while alternative models developed in other Christian traditions such as the Society of Friends or the Amish go largely unnoticed even if they remain much closer to the core Christian message of cross and self-denial.109 In this context I want to mention one final Christian resonance to the text from Q.33:27, “you inherit their land and their houses and their riches.” The Tafsīr Jalālayn explains this text as referring to the conquest of Khaybar, an oasis with a large Jewish population that was used as a major point of support in the final conquest of Mecca.110 The Qur’ān seems to indicate that God let the first Muslims inherit the land of the Jewish tribes. This reminds me not only of the battles over land in the contemporary Middle East, but also of a theological issue that became clear to me when I visited Israel and Palestine with a group of Christian and Jewish clergy in November 2010.111 It was in the context of this trip that focused on the topic of the “land” and its meaning for contemporary Jews that I was reminded of a text addressing the notion of inheriting the land from the Gospel: “Blessed are the meek / for they will inherit the land.”112 This text, the third of the beatitudes, is engraved in the cupola of the Church of the Beatitudes in Tabgha where Jesus is said to have preached the Sermon on the Mount. A quotation from Psalm 37:11, this text indicates that those who are meek (or poor, in the Psalm) are the ones who will inherit the land. The word “land” may refer to a specific place but to the entire earth as well; this is the case for the Arabic word arḍ, for the Hebrew eretz and for the Greek gè. In dialogue between Jews and Christians, it is true that Christians should learn to pay attention to the specific meaning of the notion of “land” for Jews living in eretz Jisrael or elsewhere, even if New Testament theology generally r­ epresents a movement away from this e­ mphasis

109  I realize that I cannot do justice to this topic here; my conviction originated in friendship with some Christians from the traditions mentioned and was tested in a course on Peace Ethics at Loyola University Maryland in the Spring of 2010. 110  TJJ 398; DMB 93. 111  The Maryland Clergy Initiative (2010) was organized by the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies (now: Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies) in Baltimore. 112  Matthew 5:5 (NAB).



DISPUTE IN THE BEST MANNER

309

on physical location.113 Yet the words of Jesus clearly represent a counter-cultural value in a society where meekness is about the least attractive virtue that one can image. Christians bear the unruly memory of one who was meek, who did not hold on to power but became a slave crucified for us.

113  See Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: the New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), yet I have learned even more from the exchange with Jewish theologian Adam Gregerman (at that time working at the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies in Baltimore) who invited me to write a review for Studies in Christian – Jewish Relations 7 (2012). For recent Catholic reflections on the notion of the land in Jewish – Catholic dialogues, see forthcoming publications by Gavin D’Costa and Matthew Tapie.

Chapter Ten

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY 57:29  so

that the people of scripture know that they have no power over anything from god’s bounty and that bounty is in god’s hand – he gives it to whom he wants and god is of immense bounty Three explicit references to the People of Scripture will be discussed in this chapter, together with a fair number of less explicit references. Among these references, the appeal to the People of Scripture in Q.57:29 that they should be aware of the fact that they have no power over God’s bounty is the theologically most important text. It criticizes the People of Scripture because of their unwillingness to reckon with the fact that God has God’s bounty in God’s hand and is therefore able to give to whomever God wants. This critique seems to be directed at Jews and Christians who think that they have prerogatives or that they can exclude others from God’s favor. This chapter will contain an extensive commentary on this text in its context with Islamic interpretations and Christian resonances. It will also contain a less extensive commentary on two texts from Q.59 that discuss social, political and military relationships between People of Scripture, hypocrites and believers in Medina. But first I will pay some attention to different forms of expression in Q.34-56 that use the word kitāb in different contexts or use cognate phrases (dhikr, qur’ān, āyāt) to indicate a form of revelation to people before the revelation of the Qur’ān, as I have already done in chapter 8. Scripture as expression of God’s eternal knowledge The Qur’ān refers to a Scripture (kitāb; often translated as “decree” or “record”) with God as a metaphor of God’s eternal, unchanging and encompassing knowledge of everything. This expression functions mainly in two contexts: creation and last judgment.

312

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The wondrous secrets of creation and the beginning and end of human life are summarized as being recorded or determined in God’s decree (kitāb): And [remember:] God creates [every one of] you out of dust, then out of a drop of sperm; and then He fashions you into either of the two sexes. And no female conceives or gives birth unless it be with His knowledge; and none that is long-lived has his days lengthened – and neither is aught lessened of his days – unless it be thus laid down in [God’s] decree: for, behold, all this is easy for God.1

In a number of debates reported in the Qur’ān, the unbelievers state that there will be no Last Judgment and thus no divine Judge to whom people will be accountable. The Qur’ān sees this as a refusal to acknowledge the One God who is Creator and knows everything. And yet, they who are bent on denying the truth assert, “Never will the Last Hour come upon us!” Say, “Nay, by my Sustainer! By Him who knows all that is beyond the reach of a created being’s perception: it will most certainly come upon you!” Not an atom’s weight [of whatever there is] in the heavens or on earth escapes His knowledge; and neither is there anything smaller than that, or larger, but is recorded in [His] clear decree.2

This Scripture that contains God’s knowledge about human beings will be brought forward at the Last Judgment: “And the earth will shine bright with her Sustainer’s light. And the record [of everyone’s deeds] will be laid bare, and all the prophets will be brought forward, and all [other] witnesses; and judgment will be passed on them all in justice.”3 Such a Scripture will be brought to bear against nations as well: “Every community will be summoned to its record: ‘Today you will be repaid for what you did. Here is Our record that tells the truth about you. We have been recording everything you do.’”4 The kitāb here is particular to each nation (“its record”) as it contains everything that this specific nation has done; yet, at the same time, the Scripture is God’s (“Our record”) as God is pictured as assiduously copying or transcribing everything done by that nation. The verb used here suggests a continuous watchfulness and a precise accounting as that of a public notary. The basic idea is that nothing can escape from God’s knowledge and determination.  Q.35:11 (MA).  Q.34:3 (MA). 3  Q.39:69 (AH). 4  Q.45:28-29 (AH). 1 2



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

313

Q.36 Yā Sīn is a relatively early Meccan surah that has a special place in Muslim spirituality since it is often prayed in situations of sickness and death.5 It contains the following verse: “Verily, We shall indeed bring the dead back to life; and We shall record whatever [deeds] they have sent ahead, and the traces [of good and evil] which they have left behind: for of all things do We take account in a record clear.”6 When this verse is recited in the context of prayer for the dying and the dead, it contains an element of consolation since it states that God keeps track of all good things done by a believer. But in its original context in Mecca it can also be seen as a threat to the unbelievers: their deeds will not go unnoticed either. The metaphor of God “writing” what has been done before evokes the idea of the Last Judgment in which human beings will read the record of their deeds.7 Q.52 begins with a series of oath formulas that evoke the idea of revelation, first by mentioning the mountain (Ṭūr) that is usually associated with Mount Sinai, next by mentioning a Scripture (kitāb) that is inscribed (masṭūr, “with lines drawn”) and finally by indicating “parchment outrolled” (raqq manshūr) as the place where this Scripture is inscribed. If the mountain refers to Mount Sinai, as elsewhere in the Qur’ān – for instance in Q.95:2, another oath formula – then the Scripture refers to the Torah given to Moses at Mount Sinai. In that case, the outrolled scroll would refer to the age (a scroll, not a codex) and to the public character of the revelation at Mount Sinai. However, kitāb masṭūr (“a Scripture with lines drawn”) is used in Q.33:6 to refer to a book that rests with God and contains regulations: The prophet is closer to the believers than they are to themselves, and his wives are their mothers, but those related by blood are closer to one another in the Book of God than the believers and the emigrants – but you should do right by your allies. That is written in the Book.8

 See SQ 1069.  Q.36:12 (MA). 7  The final clause is remarkable because it uses the metaphor of God enumerating everything in a clear record, yet the Arabic does not have kitāb mubīn but imām mubīn (“the clear leader”) which is generally seen as a reference to the original book containing all revelation, or the encompassing book, containing all things. In the later Islamic tradition, the word imām was used to refer to the Medinan copy (muṣḥaf ) of the first official text produced at the commission of the third caliph, Uthman. See NHQ 393n.29. Shi’ite mufassirūn interpret the word as a reference to the divinely ordained leadership of Imām ‘Ali. See SQ 1072 (on Q.36:12). 8  Q.33:6, (Dr). 5 6

314

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

In both cases, kitāb masṭūr has the connotation of something that has been definitely decided and written down openly for all to see. Again, this is connected with the idea that God bestows knowledge on human beings, so they should be able to know about God’s guidance and how that is related to their own lives. Scripture revealed to Moses and other prophets At the historical level, God chooses prophets and messengers to convey His guidance to humankind. Moses is often the person who is given such a guiding Scripture, but some texts suggest that it has been given as inheritance to the entire People of Israel (banū Isrā’īl): “We gave Moses guidance and passed down the Scripture to the Children of Israel, as a guide and a reminder to people of understanding.”9 It is clear that the Qur’ān sees this bestowal of Scripture as a sign of the special election of the Children of Israel: “We gave Scripture, wisdom, and prophethood to the Children of Israel; We provided them with good things and favoured them above others.”10 Similarly, Moses and Aaron receive the “illuminating Scripture” that guides to the right path. The Qur’ān concludes: “This is how We reward those who do good: truly, they were among Our faithful servants.”11 While such faithful servants accept this guidance, others refuse it. “[Prophet], do you see how deluded those who dispute God’s messages are – those who reject the Scripture and the messages We have sent through Our messengers?”12 Such rejection cannot be excused by lack of knowledge: “Now they who are endowed with [innate] knowledge are well aware that whatever has been bestowed upon thee from on high by thy Sustainer is indeed the truth, and that it guides onto the way that leads to the Almighty, the One to whom all praise is due!”13 The Christian commentator cannot help but hear resonances from the prologue to the Gospel according to John where the Word of God came into the world as a light, leading to truth, yet unknown and not accepted by the world. “But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,  Q.40:53-54 (AH).  Q.45:16 (AH). 11  Q.37:121-22 (AH). 12  Q.40:70 (AH). 13  Q.34:6 (MA). 9

10



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

315

who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.”14 In Q.46 Muhammad is instructed to challenge the worship of idols, since these idols can in no way be compared to God: they have created nothing and they are not able to produce any Scripture.15 In contrast, the God who revealed the recitation to Muhammad is alive and has communicated His guidance to humankind, as the Children of Israel can witness.16 They have received true knowledge from God – something that the idols are not able to give. This is repeated once again in Q.46:12, “Yet before it was the Book of Moses as a model and mercy; and this is a Book confirming (it) in the Arabic language, to warn those who do evil, and as good news for the doers of good.”17 While the two Scriptures concur in their being a model (imām) and mercy (raḥma), good news for who do good, there is also a difference because the new Scripture is in the Arabic language, therefore specifically targeted to the Arabs.18 A final reference to the witness of Moses and the Children of Israel is given by a group of jinn who testify what they have heard: “They said: ‘Our people! Surely we have heard a Book (which) has been sent down after Moses, confirming what was before it, guiding to the truth and to a straight road.’”19 In some surahs, we might find short references to prophets to whom Scriptures were revealed, but the words for Scriptures are different, such as ṣuḥuf (“leafs, pages”) in Q.53:36-37, or zubur in Q.54.20 The Qur’ān states that God gave Scripture only to a limited number of messengers; it uses the rhetorical question “have you been given a Scripture?” against the Quraysh, as in Q.43:21 where it is addressed to  John 1:12-13 (NAB).  See Q.46:4-5. A similar critique of the idols can be found in the Psalms, for instance Ps.115:4-8, Ps.135:15-18 and also Jeremiah 10:3-5. 16  See Q.46:10 (Dr): “If it is from God, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness of the Sons of Israel has borne witness to (a book) like it, and believed, and you become arrogant – surely God does not guide the people who are evildoers.” 17  Q.46:12 (Dr). 18  This idea of a Scripture in Arabic is specifically highlighted in the ḥawāmīm surahs (Q.40-46); see Dayeh, “al-Ḥawāmīm: Intertextuality and Coherence in Meccan surahs”, 479-80. 19  Q.46:30 (Dr). 20  The singular zabūr is used to refer to the Psalms of David (see Q.4:163; 17:55; 21:105) but the plural is used in a more general sense, such as in Q.3:184; 16:44 and 23:96. It is sometimes used to refer to “the Scriptures of the ancients” (Q.26:196) but elsewhere it seems to refer to a heavenly Scripture, as in Q.54:43.52. 14

15

316

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

those who give female companions to God, but also against the deities that they worship: Consider those ‘partners’ of yours that you call upon beside God. Show me! What part of the earth did they create? What share of the heavens do they possess? Have We given them a scripture on whose evidence they rely? No indeed! The idolaters promise each other only delusion.21

The opponents are challenged to come with a Scripture if their deities really create or reveal something: “Bring your scriptures if you are telling the truth”.22 The main opposition between God and the idols is that God is able to communicate and bestow knowledge, while the idols remain silent. A contested reminder or recitation In many Meccan surahs the word kitāb is used to describe the relation between the revelations that God has sent in the past and the revelation that is now received by Muhammad. In cases where the emphasis is mainly on the present refusal of those who listen to accept the message, the word dhikr or “reminder” is often used. This is the case, for instance, in Q.36, where the Messenger is addressed as follows: “Thou canst [truly] warn only him who is willing to take the reminder to heart, and who stands in awe of the Most Gracious,” and a bit further in the same surah: “it is but a reminder and a [divine] discourse, clear in itself and clearly showing the truth, to the end that it may warn everyone who is alive [of heart], and that the word [of God] may bear witness against all who deny the truth.”23 In Q.37 the disbelievers are quoted as saying, “If only we had a scripture like previous people, we would be true servants of God.”24 They use the expression dhikr min al-awwalīn (“reminder from the ancient people”). It is not clear whether this phrase refers to stories of the prophets that were discussed before in the same surah, or to other forms of religious oral communication.25 The Qur’ān immediately rebukes them,  Q.35:40 (AH).  Q.37:157 (AH). See also Q.46:4. 23  Q.36:11a.69b-70 (MA). 24  Q.37:168 (AH). 25  See Muhamad Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 780-81 n. 72. He translates Q.37:168 as “If only we had a tradition [to this effect] from our forebears.” 21 22



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

317

saying that they reject such a reminder in the form of the Qur’ān, ­adding: “long ago has Our word gone forth unto Our servants, the message-bearers.”26 The expression “our word has gone before” is meant to underscore the reliability of God.27 Q.38 contains a dispute with people who refuse to recognize the revelation, and so its starts with an invocation, “by the Recitation which contains a reminder,” and a confrontation, “those who are ungrateful are in pride and schism.”28 The invocation appeals to the authority of a recitation (qur’ān) that engenders remembrance (dhikr) over against the falsity of the ungrateful disbelievers. One of the characteristics of these unbelievers is that they do not deem it possible that a warner comes to them from their own midst (Q.38:4); they do not want to give up their gods, nor do they consider accepting Muhammad as the only one among them who received the reminder. The leaders of this group of unbelievers say, “Never did we hear of [a claim like] this in any faith of latter days! It is nothing but [a mortal man’s] invention! What! Upon him alone from among all of us should a [divine] reminder have been bestowed from on high?”29 While the context seems to imply that the speakers are leaders of the Quraysh, since they refer to Muhammad as one “from among us,” Muhammad Asad thinks that “in any faith of latter days” refers to one of the new powerful religions, viz. “to Christianity and its dogma of the Trinity.”30 The tradition of the “occasions of the revelations” adds that the Quraysh disagreed with the new revelation because of its strict monotheism.31 They argue that the new recitation, highlighting monotheism, is unlike any religion of recent times (milla al-ākhira); therefore, it must be an invention. Yet in the context of Q.38 the debate seems to be mainly about the status of the Prophet. If Muhammad proclaimed something new (“an  Q.37:171 (MA).  “Our word has gone before” (sabaqat kalimatunā) is used for the same purpose in the Hebrew Bible. See Isaiah 55:11 (NAB), “So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but shall do my will, achieving the end for which I sent it,” or Deuteronomy 8:3 (NAB), “not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the Lord.” The text from Deuteronomy is quoted by Jesus against the devil in Matthew 4:4. The significance of the phrase “the word comes forth from the Lord” in Christian theology is that it can be associated with the coming forth of the second person of the Trinity from the Father. 28  Q.38:1-2 (AJ). 29  Q.38:6-7a (MA). 30  Asad, The Message of the Qur’ān, 784 n. 10 (on Q.38:7). 31  See WAN 191 where two stories are quoted involving Abu Talib, prophet Muhammad’s uncle and protector, who wanted to mediate between Muhammad and the Quraysh. 26 27

318

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

invention”) that has not been said before (“in any recent creed”), such an innovation could only be accepted if its source was beyond any doubt: an angel, or at least a very important human being from one of the most influential families.32 In answer to the doubtful question about the status of Muhammad (“Has the reminder been sent down to him from among us [all]?”), the Qur’ān strongly endorses his status: “No. They are in doubt about My reminder! No. They have not yet tasted My punishment.”33 The parallel between “my reminder” (dhikrī) and “my punishment” suggests that punishment will await anyone who does not take heed of the reminder of God. In other surahs, the message to Muhammad is characterized as the signs of God (āyātu llāhi) that are recited (talā), as in Q.45: “These are God’s signs that We recount to you [Prophet, to show] the Truth. If they deny God and His revelations, what message will they believe in?”34 Yet the signs are not heeded by those who are looking for miracles instead of seeing the manifest signs: “their only argument, when Our clear revelations are recited to them, is to say, ‘Bring back our forefathers if what you say is true’.”35 In Q.34 the same terminology is used to indicate similar objections by the Meccan Quraysh: When Our signs are recited to them as clear proofs, they say, “This is only a man who wishes to turn you away from what your forefathers used to serve;” and they say, “This is nothing but an invented lie;” and those who disbelieve say of the truth when it comes to them, “This is simply persuasive magic.”36

The Meccan adversaries refuse to pay heed to Muhammad’s message because they think it is different from their tradition, it is an invention and it is a form of magic.37 However, when the argumentation focuses on the continuity between earlier revelations given to the People of 32  See SQ 1103 (on Q.38:8) and the parallel in Q.43:31, “Why was this Quran not sent down to a great man from one of the two towns?” The fact that God often chooses God’s messengers from among those who are not the most powerful is also mentioned in the biblical tradition, for instance in the choice of lesser known figures such as David (see I Samuel 16:11) and Mary (Luke 1:48). With respect to Jesus, the question of Nathanael (“Can anything good come from Nazareth?”, John 1:46) comes to mind. 33  Q.38:8 (AJ). 34  Q.45:6 (AH). 35  Q.45:24b-25 (AH). See also Q.46:7. 36  Q.34:43 (AJ). 37  See Q.46:7-8 (MA): “this is clearly nothing but spellbinding eloquence”; “he has invented all this.”



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

319

Scripture and the revelation sent down to Muhammad in the next verse, the plural of the word kitāb is used to argue that the Quraysh do not have such a Scripture that would have told them the truth: “But we have given them no Scriptures to study, nor have We sent to them any warner before you.”38 The terms kutub and nadhīr (“warner”) are associated with a history of God’s engagement with specific people, the People of Scripture, and the verb “to study” (darasa) suggests a specific Jewish practice. Again, there is a close association here between receiving Scripture and receiving a specific knowledge about God’s guidance. In a few places, the revelation given by God to prophet Muhammad is indicated by the word waḥy that is often translated by “inspiration”, entailing the notion of a message conveyed in a more intimate, speechless way.39 This word is used in Q.53, an early Meccan surah that seems to reassure the Meccans about the mental health of the Prophet: “Your comrade has not gone astray, nor has he erred, nor does he speak out of caprice. This is simply a revelation that is being revealed.”40 35:32 We gave the Scripture as inheritance Q.35 contains a passage in which the receiver of revelation – the prophet Muhammad according to tradition – is addressed in his function as bringer of good news (bashīr) and as warner (nadhīr). In this context, there is a reference to past messengers and their scriptures as well: We have sent you with the truth, as a bearer of good tidings and a warner. There is no community but a warner has passed away among them. If they treat you as a liar, those before them also denied the truth. Their messengers came to them with the clear proofs and with the Psalms and with the illuminating Scripture.41

This verse uses three expressions to characterize what the messengers before Muhammad brought: bayyināt (from the second form of the verb b-y-n, “to make clear, to announce”), zubur (in the singular used for the Psalms of David, but in the plural – as here – in a more general meaning), and kitāb munīr (“enlightening Scripture”). Since the context here is fairly general, there is no reason to specify the three messages as some  Q.34:44 (AJ).  See Daniel Madigan, “Revelation and Inspiration,” EQ 4:437-48. 40  Q.53:2-4 (AJ). 41  Q.35:24-25 (AJ). 38 39

320

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

of the commentators have done in their tendency to “attach to all abstract quranic statements a concrete significance.”42 While these expressions refer to messages in the past, the next verses bridge past and present by mentioning Scripture as a shared inheritance. [29] Those who recite God’s Scripture and perform prayer and spend, secretly or openly, from that which We have given them as sustenance can hope for a trade that does not come to nothing … [31] That Scripture which We have inspired in you is the truth, confirming what was before it. God is informed and observing of His servants. [32] Then We gave the Scripture as inheritance to those whom We chose of our servants. Among them are some who wrong themselves and some who are sparing and some who are foremost in good works, by the leave of God. That is the great favour.43

The first part (Q.35:29) is fairly general, and the word “those reciting Scripture” may refer to believers and the People of Scripture. Reciting (talā) the Scripture of God (kitāba llāhi) is closely connected to the performance of prayer and the spending of what God has bestowed; these are three actions that show how one’s life is centered on following God’s guidance. The second part (Q.35:31) is more specific and uses the verb waḥā to indicate the specific way in which Muhammad received revelatory inspiration “from the Scripture” (min al-kitābi). The final part (Q.35:32) establishes a special group of people who inherited the Scripture by arguing that God gave Scripture as inheritance (awrathnā al-kitāba, “we appointed as heirs to Scripture”) to those whom He chose (iṣṭafaynā, “we selected”) from His servants. On the one hand, it seems that this verse confirms the idea that certain people (the “People of Scripture”) have been chosen by God, yet on the other hand this does not imply that they are on the right track; among them are some who act wrongly, but others act rightly. This bifurcation is typical of the qur’ānic treatment of the People of Scripture: their special election and their specific knowledge are recognized, yet being part of this group does not guarantee the right relationship to God’s guidance and His commandments. 42  Uri Rubin, “Exegesis and Ḥadīth: The case of the seven Mathānī ”, in: Approaches to the Qur’ān, eds. G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), 141-56, at 151. In my commentary on Q.3:75-85 I have called this tendency “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” using the famous expression by Alfred North Whitehead. TJJ 412 (on Q.35:25), for instance, identifies the zubur as the scrolls of Abraham, and the kitāb munīr as Torah and Gospel. 43  Q.35: 29.31-32 (AJ).



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

321

While it seems likely that the references to Scripture in Q.35:29 and 32 generally refer to the chosen inheritors of Scripture as the People of Scripture, the mufassirūn have tended to limit the meaning of the word kitāb to the Qur’ān, in accordance with the meaning of this word in Q.35:31.44 Yet there are good reasons to argue in favor of a more general meaning for “Scripture” and “servants” here. Most importantly, distinguishing between righteous and unrighteous people fits best with a general meaning of the elected as People of Scripture; it also excludes the narrowing down to messengers only (maybe suggested by the verb iṣṭafā, from which the name Muṣṭafa is derived) since none of the messengers would be among those who wrong themselves.45 39:1 A sending down of the Scripture from God In chapter eight we have discussed the possible relation between the detached or disconnected letters (al-muqaṭṭa‘āt) at the beginning of certain suwar and the references to revelation immediately following these disconnected letters. The longest series of suwar starting with detached letters is called the ḥawāmīm, after the letters ḥ and m with which they begin. This group of surahs starts with Q.40 and continues to Q.46. Yet there is a tradition that says that surah 39 (al-zumar) belongs to this group as well, because of the large amount of similarities between Q.39 and Q.40-46.46 The first verse, “a sending down of the Scripture from God the mighty, the wise,” is very similar to Q.40:2, Q.45:2 and Q.46:2, while the next verse more or less repeats its contents: “We have sent down to you the Scripture with the truth. So serve God, devoting [your] religion solely to Him.”47 This verse makes a clear connection between the truthfulness of Scripture and the exclusive devotion to one God, characterized by the phrase “devoting religion solely to Him” (mukhliṣan lahu l-dīna), which evokes the strong monotheism of sūrat 44  See SQ 1063 (on Q.35:29-32). TIK and TJJ suggest that the Scripture in Q.35:32 is the Qur’ān, while al-Ṭabarī thinks that it refers to all revealed books. 45  If, however, one tends to limit the meaning of the servants in Q.35:32 to Muslims only, the verse can be interpreted as giving a classification of the believers in three categories: those who wrong themselves, those who stay in between good and bad, and those who act righteously. See SQ 1064 (on Q.35:32). 46  See Islam Dayeh, “Al-Ḥawāmīm: Intertextuality and Coherence in Meccan Surahs,” in: NQC 461-98. 47  Q.39:1 and Q.39:2 (AJ).

322

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

al-ikhlāṣ.48 One would expect such a stress on true and sincere devotion in a situation where the opposition against the message was quite strong. In this respect, the group of ḥawāmīm surahs has much in common with the group of surahs 10-15 as discussed in chapter eight. Islam Dayeh states the following: “this period is characterized by a certain mood of worry and anxiety present throughout the surahs which appears to reflect the exasperation caused by the adamant resistence to the Prophetic recitations.”49 A similar strong emphasis on the overwhelming nature of revelation follows later in Q.39: God bestows from on high the best of all teachings in the shape of a divine writ fully consistent within itself, repeating each statement [of the truth] in manifold forms – [a divine writ] whereat shiver the skins of all who of their Sustainer stand in awe: [but] in the end their skins and their hearts do soften at the remembrance of [the grace of] God. Such is God’s guidance: He guides therewith him that wills [to be guided] – whereas he whom God lets go astray can never find any guide.50

This verse contains a number of specific expressions. First, the Scripture that is sent down from God is described as “the best of all teachings” (aḥsana l-ḥadīth), and it is also described as mutashābihan and mathānīya. These two words are somewhat unexpected at this place, and they evoke two other famous texts in the Qur’ān. The word mutashābih (derived from a verb, sh-b-h, meaning “to be similar” or “to be obscure”) occurs in Q.3:7 where a distinction is made between definite signs (āyāt muḥkamāt) and ambiguous signs (mutashābihāt) as parts of the Scripture sent down by God.51 The word mathānīya might refer to Q.15 that juxtaposes the sab‘an min al-mathānī (“seven oft-repeated”) to the mighty qur’ān.52 The Islamic tradition usually sees the “seven oft-repeated” as a metaphor for the seven verses of the fātiḥa chapter because they are often repeated during the daily prayers, and a case can be made that the 48  Sūrat al-ikhlāṣ is the last surah of the Qur’ān (apart from two apotropaic surahs) and thus concludes the canonical collection with the following strong declaration of monotheism: “Say, ‘He is God, One; God, the Eternal, Who has not begotten nor has been begotten. There is no equal to Him.’” Qur’ān 112 (AJ). 49  Dayeh, “Al-Ḥawāmīm”, 465. 50  Q.39:23 (MA). 51  Q.3:7. The word āya in this verse is usually taken to mean “verse” and thus forms the occasion for intricate debates on Qur’ānic hermeneutics; however, as I have argued in chapter four of this commentary, āya in the Qur’ān usually refers to a sign from God. 52  Q.15:87.



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

323

o­ pening chapter forms an introductory prayer to the corpus of the Qur’ān – after all, it is not present in some old copies of the Qur’ān.53 Angelika Neuwirth translates the first part of this verse as follows: “God has sent down the fairest discourse as [Scripture], consimilar in its oftrepeated,” and she argues that this refers to the stories of retribution in which earlier civilizations that did not accept the message proclaimed by God’s prophets were in the end destroyed.54 This would certainly explain the shivering skins of the listeners, however, the main point here is the consistency of God’s message, both in its frightening and in its merciful aspects. 41:3 An

elaborated

Scripture,

an

Arabic recitation

Another recurring theme in the ḥawāmīm surahs is the clarity and accessibility of the Scripture sent down by God. In Q.41:3 (MA) this theme is expressed as “a divine writ, the messages whereof have been clearly spelled out as a discourse in the Arabic tongue for people of [innate] knowledge.” The subject of this sentences is a Scripture (kitāb) of which the signs (āyāt) are fuṣṣilat (“divided into sections” or “set forth in details”; also the title of Q.41). This Scripture is something that is well ordered and therefore allows easy insight, which is confirmed by “an Arabic recitation for people who have knowledge” as a further elucidation of this accessibility. Historically speaking, the emphasis on “an Arabic recitation” was meant to counter the expectation that a revelation should be in a sacred language of old, for instance Hebrew or Aramaic.55 A similar text forms the beginning of Q.43: “By the manifest Scripture. We have made it an Arabic recitation so that you may use reason.” In this case, the Scripture in Arabic receives its authentication from heaven: “it is in the mother of Scripture with us, high and wise.”56 The metaphor “mother of Scripture” suggests that there is an original form of Scripture with God in heaven that is revealed in different forms to

53  See Angelika Neuwirth, “Sūrat al-Fātiḥa (Q.1): Opening of the Textual Corpus of the Qur’an or Introit of the Prayer Service?”, NSPC 164-83, at 168 and 175. 54  NSPC 174, with reference to Uri Rubin, “Exegesis and Ḥadīth: The case of the seven Mathānī ”. 55  See also Q.42:7, where “an Arabic recitation” is connected to the specific context of Mecca and surroundings (if this is the meaning of umma l-qurā’ wa-man ḥawlahā). 56  Q.43:2-4.

324

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

different prophets.57 On the one hand the metaphor assures the listeners that this recitation in Arabic has a real divine origin; on the other hand, it opens the possibility for different Scriptures in different languages, all going back to the heavenly “mother of Scripture.” While this text emphasizes the relation between Scripture as metaphor of God’s eternal knowledge and Scripture as revealed to humankind, Q.41 contains another debate with those who refuse to accept the revelation in which the word “Scripture” functions to guarantee the revelation to Muhammad as an authentic revelation. The adversaries are “those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it has come to them,” yet the reminder (dhikr) is characterized as “a mighty Scripture” (kitāb ‘azīz).58 Consequently, the Prophet is told only what the messengers before him were told (Q.41:43). The next verse continues: “if we had made it a foreign Recitation, they would have said ‘Why are its signs not made clear? Foreign and Arabic?’”.59 At this place, the matter of the “Arabic recitation” is approached from a different angle: if the recitation would have been non-Arabic (qur’ānan a‘jamiyyan), the opponents would have complained about its lack of elaboration (lawla fuṣṣilat āyātuhu, “if only its signs would have been elaborated”) and they would have remarked that it was strange to have an Arab native speaking a foreign language.60 The response to this opposition is that the revelation is a guidance and a healing, and that those who refuse to believe are deaf and blind. The implication is: the message is clear, yet the disbelievers refuse to hear. Islam Dayeh summarizes this characteristic of the ḥawāmīm surahs, but specifically of surah fuṣṣilat by saying that the Qur’ān prefers a clear, well-structured and understandable message that is accessible to anyone who speaks the vernacular to a message that is phrased in an antique and “holy” language.61 57  A.J. Droge (The Qur’ān, 328) gives the following explanation in a footnote to his translation of Q.43:4 “mother of the Book: Ar. umm al-kitāb is usually taken as a reference to the heavenly original or achetype of all revelation. According to this view, the Qur’ān, like the Torah and the Gospel, is ony a portion of this all encompassing ‘Book’ (see Q.3.7; 13.39; cf. Q.56.78 ‘hidden Book;’ 85.22, ‘guarded Tablet’).” 58  Q.41:41 (AJ). See also Q.41:45 that refers to the Scripture given to Moses and the lack of unity among the hearers. 59  Q.41:44a (AJ). 60  In his book Gott ist schön: das ästhetische Erleben des Koran (München: Beck, 1999), Navid Kermani argues that the word a‘jamī does not just mean “non-Arabic” but rather “non-civilized”, just like the Greek word “barbaric”: it refers to those who are not able to express themselves in a civilized language. 61  Dayeh, “Al-Ḥawāmīm”, 480.



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

325

42:14 Those who were made heirs to the Scripture In Q.42, the word kitāb is again used in a cluster of verses to highlight the relationship between the present revelation and revelations before that: [13] He has instituted for you that religion which He ordained on Noah and what We have revealed to you and what We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus, saying, “Establish the true religion and do not be divided about it.” That to which you call those who associate others with God is hard for them. God chooses for Himself those whom He wishes and guides to Himself those who turn [to Him]. [14] They were divided only after knowledge had come to them, in outrage between themselves. Had it not been for a word that had already preceded from your Lord for a stated term, judgement would have been made between them. And those to whom the Scripture has been given as inheritance after them are in disquieting doubt about it. [15] Therefore summon [them] and follow the straight path as you have been commanded; and do not follow their whims, but say, “I believe in the Scripture that God has sent down, and I have been commanded to be just among you. God is our Lord and your Lord. To us are our works, and to you are your works. There is no argument between you and us. God will bring us together, to Him is the journeying.”62

This is a complicated text, and the qur’ānic iltifāt (sudden shifts of person, number and tense in a discourse) makes it even more complicated.63 Q.42:13 refers to God instituting a religion (dīn) that is revealed as the same to all the prophets, yet the people started to be divided about it, against God’s explicit command. This verse seems to imply that the different religions related to the prophets are in fact one and the same religion.64 Yet Q.42:14 states that the revelation itself increases knowledge and thereby increases division.65 This division would have been the cause for judgment between the different parties, had not God decided to postpone such judgment by a “preceding word” (kalimatun sabaqat), which probably refers to God’s will to be merciful and grant people the opportunity to learn and to repent.66 The end of Q.42:14  Q.42:13-15 (AJ).  On iltifāt, see Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an, 245-52. 64  This is how this verse is used in some of the earliest texts of Christian – Muslim disputations; see C. Jonn Block, The Qur’an in Christian – Muslim Dialogue, 115. 65  In its commentary on this verse the Study Quran refers to al-Ṭabarī who says that this refers to the people of Noah “who became divided after they became aware of the revelation sent to him” (SQ 1177). In the fourth chapter we have come across a similar idea with reference to Q.3:19, and I have connected it with what Paul writes to the Romans: “the law entered in so that transgression might increase” (Rom. 5:20a). 66  See SQ 1177, on Q.42:14. Also, Q.37:171 discussed earlier in this chapter. Muhammad Asad (The Message of the Qur’ān, 838-39) refers to a similar text in Q.10:19. 62 63

326

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

mentions people who have received Scripture as an inheritance yet still harbor doubts about it. At this place the notion of those who “receive Scripture as inheritance” (ūrithū l-kitāba) does not appear to be a positive notion, but instead a reminder that often those who receive Scripture become divided and doubtful. In contrast, Q.42:15 shows the message that Muhammad brings to be a straight path, constituting unity instead of division. The verse makes three important theological claims, apparently addressed to earlier receivers of Scripture. The first claim is the unity of the revealed message (“I believe in the Scripture that God has sent down”), the second claim is that this leads to right relationships between human beings (“I have been commanded to be just among you”), and the third claim that undergirds and safeguards the other claims is the unity of God (“God is our Lord and your Lord”). Some of this reminds of the threefold common ground between Christians and Muslims proposed in the Common Word verse (Q.3:64), while the ending of this verse (“God will bring us together. To Him is the journeying”) evokes another famous verse addressed to the People of Scripture in Q.5:48. Yet, the eschatological vision of God bringing people together evokes differences as well, since “to us are our works, and to you are your works.” Different actions will bring different rewards with God, and therefore the last word belongs to God. 48:29 A likeness of the believers in the Torah and the Gospel Q.48 has the name al-fatḥ or “the victory,” and it is usually associated with the pact of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and his followers on the one hand and the Quraysh of Mecca on the other in 6 H., which was first perceived as a defeat but turned out to be a victory in the long run.67 Q.48:29 gives a summary description of the situation of the Prophet and his followers in terms that suggest similarities with descriptions in the Tawrāt (Torah) and the Injīl (Gospel). Muhammad is the messenger of God. Those who are with him are harsh against the disbelievers, (but) compassionate among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating themselves, seeking favor from God and approval. Their marks on their faces are the trace of prostration. That is their image in the Torah, and their image in the Gospel is like a seed (that) His note ad loc. (330) explains that God decrees differences between human beings as a way for them to learn from diversity. 67  See Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 47-49.



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

327

puts forth its shoot, and strengthens it, and it becomes stout and stands straight on its stalk, pleasing the sowers – so that He may enrage the disbelievers by means of them. God has promised those of them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and a great reward.68

There might be one or two separate references to earlier Scriptures here, but if the reference to the Torah is separate from the reference to the Gospel, as in the translation above, it could be an allusion to the phylacteries worn on the forehead by some Jews in prayer, following the text of the shema in Deuteronomy 6. The reference to the strong seed growing up and pleasing the sower most probably refers to parables such as those related in Matthew 13, Mark 4 or Luke 8. In this respect, it is interesting to note the proximity of the word used here for “image,” mathal (“likeness”) with the Hebrew word for parable, mashal. 57:29 The People of Scripture have no power over God’s bounty

57:29  so that the people of scripture know that they have no power over anything from god’s bounty and that bounty is in god’s hand – he gives it to whom he wants and god is of immense bounty

Since the reference to the People of Scripture in Q.57, al-ḥadīd (“iron”) is given in the very last verse of this sūrah, it is important to get an idea of the context first. Q.57 is the first of a series of Medinan surahs grouped together by Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī as second half of the sixth (of seven) groups in the Qur’ān.69 Since this surah refers to a victory (fatḥ, “opening”) associated with the conquest of Mecca by the believers, it is usually dated after the year 8 A.H. This rather late surah is characterized by the juxtaposition of God and Muhammad as sources of authority for the believers (see Q.57:7), and by the stark opposition between the believers and those who received revelation before them. Is it not time for believers to humble their hearts to the remembrance of God and the Truth that has been revealed, and not to be like those who

68  Q.48:29 (Dr). Droge suggests Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18 as possible reference to the Torah, and Mark 4:26-32 as possible reference to the Gospel. 69  See Mustansir Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 89.

328

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

received the Scripture before them, whose time was extended but whose hearts hardened and many of whom were lawbreakers?70

The people who have received Scripture before are characterized as declining in faith: as time progressed, their hearts hardened (qasat qulubuhum) and many of them deviated (fāsiqūn) from the right course. In contrast, the believers are called to humble their hearts (takhsha‘a qulubuhum), listen to the remembrance of God (dhikri llāhi), and live according to the Truth. Q.57 establishes another contrast between the life of this world (dunya) and the life to come (ākhira). This is brought home in a short simile (Q.57:20): this world is like the rain that rejuvenates the crop but it withers away shortly after that; by contrast, the life to come will clarify the true destiny of human beings. Q.57:22 adds that every disaster that strikes is part of God’s foreknowledge (kitāb, translated as “record”): “no disaster strikes in the land or among yourselves unless it is in a record, before we bring it into being. That is easy for God.”71 The final part of the surah assures the hearers that God does not only send affliction but also the means to cope with it. [25] We sent Our messengers with clear signs, the Scripture and the Balance, so that people could uphold justice: We also sent iron, with its mighty strength and many uses for mankind, so that God could find out those who would help Him and His messengers [though] unseen. Truly God is powerful, almighty. [26] We sent Noah and Abraham, and gave prophethood and scripture to their offspring: among them there were some who were rightly guided, but many were lawbreakers. [27] We sent other messengers to follow in their footsteps. After those We sent Jesus, son of Mary: We gave him the Gospel and put compassion and mercy into the hearts of his followers. But monasticism was something they invented – We did not ordain it for them – only to seek God’s pleasure, and even so, they did not observe it properly. So We gave a reward to those of them who believed, but many of them were lawbreakers. [28] Believers, be mindful of God and have faith in His Messenger: He will give you a double share of His mercy; He will provide a light to help you walk; He will forgive you – God is most forgiving, most merciful. [29] The People of the Book should know that they have no power over any of God’s bounty and that bounty is in the hand of God alone: He gives it to whoever He will. God’s grace is truly immense.72

 Q.57:16 (AH).  Q.57:22 (AJ). 72  Q.57:25-29 (AH). 70 71



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

329

This passage argues that God has given the possibility to make distinction between true help and guidance and illusory pleasure. Q.57:25 sums up two distinct possibilities sent by God: guidance through messengers who received the Scripture (al-kitāb) and the balance (al-mīzān) so that people can do justice (qisṭ), and iron (ḥadīd) – a word so unexpected and unique that it has given its name to this surah – that makes distinction between those who help God and His messengers, and those who do not.73 The rest of the passage concentrates on the idea and the succession of prophethood. Noah and Abraham are explicitly mentioned as being sent, and their progeny is given prophethood (nubūwwa) and Scripture (kitāb), thus singling out not only the two named prophets but also their offspring. Yet again, a distinction is made because some of them were rightly guided, while most of them were trespassers. Something similar is said in Q.57:27 concerning Jesus: he is sent after other messengers – the implication seems to be that he is the last one to be sent before prophet Muhammad – and he was given the Gospel. Of those who followed Jesus something positive is said first: God put compassion (ra’fa) and mercy (raḥma) in their hearts. This might be a reflection of the centrality of the message of love in Christianity, or a reflection of the closeness in faith between Muslims and Christians.74 The next clause that mentions monasticism can be read in two different ways: either as the beginning of a new sentence as in the translation rendered above, or as a continuation of what God has sent in the hearts of the followers of Jesus: “we placed kindness, mercy and monasticism in their hearts.”75 This reading would make monasticism (rahbānīyya) something given by God just like kindness and mercy.76 Yet the verse takes a critical turn: the followers of Jesus made an innovation of it, and made it into something with which they sought God’s pleasure (riḍwāna llāha). 73  This phrase might refer to a situation of warfare where weapons made of iron were used, but it might also refer to other uses of tools for doing good. See SQ 1338 (on Q.57:25). 74  See Q.5:82 where the kinship in faith is related to monasticism, just like in Q.57:27. 75  See SQ 1339 (on Q.57:27). The Christian Jesuit Paolo Dall’Oglio who in 1992 founded the monastery of Mar Musa in Syria in order to promote Christian – Muslim dialogue before he went missing in 2013, reads Q.57:27 as a qur’ānic recommendation of monastic life. See his Amoureux de l’Islam, croyant en Jésus (Paris: les Éditions de l’Atelier, 2009). 76  In his article “Aḥbār and Ruhbān: Religious Leaders in the Qur’ān in Dialogue with Christian and Rabbinic Literature”, QST 262-93, Holger M. Zellentin suggests that the word rahbānīyya in Q.57:27 does not refer to monasticism, but to overseeing the Christian community. Thus, the “innovation” criticized in the verse does not refer to monasticism or celibacy, but to financial misconduct.

330

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

So monasticism can be seen as something given by God yet pursued by Christians in a way different from God’s intention, or not given by God but invented by Christians. The parallel between the endings of verse 26 and 27 (“many were lawbreakers”) suggests a pattern: God sends messengers and prophets to guide humankind; while some initially follow the prophets, after some time they prefer their own inclinations. One cannot help but think that Muhammad’s own mounting tensions with Jewish and Christian opponents have contributed to this view on deterioration of true faith after the sending of the messenger. At the same time, the text seems to show more empathy toward Christians than Jews, and the Islamic tradition of interpretation will bring this empathy to bear on the next verses. Q.57:28 contains an emphatic message to the believers to be watchful of God and believe His messenger. They will receive a twofold provision of mercy from God. The Islamic tradition of interpretation, starting with Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, identifies the believers in this verse as those among the People of the Gospel who believe in Muhammad.77 The “twofold provision of God’s mercy” (kiflayn min-raḥmātihi) is explained by Mujāhid as “a doubling of their remuneration,” and it is explained as an Abyssinian expression.78 The contents of Q.57:28 are strongly connected with the contents of Q.57:27 if both are related to Jesus and his true followers; we will see what the consequences of this decision are for the interpretation of the term ahl al-kitāb in Q.57:29. 57:29  so that the people of scripture know that they have no power over anything from god’s bounty and that bounty is in god’s hand – he gives it to whom he wants and god is of immense bounty

Explanatory Notes The contents of Q.57:29 seem to be rather plain and simple: the People of Scripture apparently claim that they have power over things (qadara ‘ala shay’in) yet such a claim transgresses boundaries since qadara (“to be powerful”) is a verb that is usually reserved for God only.79 The Qur’ān strongly denies this claim: they have no power at all over God’s faḍl  TMS 3:327 (on Q.57:28).  TMJ 288 n. 1772-73 (on Q.57:28). This seems to point to a possible influence of Christian sources from Ethiopia. We will discuss this when interpreting Q.57:29. 79  Qadar (or qudra) has even become a technical term in a theological context, indicating the decree or decision from God, and later also God’s omnipotence. 77 78



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

331

(“surplus; priority; favor, gift; merit”). The primary meaning of the root f-ḍ-l is “to be in excess,” which is how God relates to human beings: God is in excess, has all the riches and favor, and bestows them on whomever God wills. The metaphor of God’s open hand (yad) indicates the same relation: everything is with God, and God gives. The last couple of words emphasize this even more: God is of immense bounty (dhu l-faḍli l-‘aẓīmi). The point that the Qur’ān makes here against the People of Scripture is that God is without limit in God’s surplus, while those who have received revelation apparently want to appeal to that revelation as a means to limit God’s bounty.80 Islamic Interpretations Mujāhid ibn Jabr has no interpretation of Q.57:29, but he offers two short glosses on Q.57:28; “twofold provision” means “a doubling of their remuneration”, and it is an expression in the language of the habasha (Abyssinians or Ethiopians). Muqātil ibn Sulaymān gives a lengthy interpretation of Q.57:27 in which he states that the followers of Jesus into whose hearts “God sent compassion and mercy” refers to the Muslims who are compassionate toward each other.81 Yet after Jesus, the number of believers diminished while the number of disbelievers grew, and the believers retreated into monasteries where they did not obey God’s commands properly but formed a new version of Christianity. Yet forty of them continued the religion of Jesus until they reached Prophet Muhammad: thirty-two from the region of Abyssinia (habasha) and eight from the region of Syria (shām). God alludes to them when He says “We gave a reward to those of them who believed.” In the case of the believers from the People of the Gospel (ahl al-injīl), God doubled their reward because of their faith in the first book – the Gospel – and in the book of Muhammad. Yet because of this they thought more highly of themselves, saying that they would have a better reward with God because of their faith in the two books; this troubled the companions of the Prophet who argued that they had been the ones who made the migration with him, believed in him before others, and went to battle with him.82 In response, God told 80  The phrasing of the end of this verse is repeated almost verbatim at the beginning of Q.62: “Such is God’s bounty: He grants it to anyone who is willing [to receive it]: for God is limitless in His great bounty.” Q.62:4 (MA). 81  TMS 3:327 (on Q.57:27). Muqātil refers to Q.48:29 that describes Muhammad’s followers as people who are “firm and unyielding towards all deniers of the truth, [yet] full of mercy towards one another.” (MA). 82  TMS 3:327 (on Q.57:27-28).

332

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

them to profess faith in one God, and to trust that Muhammad is the prophet and messenger of God. If they do that, God will give them a double reward, helping them toward heaven by guiding them with light, and God will forgive the sins of the believers.83 In his interpretation of Q.57:29, Muqātil construes the “People of Scripture” as referring to the “believers from the People of the Gospel, that is the forty men.” They should “know that they have no power over God’s bounty,” that is over Islam, unless by God’s grace, “and that bounty,” namely Islam, “is in God’s hand.” and that “God gives it to whom He wants,” namely, of his servants. In this way, Muqātil concludes, God gave the believers a double share along with the People of the Gospel.84 In its commentary on Q.57:27, the Tafsīr associated with Ibn ‘Abbās gives a somewhat different story: the “double reward” is given to those among the monks who served God by faith and worship; they followed the religion of Jesus, and when they heard of Prophet Muhammad, they converted.85 With reference to the “People of Scripture” in Q.57:29, this commentary gives a different interpretation: it refers to ‘Abdullah ibn Salām “who boasted to ‘Ubayy ibn Ka‘b and his friends that they had two rewards while others had only one.”86 The Tafsīr Jalālayn separates Q.57:27-28 from Q.57:29 by glossing the word “Scripture” in the latter verse as “the Torah.”87 While the group addressed in Q.57:27-28 is clearly a group of Christians, some following the religion of Jesus, some embracing the religion of the Roman authorities, the group addressed by “People of Scripture” is a group of Jews who claim that they are God’s beloved and deserve God’s beatitude. The Tafsīr ibn Kathīr clearly states that the people who earn a double reward are the People of Scripture who believe in Islam, and it refers to Q.28:52-54 as support: Those to whom We previously gave the Scripture – they believe in it. When it is recited to them, they say, “We believe in it. It is the truth from our Lord. We had surrendered before it [came].” These will be given their reward twice over because they have been patient and repel evil by good and spend from what We have provided for them.88  TMS 3:328 (on Q.57:28).  TMS 3:328 (on Q.57:29). 85  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.57:27 accessed at www.altafsir.com on October 25, 2017. 86  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.57:29, accessed at www.altafsir.com. 87  TJJ 535 (on Q.57:29). 88  Q.28:52-54 (AJ). See also McAuliffe, Qur’ānic Christians, 246. 83 84



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

333

Ibn Kathīr gives two short parables about the matter of the double reward. Since they contain different interpretations of the relationships between Jews, Christians and Muslims, I reproduce both of them here. The first is recorded by Imām Aḥmad: The parable of you and the Jews and Christians is that of a person who employed some laborers and asked them, “Who will work for me from the Dawn prayer until midday for one Qīrāṭ (a special weight of gold) each?” So, the Jew worked. The person asked, “Who will do the work for me from the Ẓuhr prayer to the time of the ‘Aṣr prayer for one Qīrāṭ each?” So, the Christian worked. Then the person asked, “Who will do the work for me from ‘Aṣr prayer until sunset for two Qīrāṭ each?” You are those who did this work. The Jews and the Christians got angry and said, “We did more work, but got less wages.” Allāh said, “Have I been unjust to you with your reward?” They said, “No.” So, Allāh said, “Then it is My grace which I bestow on whomever I will.”89

The second is recorded by al-Bukhārī: The parable of the Muslims, Jews and Christians is that of a man who employed laborers to work for him from morning until night for a known wage. So, they worked until midday and said, “We are not in need of the wages that you promised and our work was in vain.” So, the man said, “Do not quit now, complete the rest of the work and yours will be the full wage I have fixed for it.” However, they refused and quit, and he had to hire another batch of workers. He said (to the second batch), “Complete the work for the rest of the day and I will give you the same wage I promised the first batch.” So, they worked until the time of the ‘Aṣr prayer and said, “Whatever we have done is in vain and we forfeit the wages you promised us.” He said to them, “Complete your day’s work, for only a small part of the day remains.” However, they refused, and he employed another batch to work for the rest of the day, and they worked until sunset and received the wages of the two former batches. This is an example of them (i.e., the Jews and Christians) and of those who accepted this light (i.e., Islām).90

The Tafsīr ibn Kathīr does not give an interpretation of these two parables – I will come back to them when discussing Christian resonances – but only adds that the verse, “so that the People of the Scripture may know that they have no power whatsoever over the grace of Allāh” means that they cannot prevent what God gives, or give what God prevents.91 89  Ḥadīth collected by Imām Aḥmad from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar. The reference in TIK 9:506-7 is to Al-Bukhāri as reproduced in Fatḥ Al-Bāri 4:521 and 6:571. 90  Ḥadīth collected by al-Bukhārī from Abū Mūsa. The reference in TIK 9:507-8 is to Fatḥ Al-Bāri 4:523. 91  Q.57:29 as quoted in TIK 9:508.

334

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

The Study Quran states that the “believers” addressed in Q.57:28 are Jews and Christians who are called to follow not only their own religion but Prophet Muhammad as well; if they do that, they are promised a twofold provision of God’s mercy. In support, the Study Quran quotes a ḥadīth in which Prophet Muhammad says that “a believer from the People of the Book who has been a true believer in his prophet and then believes in me” will receive his or her reward twice.92 Following Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), the Study Quran interprets the People of Scripture addressed in Q.57:29 as Jews and Christians who do not believe in Prophet Muhammad, differentiating them from the People of Scripture addressed in the previous verse. They are the ones who argue that Muslims receive less reward from God since they came later than Jews and Christians. The Study Quran adds a second interpretation of Q.57:29 according to which “no one has any control over whom God appoints as a prophet, prophethood and revelation being His greatest bounties.”93 This argument is directed against Jews who said that a new prophet must be of their lineage, and against Arabs who said that Muhammad did not belong to one of the leading tribes. Christian Resonances The main theological argument directed at the People of Scripture here is that they should not think that anyone has any power over God’s bounty. We have already encountered this type of argument multiple times. It rests on two basic theological notions. The first notion is God’s power (qadar): the People of Scripture should not think that they have any power over God, since it is God with whom all power rests eternally. While the Islamic tradition has developed specific notions related to the root q-d-r such as God’s eternal decree, predestination, and omnipotence, the Christian tradition has developed analogous notions, even though it tended to phrase God’s power somewhat less in competition with human actions.94 The place where the Christian tradition expresses this notion most centrally is the beginning of the Nicene Creed that is  SQ 1339 (on Q.57:28); the same ḥadīth in TIK 9:505-6.  SQ 1340 (on Q.57:29). 94  For different Islamic traditions regarding the relationship between God’s power and human free will, see The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, ed. Sabine Schmidtke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). For the Christian tradition, see David B. Burrell, C.S.C., Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993); id., Faith and Freedom: An Interfaith Perspective (Malden MA: Blackwell, 2004). 92 93



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

335

prayed weekly as part of the liturgy, confirming the Word of God as heard in the readings and interpreted in the sermon. The phrasing in English is as follows: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.” The conviction that everything is in God’s power is derived from the idea that God is Creator of everything that exists (“visible and invisible”), thus implying the basic distinction between God as Creator who does not need any creature in order for God to exist, and all creatures that need God in order for them to exist.95 The second notion in the theological argument against the People of Scripture is faḍl, derived from a verb with the basic meaning “to be in excess” that characterizes the way in which God relates to all creatures: God gives, and creatures receive. It is not immediately clear what the nature of this gift is; therefore a neutral translation such as “bounty” may suffice. If one prefers a spiritual interpretation of faḍl as “grace” or “favor,” Q.57:29 may be interpreted to make the case that God is able to bestow God’s grace not only upon the “People of Scripture” but upon others – the ummiyūn (“illiterates; common people; pagans”) – as well.96 The first ḥadīth quoted in Ibn Kathīr’s commentary seems to suggest that the debate between Jews, Christians and Muslims is about the distribution of God’s grace. In chapter five of this commentary, I have used Paul’s letter to the Romans and Karl Barth’s interpretation of this letter to show an important Christian resonance to this debate. It is, however, also possible to give a material interpretation of the word faḍl or bounty. Even though this does not seem to be the dominant interpretation, it might be possible to interpret God’s bestowal of bounty in a military sense – related to the conquest of Mecca – if one bears in mind the juxtaposition of God sending revelation and iron in Q.57:25, the latter being so significant that the entire sura was named “iron.” When we discussed the end of the fifth surah in chapter seven, 95  See Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982); for an application of this distinction to historical relations between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, see David B. Burrell, C.S.C., Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986). 96  The mainstream Islamic tradition seems to focus on a specific variant of this spiritual interpretation by interpreting God’s bounty as God’s revelation to Muhammad and the bestowal of prophethood on him. In this case, the bounty that God has given is the Qur’ān given to Muhammad. This is suggested in the second interpretation given by the Study Quran, and also – in a rather polemical fashion – in the second ḥadīth quoted by Ibn Kathīr.

336

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

we noticed a form of Islamic triumphalism on the occasion of the conquest of Mecca that might have a parallel in this surah and thus evoke similar resonances in forms of Christian triumphalism. However, the very sign of the cross that is often associated with such forms of military conquest should remind the Christian commentator that the power of the cross is grounded not in the will to dominate but in the will to serve and to give up one’s life. The two hadiths quoted by Ibn Kathīr evoke quite naturally another powerful parallel in the Christian tradition, namely the parable of the workers in the vineyard in the Gospel according to Matthew:97 The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, “You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.” So they went off. [And] he went out again around noon, and about three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, “Why do you stand here idle all day?” They answered, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You too go into my vineyard.” When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, “Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.” When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, “These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.” He said to one of them in reply, “My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?” Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.

Jesus, who tells this parable in the Gospel according to Matthew, gives the key to the interpretation as well: it does not matter whether one is first or last, works a long or a short period, since God is free to give as God wishes. This theological point about God’s freedom to give brings the parable close to the theological point of view of the Qur’ān: no one has any power over God’s bounty, since God gives to whom God wants to give. 97  Matthew 20:1-16 (NAB). The parable is also known as the “parable of the eleventh hour workers.”



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

337

It is interesting to compare this parable in Matthew with the two parables quoted in the Tafsīr ibn Kathīr.98 The first ḥadīth makes a similar point as the parable in the Gospel: even though the workers have labored in the vineyard for different periods, they receive wages according to the contract that they made with the landowner. In this version the last group receives a double wage, which explains the “double reward” in the text from the Qur’ān. Yet it is up to God to give from God’s bounty. Therefore, those who worked longer have no right to receive more than those who worked for a shorter period. The lesson in this hadith is clear: those who were called later than the Jews and the Christians are in a position to receive even more as them, since God is free to bestow God’s grace on whomever God wants. The second ḥadīth, though, construes the parable in an entirely different way, and therefore supports an entirely different theology of religions. In this story the Jews and the Christians stop working and forfeit their wages; therefore the employer has to hire new workers – the Muslims – who in the end receive the wages of all the workers.99 The theological approach to Jews and Christians underlying this version of the parable is a clear form of supersessionism, according to which the workers of Islam have now come to work in place of the Jewish and Christian laborers.100 Interestingly, in this parable it is not the employer or the later workers who apply the supersessionism, but the Jews and Christians themselves who declare their works in vain and forfeit the payment. The image of the employer inviting them to continue of course refers to God who continues to offer God’s grace. God does not punish the People of Scripture here, but they punish themselves, and God accepts the consequence by giving their reward to the Muslims. In this case, the “double reward” of Q.57:28 goes to the Muslims, and not to those Christians who 98  See Marston Speight, “Christians in the Ḥadīth Literature,” in: Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001) 30-53, at 38-39; Marcel Poorthuis, “The transformative creativity of Islamic storytelling,” in: Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays on the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, eds. Eric Ottenheijm, Marcel Poorthuis (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 99  Poorthuis (“The transformative creativity of Islamic storytelling”) argues that the Islamic transformation of the parable is based on Christian supersessionist interpretations of the parable in the New Testament. He also observes that there may be an influence of the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30) or the pounds (Luke 19:11-27) in which the reward is transferred as well (Matthew 25:28; Lk 19:24). 100  For a discussion of different forms of supersessionism and their consequences for Christian – Jewish relations, see Kenneth Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996); Matthew A. Tapie, Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2014), 9-24.

338

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

– according to the Muslim tradition of interpretation – believe in two Scriptures and two Prophets. 59:2-11 The Faithless Among the People of Scripture 59:2  He it is who drove out those who disbelieved from the people of scripture from their houses in the first gathering you did not think that they would be driven out and they thought that their fortifications would offer them resistance to god yet god came to them from where they did not anticipate and he threw in their hearts fright they destroyed their houses with their hands and the hands of the believers so be warned o you with insight 59:11  Have

you not seen those who are hypocrites saying to their brothers who are unbelievers from the people of scripture: if you are driven out, we will be driven out with you and we shall never obey anyone concerning you even if they fight you, we will help you yet god witnesses that they are lying Explanatory Notes Surah 59, al-ḥashr or “the gathering” contains two explicit references to the People of Scripture in a context that describes a situation of warfare. The first reference occurs in Q.59:2 that begins with a pronoun, “He” (huwa) that must refer to God, because of the previous verse where God is described as the One who alone is almighty, truly wise. Therefore, it is God who drives out those who were unfaithful from their houses. These unfaithful people are said to belong to the People of Scripture, and the historical context is specified as “in the first ḥashr.” This word is so specific that it is used as title for the entire surah. It is derived from a verb with the meaning “to gather, to rally, to squeeze,” so it has the connotation of many things or persons coming together in a rather limited space.101 The context with words such as māna‘a (“to offer ­resistance”) 101  In later Islamic theology, yaum al-ḥashr will be used to indicate the Day of Judgment when all will be gathered to face the judgment of God.



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

339

and ḥuṣūn (“fortifications”) suggests that “the first gathering” must refer to a moment when people came together to defend themselves. The way in which God’s acting is emphasized here in a situation of warfare is quite similar to Q.33:25-27, another text in which God acted upon unbelievers and their helpers from the People of Scripture. The middle part of the verse states that God came upon them unexpectedly and this frightened them, so that they destroyed their houses “with their hands and the hands of the believers,” which is a sign that the believers act together with God to destroy the unfaithful. The final clause addresses “people with insight” to draw a lesson from this event. The second reference to the People of Scripture comes in Q.59:11, after a number of verses that describe the consequences of the event described in Q.59:2: they were banished and will suffer more in the life to come (Q.59:3), because they separated themselves from God and the prophet (Q.59:4). The next couple of verses describe some specifics: the cutting down of palm trees by God’s leave (Q.59:5) and the distribution of the spoils of war (Q.59:6-9). After a concluding prayer, Q.59:11 discusses a group of hypocrites (nāfaqa, “to dissemble, dissimulate”) who call the unbelievers from the People of Scripture their brothers and promised them to fight with them, yet God witnesses that they are liars. Islamic Interpretations In their interpretations of Q.59:1-11, the mufassirūn tend to focus rather extensively on possible connections between these verses and events in the life of the prophet Muhammad and his companions, while they focus less on connections with the People of Scripture. Tafsīr Mujāhid does not gloss Q.59:1-4, but explains the cutting down of palm trees in Q.59:5. There was a dispute about this between those who migrated from Mecca to Medina: some said that the palm trees should be cut in order to annoy the enemies, but others said that they should not be cut as they may become booty for the Muslims. The verse revealed supports both possibilities.102 The verses about the distribution of the spoils refer to discussions about this between the muhājirūn (those who emigrated from Mecca to Medina) and the anṣār (the “helpers” from the people of Medina). The most relevant note in Mujāhid’s commentary, however, is the identification of the hypocrites mentioned in Q.59:11 as Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul and his friends.103 This  TMJ 291 n. 1781 (on Q.59:5).  TMJ 291 n. 1786 (on Q.59:11).

102 103

340

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

identification has given rise to the traditional interpretation of this passage: Abdullah is the leader of the Khazraj tribe that had an agreement with the Banu Qaynuqā’, one of the Jewish tribes.104 Tafsīr Muqātil gives a more substantial though somewhat different historical context: the People of Scripture mentioned in the second verse are the Jews of banu Naḍīr after the Battle of Uhud.105 The expression “driven out of their houses … in the first congregation” means that they were expelled from Medina in the battle; the second congregation refers to the Day of Judgment. The way in which God intervened unexpectedly in this situation is that Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, the leader of the banū Naḍīr, was killed, and that caused them to be frightened. Muhammad ibn Maslama, one of the “helpers,” killed him. In the traditional Islamic interpretation, these names are connected with events after the battle of Uhud.106 This tradition says that Muhammad turned against the banū Naḍīr because some of them reportedly wanted to kill Muhammad. Muhammad and his followers besieged them and they were exiled to the Jewish oasis of Khaybar, to the north of Medina.107 Muqātil anticipates the role of the hypocrites mentioned in Q.59:11; they sent a letter to the banū Naḍīr, offering them their support if they would fight against Muhammad. When the Jewish tribe was offered the choice of either leaving Medina or fighting, they chose to fight, yet the Muslims destroyed their houses and they were forced to leave the city.108 This happened after the expulsion of the banū Qaynuqā‘, but before the more drastic measures against the banū Qurayẓa. Concerning the cutting of the palm trees (Q.59:5), Muqātil remarks that Muhammad ordered these trees to be cut off because they were very valuable to the enemies. He then identifies these enemies as Jews, saying that they were angry when they saw the date palms being cut off, and said to Muhammad: “O Muhammad, do you bring in what God has sent down on you wickedness or improvement on earth?” The Muslims were afraid that they had done an unfriendly deed, and therefore God revealed the verse giving them permission to do so.109 In order to understand the strong reaction of the Jewish tribe and the hesitancy on the 104  See Ibn Isḥāq, The Life of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 363. Also, Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 88. 105  TMS 3:337 (on Q.59:2). 106  See the commentary on Q.33:26 in the previous chapter. 107  See Donner, Muhammad and the Believers, 46-47. 108  TMS 3:337-38. 109  TMS 3:338 (on Q.59:5).



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

341

side of the Muslims, it is relevant to point out that the destruction of fruit-bearing trees explicitly contradicts the ethics of war prescribed in the Torah.110 Muqātil adds that the first Muslim to obey the new revelation in this verse that contradicts the rule of law in the Torah was ‘Abdallah ibn Salām who converted from Judaism to Islam. With reference to the hypocrites in Q.59:11, Muqātil identifies them as ‘Abdullah ibn Nutayl and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Rāfi‘ ibn Yazīd, from the “helpers” in Medina, and their brothers from the People of Scripture, viz. Huyayy ibn Akhṭab, Abū Yāsir and Mālik ibn al-Ḍayf, and the people of Qurayẓa.111 These names clearly suggest that the Jewish tribes still remaining in Medina confederated against Muhammad and his followers, and that they were punished because of their infidelity, since they did not keep their original promises. The Tafsīr attributed to ibn ‘Abbās gives the same reference to the banū Naḍīr, but interprets the words “in the first congregation” in Q.59:2 as “in the first exile,” adding that they were the first to be gathered and exiled to greater Syria.112 With reference to Q.59:11, the commentary explains the term “hypocrites” as follows: these were people from the banū Aws who claimed to be believers in public, while they made common cause with the Jews of the banū Qurayẓa.113 The Tafsīr ibn Kathīr gives a more extensive reconstruction of the events. When migrating to Medina, Prophet Muhammad had made a peace treaty with the Jewish tribes, stipulating that he would not fight them and they would not fight him. Yet the tribe of al-Naḍīr betrayed the terms of the treaty, and therefore God caused them to be expelled from the city. Harmonizing the different traditions concerning the destination of the exile while interpreting the meaning of the word ḥashr, Ibn Kathīr states: “Some of them went to Adhri‘āt in the area of AshShām, which is the area of the grand Gathering and Resurrection, while others went to Khaybar.”114 He also gives detailed information to explain 110  See Mazuz, The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina, 58-59. The prohibition to cut down fruit bearing trees can be found in Deuteronomy 20:19-20. 111  Some of these names are mentioned among the leaders of the banū ‘Awf, banū Khazraj and the banū Naḍīr in Ibn Ishaq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. See Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, 437-39. See also Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 90. 112  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ‘Abbās on Q.59:2, retrieved from www.altafsir. com (accessed on November 13, 2017). The Tafsīr al-Jalālayn agrees that the “first exile” in verse 2 refers to the exile of the banū al-Naḍīr to Syria, but specifies that this is followed by a later exile under the caliphate of ‘Umar to Khaybar (TJJ 539, ad loc.). 113  Ibid. on Q.59:11 (accessed on November 13, 2017). 114  TIK 9:544 (on Q.59:2).

342

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

how both the Jewish tribes of banū Qurayẓa and banū Naḍīr were somehow involved in this betrayal.115 The cutting down of the date palms and the division of the booty are explained in great detail as well.116 The promise of the hypocrites to help the People of Scripture in Q.59:11 is explained as a lie. That is why Q.59:12 continues to say that they will not help one another, and even if they seem to combine their forces, they are in fact divided because “they are a people who understand not.”117 The Study Quran accepts the traditional interpretation of these verses as referring to the betrayal of the banū Naḍīr while filling in some of the details and explaining some specifics of the verses. “God came to them from where they did not anticipate” in Q.59:2 is explained as follows: Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, the leader of the banū Naḍīr, was killed by people whom they trusted as their allies, and therefore this event came from an unexpected direction.118 Explaining some of the connections that remained implicit in the Tafsīr Muqātil, the Study Quran states that Prophet Muhammad confronted the banū Naḍīr with a choice when he heard of their intention to betray and kill him: they could either leave while still retaining the rights to the proceeds from their crops, or they could face war. After the hypocrites promised them their support, the banū Naḍīr chose war, but since the promised support did not materialize, they asked Muhammad to leave according to the terms that he had offered earlier, yet Muhammad refused to let them keep their lands and their palm trees.119 The Study Quran also tries to defend the decision to expel them as unusual but necessary by explaining “that the preferred course with the Banū Naḍīr would have been reconciliation, but that once they had become resolute in their defiance, there was no alternative but banishment.”120 Christian Resonances If it is true that the historical context explaining the phrasing of the verses in Q.59 is a situation of enmity between the Jewish tribe of banū Naḍīr and Prophet Muhammad and his followers, it seems strange that this surah does not mention the tribe by name, but instead twice refers to “People of Scripture.” Yet we have encountered a similar case in Q.33  Ibid., 546-50.  Ibid., 551-53 and 554-66. 117  See TIK 9:567-70, on Q.59:12-13. 118  SQ 1351 (on Q.59:2). 119  SQ 1349-50. 120  SQ 1353 (on Q.59:10). 115 116



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

343

as discussed in the previous chapter, where the Islamic tradition of interpretation indicated a situation of enmity with the Jewish tribe of banū Qurayẓa’. In both cases, the Qur’ān uses the term “People of Scripture” because of its theological agenda. The Study Quran points to this theological agenda as follows: “The Banū Naḍīr are condemned here for breaking their pact and thus violating the principles of their religion, for, had they feared God, they would not have done so and would not now need to seek refuge from the Muslim army. That they fear human beings more than God indicates that they are focused upon this world rather than the Hereafter.”121 The use of the theological notion of “People of Scripture” indicates that the Jewish tribe is condemned for its unfaithfulness, since they should have known better as they have been gifted with a Scripture from God. Their lack of faith and fear of God is criticized once more in Q.59:21 (AJ): “Had We sent this Recitation down on a mountain, you would have seen it humbled and split asunder through fear of God.” This simile of a mountain being brought down or split for fear of God evokes the trope of “hearts of stone” or “uncircumcised hearts” that we have encountered before in the Qur’ān. More specifically, it evokes the unfaithfulness of the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, as described in Q.2 and Q.4, where there is a parallel between the hardness of their hearts (Q.2:74; 5:13) and the uncircumcised status of their hearts (Q.2:88; 4:155). It also evokes the strong image of the mountain crumbling at God’s revelation in Q.7:143.122 Since we have discussed the expression “uncircumcised hearts” before, I focus here on the expression “hardening of hearts” since it has a clear resonance in the Psalms, such as, “Oh, that today you would hear his voice: Do not harden your hearts as at Meribah, as on the day of Massah in the desert.”123 The locations Massah and Meribah refer to events mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 17:7) when the Children of Israel quarreled and tested the Lord. Prophets such as Jeremiah frequently refer to the hardness of heart as well, for instance in Jer. 7:24, and the New Testament picks up this theme, for instance in the letter to the Hebrews (3:7-8), yet the most famous resonance of this theme in the Christian tradition might be in the prologue to the Rule of St. Benedict: “Let our ears be alert to the stirring call of his voice crying to us every day: today,  SQ 1354 (on Q.59:13).  For the expression “uncircumcised hearts”, see Reynolds, The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext, 147-55. 123  Psalm 95:8 (NAB). 121 122

344

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

if you should hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”124 The hardening of hearts refers to a situation in which human beings do not want to listen to God’s call, deciding not to trust the voice of the caller. Because the Qur’ān considers this lack of trust to be a constitutive characteristic of the People of Scripture, it uses this term because of its negative theological connotations instead of giving a historically precise indication of the group to which the text seems to relate. From the point of view of a Christian commentary, one cannot but recognize the overwhelming importance of the warning not to harden one’s heart and not to close oneself for the possibility that God might have something to say to us. In this respect, the People of Scripture are rightly criticized because they have received revelation and are therefore accountable. However, the commentary also needs to raise a warning of its own, because the legitimate criticism of People of Scripture has so often led to arrogance, supersessionism, and religious violence. The person criticizing should be held accountable as well, and this holds true both for the Christian tradition in its claim to have superseded the Jewish covenant, and the Islamic tradition in its claim to have superseded the People of Scripture. One last resonance in the Christian tradition should be named here, namely the idea that the unfaithful fear human beings more than God and therefore focus on the world here and now – the dunya – rather than on the hereafter – the ākhira – as the Study Quran explains in its commentary on Q.59:13. This evokes a number of short sayings of Jesus in the Gospel according to Matthew. Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroy, nor thieves break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.125 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul: rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.126

The Qur’ān has a strong eschatological teleology: the final aim of our lives is the hereafter in which the faithful will meet God. This is probably most strongly expressed in the notion that in the end “all things 124  Translation by Patrick Barry OSB in: The Benedictine Handbook (Norwich: the Canterbury Press, 2003), 11. 125  Matthew 6:19-21 (NAB). 126  Matthew 10:28 (NAB).



NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

345

perish, save His Face.”127 A loud Christian resonance to this basic idea of God’s Presence as final motivation for human life is the idea of God’s Kingdom. In the New Testament, Jesus shows an equally strong eschatological teleology by saying, “seek first the Kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.”128

 See Q.28:88 and Q.55:26-27, and SQ ad loc.  Matthew 6:33 (NAB).

127 128

Chapter Eleven

CLEAR EVIDENCE 98:1  not

were those who disbelieved from the people of scripture and the associators separated until came to them the clear evidence The last two explicit references to the People of Scripture can be found in Q.98, al-bayyina (“the clear evidence”), a short surah that discusses the disunity among the people to whom the Scripture was given. This surah, which is one of the few short surahs toward the end of the Qur’ān traditionally assigned to the Medinan period, contains quite a few explicit and implicit references to the People of Scripture, so I will discuss it in its entirety at the end of this chapter. But first I want to survey some of the most important references to Scripture in suwar 60-97, using the categories that I have distinguished in chapters eight and ten. Scripture as expression of God’s eternal knowledge Surah 68, al-qalam (“the pen”) is considered one of the earliest surahs revealed in Mecca. If that is true, we would have the first instance of a detached letter, followed by an oath formula and a reference to revelation. At this place the reference is not to a kitāb or Scripture, but to the pen and an act of inscribing something: “Nūn. By the pen! By all they write.”1 According to the Islamic tradition of interpretation, the plural “they” possibly refers to the angels who record the deeds of human beings. A similar reference to the pen as instrument of God’s knowledge of everything is given in Q.96:4, arguably the first revelation given to Prophet Muhammad: “Read! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One who taught by the pen, who taught man what he did not know.”2  Q.68:1 (AH).  Q.96:3-5 (AH).

1 2

348

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

A rather famous expression for the eternal Scripture with God in heaven is the “preserved tablet” (lawḥ maḥfūẓ) that is mentioned in surah 85 at the end: “Has the story of the forces come to you, of Pharaoh and Thamūd? No! But those who disbelieve persist in calling (it) a lie. Yet God surrounds them from behind. Yes! It is a glorious Qur’ān, in a guarded Tablet.”3 The expression indicates that what is inscribed on the tablet is valid for the ages since God encompasses everything that exists, including those who deny God and do not want to acknowledge His revelation. In the later Islamic tradition, the “preserved tablet” will become an equivalent of the “mother of the book” (Q.3:7), indicating the heavenly model of all the revealed books.4 Many of the references to kitāb in the last surahs of the Qur’ān refer to an eschatological context, since these surahs frequently contain eschatological or apocalyptic scenes.5 More specifically, the word is used in announcements of the Day of Judgment (yawm al-dīn) or the Last Day (yawm al-ākhira) to make distinction between those who will find favor with God and those who will not. In Q.69, the metaphor of the “right hand” (yamīn) indicates such favor as follows: On that Day you shall be brought to judgment: not [even] the most hidden of your deeds will remain hidden. Now as for him whose record shall be placed in his right hand, he will exclaim: “Come you all! Read this my record! Behold, I did know that [one day] I would have to face my account!” And so he will find himself in a happy state of life, in a lofty paradise, with its fruits within easy reach.6

In contrast, the metaphor of the “left side” (shamāl) indicates an unhappy ending: But as for him whose record shall be placed in his left hand, he will exclaim: “Oh, would that I had never been shown this my record, and neither known this my account! Oh, would that this [death of mine] had been the end of me! Of no avail to me is all that I have [ever] possessed, [and] all my power of argument has died away from me!”7 3  Q.85:17-22 (Dr). Alan Jones (ad loc.) translates the last verse differently, “preserved on a Tablet,” since the word maḥfūẓ (“guarded, preserved”) may refer to “a glorious recitation” instead of “tablet.” Michel Cuypers (Une apocalypse coranique, 93) makes the same remark and refers to parallels in the books of Enoch and Jubilees. 4  See the Study Quran, 1499 (on Q.85:21-22). 5  See Michel Cuypers, Une apocalypse coranique: une lecture des 33 dernières sourates du Coran (Paris: Gabalda, 2014). 6  Q.69:18-23 (MA). 7  Q.69:25-29 (MA).



CLEAR EVIDENCE

349

The phrase “my book” (kitābiyah) at the end of verses 19 and 25 rhymes with the phrase “my account” (ḥisābiyah) in verses 20 and 26, and indicates that the book and the account relate to that person’s entire life in all of its personal and public aspects. Scripture revealed to Moses and other prophets The word kitāb is used only sporadically in the shorter surahs to refer to earlier revelations. One of the exceptions is a text that must be considered as a later gloss on the enigmatic expression “over it are nineteen” in Q.74:30.8 The first part of this gloss says, “We have appointed only angels to guard hellfire, and We have made their number a test for the disbelievers and so that those who have been given the Scripture will be certain and those who believe will have their faith increased and neither those who have been given the Scripture nor the believers will have any doubts…”9 Since “those who have been given Scripture” are juxtaposed to the believers, it makes sense to think that this term refers to Jews and Christians.10 Q.62:2 uses the word kitāb to make a powerful contrast between the situation of the prophet Muhammad and his people and the People of Scripture. He it is who sent unto the unlettered people an apostle from among themselves, to convey unto them His messages, and to cause them to grow in purity, and to impart unto them the divine writ as well as wisdom – whereas before that they were indeed, most obviously, lost in error.11

Muhammad, the messenger (rasūl), belongs to a group of people characterized as ’ummiyyūn, a word that is usually translated as “illiterate” or “uneducated,” yet in the Qur’ān it refers to people who did not receive a special revelation from God like Jews and Christians did. The word can thus be seen as the opposite of the ahl al-kitāb and translated as “people without Scripture” (AH). The Qur’ān uses this term because it wants to highlight the difference that revelation makes: it leads people from error to purity and knowledge. Consequently, the messenger has a threefold task: to recite the signs of God to the people, to purify them,  See Ernst, How to Read the Qur’an, 46.  Q.74:31a (AH). 10  See SQ 1442 (on Q.74:31). 11  Q.62:2 (MA). 8 9

350

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

and to teach them (yu‘allimahum) the Scripture and the wisdom (al-kitāba wa-l ḥikmata).12 In contrast, contemporary Jews are addressed as people who have received revelation yet failed to put it into practice. In doing so, Q.62:5 uses the remarkable likeness (mathal) of an ass that carries book scrolls, using the proverbial stubbornness of a donkey to make the point that they are too stupid to profit from the wisdom in the scrolls.13 Their fault is indicated once more in Q.62:6, “Say [Prophet]: ‘You who follow the Jewish faith, if you truly claim that out of all people you alone are friends of God, then you should be hoping for death’.”14 This claim represents the exclusivism of people who think that they alone are close to God; yet the Qur’ān sharply retorts that they should long for death if what they think is true. In most Meccan surahs, other words are used to refer to Scriptures revealed before the Qur’ān, such as the word ṣuḥuf (“leaves; scrolls”) in Q.87: “This is in the ancient scrolls, the scrolls of Abraham and Moses.”15 While it seems rather evident that the Torah must be the scrolls given to Moses, the Islamic tradition has brought forward several possibilities for the scrolls given to Abraham.16 A contested Reminder or Recitation In Q.62, the word dhikr is used to refer to the liturgy of the believers: “Believers, when the call to prayer is made on the day of congregation, hurry towards the reminder of God and leave off your trading – that is better for you, if only you knew – then when the prayer has ended, disperse in the land and seek out God’s bounty. Remember God often 12  The combination of Scripture and wisdom occurs in a number of verses in the Qur’ān, in relation to Abraham (Q.4:54), Jesus (Q.5:110) and Muhammad (Q.4:113). In these cases, “wisdom” does not refer to a second source of revelation next to Scripture, but rather to its interpretation or its practice. Along these lines, it may refer to the habit of the Prophet, as is the case with the sunna of Prophet Muhammad (SQ 1370, on Q.62:2). 13  The word used for “book scrolls” here is asfār, plural of sifr, a word that evokes the Hebrew sefer for a book scroll, particularly for liturgical use. 14  Q.62:6 (AH). The word awliyā’u forms the plural of the word walī that denotes closeness and association in certain matters; in later Islam it was also used to characterize holy people or “saints”. The point here is that they claim to be close to God, to the exclusion of al-nās or the regular people. 15  Q.87:18-19 (AJ). See also Q.20:133 and Q.53:36-37 for these expressions. 16  See SQ 1505 (on Q.87:18-19). Michel Cuypers (Une apocalypse coranique), following Geneviève Gobillot, proposes two intertestamental books as possible sources.



CLEAR EVIDENCE

351

so that you may prosper.”17 A similar usage in Q.63: “Believers, do not let your wealth and your children distract you from remembering God: those who do so will be the ones who lose.”18 In these Medinan surahs, the notion of dhikr seems to refer to an established practice. In contrast, the word qur’ān is used to refer to a specific practice of reciting the first Meccan revelations by Prophet Muhammad, for instance at the beginning of Q.73, al-muzammil (“the enwrapped one”): “You who are wrapped up in a robe, stay up during the night, except for a little – half of it or a little less or a little more – and be distinct with the Recitation. We shall place on you a weighty word.”19 The phrase seems to refer to a specific practice of staying awake and reciting parts of the revelation by Muhammad and his early followers in Mecca. The most famous reference to this practice of reciting is of course the beginning of Q.96, often regarded as the first surah revealed to the prophet Muhammad because it begins with the imperative form of the verb from which the noun qur’ān (“recitation”) is derived: “Read! In the name of your Lord who created: He created man from a clinging form. Read! Your Lord is the Most Bountiful One who taught by the pen, who taught man what he did not know.”20 Even though the aspect of receiving knowledge seems to be the most prominent aspect here, the imperative addressed to Muhammad to recite aloud may be seen as the beginning of a later practice of recitation in the context of a spiritual retreat or – later – a liturgical celebration. Q.75 contains a passage that seems to refer to the practice of reciting the words being revealed, or rather to repeat them after having heard the first recitation from its divine origin – mediated by Gabriel (Jibrīl) according to the Islamic tradition – and the Prophet is admonished to do so carefully: “[Prophet], do not rush your tongue in an attempt to hasten [your memorization of] the Revelation: it is for Us to make sure of its safe collection and recitation. When We have recited it, repeat the recitation and it is up to Us to make it clear.”21  Q.62:9-10 (AH).  Q.63:9 (AH). 19  Q.73:1-5 (AJ). The word combination rattili l-qur’ānan tartīlan is usually translated as “recite the Qur’ān distinctly,” because the verb r-t-l has “to be well-ordered” as its basic meaning. The second form of this verb has the meaning “to phrase elegantly,” and it is used to describe the chanting of the Psalms by Christians, but also the slow and distinct recitation of the Qur’ān. 20  Q.96:1-5 (AH). 21  Q.75:16-19 (AH). For the role of Jibrīl, see SQ 1448 (on Q.75:16-18). A parallel can be found in Q.20:114. 17 18

352

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.68:11-16 gives a description of an adversary of the revelation as follows: “[w]hen Our signs are recited to him, he says, ‘Fables of the ancients.’”22 In other words: he does not want to listen, and he thinks that he has nothing to learn from what is recited to him. The Qur’ān replies to this refusal with rhetorical questions: “What is amiss with you? On what do you base your judgment [of right and wrong]? Or have you, perchance, a [special] divine writ which you study, and in which you find all that you may wish to find?”23 This challenge is probably directed at a group of Meccan pagans who will not be able to produce such a Scripture, even though it may also be directed at Jews and Christians who might be able to produce a Scripture, but are certainly not living in accordance with such a divine revelation. Q.74 addresses a group of adversaries as follows: “What, then, is amiss with them that they turn away from all admonition as though they were terrified asses fleeing from a lion? Yea, every one of them claims that he [himself] ought to have been given revelations unfolded.”24 The admonition in the first part of this quotation is tadhkira, derived from the same root dh-k-r as the word dhikr (“reminder”),25 while the “revelations unfolded” is an interpretation of the word ṣuḥuf, translated by A.J Droge as “scrolls unrolled.”26 The same combination of the words tadhkira and ṣuḥuf can be found in Q.80, ‘abasa (“he frowned.”) The traditional explanation of this title says that it refers to Muhammad who frowned when a blind man came to seek his advice while he was talking with some notables in Mecca. The prophet is rebuked in the opening verses: “He frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him. What will make you know? Perhaps he will (yet) purify himself, or take heed, and the Reminder will benefit

 Q.68:15 (AJ).  Q.68:37-38 (MA). 24  Q.74:49-52 (MA). 25  The same word tadhkira occurs in Q.74:54-55 (MA), “Nay, verily, this is an admonition and whoever wills may take it to heart,” and in Q.76:29 (“This is a reminder”). 26  Droge (ad loc., 410) gives the following footnote: “scrolls unrolled: or ‘pages spread out;’ i.e. each one wants (demands?) a revealed book for himself, or wants (dares?) to be presented with the record of his deeds, because he ‘has no fear of the Hereafter’ (as the following verse states). The word ‘pages’ (lit. ‘leaves’ or ‘sheets,’ Ar. ṣuḥuf ) occurs several times in connection with the Qur’ān (Q80.13), the revelation to Abraham and Moses (Q53.36-37; 87.18-19; cf. Q20.133), and perhaps the heavenly archetype (Q98.2-3). It is also used for the ‘record’ of a person’s deeds (Q81.10).” 22 23



CLEAR EVIDENCE

353

him.”27 The reproach continues to say that Muhammad pays attention to people who seem rich or self-sufficient, while not heeding someone who comes running to him and who fears God, possibly bearing “a Reminder – and whoever pleases (may) take heed of it – (written) in honored pages, exalted (and) purified, by the hands of scribes, (who are) honorable (and) dutiful.”28 The message to which attention needs to be paid is described as a “reminder” (tadhkira) that can be taken to memory (dhikr) if one wants; it is inscribed on honored scrolls (ṣuḥuf mukarrama). 61:6 Jesus confirms Torah and announces Aḥmad Q.61 sits in the middle of the largest group of relatively short Medinan surahs, comprising suwar 57-66 or the latter half of group VI in the division of the Qur’ān according to Iṣlāḥī.29 As is often the case in Medinan surahs, the tension between prophets and their listeners is exemplified in the contrast between prophet Moses and his people who do not accept his message. Right after this example, Jesus is mentioned as a second prophet in a series of prophets, confirming (muṣaddiqan) the message of Moses, but at the same time announcing (mubashshiran, “bringing good news”) the coming of a new prophet whose name is Aḥmad. The verse says: Jesus, son of Mary, said, “Children of Israel, I am sent to you by God, confirming the Torah that came before me, and bringing good news of a messenger to follow me whose name will be Ahmad.” Yet when he came to them with clear signs, they said, “This is obviously sorcery.”30

The words of the Children of Israel who do not accept Jesus’s message, “manifest sorcery,” echo the words of the opponents of Moses and of Muhammad, and therefore they highlight the continuity of refusal to accept the message of the prophets.31 Yet the element that is unique to this verse is that Jesus is introduced announcing – literally: preaching the good news of – a future prophet by the name of Aḥmad. The Muslim tradition has of course pointed out that the names Aḥmad and  Q.80:1-5 (Dr).  Q.80:11-16 (Dr). 29  Mustansir Mir, Coherence in the Qur’ān, 89. 30  Q.61:6 (AH). 31  With respect to Jesus, see Q.5:110; with respect to Moses, Q.10:76 and Q.27:13; with respect to Muhammad, see Q.34:43. 27 28

354

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Muḥammad derive from the same root (ḥ-m-d, “to praise”). Since Christians speaking Arabic tend to use words derived from the root b-sh-r (“to bring good news”) to indicate both the New Testament and the act of preaching, one could consider this verse as a polemical message about the true identity of the good news that Jesus brought. The clear signs that Jesus brought are usually taken to be his miracles, mentioned a few times in the Qur’ān; some translators, however, imply that the “he” in this last part of the verse refers to Aḥmad.32 In both cases, however, the implication is that an opposition builds between the prophets that confirm one another and those who stubbornly refuse to listen to their words and deeds. The end of this short surah introduces Jesus again: You who believe, be God’s helpers. As Jesus, son of Mary, said to the disciples: ‘Who will be my helpers in God’s cause?’ The disciples said: ‘We shall be God’s helpers’. Some of the Children of Israel believed and some disbelieved: We supported the believers against the enemy and they were the ones who came out on top.33

The term “helpers” (anṣār) usually refers to the people from Medina who helped the immigrants from Mecca, but in this verse the word is used by Jesus to solicit helpers. Those who answer him are called his disciples (ḥawāriyyūn).34 The verse makes a distinction between two groups among the Children of Israel: some believed, accepting Jesus as prophet and becoming his disciples and thus helpers of God, yet others did not accept him and thus became disbelievers. In the end, though, God was with the helpers who were victorious over those who refused. This may refer to the fact that Christians (those who accepted the new messenger) became more powerful than Jews (those who refused to accept).35 The verse seems to suggest that something similar happens with the prophet Muhammad and those who believe in him: some become helpers of God – maybe those Christians who started to accept this new prophet – and some refused to believe in him. Again, God will make the helpers victorious, as was the case before with Moses and with Jesus.

 See Muhammad Asad, ad loc., 982.  Q.61:14 (AH). 34  See Gabriel Said Reynolds, “The Quran and the apostles of Jesus,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 209-27. 35  Reynolds, “The Quran and the apostles of Jesus”, 214-15. 32 33



CLEAR EVIDENCE

355

66:12 Mary accepted as true the Words and the Scriptures Q.66, al-taḥrīm or “the forbidding,” begins with a number of verses that seem to refer to the relation between Prophet Muhammad and some of his wives. It ends with some similes of other prophets whose wives were negatively involved in their lives, such as the wives of Noah and Lot.36 The point seems to be that a family relationship or consanguinity does not guarantee a faithful life; sometimes, this argument is used against those who think that the “merits of the forefathers” contribute to their own faith.37 An interesting counter-example follows in Q.66:11 where Pharaoh’s wife is portrayed as faithful. The stories of these females associated with belief or disbelief culminate in the example of Mary: and Mary, daughter of ‘Imran. She guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her from Our spirit. She accepted the truth of her Lord’s words and Scriptures: she was truly devout.38

This text about Mary, her virginity and her conception by God’s spirit is theologically very dense; the Qur’ān uses the notions of “word” (kalima) and “spirit” (rūḥ) in connection to God’s “breathing” or “casting” into Mary, yet, just like in Q.4:171, these words are used in a manner strikingly different from what Christians would say about Mary, Word and Spirit of God.39 The Qur’ān states that Mary accepted as true (ṣaddaqa) the words (kalimāt) and the scriptures (kutub) of her Lord, and it adds: “she was among the devout.” While the latter expression seems to refer to her obedience and humility, the acceptance of words and scriptures suggests her faithfulness to what God sent her. It is not difficult to find strong reminiscences of these expressions in the Christian and more specifically the Catholic tradition, starting with the ­preservation 36  Q.66:10. The negative role of the wife of Lot is mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 19:26) and a few times in the Qur’ān (Q.7:83; 11:81; 15:60; 27:57; 29:32), yet the wife of Noah is not given such a negative portrayal elsewhere in the Qur’ān (but one of his sons is portrayed negatively: Q.11:42-47). 37  For the notion of the merits of the Patriarchs (also mentioned in Romans 11 and Nostra Aetate 4), see Firestone, “The Merits of the Ancients,” in: Who are the Real Chosen People?, 91-114; for the difference in the notion of election between the three Abrahamic religions, see Levenson, Inheriting Abraham, 154). For Judaism and Christianity see also Joel S. Kaminsky, “Can Election Be Forfeited?” in: The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, eds. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 44-66. 38  Q.66:12 (AH). 39  For new approaches to the place of Mary in the Qur’ān, see Abboud, Mary in the Qur’an; Michael Marx, “Glimpses of a Mariology in the Qur’an”, in NQC 533-63.

356

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

of Mary’s virginity and continuing with her acceptance of the message (“may it be done to me according to your word,” Luke 1:38) and her “keeping all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51). The Second Vatican Council summarizes these reminiscences when it says that Muslims “honor Mary,” the “Virgin Mother,” and “at times even call on her with devotion.”40 81:10 When the scrolls will be unrolled The suwar from surah 78 onward are often grouped together and referred to as juz’ ‘amma.41 These short surahs are often the first Arabic texts that are taught to children in primary education, and since they are usually concise and expressive, they are also most frequently learnt by heart and used in prayers (next to al-fātiḥa, the first surah).42 Many of these short surahs have an apocalyptic message that refers to the cosmic events that announce the Last Day or the Day of Judgment in poetic evocations.43 Other texts describe the situation of human beings at the Day of Judgment, where they get to know the ultimate truth (Greek: ta eschata, “the final things”) about their lives and destinies. In these apocalyptic or eschatological texts, the metaphor of a book or scroll is used to remind human beings that everything they have said and done – or failed to do – is known to God. Q.81, al-takwīr or “the rolling up” begins with a series of poetic evocations of significant changes in the cosmos that usher in the end of times in which the truth will become manifest: When the sun is rolled up, when the stars are dimmed, when the mountains are set in motion, when pregnant camels are abandoned,  Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, 3.  A juz’ is a traditional division of the text of the Qur’ān, containing one-thirtieth part, which serves its purpose mainly when people want to read the entire Qur’ān in one month, often the month of Ramadan. ‘amma is the first word of surah 78 (after the basmala), so juz’ ‘amma refers to the last thirtieth of the Qur’ān, comprising Q.78-114. 42  See for example Juz’ ‘Amma: 30 for the classroom. Part 30 of the Holy Qur’ān. A Textbook for Qur’anic Studies, Junior Level / General (Skokie IL: IQRA’ International Education Foundation, 1994). 43  For this reason, Michel Cuypers has published his rhetorical analysis of the last 33 surahs of the Qur’ān as Une apocalypse coranique: une lecture des trente-trois dernières sourates du Coran (Rhétorique sémitique XV, Pendé: Gabalda, 2014). 40 41



CLEAR EVIDENCE

357

when wild beasts are herded together, when the seas boil over, when souls are sorted into classes, when the baby girl buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed, when the records of deeds are spread open, when the sky is stripped away, when Hell is made to blaze and Paradise is brought near: then every soul will know what it has brought about.44

The translation “when the records are spread open” interprets the Arabic idhā l-ṣuḥufu nushirat, “when the leaves will be unrolled.” This metaphor indicates that there is a full account of the truth of everything that has happened, and therefore “every soul will know what it has brought about.” Some of the references to a book that contains God’s knowledge are specifically addressed to those who thought that they could get away with their unfaithful and immoral behavior. Q.78, for instance, addresses those who “were not expecting a reckoning and they denied the truth of Our signs.”45 God assures them that “We have accounted everything in a Scripture.”46 Those who deny God’s judgment should know that “over you are guardians, generous, recording, who know what you do.”47 This is one of the few times that the Qur’ān uses the noun kātib (“writer”), alluding to angels who guard over human beings and write down their deeds, usually one at the right-hand side writing down the good deeds, and one at the left-hand side writing down the evil deeds.48 In some texts evoking the image of the separation between righteous and evil human beings, the metaphor of the book in the right hand is used in opposition to the metaphor of the book in the left hand, or the book behind the back.49 Q.83 evokes the scene of all human beings standing in front of the Lord of the worlds, and adds that “the record  Q.81:1-14 (AH).  Q.78:27-28 (AJ). 46  Q.78:29 (AJ). 47  Q.82:10-12 (AJ). 48  Cuypers (Une apocalypse coranique, 56) refers to the pseudepigraphic Testament of Abraham, adding that this book might be one of the “scrolls of Abraham” in Q.87:19. 49  See Q.69:25, discussed at the beginning of this chapter. See also Q.83-84 and Cuypers, Une apocalypse coranique, 82-83. 44 45

358

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

of the wicked is in sijjīn.”50 This is, as Q.83:9 specifies, “a clearly written record.” The wicked are further characterized as people who deny the Day of Judgment and the revelations of God: “When Our revelations are recited to him, he says, ‘Ancient fables!’”51 This is in sharp contrast with those who are truly devoted; Q.83:18 states that “their record (kitāb) is in ‘illiyyūn,”52 which is also specified as a “clearly written record.” Q.84 uses the image of the book given to people in their right hands to describe a positive outcome when people meet their Lord.53 Yet it uses a somewhat different expression when referring to the people who will burn in the blazing flame, “whoever is given his record from behind his back.”54 The same words, “behind their backs,” were used in Q.2 to characterize people who did receive revelation but decided to forget or to deny what they have heard.55 Finally, Q.89 uses the term dhikr or “reminder” to refer to the knowledge that human beings will receive on the Last Day, yet at that time it will be too late to change the outcome of one’s life: “And on that Day hell will be brought [within sight]; on that Day man will remember [all that he did and failed to do]: but what will that remembrance avail him?”56 98:1-6 Division Despite Clear Evidence 98:1  not were those who disbelieved from the people of scripture and the associators separated until came to them the clear evidence 98:2  a messenger from god to whom pure leaves have been given 98:3  in them are upright books 98:4  and not did those to whom the scripture was given become disunite until after the clear evidence came to them 50  Q.83:7 (AH). Sijjīn is generally explained as an intensive form of the word sijn, meaning “prison”. 51  Q.83:13 (AH). 52  ‘Illiyyūn is an intensive form of the root ‘alā (“being high”). It is therefore associated with “the highest heaven”. Cuypers (Une apocalypse coranique, 73) refers to the Book of Enoch that mentions a tablet written in heaven in which are inscribed the deeds of human beings. 53  Q.84:7; see also Q.69:19 and Q.17:71 with the same expression. 54  Q.84:10 (AH). 55  See Q.2:101 and Q.11:92. 56  Q.89:23 (MA).



CLEAR EVIDENCE

359

98:5  and

not were they instructed but to worship god, devoting religion to him as god-seekers offering prayer and giving alms – and that is the upright religion 98:6  truly those who disbelieve from the people of scripture and the associators are in the fire of gehenna, remaining in it – they are the worst of creation 98:7  truly those who believe and perform the good they are the best of creation 98:8  their reward is with their lord the garden of eden, underneath which flow rivers they remain therein forever god is content with them and they are content with him that is for the one who fears his lord Q.98 has the title al-bayyina, meaning “the evidence” or “clear proof.” It is traditionally considered a Medinan surah, which is largely based on the occurrence of the ahl al-kitāb in this surah along with the mushrikūn or “associators.”57 Since this is a short surah that contains two explicit and three implicit references to the People of Scripture in its first six verses, I have given a literal interpretation in English of the surah in its entirety. Explanatory Notes Q.98:1 expresses the idea that the disbelievers among the People of Scripture and the associators became separated only after the clear evidence was given to them, using two key terms expressing absence of faith, namely kafara (“to cover, to hide, to be ungrateful”) and ashraka (“to give associators”) in connection with the People of Scripture. The grammatical construction of the sentence is such that “the disbelievers among the People of Scripture” and “the associators” form the two groups that became separated after the clear evidence was given to them. Q.98:2 mentions a messenger from God to whom “clean leaves” have been given. The plural ṣuḥuf is used to refer to revealed Scriptures as “pages” or “scrolls,” and the adjective “clean” or “purified” is associated with the act of cleaning oneself before religious activities. These scrolls contain “upright Scriptures” (kutub qayyima); the adjective here is 57  See NHQ 151. Mustansir Mir (Coherence in the Qur’ān, 91) mentions this point as well, even though he references surah 99 instead of 98.

360

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

derived from the second form of the verb qāma, meaning “to set up, to arrange.” The same adjective is used in Q.98:5 for “upright religion.” The elements of this religion are: worshipping God in sincerity (mukhliṣīn, from the same root as ikhlāṣ, the title of Q.112 enjoining strict monotheism) as ḥunafā’ (plural of ḥanīf, a seeker of true monotheism, often associated with Abraham), and furthermore prayer and almsgiving. While Q.98:1-5 contrasts the clear evidence with the divided reactions of the People of Scripture, Q.98:6-8 sketches their different final destinations. The description of those in the fire of hell (jahannam recalls the Hebrew gehenna) is relatively short. This group is identical to the group described in the first verse: those who disbelieve from the people of scripture and the associators. The description of those in the garden of paradise (jannāt ‘Adn recalls the Hebrew garden of Eden) is longer and specified by the combination of believing and doing good. The positive relationship between these “best of creatures” and God is underscored in the last verse by the reciprocal use of the verb raḍiya (“to be satisfied, to be content”). Islamic Interpretations For the Islamic interpretations of this surah, I have used the translations and editions of several classical works of tafsīr in the sourcebook Classical Islam.58 Tafsīr Mujāhid has only a short gloss on Q.98:1; the word munfakkīn (“separated”) means muntahīn (“finished”), implying that the People of Scripture did not believe until the truth was made clear to them.59 Tafsīr Muqātil gives a more substantial interpretation: the “unbelievers from the People of Scripture” are Jews and Christians, and the “associators” are associators from the Arabs.60 The meaning of “they were not separated” is that “they were not finished with their unbelief and idolatry.” The reason is that Jews and Christians wondered when the person indicated in their Scriptures would come, and the Arabs said: “if only we would have a reminder from the ancients, we would be sincere servants of God.”61 The “clear evidence” at the end of Q.98:1 is Prophet 58  Classical Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature, ed. and transl. Norman Calder, Jawid Mojaddedi and Andrew Rippin (2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge, 2013), 154-88. 59  TMJ 347 n. 2045 (on Q.98:1). 60  TMS 3:504-5; CCI 155-56. 61  As TMS (ad loc.) indicates, this is a quotation from Q.37:168-69.



CLEAR EVIDENCE

361

Muhammad who explained to them their errors: he recites to them a purified scroll, meaning that it is a book purified from every unbelief and association, and everything is contained in it. Q.98:3 adds that in these scrolls are upright books, meaning books that establish the truth, without crookedness and difference. “Those to whom the Scripture was given” refers to Jews and Christians who did not “separate,” that is disagree on the matter of Muhammad until “the clear evidence came to them.” This means that they did not fail in their agreement on Muhammad since they had his description with them in their books. Yet, since God sent him not as a child of Isaac (walad ishāq), they disagreed about him. Some of them believed, such as Abdallah ibn Salām and his companions from the People of Torah and forty men among whom Baḥīrā from the People of the Gospel; yet the remainder of the People of Scripture lied about him.62 Finally, the Tafsīr Muqātil seems to include “those who disbelieve from the People of Scripture and the associators” under the general category of associators by introducing its commentary on Q.98:6 stating that God here mentions the associators on the Day of Resurrection.63 The Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās gives two possibilities in its interpretation of Q.98:1. The first interpretation is also in the Tafsīr Muqātil: the Jews and the Christians and the Arab idolaters could not have remained in their denial until clarification of what is in their Scriptures came to them. The second interpretation focuses on persons from the People of Scripture who were in denial but left their unbelief when the clarification came to them. This is the case with ‘Abdallah ibn Salām and his followers among the People of Scripture, and Abu Bakr and his fellow Arabs.64 These are the true believers in Muhammad and the Qur’ān, and they are among the best of created beings (Q.98:7). The people to whom the Scripture was given in Q.98:4 are identified as Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf and his host. This identification relates this text to a context that was discussed with reference to the People of Scripture in Q.59. According to Islamic tradition, Ka‘b was one of the Jewish leaders in Medina who displayed enmity toward Muhammad in his poetry.65 The interpretation is that those who were given the Torah started denying  TMS 3:505 (on Q.98:4).  See CCI 156. 64  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.98:1 (accessed at www.altafsir.com on December 5, 2017). 65  Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia, 88-89. 62 63

362

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Muhammad when the truth came to them.66 In the next verse, “the upright religion” is explained as monotheism, that is the religion of Abraham. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn also contains an interpretation of the difficult word munfakkīn (“they were separated”) in Q.98:1, explaining it as: they were not going to abandon their ways until the clear proof – Muhammad – came to them.67 With reference to Q.98:4 (“not did those to whom Scripture was given become disunite until the clear evidence came to them”), the two Jalals explain that all People of Scripture agreed to believe in the Prophet when he would come, but when he came some became envious and disbelieved. They further explain that they were commanded in their Scriptures to believe in the one God, the religion of Abraham and the religion of Muhammad, but when the latter came they refused to believe.68 A translation of al-Ṭabarī’s famous commentary on Q.98 shows that he transmits two interpretations of the first verse. The first interpretation agrees with the majority of what we have heard thus far: the People of Scripture and the idolaters “will not renounce their disbelief until this Qur’an comes to them.” The other interpretation equates the People of Scripture with the idolaters: “They will not ignore the description of Muhammad as found in their book until he is sent to them. When he is sent, however, they will split up into groups over him.”69 According to the first interpretation, the People of Scripture and the associators differ until the coming of the Prophet, while according to the second interpretation they were united until his coming. Q.98:4 concentrates on the People of Scripture, and Ṭabarī explains that “the Jews and Christians did not split into groups concerning the matter of Muhammad. However, they told lies about him only after the clear sign came to them … when God sent him, they split into groups in their opinions about him. Some of them told lies about him and some of them believed.”70 The next verse explains this further: God ordained for the Jews and Christians in their Scriptures monotheism, “devoted to Him in obedience without mixing their obedience to their lords in a polytheistic 66  Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, on Q.98:4 (accessed at www.altafsir.com on December 5, 2017). 67  TJJ 626 (on Q.98:1). 68  TJJ 626 (on Q.98:4-5). 69  CCI 164. 70  CCI 165 (on Q.98:4).



CLEAR EVIDENCE

363

f­ashion,” as Jews did when they said that Ezra is the son of God and the Christians when they said the same about the Messiah.71 In his commentary, al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) makes clear that the first verse distinguishes between two types of unbelievers, the People of Scripture and the worshippers of idols. Both groups said that they would not leave their own religion until the clear sign of the Prophet would come to them. However, when the Prophet came, they persisted in their unbelief. Zamakhsharī also asks why Q.98:4 only tells that the “people to whom Scripture was given” became disunite, and he answers that they had knowledge of Muhammad in their books, while the associators or idol worshippers did not.72 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) is known as a commentator who delves deeply into theological matters, but he begins with a grammatical analysis.73 He remarks that the first verse is difficult to interpret because the object of the verbal expression munfakkīn (“separated”) is left implicit, so it is not clear from what the disbelievers were separated. Moreover, the temporal indicator ḥatta (“until”) suggests that they did not separate from their unbelief until the Messenger came to them. However, Q.98:4 suggests that they separated after (min ba‘di) the Messenger came. Al-Rāzī discusses different solutions. First he agrees with Zamakhsharī that the unbelievers promised that they would believe when the clear sign would come (Q.98:1), but in fact they did not do so (Q.98:4).74 The second possibility is that “separate” refers to the mentioning of Muhammad, implying that they continued mentioning Muhammad and his virtues, but when he came they separated into groups regarding him. There is also the (third) possibility that “separate” refers to their hesitations about their unbelief, so the meaning is that they remained convinced of their unbelief until the coming of the Messenger. However, when he came, they started to doubt their unbelief.75 The second problem discussed by al-Rāzī concerns the types of unbelief addressed in Q.98. There is the unbelief of the Jews and the Christians who created their own religions, mixing elements of unbelief with  CCI 165, on Q.98:5. The implicit reference is to Q.9:30.  CCI 169. 73  Apart from CCI, I have consulted Fakhr al-dīn al-Rāzī, Al-tafsīr al-kabīr: mafātīḥ al-ghayb (al-Qāhira: Dār al-ḥadīth, H.1433/2012), 16:262-80. 74  Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:262; also CCI 177-78. 75  Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:263; also CCI 178-79. The third possibility seems to concur with the second interpretation given in the commentary attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās above. 71 72

364

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

the revealed Scriptures of God, and there is the unbelief of the idolaters who do not have a scripture. The first verse can be read to suggest that there are unbelievers and believers in the two groups described, but that cannot be true, since there are no believers among the idolaters. It can also be read to argue that the People of Scripture are in fact idolaters because Christians are tritheists and Jews are anthropomorphists.76 The third problem discussed by al-Rāzī is why the unbelievers from the People of Scripture take precedence over the idolaters in the order of the text in Q.98:1. It is worthwhile quoting him here in full. There are several merits to this structure, however. First, the sūra was revealed in Medina and the aim of the passage was to address the people of the book. Second, those knowledgeable in the scriptures had within their power the most complete knowledge of the sincerity of Muḥammad. Their persistence in disbelief is the most shameful aspect. Third, because they were learned, others copied them; so, their disbelief was the source of the disbelief of others. Thus they were mentioned first. Fourth, because they were learned and more noble than the others, they were mentioned first.77

In the next passage, al-Rāzī explains that the text refers to People of Scripture and not to Jews and Christians because this expression indicates that they are learned, thus emphasizing the shamefulness of their disbelief. In his commentary on Q.98:6, al-Rāzī again remarks that the People of Scripture are mentioned first among those who will remain in hell, so the question is repeated as to why the Qur’ān chooses this order. In his answer, Rāzī says that God begins with the unbelief against the Prophet – which is the unbelief of the People of Scripture – and only after that mentions the unbelief against Himself – which is the unbelief of the idolaters. He also argues that the unbelief of the People of Scripture is greater because they had more knowledge of Muhammad. Next, he asks why the Qur’ān describes the unbelievers of the People of Scripture using a verb (kafarū) while the associators are described using a noun (mushrikūn)? The answer is that the People of Scripture first believed and then started to be unbelievers, which is expressed by the dynamic nature of a verb, while the associators did not change, and so they are described by a static noun. The next question concerning this verse again distinguishes types of unbelief: if the unbelievers of the People of Scripture believe in the Creator, prophethood and the resurrection, their unbelief is less than that of the idolators. So why are they both punished 76 77

 Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:264; also CCI 179.  Tr. in CCI 180; see Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:624.



CLEAR EVIDENCE

365

with hell? The answer to this question is that the greater benefit that the People of Scripture have with God in comparison to the associators corresponds with a greater sin in their rejecting this benefit.78 Finally, al-Rāzī notices the subtle distinction between the phrasing in Q.98:6 that the worst of creatures “abide in hell,” while the best of creatures “abide in heaven forever,” according to Q.98:8. So the word abadan (“forever”) is added to heaven but not to hell in order to indicate that God’s mercy outlasts God’s wrath.79 Ibn Kathīr begins his commentary on Q.98 by relating a hadith according to which Muhammad recited this surah to Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, mentioning that God had explicitly told him to do so.80 He associates the words from Q.98:4, “not did those to whom the Scripture was given become disunite until after the clear evidence came to them” with Q.3:105, “be not be like those who, after they have been given clear evidence, split into factions and fall into dispute.” He explains these words as follows: By this He means that the People of the revealed books among the communities before us, after God had established for them the proofs and evidence, divided into groups and differed in understanding what God meant in their books. They differed greatly as is illustrated by the widely transmitted report, “The Jews differed in seventy-one ways and the Christians differed in seventy-two ways. This community will divide into seventy-three groups all of which will be in the fire of Hell except one. They asked, ‘Which group is this, Messenger of God?’ He replied, ‘Those who follow me and my companions.’”81

The Study Quran begins by saying that some commentators consider Q.98:1 among the most difficult verses in the entire Qur’ān.82 They do  Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:273-4; also CCI 181-82.  Rāzī, Tafsīr al-kabīr, 16:274; also CCI 182. The theme of God’s mercy as outweighing God’s justice is important in Sufi and universalist interpretations of Islam. See, for instance, the qur’ānic anthology in Reza Shah-Kazemi, My Mercy Encompasses All (Berkeley CA: Counterpoint Press, 2007). For a broader gamut of interpretations, see Between Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others, ed. Mohammad Hassan Khalil (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). For a more personal reflection, see Mohammad Hassan Khalil, “Mercy and Salvation,” in: Qur’an in Conversation, Michael Birkel, ed., (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 34-40. 80  TIK 10:549; also CCI 183-84. 81  Tr. in CCI 186; see also TIK 10:551-52. 82  In a recent article, Aisha Geissinger points out that there are some very early traditions indicating Q.98:1 as a source of difference between early reciters. See “No, a Woman Did Not ‘Edit the Qur’ān’: Towards a Methodologically Coherent Approach to a Tradition Portraying a Woman and Written Quranic Materials,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85 (2017) 416-45. 78 79

366

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

not agree whether the expression “disbelievers among the People of Scripture” refers to Christians and Jews in general, or only to the Jews of Medina.83 The words “they will not become separate” in Q.98:1 may refer to their not leaving their disbelief until the clear evidence came to them, but these words can also be interpreted as “they will not be abandoned,” meaning that they will only be rewarded or punished based on their acceptance of the clear evidence when it will be sent to them.84 The authors of the Study Quran commentary tend to agree with this latter interpretation since the Qur’ān frequently states that God will only punish people after their rejection of a clear truth. While some commentators interpret the “clear evidence,” the “messenger” and the “upright scriptures” of Q.98:1-3 as clear references to Muhammad and the Qur’ān, others leave the possibility for a more general meaning. With reference to Q.98:4, the Study Quran gives three possible interpretations of “not did they become disunite until the clear evidence came to them.” The first interpretation is that they were united in their unbelief but when the evidence came, some believed and some did not believe. The second interpretation is that some among the People of Scripture believed that a messenger would come, but when Muhammad came, they did not believe. The third interpretation – following Ibn Kathīr – is that the original revelation became corrupted, and that is why Jews and Christians became divided into sects.85 Christian Resonances The survey of Islamic interpretations makes clear that there is quite some divergence in the interpretations of Q.98. The surah is very clear in its opposition between those who have the upright religion and, being the best of creation, will end up in heaven and those who are unbelievers and associators and, being the worst of creation, will end up in hell. However, it is not so clear what exactly the relation is between the unbelievers from the People of Scripture and the People of Scripture in its entirety, nor is it clear how these unbelievers relate to the associators or idolaters. Finally, the text offers a historical perspective marked by the coming of the clear evidence – presumably Muhammad and/or the Qur’ān – but it is not clear how the unity among the different groups

 SQ 1542 (on Q.98:1) with reference to Qurṭubī for the two possibilities.  SQ, ad loc. This minority viewpoint is attributed to al-Shawkānī (13th / 19th century). 85  SQ 1542-43 (on Q.98:4). 83 84



CLEAR EVIDENCE

367

before the coming of the evidence developed into the lack of unity between them after the coming of the evidence. A Christian reflection on this text should start with the acknowledgement that the two elements of the picture just sketched can be recognized in the Christian tradition. On the one hand, there is clarity about the clear evidence that came from God, viz. the person of Jesus Christ, and the acceptance of this clear evidence is essential for all Christians, even though they would phrase their acceptance differently. There is also clarity about the fact that believing in Christ or not will ultimately make the difference between a final destiny in community with the triune God and a final destiny bereft of that essential community and thus void. Yet the Christian tradition also harbors the awareness that there is no simple one-on-one equation between accepting God’s revelation and achieving final salvation. Therefore, differences abound among those who call themselves Christians from the beginning, and, moreover, between them and the Jewish groups from which they originated. The Christian interpreter therefore recognizes the complicated relations between different faith communities as sketched in the Qur’ān as similar to what Christians find in the New Testament. In the course of this commentary I have emphasized several times how the Qur’ān suggests that God’s revelation brings the possibility for human beings to gain knowledge, yet with knowledge comes division. I have also pointed out that Saint Paul seems to suggest something similar in his reflections on law and grace in Romans 5 when he says that “the law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more” (Rom. 5:20 NAB). Yet I also want to draw attention to the concern for unity that pervades the New Testament. Probably the most famous example of this concern is the so-called Council of Jerusalem described in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15. One of the reasons why this Council is so important is that it shows how differences between the first Christians are related to, and even dependent upon, the relationships with the Jewish groups in the midst of which Christianity originated, and the Gentile groups who gained access to God’s revelation through Christ. It is my suggestion that Q.98 shows a similar concern for unity related to the People of Scripture in the midst of whom Islam originated, and the Arab associators, some of whom gained access to God’s revelation through Muhammad and the clear evidence that he brought. I finish this commentary by emphasizing two theological questions evoked in the Islamic interpretations of Q.98. The first question relates

368

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

to the ḥadīth quoted by Ibn Kathīr about the different groups among the People of Scripture: Jews are divided into many groups, Christians have more groups and Muslims even more, only one of which will ultimately be rewarded by God.86 Muslim authors have used the divisions among Christians as a sign of a lack of truthfulness, and this is certainly how most Christians nowadays would see the scandal of divisiveness as well. The desire to end the divisions is expressed most characteristically in Christ’s Farewell Sermon in the Gospel according to John: I revealed your name to those whom you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word … I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours, and everything of mine is yours and everything of yours is mine, and I have been glorified in them. And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are … I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.87

The oneness of the disciples of Christ, and of those who would believe in Christ through them, is a sign of the oneness between Christ and the Father, and therefore a lack of unity among Christians severely damages the credibility of the message they strive to give to the world. This is not the place to sketch the origins of the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century, but it is not difficult to see how the words just quoted inspired Christians in the International Missionary Council, the “Life and Work” and the “Faith and Order” conferences that were at the origin of the World Council of Churches in 1948.88 The same words 86  On this type of hadith, see Speight, “Christians in the Ḥadīth Literature”, 38 and Rubin, Between Bible and Qur’ān, chapter 6: “Israelite and Islamic Sects: the Firaq Tradition”. The numbers mentioned (71, 72, 73) should not be taken as a literal description of sects, but as an expression of the shameful situation of divisiveness: while seventy groups already indicates an abundance of divisions, anything more than seventy expresses the absurdity of so many different groups. 87  John 17:6.9-11.20-23 (NAB). 88  See https://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-us/wcc-history (accessed December 15, 2017).



CLEAR EVIDENCE

369

inspired Pope John Paul II to write his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (“That they may be one”) in 1995.89 There is a clear relationship between ecumenical and interreligious endeavors, and better interreligious relationships need to be accompanied by better intra-religious relationships.90 However, the hadith quoted by Ibn Kathīr seems to evoke a problem that is often associated with sectarian disunity: the denial of inter-­ religious as well as intra-religious plurality. The hadith does not only suggest that Jews and Christians are divided, but it also argues that all but one of the Islamic groups will end up in hell. If Christ in John 17 suggests that lack of unity makes it difficult for the world to hear the message, how much more does such sectarian intolerance – not infrequently leading to intra-religious violence – blacken the image of any religion? It is well known that Islam has a serious problem in this respect nowadays, but Christianity fares hardly any better.91 The second theological question is related to the matters discussed by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī in his commentary on Q.98. As we have seen, he noticed the order of subjects in Q.98:1 and Q.98:6, “those who disbelieve among the People of Scripture and the associators,” and gave a few reasons for this particular order. The first was that the disbelievers among the People of Scripture were put in front because “their persistence in disbelief is the most shameful aspect,” as they were more knowledgeable than others, and caused others to disbelieve. The second was that “the disbelief of the people of the book is less than that of the idolaters,” as they were not unbelievers from the beginning and accepted God but rejected Muhammad. Rāzī seems to apply two sets of criteria, one of which considers the unbelievers of the People of Scripture worse than the idolaters, while the other considers them less evil than the idolaters. This reasoning is analogous to the analysis that Thomas Aquinas gives of unbelief when he discusses the question as to whether the unbelief or infidelity of the heathens or the pagans is worse than that of others. Aquinas distinguishes between pagani or gentiles who have never heard the Gospel, and haeretici or heretics who accepted the Gospel but resisted the true faith. In between, Aquinas accepts a third category, namely the Jews who accepted the Christian faith in figura, that is: under a certain 89  http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_ enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.html (accessed December 15, 2017). 90  See Per Lønning, Is Christ A Christian? On Inter-Religious Dialogue and IntraReligious Horizon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002). 91  A good overview of this problem in Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God.

370

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

likeness.92 Aquinas comes to the conclusion that the disbelief of pagans is worse than that of heretics if we look at the quantitative aspects of commonalities of faith; however, the disbelief of the heretics is worse if we look at the intensity of their disbelief, since they reject the truth of faith more explicitly. The in-between situation of the Jews in Aquinas is similar to the situation of the unbelievers from the People of Scripture in Rāzī: they have much in common with true believers; therefore, since their knowledge is greater, their culpability is greater as well. We have noted the two elements in infidelity to keep in mind. The first is its relationship to faith; in this respect he who denies the faith after accepting it sins more grievously than he who denies it without ever having accepted it, even as he who fails to keep a promise sins more than he who had never made one. Thus the infidelity of those who in effect attack by corrupting the Gospel faith they profess is more serious than that of the Jews who have never embraced it. Yet since these on their part have received it figurately in the Old Law, which they corrupt by the false interpretations, their unbelief is more grievous than that of heathens who have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all. The second element relates to the corruption of the matters of faith. In this respect since heathens err on more heads than Jews, and Jews on more heads than heretics, the unbelief of heathens is more grave than that of Jews, and that of Jews more grave than that of heretics – unless perhaps we except such cases as the Manichees, who go wrong more than heathens on matters of faith. Well then to compare the gravity of infidelities according to these two elements, the first, namely the rejection of faith, outweighs the second, namely the error adopted, as concerns culpability. We have observed how infidelity has the character of fault more because it resists faith than because it does not hold the truths of faith; this last, as we also observed, bears rather the character of penalty. And so, to speak flatly, the unbelief of heretics is the worst.93

The taxonomy of disbelief applied by Aquinas is strikingly similar to the taxonomy in Rāzī’s commentary on Q.98. This similarity indicates that Jews have a similar in-between position with respect to true faith in Christian theology as the People of Scripture have with respect to true 92  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II q.10 a. 5; Pim Valkenberg, “How Others Bear Witness to Our Faith: Aquinas and Lumen Gentium,” in: Jaarboek 2013 Thomas Instituut Utrecht, ed. Henk J.M. Schoot (Utrecht: Thomas Instituut, 2014), 55-75. 93  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II q.10 a.6; translation in: St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, vol. 32: Consequences of Faith (2a2ae. 8-16). Latin text, English translation, Introduction, Notes & Glossary Thomas Gilby, O.P. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 57.



CLEAR EVIDENCE

371

faith in Islamic theology.94 They have some knowledge of the true faith, and therefore they “have no excuse” (Romans 1:20) since they should have known better.95 Thus, their refusal to accept the truth of the new revelation – whether in Christ or in the Qur’ān – is not mere ignorance but willful resistance. Again, we see how the characterizing of Jews and Christians as People of Scripture in the Qur’ān is deeply ambiguous. Revelation brings knowledge, but knowledge brings accountability. The non-acceptance of Prophet Muhammad and the Scripture that he proclaims shows a misuse of knowledge given by God, a lack of responsibility and therefore a deep unfaithfulness. This is why the qur’ānic texts about the People of Scripture so often focus on their lack of faith. The final conclusion of Q.98 is in line with this analysis: the unbelievers from the People of Scripture and the associators are in the fire of hell, remaining there since they are the worst of creatures. Even if it is somewhat hard to end the commentary on such a negative note, it is true that on this issue both Christians and Muslims wrestle with theological traditions that converge in such a rather negative eschatological perspective evoked by the notion of willful culpability. The Catholic tradition tends to state that explicit faith in Christ is necessary in order to attain salvation.96 However, in cases of invincible ignorance, implicit faith may be sufficient.97 Yet, the case that the Qur’ān seems to make here against the unbelievers from the People of Scripture is that they are not ignorant because they have received the Scriptures, and therefore they are accountable. There are some good reasons to think that this does not need to be the final verdict, and of course it is possible to point to more positive voices in both the Christian and the Islamic tradition.98 However, this text in the Qur’ān needs to be taken seriously for what it says. 94  See also Guy Stroumsa, The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 105. 95  The expression as used in Romans 1:20 does not refer to Jews but to those who have some natural knowledge of God from creation as the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius (1870) famously put it (Denzinger/Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum, Freiburg i.Br: Herder, 1967, n. 3004). 96  See Francis Sullivan, Salvation Outside of the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1992). Stricter interpretations in Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, eds. Karl J. Becker & Ilaria Morali (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2010), and Ralph Martin, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization (Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012). 97  See Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, 110-29. 98  For the Christian tradition, see the many inclusivist and pluralist models in the theology of religions; for the Islamic tradition, see historical models in Mohammad

372

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

A Christian response to this text could include the theological principle that there is an asymmetry between the final end of those who will be with God forever and the final end of those who will be separated from God, because God is related to and can be described as “wanting” the eternal blessedness of those who lived their lives in conformity with God’s guidance, while God cannot be described as “wanting” eternal separation from His creatures.99 Al-Rāzī seems to represent a similar insight when he points to the fact that the people in heaven will remain there eternally (abadan: Q.98:8), while the people in hell will remain there without the qualification “eternally.” However, proclaiming the reality of hell as ultimate end has an important function in the Qur’ān in keeping with its basic paraenetic character: it reminds us that human acts will have ultimate consequences, and that God will not wipe out these consequences. Edward Schillebeeckx reminds us that the possibility of hell is related to the reality of human oppression, of good and evil in human history, and ultimately of the fact that God is not an impartial bystander but takes sides in favor of the oppressed.100 This Christian interpretation of the reality of hell might be a fruitful way to understand what the Qur’ān has to say about the reality of the Day of Judgment and its consequences. As indicated before, the connection between God’s oneness (tawḥīd) and the Day of Judgment (yawm al-qiyāma) is probably the most important red thread in the entire Qur’ān, and it tells human beings that God is the Lord who will hold human beings accountable. He has given them guidance, first in the Torah and the Gospel, and later in the Qur’ān. In that respect, the basic message of the Qur’ān to the People of Scripture is that they are accountable and cannot claim invincible ignorance because they have been endowed with guidance and knowledge. Being God’s creatures and receivers of God’s messages, they are responsible for their actions toward their Creator and toward their co-creatures. The Qur’ān introduces its message in Q.2:2 with the programmatic words quoted at the beginning of the introduction to this commentary: dhālik al-kitāb lā raiba fihi Hassan Khalil, Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question (Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), and contemporary models in id., Between Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others. 99  See Karl Rahner, “Theologische Prinzipien der Hermeneutik eschatologischer Aussagen,” in: id., Schriften zur Theologie IV (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1962), 401-28. 100  Edward Schillebeeckx, Mensen als verhaal van God (Baarn: H. Nelissen, 1989) 153-57; English translation: Church: The Human Story of God (Collected Works 10; London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 133-36.



CLEAR EVIDENCE

373

hudan li-l-muttaqīn (“That is the Scripture – no doubt in it; guidance for those who are watchful”). Indeed, Christians as well as Muslims should be muttaqūn, people who are watchful in the sense of being “mindful of God” but also in the sense of “fearful” and “being on the watch for God’s guidance.” Christians can accept this qur’ānic exhortation as a guidance in our watchfulness, however, we also know that God’s guidance has been given to us in Christ and that we are looking for Him to return and guide us to the full communion with God in the beatific vision. In the meantime, we are given the possibility to be watchful of what the Qur’ān has to say, knowing that the ultimate source of guidance is not in “this book” or any other book, but in “that Scripture,” that we as Christians worship as the Word that is with God, and is God (John 1:1). That is the Scripture that we accept as our guidance, knowing full well that we need to be watchful and keep watching for whatever guidance God will give us, because “we have no power over God’s bounty” (Q.57:29).

CONCLUSION: GOD’S INVOLVEMENT Looking back at the many texts about the ahl al-kitāb or “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān, and at the Christian resonances to these texts in dialogue with the Islamic interpretations thereof, I wish to highlight two important points that may serve as a conclusion. The first point is related to the nature of this commentary as a form of comparative theology, while the second point is related to the theological contents evoked by the discussions suggested by the qur’ānic expression “People of Scripture.” This commentary on the “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān is different from most forms of research into the relationship between the Qur’ān and Jewish and Christian literature in that it is not interested in investigating biblical and other sources of qur’ānic expressions.1 Nor does this commentary engage in a systematic comparison between two rather analogous texts in the tradition of comparative theology represented most famously by Francis Clooney.2 The comparative theological method used in this commentary can be summarized as an iterative and cumulative sifting of resonances. When I repeatedly read the Qur’ān, listen to its claim to make present the Word of God, and reflect on it in a manner not unlike the classical lectio divina but incorporating the Islamic commentarial tradition or tafsīr, certain phrases and expressions from the Christian scriptures and theological tradition begin to resonate in my mind and heart formed by Catholic theology.3 Upon closer reflection, some of these resonances start to fade away while others gain 1  This commentary is thus different from Mehdi Azaiez et al., eds., The Qur’an Seminar Commentary (2016) and also from Gabriel Reynolds’s The Qur’ān and the Bible: Text and Commentary (2018). 2  See, for instance, Francis X. Clooney, S.J., Beyond Compare: St. Francis de Sales and Śri Vedanta Deśika on Loving Surrender to God (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008). 3  After finishing my commentary but before writing this conclusion, I noticed that Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski uses very similar language (in his case, Jewish Interpretations and Christian Resonances) in his commentary in this series. See The More Torah, The More Life: A Christian Commentary on Mishnah Avot (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 27.

376

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

strength and provide new overtones and undertones. Writing this commentary, it has been my experience that the liturgical resonances often provided the most powerful harmonies. I am convinced that these strong liturgical resonances are not just a product of my own theological education but also and predominantly a reflection of the hidden dialogues and debates underneath the qur’ānic engagement with the People of Scripture. All participants in these debates and dialogues carried their knowledge of Scripture in their hearts as “guardians” (ḥuffāẓ) of the divine Word by memory and oral transmission. The metaphors of “listening” and “resonance” may have a more general application in comparative theology, but in the case of the Qur’ān they have a very specific application as well: the meaning of the very word qur’ān is “recitation,” and thus the oral transmission of its sound outweighs the scriptural transmission of its written form.4 As to the contents of these dialogues and debates with the People of Scripture in the Qur’ān, I argue that they can best be summarized in the words of Q.57:29, ya‘lam ahlu-l kitābi allā yaqdirūna ‘ala shay’in min faḍli llāhi, “the People of Scripture should know that they have no power over God’s bounty.” The Qur’ān uses many different expressions to describe the way in which the People of Scripture respond to its message, such as “our hearts are uncircumcised” (Q.2:88; Q.4:155), or “God is poor and we are rich” (Q.3:181), or even “God’s hand is shackled” (Q.5:64).5 Since those who are reported to have said such strange things in the Qur’ān are Jews and Christians, they will recognize that it is God who is rich and needless, and that God is free to bestow God’s bounty. However, the metaphors used by them indicate a qualification of this freedom, best expressed in the double metaphor: “We are the children and the beloved of God” (Q.5:18). While recognizing God’s absolute freedom, Jews and Christians relate this freedom to God’s decision to be 4  For the use of auditive and musical metaphors in comparative theology, see John N. Sheveland, “Solidarity through Polyphony,” in: The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, ed. Francis X. Clooney, S.J. (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 171-90, and Reid B. Locklin, Liturgy of Liberation: A Christian Commentary on Shankara’s Upadeśasāhasrī (Leuven: Peeters, 2011). For the Qur’ān, see Sells, Approaching the Qur’án, and Kermani, Gott ist schön. 5  For an interpretation of these expressions and the qur’ānic replies, see Pim Valkenberg, “Joden en christenen in de Koran: de literaire gestalte van een polemische dialoog,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58 (2018) 239-58 (“Jews and Christians in the Qur’ān: The Literary Configuration of a Polemical Dialogue,” summary at 258).



CONCLUSION: GOD’S INVOLVEMENT

377

involved with them in a specific way. Even though God is free to bestow God’s gifts, God has in fact bestowed God’s gifts in a specific way, thereby qualifying God’s unlimited freedom. In the Jewish tradition this specific gift is the gift of Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai, leaving the interpretation of this gift in the hands of the rabbis.6 This is related to the basic conviction that God’s covenant has been made with Abraham and his inheritants in the flesh so that it remains valid even if Israel sins, because of the “merits of the Ancestors” or zechut avot.7 In the New Testament, Saint Paul makes the faith of Abraham a condition for the continuation of the covenant, and the Qur’ān strengthens this conditionality, as we have seen several times in this commentary.8 At the same time, Paul recognizes the merits of the ancients in his letter to the Romans, in the very sentence that has shaped contemporary dialogue between Catholics and Jews.9 The Christian tradition considers the tension between God’s absolute freedom and God’s involvement in history in the classical question as to whether God would have become incarnate if the first human being had not sinned. Thomas Aquinas indicates that it is possible to give an affirmative answer if one considers the glorification of human beings as the purpose of God’s incarnation; yet he prefers to go in a different direction on the basis of the fact that Scripture mentions the sin of Adam as the motive of the incarnation.10 From the point of view of God’s absolute power (potestas absoluta), God could decide otherwise, but from the point of view of what God in fact has chosen to do (potestas ordinata), this specific choice that qualifies or limits God’s freedom is the most meaningful.11 The Qur’ān rejects this idea of a divine self-limitation by covenant and incarnation because it wants to impress on the Jews and Christians addressed 6  In a famous passage in the Talmud, this leads to a rejection of the intervention by a bat kol or heavenly voice in a dispute between the rabbis. Mehdi Azaiez (Le contrediscours coranique, 193) gives this passage (Bava Metzia 59) as parallel for the saying “God is poor” in Q.3:181. 7  See Levenson, Inheriting Abraham, 154; Firestone, Who are the Real Chosen People? 91-114. 8  See the comments on Q.2:40, Q.4:125, and Q.66:12. 9  See Romans 11:28-29, Nostra Aetate 4, and the document The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, published in December 2015. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_ en.html (accessed Oct. 26, 2018). 10  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae III 1.3. 11  See the discussions in Summa theologiae III 3.8 and 4.6.

378

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

by its proclamation that they need to be open to the possibility that God may reveal God’s guidance as God wishes. In some powerful phrases, the Qur’ān rebuts the refusal by Jews and Christians to accept God’s absolute power to give. Some of these phrases may sound threatening and even violent, such as “God has cursed them for their unbelief,” “if He wishes to destroy the Messiah, son of Mary,” “He punishes those whom He wishes,” and “taste the torment of the burning.”12 The basic purport of these retorts, however, is to emphasize God’s transcendence and God’s omnipotence. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and powerful over everything; therefore, God is free to give but also free to punish. Making this distinction between God’s absolute will and power as it is emphasized in the Qur’ān and God’s conditional will and power as presupposed in the Jewish and Christian traditions might bring me very close to an argument that Pope Benedict XVI has made in his address in Regensburg on September 12, 2006.13 The main theme of this Regensburg address was the harmony between faith and reason, and Pope Benedict showed how the Christian tradition used the Greek philosophical idea of a reasonable faith to argue that acting violently is contrary to God’s very nature. As is well known, the pope used a quotation by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos to show how this reasonable faith can be contrasted to the Islamic tradition that emphasizes God’s absolute freedom and transcendence. While Pope Benedict allowed for the possibility that the medieval tradition going back to John Duns Scotus developed an analogous voluntarist tradition, he appeared to suggest that such voluntarism represented by Ibn Ḥazm leads to an arbitrary God and possible violence in Islam. On this point, he was corrected one month later by a group of Muslim scholars who stated that both Christianity and Islam know intellectualist and voluntarist traditions.14 In the texts from the Qur’ān that I have studied in this commentary, there is a strong tendency to emphasize the absolute freedom of God to reveal God’s guidance at will, in contrast to the tendency by the People  Q.2:88 and Q.4:46; Q.5:17-18; Q.3:181 (all AJ).  The Regensburg Address can be found among the speeches of Pope Benedict on the Vatican website, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/ documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html (last accessed October 24, 2018). 14  See the “Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI,” published in The Islamic Monthly, October 4, 2006. Accessed at https://www.theislamicmonthly.com/open-letter-to-popebenedict-xvi/ at October 24, 2018. This Open Letter is a precursor of the “Common Word” document that was published in October 2007. See www.acommonword.com. 12 13



CONCLUSION: GOD’S INVOLVEMENT

379

of Scripture to seclude themselves from such revelation by appealing to their own religious traditions. The Qur’ān is right to condemn such exclusivism as hardness of heart, even if the later Islamic tradition copied it in its own hardness of heart with respect to new claims by religious groups such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims and the Baha’is. Is it possible for a Christian to agree with the qur’ānic critique of such traditionfocused exclusivism without giving up the uniqueness of God’s involvement in Christ as God’s incarnate Word? While there are certainly elements in the Christian tradition that could be used to prevent a narrow Christocentrism by appealing to a more general notion of God’s revelation in the world, and in human openness to God’s inspiration, I suggest that it might be more useful to look at some thoughts developed by Jewish scholars in order to find a way out of the impasse caused by the qur’ānic criticism of the People of Scripture. This is an important reason to include the third partner in Abrahamic relationships.15 In his survey of models of election in the three Abrahamic religions, Reuven Firestone comes to the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible focuses on the covenant between God and the Children of Israel in Abraham that will endure despite the sins of the people. The New Testament modifies this focus by stating that the covenant can be broken because of a lack of faith, and superseded by a new covenant. It intensifies the exclusivist tendency of the Hebrew Bible by stating that there can only be one covenant at the same time. The Qur’ān modifies this exclusivism by questioning both the eternal character of this covenant – siding with the Christians on the necessity of faith – and the unique character of the covenant – arguing against the Christians on the necessity of the incarnation.16 Firestone’s analysis, according to which the Qur’ān may be seen as advocating a less exclusivist model of covenantal relationships, matches with my analysis of the qur’ānic critique of the People of Scripture: God is free to give because God sends his guidance to a plurality of prophets in repeated Scriptures and is thus less exclusively involved in one of them. Another Jewish scholar, Irving “Yitz” Greenberg, has advocated a similar form of covenantal pluralism in his reflections on Jewish-Christian relationships.17 Such pluralism is possible if we conceive covenantal ­relationships 15  See David B. Burrell, C.S.C., Towards a Jewish-Christian-Muslim Theology (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), xi: “dyadic conversation can easily lead to impasses that a third interlocutor may well unscramble,” with reference to Charles S. Peirce. 16  See Firestone, “Is There a Notion of ‘Divine Election’ in the Qur’ān?” 394-98; 404-10. 17  Irving Greenberg, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity (Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society, 2004).

380

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

no longer according to the model of marital relationships but according to the model of sibling relationships.18 Christian scholars are still wrestling with the possibility to develop a post-supersessionist form of theology that allows for the simultaneous presence of several covenants or ways to salvation after the coming of Christ.19 If this is a difficult matter in the dialogue between Christians and Jews, it is even more difficult in the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Christians need the right balance between our commitment to God’s involvement with us embodied in Christ and our openness to other possible ways to find God.20 Catherine Cornille speaks about “conviction” and “theological or epistemological humility” as necessary prerequisites of interreligious dialogue.21 Commitment to one’s own tradition and openness to another tradition are certainly prerequisites of a Christian commentary on the “People of Scripture” in the Qur’ān. One of the results of this commentary is to see the commitment by the People of Scripture as a sign of their awareness of the richness of God’s involvement with them. The qur’ānic critique brings this commitment in balance with openness to God’s abiding richness, which makes us aware that we have no power over God’s bounty and are always in need of God’s grace.22 The suggestion made by Irving Greenberg to think of ourselves as siblings in different covenantal relationships can be developed in such a way that Jews, Christians and Muslims say, “We are the children and the beloved of God,” with conviction and humility. As long as we are on our separate ways toward God, we will often experience our sibling relationship as a rivalry. Yet as a Christian I am confident that the visio beata will transform rivalry into rejoicing at the multitude of those who will be with God. The Qur’ān expresses a similar hope: “You will all return to God, and He will inform you concerning that about which you differ.”23

 Greenberg, For the Sake of Heaven and Earth, 42 and 197.  The document The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable explicitly denies the possibility of “two parallel ways to salvation” in n. 35. It endorses, however, the Christological exegesis and the rabbinical exegesis as “two new ways of reading Scripture” that should be brought into dialogue with one another” (n. 31). 20  See Eewout Klootwijk, Commitment and Openness: Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions in the Work of Stanley J. Samartha (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1992). 21  See The Im-Possibility of Interreligious Dialogue (New York: Crossroads / Herder & Herder, 2008). 22  In this respect, it is significant that the Qur’ān mentions humility, together with learnedness and God-awareness, when it praises Christians, as in Q.3:199 and Q.5:82. 23  Q.5:48b (AJ). 18 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abboud, Hosn. Mary in the Qur’an: A literary reading. London – New York: Routledge, 2014. ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Critique of Christian Origins, eds. Gabriel Said Reynolds and Samir Khalil Samir. Islamic Translation Series, Provo UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2010. Abdel Haleem, M.A.S. The Qur’an. English Translation and Parallel Arabic Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Abū Rumaysah, The Spiritual Cure: An Explanation to Sūrah al-Fātiḥah prepared and translated by Abū Rumaysah. Birmingham: Daar us-Sunnah, 2006. Accad, Martin. “The Ultimate Proof-Text: The Interpretation of John 20.17 in Muslim-Christian Dialogue (second/eighth-eighth/fourteenth centuries),” in Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule: Church Life and Scholarship in ‘Abbasid Iraq, ed. David R. Thomas. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 199-215. Afsaruddin, Asma. “Taking Faith to Heart: Reconciliation and Peacebuilding in Islam,” in: Spiritual Dimensions of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Risale-i Nur, ed. Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi‘. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008, 213-29. Afsaruddin, Asma. “Finding Common Ground: ‘Mutual Knowing,’ Moderation, and the Fostering of Religious Pluralism,” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James L. Heft, S.M., Reuven Firestone, and Omid Safi. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 67-87. Afsaruddin, Asma. Striving in the Path of God: Jihād and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Afsaruddin, Asma. Contemporary Issues in Islam. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015. Afsaruddin, Asma. “The ‘Upright Community’: Interpreting the Righteousness and Salvation of the People of the Book in the Qur’ān,” in: JewishMuslim Relations in Past and Present: A Kaleidoscopic View, ed. Josef Meri. Leiden: Brill, 2017, 48-71. Akyol, Mustafa. The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews became a Prophet of the Muslims. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017. Albayrak, Ismail. “The People of the Book in the Qur’ān.” Islamic Studies 47:3 (2008) 301-325. Ali, Abdullah Yusuf, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’ān. Beltsville: Amana Publications, 2006.

382

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Ali, Ahmed. Al-Qur’ān: A Contemporary Translation. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Anderson, Gary A., Joel S. Kaminsky, eds. The Call of Abraham. Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013. Arberry, A.J. The Koran Interpreted. New York: Touchstone, 1996. Armstrong, Regis J., O.F.M.Cap., J.A. Wayne Hellmann, O.F.M.Conv., William J. Short, O.F.M., eds. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents. Volume I: The Saint. New York: New City Press, 1999. Asad, Muhammad. The Message of the Qur’ān. Translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Bristol: The Book Foundation, 2003. St. Augustine of Hippo. Sermones post Maurinos reperti, ed. Germain Morin, O.S.B., Roma: Miscellanea Agostiniana, 1930. Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur’an and its Interpreters, vol. 1. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1984. Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur’an and its Interpreters, vol. 2: The House of ‘Imrān. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1992. Azaiez, Mehdi. Le contre-discours coranique. Studies in the History and Culture of the Middle East, 30. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. Azaiez, Mehdi, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Tommaso Tesei, Hamza M. Zafer, eds. The Qur’an Seminar Commentary / Le Qur’an Seminar: A Collaborative Study of 50 Qur’anic Passages / commentaire collaboratif de 50 passages coraniques. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016. Badawi, Elsaid M., Muhammad Abdel Haleem, Arabic – English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Badawi, Nesrine. “Islamic Jurisprudence and the Regulation of Armed Conflict,” (February 2009) at http://www.hpcrresearch.org/publications. Barrett, C.K. “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in: Essays on Paul. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982, 154-70. Barry, Patrick O.S.B., et al. The Benedictine Handbook. Norwich: the Canterbury Press, 2003. Barth, Karl. Der Römerbrief. Orig. 2nd ed. 1922; repr. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984. Barth, Karl. Kirchliche Dogmatik I/2: Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes. Zürich: Zöllikon, 1938. Barth, Karl. On Religion: The Revelation of God as the Sublimation of Religion, translated by Garrett Green. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Becker, Karl J., Ilaria Morali, eds. Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2010. St. Benedict of Nursia. The Rule of St. Benedict. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2003. Bennett, Clinton. Understanding Christian-Muslim Relations: Past and Present. London – New York: Continuum, 2008.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

383

Berlin, Adele, Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Study Bible. 2nd ed. Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Bertaina, David. Christian and Muslim Dialogues: The Religious Uses of a Literary Form in the Early Islamic Middle East. Piscataway NY: Gorgias Press, 2011. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments. New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. Nashville TN: Catholic Bible Press, 1990. Biechler, James E. “Three Manuscripts on Islam from the Library of Nicholas of Cusa,” Manuscripta 27 (1983) 91-100. Block, C. Jonn. The Qur’an in Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Historical and Modern Interpretations. London and New York: Routledge, 2014. Bobzin, Hartmut. “The ‘Seal of the Prophets’: Towards an Understanding of Muhammad’s Prophethood,” in: The Qur’ān in Context, eds. Angelika Neuwirth et al. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 565-83. Boisliveau, Anne-Sylvie. Le Coran par lui-même: vocabulaire et argumentation du discours coranique autoréférentiel. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Bonaventure. The Soul’s Journey into God – The Tree of Life – The Life of St. Francis. Translation and introduction by Ewert Cousins. Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 1978. Bond, H. Lawrence. Nicholas of Cusa on Interreligious Harmony. Text, Concordance and Translation of De Pace Fidei, Lewiston NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990. Borgman, Erik, Pim Valkenberg, eds. Islam and Elightenment: New Issues. Concilium: International Journal of Theology 2005/5. Böwering, Gerhard. “Chronology and the Qur’ān,” in: Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. I (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 316-35. Burge, Gary M. Jesus and the Land: the New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Burnett, Richard. Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis: The Hermeneutical Principles of the Römerbrief Period. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. Eerdmans, 2004. Burrell, David B., C.S.C. Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn-Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986. Burrell, David B., C.S.C. Freedom and Creation in Three Traditions. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993. Burrell, David B., C.S.C. tr. Faith in Divine Unity and Trust in Divine Providence. Kitāb al-Tawhīd wa’l Tawakkul, book XXXV of The Revival of the Religious Sciences, Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn. Louisville KY: Fons Vitae, 2001. Burrell, David B., C.S.C. Faith and Freedom: An Interfaith Perspective. Malden MA: Blackwell, 2004. Burrell, David B., C.S.C., Towards a Jewish-Christian-Muslim Theology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Busse, Heribert. Die theologischen Beziehungen des Islams zu Judentum und Christentum, Darmstadt, 1988; English Islam, Judaism, and Christianity: Theological and Historical Affiliations. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1998.

384

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Byrne, Brendan, S.J. “Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-‘New Perspective’ Perspective,” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001) 227-41. Calder, Norman, Jawid Mojaddedi, Andrew Rippin, eds. Classical Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature. London and New York: Routledge, 2nd ed. 2013. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Clooney, Francis X., S.J. Beyond Compare: St. Francis de Sales and Śri Vedanta Deśika on Loving Surrender to God. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2008. Connelly, John. From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews 1933-1965. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Cornille, Catherine. The Im-Possibility of Interreligious Dialogue. New York: Crossroads / Herder & Herder, 2008. Cragg, Kenneth. A Certain Sympathy of Scriptures: Biblical and Quranic. Brighton and Portland OR: Sussex Academic Press, 2004. Crone, Patricia, “‘Nothing But Time Destroys Us’: The Deniers of Resurrection in the Qur’ān,” Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 1 (2016) 127-47. Crone, Patricia, Michael Cook. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Cutsinger, James. “Disagreeing to Agree: A Christian Response to ‘A Common Word’,” in: Muslim and Christian Understanding. Theory and Application of “A Common Word,” eds. Waleed El-Ansary and David K. Linnan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, 111-30. Cuypers, Michel. Le Festin. Une lecture de la sourate al-Mā’ida. Paris: Lethielleux, 2007; English The Banquet: A Reading of the Fifth Sura of the Qur’an, tr. Patricia Kelly. Miami: Convivium, 2009. Cuypers, Michel. La composition du Coran: Nazm al-Qur’ān. Pendé: Gabalda, 2012; English The Composition of the Qur’an: Rhetorical Analysis, tr. Jerry Ryan. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Cuypers, Michel. Une apocalypse coranique: une lecture des 33 dernières sourates du Coran. Rhétorique sémitique, 15. Pendé: Gabalda, 2014. Cuypers, Michel. “Analyse rhétorique et critique historique: Réponse à Guillaume Dye,” Mélanges de l’Institut dominicain d’études orientales 31 (2015) 55-82. Dall’Oglio, Paolo, S.J. Amoureux de l’Islam, croyant en Jésus. Paris: Les Éditions de l’Atelier, 2009. Daniel, Norman. Islam and the West. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1960. Dardess, George, Marvin L. Krier Mich, eds. In the Spirit of Saint Francis and the Sultan. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2011. Davids, Adelbert, and Pim Valkenberg. “John of Damascus: The Heresy of the Ishmaelites,” in: The Three Rings: Textual Studies in the Historical Trialogue of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, eds. Barbara Roggema, Marcel Poorthuis, Pim Valkenberg Leuven – Dudley MA: Peeters, 2005, 71-90.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

385

Dayeh, Islam. “Al-Ḥawāmīm: Intertextuality and Coherence in Meccan Surahs,” in: The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu, eds. Angelika Neuwirth et al. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 461-98. D’Costa, Gavin. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2000. D’Costa, Gavin. “Vatican II on Muslims and Jews: The Council’s Teaching on Other Religions,” in The Second Vatican Council: Celebrating Its Achievements and the Future, eds. Gavin D’Costa and Emma Jane Harris. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013, 105-20. D’Costa, Gavin. Vatican II: Catholic Doctrines on Jews and Muslims. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Dean, Lester. “Paul’s ‘Erroneous’ Description of Judaism,” in: Bursting the Bonds? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul, eds. Leonard Swidler et al. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1990, 136-42. Denzinger, Henricus, Adolphus Schönmetzer, S.J., eds. Enchiridium symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1967. Donner, Fred. Muhammad and the Believers: at the Origins of Islam. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010. Droge, A.J. The Qur’ān: A New Annotated Translation. Sheffield: Equinox, 2013. Dupuis, Jacques, S.J. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1997. Emery, Gilles, O.P., Matthew Levering, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Ernst, Carl W. How to Read the Qur’an: A New Guide with Select Translations. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Esack, Farid.The Qur’an: A User’s Guide. Oxford: Oneworld, 2005. Esack, Farid. “The Portrayal of Jews and the Possibilities for Their Salvation in the Qur’an,” in: Betweeh Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others, ed. Mohammad Hassan Khalil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 207-33. Fakhry, Majid. An Interpretation of the Qur’an. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Farrin, Raymond. “Surat al-Baqara: A Structural Analysis,” The Muslim World 100 (2010) 17-32. Farrin, Raymond. Structure and Qur’anic Interpretation: A Study of Symmetry and Coherence in Islam’s Holy Text. Ashland OR: White Cloud Press, 2014. Feuvrier, Alain, S.J. “Lectures Croisées: lecture chrétienne de la sourate de l’Ouverture.” Christus 214 (2007) 193-97. Firestone, Reuven. Journeys in Holy Lands: The Evolution of the Abraham – Ishmael Legends. Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 1990. Firestone, Reuven. “Jewish Culture in the Formative Period of Islam,” in: Cultures of the Jews, volume I: Mediterranean Origins, ed. David Biale. New York: Schocken, 2002, 267-301.

386

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Firestone, Reuven. Who Are the Real Chosen People? The Meaning of Chosenness in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Woodstock VT: SkyLight Paths Publications, 2008. Firestone, Reuven. “Chosenness and the Exclusivity of Truth,” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James L. Heft, S.M., Reuven Firestone, and Omid Safi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 107-28. Firestone, Reuven. “Is there a notion of ‘divine election’ in the Qur’ān?” in: New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: The Qur’ān in its Historical Context, 2, ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011, 393-410. Firestone, Reuven. “The Problematic of Prophecy: 2015 IQSA P ­ residential Address,” Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association 1 (2016) 11-22. Firestone, Reuven. “Muslim – Jewish Relations,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion, religion.oxfordre.com. Fowl, Stephen E., ed. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Francis (Pope). Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2016. Gade, Anna M. The Qur’an: An Introduction. Oxford: Oneworld, 2010. Geissinger, Aisha. “No, a Woman Did Not ‘Edit the Qur’ān’: Towards a Methodologically Coherent Approach to a Tradition Portraying a Woman and Written Quranic Materials,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85 (2017) 416-45. Ghazali, Alwani, Muhammad Kamal, Zamrie Ibrahim. “Holistic-textual Approach to Qur’anic Verses on Muslim-Jewish Relationship in the Qur’an,” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2017 no. 7, 166-74. al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid ibn Muḥammad. Ihyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn. Cairo: al-Tawfikiya, 2007. al-Ghazālī, Shaykh Muhammad. A Thematic Commentary on the Qur’an. Translated from the Arabic by Ashur A. Shamis. Herndon VA / London: International Institute for Islamic Thought, H.1421/2000. Gilliot, Claude. “Mujāhid’s Exegesis: Origins, Paths of Transmission and Development of a Meccan Exegetical Tradition in its Human, Spiritual and Theological Environment,” in: Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual History: Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre, eds. Andreas Görke and Johanna Pink. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, 63-111. Gioia, Francesco. Interreligious Dialogue: the Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from the Second Vatican Council to John Paul II (1963-2005). Boston MA: Pauline Books, 2006. Goddard, Hugh. A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. Görke, Andreas, Johanna Pink, eds. Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual History. Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre. London: The Institute of Ismaili Studies / Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

387

Graham, William A. “The Earliest Meaning of Qur’ān.” Die Welt des Islams 23-24 (1984) 361-77. Greenberg, Irving. “Religion as a Force for Reconciliation and Peace: A Jewish Analysis,” in: Beyond Violence. Religious Sources of Social Transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, eds. James L. Heft, S.M. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004, 88-112. Greenberg, Irving. For the Sake of Heaven and Earth: The New Encounter between Judaism and Christianity. Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society, 2004. Greenman, Jeffrey P., Timothy Larsen, eds. Reading Romans through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth. Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2005. Griffith, Sidney. “Sharing the Faith of Abraham: The ‘Credo’ of Louis Massignon,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 8 (1997) 193-210. Griffith, Sidney. “Christians and Christianity.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 1. Brill: Leiden, 2001, 307-16. Griffith, Sidney. “Al-Naṣara in the Qur’ān: a hermeneutical reflection,” in: New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: The Qur’ān in its historical context 2, ed. Gabriel Said Reynolds. London – New York: Routledge, 2011, 301-22. Griffith, Sidney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2013. Griffith, Sidney H. “The ‘Sunna of Our Messengers’: The Qur’ān’s Paradigm for Messengers and Prophets; a Reading of Sūrat ash-Shu‘arā’ (26),” in: Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells. London and New York: Routledge, 2016, 207-27. Gude, Mary-Louise. Louis Massignon: the Crucible of Compassion. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996. Guillaume, Alfred. The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. Gülen, M. Fethullah. Fatiha Üzerine Mülâhazalar. Izmir: Nil yayınları, 2007. Hawting, G.R., Abdulkader Shareef, eds. Approaches to the Qur’ān. Abingdon – New York: Routledge, 1993. Heim, S. Mark. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001. Hopkins, Jasper. Nicolas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei and Cribratio Alkorani: Translation and Analysis. Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994. Hopkins, Jasper. “The Role of pia interpretatio in Nicholas of Cusa’s Hermeneutical Approach to the Koran,” in: A Miscellany on Nicholas of Cusa. Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1994, 39-55. Hughes, Aaron W. Abrahamic Religions: on the Uses and Abuses of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Ibn ‘Abbās, Abdallah (ascribed). Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās. English translation by Mokrane Guezzou at www.altafsir.com.

388

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Ibn Kathir, Ismail.Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr (abridged). Vol. 1-10. Riyadh: Darussalam, 2003. Iṣlāḥī, Amīn Aḥsan. Tadabbur-i Qur’an. Partial English translation at www. tadabbur-i-quran.org. Jalāl al-dīn al-Mahalli, Jalāl al-dīn al-Suyūti. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn. ­T ranslated by Feras Hamza (Great Commentaries on the Holy Quran, 1). Amman: Royal Aal-al-Bayt Institute; Louisville KY: Fons Vitae, 2008. John of Damascus. Jean Damascène: Écrits sur l’Islam, ed. R. Le Coz. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Jones, Alan. The Qur’ān. Translated into English by Alan Jones. Cambridge: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2007. Jong, Matthijs de. “Joden of Judeeërs? Over de vertaling van het woord ‘Ioudaioi’ in het Johannes-evangelie en elders,” Met Andere Woorden: Vakblad Bijbel en vertalen 36/1 (mei 2017) 7-19. Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. The More Torah, The More Life: A Christian Commentary on Mishnah Avot. Leuven: Peeters, 2018. Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence. Oakland CA: University of California Press, 4th ed. 2017. Kaltner, John. Introducing the Qur’an for Today’s Reader. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2011. Kaminsky, Joel. “Can Election Be Forfeited?” in: The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, eds. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013, 44-66. Kassis, Hanna. Concordance of the Qur’an. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Keating, Daniel, Matthew Levering. “Introduction,” in: St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Chapters 1-5. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010, xiv-xvi. Kenny, Joseph, O.P., tr. “Thomas Aquinas: Reasons for the Faith against Muslim objections,” Islamochristiana 22 (1996) 31-52. Kermani, Navid. Gott ist schön: das ästhetische Erleben des Koran. München: Beck, 1999. Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955. Khalil, Mohammad Hassan. Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Khalil, Mohammad Hassan, ed. Between Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Khalil, Mohammad Hassan. “Mercy and Salvation,” in: Qur’an in Conversation, ed. Michael Birkel. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2014, 34-40.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

389

Khan, Israr Ahmad. “Arguments for Abrogation in the Qur’an: A Critique,” in: Contemporary Approaches to the Qur’an and Sunnah, ed. Mahmoud Ayoub. Herndon VA: The International Institute of Islamic Thought, H.1433/2012, 3-25. Khan, Muhammad M., Muhammad T. al-Hilali, Interpetation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’ān in the English Language. Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996. Kimball, Richard Lawrence. The People of the Book, ahl al-kitāb: A Comparative Theological Exploration. New York: Peter Lang, 2019. Klootwijk, Eewout. Commitment and Opennness: Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions in the Work of Stanley J. Samartha. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1992. Knitter, Paul. No Other Name? Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985. Knitter, Paul. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2002. Koloska, Hannelies. “The Sign of Jonah: Transformations and Interpretations of the Jonah Story in the Qur’ān,” in: Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells. London and New York: Routledge, 2016, 82-101. Kritzeck, James. Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964. Krokus, Christian. “Louis Massignon’s influence on the teaching of Vatican II on Muslims and Islam,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 23 (2012) 329-45. Krokus, Christian S. The Theology of Louis Massignon: Islam, Christ, and the Church. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2017. Kurucan, Ahmet, Mustafa Kasım Erol, Dialogue in Islam: Qur’an – Sunnah – History. London: Dialogue Society, 2011. Kuschel, Karl-Joseph. Streit um Abraham: Was Juden, Christen und Muslime trennt – und was sie eint. München: Kösel, 1994. Lamptey, Jerusha Tanner. Never Wholly Other: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Lawrence, Bruce, ed. Messages to the World. The Statements of Osama bin Laden. London – New York: Verso, 2005. Lawrence, Bruce B. Who Is Allah? Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015. Lawson, Todd. The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009. Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava. Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Le Coz, Raymond. Jean Damascène, Écrits sur l’Islam. Sources Chrétiennes, 383. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Leirvik, Oddbjørn. “Prostate and Erect: Some Christian-Muslim Reflections on Religious Body Language,” Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 16 (2006) 29-40.

390

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Levenson, Jon. Inheriting Abraham: The Legacy of the Patriarch in Judaism, Christianity & Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Locklin, Reid B. Liturgy of Liberation: A Christian Commentary on Shankara’s Upadeśasāhasrī. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. Lodahl, Michael. Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side. Grand Rapids MI: Brazos Press, 2010. Lønning, Per. Is Christ A Christian? On Inter-Religious Dialogue and IntraReligious Horizon. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Lumbard, Joseph. The Uncommonality of ‘A Common Word.’ Brandeis University, Crown Center of Middle East Studies, Crown Paper 3, October 2009. Madigan, Daniel. The Qur’ân’s Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam’s Scripture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Madigan, Daniel. “Book.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 242-51. Madigan, Daniel. “Revelation and Inspiration.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 437-48. Madigan, Daniel, S.J. “Particularity, Universality, and Finality: Insights from the Gospel of John,” in: Communicating the Word. Revelation, Translation, and Interpretation in Christianity and Islam. A record of the seventh Building Bridges seminar convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rome, May 2008, ed. David Marshall. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011. Madigan, Daniel, S.J. “The Gospel of John as a structure for Muslim – Christian Understanding,” in: Reading the Bible in an Islamic Context, eds. Daniel Crowther et al. Abingdon – New York: Routledge, 2018, 253-70. Marshall, David. “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Qur’an,” in: Resurrection Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996, 168-83. Marshall, David. God, Muhammad and the Unbelievers: A Qur’anic Study. Richmond: Curzon Press, 1999. Marshall, David. “Christianity in the Qur’ān,” in: Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000, 3-29. Marshall, David. “Punishment Stories.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 318-22. Martin, Ralph. Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012. Marx, Michael. “Glimpses of a Mariology in the Qur’an,” in: The Qur’ān in Context, eds. Angelika Neuwirth et al. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 533-63. Massignon, Louis. Parole donnée. Paris: Lettres Nouvelles, 1962. Mawdūdī, Sayyid Abul A‘lā. Towards Understanding the Qur’ān: English version of Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, translated and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1999. Mazuz, Haggai. The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 38. Leiden: Brill, 2014.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

391

McAuliffe, Jane D. Qur’ānic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. McAuliffe, Jane D. “Debate with them in the Better Way,” in: Myths, Historical Archetypes and Symbolic Figures in Arabic Literature, ed. Angelika Neuwirth et al. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1999, 163-88. McAuliffe, Jane D., “Debate and Disputation,” in: Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. J.D. McAuliffe, vol. I. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 511-14. McAuliffe, Jane D., ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’ān. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. McAuliffe, Jane D., ed. The Qur’ān. Norton Critical Editions, New York – London: W.W. Norton, 2017. Mir, Mustansir. Coherence in the Qur’ān: A Study of Iṣlāhī’s Concept of Naẓm in Tadabbur-i Qur’ān. Indianapolis: American Trust Publications, 1406/1986. Mir, Mustansir. Understanding the Islamic Scripture: A Study of Selected Passages from the Qur’ān. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Mohammed, Khaleel. “The Identity of the Qur’ān’s Ahl al-Dhikr,” in: Coming to Terms with the Qur’ān: A Volume in Honor of Professor Issa Boullata, eds. Khaleel Mohammed, Andrew Rippin. North Haledon, NJ: Islamic Publications International, 2007, 33-45. Morrow, John Andrew, ed. Islam and the People of the Book: Critical Studies on the Covenants of the Prophet. Vol. 1-3. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. Moyaert, Marianne. “Comparative Theology: Between Text and Rite,” in: The Past, Present and Future of Theologies of Interreligious Dialogue, eds. T. Merrigan, J. Friday. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 184-200. Mujāhid ibn Jabr, Tafsīr Mujāhid, ed. Abu Muḥammad al-Asyūṭī. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyah, H.1426/2005. Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, ed. Aḥmad Farīd. Vol. 1-3. Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyah, H.1424/2003. Murata, Sachiko, and William Chittick. The Vision of Islam. New York: Paragon House, 1994. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, Caner Dagli, Maria M. Dakake, Joseph E. Lumbard, Mohammed Rustom, eds. The Study Quran: a New Translation and Commentary. New York: HarperOne, 2015. Neusner, Jacob et al. Do Jews, Christians, & Muslims Worship the Same God? Nashville TN: Abingdon, 2012. Neuwirth, Angelika. Der Koran als Text der Spätantike. Ein europäischer Zugang. Berlin: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2010. Neuwirth, Angelika. Scripture, Poetry and the Making of a Community: Reading the Qur’an as a Literary Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press / London: The Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2014. Neuwirth, Angelika, Michael Sells, eds. Qur’anic Studies Today. London and New York: Routledge, 2016.

392

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Neuwirth, Angelika, Nicolai Sinai, Michael Marx, eds. The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qur’ānic Milieu. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2011. Newby, Gordon. A History of the Jews of Arabia. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Nicholai de Cusa. Cribratio Alkorani, ed. L. Hagemann (Opera Omnia 8). Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1986. Nickel, Gordon. Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’ān. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2011. Nirenberg, David. Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014. Nöldeke, Theodor, Friedrich Schwally, Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Otto Pretzl, The History of the Qur’an, edited and translated by Wolfgang H. Behn (Texts and Studies on the Qur’an, 8). Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2013. Nursi, Said. Signs of Miraculousness. The Inimitability of the Qur’an’s Conciseness. Istanbul: Sözler Publications, 2004. Oakes, Kenneth. Reading Karl Barth: A Companion to Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans. Eugene OR: Cascade, 2011. Perrone, Lorenzo. “‘Abraham, père de tous les croyants’: Louis Massignon et l’œcuménisme de la prière” Proche-Orient Chrétien 60 (2010) 100-33. Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke. The Glorious Qur’an translated by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall. Elmhurst NY: Tahrike Tarsila Qur’an, 2006. Poorthuis, Marcel. “Hagar’s Wanderings: Between Judaism and Islam,” Der Islam 90 (2013) 220-44. Poorthuis, Marcel. “The transformative creativity of Islamic storytelling,” in: Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays on the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, eds. Eric Ottenheijm, Marcel Poorthuis. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Quṭb, Sayyid. In the Shade of the Qur’ān, translated by Adil Salahi and Ashur Shamis. Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, H.1421/2000. Quṭb, Sayyid. Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān. Beirut: Dār al-Shurūq, H.1425/2004. Rahner, Karl, S.J. “Theologische Prinzipien der Hermeneutik eschatologischer Aussagen,” in: id., Schriften zur Theologie IV. Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag, 1962, 401-28. Rahner, Karl. “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte,” in: Mysterium salutis: Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, eds. J. Feiner, M. Löhrer. Einsiedeln: Benziger Verlag, 1967, 2:317404. Rahner, Karl. “Einzigkeit und Dreifaltigkeit Gottes,” in: Der Gott des Christentums und des Islam, ed. A. Bsteh. Mödling: St. Gabriel, 1978, 119-36. al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-dīn. Al-tafsīr al-kabīr: mafātīḥ al-ghayb. al-Qāhira: Dār al-ḥadīth H.1433/2012. Reda, Nevin. The al-Baqara Crescendo: Understanding the Qur’an’s Style, Narrative Structure, and Running Themes. Montreal: McGill – Queen’s University Press, 2017.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

393

Reinhartz, Adele. “The Gospel of John: How ‘the Jews’ Became Part of the Plot,” in: Jesus, Judaism & Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust, eds. Paula Fredriksen and Adele Reinhartz. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, 99-116. Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’ān and Its Biblical Subtext. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. Reynolds, Gabriel Said, ed. New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: the Qur’ān in its Historical Context 2. Abingdon – New York: Routledge, 2011. Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Emergence of Islam: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Reynolds, Gabriel S. “The Quran and the Apostles of Jesus,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76/2 (June 2013) 209-27. Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur’ān and the Bible: Text and Commentary. New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2018. Rippin, Andrew. “The Contemporary Translation of Classical Works of Tafsīr,” in: Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual History: Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre, eds. Andreas Görke and Johanna Pink. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, 465-87. Robinson, Neal. “Hands Outstretched: Towards a Re-reading of Sūrat al-Mā’ida,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 3 (2001) 1-19. Robinson, Neal. Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003. Robinson, Neal. “Sūrat Āl ‘Imrān and Those with the Greatest Claim to Abraham,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 6/2 (2004) 1-21. Roggema, Barbara.The Legend of Sergius Baḥīrā: Eastern Christian Apologetics and Apocalyptic in Response to Islam. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Root, Michael. “Nostra Aetate and Ecumenism,” in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016, 27-40. Rubin, Uri. “Exegesis and Ḥadīth: The case of the seven Mathānī,” in: Approaches to the Qur’ān, ed. G.R. Hawting, Abdul-Kader A. Shareef. London – New York: Routledge, 1993, 141-56. Rubin, Uri. Between Bible and Qur’ān: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image. Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, 17. Princeton NJ: The Darwin Press, 1999. Sachedina, Abdulaziz. The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Saeed, Abdullah. The Qur’an: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2008. Sahas, Daniel. John of Damascus on Islam: the “Heresy of the Ishmaelites”. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Said, Yazid, Lejla Demiri, eds. The Future of Interfaith Dialogue: Muslim–Christian Encounters through A Common Word. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

394

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Saleh, Walid A. “A Piecemeal Qur’ān: Furqān and its Meaning in Classical Islam and in Modern Qur’ānic Studies,” Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 42 (2015) 31-71. Saleh, Walid A. “End of Hope. Sūras 10-15, Despair and a Way Out of Mecca,” in: Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells. London – New York: Routledge, 2016, 105-23. Salenson, Christian. Christian de Chergé: A Theology of Hope. Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press, 2012. Saritoprak, Zeki. “How Commentators of the Qur’an define ‘Common Word’,” in: A Common Word and the Future of Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. John Borelli. Washington DC: Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, 2009, 34-45. Saritoprak, Zeki. “Insider’s Commentary” on surah 1 in World Religions in Dialogue: a comparative theological approach. ed. Pim Valkenberg. Winona MN: Anselm Academic, 2013, 106-8. Saritoprak, Zeki. Islam’s Jesus. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2014. Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ: The Christian Experience in the Modern World. Collected Works 7. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Schillebeeckx, Edward. Church: The Human Story of God. Collected Works 10. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Schmid, Nora K. “Lot’s Wife: Late Antique Paradigms of Sense and the Qur’ān,” in: Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Angelika Neuwirth and Michael A. Sells. London and New York: Routledge, 2016, 52-81. Schmidtke, Sabine, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Sells, Michael. Approaching the Qur’án. Ashland: White Cloud, 1999. Sells, Michael A. “Finhās of Medina: Islam, ‘the Jews,’ and the Construction of Religious Militancy,” in: Fighting Words: Religion, Violence, and the Interpretation of Sacred Texts, ed. J. Renard. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012, 101-34. Senior, Donald, John J. Collins, eds. The Catholic Study Bible. Scripture Texts: New American Bible. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Shafiq, Muhammad, Mohammed Abu-Nimer. Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims. London – Washington, DC: The International Institute for Islamic Thought, H.1432/2011. Shah-Kazemi, Reza.The Other in the Light of the One: the Universality of the Qur’ān and Interfaith Dialogue. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2006. Shah-Kazemi, Reza. My Mercy Encompasses All. Berkeley CA: Counterpoint Press, 2007. Shakir, M.H., The Qur’an translated by M.H. Shakir. Elmhurst NY: Tahrike Tarsila Qur’an, 2004. Sharon, M. “People of the Book.” Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 36-43.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

395

Sheveland, John N. “Solidarity through Polyphony,” in: The New Comparative Theology: Interreligious Insights from the Next Generation, ed. Francis X. Clooney, S.J. London – New York: T&T Clark, 2010, 171-90. Siddiqui, Mona. Christians, Muslims & Jesus. New Haven – London: Yale University Press, 2013. Siddiqui, Mona, ed. The Routledge Reader in Christian-Muslim Relations. London – New York: Routledge, 2013. Sinai, Nicolai. “Qur’ānic self-referentiality as a strategy of self-authorization,” in: Self-referentiality in the Qur’ān, ed. Stefan Wild. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006, 103-34. Sinai, Nicolai. “The Qur’anic Commentary of Muqātil b. Sulaymān and the Evolution of Early Tafsīr Literature,” in: Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual History: Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre, eds. Andreas Görke and Johanna Pink. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014, 113-43. Sinai, Nicolai. “Processes of Literary Growth and Editorial Expansion in Two Medinan Surahs,” in: Islam and Its Past: Jahiliyya, Late Antiquity, and the Qur’an, eds. Carol Bakhos and Michael Cook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 69-119. Sinai, Nicolai. “Review Essay: Going Round in Circles,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies 19/2 (2017) 106-22. Sirry, Mun’im. Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’ān and Other Religions. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Sloyan, Gerard, and Lester Dean. “A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Paul,” in: Bursting the Bonds: A Jewish – Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul, ed. Leonard Swidler. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1990, 125-216. Sokolowski, Robert. The God of Faith and Reason. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Sommer, Benjamin D. Revelation & Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2015. Soulen, Kenneth. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Speight, Marston. “Christians in the Ḥadīth Literature,” in: Islamic Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001, 30-53. Stewart, Devin. “The mysterious letters and other formal features of the Qur’ān in light of Greek and Babylonian oracular texts,” in: New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: the Qur’ān in its Historical Context 2, ed. Gabriel S. Reynolds. Abingdon – New York: Routledge, 2011, 323-48. Stroumsa, Guy. The Making of the Abrahamic Religions in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Sullivan, Francis. Salvation Outside of the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992. al-Suyūṭī, Jalāl-al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. The Perfect Guide to the Sciences of the Qur’ān (Al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān), tr. Ḥamid Algar et al. Reading: Garnet, 2011.

396

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn. Al-Mīzān fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān. English translation at www.almizan.org. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr. The Commentary on the Qur’ān by Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, being an abridged translation of Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān with an introduction and notes by J. Cooper, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Tamez, Elsa. “Hagar and Sarah in Galatians: A Case Study in Freedom,” Word and World 20/3 (2000) 265-71. Tapie, Matthew. Aquinas on Israel and the Church: The Question of Supersessionism in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2014. T homas A quinas . De rationibus fidei ad cantorem Antiochenum, ed. H.F. Dondaine (Opera Omnia XL B). Romae: ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1968. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae, vol. 32: Consequences of Faith (2a2ae. 8-16). Latin Text, English Translation, Introduction, Notes & Glossary Thomas Gilby, O.P. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Gospel of John, tr. Fabian Larcher, O.P. Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas, vol. 35, Lander WY: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2013. Thomas, David. “taṭḥlīṭḥ (Trinity).” Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 10. Leiden: Brill, 1999, 373-75. Thomas, David, ed. Routledge Handbook on Christian – Muslim Relations, London – New York: Routledge, 2018. Tieszen, Charles. A Textual History of Christian – Muslim Relations: 7th – 15th centuries. Minneapolis MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Tolan, John. Saint Francis and the Sultan: The Curious History of a ChristianMuslim Encounter. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Trible, Phyllis, Letty Russell, eds. Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Turner, Denys. Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 2004. al-Tustarī, Sahl. Tafsīr al-Tustarī, tr. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler (Great Commentaries on the Holy Qur’an, 4). Amman: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought / Louisville KY: Fons Vitae, 2011. Ünal, Ali.The Qur’ān with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. Somerset: The Light, 2008. Valkenberg, Wilhelmus G.B.M. Words of the Living God: Place and Function of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Valkenberg, Pim. “John of Damascus and the Theological Construction of Christian Identity vis-à-vis Early Islam,” in: Jaarboek 2000 Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, ed. Henk Schoot. Utrecht: Thomas Instituut, 2001, 8-30.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

397

Valkenberg, Pim, ed. God en geweld. Budel: Damon, 2002. Valkenberg, Pim. “Christian Identity and Theology of the Trinity,” in: Identity and Religion: A Multidisciplinary Approach, eds. Ad Borsboom and Frans Jespers. Saarbrücken: Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik, 2003, 267-90. Valkenberg, Pim. Sharing Lights on the Way to God: Muslim – Christian Dialogue and Theology in the Context of Abrahamic Partnership. Amsterdam – New York: Editions Rodopi, 2006. Valkenberg, Pim. “Das Konzept der Offenbarung im Islam aus der Perspektive Komparativer Theologie,” in: Komparative Theologie: interreligiöse Vergleiche als Weg der Religionstheologie, eds. Reinhold Bernhardt & Klaus von Stosch. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009, 123-45. Valkenberg, Pim. “Abraham: Conflicting Interpretations and Symbol of Peaceful Cooperation,” in: Encounters of the Children of Abraham from Ancient to Modern Times, eds. Antti Laato and Pekka Lindqvist. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2010, 313-26. Valkenberg, Pim. “Moslims & Christenen: Een gemeenschappelijk woord?” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 50 (2010) 273-284. Valkenberg, Pim. “Learned Ignorance and Faithful Interpretation of the Qur’an in Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464),” in: Learned Ignorance: Intellectual Humility among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, eds. James Heft, Reuven Firestone and Omid Safi. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 34-52. Valkenberg, Pim. “Sifting the Qur’an: Two Forms of Interreligious Hermeneutics in Nicholas of Cusa,” in Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe, eds. D. Cheetham et al. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011, 36-46. Valkenberg, Pim. “Can We Talk Theologically? Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa on the Possibility of a Theological Understanding of Islam,” in: Rethinking the Medieval Legacy for Contemporary Theology, ed. Anselm K. Min, Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014, 131-66. Valkenberg, Pim. “How Others Bear Witness to Our Faith: Aquinas and Lumen Gentium,” in: Jaarboek 2013 Thomas Instituut Utrecht, ed. Henk J.M. Schoot. Utrecht: Thomas Instituut, 2014, 55-75. Valkenberg, Pim. “One Faith, Different Rites: Nicholas of Cusa’s New Awareness of Religious Pluralism,” in: Understanding Religious Pluralism: Perspectives from Religious Studies and Theology, Peter C. Phan and Jonathan S. Ray, eds. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014, 192-208. Valkenberg, Pim. “Una Religio in Rituum Varietate: Religious Pluralism, the Qur’an, and Nicholas of Cusa,” in: Nicholas of Cusa and Islam: Polemic and Dialogue in the Late Middle Ages, eds. Ian Christopher Levy, Rita George-Tvrtković and Donald F. Duclow. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2014, 30-48. Valkenberg, Pim. Renewing Islam By Service: A Christian View of Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015.

398

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Valkenberg, Pim. “Nostra Aetate: Historical Contingency and Theological Significance,” in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016, 6-26. Valkenberg, Pim. “Comparative Criticism: The Qur’ān and Karl Barth,” in: Comparative Theology, ed. Ulrich Winkler. Frankfurter Zeitschrift fūr islamisch-theologische Studien, Special Issue 1. Berlin: EB Verlag 2017, 71-88. Valkenberg, Pim. “Poverty and Asceticism in Islamic Theology and Spirituality,” in: Armut als Problem und Armut als Weg / Poverty as Problem and Poverty as Path, eds. Willem Marie Speelman et al. Münster: Aschendorff Verlag / St. Bonaventure NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2017, 359-373. Valkenberg, Pim. “A Common Word or a Word of Justice? Two Qur’anic Approaches to Christian-Muslim Dialogue,” in: The Future of Interfaith Dialogue: Muslim–Christian Encounters through A Common Word, eds. Yazid Said and Lejla Demiri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018, 192-203. Valkenberg, Pim. “The Dynamics of the qur’ānic Account of Christianity,” in Routledge Handbook on Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. David Thomas. London – New York, 2018, 49-56. Valkenberg, Pim. “God in Muslim and Christian Thought,” in: Theological Issues in Christian – Muslim Dialogue, ed. Charles Tieszen. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018, 1-14. Valkenberg, Pim. “Joden en Christenen in de Koran: De literaire gestalte van een polemische dialoog,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 58 (2018) 239-58. Van Wieringen, Archibald, Herwi Rikhof, De Zeven Sacramenten: een Bijbel­ theologische en Systematisch-theologische Studie. Bergambacht: Uitgeverij 2vm, 2013. Vatican Council II. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964). English translation on www.vatican.va. Vatican Council II. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate (1965). English translation Thomas F. Stransky, C.S.P. in: Nostra Aetate: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Catholic Church’s Dialogue with Jews and Muslims, eds. Pim Valkenberg and Anthony Cirelli. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2016, xix-xxiii. Volf, Miroslav, Ghazi bin Muhammad, Melissa Yarrington, eds. A Common Word: Muslims and Christians on Loving God and Neighbor. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010. Volf, Miroslav. Allah: A Christian Response. New York: HarperOne, 2011. Volf, Miroslav, ed. Do We Worship the Same God? Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

399

al-Wāḥidī. Al-Wāḥidī’s Asbāb al-Nuzūl, tr. Mokrane Guezzou (Great Commentaries on the Holy Qur’an, 3). Amman: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute / Louisville KY: Fons Vitae, 2008. Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Ed. J. Milton Cowan. Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1980. Whitehead, Alfred North, Science and the Modern World, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1926. Williams, Delores. Sisters in the Wilderness. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1994. Zahniser, A.H. Mathias. “Sūra as Guidance and Exhortation: The Composition of Sūrat al-Nisā’,” in: Humanism, Culture, and Language in the Near East: Studies in Honor of Georg Krotkoff, eds. Asma Afsaruddin and Mathias Zahniser. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997, 71-85. Zahniser, A.H. Mathias. “Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Sūras: al-Baqara and al-Nisā’,” in: Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. Issa J. Boullata. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000, 26-55. Zebiri, Kate. “Argumentation.” The Blackwell Companion to the Qur’ān, ed. Andrew Rippin. Malden MA: Blackwell, 2006, 266-81. Zellentin, Holger. “Aḥbār and Ruhbān: Religious Leaders in the Qur’ān in Dialogue with Christian and Rabbinic Literature,” in: Qur’ānic Studies Today, eds. Angelika Neuwirth, Michael A. Sells. London – New York: Routledge, 2016, 262-93.

INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES QUR’ĀN Q.1:1-7 1-16, 323 Q.1:1 3-7 Q.1:2-5 8-11 Q.1:6-7 11-16, 48 Q.1:6 19 Q.1:7 10, 13 Q.2-5 xv, 244, 279 Q.2 192, 237, 343 Q.2:1-2 245 Q.2:2-5 17-21 Q.2:2 xi, 11, 17, 27, 372 Q.2:4 39 Q.2:16 148 Q.2:40 17, 38, 377 Q.2:41 39, 43, 144 Q.2:42 251 Q.2:44 38 Q.2:47 17 Q.2:53 39 Q.2:55 51, 169 Q.2:58 169, 171 Q.2:60 256 Q.2:62 22, 41, 139-140, 145, 163, 223-224 Q.2:63 169 Q.2:65 158 Q.2:67-82 37, 39 Q.2:67-74 17, 48 Q.2:74 343 Q.2:78 39-40 Q.2:79 30, 38, 39, 127, 144, 148 Q.2:80 40, 69, 163, 200, 204 Q.2:83-84 41 Q.2:84-86 43

Q.2:85 41 Q.2:86 40, 42, 148 Q.2:87-89 43 Q.2:87-88 170 Q.2:87 42 Q.2:88 42, 170, 343, 376, 378 Q.2:89 42-43 Q.2:91-92 43 Q.2:93 156 Q.2:97 27 Q.2:101 27, 33, 35, 44, 47, 127, 144, 358 Q.2:102 148 Q.2:103 44, 224 Q.2:104-109 45-49 Q.2:104 46, 49, 53, 157 Q.2:105 24, 47, 49-50 Q.2:106 47-48, 50-51, 54 Q.2:107 48, 54 Q.2:108 48, 51, 53-54 Q.2:109 24, 47, 49, 52, 54, 68, 81, 160-161, 196, 214 Q.2:111 159, 203 Q.2:112 44 Q.2:113-141 58 Q.2:113 58-59 Q.2:116 37 Q.2:118 291 Q.2:120 59, 219 Q.2:121 44, 59 Q.2:122 17 Q.2:125-127 106 Q.2:126 23 Q.2:129 108, 238 Q.2:135 59, 203

402

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.2:136 60, 218 Q.2:140 251 Q.2:142-152 36, 60-61 Q.2:143 35, 61, 71, 230 Q.2:144 61 Q.2:145 61, 115 Q.2:146 33, 61, 251, 260 Q.2:147 37 Q.2:148 62 Q.2:159-160 62 Q.2:174 33, 40 Q.2:176 62 Q.2:213 58, 68, 70, 228 Q.2:235 27 Q.2:245 143 Q.2:253 108 Q.2:285 155 Q.3 24, 192, 287 Q.3:1-83 63 Q.3:1-81 74 Q.3:1-62 67 Q.3:3 65 Q.3:4 65 Q.3:7 5, 27, 51, 66-68, 322, 324, 348 Q.3:18 68 Q.3:19 53, 68, 98, 133, 325 Q.3:23-24 69 Q.3:24 163, 200, 204 Q.3:33-63 74, 98 Q.3:33 69 Q.3:48-50 69-70 Q.3:48 70 Q.3:50 70, 211, 230 Q.3:51 231 Q.3:52 206 Q.3:55 240 Q.3:59 181 Q.3:61 74, 77, 80, 289 Q.3:64-99 136 Q.3:64-78 116 Q.3:64-75 63 Q.3:64-71 152 Q.3:64-65 24, 101

Q.3:64 63-64, 71-74, 84, 86, 94, 97-98, 100-101, 110, 130, 141, 188, 233, 265, 280, 289, 326 Q.3:65-68 97-102, 103, 112, 209, 306 Q.3:65 64, 97-98, 102, 130 Q.3:66-68 100 Q.3:67 101, 108, 130 Q.3:68 102, 109, 130 Q.3:69-72 24, 98, 112-118, 130131, 143, 155 Q.3:69 113-114, 116, 131132, 152-153, 161 Q.3:70-71 114-115 Q.3:70 116-117, 222 Q.3:71-75 143 Q.3:71 127, 251 Q.3:72-76 153 Q.3:72 113, 115-116, 131, 219 Q.3:73 113, 117, 122 Q.3:75-79 123 Q.3:75-76 124-125 Q.3:75 24, 98, 123-125, 130, 320 Q.3:76-77 127 Q.3:77 27, 127 Q.3:78 30, 127, 131 Q.3:79 128-129 Q.3:81 129, 238 Q.3:84 129-130, 145 Q.3:85 130, 139 Q.3:93 130, 230 Q.3:95 130 Q.3:97 130 Q.3:98-104 130, 134 Q.3:98-99 24, 63, 98, 130-132 Q.3:98 132 Q.3:99-105 132 Q.3:99 64, 114, 131-132, 161 Q.3:100 131-132 Q.3:101 131 Q.3:102 131



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Q.3:103 131, 133 Q.3:104 64, 131, 136, 140 Q.3:105 132-133, 365 Q.3:110-117 136 Q.3:110-115 135-140, 290 Q.3:110-113 63 Q.3:110 24, 98, 137-140, 287 Q.3:112 136-137 Q.3:113-115 137, 145 Q.3:113 24, 98, 137, 139-140, 142, 144 Q.3:114-115 140 Q.3:118-179 142 Q.3:118 143 Q.3:119 143 Q.3:177 148 Q.3:179 51 Q.3:180-200 143 Q.3:181 143, 222, 265, 376378 Q.3:184 143, 253, 315 Q.3:187 144, 148, 251 Q.3:199-200 144 Q.3:199 24, 34, 63, 98, 144146, 149, 237, 290, 380 Q.3:200 145, 149 Q.4 237, 286, 343 Q.4:1-43 152-153 Q.4:44-126 152 Q.4:44-58 153-154 Q.4:44 154, 159 Q.4:46 46-47, 156-157, 196, 378 Q.4:47 157-158 Q.4:48 158 Q.4:49 159, 163 Q.4:50 159 Q.4:51 159-160, 221 Q.4:52 159 Q.4:54 160, 350 Q.4:55 160 Q.4:58 24 Q.4:60 159-160 Q.4:71-104 153

403

Q.4:76 160 Q.4:113 350 Q.4:116-126 154 Q.4:121-122 154 Q.4:122-125 162 Q.4:123-126 154, 161 Q.4:123 24, 154, 161-162 Q.4:124 163-164 Q.4:125 162-164, 377 Q.4:127-176 152 Q.4:127-135 153 Q.4:127 154, 167 Q.4:131 167 Q.4:136 155, 167 Q.4:152 168 Q.4:153-162 153-154 Q.4:153-159 168-175, 176, 178 Q.4:153 24, 48, 51, 154, 156, 171, 173-174 Q.4:154 171 Q.4:155 42, 169, 172, 177, 195, 202, 208, 287, 343, 376 Q.4:156 170-173 Q.4:157 151, 169-173, 177, 179 Q.4:158 173, 240 Q.4:159 24, 154, 171, 173175 Q.4:160 230 Q.4:163 177, 180, 253, 275, 315 Q.4:164-165 180 Q.4:164 297 Q.4:171-173 153 Q.4:171 24, 67, 151, 154, 169, 179-183, 231, 233, 355 Q.4:172 190 Q.4:176 153-154 Q.5 193, 263, 286-287 Q.5:1-71 227 Q.5:1-11 193-195 Q.5:1-9 192 Q.5:3 194, 241 Q.5:5 194-195, 216, 227

404

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.5:11-19 192 Q.5:12-26 193, 195 Q.5:12-14 204 Q.5:12 209 Q.5:13-19 207 Q.5:13 170, 195-196, 202, 208, 224, 343 Q.5:14 196-197, 199, 208 Q.5:15-19 197-204 Q.5:15 24, 192, 198-199, 251 Q.5:16 209 Q.5:17 198-200, 203, 378 Q.5:18 159, 163, 198-201, 203, 206, 208, 234, 376, 378 Q.5:19 24, 192, 198, 200201 Q.5:20-26 192, 209 Q.5:23 227 Q.5:27-40 193 Q.5:27-32 192 Q.5:27 79 Q.5:32 79 Q.5:33-40 192 Q.5:41-50 192-193, 209 Q.5:41-47 210, 213, 224 Q.5:41-43 210 Q.5:41 196, 210, 224 Q.5:43-44 211 Q.5:44-48 209 Q.5:44-47 210 Q.5:44 27, 129, 144, 148, 155, 210-212 Q.5:45 211, 224 Q.5:46 211 Q.5:47 24, 211-212 Q.5:48-50 210 Q.5:48 23, 57, 107, 121, 124, 191, 212-215, 227, 269, 380 Q.5:49 215 Q.5:51-71 193, 217 Q.5:51-58 192, 217 Q.5:51 100, 216 Q.5:57 217

Q.5:59-68 192 Q.5:59-64 217 Q.5:59 24, 192, 217-219 Q.5:60-64 221 Q.5:60 13-14, 160, 218, 221 Q.5:62-63 222 Q.5:63 129 Q.5:64 117, 143, 222-223, 376 Q.5:65-71 217, 222-227 Q.5:65 24, 192, 217, 223224 Q.5:66 223-225, 227, 229 Q.5:67 223, 225-226 Q.5:68 24, 192, 217, 223, 226, 228-229, 267 Q.5:69-85 192, 233 Q.5:69 22, 139-140, 145, 163, 223-224, 226-227 Q.5:72-120 230 Q.5:72-86 193 Q.5:72-77 230, 236 Q.5:72-73 230, 234 Q.5:72 240 Q.5:73 181, 183 Q.5:75 231 Q.5:76 233 Q.5:77 14, 24, 192, 230-233 Q.5:78-86 236 Q.5:80 236 Q.5:82 142, 147, 219, 236237, 290, 329, 380 Q.5:83 147, 149, 220, 237, 290 Q.5:87-108 192-193 Q.5:109-120 192-193, 238 Q.5:109-111 239 Q.5:109 238, 240 Q.5:110-111 238 Q.5:110 238, 350, 353 Q.5:111 239 Q.5:112-115 239 Q.5:112-113 238 Q.5:112 191, 239 Q.5:113 239 Q.5:114-115 238

Q.5:114 Q.5:116-119 Q.5:116-117 Q.5:116 Q.5:117

INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

194, 238, 174, 232, 231,

238, 291 258 231, 234 240 234

Q.6-7 244 Q.6:7 259 Q.6:8 270 Q.6:19 260 Q.6:20 259-260 Q.6:25-26 284 Q.6:38 248 Q.6:54 19, 248 Q.6:59 26, 248 Q.6:74 251 Q.6:84-86 251 Q.6:89 251 Q.6:91 251 Q.6:92 251-252 Q.6:154-157 252 Q.7:1-2 245 Q.7:37 27, 249 Q.7:63 253-254 Q.7:68 254 Q.7:69 253-254 Q.7:83 355 Q.7:96 224 Q.7:103-141 260 Q.7:106-107 291 Q.7:142-158 260 Q.7:143 297, 343 Q.7:145 254 Q.7:148-153 169 Q.7:148 261 Q.7:154 254 Q.7:156-157 261 Q.7:157 115, 290 Q.7:159 225, 262 Q.7:161 169 Q.7:162 261 Q.7:163-166 158, 239 Q.7:163 171 Q.7:169-170 261-262 Q.7:180 3

405

Q.8-9 244 Q.8:31 253, 257 Q.8:35 80 Q.8:68 27, 249 Q.9 263 Q.9:5 196, 263, 287 Q.9:9 266 Q.9:29-34 263-266 Q.9:29 57, 287-288 Q.9:30-31 233 Q.9:30 266, 363 Q.9:31 76, 265-266 Q.9:34 142, 265-266 Q.9:72 240 Q.9:114 164-165 Q.9:120 24 Q.10-23 244 Q.10-15 245-246, 268, 276, 322 Q.10:1 245, 246 Q.10:15 254, 267 Q.10:19 325 Q.10:20 291 Q.10:39-42 267 Q.10:61 254, 267 Q.10:71-73 267 Q.10:74-93 267 Q.10:76 353 Q.10:93 267 Q.10:94-97 259, 267 Q.10:94 26, 243, 266 Q.10:199 109 Q.11:1 245 Q.11:6 249 Q.11:12 270 Q.11:17 253 Q.11:32 284 Q.11:42-47 355 Q.11:42-43 166 Q.11:73 24 Q.11:76 284 Q.11:81 355 Q.11:92 358 Q.11:110 253

406

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.11:118 109 Q.12:1 245-246 Q.12:58-93 250 Q.13 268 Q.13:1 245 Q.13:7 291 Q.13:28 268 Q.13:31 109, 268 Q.13:36 268 Q.13:37 269 Q.13:38 27, 269 Q.13:39 19, 27, 269, 324 Q.14:1 245 Q.15 6, 246, 322 Q.15:1 245, 246 Q.15:4 254 Q.15:6 254 Q.15:9 254 Q.15:60 355 Q.15:87 5, 255, 322 Q.16 269, 274 Q.16:2 51 Q.16:24 253 Q.16:36 160 Q.16:43 24, 26, 271, 274 Q.16:44 253, 270-271, 274, 315 Q.16:64 271 Q.16:93 109, 214 Q.16:95-96 40, 144 Q.16:98 5 Q.16:123 108 Q.16:125 285, 289, 292 Q.16:126 285 Q.17:13-14 250 Q.17:41 255 Q.17:45 255 Q.17:46 255 Q.17:55 253, 275, 315 Q.17:58 249 Q.17:59 291

Q.17:71 249-250, 358 Q.17:90-93 291 Q.17:90 256 Q.17:92 256 Q.17:93 26, 256 Q.17:101 171 Q.17:106-107 255 Q.17:109 148 Q.17:110 3 Q.18:27 256 Q.18:49 251 Q.18:71 24 Q.19:1 245 Q.19:2 25, 272-273 Q.19:11 257 Q.19:12 273 Q.19:16 272 Q.19:30 273 Q.19:36 206, 231 Q.19:41 272 Q.19:51 25, 272-273 Q.19:54 272 Q.19:56 272 Q.19:58 13 Q.20:1-4 245 Q.20:8 3 Q.20:114 351 Q.20:133 291, 350, 352 Q.21:2 273, 275 Q.21:3 273 Q.21:5 257, 273 Q.21:6 274 Q.21:7-10 274 Q.21:7 24, 26, 275 Q.21:10 275 Q.21:63 80 Q.21:87-88 177 Q.21:104-106 275 Q.21:104 26 Q.21:105 315 Q.22:3

284, 296



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Q.22:8 284, 296 Q.22:17 22 Q.22:49 291 Q.22:70 249 Q.23:1-2 148 Q.23:49 253 Q.23:53 253 Q.23:62 249 Q.23:71 258 Q.23:96 315 Q.24 244 Q.25:1 257 Q.25:4 257 Q.25:5 257-258, 286 Q.25:7-8 257 Q.25:7 270 Q.25:18 258 Q.25:28-29 259 Q.25:32 258 Q.25:35 253 Q.25:64 142 Q.26:1-2 245 Q,26:5 258 Q.26:196 252, 315 Q.26:197 253 Q.27:1 245 Q.27:13 353 Q.27:22-44 177 Q.27:28 26 Q.27:57 355 Q.27:73-75 249 Q.28:1-2 245 Q.28:12 24 Q.28:43 276 Q.28:46 276 Q.28:49 276 Q.28:52-54 332 Q.28:52-53 277, 287 Q.28:86 276 Q.28:88 345

407

Q.29 279, 281 Q.29:11 281 Q.29:27 282 Q.29:32 355 Q.29:45-51 282-291 Q.29:45 282-283 Q.29:46 24, 32, 34, 82, 279280, 282-291, 292-293 Q.29:47 283, 285, 288, 290 Q.29:48-49 289 Q.29:48 286, 288, 290 Q.29:49 286, 288, 291 Q.29:50-51 288-289 Q.29:50 286, 294 Q.30:2-4 295 Q.30:2-3 295 Q.31:1-2 245 Q.31:20 296 Q.32:1-2 245 Q.32:23 297 Q.33 279, 300, 342 Q.33:6 313 Q.33:21-27 302 Q.33:25-27 301-304, 329 Q.33:25 302 Q.33:26 24, 298, 302-303 Q.33:27 308 Q.34-56 311 Q.34-46 246 Q.34:3 312 Q.34:6 314 Q.34:43 318, 353 Q.34:44 319 Q.35:11 312 Q.35:23 291 Q.35:24 319 Q.35:25 253, 319 Q.35:29 320-321 Q.35:31 320-321 Q.35:32 320-321

408

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.35:40 316 Q.36:1-2 245 Q.36:11 316 Q.36:12 313 Q.36:69-70 316 Q.37:121-122 314 Q.37:139-148 177 Q.37:157 316 Q.37:168 316, 360 Q.37:171 317, 325 Q.38:1-2 317 Q.38:1 245 Q.38:4 317 Q.38:6-7 317 Q.38:8 318 Q.38:64 24 Q.38:70 291 Q.39:1 321 Q.39:2 321 Q.39:17 160 Q.39:23 322 Q.39:69 312 Q.40-46 246-247, 315, 321 Q.40:1-2 245-246 Q.40:2 321 Q,40:4 284 Q.40:15 51 Q.40:53-54 314 Q.40:70 314 Q.41:1-2 245, 323 Q.41:3 323 Q.41:41 324 Q.41:43 324 Q.41:44 324 Q.41:45 324 Q.42:1-3 245 Q.42:7 323 Q.42:8 109 Q.42:13 325

Q.42:14 325 Q.42:15 325-326 Q.43:1-3 245 Q.43:2-4 323 Q.43:4 27, 324 Q.43:21 315 Q.43:31 318 Q.43:64 231 Q.44:1-3 245 Q.45:1-2 245 Q.45:2 321 Q.45:6 318 Q.45:16 314 Q.45:24-25 318 Q.45:28-29 312 Q.46:1-2 245 Q.46:2 321 Q.46:4-5 315-316 Q.46:7-8 318 Q.46:7 318 Q.46:9 291 Q.46:10 315 Q.46:12 155, 315 Q.48:29

326-327, 331

Q.50:1 245 Q.52:2-3 313 Q.53:2-4 319 Q.53:36-37 315, 350, 352 Q.54:43 315 Q.54:52 315 Q.56:26-27 345 Q.56:78 324 Q.57-66 353 Q.57 279 Q.57:7 327



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Q.57:16 327-328 Q.57:20 328 Q.57:22 328 Q.57:25-29 328 Q.57:25 335 Q.57:27 142, 225, 329-332 Q.57:28 330-332, 334, 337 Q.57:29 24, 265, 311, 327, 330-332, 335, 373, 376 Q.58:1 284 Q.59 279, 311, 361 Q.59:1-11 339 Q.59:2 24, 338-342 Q.59:3 339 Q.59:4 339 Q.59:5 339-340 Q.59:6-9 339 Q.59:11 24, 338-342 Q.59:12 342 Q.59:13 344 Q.59:21 343 Q.59:24 3 Q.60-97 347 Q.61 353 Q.61:6 353 Q.61:14 354 Q.62:2 349 Q.62:4 331 Q.62:5 350 Q.62:6 350 Q.62:9-10 271, 350-351 Q.63:9 351

Q.68 347 Q.68:11-16 352 Q.68:15 352 Q.68:37-38 352 Q.68:48-50 177 Q.69:18-23 348 Q.69:19-20 250, 358 Q.69:25-29 348 Q.69:25-27 250 Q.69:25 357 Q.74:30 349 Q.74:31 349 Q.74:49-52 352 Q.74:52 48 Q.74:54-55 352 Q.75:16-19 351 Q.76:29 352 Q.76:31 50 Q.78-114 356 Q.78:27-28 357 Q.78:29 357 Q.79:45 291 Q.80:1-5 352-353 Q.80:11-16 353 Q.80:13 352 Q.81:1-14 356-357 Q.81:10 352 Q.81:14 251 Q.82:10-12 357

Q.66 355 Q.66:10 166, 355 Q.66:11 355 Q.66:12 355, 377

Q.83-84 357 Q.83:7 358 Q.83:9 358 Q.83:13 358 Q.83:18 358

Q.67:26 291

Q.84:7-12 250

409

410

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Q.84:7 358 Q.84:10 358

Q.98:1

Q.85:17-22 348 Q.85:21-22 19, 27, 348 Q.85:22 324 Q.87:18-19

350, 352, 357

Q.89:23 358 Q.95:2 313

24, 347, 349, 361366, 369 Q.98:2-3 352 Q.98:2 359-360 Q.98:3 155, 361 Q.98:4 361-363, 365-366 Q.98:6-8 360 Q.98:6 24, 361, 364-365, 369, 371 Q.98:7 361 Q.98:8 365, 372 Q.112 360 Q.112:1 73-74 Q.112:3 73-74

Q.96:1-5 351 Q.96:4 347 Q.98 279, 366-367 Q.98:1-6 265, 358-366 Q.98:1-5 360 Q.98:1-3 366

Q.113 7 Q.114

7

ISLAMIC SOURCES ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Critique of Christian Origins, 179 al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, 90, 290 Common Word Document, 84 Abū Ḥāmid b. Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn, 149 ḥadīth, 52-54, 90, 114, 133, 239, 333-334, 337, 368; Jibrīl, 239 Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalani, Fatḥ al-Bāri, 290, 333 Ibn Isḥāq, Sīrat al-Nabī, 90, 303, 340-341 Iṣlāḥī, Amīn Aḥsan, Tadabbur-i Qur’ān, 152

Mawdūdī, Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, 41, 91 Open Letter to Pope Benedict XVI, 378 Sayyid Quṭb, Fī Ẓilāl al-Qur’ān, 41, 63, 128, 138, 147, 174, 201-202, 216, 219, 224, 226, 232 al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, Al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr: Mafātiḥ al-ghayb, 102, 363-365, 369-370 Study Quran, xiv, 2, 39, 41, 50-54, 57, 61, 67, 102, 115, 124, 128, 130, 138-140, 147, 158-161, 163-165, 167, 174-175, 182-183, 196, 203, 206, 212-213, 216, 219, 224, 226227, 233, 237, 260, 264, 267, 269270, 274-275, 277, 288, 290, 325, 334-335, 342-343, 359, 365-366



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ‘ulūm al-qur’ān, 5, 65 al-Ṭabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-qur’ān, 4, 41, 132, 362-363 al-Ṭabarī, Tarīkh al-rusul wa’l mulūk, 90 Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Tafsīr al-Mīzān, xiv, 45, 70, 102, 114, 116-117, 202, 219, 222, 233 Tafsīr ibn Kathīr, xiv, 14, 115-116, 129, 146-147, 201, 225-226, 260, 270, 277, 289, 303-304, 332, 335, 337, 341-342, 365-366, 368 Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, xiv, 50, 52, 114, 124, 132, 163, 181, 196, 232, 239, 289-291, 303, 308, 332, 341

Tafsīr Mujāhid, xiv, 115, 137, 171, 223-224, 232, 286-287, 302, 330331 Tafsīr Muqātil, xiv, 9, 13, 49-52, 57, 73-74, 100-101, 114, 124, 132, 138, 162-163, 171, 181, 199201, 218, 224-226, 232, 287289, 302-303, 330-332, 340-341, 360-361 Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr ibn ‘Abbās, 50, 132, 163, 172-173, 181, 199-200, 225, 289, 291, 303, 332, 341, 361-362 al-Wāḥidī, Asbāb al-Nuzūl, xiv, 74-75, 80, 101, 115, 143, 146, 159-160, 162-163, 210, 218, 222, 224, 295-296 al-Zamakhsharī, 363

CHRISTIAN SOURCES Bible: Old Testament Genesis 4:2-5 78 15 166 18 109 19:26 355 21:10 104 22:2 207 25:23 78 43-44 250 Exodus 239 3:14 109 4:22-23 203-204 17:6 256 17:7 343 19:4-5 204

411

19:16-20 169 19:21 169 32 169 33:19 56 34:29 256 Leviticus 19:17-18 91 Deuteronomy 241 5:24 156 6:4-5 91 6:8 327 8:3 317 10:16 170 11:18 327 20:19-20 341 30:6 170

412

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

I Samuel 16:11 318 I Kings 10:1-10 177 14:9 45 16:31-33 79 17:9 221 18:18 79 18:22-24 79 18:27 79 18:28 80 18:38 80 II Kings 5:10 221 I Chronicles 28:5-7 205 28:6 203 II Chronicles 20:7 164 Nehemiah 9:26 45 Psalms 142 1 6 2:6 205 2:7 203, 205 37:11 308 37:29 275 50:17 45 78 239 89:3 205 89:4 205 89:27-28 205 89:40 205 91:4 175 95:8 343 110:1 205 110:2 205 115:4-8 315 118:26 176 135:15-18 315 139:21-22 166 Proverbs 296

Ecclesiasticus 296 Isaiah 6:3 176 9:1 209 29:14 178 41:8 164 42:1 207 49:15 175 54:1 (LXX) 104 55:11 317 59:20-21 118 61:1-2 221 66:9 188 66:13 176 Jeremiah 4:4 170 7:24 343 9:26 170 10:3-5 315 31:9 204 Lamentations 176 Ezekiel 23:35 45 44:7-9 170 Hosea 2:25 56 Jonah 2:1 177 3 177 Malachi 1:3 78 Bible: New Testament Matthew 3:17 206 4:4 317 5:5 276, 308 5:9 203 5:17 70-71



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

5:18 71 5:39 166 5:43-48 166 6:9-13 2, 16 6:19-21 344 6:25-34 149-150 6:33 345 10:28 344 12:18-21 207 12:31-32 159 12:38-42 176 13 327 13:54-58 221 16:4 176 17:5 207 18:23-25 126 19:21 150 20:1-16 336 21:9 176 22:34-40 91 23:37-39 175 25:1-13 150 25:14-30 125, 337 25:28 337 25:31-40 140-141 25:33 250 25:40 241 25:41 141 25:45 141 27:62-64 177 28:16-20 292 28:19 7 Mark 3:28-29 159 4 327 4:26-32 327 6:1-6 220 8:11-12 176 8:12 48 9:40 292 12:29-31 84 Luke 1:38 356 1:48 318 1:54-55 108

413

1:68-79 209 2:14 10 2:46-50 165 2:51 356 4:18-19 221 4:26-27 221 6:2 71 8 327 8:19-21 165 11:2-4 16 11:29-32 176 15:11-32 56 15:31 57 16:19-31 294 16:22 294 16:29 295 16:31 295 19:11-27 125, 337 19:24 327 20:36 203 22:19 271 22:25-26 265 23:43 241 John 1:1 93, 182, 373 1:12-13 314-315 1:46 318 3:16 94, 169 6 194 6:26-34 239 8 209 8:31-59 207-208 8:58 109 11:52 203 17 134, 369 17:1-5 134 17:6-19 135 17:6 368 17:9-11 368 17:20-26 135, 368 20:13 235 20:16 235 20:17 203, 206, 231, 234235, 240 20:19 305

414

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Acts of the Apostles 4:13 235 4:29 235 4:31 235 7:51-53 178 7:51 170 9:2 148 15 367 15:1 229 15:28-29 229 Letter to the Romans 335 1:18-21 157 1:20 371 2:28-29 170 4 60 4:1 103 4:20 103 4:25 169 5 367 5:12-20 58 5:17-20 228 5:20 69, 325, 367 8:14-17 235 8:17 236 9-11 54, 56, 118, 121 9:6-7 56 9:8 78, 108 9:11 56 9:13 78 9:15 56 9:25 56 11 355 11:7 56

11:11 55 11:20 57 11:25-26 118 11:25 56 11:28-29 119, 377 I Corinthians 1:18-25 178 12:23-25 271 Galatians 3 60 3:7 103 4:21-31 104, 306 4:28 108 Ephesians 6:19 235 Philippians 2:5-8 190 Hebrews 3:7-8 343 13:2 165 James 103 2:23 164 I Peter 3:13-17 293-294 I John 4:15-19 235-236



INDEX A: ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN SOURCES

415

CHRISTIAN TRADITION Augustine, Sermones de Scripturis, 56-57

John Paul II, Pope, Ut Unum Sint, 133-134, 369

Barth, Karl, Kirchliche Dogmatik, 121122 Barth, Karl, Römerbrief, 119-121, 335

Nicene Creed, 74, 207

Benedict of Nursia, Rule, 142, 343344 Benedict XVI, Pope, Regensburg Address, 378 Bonaventure, Legenda Maior, 83 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 271 Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable, 377, 380 Easter Antiphon, 241 Exultet hymn, 241 First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, 371 Francis, Pope, Amoris Laetitia, 88 Francis of Assisi, Regula non bullata, 82 Jacques de Vitry, Historia Occidentalis, 81 John of Damascus, Pēgē Gnōseōs 105106, 184-185

Nicholas of Cusa, Cribratio Alkorani, 88, 107-109, 183, 185-187, 215 Nicholas of Cusa, De Pace Fidei, 87, 94, 106-107, 187-188 Rahner, Karl, Einzigkeit und Dreifaltigkeit Gottes, 189 Rahner, Karl, Zur Hermeneutik eschatologischer Aussagen, 372 Schillebeeckx, Edward, Mensen als verhaal van God, 372 Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 2, 11, 85, 110-112, 141 Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, 11, 54, 86, 92, 110, 119, 292, 355-356, 377 Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, 133 Secretariat for non-Christians, The Attitude of the Church towards Followers of Other Religions, 82 Thomas Aquinas, De Rationibus Fidei, 87 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 206, 234, 236, 370, 377-378 Thomas Aquinas, super Evangelium Ioannis lectura, 134, 206

INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS Aaron, 251, 253, 314 ‘abada (to serve, worship), 8, 235 abadan (forever), 365, 372 Abboud, Hosn, 98, 206, 272, 355 ‘Abd al-Jabbār, 179 Abdallah ibn Mas’ūd, 138 Abdallah ibn Salām, 124, 138-139, 147, 172, 225, 262, 277, 287-288, 290, 332, 341, 361 Abdallah ibn ‘Umar, 133, 333 Abdel Haleem, M.A.S., xvii, 12, 14, 25, 46-47, 66, 122, 142, 158, 160, 282 Abraham, 59, 64, 80, 97-100, 103, 105, 111, 130-131, 162, 179, 238, 241, 251, 272, 282, 284, 294, 325, 328-329; ancestor, 103, 111112; children of, 103-104, 166, 207-209; covenant with, 377; dispute about, 209; faith of, 102103, 109-110, 164, 377; family of, 70, 164, 184, 306; friend of God, 100, 162-164; house of, 98, 160; monotheism of, 59, 99, 251, 360, 362; party of, 101-102; prophethood of, 107; religion(s) of, xii, 21-22, 59, 65, 95, 97, 103, 109110, 136, 280, 355, 379; scrolls of, 320, 350, 352, 357; Testament of, 357 Abrahamic: framework, 105-106; relationships, 379 abrogation, 47-48, 50-51, 263, 287288 Abu Bakr, 143, 361 Abū l-Ḥaqīq, 100 Abū Ḥāritha, 240 Abū Ḥudhayfa, 138 Abu Hurayra, 223

Abū Mūsa, 333 Abu-Nimer, Mohammed, 82, 280 Abū Rumaysah, 5 Abū Sufyān, 160, 302-303 Abū Yāsir, 100, 341 Abyssinia, 147, 237, 277, 330-331; see also Negus Accad, Martin, 206, 231 acceptance, xiii; non-acceptance of Muhammad, 371 accountability, 62, 68, 129, 312, 344, 357, 371 acting righteously, 140, 223 Adam, 58, 70, 78, 181, 201-202, 228; sin of, 377 admonition, 352 adoption, God’s children by, 235-236 adultery, 210, 224 adversaries, 273, 282, 318, 352; see also opponents aestimatio (Latin: esteem), 292 Afsaruddin, Asma, 2, 31, 36, 137138, 140, 279-280, 287-288 aḥādith (plural of ḥadīth), 173, 290, 303 aḥbār (rabbis, bishops), 129, 210, 265; juridical scholars, 299 ‘ahd (promise, contract), 38, 41, 137 ahl (people), xv, 23-25, 248; al-dhikr (of remembrance, reminder), 24-25, 243-244, 252, 270, 275; al-dhimma (of treaty), 57; al-īmān (of faith), 132; al-injīl (of the Gospel), 24, 211, 331 ahl al-kitāb (people of Scripture), xiv, 17, 21-28, 31, 84, 116-117, 122, 132, 174, 212, 243, 259, 274, 281, 304, 359, 375; ambiguity of, 32; contrast with ummiyyūn (illit-

418

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

erates), 38, 40, 349; diachronic reading, 33 Aḥmad, 353-354; Imām, 333 Ahmadiyya Muslims, 379 aḥsan (best, better), 284-285, 293, 322 aḥsana (act righteously), 161 aḥzāb (plural of ḥizb, party), 269, 298, 302 a‘jamī (foreign, barbaric), 324 ajl (time period), 269 ajr (reward), 145 akedat Jitzhak (Hebrew: binding of Isaac), 207 ākhira (hereafter), 40, 148, 154, 328, 344 Akrami, Seyed Amir, 114, 117 Akyol, Mustafa, 173 Al-Alwani, Taha Jabir, 114 Albayrak, Ismail, 24, 30, 33, 255, 280 Ali, Imam, 13, 75, 313 Ali, Ahmed, xvii Ali, Yusuf, 12, 44 ‘alīm (expert, scholar), 253 alladhīna ūtū l-kitāba (those to whom Scripture has been given), 263, 285 Allah, 3 ‘allama (to teach), 350 allegory, 104, 177, 184, 306 alliance, 233, 296, 302, 305 almsgiving, 360 al-Qaeda, 216 Alsulaimi, Nadeen, 194, 244 alwāḥ (plural of lawḥ, tablet), 254 al-yawma (today), 194, 241 āmana (to believe, trust), 123, 145; āminūn (believers), 113 ambiguity, 32, 54, 67, 132, 187, 248, 260 ‘Ammār b. Yāsir, 114, 132 amr (command), 49, 52, 57 ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ, 101 ‘amūd (pillar, central theme), 152-153 analogy, 134-135, 221; analogical approach, 121

analysis, diachronic / synchronic, 34; rhetorical / structural, 37 anamnèsis (Greek: remembrance), 270-271 angel(s), 254, 257, 269, 274, 302, 304, 318, 347; guardians, 357 anger, God’s, 12, 14 Anglicanism, 122 anṣār (helpers), 50, 298, 302-303, 339, 354 antagonism, 285 anthropological openness, 190 anthropomorphism, 202 Antichrist, forerunner of, 105, 184 anti-Judaism, 207, 220, 305 antiphone, 294 anzala (to send down), 283; see also nazala apocalyptic, 275, 348, 356 apologetics, 178, 293-294, 306 apostasy, 113, 115, 160 appropriation (Trinity), 231 al-‘Āqib, 75 ‘aql (understanding), 98 Arabic: Peninsula, 304; Scripture, 269, 315, 324 Arabs, 187-188; Arab tribes, 252, 299, 334, 360, 367 ‘Arafat, Mount, 194, 241 arbāb (plural of rabb, Lord), 72, 88, 265 Arberry, A.J., xvii, 46 arḍ (land; earth), 302, 308 argue, 97-99, 273, 284 Arianism, 185 arrogance, 226, 237, 344 Asad, Muhammad, xvii , 2, 12, 21, 22, 44, 68, 70, 116, 149, 160-161, 197, 215, 253, 257-258, 269, 281-282, 296, 316-317, 325, 354 asāṭīru al-awwalīna (fables of the ancients), 257 asbāb al-nuzūl (occasions of revelations), xiv, 4, 63, 74, 97 asceticism, 142, 230 ashraka (to associate), 65, 359



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

aslama (to submit), 65, 74, 149 asmā’ al-ḥusna (beautiful names of God), 3 Assisi, 83 associators, 13, 50, 87, 158, 184-185, 187, 263, 302 assurance, 274, 276, 281, 319 astray, 12, 14, 131, 154-155 asymmetry between final ends, 372 Aufhebung (German: abolition, sublimation), 121-122 Augustine, Saint, 56-57, 308 authority, excessive religious, 265; God and Muhammad, 327; of Muhammad, 217-221; of all prophets, 218 awlīyā’ (plural of walī, ally, friend), 216, 350 awwalūn (ancients), 253, 316 Aws; see banū Aws āya (sign; verse), 48, 51, 66, 241, 322; āyāt (signs), 114, 131, 246-248, 259, 261, 323; muḥkamāt (decisive signs), 66-67, 322; mutashābihāt (ambiguous signs), 66-67, 322 Ayoub, Mahmoud, xvii, 44, 102, 116 Azaiez, Mehdi, 28, 265, 273, 375, 377 Baal, 80; prophets of, 79 backs, behind their, 44, 358 badaliyya (prayer sodality), 111 Badawi, Elsaid M., 24 Badawi, Nesrine, 31 Badr, battle of, 65, 296, 299-301 Baha’is, 379 Baḥīrā, 186, 225, 277, 366; see also Sergius banishment, 342 banū ‘Awf, 341 banū Aws, 132, 299, 304, 341 banū Isrā’īl (Children of Israel), 17, 35, 38, 41, 138, 195, 201, 236; Scripture given to, 314 banū Khazraj, 299, 340 banū Naḍir, 52, 298-300, 302-304, 340-343

419

banū Qaynuqā’, 298-300, 340 banū Qurayẓa, 52, 298-305, 340-343 baptism, 7, 82, 206, 292-293 Barrett, C.K., 104 Barry, Patrick, O.S.B., 344 Barth, Karl, xv, 7, 54, 114, 119-122, 189, 335 bashīr (bringer of good news), 198, 319 basmala (abridged: in the Name of God), 3, 5-7 bat kol (Hebrew: heavenly voice), 377 bayyināt (clear signs), 270, 319, 347 beatific vision, 373, 380 Beatitudes, Church of the, 308 Becker, Karl J., S.J., 371 Behn, Wolfgang H., 281 believers, 145, 223, 239; act together with God, 339; do not differentiate between Scriptures and Prophets, 219-220, 334; include Jews and Christians, 168 (do not include them: 349); mounting tensions with Jewish tribes, 299, 327; do not need signs or miracles, 286; ridiculed by Jews and Christians, 217 Benedict XVI, Pope, 91-92, 95, 378 Benedict of Nursia, Saint, 142, 343344 Benjamin, 250 Bennett, Clinton, 77, 156, 290 Bergsträßer, Gotthelf, 281 Berlin, Adele, xvii Bertaina, David, 206, 238, 240 beth midrash (Hebrew: house of study), 143, 252 betrayal of the covenant, 301, 342 bewitched, 257 Bible, explicit reference in the Qur’ān, 275 Biechler, James, 186 bi idhnī (by my permission), 238; bi idhni llāhi (by God’s permission), 269; bi ismi llāhi (in the name of God), see basmala

420

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Bilqis, 177 blasphemy, 159, 209 Block, C. Jonn, 180, 183-184, 200, 231, 240, 325 Bobzin, Hartmut, 261 Boisliveau, Anne-Sylvie, xvii, 5, 18, 23, 30, 47, 196, 213, 255 boldness of speech, 235-236 Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O.F.M., Saint, 82-83 Bond, H. Lawrence, 106 book, see Scripture Borgman, Erik, 307 bounty, 330-331, 335; see also faḍl Böwering, Gerhard, 245 Bread of Life Discourse, 239 Brettler, Marc Zwi, xvii brother, younger, 78 al-Bukhārī, 90, 290, 333 Burge, Gary, 309 Burnett, Richard, 120 Burrell, David, C.S.C., 20, 90, 149, 334-335, 379 Busse, Heribert, 142 Byrne, Brendan, S.J., 118-119 Byzantium, 90; Byzantine Christianity, 67, 264; Byzantine Empire, 219, 295; Byzantines, 296 Cain, 78-80, 209 Cairo edition (of the Qur’ān), 267, 281 Calder, Norman, xvii, 360 call, 292; see also invitation Calvinism, 122 canonical, authority, 60; order, of the Qur’ān, xv, 34, 71 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 271 Catholic – Muslim Forum, 92, 95 Catholicism, 91, 122 challenge, 332; “challenge verses,” 276 charity, 83 de Chergé, Christian, O.C.S.O., 307 Children of God, 78, 159, 314-315; Jews and Christians claim to be,

199, 203; in New Testament, 235-236 Children of Israel, 17, 39-42, 48, 56, 130, 133, 195, 209, 251, 297; some believed, some not, 354; began to differ, 267; cursed by David and Jesus, 236; favored by God, 267; inherited Scripture, 314; learned of, 253; unfaithfulness of, 343 Chittick, William, 20, 164 chosen people, 125, 207; see also election Christ, 58, 76, 83, 108-110, 117, 120, 184, 250; addresses the Father, 134-135, 368; anointed, 205; crucifixion of, 151, 169, 173, 179; denial of divinity, 238; favored by God, 108; God’s involvement in, 379; did not hold on to power, 309; humanity and divinity in, 134, 173, 234; as mediator, 134; miracles by God’s permission, 238; mission of, 178; model for human behavior, 308; one with the Father, 368; passion of, 207; power and wisdom of God, 178; Son of God, 74, 105, 181, 205-206, 264, 266; will guide to full communion with God, 373 Christian faith, uniqueness of, 93, 293 Christian — Jewish relations, 379; history of, 305; dialogue, 308 Christian — Muslim relations, 15, 89; confrontational / conciliatory approaches, 290; contemporary, 306; history of, 77, 169, 248, 284, 295; dialogue, 71, 86, 88, 189; mutual understanding, 148; reason for despair or hope, 307 Christian resonances, xiii, xiv, 2, 6, 10, 53-57, 72, 77-84, 107, 132135, 140-142, 148-149, 164-167, 175-179, 204-209, 227-230, 239,



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

241, 285, 291-295, 314, 355-356, 375 Christian theologian, task of, 307-308 Christianity, 37, 317; claims to have superseded Judaism, 344; continued validity of, 227; exaggerated religion, 151, 182, 231-232; founded by unfaithful followers of Jesus, 331; Jewish and Gentile groups. 367; professes Christ as God, 266; sects in, 182; soteriological focus, 173, 270; specific element, 166 Christians, 18, 22, 31-32, 98, 139, 193, 223; accept more prophets than Jews, 220; not arrogant, 219; not associators, 187; believe in two Scriptures and prophets, 338; claim that Messiah is God, 363; closest in affection to believers, 219, 236, 329; prone to conversion, 220; Copts in Egypt, 307; divided into many groups, 368; profess divinity of Jesus and Mary, 203, 266; enmity and hatred among, 197, 199; errors of, 76, 151, 216; exaggerate the station of Jesus, 151, 225, 230; no true followers of Jesus, 168, 174, 197; some follow Jesus, some Roman authorities, 332; forget revelation, 196; say that God is Messiah, 199, 231; say that God is third of three, 231; say that God has a son or partner, 286; in the Middle East, 95; from Najrān, 200, 289; Naṣārā, 196; Nestorian, 181; Oriental, 199-200; lack of political power, 237; spiritual people, 220; tritheists, 364 Christians and Jews, think that they can exclude others from God’s favor, 311; think that they have prerogatives with God. 311 Christmas Eve, 205 Christocentrism, 379

421

Christology, 63, 67, 72, 77, 97, 107, 110, 183, 185, 187, 197, 199, 209, 233-234, 240, 268; in the Qur’ān, 180, 185-186 chronology of the Qur’ān, 241, 244, 280; see also Qur’ān Cistercians, 307 claims (and counterclaims), 29, 32, 53, 54, 60, 69, 73-74, 77, 98-100, 102-104, 106-107, 109, 159, 161163, 172, 197, 202, 205, 207-208 clear evidence, 358; Muhammad, 366; Jesus Christ, 367 Clooney, Francis X., S.J., 375 “closest in affection,” 236 commandments, 158, 229; of God, 325 commercial metaphors, 126, 144; see also metaphors, mercantile Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 119, 377 commitment, 380 common ground, xii, 22, 85, 89, 93, 103, 147, 285, 292, 326; hesitation instead of, 289 “Common Word Document,” 71, 77, 84, 88, 91, 378 “common word verse,” 63-64, 71, 75, 84, 90, 110, 141, 280, 285 communicatio idiomatum (Latin: interchangeability of properties), 234 community, 131-132, 152, 207, 214; best, 136, 138, 140; of faithful, 154, 161, 244; middle, 36, 61, 223; moderate, 230; upright, 136, 140 companions of Prophet Muhammad, 138, 223, 269 comparative theology, 242, 375 compassion, 329; compassionate, 326, 331 competition of doing good, 214; see also good completion of religion, 194; see also religion

422

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

conciliatory vs. confrontational approach, 290 confederates, 298, 301 confirmation, of earlier revelations, 39, 43, 70, 129, 158 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 93 Connelly, John, 54, 118 conscience, 294 consolation, 175, 313 Constantinople, fall of, 106, 187 contested reminder / recitation, 253259, 316-319 continuity between revelations, 274275 conversion to Islam, 124, 137-138, 172, 280, 287, 341; of Christians, 193, 220, 237; Christians more than Jews, 237; Jews, 262 Cook, Michael, 106 Cornille, Catherine, 380 corruption, of Scriptures, 196, 290; of matters of faith, 370 counter-cultural value, 309 counter-discourse, qur’ānic, 273 courteousness, 294 Cousins, Ewert, 83 covenant, 41, 57, 124, 160, 166, 190, 194, 204, 222; broken by lack of faith, 379; with Christians, 196; destruction of, 170, 172, 195, 202; enduring validity, 377, 379; hereditary nature of, 166, 377; Jews not faithful, 300, 304-305; with People of Israel, 117, 195, 222, 379 covenantal relationships, 380 “Covenants of the Prophet with the People of the Book,” 279 creation, 311, 335 credibility, 129 crescendo (Italian: going stronger, louder), 241, 243 criterion, 39 Crone, Patricia, 106, 256 cross, as self-denial, 308, 336; symbol, 307; worship of, 74, 76, 178-179

crucifixion of Jesus, 309; affirmation of, 173, 175, 178-179; denial of, 151, 169, 173 crusades, 80; crusaders, 307 culpability, 370-371 curse, of God, 74-75, 80, 170; mutual, 289 Cutsinger, James, 293 Cuypers, Michel, xvii, 6, 16, 37, 192194, 209, 213, 216-217, 227, 230, 241, 348, 356-357 da‘ā (to call, invite), 285 ḍalāl (error), 154 Dall’Oglio, Paolo, S.J., 307, 329 ḍalla (to go astray), 12, 14 Damascus, 295 Damietta, 80-81 Daniel, Norman, 77 darasa (to study), 129, 252, 261; Jewish practice, 319 Dardess, George, 80 Dark Matins, 176 David, 180, 202-203, 205, 224, 236, 251, 253, 275, 318 Davids, Adelbert, 105, 184 da‘wa (invitation), 74, 91, 227, 285, 292-294 Day of Judgment, 163, 173, 177, 238, 240-241, 251, 338, 340, 348, 356, 358, 372 Day of Resurrection, 249 Dayeh, Islam, 247, 315, 321-322, 324 D’Costa, Gavin, 111, 189-190, 309 Dean, Lester, 55, 119 death, 228, 313 debate, 67, 74, 97, 254, 293, 297, 312; see also polemics decree, 254, 311 defense, of one’s own religion, 293 Deir Mar Musa (Syria), 307, 329 Demiri, Lejla, 72 denial, willful, 260 desire, 68, 232-233 despair, 246, 266



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

detached letters, 18, 321, 347; see also al-muqaṭṭa‘āt) deviation, 136, 231, 240, 328 devotion, 142, 237, 321; devout, 355 dhālika (that), xii, 246 dhikr (remembrance, reminder), 25, 38, 247-248, 253-254, 258, 274275, 286, 358; from the ancients, 316; bestows knowledge and clarifies, 269-271; connected to refusal, 316; heavenly, 275; mighty Scripture, 324; new, 275; practice in Medina, 351; recollection of salvation history, 273; in Scripture, 272 dhikru llāhi (remembrance of God), 282, 350-351 dialogue, xi, 11, 16, 54, 71, 77, 88, 91, 227, 238, 240, 258, 294-295, 380; contribution of Qur’ān to, 214; ecumenical, 55; emulating one another, 214; ethical basis of, 92; learning from one another, 214; of religious experience, 142 dietary laws, 131, 194, 221, 300 difference, 22, 33, 37, 58, 62, 68, 91, 209, 267, 362, 367; between Christianity and Islam, 179, 209, 266; providential nature of, 213; religious, 28, 41, 57, 81, 103, 107, 109 diminuendo (Italian: getting softer), 243 dīn (religion), 217, 321, 325; dīn ulhaqq (religion of truth), 264 disagreement, 98, 132, 361 disbelief / disbelievers, 42-43, 46, 50, 53, 113, 116-117, 131, 159, 217, 230, 317, 326; Christians as, 182; Christians and Jews, or Jews of Medina, 366; deny the signs, 288; pagans, heretics, and Jews, 370; from People of Scripture, 358; refuse to accept evidence of revelation, 259; taxonomy of, 369-371 disciples of Jesus, 134-135, 191, 238239, 292-293, 305; God’s helpers, 354; oneness of, 368

423

dispute, 156, 163, 208, 279, 284, 289, 292, 295; about Abraham, 209; associated with mission, 285 dissonances, 295 disunity, 227, 229, 347, 369 division, 69, 358, 360; of Christians, 197; of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, 365; of People of Scripture, 132, 325; scandal of, 368 divorce, 284 docetism, 173 Donner, Fred, xvii, 15, 31, 295, 298, 301, 326 double share of God’s mercy, 328, 337 doubt, xiii, 198, 266, 288, 290, 349 dreams, revelation dismissed as, 273274 Droge, A.J., xvii, 2, 40, 46, 60, 129, 155, 164, 169-170, 255, 258, 272, 275, 352 dunyā (this world), 148, 328, 344 Dupuis, Jacques, S.J., 189, 371 Easter, 194, 241; Second Sunday of, 305; vigil, 242 ebed Adonai (Hebrew: servant of God), 207 ecumenical dialogue, 55, 369 Eden, Garden of, 360 egō eimi (Greek: I am), 209 Egypt, Copts in, 307; exodus from, 204 El Hibri Foundation, 114 election, 54, 56, 69, 138, 199, 355; in Abrahamic religions, 379; of Children of Israel, 314; divine, 204; of People of Scripture, 320-321; theology of, 41, 125 Elijah, 79-80, 221, 251 Elisha, 221, 251 Emery, Gilles, O.P., 189 emulate one another in doing good, 214 Enoch, 348, 358 envy, 49, 53-54, 160

424

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Ephraim, 202 eretz (Hebrew: land; earth), 308; eretz Jisrael, 308 Ernst, Carl, 6, 36, 73, 281 Erol, Mustafa Kasım, 280 err, 232; error, 349 Esack, Farid, 262, 288, 301 Esau, 56, 78 eschatology, 241, 250, 258, 326, 344, 348, 356; debate with pagans in Mecca, 256 eternal happiness, 140; life, 209; see also reward ethical monotheism, 266 Ethiopian Christians, 330-331 ethnikos (Greek: gentile), 124 Eucharist, 241, 270-271, 307 Eucharistic Prayer, 176, 270 Evangelical Christians, 84-85, 91 exaggeration, 233-235 excessiveness, 179-180, 189 exclusivism, 58-60, 117, 122, 130, 159, 161, 229, 350; in Hebrew Bible and New Testament, 379 exegesis, Christological/rabbinical, 380 Exultet hymn, 241-242 Ezra, 101, 203; rewrote the Torah, 233; as son of God, 264 Faber, Frederick, 122-123 fables, of the ancients, 253, 257, 286, 352, 358 faḍala / faḍḍala (to be in excess / to prefer), 138, 331, 335 faḍl (bounty), 330-331, 335 faith: article of, 169; believers confirm faith of Jews and Christians, 287; deterioration in Jews and Christians after time, 330; explicit / implicit, 371; family does not guarantee, 355; in earlier Scriptures, 167; necessary for covenant, 379; newcomers to, 54; proclamation of, 294; reasonable, 378 “Faith and Order” conferences, 368

fajr prayer. 258 Fakhry, Majid, 89 fallacy of misplaced concreteness, 128, 320 faqīr (poor), 287 al-Farāhi, Ḥamīd al-Dīn, 152 Farewell Sermon, 194, 240, 368 Farrin, Raymond, xvii, 7, 18, 36, 38, 44, 60, 64-65, 97-98, 130-131, 152, 244 fasaqa (to deviate), 136, 218, 328 fasting, 300 Father, God as, 94, 202, 234, 317, 368; Son consubstantial with, 233; “Our Father,” 16 fātiḥa (opening), xv, 1, 3-6, 9-11, 14-16, 155; fatḥ (conquest), 327 Fatima, 75 fatra (interval of time), 198 favor, God’s, 12, 78 al-fawz al-aẓīm (supreme triumph), 240 Feuvrier, Alain, S.J., 3 fighting, 287-288; associators / some People of Scripture, 263 figura (Latin: likeness), 369-370 financial misconduct, 329 Finḥas ibn ‘Azura, 52, 143, 171, 222 Firaq tradition, 368 fire, 80, 83 Firestone, Reuven, 23, 31, 41, 43, 53-54, 69, 106, 122, 156, 204, 264, 304, 355, 377, 379 firstborn, 78 forefathers, 318; merits of, 355 forgery, revelation dismissed as 273274 forgiveness, 126, 158, 162, 165, 196 Foucauld, Charles de, 192 Fowl, Stephen E., 118 Fra Angelico, 206 frailty, 282 Francis, Pope, 85, 88 Francis of Assisi, Saint, 77, 80-84 freedom, 92, 104; in Christ, 230; of religion, 105, 306



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

Fu‘ad, King (Egypt), 281 functional parallel, 2, 16, 93; relationship, 205 furqān (criterion, distinction), 39, 66, 257 fuṣṣilat (elaborated), 323-324 Gabriel, xii, 27, 302, 304, 351; see also Jibrīl Gade, Anna, 29 Galilee, 306 garden, 360; see also Paradise gè (Greek: land, earth), 308 Gehenna (Hebrew: hell), 360 Geissinger, Aisha, 365 genealogy, 67, 166 gentiles, 40, 55-56, 100, 119-121, 124, 178, 229, 261, 367 gentleness, 293-294 al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad, 149, 227 Ghazali, Alwani, 38 al-Ghazālī, Shaykh Muḥammad, 268 Ghazi bin Muḥammad, 84 Gilliot, Claude, 2 Gioia, Francesco, 82, 142 Giotto di Bondone, 82-83 Gloria hymn, 10 God, takes account of all things, 313; acts together with believers, 339; arbitrary, 378; arguing about, 284; attributes of, 7; author of Qur’ān, xii; awareness of, 149, 380; beloved of, 159, 199; children of, see children; chooses not the powerful but selected servants, 318, 320; collaborates with believers, 302; communion with, 373; as creator, 2, 54, 85, 188, 199, 312, 335, 364, 378; curse of, 179, 195, 378; dialogue with messengers and Jesus, 238; extends guidance, 221, 378; Face of, 345; familiarity with, 235; family relationship in, 87, 188; fear of, 343; fecundity of, 188; freedom of, 56, 117, 222,

425

336, 376, 378-379; guides, 209, 322; hand(s) of, 113, 117, 122, 222, 311; incarnation of, 86, 265, 377, 379; intimate relationship with, 235; journey to, 326; as judge, 2, 85, 215, 281, 312, 338; kingdom of, 150, 345; knowledge of, 157, 238, 249, 312, 314, 357, 371; love of, 164, 167, 204, 235236; meeting with, 297; mercy of, 50, 56, 167, 261, 365; meeting with, 297, 344; missions of, 190; names of, 3, 76; see also asmā’ al-ḥusna; omnipotence, 378; oneness of, 85-86, 187, 199, 251, 266, 287, 293, 326; “persons” in, 7, 87; power of, 54, 178, 188, 198, 265, 334, 377-378; praise of, 198, 209; has rejected People of Scripture, 157-158; relationship of origin in, 87; reliability, 317; sends revelation, 1, 42, 49, 53, 58, 121, 158, 170, 252, 256, 268, 277, 294, 328; rope of, 131, 136; same? 85; sides in favor of the oppressed, 372; signs of, 113-114, 131-132, 171, 211, 294, 318, 357; son of, 263; special relationship with, 204; as three, 76, 181; Trinitarian notion of, 179, 293; wants eternal blessedness, not separation, 372; will hold humans accountable, 372; will make believers victorious, 326, 354; word of, xii, 87, 138, 148, 182, 190, 269, 295, 314-315, 317, 335, 355, 373, 375; worship of, 360; wrath of, 136 God’s: anger, 12, 14; bounty, 123, 160; command, 49, 52, 57; communications, 116-117, 315-316; contentment, 240; creative word, 181; determining, 312, 326; engagement, 265, 319; favor, 348; firstborn, 205; foreknowledge, 328; gift, 127, 167, 377; glory,

426

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

241; grace, 190, 333, 335; guidance, 373, 379; involvement, 377, 379; permission, 238; pleasure, 328-329; preferential love, 78; promises, 205, 275, 327; providence, 149, 213-214, 249; record, 312; richness, 380; self-limitation by covenant / incarnation, 377; spirit, 355; transcendence, 378; will, 214, 241, 325, 378 (absolute / conditional) God-centeredness, 236 God-consciousness, 137, 239 Goddard, Hugh, 77 good, doing, 223 Good Friday, 176 Gospel, 39, 70, 82, 98-99, 129, 134, 168, 182, 199, 203, 207, 210, 223-224, 238-239, 271, 305, 308, 320, 324, 326-327, 336-337, 369, 372; confirms truth of Torah, 211; criterion for Christians, 212; given to Jesus, 329 Goudarzi, Mohsen, 21, 253 goyim (Hebrew: gentiles), 40, 120, 124 grace, 113, 117, 120-122, 250; vs. “law,” 54, 69, 228, 367 gradual revelation, 258 Graham, William, 5 “great commission,” 292 Greek philosophy, 378 Greeks, 178-179 Green, Garreth, 121 Greenberg, Irving, 125, 379-380 Gregerman, Adam, 309 Griffith, Sidney, 24-25, 30, 93, 99, 111, 128, 197, 231, 252, 275, 278 Grillmeier, Alois, 112 Gude, Mary-Louise, 111 guidance, 2, 11-12, 22, 42, 50, 65-66, 113, 135, 154, 209-210, 228, 251, 262, 276, 296-297, 314, 329, 372 Guillaume, A., 303, 340-341 Gülen, M. Fethullah, 5, 14

habasha (Abyssinians, Ethiopians), 331 ḥabl (rope), 131, 136 hāda (to practice Judaism), 155 hadīd (iron), 329 ḥadīth, 13, 33, 52, 90, 133, 139, 239, 289; aḥsan al-ḥadīth, 322, ḥadīth Jibrīl, 164 haeretici (Latin: heretics), 369 ḥāfiẓ (preserver, guardian), 254, 291; pl. ḥuffāẓ, 376 haftarah (Hebrew: prophet scroll), 221, 271 Hagar, 104-105, 306 Hagarenes, 105-106, 185, 306 Hagemann, Ludwig, 109, 215 Haggadah (Hebrew: book for Pesach seder), 242 ḥajja (to argue, dispute), 98 halakha (Hebrew: way of life), 213, 229, 300 al-ḥamdu lillāh (praise to God), 8 Hamel, Jacques, 307 ḥamida (to praise), 8, 354 hand, left, 250; right, 250, 358 ḥanīf (upright worshipper, seeker), 59, 99, 101-103,162, 360 ḥaqq (truth), 49 harmony, between faith and reason, 378 ḥarrafa (to distort), 155, 196 al-Ḥasan, 75 Ḥasan al-Basri, 13 ḥashr (gathering), 338 hā’ulā’i (these), 285 ḥawāmīm (group of surahs), 246-247, 315, 321, 323 ḥawāriyyūn (disciples), 239, 354 Hawkins, Larycia, 85 Hawn, C. Michael, 122 haymana (to declare authentic), 213 hearts, covering of, 42, 170; hardening of, 56, 118-119, 175, 195, 328, 343, 379 heaven, 372 Hebrew, 323; similarity to Arabic, 156-157



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

Hebrew Bible, 3, 56, 164, 166, 169, 175, 203-204, 266, 270, 317, 379 Heim, S. Mark, 189 hell: destination for unbelievers from People of Scripture and idolaters, 371-372 helpers, 301, 341, 354 Heraclius, 90 hereafter, 344; see also ākhira, afterlife heresy, 105, 184-186 hermeneutics, 89, 242; of dialogic engagement, 280; qur’ānic, 322 hermeneutical privilege, 213 hesitation, 289, 340 hierarchy, 73, 88 Ḥijāz (part of Arabian Peninsula), 304 hijra (migration), xiv, 13, 32, 36, 106, 244, 281, 296, 298, 300 ḥikma (wisdom), 70, 160, 238, 350 al-Hilali, Taqi-ud-Din, 14, 89 ḥisāb (reckoning, account), 145, 349 history of Christian - Muslim relations, 77, 169, 248, 284 “holy envy,” 55, 57, 62, 214, 292 Holy Land, entering 209, 302 Holy Spirit, 76, 158-159, 170, 229, 231, 235 Holzer, Vincent, 189 hope, 294 Hopkins, Jasper, 94, 106, 186-188, 215 Horovitz, Josef, 256 Hosea, 167 hospitality, 74, 147, 164-165 hostility, 217-218, 221, 236; Jews more than Christians, 219 hudā / hudan (guidance), 11, 19, 50, 210, 296-297 Hudaybiyya, pact of, 326 Ḥudhayfa ibn al-Yamān, 52, 114, 132 Hughes, Aaron W., 23 ḥukm (wisdom, judgment), 251 ḥulūl (indwelling), 76 human being, cannot reveal true revelation, 257, 273-274; prophet is, 270

427

human: dignity, 92; free will, 334; life, 92, 312; openness, 379 humiliation, 171, 264, 288 humility, 9, 145, 148-149, 355, 380; characteristic of Christians, 219, 237 Hunsinger, George, 189 al-Ḥusayn, 75 Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab, 303-304, 341 hymn, 122, 198, 241-242 hyperdulia (Greek: special veneration of Mary), 240 hypocrites, 147, 152, 210, 281, 311, 339-340 hypostasis (Greek: being), 234 ‘ibāda (worship), 9 Ibn ‘Abbās, 9, 13, 40, 50, 101, 125, 163, 181, 199, 225, 289-290, 303-304, 332 Ibn ‘Abi Ḥātim, 181 Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, 290 Ibn Ḥazm, 156, 378 Ibn Ḥishām, 303 Ibn Isḥāq, 90, 303, 340-341 Ibn Jurayj, 146 Ibn Kathīr, xiv, 5, 14-15, 71, 76, 90, 114-116, 129, 146, 173-174, 181183, 201, 203-204, 206, 233, 269, 289-291, 303-304, 333, 369 Ibn Mas‘ud, 7 Ibn Taymiyya, 156 Ibn Zayd, 146 Ibrahim, Zamrie, 38 idolaters, 316, 362, 364; defeated by God, 302; unbelief compared to People of Scripture, 369 idolatry, 76, 80, 158, 160, 290; in injīl, 202 idols, questioned by God, 258; silent, 316; worship of, 315 Idris, 272 ignorance, invincible, 371; People of Scripture cannot claim, 372 iḥsān (doing good, making better), 164

428

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

i‘jāz al-qur’ān (inimitability), 277 ikhlāṣ (sincerity), 73, 360 ikhtilāf (difference), 267 ‘ilm (knowledge), 68, 99, 296 iltifāt (shift in discourse), 325 imām (leader; original copy), 313, 315 īmān (belief), 20, 164, 200, 239 ‘Imrān, daughter of, 355; family of, 69-70, 152 incarnation, 76, 86, 148, 179-180, 268, 377 inclusivism, 161, 229 injīl (Gospel), 20, 23, 65, 69-70, 172, 202, 226, 229-230, 326 injustice, 286 inkarnatorische Eigentümlichkeit (German: incarnational singularity), 190 innovation, 329 insight, 276 inspiration, 180, 269, 319 inspire, 256 Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies, 308-309 intellectualism, 378 intention, 5, 7; intentionality, 196 interchange of properties, 234 interfaith dialogue, 80; relations, 279 interlocutors, 278 intermarriage, 227 International Institute of Islamic Thought, 114 International Missionary Council, 368 interpretation, 104-105, 118; allegorical, 177; Christological, 128; dialogue oriented, 147; ethical, 140; exclusivist, 161, 214; inclusivist, 161, 213; literal, 140, 335; pluralist, 213; spiritual, 224, 335; traditions of, 16; Sufi universalist, 365 interreligious: dialogue, 369; discourse, 21; friendship, 216; prerequisites, 380; qur’anic contribution, 214; understanding, 55, 187

intertextuality, 194, 241 intimacy, in the New Testament, 235 intolerance, sectarian, 369 intra-religious relationships. 369 invention, 317-318 invitation, 76-77, 86, 89-91, 227, 289 Ioudaioi (Greek: Jews; Judaeans; Jewish authorities), 306 iron, 329, 335 ‘Īsā (Jesus), 181, 201, 273, ibnu llāhi, 265 Isaac, 56, 105, 108, 111, 166, 207, 251, 282; child of, 361 Isaiah, 167, 221 Ishmael, 105, 108, 111, 166, 207, 251, 272 Ishmaelites, 105, 184-185, 306 ishtarā (to buy, sell), 148, 154 Iṣlāḥī, Amīn Aḥsan, 151-154, 244, 246, 266, 327, 353 islām (alignment with, submission to God), 20, 68, 73, 102, 130, 164 Islam, 50, 60, 130; call to, 285; hardness of heart in, 379; early history of, 279; only religion accepted after Muhammad, 226; revival of faith of Abraham, 111; superseded Judaism and Christianity, 344; victorious nature of, 227 Islamic interpretations, 45, 49-53, 61, 66, 72, 73-77, 89, 127, 132, 146147, 162-164, 171-175, 179, 196, 223-227, 259, 262, 285, 286-291, 360-366, 367, 375 Islamic State, 151, 216 islamism, 151, 216 Israel, 205, 308 iṣṭafā (to select), 320-321 isti‘ādha (seeking refuge with God), 5 ius talionis (Latin: right of retaliation), 211, 224 Izutsu, Toshihiko, 20 Jābir ibn Abdallah, 13 Jacob, 78, 202, 251, 282



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

Jacobite Christians, 182, 199-200, 232 Jacques de Vitry, 80-81, 83 jādala (to dispute), 280, 284-285, 291, 293, 296-297 Ja’far ibn Abī Ṭālib, 101 jahannam (hell), 360 Jalālayn (Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mahalli, Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭi), 15, 181 James, 103, 229 jannāt ‘Adn (Garden of Eden), 360 jealousy, 58, 68 Jeremiah, 176 Jerusalem, 36, 61, 184, 295, 306; Council of, 229, 367; entry into, 176; lament over, 175-176; prayer direction, 300; Temple, 165; Zion as symbol, 205 Jesus, 21, 27, 42, 64, 67, 70, 86, 91, 97, 101-102, 105, 134, 140, 165, 167, 170, 191, 199, 202, 210, 265, 325, 328, 336; not accepted by Jews, 218, 221; announces Aḥmad, 353; brought good news, 354; will come again in the future, 173; confirms Torah, 129, 211, 230, 353; death of, 174; denies divinity of him and Mary, 231, 240; disputes with Jews, 208; entry into Jerusalem, 176; exalted by God, 173; false beliefs about, 192; followers of, 225, 328 (given compassion and mercy), 330; has been given the Gospel, 182, 211, 270, 328; historical situation of, 268; human being, 233, 270, 274; identifies himself with God, 209; as Lord, 88, 101; messenger of God, 182; as prophet, 72, 74, 128, 170, 172174, 179, 211, 232, 251; rejected by Children of Israel, 236; sent after other messengers, 329; sharī‘a of, 147; son of Mary, 272 and passim; table of, 291; true faith of, 234, 240; virgin birth, 200; will witness against Christians, 174,

429

177, 231, 240; Word and Spirit of God, 67, 180, 182, 185 Jesus ben Sirach, 296 Jewish – Christian dialogue, 55, 119, 209 Jewish: groups at origin of Christianity, 367; interpretations, 3; leaders in Mecca, 299; sources, 203; study of Scripture, 252; traditions, xiv, 377; tribes in Medina, 219, 222 (boast of their prosperity), 237 (have political power), 298-299 Jews, 13-14, 17-18, 22, 31-32, 38, 42, 49, 52, 57, 65, 98, 100, 110111, 114, 117, 121, 130, 132, 138-139, 155-157, 169, 171, 178, 187-188, 193, 199, 214, 223, 337; accepted Christian faith in figura, 369-370; anthropomorphists, 364; attacked because of their faith, 307; between true believers and unbelievers, 371; center their religion on study of Torah, 265; changed text of Qur’ān, 186; claim that they are God’s beloved, 332; claim that they are close to God, 350; contemporary, 41, 43, 236; deny Jesus, 174; dispute with Jesus, 208; divided into many groups, 368; find description of Muhammad in their Scripture, 288; historical, 41; inherited Scripture, 261; are to be judged according to Torah, 210-211; know the signs but deny them, 290; of Medina, 33, 43-44, 132, 142-143, 160, 200; misinterpret Ezra as son of God, 264, 363; references to, 99; refuse to accept Jesus, 218, 225, 233; reject Moses and Muhammad, 276; say that God is poor, 287; say that God’s hand is shackled, 287; say that a prophet must be from their lineage, 334; study Scripture, 261; trade away their

430

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Scripture, 262; turned into apes and swine, 221; unfaithfulness of, 300; violate treatises in Medina, 280 Jews: positive texts about Jews in Mecca give way to negative texts in Medina, 297 Jews: real or rhetorical? 277 Jews and Christians: allies of one another, 217; claim special relationship with God, 204; disagree on the matter of Prophet Muhammad, 361; know that messengers were human beings, 270, 274; do not live according to their Scripture, 352; part of believers, 145, 277; constructed, not described in Qur’ān, 278; qur’ānic critique of, 45, 265; reject parts of revelation, 269; ridicule religion and prayer of believers, 217; unbelievers from People of Scripture, 360 Jezebel, 79 Jibrīl (Gabriel), 27, 304, 351 jidāl (debate), 284; see mujādala jinn (spirits), 9, 315 jizya tax, 57, 75, 84, 264, 288-289 Job, 251 Saint John, 134, 207-208, 220, 239, 305, 314; Johannine community, 306 John the Baptist (Yahya), 22, 70, 206, 251, 273 Saint John Chrysostom, 6 Saint John of Damascus, 105, 181, 183, 185-186, 306 John Duns Scotus, 378 Saint John Paul II, Pope, 88, 133, 369 John Philoponus, 181 Jonah, 176, 179, 251; sign of, 177 Jones, Alan, xvii, 129, 255, 348 Jones, Richard, 114 Jong, Matthijs de, 306 Joseph, 250-251 Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel, 375

Juan de Segovia, 106 Judaeans, 306 Judah, 306 Judaism, 37, 120; continued validity of, 227; and ethical monotheism, 266; foundation endorsed by Qur’ān, 297; Late Antique, 264 judgment, 211; final, 62, 140-141; God postpones, 325; by Muhammad, 210 Juergensmeyer, Mark, 306, 369 just war tradition, 308 justice, 61, 90, 95, 123, 329 juxtaposition of God and Muhammad, 327 juz’ ‘amma (last division of Qur’ān), 356 Ka‘b ibn Asad, 304 Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf, 100, 124, 160, 171, 303, 340, 342, 361 Ka‘ba, 61, 80, 102, 106 kafara (to cover, hide), 47, 285, 359, 364 kāfirūn (unbelievers), 50, 285, 359 kalima (word), 196, 355; sabaqa (preceding word), 317, 325 kalimat Allāh (word of God), 180, 182 kalima sawā’ (equitable word), 72, 89, 93 Kaltner, John, 301 Kamal, Muhammad, 38 Kaminsky, Joel S., 355 Kassis, Hanna, 148 kataba (to write; to prescribe), 248, 257, 261, 275 kātib (writer), 357 Keating, Daniel, 206 Kermani, Navid, 324, 376 Khadduri, Majid, 31 khalīl Allah (friend of God), 162-164 Khalil, Mohammad Hassan, 365, 372 Khan, Israr Ahmad, 51 Khan, Muhammad Muhsin, 14, 89 khasha‘a (to humble oneself), 145, 148



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

khaṭṭa (to write), 286 Khaybar, 299, 303, 308, 340-341 khayr (better), 286 Khazraj 132; 340; see banu Khazraj kiflayn min raḥmātihi (twofold provision from God’s mercy), 330 killing, 302-303; of prophets, 136, 175 Kimball, Richard L., 21 kindness, 285, 292 kitāb (Scripture), xv, 19, 23, 26-28, 29, 39, 70, 105, 238, 245-248, 253, 256, 296, 311-316, 323, 329; decree, 248; dhikr, 271; foreknowledge, 328; inheritance, 320, 326; limited to Qur’ān, 321; in Mecca, 272; given to Moses, 276 kitāb ‘azīz (mighty Scripture), 324; masṭur (determined), 249, 313314; mubīn (clear / clarifying), 249, 313; mufaṣṣal (detailed), 260; munīr (enlightening), 319-320; fī qirṭās (on parchment), 259 Klootwijk, Eewout, 380 Knitter, Paul, 122 knowledge, 25, 39-40, 53, 61, 68-69, 98-99, 115, 117, 129, 132, 170, 211, 238, 252-253, 284, 291, 296-297, 319, 349, 351; leads to difference, 267, 367; of People of Scripture, 320 Koloska, Hannelies, 177 kosher supermarket, attack on, 307 Krier Mich, Marvin L., 80 Kritzeck, James, 186 Krokus, Christian, 80, 111 kufr (unbelief), 170, 223 Kurucan, Ahmet, 280 Kuschel, Karl-Joseph, 22, 103, 164 kutub (Scriptures), 319, 355; qayyima (upright), 359 la‘ana (to curse), 236, 289 laborers, 333, 336 Lamptey, Jerusha Tanner, 20, 22, 28, 33, 47, 124

431

land: inheriting, 308; taking possession of, 240, 302 Last Day, 139, 141, 163, 223, 263, 287, 348, 356; see also hereafter Last Judgment, 311-313 Last Supper, 194 law, 61, 69, 71, 103-104, 120, 213214; Islamic, 124, 183, 195; Jewish, 210, 253, 262; Muhammad’s, 226; Old Law, 370; in Paul, 54, 119-120, 228-229, 367 lawbreakers, 328, 330 lawḥ maḥfūẓ (preserved tablet), 19, 27 Lawrence, Bruce, 4, 307 Lawson, Todd, 30, 172-173 Lazarus, 294 Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava, 264 Le Coz, Raymond, 106, 184 learning, 237, 252, 380; from one another, 214 leaves, clean, 359 lectio divina (Latin: God-centered reading), 375 lectionary, 29 Leirvik, Oddbjørn, 142 letters, detached / disconnected / separated, 244-247 Levenson, Jon, 38, 164, 167, 355, 377 Levering, Matthew, 189, 206 lex (religion), 108; Abrahae, 107; alkorani, 107 “Life and Word” conferences, 368 light, 210, 251, 328; from darkness to, 209 liqā’ (meeting), 297 listening, 375-376 liturgical resonances, 242, 376 liturgy: Christian, 3, 6, 28, 59, 176, 194, 241, 270-271, 294, 335; early Islam, 25, 246, 255, 258, 271, 272, 350-351; recitation, 283 Locklin, Reid B., 376 Lodahl, Michael, 78 Lønning, Per, 369 lord, 88; religious authorities as lords, 265; Lord’s Prayer, 2, 6, 16

432

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Lot, 166, 251, 282; people of, 284; wife of, 355 love, in Christianity, 329; of God, 84, 91, 141; of neighbor, 84, 88, 91, 141 Loyola University Maryland, 308 Luke, Saint, 165, 209, 221 Lumbard, Joseph, 92, 94 Lund, Nils, 37 Luqmān, 296 Madigan, Daniel, S.J., xvii, 5, 10, 18, 20, 26, 28-29, 66, 93, 180, 247, 257, 272, 319 maghāzī (conquests), 298 maghlūl (shackled), 287 Magians, 22, 31, 296 magic, 318 Magnificat, 108 mā’ida (table, banquet), 191, 239 majnūn (possessed by jinn), 254 maktūb (described), 261 mālik (master) / malik (king), 9 Mālik ibn al-Ḍayf, 138, 341 Malik al-Kāmil 77, 80-81 Manuel II Palaiologos, 378 Mār Saba monastery, 184 Mariology, 240, 257 Mark, Saint, 220-221 marriage practices, 300 Marshall, David, 44, 57, 166, 178, 228, 266, 277-278, 282, 305 Martin, Ralph, 371 martyrdom, 83, 178 ma‘rūf (known, right), 136-137 Marx, Michael, 257, 355 Mary, 42, 67, 70, 74, 76, 97, 108, 110, 169, 175, 180, 199, 272, 318; human being, 233; Mother of God, 240; righteous person, 233; slander against, 170-171; truly devout, 355; virgin mother of prophet, 234 Mary Magdalene, 206, 235 Maryland Clergy Initiative, 308 masḥūr (bewitched), 257 al-Masīḥ (Messiah), 180, 182, 263-265

masjid (place of worship), 137; al-ḥarām (sacred mosque), 36 Massignon, Louis, 80, 110-111 mathal (likeness, parable), 282, 327, 350; Hebrew mashal, 327 mathānīya (repeating), 322 Matthew, Saint, 140, 149, 175, 177, 206-207, 336-337 Mawdūdī, Sayyid Abul A‘lā xiv, xvii, 41, 76, 91 Mazuz, Haggai, 41, 69, 237, 299300, 341 McAuliffe, Jane D., xvii, 13, 28, 29, 34, 137, 140, 149, 237, 262, 277, 284, 298 Mecca, 31-33, 51, 61, 80, 131, 237; Arab tribes, 252; believers in, 288; conquest of, 302, 327, 335; interlocutors, 259; Jews?, 277, 297; occupation of, 240; opponents in, 257, 274, 318; Mother of cities, 251; persecution, 281; pilgrimage to, 194; Quraysh, 276 Meccan surahs, 24, 55; see Qur’ān Medina, 18, 31-33, 41, 44, 50, 77, 101, 142, 153, 237; constitution of, 298; Jews expelled from, 340; migration to, 281; opponents of Muhammad, 259, 297; political situation, 298, 307, 311 Medinan surahs, 25, 166, 244; interpolations, 253, 259; see Qur’ān meekness, 308-309 Melkite Christians, 182, 184, 199, 232 memory, 309, 376; see also remembrance mercy, 2, 6, 19, 48, 50, 61, 78, 203, 271, 276 message, 324; unity of, 326 messenger, 44, 162, 261, 274, 359, 366; Christ as, 180; Muhammad as final, 135; sent to unlettered people, 349; is to warn or bring good news, 268 messengers: will be asked about their communities, 238; chosen by



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

God, 314, 329; continuity, 274; no distinction between, 168, 201; human beings, 270, 274 Messiah, 199, 378; see al-Masīḥ metaphor, 40, 42-43, 44, 56, 117, 124, 144, 157, 170, 202-203, 222, 249, 262, 266, 275, 311, 322, 324, 331, 348, 356-357, 376 method, 375 Meynet, Roland, S.J., 192, 194 Miaphysite Christians, 200 middle community, 36, 61 Middle East, 308 migration, see hijra military: conquest, 335-336; service, 264 milla (faith, creed), 162; al-ākhira, 317 minhaj (way of life), 213 Mir, Mustansir, 70, 131, 151-152, 161, 213, 244, 246, 327, 359 miracle(s), 51, 83, 171, 221, 268, 286, 295, 318; of Jesus, 238, 354 miserliness, 143, 222 mission, 82, 84, 91, 227, 285, 292; of Christ, 135 misunderstandings, 307 mīthāq (covenant, pledge), 41, 170, 195, 204, 261 mīzān (balance), 328-329 Mohammed, Khaleel, 270 Mojaddedi, Jawid, 360 Monastic Interreligious Dialogue, 142 monasticism: invented, not ordained by God, 328; given by God, 329 monks, 76, 142, 332 monophysitism, 181, 200, 231, 240 monotheism, 15, 59, 68, 88, 179, 264, 277, 321, 360, 362; Christians, 183; shared by Jews and Muslims, 287; Trinitarian theology as, 183, 189-190 Morali, Ilaria, 371 Morrow, John Andrew, 279 Moses, 21, 27, 39, 42, 45-46, 48, 51-52, 70, 102, 108, 129, 169171, 173, 190, 204, 209, 216,

433

251-254, 258, 260-261, 267, 272, 274, 276, 294-295, 325, 353-354, 377; human being, 270; laws of, 229; meeting with God, 297; parallel with Muhammad, 253, 256, 277, 297; people of, 225; received divine speech, 180, 297; received Torah, 313-314; Scripture of, 315; scrolls of, 350, 352; staff of, 291 mountain, 343 Moyaert, Marianne, 242 Mu‘ādh b. Jabāl, 114 mubāhala (ordeal), 74, 75, 77, 289 mufassirūn (exegetes), xi, 12, 18, 49, 66, 76, 137, 173, 181, 213, 244, 257, 290, 292, 295, 313, 321, 339 muhājirūn (those who migrated), 106, 298-299, 302, 339 Muhammad, xii, 13, 21, 23, 27, 31, 45, 48, 51-52, 59, 61, 63, 71, 73-75, 77, 80, 82, 87, 90, 100, 115, 127, 129, 157, 169, 173, 179, 194, 208, 210, 212, 224, 254, 267, 269, 271, 283, 329; accepting him while remaining faithful to Jesus, 147; accepts Jesus as prophet, 219; acts like Moses, 216; as author of Qur’ān, 184; brings good news, 319; brings message as straight path, 326; charged of prior knowledge or copying revelations, 286; clear evidence, 326; compared to Moses, 253, 276, 297; debates with unbelievers, 254, 256; described in earlier Scriptures, 196, 199, 224, 261, 291, 304, 361-362; eulogy, 114, 162; free from influence by earlier sources, 261; historical situation of, 268; illiterate prophet, 257258, 261, 288, 304, 349; is to pass judgment on Jews and Christians, 216, 225; sent to teach illiterates, 350; Jewish tribes break covenant, 304; mocked by Jews, 225; paral-

434

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

lel with Moses, 253; prophethood of, 107, 148, 156, 196, 199, 224, 226, 238, 335; referenced in earlier Scriptures, 156, 196, 199; reproached, 352-353; mounting tensions with Jews and Christians, 330; tolerates non-Muslims, 300; warner, 291, 319 Muhammad ibn Maslama, 340 muhaymin (declaring authentic; guarding), 213 mujādala (disputation), 280, 284 Mujāhid ibn Jabr, 115, 146, 173, 286, 330 mukhliṣ (devoted), 287, 360 mula‘ana (mutual cursing), 289 Mulla Sadra, 116 “multicultural play,” 156 mu’minūn (believers), 145, 277 munāfiqūn (hypocrites), 113, 281 munfakkīn (separated), 363 munkar (unacknowledged), 136-137 Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, 13, 18, 20, 40, 45, 51, 72, 75, 101, 132, 172173, 181, 196, 220, 239, 286, 290, 330, 340 muqaṭṭa‘āt (detached letters), 244, 321 muqtaṣid (middle, moderate), 223, 225 Murata, Sachiko, 20, 164 muṣaddiq (confirming), 43, 45, 158, 213, 353 muṣḥaf (codex), 18, 28, 248, 313 mushrikūn (associators), 47, 50, 59, 100-101, 165, 183, 263, 302, 359, 364 Muslim-Christian dialogue, 294; see Christian-Muslim dialogue Muslim rulers, relations with Christian and Jewish communities, 279 Muslims: cannot have alliances with People of Scripture, 226; different from People of Scripture, 139; divided into many groups, 368; part of People of Scripture, 296; in the United States, 95

muslimūn (submitters), 73-74, 77, 139, 277, 293 Muṣṭafa, 321 mutashābih (similar, obscure), 322 “mutilators” of God, 185 muttaqūn (watchful people), 373 mystery, 229; of not accepting revelation, 227 nabī (prophet), 129, 180; al-ummī (gentile), 261 nadhīr (warner), 198, 246, 286, 319 Naḍīr, see banū Naḍīr nāfaqa (to dissemble), 339 Najāshī, 147; see also Negus Najrān, bishop of, 240; Christians from, 64, 72-73, 75, 77, 80, 82, 84, 90, 101, 181, 200, 231-232, 289 naqama (to be hostile), 217 nās (humankind), 136, 350 Naṣārā (Nazarenes; Christians), 99, 181, 196-197, 226, 232, 236, 278 naṣīb (share), 154-155, 159 naskh (abrogation), 47, 50-51, 263 Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, xiv, xvii, 93 Naṣranī (Christian), 99 nations, 292; will be judged by their records, 312; see also gentiles nazala (to come down, send down), 20, 26, 65, 247, 254, 256, 258 Nazareth, 220, 226 Negus (Najāshi) of Abyssinia, 101, 139, 146-147, 225, 237 Nestorian Christians, 181-182, 199; Nestorianism, 185 Neusner, Jacob, 85 Neuwirth, Angelika, xvii, 3-4, 6-7, 10, 25, 32, 64, 67, 98, 105, 246, 255-256, 272, 281, 323 Nevi’im (Hebrew: Prophets), 175 New Testament, 56, 91, 109, 125, 140, 148, 164-165, 175, 185, 187, 204, 206, 220, 228-229, 235, 265, 270, 308, 354, 367, 377; only one covenant, 379



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

Newby, Gordon, 31, 41, 69, 237, 299-300, 303, 340-341, 361 Nicene Creed, 74, 207, 209, 334 Nicholas of Cusa, xiv, 87-88, 94, 106110, 183, 185-188, 215, 292; attentive reader of Qur’ān, 188 Nickel, Gordon, 156-157, 196, 210 ni’ma (favor), 38 Nineveh, 176-177 Nirenberg, David, 156 nīya (intention), 5 Noah, 70, 166, 179, 251, 267, 281, 284, 325, 328-329; Noahide laws, 229; wife of, 355 Nöldeke, Theodor, xvii, 245, 281 noli me tangere (Latin: do not touch me), 206 nubūwwa (prophethood), 251, 329 nūr (light), 210 Nursi, Said, 8 Oakes, Kenneth, 119-120 oath formulas, 313, 347 Old Testament, 128, 185, 239, 271 only-begotten son, 207 openness, to religious other, 292, 380 opponents, 276-277, 324; of believers, 327; see also adversaries oral, 156; criticism, 266; communication, 316; dispute, 157; transmission, 376 ordeal, 74-75, 77, 80, 82 orphans, 167 orthodoxy, 105, 183, 185 Osama bin Laden, 307 othering, 123 outsiders, 120-121 Oxford Islamic Studies, 148 pagani (Latin: gentiles); paganism, 53; in Mecca, 255, 259, 280 pagan: Prophet as, 304; tribes 299300; pagans: 335, 352 Palestine, 308 palm trees, 339-340, 342 parable, 125, 150, 282, 327, 336-337

435

Paradise, 159, 240-241, 294, 360 parallel, 176, 239, 242, 264, 267, 269; Moses - Muhammad, 277 parrhèsia (Greek: bold speech), 235 parsha (Hebrew: Torah reading), 271 passivum divinum (Latin: passive voice indicating God), 20, 27, 158 passover, 239, 242 Paul, Saint, xv, 54-58, 69, 78, 100, 103-104,108, 118-119, 121-122, 157, 178, 190, 214, 228-229, 367, 377 Paul VI, Pope, 111 peace, 80, 95, 107, 195, 305, 308; of faith, 106, 187 Pēgē Gnōseōs (Greek: Fountain of Knowledge), 184 People of the Gospel, 211, 225, 361; believe in two Scriptures, 331 People of Israel, favored by God, 267 People of Moses, 261 People of the Reminder, followers of Moses, not Jesus, 270; possess knowledge, 274 People of Scripture, xi, 22-23, 43, 89, 95, 116, 375; addressed, 97-98, 112, 131, 151, 153, 158, 191-192, 195, 198, 377-378; astray, 264; believe in new revelation, 277; believers among them, 361; between true faith and idolatry, 371; bifurcation in treatment of, 320; chosen by God, 320; claim special relationship with God, 161-162; critique of, 117, 119, 122, 132, 143, 152, 179, 207, 226-227, 238, 262-263, 280, 379; decline in faith, 328; debate with, 67, 117-118, 279, 376, 378; disbelievers, 359; disunity, 347; early believers, 296; group / party of, 112, 127, 131, 140, 155, 263; hardness of heart, 378-379; held to criteria in their own law / Scriptures, 139, 158, 223, 226, 262; hide part of message, 198, 291;

436

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

not idolaters, 158; included with idolaters / associators, 361-364; Jews in Medina, 173, 219, 280; kill prophets, 143, 172; have been given knowledge, 260, 305; know about Muhammad, 363-364; lead others astray, 113, 161, 364; limit God’s power, 265; mistrust God’s power and mercy, 143, 344; not Muslims, 139; positive approach, 137, 139-140, 147, 191, 255; positive in Mecca, negative in Medina, 280, 297; no power over God’s bounty, 311, 328, 334, 376; punish themselves, 337; have received revelation, 232, 263; relations with believers, 195, 311, 349, 367; religious commitment, 380; refuse to believe later revelations, 142, 157, 175; sharing food and women, 194; split into groups, 362; cannot be trusted, 216; unbelief compared to idolaters, 369; unbelievers unless accepting Qur’ān and Muhammad, 226; wishes of, 161, 163 “People of Scripture”: late-Meccan and Medinan occurrences, 281; theological term, 301, 305, 343 People of Torah, 225, 361 perfection, of religion, 194-195 pericope, 255, 273 Perrone, Lorenzo, 111 persecution, 281 Persian Empire, 295 “person,” meaning of, 87-88, 187, 189 pesach seder (Hebrew), 241 Peter, Saint, 293-294 Peter the Venerable, 107, 186, 215 Pharaoh, 171, 260; Pharaoh’s wife, 355 Pharisees, 159 phylacteries, 327 pia interpretatio (Latin: faithful interpretation), 186-188, 292 Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke, xvii, 30, 254

pilgrimage, 194 pledge, 144 pluralism, covenantal, 379; denial of, 369; divine purpose of, 214-215; in the Qur’ān, 213; religious, 107, 191 poet, 273; possessed by demons, 274 poetry, enmity to Muhammad in, 361; revelation dismissed as, 273 polemics, 30, 32, 35, 156, 185, 230231, 264, 268, 281, 286, 306, 354 polytheists, 259 Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, 91, 142 poor tax, 264 Poorthuis, Marcel, 106, 337 possession of land, 302 potestas absoluta / ordinata (Latin: absolute / determined power), 377 poverty, 136, 143, 308 power, of Jewish tribes in Medina, 219 praise to God, 10, 198 prayer, xv, 1, 3, 5, 10-11, 15-16, 81, 138-142, 148, 261, 282-283, 300, 327, 335, 360; daily, 322; for dead / dying, 313; direction of, 36-37, 60-62, 115, 300; early morning, 258; fajr, 115; introductory, 323; night, 142; postures, 142, 145; High Priestly, 134; connected with recitation, 320; rites, 194 preaching, 354 predestination, 26, 334 prefiguration, 207 presence, of Christ in Eucharist, 271 Pretzl, Otto, 281 promises, 32, 38, 40-41, 108, 195, 205, 282; breaking of, 208, 341 prophecy, true and false, 60; signs and miracles, 286 Prophet Muhammad, 13, 45, 50, 172, 270; gentile / illiterate, 261, 190; has jurisdiction over Jews and Christians, 210; recognized by Sergius / Baḥīrā, 186; sent to People



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

of Scripture, 195; status of, 317318 prophethood, 282, 329 prophets, 13, 58, 160, 184, 251, 272273, 294-295; not accepted, 178, 267; believe in all, 129, 218; chosen by God, 314; family of, 166; killing of, 170, 202, 208; major, 266; message denied, 267; offspring, 329; stories of, 281 prostration, 149, 255, 326 Psalms, 142, 175, 180, 204, 253, 275; chanting of, 351 public media, 306-307 punishments, 209, 211, 221, 239, 305, 378; God’s, 318; of hell for People of Scripture and idolaters, 364-365; Jews in Medina, 341; in Torah, 230; stories, 228 purification, 182, 359; of faith, 154; purity, 159, 349 qadar (decree, power, God’s omnipotence), 330, 334 qadara (to be powerful), 330 qadīr (powerful), 302 qā’im (upright, standing), 136, 139, 360 qalam (pen), 347 qāma (to set up, arrange), 360 qara’a (to recite), 26, 250, 254, 256, 267; early practice in Mecca, 351 qatl (killing), 170 qawma Mūsā (people of Moses), 261 qeryānā (Syriac: lectionary), 29, 255 qibla (prayer direction), 115 qissīsīn (seekers for knowledge; priests), 236-237 qisṭ (justice), 329 qulūbunā ghulfun (“our hearts are covered”), 42, 170; qasat qulūbuhum (their hearts were hardened), 328 qur’ān (recitation), 5, 25, 246-248, 254-255, 259, 267-268, 273, 317, 322, 351, 376; qur’ān a‘jamī (foreign recitation), 324; qur’ān ‘aẓīm (mighty recitation), 255

437

Qur’ān, Christian theological interpretation, 180, 183, 185-186; Christological reading, 110; coherence of, 152, 244; comparative reading of, 193; copies of, 323; chronology of, 244, 281; as confirmation of Christian faith, 87, 107, 287; view on covenantal relationships, 379; diachronic approach, 280-281; early Meccan revelations, 319, 347, 351; engagement with People of Scripture, 376; familiarity with Jewish and Christian stories, 33; history of reception, 248; as homiletic text, 156; King Fu‘ad Edition, 281; late Meccan revelations, 166, 246, 266, 291; literary quality, 277; literary structure, 35; Meccan revelations, 4, 6, 25, 32-33, 152, 255, 257, 259, 266, 280, 297, 316; Medinan revelations, 25, 32-33, 152, 166, 262, 267, 280, 327, 347, 353, 359; memorization of, 291; middle Meccan revelations, 6; oral tradition of, 29, 272273, 281; parallel with baptism / discipleship, 293; piecemeal revelation of, 283; rejects idea of God’s self-limitation, 377-378; rhetoric of, 30, 40, 156, 198, 231, 240, 264, 268, 278, 352; self-awareness / self-presentation of, xi, 18, 29, 247; for specific culture and time, 269; theological approach to, xii, 107, 186; theological purpose of critique of People of Scripture, 238, 305 Qur’an Seminar Commentary, 375 “Qur’anic Christians,” 140 Quraysh, 80, 101, 270, 274, 276-277, 291, 298, 300, 302, 315, 317-319, 326 Qurayẓa, 52; see banū Qurayẓa al-Qurṭubī, Abū ‘Abdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, 9, 15, 124, 133, 158, 274, 277, 366

438

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

Quṭb, Sayyid, xiv, xvii, 30, 41, 44, 63-64, 128, 138, 147, 174, 201, 216 rabb (lord), 8, 72-73 rabbāniyyūn (sages, masters), 129, 210, 299 rabbis, 76, 115, 210 rabbuni (Hebrew: my lord), 235 raḍiya (to be content, satisfied), 360 ra‘fa (compassion), 329 Rafi’ ibn abi Huraymila, 201 rahbānīyya (monasticism), 329 raḥīm (mercy-giver), 4, 6 raḥma (mercy), 50, 286, 315, 329 raḥmān (merciful), 4, 6 Rahner, Karl, S.J., 7, 87, 183, 188190, 372 Ramadan, 356 rasūl (messenger), 129 rationality, 179 rattala (to phrase distinctly), 351 al-Rāzī, Abū Ḥātim, 173 al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, 66, 70, 76, 89, 102, 115, 128, 139, 144, 168, 203, 225, 274, 277, 363-365, 372; on disbelief of idolaters and People of Scripture, 369-370 reading, 250; christological, 380; comparative, 221; God-centered, 375; liturgical, 254-255, 271; rabbinical, 380; see also interpretation; recitation Rebekah, 78 receptivity, of God’s grace, 190 recitation, 5, 12, 127, 136, 242, 245246, 250, 253-259, 268, 282, 316-319, 350-353, 376; Arabic, 323; of the word of God, 138 reconciliation, 125 record, 311-312, 328 Reda, Nevin, 35, 241, 244 Reformed Church, 120 refusal (to receive revelation), 69, 156, 371 Reinhartz, Adele, 207

rejection (of revelation), 131, 157, 353 relationships, between Muslims and Jews and Christians, 279; different interpretations of, 333; sibling relationships, 380 relativism, 93 religion, completion of, 240; critique of, 119; of fear, 235; of love, 235; moderate, 151; radical, 151; one revealed, 325; that pleases God, 81; of truth, 264; will only be accepted if it includes belief in Muhammad, 226 Religionskritik, xv, 114, 121 religious: leaders criticized, 265; others, negative theological labels, 305; pluralism, in the Qur’ān, 214; terminology used to defend violence, 307 remember, 270 reminder, 253-259, 274, 314, 316319, 350-353; God’s, 318 resistance, willful, 371; resonances, liturgical, 376; sifting of, 375; see Christian resonances responsibility, 127, 373; see also accountability resurrection, 8, 127, 202 retribution, 323 revelation, 25, 39, 43, 53, 65-67, 69, 113, 198, 229, 297, 313; in creation, 379; crumbles, splits mountain, 343; after detached letters, 244; denial of, 120; given at once / piecemeal, 258-259; bestows knowledge (and accountability), 253, 371; leads to disunity, 227-228; leads from error to purity, 349; occasion of, 67, 240, 317; oral character of, 259; overwhelming nature, 332; rejection of, 157, 170-171, 228, 237, 276, 316-317, 371; resistance to, 258; not taken seriously, 273; share of, 69; of Torah as model, 258; willingness to listen, 238



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

reverence, 293-294 reward, 22, 34, 145, 282, 314, 328; double, 331-332, 337 Reynolds, Gabriel Said, xvii, 33, 42, 44, 52, 90, 170, 179, 239, 267, 275, 343, 354, 375 Riḍā, Rashid, 227, 237 riḍwān (contentment, pleasure), 240, 329 righteousness, 326, 345 Rikhof, Herwi, 271 ring composition, 36, 193; importance of center in, 227 Rippin, Andrew, 2, 360 risālāt (messages), 254 ritual, 270 rivalry, 22, 228-229, 380 Robert of Ketton, 108, 186 Robinson, Neal, 35-36, 44, 64-65, 73, 97, 130, 152, 192-194, 281, 325 Roggema, Barbara, 186 Roman Catholic Church, 110, 133 Romans, Paul’s Letter to the, 118-119 Root, Michael, 133 “rope of God,” 134-136 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought (Amman), xiv Rubin, Uri, 133, 209, 320, 323, 368 rūḥ (spirit), 180, 355 ruhbān (God-fearers, monks), 236237, 265, 329 Rūm (Byzantines), 295 Russell, Letty, 105 rusul (messengers), 27, 180 sab‘an min al-mathāni (seven oftrepeated), 5, 255, 322 Sabbath, 71, 171, 239; folks of, 158 Sabians (or: Sabeans), 22, 31, 139, 223 Sache der Schrift (German: what Scripture is about), 119 Sachedina, Abdulaziz, 288 Sa‘d ibn Mu‘ādh, 303-304 ṣaddaqa (to accept as true), 212, 355 ṣādiqūn (truthful believers), 240

439

Saeed, Abdullah, 171, 196, 212 ṣāghir (humble, low), 264 Sahas, Daniel, 184 Saīd ibn Jubayr, 287 Said, Yazid, 72 sajada (to worship), 136 ṣalāt (prayer), 138, 217 Saleh, Walid, 66, 246, 266, 268, 276 Salenson, Christian, 307 ṣaliḥāt (good deeds), 161 Salman al-Farsi, 225, 277 salvation, 56, 132, 134, 141, 179; history, 273; possible outside Islam, 227; plurality of ways to, 380 Samaritans, 31 Samir, Samir Khalil, 179 sanctus (Latin: holy), 176 Saracenes, 105-106, 306 Sarah, 104-105, 306 Saritoprak, Zeki, 1, 89, 174 Schillebeeckx, Edward, O.P., 175, 372 Schmid, Nora K., 166 Schmidtke, Sabina, 334 scholar of religions, task of, 307 Schwally, Friedrich, 281 Schwöbel, Christoph, 86 “scriptuaries,” 31, 192, 287 Scripture, 18, 23; accessible, 323; in Arabic, 269, 315, 323; believers hold fast to, 261; best of teachings, 322; clear, 245-246, 323; corruption of, 155, 196; distorting, 114; entire, 41, 143; falsifying, 114; God’s encompassing knowledge, 26, 248-251, 311-314, 347-349; heavenly exemplar / origin, xiii, 19, 25, 26, 70, 245-247, 260, 269, 272, 283, 323-324, 348; heritage of Abraham, 282; hiding of, 44, 117, 144, 199, 251; homiletic interpretation, 267; inherited by servants, 320, 326; liturgical use, 246, 267, 272; mother of, 269, 275, 323; well-ordered, 323; on parchment, 259; part of, 41, 155,

440

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

159, 257, 283, 324; for every period, 269; plural understandings of, 67; recited before Muhammad, 266; rejection of, 44, 295, 314; related to Prophets, 251-253, 273, 314-316, 323, 349-350; as revelation, 27-28, 244-245, 251-253, 256; shared inheritance, 320; ­specific form of knowledge, 260, 267; study of, 129, 265; theological interpretation of, 118-119; wise, 245-246, 323; and wisdom, 350 Scriptures, 355; Christian, 3; confirming earlier, 167; Torah and Gospel, 272; upright, 359, 366 scroll, 275, 313, 350, 352, 356; purified, 361 Second Vatican Council, 2, 11, 85-86, 103, 110-111, 133, 141; see also Vatican II sefer (Hebrew: liturgical text), 350 Sells, Michael, xvii, 14, 105, 222, 376 Semitic rhetorics, 192, 227 separated, 363 Sergius, 186, see also Baḥīrā Sermon on the Mount, 149, 166, 276, 308 servant, 207, 336; faithful, 314; of God, 190; selected by God, 320321 Shafiq, Muhammad, 82, 280 Shah-Kazemi, Reza, 288, 365 shahāda (proclamation of faith), 3, 76, 89 shahida (to witness), 65 Shakir, M.H., 30, 89 shakk (doubt), 267 al-Shām (greater Syria), 302, 331, 341 sharī‘a (way to water; law), 102, 165, 213; of Jesus, 147-148 sharika (to associate), 47, 158, 236 Sharon, M. 24 sharqiyyūn (people from the East), 106 al-Shawkānī, 89, 366

Sheba, queen of, 177 sheets of paper, Scripture treated as, 251 Sheveland, John, 376 shi‘a, 116, 313 shirk (giving associates), 137, 158, 188, 200 Shu‘ayb, 282 shubbiha lahum (it was made to appear to them), 173 ṣiddīq (righteous person), 233 Siddiqui, Mona, 31, 78 ṣifāt (attributes of God), 7 sifr (book scroll), 350 sign(s), 245, 253, 286; clear, 270, 291; of God, 284; of Jonah, 176; of Muhammad in Torah, 288; request for, 176, 178, 239, 255-256, 259, 274, 295; of unbelief, 199 similarity, 22 sin(s), 11, 69, 202; against Holy Spirit, 158; punishment of, 208; shirk is greatest, 158; sinfulness, 228 Sinai, Mount, 204, 251, 258, 260, 297, 313, 343, 377 Sinai, Nicolai, 2, 36, 105, 194 sīra (description of life), 298 Sirry, Mun’im, 22, 28, 117, 157, 231, 265 slavery, 104-105, 306, 309 Sloyan, Gerard, 119 social: ethics, 266; reform, 152, 154 Society of Friends (Quakers), 308 Sodom, 111 Sokolowski, Robert, 335 Solomon, 26, 149, 176-177, 179, 203, 205, 251 Sommer, Benjamin D., 258 Son: of Man, 159, 176, 250; natural vs. adopted, 206 sonata, 243 sorcery, 259, 276, 353 soteriology, 173, 175, 179, 270 Soulen, Kenneth, 337 Speight, Marston, 337, 368



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

spirit, 151, 159, 185, 190; cast upon Mary, 180-181 spiritual: affinity, 237; emulation, 57; retreat, 351 spirituality, Muslim, 313 spoils of war, 339 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 128 Stendahl, Krister, 55-57, 292 Stephen, Saint, 177 stereotypes, 306 Stewart, Devin, 18, 246-247 stoning, 199, 202, 209-210, 224 straight way, path, 12-13, 155 Stransky, Thomas, C.S.P., 86, 92, 110 Stroumsa, Guy, 371 Study Quran, see index of sources submission, 9, 68, 241 ṣuḥuf (pages, leaves), 315, 350, 352, 357, 359; mukarrama (honored), 353 Sullivan, Francis, 371 sunna (custom, habitual way), 70, 350 superiority: claim, 163; feeling of, 123; Muslim, 264 supersessionism, 118, 215, 229, 241, 337, 344; post-supersessionist theology, 380 suppositum (Latin: being), 234 surah (chapter), coherence of, 152; groups of, 152; pairs of, 152 sūrat: ‘abasa, 352; al-aḥzāb, 298; Āl ‘Imrān, 24, 33, 63, 72, 98; (center, 131, 136; structure, 64, 94, 98, 136); al-an‘ām, 248, 251, 259; al-anbiyā’, 273; al-ankabut, 279; al-a‘rāf, 249, 260; al-baqara, 18, 33, 35, 71; (center, 37, 60-61; structure, 36); al-bayyina, 347, 359; al-fatḥ, 326; al-fātiḥa, xv, 1, 3-6, 10, 16, 155, 255, 322, 356; al-furqān, 257; fuṣṣilat, 323-324; al-ḥadīd, 327, 329; al-ḥashr, 338; al-ḥijr, 254; al-ikhlāṣ, 73, 321-322; 360; al-isrā’, 249; Luqmān, 296; al-mā’ida, 71, 81, 117, 119, 191, 230; (center, 227; intertextual

441

s­etting, 192; structure, 191-194); Maryam, 98, 101, 272; al-muzammil, 351; al-naḥl, 269; al-nisā’, 151, 194; (structure, 157-158, 167); al-qalam, 347; al-qaṣaṣ, 276; al-Rūm, 295; al-sajda, 297; al-shu‘arā, 252; al-taḥrīm, 355; al-takwīr, 356; al-tawba, 262, yā sīn, 313; Yūnus, 266; al-zumar, 321 suwar (pl. of surah), 243-247, 266, 268, 321, 347; couples of, 244; groups of, 244 al-Suyūṭī, 5 Swidler, Leonard, 119 “sword verse,” 263, 287 synagogue, Jesus teaches in, 220 Syria, 264, 302, 341 Syriac, 5, 59, 100, 255; Christianity, xiv, 231, 277; continued religion of Jesus, 331 ṭaba‘a (to seal), 170 al-Ṭabarī, Abū Ja’far Muḥammad b. Jarīr, xviii, 6, 9, 12-15, 19, 40, 41, 44, 50, 66, 71, 75-76, 88-90, 115, 128, 132, 139, 146, 158, 164, 168, 175, 182, 211, 214, 225, 233, 270, 274, 277, 288-289, 291, 321, 325 al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, Muḥammad Husayn, xiv, xvii, 44-45, 69-70, 102, 114, 116-117, 124, 202, 224, 227 (ta)bayyana (to make clear), 49, 144, 198, 202, 271 Tabgha, 308 tablet, well-preserved, 324, 348, 358 al-Ṭabrisī, 269 tadhkira (admonition), 352-353 tafsīr (qur’ānic exegesis), xiii, 6, 12, 27, 34, 44, 102, 133, 212-213, 223, 237, 260, 287, 360, 375; bi’l ma’thūr, 13, 171; see also index of sources taḥrīf (corruption), 45, 115, 155-157, 196, 290 ṭā’ifa (party), 113

442

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

talā (to recite; to follow), 38, 59, 136, 256, 283, 286, 318, 320 talents, 125-126 Talmud, 67, 79, 377 Tamez, Elsa, 105 Tapie, Matthew, 118, 309, 337 taqwā (watchfulness), 19-20, 28, 33, 152, 239, 261, 373 “targumization,” 104-105 tarjama (to translate), 105 tartīl (recitation, chanting), 351 Tauran, Jean-Louis, 91 tawḥīd (proclaiming the unity of God), 73, 76, 84, 137, 149, 199, 231, 287, 293, 372 tawrāt (Torah), 17, 20, 23, 56, 65, 71, 114, 172, 202, 226, 229, 287288, 326 taxonomy of disbelief, 370 tears, 237 teleology, 344 thalātha (three), 180; thālith thilāthatin (third of three), 181 theme, central, 152-153 theological dialogue, 92-93, 95, 189; see also dialogue theology, 120; dialectical, 121; see also comparative theology theology of religions, 189-190, 215, 229, 337; qur’ānic, 193, 227 theotokos (Greek: God-bearing), 234, 240 Thomas Aquinas, Saint, xiv, 87, 118, 134, 206, 234, 236, 305, 308, 377; on disbelief of heretics, Jews, and pagans, 369-370 Thomas, David, 7 Tibhirine, monks of, 307 Tieszen, Charles, 78 tilāwa (recitation), 59, 256 tilka (those), 246-247 today, 194, 241 Tolan, John, 81, 83 Toledan collection, 107, 186, 215 Torah, 39, 41, 45, 70, 91, 98-99, 124-125, 128-131, 166, 168, 190,

199, 211, 223-224, 228, 238, 240, 258, 265, 275, 319-320, 324, 326-327, 332, 350, 361, 372, 377; ethics of war in, 341; guidance for Children of Israel, 297; prohibitions in, 230; source of judgment for Jews, 210 translation / translators, 3-4, 16, 28, 89, 105, 121, 248, 255, 264, 272, 329, 354 treason, Jews accused of, 300 Trench, Battle of the, 299-301, 304 Trible, Phyllis, 105 Trinity, 6-7, 11, 76, 86-88, 93, 107, 109, 135, 179-181, 183-184, 187, 189, 231, 233, 240, 268, 317; as relationship, 88 tritheism, 181, 189; Philoponian Monophysite, 200, 231 triumphalism, 241, 264, 336 trust, 123, 125, 149, 216 truth, 42-43, 49, 58, 61-62, 66, 77, 83-84, 107, 113, 133, 149, 155, 180, 200, 208, 210, 212, 216, 237, 240-241, 249, 257, 276, 314, 318, 357, 361; division is sign of lack of, 368 turn away, from admonition, 352; from reminder, 258; from revelation, 69, 75, 83, 90, 131, 160, 255 Turner, Denys, 86, 157 ‘Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, 332, 365 Uhud, Battle of, 52, 65, 142, 146, 160, 296, 299, 301, 340 ‘ulamā’ (legal authorities), 211, 253 ‘Umar, 52, 341 umm al-kitāb (mother of Scripture), 5, 19, 27, 66-67, 269, 324, 348 umma (community), 28, 214, 262, 298; qā’ima (upright), 140; muqtaṣida (moderate), 225; wasaṭ (middle), 36, 61 “Umma document,” 298, 300 Umayyad dynasty, 184 ummī (illiterate, gentile), 257, 261, 288



INDEX B: NAMES, SUBJECTS, AND TERMS

ummiyyūn (pagans; illiterates), 38, 40-41, 121, 123-124, 221, 335, 349 una religio in rituum varietate (Latin: one religion in a variety of rites), 215 Ünal, Ali, 5 unbelievers, 47, 49, 129, 136, 138, 166, 170, 176-177, 199, 226, 239, 246, 254-255, 262-263, 284-285; deny Last Judgment, 312; Jews and Meccans, 289; Jews in Medina, 300-301, 305, 339, 343; two types: People of Scripture (against Muhammad) and idolaters (against God), 363-364; see also disbelievers uniqueness of God’s involvement in Christ, 379 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, xiv unity, of Christ and Father, 134-135; concern for, 367-369; of God’s revelation, 133, 326, 367 universalism, in the Qur’ān, 193, 213, 227 upright, 136; religion, 366; Scriptures, 359, 366 ‘Uthmān, 313 ‘Uzayr (Ezra), 263-265 Valkenberg, Pim, 20, 28, 54, 85, 94, 106-107, 118, 122, 142, 165, 184-186, 189-190, 240, 265, 293294, 307, 376 van Wieringen, Archibald, 271 Vatican, 91-92 victory, 326-327; believers victorious over unbelievers, 354 violence, 79, 125, 378; intra-religious, 369; religious, 306, 344 virginity, of Mary, 355-356 virtual conflict, with People of Scripture in Mecca, 281 visio beata (Latin: beatific vision), 380 Volf, Miroslav, 4, 84, 86 voluntarism, 378 vulnerability, 282

443

waḥā (to inspire), 180, 256, 283, 320 Wahb b. Yahūdha, 138, 201 wāḥid (one), 180 al-Wāḥidī, xiv, xviii, 74-75, 80, 82-84, 97, 101, 114-115, 132, 143, 146, 147, 160, 162-164, 210, 220, 295 waḥy (inspiration), 269, 319 walad (child), 180, 286, 361 walī (protector; friend; ally), 48, 100, 216, 350 Waraqa, 277 war, ethics of, 341; warfare, 263, 329, 338-339 warner, 291, 317 Warren Kathleen, O.S.F., 80 Washington Theological Consortium, 114 wāsi‘ (wide), 122 watchful, 373 way: of God, 131; of life, 213; people of the, 148 Wheaton College, 85 Whitehead, Alfred North, 128 Williams, Delores, 105 Wirkungsgeschichte (history of effects), 15 wisdom, 70, 160, 178, 285, 292, 296, 314 wives of prophets, 355 women, 153, 167, 175 word, 151, 180, 185, 190; differences between Christianity and Islam, 182; preceding word, 317, 325 world, 121, 314-315 World Council of Churches, 55, 133, 368 worship, 137, 142; of the cross, 178; of the one God, 85-86, 91, 190, 234; right, 266 yad Allāhi (hand of God), 117, 331; ‘an yadin (readily), 264 al-yahūd (Jews), 236 Yahudha, 172 yahūdī (Jew), 99 Yaḥya (John the Baptist), 273

444

NO POWER OVER GOD’S BOUNTY

“Yale Response,” 84-86 yamīn (right hand), 348 yawm al-ākhir (Last Day), 263, 348 yawm al-dīn (Day of Judgment), 8, 173, 348 yawm al-qiyāma (Day of Resurrection), 372 YHWH, 209 Yūsuf, 250; see also Joseph zabūr (Psalms), 180, 252-253, 275, 315 Zachariah/Zechariah, 70, 209, 251, 272 Zahniser, Matthias, 64, 152-154, 161 zakhor (Hebrew: remember), 270

ẓalama (to commit evil), 284 al-Zamakhsharī, 15, 66, 144, 159, 168, 203, 233, 334, 363 Zayd ibn Qays, 52 Zayd ibn al-Tābūh, 100 Zebiri, Kate, 27 zechut avot (Hebrew: merits of the ancestors), 377 Zellentin, Holger, 236, 265, 329 zikaron (Hebrew: remembrance), 270 Zion, 205, 307; Zionists, 307 zubur (Psalms; scriptures), 20, 270, 315, 319-320; al-awwalīn (of the ancients), 252 ẓulm (injustice), 286

= 100,2 mm

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706