Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation 1591022010, 9781591022015

Citation preview

John W ansbrough

Q uranic Stodies Sources and Methods o،' Scriptural Interpretation

Foreword, Translations, and Expanded Notes by

A n d r e w Rippin

.

‫ﺪ‬

‫ﺳ‬

59 John Glenn Drive Amherst, New York 14228-2197

Published 2004 by Prometheus Books Quranic

s، i۵ ic٠: s.urcw

an، ) I t y j ‫ ي‬Scriptural Interpretation. C opyn ^w ٠

‫ا ل آ‬

‫لالآ‬

Maria Emma Theresa Wansbrough. Ail rights rese٠ ٢ ed ٠ N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, digital, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or othertvise, or conveyed via the Internet or a Web site vdthout prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotarions embodied in critical articles and reriews. Inquiries should be addressed to Prometheus Books 59 John Glenn Drive Amherst, N ew York 14228-2197 VOICE: 716-691-0133, ext. 2 .7 7 1 ^ 5 6 4 -2 7 1 1 - .P R O M E T H E U S B O O K S .C O M 08 07 06 05 04

5 4 3 2 1

Libraty o f Congress (^talo^ng-in.Publication Data W ansbrough. John E.. 192& 2002 Quranic studies : sources and methods o f scriptural interpretation ‫ر‬ Joh n Wansbrough ‫ ؛‬foreword, translations, and ej^anded notes by Andrew Rippin. p. cm. O ri^nally published: Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1977, in series: ^ n d o n oriental series. Includes bibliographical references and index. IS B N 1-59102-2014) (alk. paper) 1. Koratf—Criticism, interpretation, etc. —Histoty. 2. Araljic language — Histoiy. 1. Title. B P130.45.W 36 2004 2 9 7 .1 2 2 6 —dc22 2004040. Printed in the United States o f America on acid-free paper

CONTENTS FOREWORD

page IX

Andrew Rippin PREFACE

ni

ABBREVIATIONS

XXV

BIBLIOGRAPHY MANUSCRIPTS UTILIZED IN Q U R A N I C S T U D IE S

xxvii xxxix

Andrew Rippin I.

II.

REVELATION A N D CANON

1 . The document 2. Its composition

33

EMBLEMS OF PROPHETHOOD

53

III. ORIGINS OF CLASSICAL ARABIC IV. PRINCIPLES OF EXEGESIS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Haggadic exegesis Deutungsbedürftigkeit Halakhic exegesis Masoretic exegesis Rhetoric and allegory

INDEX

A. Names and subjects ß. Technical terms c. Quranic references ANNOTATIONS

85 119 148 170 202 227 247 247 249 252 257

Andrew Rippin GLOSSARY

Andrew Rippin

3.9

F O R M Y W IF E

Q uranic Studies

FOREWORD T he academic study of the Q ur’än, it has often been remarked, lags far behind the study of the Bible while being, at the same time, closely modelled after it. Not only are the resources available to scholars of the Qur’än much more limited than those available to their biblical-scholar counterparts, but the depth of methodological experimentation in dealing with the scriptural tert has been severely limited in comparison. This situation is illustrated by consideration of the sheer quantity of scholarship that has been produced and the number of scholarly landmarks that exist in the field. Modem biblical scholarship fills a libraty many times the size o fth at devoted to the Qur’än. Each subdiscipline of biblical studies has its own set of "classics." By contrast, it is stdl possible to point to individual works in the history of the study of the Qur’än and declare them the pivotal texts that provide the foundations for all later studies. Two nineteenthcentuty authors set the tone, perspective, assumptions, and approach for much of modern scholarship on the Qur’än. Abraham Geiger (d. 1874) is most famous as the founder and leader of the German Jewish Reform movement. In 1832 Geiger submitted a contest entry (written in Latin) to the University of Bonn that was published the following year in German under the title Was hat Moham med aus dem Judenthum e aufgenommen?\ Geiger’s approach to the Qur’än marks the beginning of the European scholarly quest for the sources of Muslim scripture in Judaism and, to a lesser extent, Christianity. No longer was the Qur^ân being approached from the medieval perspertive of polemic grounded in the notion that Muhammad was a religious impostor. Geiger’s work set a new direction for scholarship because its working assumption was that Muhammad was sincere in his religious mission. Geiger’s study was motivated by the underling thrust of post-Enlightenment work generally, which promoted a sense of curiosity to which no particular value was added over and above the desire to know the previously unknown. Solid philological scholarship also s e ra s as the foundation for investigation of the Qur’än, and the work of one of the greatest ‫ ا‬Translated into English by F. M. Young under the title Judaism a n d Islam (Madras. 189 8 ‫ ؛‬reprint. N ew York, 1970).

FOREWORD

philologists of the Semitic traditions, Theodor Noldeke (d. 1930), provides the second major point of departure for scholarly studies of the Q tr’än. Noldeke's lasting monument to ^ j r ’anic scholarship, his Geschichte des QoränS) has a history similar to that of Geiger’s work. Written originally in Latin, it was submitted in 1856 as a dissertation and awarded the winning prize in a Parisian competition for a study of the “critical histoty of the text of the Qur’an.” The work was first published in an expanded German edition in 1860. A second edition of the work appeared in three volumes, with volumes 1 and 2 edited and rewritten by Friedrich Schwally (1909, 1919) and volume 3 ^ itten by Gotthelf Bergsträsser and Otto Pretzl (1938). Noldeke’s work has set the agenda for subsequent generations of Quranic scholarship by emphasizing concerns with chronology in the text and the text's biblical background. As well, Noldeke’s philological insights provide much of the lasting value; his treatment of language, his stress upon etymology, and his insights into grammar all p r o d e the model for the phdological study of the Qur’än, and the material he provided continues to be a valued source ofreforence for later scholarship. Such are the scholarly foundations of the field of study. However, several works appeared in the 1970s and 1980s that deeply affected scholarly approaches and attitudes toward the study of the Q ur’an in the contemporary period. Each work, in its own way, opened up a new range of approaches, a new inventory of questions to be asked, and a new selection of paths to be followed by the following generation of students of the Q ur’än. One major development is seen in the work of Toshihiko Izutsu, whose books have been praised by Muslim and nonMuslim scholars alike, while a parallel methodological movement was taking place at the time in biblical studies,* Izutsu’s works. The Structure o f Ethical Terms in the Koran ٢ ‫ ؟‬0 ١‫لاح‬0 ١ \ ‫؟ و‬٠ ‫ لآ‬١ ‫أالأ‬١ ‫ ة‬G od and Man in the Koran (Tokyo, 1964), as well as the rewritten version of the former work, Ethico-religious Concepts in the Qur*än (Montreal, 1966). appear uninfluenced by research in the biblical field (in either a theoretical manner or in matters of detail).* The study of the Qur’än was, with Izutsu, moved out of its biblical context and situated in an explicit methodological framework of semantic analysis. Set out by

‫ ا‬Represented m ost significantly in James Barr, Semantics o f Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). I The chronological development o f the two fields at roughly the same tim e is perha^ best understood in light o f developments in the field of linguistics. See Stephen Ullmann. The Principles ofSemanticS) 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1957).

FOREWORD

xi

Izutsu at the beginning of his Ethico-religious Concepts in exemplary form, the method is based upon one core idea: that the meaning of words inheres in the context of their use. -not in the in d id u a l words themselves. Thus, on one level, this approach is in dirert opposition to the philological method, given the latter’s stress on etym olo^ in determining meaning, w hile other assumptions about the Qur’an are shared by the semantic approach with earlier approaches (continuing the presuppositions of the Muslim tradition about the histoty of the text, for example), the influence of the semantic method is apparent in the many studies of individual words and word patterning that have followed in the wake of Izutsu’s work. Still, there are major questions that linger in the study of the Qur’än, especially related to why the text looks the way it does. Recent works dealing with these problems have provided increasingly systematic attempts to derise a solution,' Undoubtedly the most successfol and influential initiative is seen in the work of Angelika Neuwirth. ‫ م \' ل ج‬١‫ ة‬١٥ooV١ Studien zu r Komposition der m ekkanischen Suren (Berlin, 1981) argues for formulaic construction techniques structuring the Qur’än that reflect a liturgical, oral back^ound of “cola" as building blocks for the text.٤ That obseration leads to arguments in fovor of the Qur’än being seen as a carefully composed litera^ stTOCture. Neuwirth's later work has expanded upon that insight in emphasizing the liturgical and hearily symbolic nature of the language of the Qur’än. A third work that has significantly affected the field of study is the one being reprinted here, John Wansbrough's Quranic Studies: Sources and M ethods o f Scriptural Interpretation. sckAaiYj commcntary on this book is readily available,^ and the following remarks ‫ ا‬Earlier attempts may be noted: D. H. Muller, D ie Propheten in ihrer ursprünglichen Poesie (Vienna, 18 9 6 )‫ ؛‬R. Geyer, "Zur Strophik des Qurän.” W Z K M il (1908): 265-86. 2 “Cola” are also discussed in A. H. Mathias Zahniser, “The Word o fG o d and the Apostleship of ٠ lsà: A NaiTative Analysis o f Al 'Imrän (3 ):3 3 -6 2 ," ‫ﺀم‬3 6 ) 1991 (: 7 7 - 112 ‫" ؛‬cola" are defined as “breath units of speech, the number of syllables which can be encompassed in a single breath” (p. 88). 3 A. Rippin, “Literary Analysis o f Quran, Sira and Taislr: The Methodologies o f John Wansbrough,” in Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, ed. R. Martin (JUcson, AZ, 1985), pp. 151—63, 2 2 7 -3 2 (reprint, Oxford, 2 001)‫ ؛‬volume in honor o f j . E. Wansbrough, BSOAS 57, no. 1 (1994), including a filll bibliography o f Wansbrough’s waitings, pp. 4—13‫؛‬ Herbert Berg, ed., “Islamic Origins Reconsidered: John Wansbrough and the Study o f Early Islam,” special issue. M ethod a n d Theory in the S tu d y o f Religion 9 ٠ no. 1 (1997)‫ ؛‬Herbert Berg, “Competing Paradigms in the Study of Islamic Origins: Qur'an 15:89-91 and the Value 0‫ ؟‬isnids.” m M e th o d and Theory in the Study o f Islam ic Origins, ١ ٩ ٠ ‫ خ ه‬٢ ‫\ ا ع ه\ ع د \ ا< ؟‬١ ‫ ة‬0 0 ‫ لآ‬١٠

c.

PP. 259-90.

FOREWORD

highlight just a few of issues to help the reader appreciate the signify caice and uniqueness of the work. Written between 1968 and 1972,* this book has had an impact that has been felt throughout many differcnt areas in the scholarly study of Islam. It produced, in some people's minds, a dichotomy in approaches among scholars, between the skeptical revisionists and the trusting traditionalists, that has influenced the entire field of Islamic studies. Such a bifurcation, though convenient for polemical purposes,* hardly corresponds to the methodological diversity and independence of those who work in the area. Fundamentally. Wansbrough’s work questions the basic assumptions o f previous scholarship in a way that had no‫ ؛‬been attempted before‫ ؛‬working with the heritage of JoSeph Schacht^ and I^ a z ٠ Goldziher« before him, whose work had focused on issues of Muslim law, Wansbrough approached the Q ur’an in a manner that sees .the Muslim tradition suirounding the text as grounded in the dogmas of later centuries. Freed from those constraints, new questions can, and must, be asked. Wansbrough’s work was also stimulated by advances in research in manuscript studies, especially the publication of Fuat Sezgin's Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttum s, vo l \ ٠. Q uranwissenschaft— H adït— Geschichte— Fiqh—D ogmatik—M ystik bis ca. A P H. ‫ ا‬1 ‫ اح‬den, 1967). Sezgin's approach to the early histoty of written documents in Islam (as also illustrated in his own earlier work on Bukhari) is reflerted in his cataloging of the manuscript treasures that had not preWously been easily accessible to scholars‫ ؛‬however, ascription of works to early Muslim figures (such as Ibn ‘Abbas, d. 68 A H/687 CE) tends to be accepted by Sezgin and then used as e d e n c e of the written transmission of documents in the first fow Islamic centuries. Wansbrough was the first person to subjert to scholarly analysis an entire body of literattrre attributed to the first four centuries of Islam that stands as a witness to the rise of the ^ r r ’än to the position of absolute authority in the Muslim community. Although these exegeti1 This is according to a letter I received from Wansbrough. June 12. 1 9 8 0 ‫ ؛‬he also re ported that Sectarian M ilieu was written between 1973 and 1 9 7 7 . ‫ع‬ For example, see j. Koren and Y. D. Nevo, “Methodological Approaches to Islamic Studies,” Der Islam 6 8 ( 1991 ): 87 - 107 . For an excellent overview of the methological debate, see Herbert ‫ خ أ ة ل آ‬٠ The Developm ent o f Exegesis in Early Islam; The Authenticity o f Muslim Literature from the Form ative P e r io d i^ k k o n A , 1 , 2 0 0 0 V 3 Especially Joseph Schacht, The O rigins o f Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1953 ). 4 Especially Ignaz Goldziher. M uhammedanische Studien (Halle, 1889 —9 0 )‫ ؛‬translated as M uslim Studies, 2 vols. (London, 1966 , 1 9 7 1 ).

FOREWORD

cal works were known to exist, having faithfolly been cataloged by Sezgin, no scholar had actually read them and tried to make coherent sense of the material. This is one of Wansbrough.s main accomplishments as reflected in this book, which lists seventeen manuscript works. Notably, almost all of these books have now been edited and published.* Although Wansbrough may have provided some of the impetus toward this publishing industty, the general rise in the publication of works of Arab heritage is far ^eater and more a part of an overall social tendency in the modern Muslim world than what can be accounted for by his sheer influence on this particular matter. Wansbrough's early scholarly career focussed on Judaeo-Arabic and Mediterranean trade histoty. His move into Q ir’anic studies resulted from his interest in literature in general and especially the literaiy traits of documents from the medieval times. Given Wansbrough’s path into the study o f the Qur’än through an emphasis on the cultural production of literature, it should not come as a surprise to any of his readers that he enjoyed the use of the English language and its rich classical heritage as much as he did that of Arabic. His enjoyment of language is likely the cause of one of the most frequently voiced complaints about this work— that it is "difficult." In reflecting upon this matter, I must intmde a personal anecdote. For reasons I no longer remember, 1 had occasion, in my eagerness as a graduate student, to talk to Wansbrough about Malcolm Lowry and Under the Volcano. Early on he may well have recommended that I read it. For my own part, I was able to show him some photographs that I had taken of the memorial to Lowry in Dollarton in North Shore Vancouver, on the site at which Lowry wrote the book. O ur conversation turned to Wansbrough’s own work, and I remember mentioning to him that people found Quranic Studies “difficult.” He looked at me with an egression which suggested both puzzlement and exasperation. "What’s the problem with being difficult? Lowry is difficult, isn’t he?” It is also worth remarking, to emphasize the point forther, that Wansbrough wrote firtion as well, at least one piece Of which was published, in 1980.2

‫ ا‬See the section Wow, “Manuscripts Utilized in Quranic Studies," for details. Farra’, Ma'ânï ‘i-Qur>àn, is listed in the bibliography in both its published and manuscript versions‫؛‬ Wansbrough appears to have mainly used the printed edition. 2 John Wansbrough, “l*t N ot the Lord Speak; Encounter 54. no. 5 (1980): 3 - 7 . In his letter to me o f June 18, 1980, Wansbrough also reports that he had written a novel entitled “Palimpsest” in the period March—September 1979.

FOREWORD

There is n . doubt that Quranic Studies needs serious, attentive study, just like any other stimulating work of scholarship. It is not a light read. It is also allusive in some of its master narcative statements to the biblical and Arabian backgrounds, a fact that has captured many people’s attention. It is those points that have led to many exchanges and debates among scholars and others, most of them unprofitable in my view, regarding the most “outrageous” claim that the Qurian was written (down) in the third-centuty hijrL Indeed, some people seem to have reacted to Quranic Studies solely on the basis of this matter, as though Wansbrough ^^ote the book in order to prove that point but that he buried it within the text in an obscure manner in order to lessen the impart. To me, this is a misreading of the book: the subtitle o ‫ ؛‬١k i t V ١ Sources and M ethods o f Scriptural Interpretation, s u n a rizes perfectly the aim of the work. That a reading of the inte^retational tradition suggests that the Q uran emerged late is simply a result ofthat investigation, but it is only one of many. Much of the reartion to this suggestion of Wansbrough illustrates that some scholars continue not to question their own scholarly assumptions. However, the critical issue here that Wansbrough’s work provokes in me as a reader, at least, is, what do we mean by “the Qurian” when we speak of it in this way? A scripture has many different aspects to it beyond its apparent m itten form, and even the written foim takes time to evolve and stabilize (as Muslim tradition has always maintained). Drawing attention to this question is one o f the major merits of Wansbrough’s work. It is worth pondering this critical issue of the emergence of the Q ur’än at greate‫ ؛‬length.' Fundamentally, the question revolves around what we mean by "the Q ur’än" and what sort of eridence we have to answer that question. There is a good deal of uncertainty as to what we do mean here by “the Qurian.” Wansbrough is certainly talking about something that has significance, not a theoretical constmct. I would say that when we speak of the Qurian in this context, and if we are going to have a meaningfiil discussion of the question, three elements must come into play: one, there must be a fixed body of text that is, two, written do^m, and, three, has some measure of acceptance among a group of people as a source of authority.

‫ ا‬I previously presented some o f what follows at the symposium on “^ o the Qur'àn?" at the University of Philadelphia. Februaty 2 0 0 3 .

Wrote (Down)

FOREWORD

Now, those processes of being fixed, of being written down, and of becoming authoritative, work hand-in-hand. Significantly, it is precisely these three notions—proliferating copies of the Qur’ân, with a commonality of content, being promulgated as having symbolic and practical authority-that are, of course, the central motifs of the community’s own account related to the-collection of the ^ r ١än under Abu Bakr, (Umar, 'Uthmän and ‘Ali. Notably, those are precisely the key elements that are central to the criteria of what we need to talk about for a meaningfol discussion of this text called the Qur’ân. On the level of chararteristic motifo, then, 1 doubt that there is much disagreement. There are certainly tensions within the community's account of the collection of the Qur’än when it is subjected to scholarly senitiny, especially in the matter of the speed at which this process of definition of the limits of the text is conceived to have occurred. This is even more so when one considers the significant social processes that must have gone on behind each of the elements in this chain of events. For example, the emergence of a fixed and explicit script for the Arabic language s u . s t s a considerably longer time frame than the community's account, on its surface, seems to allow. But it is also worthy of note that these internal community accounts of the collertion of the Qur’än do not, in foct, fidly account for the establishment of the Qur’än even Wthin the community’s own view. Elements such as the fixing of the Arabic script, the establishment of written formats of manuscripts, and the codification of the variant readings are all spoken of in these accounts as subsequent to the initial collection stories by a significant time period. Since each of these elements is important in establishing the authoritative, fixed, widely distributed text of what we know as the Qur’än, this is of substantial significance. The communal process of text fonnation is a long one, and a notion of the Qur’an “existing” under ‘Uthmän, for example, is quite anachronistic, if we give frill meaning to the notion of the “^ r ’an." Furthemore, it is also worthy of note that the eridence of the existing Qur’än manuscripts does not match the rationale provided by the community’s colletf ion stories. The creation of a Vttitten text in order to solve the problem of discrepancies in the reading of the text, as is suggested as the rationale for the distribution of copies of the text under TJthmän, is clearly an anachronistic element. The form of the Arabic script in early manuscripts is for too ambiguous to have accomplished the pu^ose of unifying the reading of the text.

FOREWORD

Now. it may be thought that I have defined the question of what the Qur’an is in an unreasonable way and that I am speaking, in fact, of something that all agree is a later product. However, I think that is not the case. Those who consider the Q ir ’än to have been written down some thirty or fifty years after the death of Muhammad and who thus speak of a Qur’an existing under ‘Uthmän frequently wish to ascribe or presume both an unquestioned stability and an absolute authority to the text at that point. Such stability and authority seem to me to be unrealistic, in tension with other sources that pro ٦ride US Wth glimpses into the process by which the Q ur’an came into being, and substantially contradicted by the state of the text at that point of histoiyf. To speak, using Fred Donner's words, of the time "when the whOle Qur’än as a canonized closed text first crystallized’" being so early in the community’s existence does not fit with all of the eridence that is available to US. It is this questioning of pre١riously unchallenged scholarly assumptions that is Wansbrough’s major achievement. Wansbrough pushes these questions ftirther. He armies in Quranic Studies that the commentarial literature provides US with material that can help answer questions such as how a fixed text of the Q ur’än was made acceptable within the community and how it was defined in an age that depended upon handwritten copies. These matters are posed within the context of the process that we commonly call canonization. Such a process differentiates between the composition of a text and its recognition as scripture, with all the implications of that term. In fact, the process is sometimes spoken of as having five stages: composition, circulation, revision, collection, and recognition. Many factors play into that final "recognition" factor, but the opinion of religious leaders and the conviction of common people clearly play a major role. This stage of recognition cannot be pinned down‫ ؛‬it does not occur overnight as the result of one person’s actions or even the actions of a group of people. Canon formation is a part of a process of knowledge dissémination and control within an institutional setting. In the Islamic case, the artions of the scholarly elite— the jurists, the grammarians, the theol^ gians—whose artions work to define the texts that are to be studied, reflected upon, and promulgated are cmcial, but, once again, canonization is not a single process, nor is it a personalized one. One of the marks of this canonization process, according to Wansbrough, is the \

١١٨.

DoTïï\eT١ Narratives o f Isiamic Origins; The Beginnings o f JsJamic Historical

^ , '‫؛‬.(P rin c e to n , NJ. ‫ووا‬8(‫ ا‬p. 37...

FO R^O R D

emergence of commentarial literature: the subjecting of a text to a process of elaboration and definition within the understanding of the community. It is this process that creates and confirms the authority of the text. This point is cmcial. The fimdamental argument is that we cannot meaningfolly talk about the Qur’än as we know it today until that point of authority, acceptance, and stability has been achieved. That does not mean, of course, that a p r o to - ^ r ١än did not exist, in some form or another, prior to that point. Indeed, the text m ust have a prehistory for such a process to take place, a prehisto^ that brings strands of the earlier biblical and Arabian traditions together through the person of Muhammad. However, to return to the central point here, the evidence that these commentaries on the Q ur’än provide is one element in the overall puzzle of the emergence of the scripture. The organization, solidification, and standardization of the text of the Qur’ä n -cro cial elements in creating what we know as the Qur’än— are accomplished, confirmed, and emphasized in this series of early commentarial texts. Of course, such historical obsecrations must still fit witilin the context of all the other evidence that can be brought forth to deal with the core question of the emergence of the Q ur’än. Scholars subsequent to Wansbrough have brought forth all sorts of further evidence arguing the point on one side or the other. The simple existence of written portions of the Qur’än in manuscript form, for example, does not tell US the fijll pirture of the history of the text any more than the traditional collection stories or the language and struchire of the text itself do. Fred Donner has written in his recent book that we must be able "to say who was responsible for deciding what did, or did not, belong to the Quranic canon..’ He continues, "To put the responsibility for such a process simply on ‘the community’ or ‘the scholars’ is too vague‫ ؛‬we need to have some idea of what individuals, or at least what groups, were involved in making decisions, and what interests they CprCsented.”* However, at this point in the history of the critical scholarly study of the Q ur’än, our knowledge does not really pennit US to move beyond these admittedly vague notions‫ ؛‬the farts remain su^estive of a multihide of ideas to US, just as they do in Wansbrough’s work. We do not know enough about the social, polemical, and political processes taking place during the first centuries of Islamic ٤ Ibid.,

pp. 3 7 -3 8 .

FOREWORD

civilization; we have only the vaguest information ahout the development of professional classes, the religious scholars, and the social power strUctures.i The current state of Our knowledge simply does not allow us to specify the who, when, or where. We need much more investigation into the nature of early Islamic society before it wll be possible to say more. The foilure to be able to answer those questions cannot be taken as evidence against the relevance of the implications of the various sets of eridence that can be brought forth as they are in Wansbrough's work; rather, sucli a vague answer to the question indicates by its vety nartire the amo^hous and collective sense within which all such canonizing processes take place. With even such a tentative conclusion in place, however, we can start asking subsidiaty questions related to the Qirian, ones that are often conftised with ideas related to the emergence of the authoritative text. Clearly, such a picture of the process lying behind the emergence of the Ctystallized, canonized text of the Qurian puts US in a position to ask questions about the compositional histoty of the Qurian. Here, too, Wansbrough makes us rethink the assumptions regarding this. Is the Qur’än to be attached ftilly to Muhammad? Is there e d e n c e that the QurJan was reformulated, added to, changed, or developed during that process of canonization? The first parts of Wansbroughs book address these points, but they, too, lead to the final crucial questions sketched above: w h a t was the process behind deciding the contents of the Quran? How were the limits of the text established (such as to exclude the hadfth qudsl; for example)? How were those processes confinned and conveyed? What was the process by which the meaning of the text was defined within certain limits, especially as connected to the matter of variant readings? Some people have decried the publication of Wansbrough.s Quranic StudieSy seeing it as a major impediment to fostering a tmst of nonconfossional scholarship among Muslims. Such an accusation made less sense when the work was published than it does, in fact, today. A book with a small print run, written in a language whose tone and vocabulaty was scholarly through and through, the audience for Quranic Studies was small. Today, the Internet has changed that substantially. Used as a source of authority and opinion on polemical

1 See the work of N om an Caldcr, Studies in Early Muslim Jurisprudence (Oxford. 1993). esp. chapter 7, “Literary Form and Social Context,” for an illustration o f what a study on this topic m ight entail.

FOREWORD

XJX

sites by botb Muslims anti Christians, Wansbrough's work has gained a significant profile, even though likely languishing unread by those citing the work. This is, to me, a most unfortunate fate for such a stimulating work of scholarship, and I believe Wansbrough himself would have bemoaned the fact. Given the situation, however, I also believe that the best way to counter such polemic and nonscholarly treatments of Wansbrough's ideas, extracted, as they are, fiom their context and manipulated in various ways, is to have the book become more widely available for consultation: hence this reprint. Honest scholarship (of which I certainly believe Wansbrough’s work to represent the highest level) has nothing to fear from open discussion and debate among those who are informed. Andrew Rippin Victoria, British Columbia December 2003

PREFACE D e s p i t e long reflection, many false starts, and uncasing efforts at clearer fomulation, these sttidies remain essays. Time and industty, together with the mechanism of cross-reference, have serod perha^ to mate of them one essay, but not to eliminate the basic etymolo^al sense of that term. This estimate, intended neither to disam nor to disrourage, is the consequence as much of an experimental method as of an inordinate quantity of literary material to be examined. To argue a case for the Qur’an as scripmre may seem ^attfitous. As the record of Muslim revelation the book requires no introduction. As a document susceptible of analysis by the instalments and techniques of Biblical criticism it is virtually unknown. The doctrinal otetacles that have traditionally Unpeded such invœtigation are, on the other hand, vety well knovm. Not merely dogmas such as those defining scripture as the uncreated Word of God and acknowledging its fom al and substantive inimitability, but also the entire corpus of Islamic historiography, by providing a more or less coherent and plausible report of the circumstances of the Quranic revelation, have discouraged examination of the document as reprœentative of a traditional literaty type. But historiography, like other kinds of literattire, derives an imjwrtant share of its momentum from the rhetorical devices upon which it depends for expression, that is, upon techniques d esired , d e v e l - , or boraowed to enhance and to interpret its communication. Historiral reports of the Quranic revelation are no exception, and it seemed to me that a structural analysis, not only of the text of scripture but also of the other evidence associated with its genesis and with its interpretation, might produce some useful comparisons with the traditional historio^aphy. I have thus proposed for the study of Islamic monotheism a threefold division into its principal components: scripttiral canon, prophetology, and sacred language. Examination of these, in the firat three chapters of this book, will, I hope, provide an adequate introduction to my main concern, which is the development of scriptural exegesis. There the treatment is typolo^cal, though I have sought to elicit an at least provisional chronology. Provisional too are my views on the elaboration of the canon, on its precise relation to the much larger corpus of prophetical literattire, and on the environment which produced the final fonns of both. Such problems as attend a typological description of the traditional exponents of salvation history of the decisive factore in community fomation, the boundaries between orthodox and heterodoty resulting from fomulation of a fixed identity and elaboration of a historical image, and the articulation

PREFACE

of a do۴ atic theology as final stage and pemanent emblem of the religious establishment, await clarification and eventual (tentative) solutions. These may be found, I suspect, in the Islamic literature of polemic, both sectarian and interconfessional, and it is my intention to devote a second volume to analysis of that literature. The interesting hypotheses of such scholars as Schoeps and Rabin, following upon the theories of Harnack and Schlatter, with regard to the sectarian catenations from which Islam in the end emerged, or constituted the final expression, deserve notice. There the essential difficulty lies in identifying the several shared theologoumena as products of historical diffijsion rather than of polygenesis. All such efforts at historical reconstruction { à es eigentlich gewesen) tend to be reductive, and here one senses the spectre of that (possibly vety real) dichotomy in early Christian histoty: lerusalem Urgemeinde opposed to Hellenistic kerygma (Bultmann). The basic problems associated with that opposition, whether social or doctrinal, seem in retrospect to reflect disputes about eschatolo^, much as the development of Rabbinic Judaism has been defined as reaction to or rfôidue from extreme expressions of eschatological belief/activity. Now, in the formation of the Muslim community an œchatological factor is hardly perceptible, though much has been made of the presence in Muslim scripture of eschatological formulae (Casanova and Andrae). In my view it is unlikely to have been an eschatological community which served cither as model or as point of departure for Islam, but rather one of or a combination of others of the traditional types, e.g. ritualist, scripturalist, primitivist. That argument does not, however, find a place in these essays. My aim here is a systematic study of the fomal properties of scriptural authority, as merely one (though possibly the major one) factor contributing to the emergence of an independent and self-conscious religious community. The literary uses, and hence communal functions, of scripture might be (roughly) isolated as four: polemic, litargical, didactic, and juridical, in descending order of importance and (approximate) chronological order of appearance. I believe that this set of priorities can be demonstrated from the Muslim exegetical literature, examination of which constitutes half the bulk of my book. The material adduced is intended to represent a crosssection of Quranic commentaty prior to the monumental work of Tabari (d. 923). Save for a kind of philosophical exegesis belonging to a later period, the typology set out here includes the principal lines of inquity applied to the text of Muslim scripmre: haggadic, halakhic, masoretic, rhetorical, and allegorical. The manner in which the concept of authority was progressively articulated by means of these exegetical types is the fonnative principle and the purpose of my exposition, though it is of course possible to interpret the evidence differently. It is, on the other hand, quite impossible to mistake the chronolosr of the sources or to

PREFACE

xxiii

ignore the presence of N achihtw ig in traditionist literary fomis. Tradition implies, and actively involve, historicization, and the g ro ^ h of a polemical motif into a historical fart is a process hardly requiring demonstration, e.g. the patriarchal narrativ« of the Old Testament. History, like poetry, is mimetic and produces as many necessaty troths as it contains fortuitous facts (fussing). Pressed into the seroice of salvation history these two categories tend to coalesce: everçrthing becomes relevant, the most insignificant scraps of infomation fall into place as comjxments of the grand design. And it is that design which scriptural exegesis is intended to illustrate, by recourse to a range of standard hem eneutial techniques, all of ancient lineage and indisputable merit. Islamic adaptation of these was a fairly uncomplirated process of direct appropriation, and thus its analysis contains no surpris«. It can, on the other hand, be argued that the data of the theodicy (as set out in Chapter I) limited from the outset its historical development: the expression of communal purpose and authority could hardly have been different from what it became (Weber). Sectarian forms of Islam reflert an equally predictable pattern of divergence from what became the normative (Sunni) expression. Again, the problem of division and polygenesis. Some aid towards a solution may be sought in the lexicon of exegesis, where temtinolo^cal caiques could, and probably do, indicate a community of scholarship. I have examined these, but am unable to identify one single path of diffusion. The marginalia of Judaeo-Christian histoty, what might be called *the sertarian milieu., await systematic exposition. That the wait promises to be a long one is most pereuasively illustrated in the quite extraordinaty literattire generated by discovety of the Dead Sea Scrolls, tam forted by s۴ culative scholarehip of such quality and quantity, I feel no special compulsion to apolo^ze for the conjectural nafcire of my own efforte to depict the origins of Islam. The final draft of this work was completed in July 1972, and I have thus not taken accoimt ofsrtidi« published since that date (and quite possibly of several published before that date). The sources employed in Chapter IV are in part still in manuscript, and I am pleased to acknowledge the helpflilness of the s i of the several libraries in Istanbul listed in the Biblio^aphy and of the British Museum. I should also like to express here my gratitude to Simon Hopkins, who read and commented upon the final vereion of these studies, having been for many years as my smdent exposed to the croder fomulations of my earliest thoughts on the subject. I think he is not satisfied with the result, but then, neither am I. Finally, I wish to thank the School of Oriental and African Studi« for panting me leave to work in Istanbul, for including this book in the London Oriental Seri«, and for meeting the expense of publication. ‫ و‬w

‫ت;ﺋﺔت‬

J.W .

A BBR EVIA TIO NS A JS L L AO BO BSO AS B SS CHB El G AL GAS GdQ G VG HUCA IC IQ ‫؟‬A 5AOS JN E S JQ R JR A S JSS M SO S MW N BSS OEZ P A A JR R EI REJ RO SALP SI VT WI W ZKM ZA ZDM G ZS

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Acta O à ta lia B i t h e c a Orientalis Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies T , m i s ‫؛‬, Beittdge zur Semitischen Stnrachunssenschaft C a rn a g e Histw y of the Bihle Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, Leiden 1960c. Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur F. Sezgin, Geschichte des A r ä c h e n Schrifttums T . Noldeke and F. SchwaUy, Geschichte ä s Qorans i-ii, G. Bergstrasser and 0 . Pretzl, Geschichte des Qorans iii e , Btockekarai. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitisehen sprachen Hebrezo Union College Annual I s l a à Culture Islamic Quarterly Jwrnal Asiathpte Journal of the American O ri^ta l Society Journal of NeaT Eastern Studies 5 «٠ ish QuartCTly Reutet. Journal of the Royal A à ti c Society Journal of Semitic Studies Mitteilungen des Seminars fü r Ori^talische sprachen M u s k World T . Noldeke, Neue Beiträge zur Semitischen Sprachàenschaft Orientalistische LiteTQturzeitung Proceedings o f the AmCTican Academy ‫ ل‬or Jetttish Research Revue des Études Islamiques Revue ä s Études Jukes Rocznih Orientalistyczny N. Abbott. Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri Studia Islamica Vetus Testamentum Die Welt ä s Islams Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zritschrift fü r Assyriologie Zeitschrift deT Deutschen Morgenldndischw Gesellschaft Zeitschrift fü r Semitistih

BIBLIOG RAPH Y Abbott, N. S A L P I: Historical Texts٠Oriental Institute Publications Ixxv, University of Chicago, 1957 S A L P II: Quranic Commentary and T rd tio n , Oriental Instittite Publications ln v i, University of Chicago, 1967. See Wansbrough, B S O A S 8‫ل ) آ د‬9‫) ة‬ 6 6 ‫ل‬3‫ﻟ ﻞ‬ *Abd al-Bâqï, M. M u jam gharib al-Q urän, Cairo, 195. *Abd al-fabbär. Tanzth al-Qur'ân, Beirut, n.d. Tathbit dalail aUnubuma, M S. Shehid Ali Pasha 1575 Abu *Ubayd. Kitab al-nasikh mUmansukh) MS. Ahmet III, 143 See A. Spitoler, ‘Ein Kapitel aus den Fa^â.il al-Qur.än von Abu 'Ubaid al-Qäsim ibn Sallam», in Documenta Islarmca Inedita, Berlin, 1952, 1-24 Abu 'Ubayda. M ajaz al-Qur'än, Cairo, 1954^2 Ahrens, K. ‘Chrisdiches im Qoran.» Z D M G Im iv (193.) 15^8, 14890 Allard, M. ‘Une Méthode nouvelle pour Î.étude du Coran, S I xvi (1961) 5-21 Analyse conceptuelle du Coran sur cartes perforées, Paris, 1963 Altmann, A. ‘Saadya’s theory of revelation: its or&n and background., in Saadya S t i e s , Manchester, 1943, 4-25 Andrae, T . Die person M à a m m d s in lehre undglauben saner gemeinde, Stockholm, ‫ل‬ 9 ‫ا‬8

Ash.arl. Kitdb maqdldt al-isldmiyyin, Bibliotheca Islamica I, Wiesbaden, 1963 Asin Palacios, M. La Escatologia Musulmana ‫ ط „ﺀ‬U n a Comedia, Madrid, 1961. Auerbach, E. Mimesis, Bern, 1967 Augapfel, j. ‘Das Kitab im Qur.än', W Z K M à (1915) 38493 Bacher, w . ‘Die Anfange der hebräischen Grammatik», Z D M G xlix (1895) 2‫ﻳﻰل‬٠ 3359» Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen TTaditionsliteratur \‫ل‬٠ \‫ ا ا‬Leipzig, 189^1905 Baghdadi, *Abd al-Qahir. Kitdb al-ndsikh wal-mansukh, MS. Beyazit Umumi 445 Baljon, j. ‘The “Amr of God., in the Qur.ân., AO xxiii (1958) 7-18 Bâqillânï. Vjdz al-Qur'àn, Cairo, 1963 Barr, j. The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford, 1961 Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxiotd. Barth, j. ‘Studien zur Kritik und Exegese des Qorans., Der Islam vi (1915-16) 113-48 Baydawl. Amodr al-tanztl, Bulaq, 133. Beck, E. ‘Die Kodizesvarianten der Am?är', Orientalia xvi (1947) 353-76 ‘Die Gestalt des Abraham am Wendepunkt der Entwicklung Muhammeds', Le Musion lxv (1952) 7 3 9 4

xxviii

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becker» c . H. ‘Der Islam als Problem.» Der Islam i (1910) 1-21 (.Islamstudien I» Leipzig» 1924, 1-23) *Christliche Polemik und Islamische Dogmenbildung., Z A xxvi (1911) 17595 (1Isla m sg en I, 432-49) ‘Ubi sunt qui ante nos in mundo fuere’, in Festschrift E. Kuhn٠Breslau, 1916 87-105 (Islamstden I» 501-19) *Prinzipielles zu Lammens Sirastudien’, Der Islam iv (1913) 2631 (IslamStudien I» 520-7: *Grundsätzliches zur Leben-Muhammed-Forschung.) Beiträge zur Geschichte Ägyptens unter dem Islam i-ii» Strassburg, 1902-3 Bell» R. Bell’s Introduction ، ٥ ،٨٥ Qur'än, ed. w . M. Watt, Edinburgh, 1970 Ben-Zvi, I. *Les Origines de l’établissement des tribus d.Israel en Arabie’, Le Muséon lxxiv (1961) 1 4 3 1 0 Bergstrisser, G. Einführung in die semitischen Sprachen, München, 1928 Hebräische Grammatik i. Leipzig, 1918 *Die Koranlesung des Hasan von Ba?ra٠, Islamica ii (1926) 11-57 *Anßnge und Charakter des juristischen Denkens im Islam’, Der Islam xiv (1925) 76-81 and Pretzl, 0 . ‫ﺀﺀﺀى‬٨‫ﺀ’ا‬٨،‫ ه‬des Qorans III: Die Geschichte des Korantexts, l^ipzig» 1938 Bevan» A. ‘Mohammed’s Ascension’, in Studien zur Semitischen Philologie und Religionsgeschichte Julius Wellhausen . . . gewidmet. Giessen, 1914, 49-61 Birkeland, H. A ltaräsche Pausalformen, Oslo, 194. The Legend of the Opening of Muhammed*s Breast, Oslo, 1955 Old Muslim Opposition agmnst Interpretation ٠‫ ر‬٤٨٥ Koran, Oslo, 1955 The Lord Guideth: ٠5،‫صﺀ‬٠‫ ﺀﺀ‬٥« Primitive Islam, Oslo, 1956 ‘T he interpretation of Surah 107’. S I ix (1958) 13-29 B y a iV m a n .i BeittSge zur Geschichte dCT StaaUkanzlei im islamischen Ägypten. Hamburg, 1928 Blachère, R. Introduction au Coran, Paris, 1959 Histohe de ‫ م ا‬littérature arabe ٠\-‫ ة’\ ل ة ? اا\ ا‬١ ‫ا؟لآأ‬2‫ا‬ An ATomaic approach to the G osels and Acts. Oxiotd. ‫ ةلآا‬٦ Blanc, H . Communal Dialects in Baghèd, Cambridge, Mass., 1964 Blau, j . A Grammar of Christian A r ä c , ‫ ه‬٠‫ ىﺀﺀ‬mainly on ‫ ﺀ‬٠‫ال‬،٨ P alestiàn Texts from ٤٨٥ first Millennium, CSCO Subsidia 2 7 1 , Louvain, 19661. See Wansbrough, B S O A S xxxi (1968) 6 3 ‫ﻟ ﺴ ﻞ‬ On Pseudoicorrections in some Semitic Languages, Jerusalem, 1970 The Emergence and Linguistic Background oj Judaeo-Arabic. Ox٤ ٠ td ١ ‫ لآا‬6 ‫ة‬ ‘T he role of the bedouins as arbiters in linguistic questions and the Mas.ala Az-Zunburiyya’, J S S viii (1963) 42-51 ‘Some problems of the fomadon of the old Semitic langages in the light oi ‫ د ق ى ء‬١‫ ه ه ء‬٠٠‫ ا ا ة ح‬in Proceedings .1 the International ConJerence on Semitic ‫ل‬5 ،*‫اص‬٠‫ﺀﺀ‬, Jerusalem, 1965 ‘L ’Apparition du linguistique néo-arabe’, R E Ix x r v i (1969) 191-201 *Judaeo-Arabic in its linptistic setting’, P A A JR xxxvi (1968) 1-12 ‘On the problem of the sjmthetic character of Classical Arabic as against Judaeo-Arabic (Middle Arabic)’, l x i i i (1972) 2 „ 8

BIBLIO G RA PH Y

xxix

BI٥ch٠ A. Vers und Sprache im Altaräschen, Acta Tropica Supplementtim 5٠ Basel» 1946 Bonebakker, s. Some Early Definitions ٠‫ ر‬،Ae Tauiriya and Çafadï’s *Fa4 4 all X i t ä ٠an at-tawriya wa'1-istixd ä ', T he Hague^PaTis, 1966 Bouman, j. Le Conflit ٥»،٠wr du Coran ‫ﺀ‬، la ‫ﺀ‬٠‫الﺀ‬،‫ آ‬٠» ‫ ه‬٠٠1- ‫ ة ﺀ‬9‫» آ»ةرﻟﻤﺄ‬Amsterdam, 1959 .The Doctrine of .Abd al-Djabbär on the Qur.ân as the created word of Allah., in Verbum: Essays . . . ٠ ‫ﺀ‬۵ '‫هﺀ‬،‫ ىﺀ‬،٠ Dr. H. w. Obbink, Utrecht, 1964, 67-86 Bräunlich, E. ‘Versuch einer hterargeschichthchen Betrachtungsweise altarabischer Poesien., Der Islam xxiv (1937) 201-69 *Zur Frage der Echtheit der altarabischen Poesie', . L Z (1926) 825-33 Bravmann, M. ‘On the spiritual background of early Islam and the history of its principal concepts., Le Musion lxiv (1951) 317-56 Brockelmann. c. Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, le id e n , 1937-49 Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitischen sprachen \ - \ \ ١ Bet\١Ti١ 1908-13 Buhl, F. ‘Über Vergleichungen und Gleichnisse im Q ur٠àn٠, AO ii (‫ ﻟ ﺴ ﻮ ل‬- ‫ﻟ ﻞ‬ *Zur Kuranexegese», A O iii (1925) 97-108 *Ein paar feiträge zur Kritik der Geschichte MuhammedY. in Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldehe . . . gewidmet, C k a en , iqoh. ٠v١ ٦ -22 Bukhärl. §ahïh iii, Leiden, 1868 Burton, j. ‘^ o s e are the high-flying c r a n e s . , XV (65-246 (97‫ل‬٠ .The collection of the Qur'ân*. Glasgow University Oriental Society, Trans‫ﺀه‬،‫ ﺀ ^ أ‬xxiii, 1 9 6 ^ 0 (1972) 4 2 ^ 0 Caetani, L. Armait deivislam I, Milan, 19.5 Caskel, w . .Aijam al-*Arab: Sttidien zur altarabischen Epik», Islamica iii Suppl. (1931) 11 9 *Zur Beduinisierung Arabiens», Z D M G ciii (1953) .28-36. C e r u l. V، . 11'LibTO dell. Scol٥ ١ e ‫ م ا‬questionedellefonti٥ r٥ bo-s$.gnole dell. Divin. Commedia, Sttidi e Testi 150, CittA del Vatican., 1949 Chapira, B. ‘fegendes bibliques attribuées a Ka'b el-Abbâr», REJ Ixix (1919) 861.7, lxx (1920) 37-43 Cohen, A. *Arabisms in Rabbinic literattire ٠, ^ ٠ R iii (1912-13) 221-33 Cohen, D. ‘Koinè, la n c e s communes et dialectes arabes», A r ä c a ix (1962) I 44‫و ل‬ Corré, A. ‘Phonemic problems in the Masora., in Essays Presented ،٠ Chief Rabbi Israel B r â , l^ n d o n , 1968, 5۶ 66 Corriente, F. ‘On the ftmctional yield of some sjmthetic devices in Arabic and Semitic m o ^ h o l o ^ . , l x i i (1971) 20-50 Culley, R. Oral Formulaic Language in ،Ae Biblical Psalms, Toronto, 1967 Curtius, E. Europäische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern, 1948 Dânï. Kitab al-taysirfi *l-qirä'ät ‫ ﻟ ﻪ‬-‫ﺀ‬٠‫ ه‬٠, Istanbul, 193. Daube, D. .Rabbinic methods of interpretation and Hellenistic rhetoric’, HUCA XX ii (1949) 239-64 M. ٠T>٠\e B e r É v ‫؟‬. I m m f c d Y . ٠\TV Orientalische S tu d io Theodor m ideke . . . gewidmet, Giessen, 19.6. i, 1-5

XXX

.

BIBLIO G RA PH Y

Derenbourg, j. ‘Quelques remarques sur la déclinaison arabe'. J A iv (1844) 2 9-20

Derrett, j . L٠tt> in the New Testament٠L indon, 1970 Dïnawarl. Tafstr ûl-wâdih, MS. Ayasofya 221-2 D o x y . i Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes. I t v k n . 7‫ة ؛ ل آ ا‬ Eissfeldt, 0 . E ià tu n g in ‫ ﺀﻫﻖ‬Alte Testament, Tübingen. 1956 Elbogen. I. Der jüdische Gottesdienst ٤٠„ sriner geschichtlichen Entwicklung٠ Frankfurt, 1931 Fa„ä٠. M d a n i 1‫ا‬-Qurän٠Cairo. 1955-, and MS. Nurosmaniye 459 Ferguson, c . ‘The Arabic Koine.» Language XXXV (1959) 616-3. Fischer. A. *Arab, aysh.» Z D M G hx (1905) 807-18 ‘Usaiiid, usw.'. Z D M G lvi (1902) 581 ‘Eine Qorän-Inte^olation.» in Orientalische Studien Theodor Nöldeke . . . g ä d m e t٠ 1906. i. 33-55 ‘Die Mas.ala Zunbürija.» in A Volume ٠‫ ر‬Oriental Studies Presented ،٥ E. ٠ . B rom e, Cambridge. 1922. 1 5 .6 Fischer, w . ‘Ein Stiick vorklassischer, arabischer Kunstprosa in der Umm Ma.bad-Legende’, in Festschrift w. Eilers, Wiesbaden. 1967, 318-24 ‘Silbenstrukmr und Vokalismus im Arabischen', Z D M G cxvii (1967) 3 .7 7 Frye, N. Anatomy of Criticism٠Princeton. 1957 FUck, j. *Arabiya; recherches sur l'histoire de la langue ‫ ﺀﺀ‬du style arabe, tr. c . Denizeau, Paris, 1955 G i f t e t . S. Saadia A l ٠J٥ 33ümïs arabische P s a lm e iersetzung i d Commentât (Psalm 73-89), Berlin» 1903 Garbell, I. ‘Remarks on the historical phonology of an East Mediterranean Arabic dialect', ^ ٠rdxiv(i958) 3.3-37 Geiger, A. Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommeri?, Leipzig, 19.2 Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Tranàssion in Rabbinic J à i s m and Early Christianity, Copenhagen. 1964 Gertner» M . ‘The Masorah and the Invites: an essay in the history of a concept', F T 1(1960) 241-72 ‘Term s of scripttiral interpretation: a study in Hebrew semantics', B S O A S (1962) 1-27 ‘T he tenns pharisaioi, gazarenoi, hupokritai: their semantic complexity and conceptual correlation', B S O A S n v i (1963) 245-58 ‘On translating medieval Hebrew writing’, J R A S (1963) 16393 Goitein, s . ‘Ramadan, the Muslim month of fasting’, in Studies ٤٠« Islamic History and Institutions, leiden, 1966, 9 0 ‫ﻟﻠ ﺺ‬ ٠A mming-point in the h isto^ of the Muslim state», I C xxiii (1949) 35‫ل‬2‫س‬ (Studies 7‫ل‬4 9 ‫) م‬ ‘T he Birth-hour of Muslim law', M W I (1960) 2 3 9 (Studies 34‫) ى‬ Goldziher, I. Abhandlungen zur Arabischen Philologie i-ii٠ Leiden, 1 8 9 ^ 9 DU R ichtige« der islamischen Koranauslegung. Leiden, iqaa Muhammedanische Studien i-ii, Halle, 1 8 8 ^ 0

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxxi

-

Die Zahiriten, Leipzig. 1884 Vorlesungen à den Islam, Heidelberg, 1910 Gesammelte Schriften i-v, ed. j . Desomogri, Hildesheim. 1967-70 (G S) 'Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachgelehreamkeit bei den Arabern 1-111’, S K A W lxvii (1871) 2.7-51, I n ii (1872) 587^31, Ixxiii (1873) 511-52 {GS i, 7-51, 91-135. 187-228) .Linpjistisches aus der Literatttr der muhammedanischen M ^tik», ZD M G xxvi (1872) 764-85 {G S i, 165-86) 'Ü ber muhammedanische Polemik gegen Ahl al-kitab», ZD M G m i i (1878) 341-87 (GS ii, 1-47) ‘Das Princip des Istishab in der muhammedanischen Gesetzwissenschaft’, WZKM'\{\%%1) 2 2 8 3 6 (GS ii. 182^0) .Die Ginnen der Dichter», Z D M G xlv (1891) 6 8 5 ^ 0 (GS ii, 400-5) - ‘D er Chatfo bei den alten Arabern», W ZK M vi (1892) 97-102 (G S iii, 27-32) *Usages juifs d ’après la litté ra ire religieuse des Musulmans», R E J xxviii (1894) 75-94 (GS iii, 322-41) *Neue Materialien zur Litterarar des überlieferungswesens bei den Muhammedanem ’, Z D M G I (1896) 465-5.6 (GS iv, 69-110) ‘Mélanges judéo-arates’, REJ xliii (19.1) 1-14 (G S iv, 263-76) *Neutestementliche Elemente in der Traditionslitteratttr des Islm », Oriens Christianus (19.2) 3 9 ^ 7 (GS iv, 315-22) *Die Bedeutttng der Nachmittagszeit im Islam», Archiv für Religionnoissen• Schaft ix (1906) 294-3.2 (GS V, 23-31) *Aus der G eologie des Fachr al-dïn al-Râzï», Der Islam iii (1912) 213-47 (G S V, 237-71) *Bemerkungen zur neuhebräischen Poesie», J Q R xiv (1^2) 719-36 *Kämpfe um die Stellung des Hadlt im Islam», ZD M G lxi (19.7) 860-72 (G S v , 86-98) Gotz, M. ‘Mamrldl und sein Kitäb Ta.wflät al-Qur.än», Der Islam xli (1965) 2 7 -7 . G tc k a x m . A. Einführung und Chrestomathie zur arabisch. P ctu sh u n d e. P ra lle , 1955 Granebaum, G. von. A Tenth-century Document ٠‫ ر‬Arabie Literary Theory and Critkism, Chicago, 195. Kritik und Dichtkunst: Studien zur arMchen Literaturgeschichte, Wiesbaden. ‫ا‬955

Grilnbaum, M. Neue Batrage zur semitischen Sagenkunde, Leipzig, 1893 Guidi, M. La lotta tra Vlslam ‫ ﺀ‬il Mamcheismo, Rome, 1927 Hasan, A. ‘The theory ofnaskh», Islamic S t i s iv (1965) 181-2W Heinrichs, w . Arabische Dichtung und Grieckische Poetik, Beirat, 1969. ^ e Wansbrough, B S O A S m i i i (1970) 615-17 Heller, B. ‘Récits et personnages bibliques dans la légende mahométane’, REJ lx x ^ (1928) 113-36 ‘La legende biblique dans l’Islam», REJxcvüi (1934) 1-18 Hibatalläh. Kitdb a l - n ä ä d m a n s ü k h , Cairo, 1960

xxxii

BIBLIO G RA PH Y

Hirschberg. j. Jüdische und christliche Lehren im vor- undfU slam ischen Arabien, Cracow, 1939 Hirschfeld. H. ‘Historical and legendary conteoversies between M.hammed and the Rabbis., X (1897g) 6‫ل‬٠‫ﻟ ﺺ‬ ‘Mohammedan criticism of the Bible.. J Q R xiii (1900-1) 222-40 N «o Researches into the Composition and Exegesis oj the Qoran. London, ‫ و أ‬٠ ‫ا‬ Hororite, j. Koranische Untersuchungen, Berlin-l^ipzig, 1926 ‘Zur Muhammadlegende., Der Islam V (1915) 41-53 ‘Muhammeds Himmelfahrt., Der Islam ix (1919) 159.83 *Biblische Nachwirkungen in der Slra», Der Islam xii (1922) 184^ Horst, H. ‘Zur Überlieferung im Korankommentar at.Tabaris., ZD M G ciii (1953) 29^307 Husa^m. T a h i ‘La Rhétorique arabe de DJahiz à ‘Abd al-Kähir», in Kudama b. Dja'far: Nakd an-nathr, Cairo, 1933, 3-24 Hyman, A. ‘Maimonides. “Thirteen Principles.’., J ë h Medieval and Renaissance S t i s , Cambridge, Mass., 1967, II۶٠44 Ibn *Abbàs. Kitab bayan lughdt al-Qur*ân, M S. Esad Efendi 91 Kitab g krib al-Qur*än, MS. Atif Efendi 2815 *Masä'ü # ‫ ﻣ ﻪ‬٠‫ﺀ‬٠Azraq* : see *Abd al-Bâqï, Mujamghartb al-Qur'än, 234-92 Ibn *Abd Rabbih. Alm'Iqd al-farid, Bulaq, 1293 Ibn Abi *1-I‫؟‬ba٠. Badl* al-Qur'än, Cairo, 1957 Ibn Anbari. A l-In$âffï masä'ü al-khilaf) Cairo, 1961 Ibn *Arabi. Ahkdm al-Qur'än, Cairo. 1331 Sharb to TimtidhJ, $ahih, Cairo, 1934 Ibn Athlr. K î t ê al-hânùl, leiden, 1851-76 Ibn H azm . ‫ ا ﺀ‬٠،‫ ﺀه‬al-fyal voal-milal, Cairo, 1321 Ibn Hisham. See Ibn Ishaq Ibn Hisham al-Ançârî. Mugknl ٠l-labib, Cairo, 1969 Ibn Ishaq. Al-Sira al-nabatoiyya (Ibn Hisham), Cairo. 1955 Ibn Kalbl, Hisham. Kitäb al-Afnam, Cairo, 1924 Ibn KammUna (Sa.d b. Man?٥r). Tamfib al-abhäth lü-mäal à l é l â t h , Berkeley‫ ﺻ ﺄ‬Angeles, 1967 Ibn Kathlr. Tafsir, Beinit. 1966 Ibn M u n a ^ ir. ٠A1-Inti?âf’: shark to Zamakhshari, A l - K à h â f , Beirut, 1967 Ibn Mu.tazz. Kitab al-Badi', London, 1935 Ibn Muqaffa*. ‘Risalat fil-§ahäba٠. in M . Kurd *All, R asail al-bulaghd', Cairo, 1946, 117-34 Ibn Qutayba. Ta toil Mushkil al-Qur'än, Cairo, 1954 Ibn Sa.d. TabaqUt, Cairo, 1939 Ibn Wahb. Äl-Burhän f t loujvh ül-bayän, Baghdad, 1967 Ibn Abi Däwüd. See Jeffery, Materials Isfahan!, Raghib. Hall mutashäbihät al-Qur'än, MS. Ragip Pasha 180 Izutsu, T . Etkico-religious concepts in the Quran, Montreal, 1966 jahi?. .Kitab hujaj al-nubmwa», in Rasail, Cairo, 1933, 117-54

BIBLIO GRA PHY

xxxiii

Al-Baydn ml~tàbyïn 1-iii. Cairo, 1947 ‘Kitab al-tarb^ wal-tadwlr’, in Tria opuscula٠ leid en , 1903, 86-1.7 Ja'far al-Çâdiq. Tafsir, MS. Nafiz Pasha 65 Ja??â‫؟‬. Ahkdm aUQurart) Istanbul, 1335-8 Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, New York, 1950 Jeffery, A. Materials for the history o f ،A٥ text of à Q uran (inc. Ibn Abï Dàwüd, Kitab al-masdhif), Leiden, 1937 .The Qur’än as scripttjre., M W xl (195.) 41-55, 5^ 257 ,206- 185 34‫ل‬٠ ‫ خ‬٠ Jensen, p. ‘Das Leben Muhammeds und die Datdd-Sage., ٠ ^ Islam xii (1922) 8417 Johnson, A. ‘Mashal*, in W ià m in Israel and in the ancient Near East) Suppl. V T iii (1960) ‫ل‬6‫آل ة‬ Jones, j. .The c h ro n o lo . of the maghdzi— a textaal suraey’, B S O A S xix ) ‫ ول‬5 7 ( *45 - 8 . JuIIandri, R. ‘Qur.ânic exegesis and classical tafsir., IQ xii (1968) 71-119 Juriani. Asrdr al-baldgha, Istanbul, 1954 D a la iltja z al-Qurdn, Cairo, 1372 Kahle, p. ‘The Arabic readers of the K o r a n . , v i i i (1949) 65-71 Kalbi, Muhammad. Tafsir) MS. Ayasofya 118. Hamidiye 40 Katsch, A. Judaism in Islam, New York, 1954 Khoury, A. Les Théologiens byzantins ‫ ﺀ‬٤ V lslm , Louvain-Paris, 1969. See Wansbrough, B S O A S m i i i (197.) 391-3 Khurasâni, ٠A^a٠ pseudo). Tafsir (1ikhtildf), MS. Ahmet III, 310 KisS.1. Kitab Mushtabihdt alQ urdn, M S. Beyazit Umumi 436 Kister, M. ‘You shall only set out for three mosques. : a sttidy of an early tradition’. Le Muséon lxxxii (1969) 6‫ل‬73‫أ‬ ٠A bag of meat: a sUidy of an early badith*) B S O A S m i i i (197.) 267^5 *Al-tahannuth: an inqui^ into the meaning of a term., B S O A S m i (1968) 223-36 ٠Al-hira: some notes on i t e relations with Arabia., A r ä c a XV (1968) 9‫ل‬43‫ﺑ ﻰ‬ Koc\v١ ١‫ ع‬٠ The G r i h oj the Biblical Tradition. London, iqbq Kofler, H. ‘Reste airarabischer Dialekte., W ZK M xlvii (1940) 61-13., 2 3 3 2 ‫ ﺑ ﻰ‬٠ xhriii (1941) 52-88, 247-74, xlix (1942) 15-30, 234-56 and G6 ١ z ٠ . A. E^ologiiches Wörtertoich der deutsche Sprache. Berlin 1953 Kopf, L. ‘Religious influences on medieval Arabic p h ilo lo ^ , V (1956) 33-59 ‘The treatment of fo rei^ words in medieval Arabic lexicolo.*. Scripta Hierosolymitana ix (1961) 191-2.5 Krauss, s. .Talmudische Nachrichten über Arabien., Z D M G l n (1916) 321-53. Ixxi(!9i7) 2 6 8 1 Künstlinger, D. ‘ “ Kitab*. und “ ٩hlu l-kitabi” im Kurän», RO iv (1926) 2 3 4 7 ‫ﺀ‬ ٠“ Islam.., “Muslim.., “A slina’. im Çurân ٠. R O 37- 128 (1935) ‫ال‬ —— ‘Die Namen der Gottes-Schriften im Quran.. R O xiii (1937) 72-84 ٠ ‘Uzair ist der Sohn Allah’s., (1932) 381-3 *Sab.an min al-mathani., O L Z (1937) 596-8

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lammens, H. UArabie occidentale٥ ٠ ، Vhegire, Beirut, 1928 Lauterbach, j. Saadja Al-fajjüä’s aräche Psalmdersetzung und Commentar (Psalm107-24), Berlin, 19.3 Lausberg, H. Handbuch der literaàhen Rhetorik, München, 196. Lehmann. E., and Pedersen, j . ‘Der Beweis für die Auferstehung im Koran, Der IslamV (1914) 54-61 Lidzbareki, M. ‘Salam und Isläm٠, £ 5 i (1922) 85-96 Lindblom, j. *Wisdom in the Old Testament prophets., in WisdominIsrael andin theancient Near East, Suppl. F T iii(i96٠) 192-204 I^ewe, R. *The .‘Plain*, meaning of scriptore in early Jewish exegesis', in Papers of theInstitute ofJewish Studies١Vroèm ‫ أ‬4٠ -‫ ؟‬، ‫ ة‬١ *The medieval h isto ^ of the Latin Vulgate', CHB ii, Cambridge, 1969, 1.2-54 Ma.arri. Risât aUghufrän, Cairo, 1950 Anon. Kitab al-Mûbâm, Cairo, 1954 (Jeffery. Two Muqaddxmas)

1 ‫ ة‬١‫لإ‬٠ Kitdh aLtatttah toal-radd'ala ahl al-ahwü١ waLbida'٠ l، \٠k a Lalaxnka IX, Istanbul, 1936 Maimonides. Dàlât al-hairtn i-iii, Paris, 1856-66 (s. Munk) Iggeret Teman, New York, I952(A. Halkin) Mdlik b. Anas. Al-Mutoapfa, Cairo, 1951 Margoliouth, D. ‘Om aFsinstractionstothe kadi', JRAS (1910) 3.7-26 *The origins of Arabie poetry’, JRAS (1925) 417-49

1 ‫لة\ةلآ‬١٠‫\ل‬١ I Recueil de textes inédits concernant l'histoire de la mystique en pays d’Islam i, Paris, 1929 Issotv. ٠ . Le Coran et la révélation ‫؛‬uddo-chTétiCTne‫ ؛‬études c -e e s ٠ Paris, 1958

Mann. j. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine undCT the Fatimids

٠١‫ ع د‬١

Oxiotd,

1920-2 Mâtorîdï. Kitab Ta*ât al-Qur’ân, MS. Medine 179. 18. Mehren, A. von. Die Rhetorik der A rä, Kopenhagen-Wien, 1853 Metzger, B. The Text of à New Testament, Oxford, 1968 Mirsky, A. *Biblical variants in medieval Hebrew poe^*, Textus iii (1963) 159-62 Mimvoch, E. *Die Berliner arabische Handschrift Ahlwardt No. 683*, in A Volume ٠‫ ﻛﻞ‬Oriental Studies Presented ،٠ E. G. Browne, Cambridge, 1922, 33944 Monroe, j . *Oral composition in Pre-Islamic poetry’,Journal of Aräc Literature iii (1972) 1-53 M oàiac.1 Abrah^ dans le Cotan, Paris. ‫ةةوا‬ Moscati, s . Ved.Y An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the s ٠ itic Lan. ‫ﺀﺀﺀ‬٩‫ﺀﺀﺀ‬, Wiesbaden, 1964 (ed.). Linguish Semitica; presente efuturo, Srndi Semitici 4, Rome, 1961 Mowinckel, s. *Psalm criticism bettveen 1900 and 1935', VTv (1955) 13-33 Muilenburg, j. *A stody in Hebrew rhetoric: re^tition and style*, Suppl. VTi (1953)97-111 Müller, F. Untersuchungenzur ReimprosaimKoran, Bonn, 1969. See Wansbrough, BSOAS m i i i (1970) 3 - 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY Murtada, Sharif. A g i , G r .» 1954 Muqâtil b. S u lay m k Tqfsir, MS. Hasan Hüsnü 17 Kitab tafnr a l-W w m iia t dya min al-Qur an. MB. B ï ü M u s t i v Ot. 6333 Kitab ül-Ashbäh waî-naçiT f i tafsir al-Qur'ân, M S. Beyazit Umumi 561 Muslim. ffahih viii, Cairo. 1332 Nahhâs. Kitab al-nâsikhzvgl-marâh, Cair.» 1938 1 1 ١ 1 ‫ عء‬Beitrage sur Kenntnis der P ë dCT alten A Taber.W aiovet, Delectus Veterum Carmiuum Ä Tabiconim .Beik iBqo Zur G r.rn .tife des classischen Arabisch ^ed. Bp\ta\et١٠ Darmstadt. Britrdge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. B t m s k f c , ٠ 4‫و ل‬ Neue Bâtrage z u r ‫ﺀ‬٠ ‫’اا‬،‫ ط ﺀ ﺀآ‬Sprackàenschqft٠ Sttassburg, 191. and Schwally, F. Geschichte des Qorans i-ii, G ipzig, 19.9-19. See Bergstrâsser-Pretzl Norden, E. Die Antike KunstprosOf Stuttgart, 1958 N . rtis, H. *New evidence on the life of .Abdullah B. Yàsïn and the Orions of the the Almorasdd movement.. Journal ‫ ره‬African History xii (1971) 2 5 5 ^ 8 Nyberg, H. .Zum K am pf zwischen Islam und Manichäismus», O L Z 1929) ‫) ﺋ ﻊ ﺀ‬ 42511 O bem ann, j. ‘Political th eo lo ^ in early Islam: Hasan al-Ba‫؟‬rï٠s tteatise on qadar», J A O S lv (1935) 138-62 .Koran and Agada: the evento at Mount Sinai», A JS L L lvii (1941) 23-48 ‘Islamicorigins: astttdyto^ Princeton, 19.4, 58-120 Ory, S. ‘Un Nouveau T ^ e de muçhaf: Inventaire des G rans en rouleaux de provenance damascaine, consertés à Istanbul., R E I xxxiii (1965) 87-149 O. Shaughnessy, T . The Koramc Concept ٠‫ ر‬٤‫ ﺀخ‬Word of Godt Rome, 1948 ‘The seven names for Hell ‫ ئ‬the Qur’an., B S O A S ٠ iv (1961) 4 4 4 9 ‫ﺑ ﻰ‬ Muhammad.s Thoughts on Death: a Thematic Study of the Qur'anic Data. Leiden, 1969. See Wansbrough. B.SOA5 xxxiii (197.) 613-15 Paret, R. ‘Der Koran als Geschichtsquelle., Der Islam - i i (1961) 2 4 2 ‫ؤ‬ Der Koran: Kommentar und Konkordanz, Sriittgart, 1971 Pedereen, j. Israel i-iv, Gndon-Copenhagen, 1926-40 *The Islamic preacher: wa.i?, mudhakkir, qä??., in Goldziher Memoria Volume i, Budapest, 1948, 22^51 ‘The criticism of the Islamic preacher., W I ii (1953) 215-31 See Lehmann, E. Perlmann, M. ‘Another Ka*b al-Ahbar story., J Q R xlv (1954) 4 ^ 5 8 Qa^âjannî. See Heinrichs, w ., A r ä c f t e Dichtung Qalqashandl. $ubb al-ashd, Cairo, 1914-20 Qâsim b. Ibrahim- Kitab al-radd ' 1* ‫ﻣﺤﻚ‬-zindïq (see Guidi. M.) Qazwlnl. ShurHh al-talkhlf i-iv, G iro , 1937 Qumml. Tqfsir, Najaf, 1386 Qurpibl. A l’Jâm 'U -a h k à aî-Qurân, Cairo, 1967

BIBLIO GRA PHY Rabin» c . Ancient West-Arabian» l^mdon, 1951 ‘T he b e^ n n in ^ of Classical Arabic.» S I iv ( 37 ‫ول‬55( 19‫ا‬ Qumran Studies» Orford» 1957 ‘T he historical back^ound of Qumran Hebrew.» Scripta Hierosolymitana iv (1958/1965) 144^1 Rad» G. von. o w Testament TAe٥I٥ ٠ i-ii» Edinburgh» 1962-5 Reckendorf» H. Die S y n t a k t i s k V e rh a ltà e des A r ä c h e n i-ii» leiden» 1895-8 ArM sche Syntax» Heidelberg» 1921 Reuschel» w . ‘Wa-käna llahu .allman rahïman’» in S t u k Orientalia in Memoriam Carol* Brockelmam» Halle» 1968» 147-53 Richter, w . Exegese ‫ ﺋ ﻪ‬L iteraturàenschaft, Göttingen, 1971 Ritter, H . *Sttidien zur Geschichte der islamischen Frömmigkeit I. Hasan alBa?rï, Der Islam xxi (1933) 1-83 Rosenthal, F. ‘The influence of the Biblical tradition on Muslim h isto rit^ p h y ., in Historians of à Middle East, London, 1962, 35-45 Saadya. Kitab al-Amänät «,‫ ﺀه‬-‫ آ‬٠،‫ أ‬٠‫ ﺋ ﺔ‬،» Leiden, 188. See Galliner, S.» and Lauterbach, j. Sabbagh, T . La Métaphore dans le Coran, Paris, 1943 Schacht, j . The Origins of M u h a m m à n Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1953 A n Introduction ٤٠ I s l a à Law, Oxford, 1964 ^dvapixo. Die haggadischen E l ^ ^ t e im erzählenden Tril des Korans ‫ا‬٠١ Leipzig. IW

Schoeps, H . Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tübingen, 1.49 & hreiner, M. ‘Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanem», xlii (1888)5 9 7 5 ‫ﺑﻰل‬ Schrieke, B. .Die Himmelsreise Muhammeds», Der Islam vi (1915-16) 1-3. Schwara, M. ‘The le tte r of al-Hasan al-Ba‫؟‬rï٠, Oriens XX (1967/9) 15-3. Schwarabaum, H. .The Jewish and Moslem versions of some theodicy legends.. Fabula iii ( 1 9 5 - ) 119-69 Seeligmann, I. ‘Vorausseteungen der Midraschexegese., Suppl. F 7 ١i(i953) ‫ل‬5‫ س‬8 ‫ل‬ Segal, M . A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, 1927 Sellheim, R. ‘Prophet, Caliph und Gœchichte: Die M uham m ad-B io^phie des Ibn Ishaq., O r i . xviii-xix (1965^/67) 33-91 Semaan, K. ‘Al-Nasikh wal-mansUkh., IQ vi (1961) 11-29 Se^eant, R. ‘The “Constittition of Medina.. ٠, IQ viii(i904) 3-16 ‫؟‬، ei.gm١ Y ٠ Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums i٠ U\de‫؛‬iv٠ ‫ ل‬9 ‫ 201-62 Wieder, N. Thejudean Scrolls and Karaism, London, 1962 Wdd, s. Das Kitab al•* A in und à a r ä c h e Leiographie, Wiesbaden, 1965 Wûrthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1957 Zabïdî. Taj al-*Artis, Cairo, 1 3 Zajjaj. Kitab Trab al-Qurän wa-màâmhi, MS. Ahmet III, 122-3, Nurosmaniye Zamakhshari. A l - K à h â f *٠„ haqaiq al-tanzil i-iv, Beirat, 1967 Al-Mufasfal, Christiana, 1879 Zuhri. Kitab Tanzil al-Qurän, Beinat, 1963 1Zi z . L . Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der jfu d e n .Y ik iu r t. 2‫وةا‬

MANUSCRITS UTILIZED IN QURAN IC STUDIES 1. 'Abd al-Jabbar, Tathbit daJäil alnubuw w a An edition was published in 1966, edited by Abd al-Karlm *Uthmän. ٠‫ ئ‬٠

*1

‫ ة ل ا ا‬١ K itab alnàsikh wal-mansukh A facsimile edition of the manuscript Ahmet III 143 (2 0 9 ..) was published by F. Sezgin. Frankhirt 1985. The manuscript was edited with commentary by John Burton. Cambridge 1987‫ ؛‬also edited by Muhammad al-Mudayfir, Riyad 1990. See A. Rippin, “Abu *ubaid’s Kitab al-nâsîkh w alm ansükhr H 4.S.53 (1990): 319—20, for details on the manuscript fragment, Turk ve Islam Eserli MUzesi 7892.

‫ل\ م ي‬

3. Abu (ubayd, F a da lla/-Qur>än Wansbrough employed an extract published by Spitaler. The hill text has been edited by W ahbi Sulaymän KhäwajJ Beirat 1991. ‫ ه‬٠

2\ ‫ء‬

\‫\ ة ة ة‬١ % ‫ أ ة ه‬0 ‫\\ ؤ‬١ ‫ ل‬١ K itab a!-näsikh wal-mansukh The text has been published, ed. Hilmi Kamil As‘ad *Abd alHadi, 'Amman 1987, based upon the manuscripts Berlin Petermann 555 (a somewhat broken copy) and Beyazit 445. A third significant manuscript exists, Manisa 178, b itte n in the eighth century, l O i f f . For hirther details on this text, see A. Rippin, “The Exegetical Literature of Abrogation: Form and C ontent; 1 In Studies in Islam ic and M iddle Eastern Texts and Traditions in M em ory N orm an Calder (Oxford, 2000), pp. ‫ه ة ل آ‬

2 1 3 -3 1 .

‫؟‬، .Dinawan, Tafsir al-wädfo The text has been published under the title Tafsir ibn Wahb musamma al-W adib ft tafsir afQ ura n a fka n m y ed. Ahmad Farid (Beirat, 2003). However, the work ascribed to Kalbi—see number 9 below -and at the same time ascribed to Ibn *Abbas and 1 - - -1 . 1- a n d printed many times under the title T a n É aimiqbas min tafsir Ibn A ‘ bbas— is identical‫ ؛‬see A. Rippin, “ Tafsir

MANUSCRIPTS UTILIZED

Ibn A ‘ bbàs and Criteria for Dating Early tafsir Texts,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam lS (1994): 38—83 (= A. Rippin, The Q ufan an d Its Interpretative Tradition [Aldershot, UK, 2001], chap. 15). C.\\m% Y>äs١ K itab bayän lughat al-Qur’àn Wansbrough indicates (p. 219) that the manuscript Esad Efendi 91 with this title contains the text of Ibn ‘Abbas, Gharib ‫رو‬Qur>än. For hirther clarification of the works under both these titles, see A. Rippin, "Ibn ‘Abbas.s al-Lughat fi>l-Qur*än,” BSOAS 44 (1981): 15-25; and A. Rippin, “Ibn ‘Abbas’s Gharib alQur’an,” BSO AS 46 (1983): 332-33 (= A. Rippin, The Quran and Its Interpretative Tradition) chaps. 13 and 14). The work is published (as indicated by Wansbrough b u tn o t consulted by him) as Kitab al-lughat fï.l-Quriân rawäya ibn HasnUn al-M uqri biisnadihi ilä Ibn Abbas, ed. Çalàh al-Dïn al-Munajjid (Cairo, 1946; reprint, Beirut, 1972). 7. Ibn ‘Abbas, Kitab gharib al-Quran The work is identical to Ibn ‘Abbas, Kitäb bayan lughat ‫ر و‬ Qur’âiï) see number 6 above. 8. Isfahan!, Räghib, Hall niutashäbihat al-Qur*än No forther work appears to have taen manuscript.

done

on this

9. Ja‘far al-$ädiq, Tafsir No fiirther work appears to have been done on this manuscript. Meir M. Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis in Early ImamI Shiism (leiden, 1999). comments that such texts are “clearly ahistorically ascribed” to the early Imams (p. 7). 10. Kalb!, Tafsir Published many times; see number 5 above. 11. Khurasan!, ‘Ata’ (Pseudo), T é ïr (ikhtiläf) No filrther work appears to have been done on these folios.

M A N U SC R IT S UTILIZED

xli

2 l\s ä T \ ١

Kitab m ushtabihatal-Qur.ân Published under the title Kitäb mutashäbib al-Qur>än, cd. $abïh al-Tamïmï (TaräbulUs, 1994).

3. al-Mâturïdï. K itäb ta’vvïlât af-Quran Only vol. 1 has been published under the title Ta>wïlât ahl alsunna, ed. Ibrahim and alSayyid ‘Awadayn (Cairo. 1971); also, ed. Muhammad Mustafid al-Rahmän (Baghdad, 1983). 4. Mu ٩ atil ibn Sulaymän, Tafslr Published in four volumes (plus a fifth volume as in index and study), ed. ‘Abd Allah MafimUd Shifiata (Cairo, 1 9 8 0 -8 9 )‫ ؛‬also published in three volumes, ed. Ahmad Farid (Beimt, 2003). 5. Mu ٩ atil ibn Sulaymàn, Kitäb tafsTr al-kham sm i’a t àya m in alQur>än Published, ed. Isaiah Goldfeld (Shfaram, 1980). c.

!

٩ ‫ ة‬١‫ة‬

* k ‫>؟‬u\‫؟‬f ä i \ ١ K itab al-ashbah wa)l-na?ä‫؟‬r fl tafsir al-

Qur>än

‫لآ‬١‫ لف‬١‫ ف ة ذ‬under lYve l'vùe Kitab al-ashbah wal-na£â١ r Q uran, ed. ‘Abd Allah Mahmud shifiata (Cairo, 1975).

fi

'1-

‫ ا‬. 1 ‫ ة‬١١ ‫ ه‬١١ Kitab i ‘r äb al-Quran wa-ma‘änihi

Published in five volumes under the title M acà nï l-Q u /ä n waïràbuhU) ed. ‘Abd al-Jalil ‘Abduh Shalabi (Beimt, 1988).

REVELATION A N D CANON I. T H E DOCUMENT

separated from an extensive corpus of prophetical logid) the Islamic revelation became scripture and ‫ ئ‬time, starting from the fart itself of lite ra l stabilization, was seen to contain a logical stnirture of its own. By the very achievement of canonicity the document of revelation was assured a kind of independence, both of historical traditions commonly adduced to explain its existence and of external criteria reemited to facilitate its underetanding. But the elaborate and Unposing edifice of classical Quranic scholarehip is hardly monolithic, and discernible lines of cleavage coreespond to the number of options left open to the most fundamental lines of inquiry. Both fomally and concepfcially, Muslim scriptare drew upon a traditional stock of monotheistic imagery, which may be described as schemata of revelation. Analysis of the Quranic application of these shows that they have been adapted to the essentially paraenetic character of that document, and that, for example, ori^nally narrative material was reduced almost invariably to a series of discrete and parabolic utterances. An illustration is Swrat Y l f ) often cited as a single instance of complete and sustained narrative in the Qur٠5n. In fact, without benefit of exegesis the Quranic story of Joseph is anything but clear, a consequence in part of its elliptical presentation and in part of occasional allusion to ertra.Biblical tradition, e.g. verees 24, 67, 77.1 It may, indeed, be supposed that the public for whom Muslim scriphire was intended could be expected to supply the missing detail. A distinctly referential, as contrasted with expositoty, style characterizes Quranic treatment of most of what I have alluded to as schemata of revelation, exhibited there as components of earlier established literary types. The technique by which a theme is repeatedly signalled but seldom developed may be observed from an examination in their Quranic form of those themes traditionally assoriated with literatare of prophetical expression. Not merely the principal themes, but also the rhetorical conventions by which they are linked and in which they are clothed, the variant traditions in which they have been preserved, as well as the incidence of exegetical gloss and linguistic assimilation, comprise the areas of investigation undertaken in the first part of these srndies. O

nce

‫ ا‬S e . below, IV pp. 7‫ل‬ 3‫ﺦ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ . 433.076

QURANIC STUDIE S

F our characteristic examples are found in the imagery appropriate to the theodicy: retribution, sign, exile, and covenant. T hese themes, which constitute by far the major part of the Quranic message, depend upon a limited lexical range with correspondingly high ratios of frequency and distribution. The result is not unexpected: a very repetitive style which could indirate either a long period of oral transmission or an original series of unco-ordinated pericopes, or both.1 The imagety associated with divine retribution turns principally upon four substantives: 1 1 (nation). awtoaltin (predecessors), ۴ » (generation), and qarya (abode), accompanied by such finite verbs as khalâ, madä, and haîàa (signifying decease). O f the many contexts containing thrae locutions those which are not anonymous were analysed by Horovitz, described as Straflegenden, and ingeniously related to the seven mathäni(Q. 15: 87, possibly 39: 23).* Emphasis upon the dramatis personae of those Straßegenden٠which I should prefer to call retribution pericopes, led Horovitz to postulate a number of Biblical caiques, in turn adduced as evidence of the Arabian prophet’s increasing knowledge of Hebrew scripftre. T his kind of argument was a corollary of that scholar’s acceptance of the NOldekoSchwally chronology of revelation, a feasible but hardly the only method of interpreting the Quranic data.3 T he phrases ‫( ﺗﻠﻠﻰ آﺑ ﺔ ﺗ ﺪ ﺧﻠ ﺖ‬Q. 2: 134. ‫ل‬4 ‫( ﻟ ﻜ ﻞ اﻣﺔ أ ﺟ ﻞ «( ا‬Q. 7: 34. io : 49), ‫( ﻟ ﻜ ﻞ اﻣﺔ رﺳﻮل‬Q. 10: 47, cf. 16: 36. with shahid 16: 89, with

nadhir 35: 24), 4 ‫( ﻟﻘﺪ ا و ﺳﻨﺎاﻟ ﻰ اﻣﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﺗﺐ‬Q. ‫ل‬6 ‫ؤت‬3 ‫ ﺀ‬cf. 29: 18,425 : ‫ »)؛‬etc., are to be understood as hortatoty or admonishing, and of eschatological rather than historical significance. Of similar application is im a g e s developed round the concept a m a h , as ‫( ﺑ ﻞ ﺗﺎﻟﻮا ﺷ ﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺎ ل األوﻟﻮن‬Q. 23‫ذ‬ 8 ‫ ( ل‬. ‫ﺧ ﺘ ﺄ ا أل و ﻳ ﺊ‬ ‫( ﻧﻨﺪ‬Q. 8: 8 ‫ت‬٠ cf. 3: ‫ ا‬3‫ ا ﻳ ﺮ ا آل و ﻳ ﻦ ه‬I I : 5‫ﻟ ﺮ ﺀ‬Hud to .Äd٠ . 7: 73, I l : 61—Salih to ThamUd; 7: 85, 11:84. 29: 3 ^ S h u 'a y b to Midian). and might well be thought an editorial interpolation designed precisely to introduce reports of prophetical missions, themselves cast in infom al dialogue. Element II. the corroboratio (Botenformel)) is not necessarily out of place in the canonical sequence of A and B, but is probably nearer its orignal position in where it introduces the substance of the message, which is elem ent III: the diatribe or accusation (iScheltwortjAnklage).1 Only in version B is the diatribe not immediately followed by element IV: the threat or prediction of disaster (DrokzvortlUnheilsaMndigung).: Also in vereion B that prediction is specified as the destiny of those who rejected the warnings of Noah and Lot. and of the Arabian prophets Hud and Salih, while in versions A and allusion to the fate of the umam khäliya is general. T h u s version B, rather than A, m ight represent the final shape of the tradition, a possibility strengthened by the form if not the position of merely r é amin, in A billadht ursiltu bihi) and in B element I I : in bayyina min r l " (which however occurs, slightly varied, in element III of version A : bayyina mn rabbikum). In elements V, VI, and V II, which constitute the altercation, dialogue is prominent. Version contains only element V, the contestation (Bestreitung), elaborated in A and B to include a counter-argument or justification (Begründung)) and a third component (element VII) which might be described as the resignation and which concludes the dispute. Here, however, version A exhibits a context more even and consistent than B. as well as a m ore sophisticated argument. Element VIII s i s a l s revereion from dialogue to narrative, in order to describe rejection o f G o d ’s message and fulfilment of the threat (element IV). the dominant motif of the Quranic exem pk The position of element IX , the e p ilo ^e or final assessment, is logical only in version A. From the canonial veree sequence of versions B and and from its absence in Q. 29: 36-7. one m ight conclude that it was a late and optional embellishment. As set out in the dritribe (element III), the primaty tra n s is s io n s of Shu.ayb's people were three: failure to observe fair practice in what appear to be basic mercantile transactions ‫( اوﻧﻮا ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻴ ﻞ واﻟ ﻌﻴﻨﺎ ن‬cf. especially Q. 83 :

c.

c

c

c

c.

‫ ا‬Westemann, Grundformen, 4 ^ .

‫ ا‬Westermann, loc. c‫؛‬t.

R E V E LA T IO N AND CANON

2‫ئ‬

2-3, b u t als. 6: 152, 17: 35, and 12: 59, 88; and pasnm in the negotiations between Joseph and his brothers); lack of equity in questions of p r o p e ^ ‫( و الﺗ ﺒ ﻌ ﻀ ﻮا اﻟﻨﺎ س اﺷﻴﺎﺀﻫﻢ‬cf. Q. 2 1 1:1 ,‫ ذ‬28 ‫ ؟‬$); and appare‫ ؟‬tly a general ‫؛‬nclination to damage and injury ‫ ال ﺗ ﻔ ﺪ و ا ﻓﻰ األر ض‬or ‫ال ﺗ ﺸ ﻮا ق األر ض‬ ‫( ﺛ ﺪ ﻳ ﻦ‬the latter, attested otherwise only at Q. 2: 6٠, evidently restricted to the Shu'ayb traditions). From indications such as these itisof course quite impossible to identify either the people or the prophet.* Other allusions are shnilarly unhelpful, e.g. the concept of .refonn. {isläh) in Q. 7: 85 and 11: 88, but not in vereion or inclusion of the m en of the copse among the ahzab in Q. 38: 13 (cf. also 15: 78) or with othere of the m am khaliya in 5٠ : 14 (cf. also the Midianites in 9: 70). But Quranic references to Midian belong as often to the Mosaic traditions, and the story of Shu.ayb m ust be regarded as a parable, its exemplary function of ^ e a te r moment than its improbable historicity. Admonitions on equity in the matter of weights and measures represent a Pentateuchal motif, developed in the pro p h etial literature (Leviticus 19: 35-6, Deuteronomy 25: 13-16, and cf. Amos 8: 5, Micah 6: 11). T he Shu.ayb traditions exhibit little by way of historical development but ample evidence of literaty elaboration, drawn from recognizable and well-established types of prophetical report. Such elaboration is characteristic of M uslim scripttire, in which a comparatively small number of themes is preserved in vatying stages of literaty achievement. T h e effect of variant traditions may be differently illustrated, and assessed. Majority opinion in the exegetical literature accepts that the passage Q. 55: 46-77 describes four gardens, whose identification as stages of celestial reward for the faithful became a si^ ifica n t exercise in eschatological writing. Early on, but with little effect upon the verees as source of doctrinal and allegorical speculation, a dissenting view was recorded, namely, that the dual form jannatam in Q. 55: 46 was demanded by the scheme obtaining there for verae juncture, but in fact represented the singular ‫ر‬٠‫ ا ﺑ ﺪ‬as in Q. 79:41 ‫ﻗﺎ ل اﻟﻐﺮاﺀ وواد ﺟﻨﺔ‬: ‫ ﻗ ﺎ م رﺗﻪ ﺟﻨﺘﺎ ن‬٠‫ ن ﺧﺎ ف‬٠‫ول‬ ‫ ال و ى ﻛ ﻰ ال ﺟ ﻞ اﻟﻨﺎ ﺻﻠﺔ‬١ ‫ ﻟ ﻪ ﻓﺈن اﻟ ﺠﻨﺔ ﻫﻰ‬/ . ‫ ع‬Applied alsO and for the same reason to Q. 55: 62 that stricttire would halve the total num ber of gardens, a result confim ed by examination of the parallel descriptions of the two pairs. Each contains sixteen veraes (i.e. Q. 55: 4‫ ﻟ ﺔ ه‬and 62-77),

c,

half of which consist of the recuiTing phrase ‫ ا د ﻛ ﻨ ﺒ ﺎ ن‬٠‫ ذ ا ى اآلﺀ رﺗﻚ‬٠ employed thirty-one times in the entire süra but nowhere else in the text 1 Cf. Geiger, Was h a t M ohammed, 170-7; G d Q i, 151 n. 9 ; Horovitz, Untersuchungen I 93-4. 119-20, 138‫ ؛‬Torrey, Foundation, 71; Speyer, Erzählungen٠ 251-4. 2 FarrS., apud Suyütï, Itqan iii, 299; employing the same CTiteria but ignoring the masoretic .. R nm prosa , 132-3, rwched a similar conclusion; cf. B S O A S m i i i (19 7 .) 389^1.

Q U R A N IC S T U D I E S

of scripture (cf. the related locutions in Q. 7: 69, 74. 53: 55). Formally, its function is to stress the dual inflexion characteristic of this passage. Structurally, it produce the effect of a litany, and its similarity to ٥Vl»V ٩D n o n which performs the same function in Psalm 136 has been noted.* I should like here to insist upon th e te m litany rather than refrain. T he role of the latter in the Qur.än and elsewhere, is that of concluding formula, w hich does not adequately describe employment of the device in this passage.» There the construction is based upon eight unifom ly short verses, which are those of the second description (Q. 55: 62-77), expanded formally and conceptually in the somewhat less unifonn verees of the first description (Q. 55: 46-61), the whole enveloped and punctuated by the element: T h en which of your Lord’s bounties do you deny? In the order of the canon the two sets of eight verses are as follows. A 46. And to him who fears the presence of his L ord, two gardens. 48. Of many varieties/colours. 50. With two springs flowing.

52. Of every frnit two kinds. 54. Reclining on beds with linings of brocade, the fnjit of the two gardens near by. 56. With chaste maidens, untouched before by men or Jinn. 58. As though of ruby and pearl. 60. Can the reward for goodness be other than goodnws?

62. 64. 66. 68. 70. 72. 74. 76.

B And besides them, two gardens. Of deep green. With two springs bubbling. With fruit and palms and pomegranates. With pure (and) beautiful ones. Pure white, reserv e in chambers. Untouched before by m en or Jinn. Reclining on green cushions and fine carpets.

The conttapuntal scheme is not perfectly executed, but sufficiently so to have prom pted Zamakhshari to qualify the descriptive components of vereion B as just inferior to those of version A.3 That implied of course ‫ ا‬Hirschfeld, Researches, 73 n. 2٠ . though of the calque I am less certain than the author‫ ؛‬cf. also Speyer, Erzählungen٠ 29. ‫ع‬ Ibn Qutayba descrited the fom u la as a marker (‫ر‬ ٠ '‫ط‬ ) between each pair of divine favours, T a w il , 181‫ ؛‬cf. G d Q i, 42; Koch, G ro w th , 96; Eissfeldt, Einleitung , 7 1 -3 ‫؛‬ Strophenbau. 5 K ashshdf iv. 454: ٠ ٥ min duni h i ä in verse 62.

REVELATIO N AND CANON acceptance of the canonical order o f the two descriptions, b u t from the same evidence it could be argued th a t version A rep rœ en ts an elaboration of version B, both b y rhetorical device and exegetical gloss. A e t h e r the em bellishm ent is to b e underetood as purely literary o r as a reflex o f what may have been the litu r^ c a l function of these verses, is difficult to determine. I f a cultic co n tex t can be envisaged, it w ould seem that th e descriptions o f paradise w ere recited in inverse order to th e canon. M o re likely, however, is juxtaposition in the canon of tw o closely related variant traditions, contam inated by recitation in identical contexts, or produced from a single trad itio n by oral transm ission. I m a g e s based on a pair of gardens appeare elsew here, e.g. Q. 34: 15-16 and 18: 32-3, though in the latter instance the p arab le is weakened by defective syntactical distribution.! In n e ith e r passage d id the im agery provoke eschatolo^cal speculation, whereas Quranic g ard en imagery based upon the sin g u lar ‫و‬٠‫( ه „ »ه‬e.g. ‫ﻣﺤﺒﻜﻪ‬ al-janna Q. 2: 82 a n d p a s à \ and th e parables 2: 265-6, 68: 17-33)2 ٠r the p lu ra l) ٥„nd ٤(e.g. th e form ulajl^S/l ‫ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ‬

‫ ﺟﻨﺎ ت ﺗ ﺠ ﺮ ى ﻣﻦ‬Q. 2 :2 5 and

passin1; j a ä t *adn 9: 72 and p a s à \ jannät al-naim IO: 9, a n d j a ä i m -'uyün 51: 15), d id provide the traditional points of departtire for such. It m ay well be th at th e dual jannatani of Q. 55: 46 an d 62 was, im pliritly, never underetood as an^rthing but singular.

F ro m Zam akhshari.s pun on min d ü n i k i ä (Q. 55: 62) it is legitim ate to infer a consciously fo m u la te d correspondence betw een the descriptions in verses 46-60 and 62-76. W hether th at correspondence is exclusively rhetorical, or rhetorical and exegetical, will depend upon the m ore general problem of recognizing in the ranonical text such phenom ena as paraphrase, gloss, an d interpolation. T h at p ro blem was adum brated by F ischer in his analysis of Q. IOI : 8 -1 1 , where th e exegetical fu n ctio n of the locution ä adraka mä (how do y o u know w h a t . . ٠is?) is convincingly dem onstrated.! Reverberation of th e exegetiral equivalence ‫ ﻫ ﺮ ذ د ر‬: abyss/hellfire found expression elsewhere, e.g. in an elegy ascribed to W araqa b. N aw fal ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ م اﻟﻨﺎس ﺟﺒﺎوا اﻟﻰ اﻟﻨﺎر ﻫﺎوﻳﺎ‬and an ironic utterance attributed to .A bld b. Abra?, describing h is narcow escape from eternal dam nation ‫أ ﺧ ﺒ ﺮ ك ق‬ 5,‫ د ﺧﻠ ﺖ اﻟﻬﺎوﻳﺔ‬b o th emphasizing, incidentally, th e triptosy of its scripttiral ‫ ا‬Cf. Speyer, Erzählungen, 433-4; and b el.w , IV p. 128. 2 Horovitz, Untersuchungen, I I . ‫د‬.Eine Qoran-Inte^olation’, 33-55‫ ؛‬though it is easier to identify than to date interpolations, the objections to Fischer's proposal articulated by Barth and Torrey are, in my opinion, unacceptable: references in Paret. Der Koran, 518-19‫ ؛‬and O.Shaughnessy, ‘Seven N a m « ., 449-51. 4 Ibn HishSm, Sira i, 232 line 5. ‫ ا‬i ' a r i î , Ris٥ ٠ t al-GHufyan, ١ ٦ %top.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

occurrence.* That the phrase ^ ‫ ﻫ ﺌ ﻪ‬٠ ‫ ة‬is of hermeneutical, not merely lexical, moment is evident from its thirteen occurrences in the Qur’5n where, in addition to such hapax legomena as hawiya (Q. IOI : 10), saqar (74: 27), *Üîiyütt (83: 19), etc., expressions like yawm a l - à (82: 17-18), yawm ‫إ ه‬fast (77: 14), and 12 :9‫ﺀ‬٠‫) هﺀﻫﻮ‬٠ ) are glossed. But traditional accommodation of the phrase was d esired to expel doubts about just whose utterance it represented: G od’s, prophet’s, or commentator’s. RSghib I‫؟‬fah5 nï declared, for example, that whenever God preceded mention of any topic with mä a d r â mä) He explained it, but that when He employed the expression mä yudrika) the matter was left unexplained.» The fact that the two fom ulae are anyway not hinctionally comparable is l^ s relevant than the manner in which mä adraka mä was there unequivocally assumed to be the word of God. The mä yudrika construction, always completed by laTalla (how do you know whether?), is predicative rather than explicative (Q. 33: 63, 42: 17, 80: 3), as I?fahânï inadvertently obsem d. Some instances ofaposttophe might be thought to s i^ a l commenta^ to the text of revelation, e.g. in Q. 16: 51 ‫وﺋﺎل اﻟﻠﺪ ال ﺗﺘ ﺨﺬوا االﻫﻴﻦ اﺛﺌﻴ ﺰ راﻧ ﻤﺎ‬ ‫ وا ﺣﺪ رﻓﺎﻳﺎ ى ﻓﺎ ر ﻫﺒ ﻮ ن‬. ‫ ﻫ ﻮ ا ال‬where the middle temi in the third person contrasts with the imperative contraction as a whole: ‘God said: do not take unto yourselv» two gods/for He ‫ ئ‬only one god/so have fear of Me (alone)’. Such, in my opinion, is not to be conftised with a passage like Q. 25: 45-56, in which mention of God alternates bettveen first and third person, exhibiting the abrapt ttansition characteristic of so much of Quranic style, and indicating not jurtaposition of text and commentaty but rather, of fragments from independent traditions. That the apostrophic qui must in those contexts impossibly predicable of God be an interpolation has been proposed*, similarly the locution min a l l after mazvthiq in Q. 12: 66, 80, by means of which that otherwise unattested designation of covenant could be unambiguously related to mithaq. In the examples of variant traditions adduced atove, those describing the mission of Shu.ayb might be held to contain traces of exegetical activity. Element I (fom ula of commission) appears in vereions A and B only, and may represent a gloss of the introductory idh gala of veraion c. Element IV (threat/prediction of disaster), in A and c a general reference to the umam khaUya, becomes in B specific enumeration of the fates of those who rejected Noah, Hud, Salih, and Lot. On the other hand, elaboration of element V in version c to the series V-VII (altercation) in vereions A and B is more likely to be evidence of independent origins. Now, in the passage containing parallel descriptions of the two gardens, the precise relationship between coreesponding elements is rather more problematic, since, as I have intimated, the possibility of proliferation from a single ‫ ا‬Fischer, .Eine Qoran-Inte^JolatioD., 4 3 - 4 .

» Apud Suyüp", Itqan ii,

‫ل‬3 ‫ و‬٠

R E V E L A T I . N AN D CANON

tradition cannot be ruled out.1 However, a tendency towards clarification as well as conceptual enhancement is discernible in a comparison of verse 64 (imudhdntmaiam) with verse 48 (ähawätä afmnin : interpreting afnan as à â n ) ) i of veree 66 {n a d daltani) with verse 50 (]tajriyani), or of verse 68 I j l a t u w l i i k h l u n ١ ٠ a-THânun ١ verse ‫؟‬,z Imin ‫ أ س‬jakihatin zawjani). Thus set out the eridence would appear to support the hypothesis of an earlier composition for version B, though the remaining parts of the two descriptions suggest other possibilities. For example, subsumption in verse 56 of all the elements of verees 70, 72, 74 might indicate ori^nally distinct traditions, as could the presence in vereion A of verses 58 and 60, both without obvious countetyarts in version B. But I am inclined to see in verse 58 {al-yâqüt îüal-marjà) an elaboration of hur in veree 72, and to interpret veree 54 as a conscious refomulation of the clumsier imagery of veree 76. A paraphrase of vereion B in version A might none the less be of liturgical, rather than exclusively exegetical ori^n. The rhetorical question of verse 60 exhibits a common Quranic derice, already noticed, and serves to stress the eschatological content of the entire passage. As such it would belong to the exegetical tradition, the concern of which it was to underline the relation of this particular instance of double garden images with the concept of celestial reward elsewhere illustrated by the forms ‫ر‬٠‫ ﻫ ﺪ‬and iatmat. I have drawn attention to the allusive treatoent in the Qur.ân of the schemata of revelation. The style is best obserted in the so-called ‘narrative. passages, of which the Shu.ayb traditions offer typical illustration. Indeed, each of the themes representative of the Quranic theodicy exhibits a reco^izable literary type in a state of suspended development. A degree of uniformity was achieved by recouree to a limited number of rhetorical conventions, specifically stylistic problems provoke other more general ones relating to assimilation and the mimetic process. For example, traces in the rettibution imagety of elertion and remnant traditions associated with the salvation histoty of Israel distin^iish the role of that nation in the theodicy from those of the im am khäliya, themselves elected but vanished without survivors. A consequence ofthat distinction is the purely exemplaty fonction of parables containing the accounts of non-Biblical prophets, and a concomitant failure to assimilate Arabian elements to the Judaeo-Christian legacy. An example of partial assimilation may be seen in the imagety developed round the concept ‘days/battles of God*. Not unexpectedly, the injunction wa-dhakkirkum bi-ayyäm a ü â in Q. 14: 5 is addressed to Moses. But elsewhere the tenus ayyam and ayyam a l l are of general application, and the possibdity of contamination by the ‫ ا‬Cf. Koch. G row th ,‫ﻟﺤﻮ‬.

* Zamakhshari»K à h â f ' v r , 4 2 ‫ة‬ad loc.

QUR ANIC S T U D IE S

autochthonic ayyam al-'arab has been noted. Other instances of more and less successful assimilation to the native linguistic tradition are provided by the Quranic imagery relating to angelolo&r and resurrection. Anonymous and collective reference in Muslim scripture to angels (;m M jm alaika) is abundant, relieved very rarely by specific designation, e.g. Q. 2: 98, 102.1 In the exegefical literature the vague and general became explicit and specific {tayin), and a series of dogmas elaborated with reference to the role and rank of angels in the hierarchy of creation.* The function of angels as mediatore between God and men, and by extension emissaries and agents of revelation, is a significant component of Islamic prophetology (cf. e.g. Q. 17: 95, 22: 75, 35: I , 41: ‫ل‬4(.‫ ذ‬Tenns other than ntalak were in the exegetical tradition subsumed under this rubric, as for example, z ä n i y y a in Q. 96: 18. interpreted by Zamakhshari as .angels of retribution» (m laikat a l-* iä b ).i Rather less arbitra^ was appliration of that procedure to the epithet muqarrabün. In four passages (Q. 56: I I . 88, 83: 21, 28), the notion of propinquity to God as reward for piety is clearly conveyed, expressed in 56: 7-11 as a tripartite distabution of benefit, of which muqarrabün represent the highest order. Twice (Q. 7 42 :26 ,114 ‫ )؛‬the same image is employed in a secular setting, promise of reward being the utterance of Pharaoh. Thus the transfer of function achieved by derivatives of the root q-r-b attested in prophetical and Rabbinic literature is reflected in Quranic usage, though I should be reluctant to interpret the courtly environment of Q. 7: 114 and 26: 42 as exhibiting a genuine Sitz im Leben for the Arabic metaphor.‫ ؟‬As in the imagery associated with the messenger as both royal and divine agent, that relating to admission into the royal and into the divine presence may be thought a caique of the semantic evolution already complete in Biblical Hebrew, e.g. Esther 1:14 as contrasted with Jeremiah 30: 21. In two further Quranic passages (3: 45 and 4: 172), both traditional sourett of Muslim Christology, the content of m uqarrän is extended to include not only an élite among the saved, but also Jesus and certain of the angels. Express reference in Q. 4: 17.2 to malaika muqarrabün became in the exegetical tradition the occasion of another and different link with Biblical imageiy. Zamakhshari identified these .angels drawn near’ with the chenibim round the throne of God ‘like Gabriel, Micliael, Isräfil, and others of their rank. ‫و ﻫﻢ اﻟﻤ الﺋﻜﺔ اﻟﻜ ﺮ وﻳ ﻮ ن اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﺣ ﻮ ل اﻟﻌﺮش ﻛ ﺠ ﺒ ﺮ ﻳ ﻞ‬ 6.‫ و ﺑ ﻴ ﻜ ﺎ ﺋ ﻴ ﻞ واﻣ ﺮاﻓ ﻞ و س ق ﻃﺒﻘﺘﻬﻢ‬In Arabic lexicography approximation ‫ﺀ‬ SeeWen$inck. Creed, 198-202 and references‫ ؛‬a ls. Vajda, E I, S.V. Hârùt wa.Mârüt. ‫ ا‬Wenainck, Joe. cit. ; Geiger. W as A.، M oham m ed, 802,. for ta 'yin , see below, IV pp. 135-6. ‫ ا‬See below, II pp. 55, 61-3.

٠ KcuhsM f Vv. .٦ ٦ ١ ‫\ ه ة‬٠ ‫ء‬ ‫ ا‬Speyer, Erzählttngen, 266, 2 9 9 -3 0 .‫ ؛‬von Rad, Theology ii, 218-9. ٥ k h s h d fi٠ 596 ad la;, ‫ ؛‬cf. Speyer, op. cit., 26-7 for Rabbinic parallels‫ ؛‬and Goldziher, ‘Polemik.. 371, for kru biyyü n and Israfil in Arabic versions of Genesis 3: 24.

R E VE LAT IO N AND CANON

31

of the roots q-r-b and k-r-b was seen to con fom to a series of semantic conelusions drawn from the behaviour o f morphemes of intensity (‫ل‬mubâlagha), by w hich karubiyyvrt m ust represent those of the muqarrabün *nearest the throne o f God. and, hence, the principal of the angels, among whom were Gabriel, Michael, and Israfïl.1 The linguistic laws by which that accom . modation of a non-linguistic caique was justified are only partially attested: the measure and the affix -iyy may be so interpreted, but not the relation klq.z Juxtaposition o f three ori^nally unrelated elem ents: the pious, the archangels, and the cherabim, is of course logically unsatisfactory, but for the assimilation o f Biblical exegesis to the Arabic lin^iistic tradition, an instmetive example indeed. T h e lexical range of Quranic resurrection imagery is rather wider. T h e prim ait concept is that o f resureection as a second creation, derived from the vocabulary appropriate to the acts of God in nature.* Typical formulatio‫ ؟‬s are ‫( ﻟ ﻘ ﺪ ﺟ ﺌ ﺘ ﻤ ﻮ ﻧ ﺎ ﻛ ﻤﺎ ﺧ ﻠ ﻘ ﻨ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ اول ﻣﺮة‬Q. 18: 48 ) , ‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺧ ﻠ ﻘ ﻨ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ وﻓﺠﺎ‬

‫و ﺳ ﻬﺎ ﻧ ﺨ ﺮ ﺟﻜﻢ ﺗﺎرة وﺧﺮى‬

‫ ﺀ) ﻧ ﻌﻴﺪ ﻛ ﻢ‬٠ :

5 5 ( . ‫ رة‬٠ ‫اول‬

‫ﻗ ﻞ ﻳ ﻌ ﻴ ﻬ ﺎ اﻟ ﺬ ى اﻧﺜﺎ ﻫﺎ‬

(36: 79), and . 3 4 :10) ‫ ﺗ ﻞ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﺒﺪ ؤ اﻟ ﺨﻠ ﻖ ﺛ ﻢ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ‬and pasnm). Express reference to khalq ja d id (fresh creation) occurs consistently in a context of altercation about the promised resureection, e.g. Q. 13: 5, 17: 49, 98, 32: 10, 34: 7 (variation khalq ahhar in 23: 14), and in 50: 15 paired with khalq azowal (first creation). With derivatives of such verbs as a à * a (in Q. 36: 79, above), anshara) and akkraja (signifying erert, elicit, evoke), imagery designed to convey production of life out o f death is varied and extended: nasKa ülä (56: 62), nasKa M r ä (53: 47), nasKa akhira (29: 20), i d a (56:35), nushar (25:3, 35: 9), khurUj(50: I I , 42), etc. Of highest frequency, however, are constmctions based on the antithesis hayy :m ayyit, occurcing with akhraja in Q .6 : 95 and 10: 31, but m ostly with finite verbfo m s o f the same roots, e.g. Q. 2: 259, 22: 6, 30: 50, and explicitly linked with khalq in 2: 164 and 46: 33.. T h e categorical statement in the song of Moses m m ١» (Deuteronomy 32: 39) appears verbatim in Q. 2: 259 5.‫واﻳﻴﺖ‬

‫ أذا أ ﺣ ﻰ‬The hymnic contett o f the Biblical passages, reflected in

the liturgical application of rpnn, may be seen also in Quranic usage, where the epithet .bringer of life and death/death and life, is often Ultroduced by the in v o e ä o , e.g. a l l ) httwa, wa-huwa )l l d i , etc. (Q. 30:4 0 , 1 0 :5 6 ,2 3 8 ‫؛‬o).6Related to that particular image is the concept, but ‫ ا‬Zabïdï. T ä j al-'Arûs i, 454 S.V. karùbiyyün. 2 Cf. Vollere, Volkssprache , II ‫ ؛‬G V G i, 1 2 1 -2 . 5 Cf. Lehmann-Pedereen, ‘Auferetehung., 54-61 ‫ ؛‬Wensinck, ‘Propheten’, 182-4.

٠ See the passages adduced in Muller, Ramprosa, 1 2 8 1 ; O’Shaughnessy, Death٠ 32, 45 - 6 , 5 ٠ ‫؛‬cf. BSOAS n x iii (197.) 613-5. 5 Cf. also the third person construction in Q. 5 3 4 4 ‫ذ‬ with the song of Hannah, I Samuel 6 ٤ ‫؛‬, adduced Speyer. E r f i ^ g e n , 4 4 5 . ٥ Cf. Elbogcn, Gottesdtenst, 29, 32, 44‫ ؛‬Geiger, Was hat M oham m ed, 7٠ , 76-8, 202.

QURANIC S T U D I E S not the cognate, of ‘dry bones, reclothed w ith flesh at the command o f G od r f ] ٩ ‫ﺀ‬١٦‫ ذه‬1‫( ﺀ‬Ezekiel 37: 1-14), e.g. Q. 23: 14 U j j j ‫ﻓ ﺨﻠﻘﻨﺎ اﻟ ﻤ ﺨ ﻔ ﺔ ﻋ ﻈﺎﻣﺎ‬

‫ﻛﺎ‬

‫ اوﻣ ﻈﺎم‬and 36: 78

‫وﻫﻰ رﻣﻴﻢ‬

‫اﻟ ﻌ ﻈﺎ م‬

‫ﺀﺗﻰ‬٠‫ﻣﻦ ي‬٠Rhetorical

emphasis

upon the corporeal aspect o f resurrection is exhibited also in the collocation ‘dust and bones' (turab wa-*izäm, e.g. Q . 23: 82), an expression of incredulity rather than a divine reminder o f mortality.» Quranic expression of the latter is contained in Q. 22: 5 ‫ الﻧﺎ ﺧ ﻜ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗ ﺮا ب‬٠ In M uslim scripture the fact of resureection is presupposed: it is the point of departure for polem ic rather than the result of them atic development, and formulations o f doubt are stereotype. Of somewhat different character are four other terns appropriate to the Quranic resuirection imagery: bath) hash) raj*) and qtyäma. The basic notion o f dispatch com m on to the first three of these is exhibited in scriptoral usage, but is in each case dominated by association with the symbolism of the day o f judgement. S u ch is achieved b y juxtaposition of finite forms with the substantive y ٥w& (day), e.g. ‫( ﻳﻮم ﻳﺒ ﻌﺜ ﻬ ﻢ اﻟﻠﻪ‬Q. 56: 6, ‫ل‬8(< ‫ ﺋ ﻮ ن‬٠‫ ) اﻟﻰ ﻳ ﻮم ﺋﺐ‬7 : ‫ ل‬4 < ‫ل‬5 ‫ ت‬3 ‫ < ة‬٠،٠.(. ‫ و ل ) ﻳ ﻮ م ﻧ ﺤ ﺜ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻦ‬: 85(. ‫وﻳ ﻮ م‬ ‫( ﻧ ﺤ ﺸ ﺮ ﻫﻢ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﺎ‬io : 28, etc.), 4 ‫) وﻳ ﻮم ﺋ ﺮﺑﻌ ﻮ ن اﻟﻴﻪ‬24 : ‫ ة‬, cf. 2: 281). T h e day is occasionally specified as yawm al-qîyâma) as in Q. 23: 16, 17: 97, but the am biguity inherent in ba'atha (as a synonym of arsala'. send) may have effected what appeare to be a gloss (hayyan: alive) in Q. 19: 15 and 33

٠‫ ﺀﺑﻤ ﺚ ﺣﺖ‬/ ‫ وﻳ ﻮم ﻳﺒﻤ ﺚ‬. Similarly Q. 22: 7 ‫ وان االه ﻳ ﺒ ﻌ ﺚ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻰ اﻟﺔﺑﻮر‬where the locution ‘those in their graves, restricts the semantic range of yab*ath (sends, hence resurcects) in a manner appropriate to the exegetical gloss. The metaphorical value o f the image is thus diminished, or eliminated, as in ZamakhshariS interpretation of the isolated instance of yawm al-kkurUj (Q. 50: 42: day of emergence) as ‘they emerge from their graves., which, though rendering ‫ﺀﻫﻠﻤﻮ‬٠ al-khwrüj unequivocally as *day o f resurrection., destroys the more sophisticated metaphorical function o f à a j a and its derivatives.2 The same ambiguity in hashara (gather) and raja'a (rettjrn) is reduced by employment of parallel constructions with ilayhi (to Him), e.g. ilayhi tu h s h a l (Q. 5: 96, 58:9, etc.) and ilayhi turjcCun (2: 28, 10: 56, etc.). Status constuctus with yawm and th e verbal noun is explicit only for ba'th ‫( ﻓﻬﺬا ﻳﻮم اﻟﺒﻤ ﺚ‬Q. 30: 56), but th e contexts of Q. 50: 44 ‫ﻳﻮم ﺗ ﺸﺘ ﻖ‬

‫< األوﺑﻦ ﻋﻨﻬﻢ ﻣﺮاﻋﺎ ذﻟ ﻚ ﺣ ﺜ ﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﺌﺎ‬ _« amäna> and ٠a fä f , only the last is not attested in scripture, though the rem aining three now here appear as a co llertiv e d œ i^ a t io n o f prophetical credentials (cf. 4 : 58). 2.

‫ﻧﻌﺒﺪ األﺻﻨﺎم‬

is fo u n d in Q. 14: 35 and 26: 71, invariably related t

‫ ا‬I bn Hisham. Sira i, 336‫ ؛‬t . underline the contrapuntal style of the oration I have rearranged just slightly the components of the second series, which includes two items not listed in the firs‫؟‬. Variant and parallel traditions are found elsewhere, see Caetani, Armali i, 2 6 ^ .

QURANIC S T U D IE S S t o r y o f Abraham (cf. 6 : 7 4 and the im agery of 19: 4 2 -9 ). T he so m ew h a t

aw kw ard statement

‫ ﺗﺎ ﻧﻌﺒﺪ ﻧﺤﻦ‬٢ ‫ﻓﺪ ﻋﺎﻧﺎ اﻟﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻟﻨ ﻮاﻧﺪه وﻧﻌﺒﺪه وﻧ ﺨ ﻲ ﻣﺎ‬

‫ واﺑﺎؤﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ دوﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﺠﺎرة وا أل وﺛﺎ ن‬is U c h that it co u ld provoke a reply l ik e Q . I I : 62, but n e ith e r l l a * a (rid) n or hijara (ston es) is so used in the ^ l r .ä n . Awthan (im a g es, idols) is attested (Q. 29*. 17, 25), but not a finite form o f toahhada. M o r e easily placed is the paraphrase ‫وأﻣﺮﻧﺎ ا ن ﻧﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬ ‫ و ﺣﺪه ال ﻧﺜ ﺮ ك ﺑ ﻪ ﺷﻴﺄ‬٠ reflecting Q. 7 : 7 ٠ and 3 : 64. 3. T h e phrase ‫ وﻧﻜﻞ اﻟﻤﻴﺘﺔ‬belongs to th e series o f prohibitions articulated in Q . 2 : 173, 5 : 3 , 6 : 145, 16: 115, b u t fo r the com p lem en t in the contrap untal schem e neither kaff (abstention) nor mahärim (prohibitions) is Q uranic, and the plural d i g is not u sed o f sacrificial blood.

‫ وﻧﺶ اﻟﻔ ﻮا ﺣ ﺶ‬is frequently attested in the sin ^ ila r (e.g. Q. 4 :

4.

25) and th e prohibition occure (w ith harrama) in th e plural in Q . 7 : 33.

‫ وﻧﻘ ﺦ ا أل و ﺣﺎم‬appears as an adm onition in Q . 4 7 : 22, but the loc

5.

‫ ﺻﻠﺔ اﻟ ﺮ ﺣﻢ‬is not scriptural (cf. how ever Q . 4: 1). 6. T h e term

‫ﺟﻮاو‬

is itse lf not fo u n d in scripture, b u t the exhortation

here reflects the co n te n ts o f Q. 4 : 3 6 , and finite form s of the v e r b are em p loyed m eta p h o r ic a lly (‫ )؟‬in 23: 88. 7.

‫اﻟﻴﺘﻴﻢ‬

‫اﻟ ﻀﻌﻴ ﻒ‬

‫ﻣﺘﺎ‬

‫ وﻳﺄﻛ ﻞ اﻟﻘﻮ ى‬is not scriptural, but its com p

appeare verbatim (plural) in Q . 4 : 10, and varied slightly in 6 : 152

and 17: 34. 8 ٠ T h is and the fo llo w in g injunctions are n o t adduced in Ja.far’s descrip tion of the M e c c a n s prior to th e appearance o f the prophet, and thu s intrude upon th e contrapuntal schem e o f item s (1) to (7). T h eir phraseology is, h ow ever, Quranic: ‫ ﺻﺪ ق اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ‬m ay be related to ‫ﻟ ﺴﺎ ن‬ ‫ ﺻﺪ ق‬Q . 19: 5٠;‫ ﻗ ﻮ ل اﻟﺰﺀد‬occurs in 2 2 : 3 ٠ (with awîhàn , cf. 58: 2 ) ‫ﻗﺬﻧ ﻰ ؛‬ ‫ اﻟﻤﺤﺼﻨﺎت‬reflects ‫ اﻟﻨﻴﻦ ﻳﺮﻣﻮن ﻟﻤﺤﺼﻨﺎت‬in 24: 4 ٠23 (w ith ramä'y q a â a fa is n o t so used in scripttire). 9. ‫ اﻟ ﺼ الة واﻟﺰﻛﺎة‬appear almost invariably together (e.g. Q. 2 :4 3 , 19: 31, 55), and ‫ ﺻﺎ م‬separately (e.g. 2: 183) o r w ith related injunrtions (e .g . 2: 196 w ith hajj, sadaqa, and nusuk), b u t the com bination of fasting w ith prayer and alm s^ v in g is not attested in scripttire. N o w , th e exart relationship bettveen th is very co n cise catechism a n d the canonical text o f the Q uranic revelation is not im m ed iately clear. A cce p tance o f the historicity o f Ja'far’s in terview with th e NajashI must le a d one to su p p o se either that th e injunctions here expressed had been the su b ject o f revelations before th e emigration to Ethiopia, or that they rep resen t prophetical logia later confirmed by or incorporated in to the text o f scrip-

RE VE LAT IO N AND CANON

ture. On the other hand, the structtjre of the report suggests a careful rhetorical formulation of Quranic material generally supposed to have been revealed after the date ofthat event. Three further points in the interview deserte notice.! Asked by the ruler to recite something from the revelation sent to their prophet. Ja'far produced the beginning of Surat Maryam (‫) ﺻﺪوا ﺑ ﻦ ﻛ ﻬ ﻴ ﻌ ﺺ‬, at which the NajSshi, greatly moved, declared: This is, indeed, from the same source as th at which Jesus uttered ( ‫ﻟﻴﺨﺮج ﻣﻦ ﺷ ﻜ ﺎ ة‬ ‫) وا ﺣ ﺪ ة‬. Interrogated next day on his attitude towards Jesus, Ja.far replied‫؛‬ H e is the se c a n t of God, His messenger, and His spirit. His word which He bestowed upon the unblemished vir^n M ary ( ‫ﻫ ﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﻠﻪ ورﺳﻮﻟﻪ‬ ‫) وروﺣﻪ و ﻛ ﻠ ﻤ ﺘ ﻪ اﻟﻘﺎﻫﺎ اﻟﻰ ﻣ ﺮ ﻳ ﻢ اﻟﻌﺬراﺀ اﻟﺒﺘ ﻮ ل‬. Explicit mention of the nine-

teenth sUra, possible allusion to the imagety of Q. 2 4 3 5 ‫؛‬, and almost certain reference to 4 2 - 171 ‫( ؛‬but cf. also 1 9 3 0 ,17 ‫ )؛‬might be thoug s tre n .h e n the inference that the author of this report was familiar with a fairly extensive range of Quranic diction. The positivist Caetani, failing to re co ^ iz e the l i t e r a l f o i and reacting to what he regarded as anachronism, dismissed the account in the Sira in favour of the teree version in T abari of the arrival of a delegation from Quraysh, in which appeare no reference to a conversation between Ja.farand the Najashï.2 CaetaniS rejection reflects his approval of a chronology of revelation in which Surat Maryam , or at least its beginning, was Meccan, b u t in which m uch of the content of JaTar’s confession of faith included material a ^ e e d to have been revealed in Medina. The quite arbitrary character of that chronology is clear from even a cursoty examination of Muslim scholarship. In his com m enta^ to the Sira, Suhayli regarded the account of JaT ar and the NajashI as unexceptionable.! Qum m I stated explicitly Surat Maryam , not merely its b a n n in g , and adduced the Muslim catechism in a form almost identical to that of an Apostolic promulgation.. Ibn al-Athir included an account varying only slightly from that of the Stra.s And Suyö‫؟‬i cited the episode approvingly.‫ ؛‬It can, of course, be argued that reports (1akhbär) about and occasions/causes (1asbäb) of revelation are not quite the same thing, and thus, that halakhic exegesis may disregard as fictive, or at least irrelevant, the data found in haggadic literature of the kind exhibited in the Sira. But in practice such was seldom the case, and the foregoing analysis may be thought to have suggested the interdependence of source materials traditionally adduced as evidence of independent coiToboration. 1 Sira 336 ,‫ ^؛‬. 7 A n d i, 277-8, mentioning only Q. 4: 171-2; Tabari. Aimales 1/1189; similarly G d Q i, 13.; cf. Buhl, .Beiträge’, 2 ‫ل‬ 3‫ال‬٠ ١ A l-R a w d al-u n u / ‫ ا‬١ ‫ ع‬١ ‫لآ‬٠ ٠ Tafsir i. 17 ^ ٤ ‫س‬ Q. 5: 82. 5 A l-K àm iî ٥ .3- 60 ,٠ ‫؛‬ ‫؛‬Itqdn i. 5٠ .

QURANIC S T U U IE S

I have proposed that one might interpret Ja.far's recital as a report of prophetical logia exhibiting a stage of transmission prior to their incorporation into the Quranic canon. An essential featore of that report, and one characteristic of the Sira as a type of exegetical literature, .is the narratio. This device, common in Biblical literamre, provides a context of historical circumstance or, at least, vaguely historical allusion, into which or by means of which reports of a prophet’s deeds (٥١٠٥٥) or words (٥١٦٥٦) may be introduced. For Hebrew scripture the priority in tim e of such reports over the actaal reproduction in literary form of prophetical utterances has been established.* T o postulate a similar, if not identical, process for Muslim scripture seems to me not unjustified, though in this particular instance complicated by the redaction histoty of the Sira itself.2 The fairly consistent application of a contrapuntal scheme in JaTar's confession reveals, indeed, a preoccupation with rhetorical niceties, but certainly does not preclude the possibility of oral'- transmission or delivety. Use of counterpoint might even be interpreted as a mnemonic device calculated to assist such. As set out in this episode the promulgation of basic Muslim doctrine has the inestimable advantage of clarity and cohesion over its disjointed and dispereed occurcence in the canonical text of scripture. T h at difference may, at least superfcially, indicate a composition posterior to the several revelations contained there. From the same and similar evidence, however, a rather more complex relationship between the canonical traditions is discernible. In the narrative struemre of the latter, revelations of exclusively regulative content are presented in a manner which confonns to that characteristic of the Quranic theodicy as a whole, of which the retribution pericopes (e.g. Shu'ayb) are example. In the story o fja'far and the Najashl three distinct but related themes may be seen : exile from the homeland, enumeration of the basic in^edients of monotheism, and external reco^ition of the prophet’s credentials. In that way three purely literaty functions—typological, exegetical, and aetiologicataom bine to produce a nareative histoty. T h e same process can be o b se ra d in to attn en t of passages whose content is not r e l a t i v e but paraenetic: for example, in the relation of Sura 105 to the Affair of the Elephant.3 Whatever the sense, or variant readings, generated by the phrase ashab al-fl , the literaty tradition represents the elaboration of three them es: holy war (Abraha's campaign), the inviolate sancmary and its protectore (M ec» and Quraysh), and the action of G od in histoty (birds as bearere of plagie). By means of these, the elliptical Quranic passage was incorporated into salvation histoty as an episode both lively and easily understood. Here too, as in the stoty of JaTar, relationship to the canon is not merely causal, and an attempt to adduce it as illustrative of the ‫ ا‬See v .n Rad, Theology ii, 3 4 1 . ‫ ا‬See below, IV pp. 127, 1 4 .-3 .

‫ ا‬Ibn Hisham, Sira 61- 43 ‫؛‬٠ .

REVELATIO N AND CANON

chronology of revelation was rejected by Suy.tl.1 Both episodes are characterized by action which is symbolic and which takes precedence over the direct speech of the corresponding canonical passages. T h e contrast between parallel fom ulations, canonical and non-canonical, may be likened to that which obtains between the narrative framework (Fremdb à k ) and the d ia lo ^ e (Ic h -B à h t) ob serad in the retribution pericopes. In all of this material, whether or not ultimately incorporated into the canon, the organizing principle was the same: movement in history as an act of God. From the foregoing analyses it may be a ^e ed that the patterns upon which description of that movement drew were ancient and well established. Their literary fom ulation might seem to make superfluous the question of historicity. And it is not merely the chronology of revelation, as a recognized component of the Quranic masorah, which is problem atic. Traditional discussions of the modes of revelation would appear to have derived considerable impettis from polemic about the precise distinction between the Muslim and Hebrew scriptures. Indeed, the histoty of the canon itself provokes the question at least of methodolo^cal, if not substanrial, assimilation of earlier descriptive techniques. Assimilation of the sort encountered here need not, of couree, be defined in term s of a rigorous distinction between Urerlebrtis and Bildungserlebnis. A literary analysis can, after all, only reveal what seems to be the essential role of historio^aphy, namely, the unceasing reinterpretation of tradition. It need hardly be added that both method and material are almost infinitely transferable. In the exegetical literature formation of the Quranic canon is ascribed to one of two processes: either official recognition of a coqjus left intact by the Arabian prophet (Urtext)) or imposition of a unifom recension produced by an officially constituted body with concomitant suppression of earlier and variant vereions (‘Uthm anic codex). T he two processes may appear as separate, if not quite mutually exclusive, traditions, or together as two stages in a single tradition, the consequence of more or less successftil harmonization. Critical analysis of the tradition(s) is set out in the second part of the fijndamental work of N O ldekSchw ally, in which may be read the authors, concluding judgement on the diametrical opposition b e ttc en fonnation of the Quranic canon and that of the Jewish and Christian scripm res: ‘Die Entstehung des muhammedanischen Kanons ist völlig abweichend, man könnte sagen e n t g e g e n g - verlaufen. E r ist nicht das W erk mehrerer Schriftsteller, sondern eines einzigen Mannes und deshalb in der kurzen Spanne eines Menschenalters zustande gekommen’.* Now, ‫ا‬

Itqdn i, 90; cf.. Horovitz, Untersuchungen,

n. 3.

96-8; Blachère, Histoire Ui,788 ‫ ﺀ‬G dQ i i , ‫ ﺀ ا‬٠ .

QURANIC S T U D IE S

it seems t . me at least arguable that the evidence of the Q ur’an itself, quite apart from that ٠f the exegetical tradition, lends little support to that assertion. It may, indeed, appear from my description of that document that the Muslim scripture is not only composite, but also, and such can be inferred from a typological analysis of Quranic exegesis, that the period required for its achievement was rather more than a single generation.! Traditional material relating to the canon must be assessed not merely in respect of its intrinsic merit, but equally by reference to a series of data extrinsic to the process itself of canonization but relevant none the less to canonicity. It would seem not unreasonable to assume that the latter presupposed acceptance by the Muslim commimity of the Quranic revelation as normative for its religious life. And yet, Schacht.s sttidies of the early development of legal doctrine within the community demonstrate that, with very few exceptions, Muslim jurisprudence was not derived from the contents of the_Qur٠5n.2 It may be added that those few exceptions are themselves hardly evidence for existence of the canon, and farther o b se ra d that even where doctrine was alleged to draw upon scripture, such is not necessarily proof of the earlier existence of the scriptural source.3 Derivation of law from scripture (halakhic exegesis) was a phenomenon of the third/ninth centuty. and while the obvious inference is admittedly an f t n e n t u m ‫ ﺀ‬silentio, the chronology of the source material demands that it be mentioned. A similar kind of negative evidence is absence of any reference to the Qur’ân in the Fiqh Akbar 1 , dated byW cnsinck to about the middle of the second/eighth century.4 Moreover, stabilization of the text of scripture (masoretic exegesis) was an activity whose literaty expression is also not attested before the third/ninth century, and the appearance of the classical masahif literature (variae lectiones) was even later.» It is of course neither possible, nor necessaty, to maintain that the material of the canon did not, in some fonn. exist prior to that period of intensive literaty activity, but establishment of a standard text such as is implied by the *Uthmanic recension traditions can hardly have been earlier. One has further to consider the actual significance of the textual variants exhibited in these traditions. From the material assembled by Bergsträsser and Pretzl, and in m ore detail by Jeffety, it could well be asked to what extent any of the variants, or variant codices ( ?), may be said to represent traditions genuinely independent of the .Uthmanic recensions The infinitesimal differences are not such as would seem to have necessitated suppresion of the non-.Uthmanic versions, the more so since a minimal standard delatio n from the canon was accommodated by the several inter‫ ا‬S c . W ow , IV pp. 145-8. ‫ ا‬Cf. s track, Introduction, ! . . ‫ ا‬Sec Jeffe^r, M aterials, 1-16. ٥ G d Q iii. 57-115; M aterials, 19-355.

» Origins, passim but esp. 224-7. ٠ Creed, 1.2-24.

R E V E L A T I . N AND CAN ON

pretations ٠‫ ﺀ‬the ahruf doctrine.* The choice between interpreting those codices as conscious (i.e. exegeticai) variations upon the *Uthmanic recension, or as having in common with that recension an earlier Vorlage, is not an easy one. What might be considered a special categoty of variant codex, the ‘metropolitan codices, (masähif ä-amsär), do not display the differences either among themselvesorfrom the *Uthmanic recension which are alleged to have provoked the editorial measures attributed to the third caliph.* The tradition itself of separate collections of .»war-variants, far from being attributable to so early an authority as the Damascene muqri* Ibn *Ämir(d. 118/736), appears not to be more ancient than Farrä ٠(d. 207/ 822) or possibly than his teacher Kisä’i (d. 189/804). Fixed terminology, like reference to the *Uthmanic recension as imdm٠ or to mushaf as codex, in contrast to the plural masähif not as codices but as variants, can also not be dated earlier than the beginning of the third/ninth centtrry.3 The ran. dom predominance of Medinese reading in both Sibawayh and Farra., where one might have experted reflections of practice in Basra and Kufa, cannot but provoke the impression that concern with the text of scripture did not precede by much the appearance of the masoretic literattjre as it has in fact been prese^ed. Fadure to sihjate re^onally actual manuscripts of the Qur.ân by collating them with collertions of ‘metropolitan» variants might be thought to confirm that impression.. Now, confronted by the *Uthmanic recension traditions one is compelled to assume either that suppression of substantial deviations was so instantly and universally successful that no trace of serious opposition remained, or that the story was a fiction d e s ire d to serve another purpose. The firet possibility is, however, belied by the chronological sequence of literamre on the Qur’ân, of which none may be described as presupposing a standard or ne v à tw r text as early as the middle of the first/seventh century, and further, by absence of explicit reference to a canon in conterts where such ought to appear. The second possibflity, on the other hand, ^ves rise to some interesting but natarally inconclusive speculation on the means to which a newly independent reli^ous community might have recourse in the effort to describe its origins. I have alluded to the likelihood of a Rabbinic model for the account of an authoritative text produced in committee, namely the Jamnia tradition on the canonization of Hebrew scripttire.s Similarly, the Muslim tradition of an Urtext) whether conceived of as independent or as a stage preliminaty to *UthmSn’s editorial work, might be thought to reflect Rabbinic views on the Mosaic reception of the Torah. That conjectare derives some support from the relationship ‫ ا‬G d Q iii, 186-90. 213-28. ‫ ا‬Cf. the lists in Ibn Abï D،‫؛‬wüd ٠ apud Jeffery, M aterialS) 39-49; and G d Q iii, 6-19. ‫ ا‬G dQ iii, 9 n. 4; Jefferçr, op. cit. 13; Beck, ‘K^izesvarianten., 3 5 3 - 7 6 . ٠ G dQ iii, 2 7 .: ‫؟‬dass fest alle Kodizes einen Mischtext a é e is e n .. 5 See above, p. 21.

46

QURANIC S T U D IE S

between Meses and Muhammad as recipients of the word of God, integral to Muslim discussion of the modes of revelation. T he primary source of strength for the Urtext tradition may be found in the concept of ‘the final review’ ( ‫)اﻟﻌﺮﺧﻤﺔ األﺧﻴﺮة‬, representing the culmination of a scries of encountere between the prophet and the angel Gabriel for periodic organization of the material so far revealed ‘in order that abrogated matter might be distinguished from that which remained effective’ ( ‫اﻟﺘﻰ ﺑﺌ ﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺳ ﺦ‬ ‫ )وﻣﺎ ﺑﻘ ﻰ‬or ‘abrogated distinguished from its replacement’ ( ‫(ﻣﺎ ﻧ ﺴ ﺦ وﻣﺎ ﺑﺪل‬.‫ا‬ T he significant element in these descriptions is reference to the doctrine of abrogation (naskh) and hence the implications of the Urtext theory for halakhic exegesis.* Later formulations of that doctrine required that the process of abrogation be incomplete upon the death of the prophet and concomitantly that definitive organization of the text of revelation be postponed until after that date. T he *Uthmanic recension story-may beregarded as the means by which that end was attained.3 T h u s could the two canon traditions be seen as complementary rather than contradictor, though the actual instrument of haraonization was the celebrated codex of Haf?a, which provided a tidy sequence of events covering the period from the death of the prophet to the action of the caliph Uthm Sn.* It is. however, not absolutely necessary to select only one of two interpretations: the ‘Uthmanic recension story as a reflex of the Rabbinic academy at ‫ل‬amnia, or as a logical construction of the halakhists. The technical tenn employed to describe ٠Uthmân's editorial work, scil. jam ', was used with a semantic latitude capable of accommodating a num ber of related but quite distinct actions. Suyütï’s synthesis includes all of them : in now* 18 he assumed throughout the equivalence ‫ﺀ »ه'ر‬: tartib (arrangement), but distinguished arrangement/collection between two covers (i.e. in codex fonn), internal areangement of suras, and arrangement of/restriction to re a d in g confirmed by the authority of the prophet, and insisted as well upon the difference between order of revelation (tartib a l-n É l) and order of recitation (tartib al-tüäwa).‫ ؟‬In naw* 20, ttaditions were adduced in which jamI could be interpreted as prese^ation/memorization (hifz), as recording by r a tin g (kitdba), or as hearing and obeying (al-sam* wal-tcCa ‫( ى س‬.‫ ه‬Such a spectrum of meaning, besides reflecting a series of doctrinal positions in that long discussion, attests surely to uncertainty about the proems by which revelation became canon. I have in the preceding pages attempted to show that the struettire itself I SuyUtf, Itqan i. 142, and K itab a l - M à n ï , 26, respectively. ٤ See bel.w, IV pp. 192-201. 5 Cf. Burton. *Cranes., 246-65. esp. 2 6 . ‫ ؛‬id. ‘Collection., 4 2 -6 .. 4 G d Q ii, 20— 3. 9 1 , 1 5 - 14 ‫ا‬.

« Itqdn i, 164-83‫ ؛‬cf. a ls . Kitab cd-Mabâtà, ch. I ll, 39-77. ٠/‫ﺀ‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﺤ‬ ‫ﻣ‬ ‫ﺀ‬ i. 199-206.

RE VE LAT IO N AND CANON

47

of Muslim scripture lends little support to the theory of a deliberate edition. Particularly in the exempla of salvation histoiy, cliaracterized by variant traditions, but also in passages of exclusively paraenetic or eschatological content, ellipsis and repetition are such as to suggest not the carefully executed project of one or of many men, but rather the product of an organic development from originally independent traditions during a long period of transmission. That such traditions m ight have been of local/ regional character is not impossible, but in view of the inconclusive nattrre of tire so-called ‘metropolitan codices’ re^onal distribution of the variant traditions could hardly be justified. An alternative and less refractory hypothesis is one already advanced: juxtaposition of independent pericopes to some extent unified by means of a limited number of rhetorical conventions. Such might be held to account both for the repetitive character of the document and for what is undeniably its stylistic liomogeneity, the latter quality in part a consequence of the former.i T he content of these pericopes may be described as prophetical login whose fom ulation exhibits a number of recognizable literary ^ e s based on what I have designated schemata of revelation. In canonical form these login are expressed, not quite consistently, as the direct utterance of God, but outside the canon taie the fom i of reports about such utterances. An example of the latter was seen in the stoty of JaTar b. Abi Talib and the Najäshl. A e t h e r one is justified in equating non-canonical with pre-canonical is a historical problem complicated rather than clarified by the evolution of exegetical literature. Of the earliest fonn of that literature, described below as narcative/haggadic, we have no specimens which do not exhibit traces of redaction characteristic of the third/ninth centtity. T h u s the fomns in which prophetical login were likely to have been transmitted display a version of scripture which is unmistakably canonical. Primatty of the is none the less evident, and stylistic as well as explicative elem ents indicate oral transmission.^ Again, JaTar’s recital is instructive, for there material of an ethical and regulative nature was presented in a form both hortatoty and entertaining, b u t above all, owing to the contrapuntal scheme employed, in a manner both easy to understand and to remember. T h e use of symmetry as a mnemonic technique in oral transmission is of course widely attested.3 Repeated application of conventional fom ulae of introduction and conclusion, refrains, litanies, and thestructtrral balance obse^able in related pericopes p e rfo m an identical service. It might, on the other hand, be more accurate to speak not of oral transmission but of oral delivety. Resort to mnemonic device and symmefrical struettire does not preclude the existence of w ritten Vorlngen, indeed, in many instances ‫ ا‬See below. III pp. 8 ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻟ‬7_ ‫ل‬ . » See below. IV pp. 129-31, 145-8. » CL Gerhardsson, M emory, 147, but see the entire section 136-56.

48

QURANIC S TU D IE S

presupposes such. Coexistence of textual transmission and oral tradition may be substantiated not only by the technique of dictation, but also by reference to the exigencies of typically cultic situations (littirgical and didactic), in which the more appropriate oral delivety exhibits a refinement of simple and straightforward recitation from memorized texts. That the many techniques associated with refined and sophisticated oral delivety could ultimately be incorporated into an improved text may be cited as evidence of rhetorical development, but not of change from exclusively oral to exclusively written transmission.! Related to prrcedures of transmission and delivety are the techniques of oral and written composition. T hough from the point of view of historical reconstruction it is unquestionably useful, perhaps imperative, to keep separate the discussion of each, mention at least of the problems relating to composition is not unjustified. Both the vety high frequency and the unifomi distribution in the Qur’än of formulae and of ‘foimulaic systems’ could indicate not only a long period of oral transmission but also of oral composition.* Analysis of foimulaic language in M uslim scripture would include statistics for the them atic permutations which I have described as variant traditions, as well as for the schemata adduced to illustrate the theodicy. Equally im portant are the rhymephrases employed in Quranic periodization, which exhibit, in addition to the stressed syllable of the rhyme itself, fairly uniform len^h and thus a nearly constant metrical value.! Tliose phrases are most conspicuous in passages of halakhic and narrative content, where they serve as both conjunctivc and disjunctive markers.. Now, all of th at m aterial-them e, schemata, and rhym e-phrase-m ay be described as components of formulaic systems, but not necessarily as proof of oral composition. The imagety and lexicon of Muslim scripture are almost exclusively archetypal and suggest, if they do not presuppose, some contart w ith literaty precursors. T he dichotomy postulated bettveen *borrowing’ and ‘tradirional language’ is possibly- misleading and certainly an overeimplification: like most lin^iistic expression the structtire of monotheist revelation contains vety little that is not *traditional language’.» For the Quranic revelation ascription to Biblical archetypes has been, perhaps unnecessarily, complicated by the existence ofa native Arabic tradition of monotheistic(‫ ؛‬. « ^ poetry.^ T he authenticity of that poetty has been disputed‫ ؛‬its importance to the M uslim exegetical fradition cannot be. But the sources of archetypal ‫ ا‬Gerhards®.., loc. c it.‫ ؛‬cf. Widengren, ‘Oral tradition., esp. 201-32. ‫ﺀ‬Cf. Culley. Formulaic language, 10-20, 21-7 ‫ ؛‬Muilenburg, ‘Hebrew rhetoric., 9 7 -1 11. ‫ ا‬T h e criteria for detection and assessment o f fonnulaic language were after all derived from oral poetry, see references in Culley, loc. cit.‫ل‬ and Monroe, ‘Oral composition». ٠ S ee below. III pp. 112, ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻟ‬5‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ٠ 5 Cf. Culley, op. cit. 112-19.

٠ See below. III pp. 96-7.

REVELATIO N AND C A N O N

49

im a g e s in the Q ur’än are n .t thereby concealed, nor is the sheer quantity of reference to Patriarchal nareative in any way diminished (Moses: 502 verses in 36 sUras, Abraham: 245 verses in 25 suras, Noah: 131 verses in 28 suras).] Elaboration of the corpus of prophetical logia from which the Quranic canon was eventually separated may have been essentially a product of oral composition. Emergence of the canon itself, however, represented application of considerable literary technique. N ot the least of the problems provoked by its final f o m is the eiTatic distribution of obviously related pericopes.* Analysis of its parts does not thus necessarily explain existence of the whole. Lack of such over-all logical structtire in the Qur’än as is found in the Jewish and Christian ranons, is reflerted in traditions which attempt to posttilate a correspondence (variety defined and somewhat contrived) bettveen parts of the Muslim canon and the earlier scriptures, e.g. ‫ﺋﺎ ل‬

‫ا الﻧ ﺠﻴ ﻞ واﻟ ﺤﺎ ق‬

‫ و ل االد و ﻋ ﻴ ﻦ ا ﺑ ﻊ اﻟ ﻄ ﻮ ل ﻋ ﻦ اﻟﺘﻮراة واﻟ ﻤﺎﻳ ﻦ‬٠‫ر‬

3.‫ ﻣﻜﺎن اﻟ ﺰ ﺑ ﻮ ر وﻓ ﺼﻠ ﺖ ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﻤ ﻔ ﺼ ﻞ‬T h e descriptive term s are merely quantita. tive and the correspondence quite arbitraty, b u t that it should have been adduced at all is worthy of remark. T he fact of canonicity may be seen as a kind of watershed in the transmission history of the Quranic revelation.. Development beyond that point, which I should hesitate to set before the end of the second/eighth century, is to be elicited from a sttidy of exegesis and commentary. Description of the course of events up to that date is, I have m ore than once suggested, frastrated by the form in which pertinent witness has been preserved. Any attem pt at reconstruction is thus hazardous, being limited to tenuous conelusions from literary analogies. If the pericope hypothesis is acknowledged to make some sense of the Quranic data themselves, it requires none the less to be supplemented by a notion of the environment in which prophetical logia m ight have been p re se m d and transmitted. Now, what could be seen as obviously analogous circumstances, namely those obtaining for preservation and transmission of both Rabbinic and Apostolic fomiulations of the word of God, presuppose for both an authoritative centre of such activity, which was Jemsalem.‫ ؟‬Despite implicit emphasis upon the role of Medina in the *Uthmanic recension traditions, evidence for a single centre of activity is not easily found in the pre-canonical transmission history of the ‫ ا‬Moubarac, A brah am , 27-9. » Cf. GdQ 1 , 63-8: with regard t . 64 n. I it may be observed that Geiger's proposal that the Mishnah tractates were arranged in descending order of their length was ultimately rejected by Strack, who suggested that their sequence corresponded to that of legal problems in the Pentateuch, see Introduction, 27-8. ‫ل‬Kitdb a l~ M â n ï, 235 ; variants and discussion in Suyütï, Itqdn i, 163, 177-81. ٠ Cf. Koch, G row th , 10^ 8; and Vermes, Scripture, cap. 127-77. 5

Cf. Gerhardsson, M emory, 214-2..

QURANIC STUD IE S

Qur.än, nor, for that matter, in the early development of Islamic jurisprudence.* If the origins of exegetical literature may in fact be located in Mesopotamia, that is the paradoxical corolla^ of a social and political development, the literaty description of which was designed precisely to demonstrate that the stoty of Islam was conterminous with the history of the Arabian peninsula, and especially of the Hijaz in the first/seventh centuity. As such the descriptive material need not be discounted, b u t ran by no means be accepted as constituting disinterrated historio۴ phy. Thus the fact of the Mesopotamian environment emerges, perhaps not quite accidentally, and m ust be adduced as criterion for assessing any evidence which purports to describe the circumstances of Islam prior to the third/ ninth century. 2 Enough has been said of the canonization traditions to indicate their contradictor, and probably polemical, character. Proposed as alternative was the conceptof an organic development exhibiting gradual juxtaposition of ori^nally separate collertions of logia. The failure to eliminate repetition in the canon might be attributed to the status which these logia had already achieved in the several (I) communities within which they originated and by whose members they were ttansm itted. Here ‘community, need not be underatood as a regional specification, though such is not impossible. I should be inclined to postulate the growth of logia collections in environments essentially sectarian but within the mainstream of oriental monotheism. Such an environment could be infemed from the evidence of parallels proposed by Rabin bettveen Islamic terminology and that of the Qum ran sect.3 But some of that material reflects polygenesis rather than diffusion through historical contact, e.g. the light imagety and the personification of evil.« And resemblance can be deceptive: rather than in the cognate ‫ ﺀ د ﺀ ﻫ ﺮ‬I am tempted to see a methodolo^cal reflex of Qumranic pesher in the Muslim term tawily and thus an ‘inverted, semantic relationship between pesher and tafsir, similar to that found by Rabin to obtain between Qumranic and Rabbinic ten n in o lo ^.‫ ؟‬T h e primary difficulty, however, in this and all such expositions aimed at demonstrating historical diffusion lies in their uncritical assent to the traditional ch ro n o lo ^ of Islamic origins, resulting inevitably in socio-ptycholo^cal analyses of data whose literary, rather than historical, character is p a t e n t Some scholare, among them Ben-Zvi and Katsch, have been excessively generous in their assessment of the documentaty value of Islamic source materials for the existence and cultural significance ( ‫ )؛‬of Jewish communities in the Hijaz. ‫ ا‬See Schacht, Origins, 8 3 ‫ﺀا‬ ‫ل‬ ٠ » On geographical factors in the assessment of legal source materials, cf. Schacht, Origins, 1 8 8 1 , 223, 228. ‫ ا‬Qumran, 112-3.. ٠ Qumran, 1,4-15 and 122, resp. ‫ ا‬Q um ran, 96-7, 1.8 -1 1 , 117‫ ؛‬cf. below, IV p. 246. ٥ e.g. Rabin, Qumran, 120-7; cf. my observations in B S O A S xxxiii (1970) 613-14.

REVELAT ION AND CANON

about which Jewish source are themselves silent.* References in Rabbinic literature to Arabia are of remarkably little worth for purposes of historical reconstruction, and esperially for the Hijaz in the sixth and seventh centuries.z The incompatibility of Islamic and Jewish sources was only partially neutralized, but the tyranny of the ‘Hijazi origins of Islam» fully demonstrated, by insistence upon a major Jewish immigration into central Arabia.3 Some of the material assembled by Rabin, such as apocalyptic concepts and embellishments to p ro p h e to lo ., represent of course diffusion through contact, but do not require an exodus from Judaea into the Arabian desert.. Development and perpetuation of a logia tradition by the sectarian group/community, wherever it (they) may have been situated, can be ascribed to the exigencies of cult or ofinstrtiction, but probably not to the requirements of legislative or judicial authority. The latter must be regarded as the agent iteelf of canonization and posterior to the liturgical and didactic functions of the tradition. The entire process of c o n iz a tio n will thus be seen as a protracted one of community fom ation ( Gemeinde• bildufig).‫ ؟‬T h e essentially cultic/didactic role of the logia tradition is explicit even in the tenn quran (lectio, legenda), which may be said to fonn within the lexicon of the ranonization traditions a kind of binary opposition with the term 7nufhaf(càx).6 In that context the reproach levelled at the caliph .Uthman is instructive : ‫ ر ﻛﺎ ن اﻟﺘﺮ ن ﻛ ﺒ ﺎ ﻓ ﺘ ﺮ ﻛ ﻬ ﺎ ا ال وا ﺣ ﺪا‬T he caliphs reply that that the Qur’an (ric) was in fact one and had been sent from One, exhibiting a post-canonical stage of the discussion, cannot delete the impression that quran originally designated any one of several logia collections. Such is of couree confim ed by the masahif literature. Canonicity once achieved, qwr'än and mushaf became s y n o n ^ o u s as designations of revelation. T h at fonction had, however, to be shared with a third term: sunna (٠exemplum), in which was symbolized the definitive enthronement of revelation as canon for the Islamic community. The act found succinct expression in Suyütï, in his obseration on a typology of revelation ( k a lk

allah) articulated by Juwaynl: ‫ﻗ ﻠ ﻦ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻫﻮ اﻟ ﻀ ﻢ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ واﻟ ﻀ ﻢ األول ﻫﻮ‬ ‫ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺔ ﻛ ﺎ ورد ا ن ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻛﺎ ن ﻳﻨ ﺰ ل ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﻛ ﺎ ﻳﻐﺰل ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮن وﻣﻦ ﻫﺌﺎ ﺟﺎز رواﻳﺔ‬ ٠ Ben Zvi, .Les Origines., esp. 1 7 8 1 0 ; Katsch. Judaism , U V . » CI. Krauss, .Nachrichten*. 321-53; Cohen. ‘Arabisms., 221-33‫ ؛‬Steinschneider. Polm ische L ite ra tu r٠ Anhang V II. esp. 244-73‫ ؛‬Hirechberg. Lehren٠ 14-26, but see M o w . I ll p p .96-7. 3 See especially Toney, Foundation, 1-27‫ ؛‬but also 0 bemann, ‘Islamic Orions*, 5^120. ٠ Qumran, 118-21, 128; cf. Wieder, Scrolls, 4: on the m «sianic symbolism of ‘wilderness.. 5 Cf. Koch, Growth, 44‫ ؛‬S eeli^ a n n , ‘Midraschexegwe*. 150-81. ‫ﺀ‬Horovitz. Untersuchungen, 74. ’ Tabari, A n nales 1/2952‫ & ؛‬G d Q ii, 5٠ . 90.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

.‫ﺑ ﺎ ﺳ ﻰ الن ﺟﺒ ﺮﻳ ﻞ أدا‬

.

‫اﻟﺸﺔ ﺑ ﺎ ﺳ ﻰ الن ﺟ ﺒ ﺮﻳ ﻞ أدا ﺑ ﺎ ﺳ ﻰ وﻟﻢ ﺗﺠﺰ اﻟﻘﺮاﺀة‬ ‫ اﺀﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐ ﻆ‬The distinction bettcen permitted modes of transmission (Utteratim

and paraphrastic) was merely foimal reco^ition of a principle which remained almost purely theoretical. In practice Sunna, as revelation, was transmitted with infinite care, and was the primary instalment by which the Quranic revelation was linked with the historical figure of an Arabian prophet. Inherent in the reports pertaining to that process are two factors worthy of remark‫ ؛‬the immediacy and practicability of ills con• suetudinis as articulated in the Sunna., and consistent emphasis upon the role of Medina as its source and paradigm.‫؛‬ Formulation of the Sunna as embodiment of prophetical practice/ judgement cannot be dated before the beginning of the third/ninth century, and thus may be seen as coincident with reco^ition of the Qur’an as the canonical collection of prophetical logia. Juxtaposition of the two revela, tions as equally authoritative need not, in my opinion, be underetood to imply that Qur.än }fielded a position already secure to the encroachments of Sunna .3 It can indeed be argued that the opposite was so‫ ؛‬that canonization of the Quranic revelation could only have been effected within the community once its content could be related to that of the prophetical Sunna and, perhaps more important, to the historical figure delineated there. Acknowledgement of a prophet as source of regulative prescription for the religious life of the community may be thought to reflect traditional notions of charismatic authority. T hat such should entail discussion of the emblems, and in particular the credentials, ofprophethood cannot be surprising. In Muslim literattire a not inconsiderable portion of that discussion was concerned to establish the role of scripttrre as testimony to prophethood, and it is that function of the Quranic revelation which forms the subject of the following chapter. ‫ ل ا‬¥‫؛ * ا‬, ‫ل‬ ‫ﺀ‬ 8‫ل‬ and Goldziher. ‘Kämpfe., S6-98. » Goldziher. S tu dien ii. 11-22. * Pace Goldziher, Studien ii. 20 ‫ل‬ see below, IV pp. 174-5. 176-7.

II EM BLEM S OF PROPHETHOOD A MARKED feature of Islamic prophetology is its ethnic orientation, nowhere more clearly expressed than in the Quranic concept of untam khäliya.1 But the scriptural imagery did not quite imply ethnic exclusive, ness, and even an apparently unambitious passage like Q. 14.. 4 ‫وﻣﺎ أر ﺳﻨﺎ ﻣ ﻦ‬ ‫ ; ﺳﻮ ل ا ال ﺑ ﻔ ﺎ ن ﻗﻮﻣﻪ‬could be adduced in support either of the ethnocentric nature of the prophet.s mission (by stressing the basically Arabic content of revelation) or as divine proof of its universality (by stressing the inclusion of non-Arabic idiom).* Commentaty on Q. 14: 4 consists largely of speculation about the lan^iage(s) of scripttire and of God. a topic complicated by controverey over the origins of classical Arabic. 3 Apart from the diametrically opposed possibilities of that particular verse, it may be asserted that Quranic imagety underlining the ethnocentric position of prophets is both uniform and consis‫؛‬ent, e.g ٠‫( وﻟ ﻜ ﻞ أﻣﺔ رﺳﺮل‬Q. IO : 47). ‫وﻟ ﻜ ﻞ ﺗﻮم ﻫﺎ د‬

75 :28) ‫ل‬3 : «(-‫ﻧﻴ ﻬﺎ ﻧﻨﺬر‬

‫ﺛ ال‬

‫ﻟ ﺔ اال‬

‫ض‬

‫) وان‬35 :٩ ( , ‫ﺷ ﻬﻴ ﺪا‬

‫) ) وﻧﺰﻋﻨﺎ ض ﻛ ﻞ ! ا‬.

These aphoristic formulations, slightly modified, are reflerted in the retribution pericopes, especially in the conventions employed to introduce the themes of commission and of rejection. For example, in Q. 16: 113 ‫( وﻟﺘﺪ ﺟﺎ ﺀ ﻫﻢ رﺳﻮل ﻣﻨ ﻬﻢ ة ذ ﺑ ﻮ ه‬cf. 23 : 44. 3٠: 47. 38 : 4٠ 5٠: 2 , 71: 1) is

emphasized the prophet’s memberehip of the community to which he has been sent, as also in the designation akh (brother) employed in conjunction, with à \ (people) and afhäb (membere/companions) in the commission fonnulae.. Both components, memberehip and rejection, belong of couree to the traditional imagety of prophetical experience, e.g. Deuteronomy 18: 18, Matthew 5 1 2 ‫؛‬, Luke 6: 23. Application of the same or similar descriptions not only to B. Isra.fi but to the entire range of umam khaliya exhibits the attenuated election tadition found in Rabbinic and Christian literattire, according to which evety nation was recipient of a prophet, e.g. Numbers Rabba 20: ٥١٠٦ ٥ n m V m sT ro 1 1 .5. ? ‫ ا ! * ? ا‬7 ‫لﺀ‬٩‫ ﻟ ﺪ ﻣ ﺎ‬٦ ‫ ه‬١‫ ه ا ه‬١‫ه ?ا د‬ That ‫ د‬٠‫ ﺀ‬haJoUm, moreover, is refined in Quranic (gentiles) ‫ ا‬See above, I pp. 2-5. ‫ ا‬See below, p. 81. and III pp. 9 3 -1 .6 . ٠ See above. I pp. 24-5. ‫ ا‬Speyer, Erzählungen, 417-18; cf. Andrae,

» Cf. SuyOtf, Itqdn ii. 106-7.

Person٠ 292-3, adducing other parallels; Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 46; Wensin ck, .Propheten., 185.

Q U R A N IC S T U D IE S

can hardly be doubted, and not only in Q. 3: 30, 75 and 62: 2, but also in 2: 78.1 Reference to ummiyyUn among Jews, as in Q. 2: 78, may of couree be a reflex of *am ha-areSy but probably in the sense of exclusion or separation, as in Ezra IO : I I and sectarian (Pharisaic. Qumranic, Karaite) applications, ‫ ئ‬variably abusive.2 Whether, on the other hand, the locution

‫( اﻟ ﺮ ﺳ ﺮ ل اﻟ ﺘ ﺒ ﻰ األﺗ ﻰ‬Q. 7: 157-8) belongs properly to this instance of linguistic and conceptual assimilation is a separate problem‫ ؛‬its common interpretation suggests a parallel to if not a caique of 'am ha-ares.3 From the notion of a prophet for every nation the univereal character o f each prophet's mission may be elicited, as was argued for Q. 14: 4, or by reference to the epitheta omantia lü§*älamin (21: 107, 25: 1) and * ä 'l-'älamin (3: 33, 6: 86). An internal relationship governing the dispatch and destiny of all prophets may be seen in the concept (Q. 5 : 19), u n d e r s t ^ there to ensure that no nation be without a prophet. A unique instance of transition from ethnocentric to universal mission is explicit in scriptural references to the flaire of Abraham, e.g. . . 3 : 6 7 ‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن‬ L L *.4 ‫ اﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻳ ﻬ ﻮدﻳﺎ و ال ﻧ ﻌ ﺮاﻧﻴﺎ وﻟ ﻜ ﻦ ﻛﺎ ن ﺣﺜﻴﻐﺎ‬and 16:120 ‫ان اﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﻛﺎ ن‬ ‫ ا ﻣ ﺔ ﻗﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﻟﻠﻪ ﺣﻨﻴﻔﺎ‬The imagety is traditional, exhibited in the evolution from God-seeker to patriarch to the Pauline concept .father of all the faithfill. (e.g. Romans 4: 9-12).4 For the epithet umma in Q. 16: 120 Zamakhsharl provided the gloss ma'mümjimäm (1exemplum: cf. 2:124), a conclusion o f methodological if not material interest: the o h Vorlage in Genesis 12: 2 ‫ا‬7٦٦‫ﺋﺐ ل‬١‫ و‬٦٠٥٤٠٦ was not thereby concealed.‫؟‬ Rigorous and consistent distinction' befcveen the designations n i and r d l is not justified by Quranic usage, though something is to be said for linking the te rn r٥îôJ (apostle, messenger) with the concept of mission to a specific nation (‫ ( ﻫ ﺪ ا‬. ‫ ه‬Like nadhiry mundhir, bashiry m u b à h ir , and even * ä ) the denomination rasUl is basically functional‫ ؛‬the only generic term for prophet is the Hebrew loan nabt. But while, or perhaps because, Quranic nabi is used only of Biblical figures, the generic employed in exegetical literattire was mursaly a Quranic term (e.g. Q. 7: 75) understood 1 Pace Horovitz, op. ci،. 53. » Cf. Rabin. Quntran, 12-18. 6 1 -4 ‫ ؛‬his reference25‫ ا‬n. 2 to Q. 2: 78 m ust(?) be to ،hat use o f 'am ha~aref; see Wieder. Scrolls, 153-6. and the references in Pare،. D er Koran, 21—2 ad lw:.‫ ؛‬from the context o f Q. 2: 7 8 1 inference o f an allusion to sectarian strife w ithin the Jewish community seems justified‫ ؛‬for the vituperative epithets in that kind o f polemic cf. Wfeder. op. cit. 6 ‫ل‬ 2‫و‬ -٠ . 5 See below, p. 63. ٠ Gerhardsson, M em ory٠ 287-8‫ ؛‬Beck, ‘Abraham., 8 ^ 4 ‫ ؛‬Moubarac. A b r è m , 99-118, but also 8 ‫ل‬ 4‫س‬ .. stressing, curiously, Abraham's role as recipient of revelation‫؛‬ cf. also Chapira, *legendes', 8 ^ 1 .7 , 37-43. ‫ ا‬K à h â f ii, 641-2 ad loc.‫ ؛‬cf. Geiger. Was hat M oham m ed٠ 26-8, 20 1 ‫ ؛‬Toreey, F oundation , 38‫ ؛‬Katsch, J à à , 75-6. ٥ Cf. Wensinck, ‘Propheten', 171-5‫ ؛‬and the ratification s proposed thereto by Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 4 8 1 .

EMBLEMS OF PROPHE THO OD

55

to include both nabi and rasül) as in Suyû‫؛‬ï ’s enumeration of those mentioned in Muslim scripture.* Election to prophethood, a divine and uni. lateral art, is regularly expressed by one of three verbs: ikhtära (Q. 2 0 3 ‫ل ذ‬ Moses), ijtè â (6: 87 Ishmael and Hebrew prophets), and istafä (2: 130 Abraham), each employed collectively as well as individually. T h e generally factitive verb ‫ﻫﻠﻤﻪﺀﻫﺰ‬, with an appropriate objective complement, may perform the same fimction (e.g. Q. 19:31, 26: 21), and an isolated instance of tstana'a (20: 41 Moses) may be so interpreted. T h at the passive participle mukhlas is included in the elertion imagery, as proposed by Lidzbarski, can be inferred from Q. 19: 51 (Moses), possibly from 12: 24 (Joseph), but not in the sense of prophetical election for th e several occurrences of the plural (e.g. 37:40), in which th.e image is that o f the community of worehippers.2 The single occurrence of the participle mustafayn{Q. 38: 47 plural) is, however, a reference to prophetical election. T he vety large and merely symbolic numbers related of prophets in the Muslim tradition appear to reflect discussion of the respertive merits of angels and prophets, a relationship derived from the semantic proximity of malak to rasul(cf. Malachi 3 : 1 n١w ١‫ )اﻣﻠﻞ‬and crystallized in the messenger formulae.3 In Q. 40: 78, a passage commonly adduced in argument for an infinite num ber of divine messengere, the plural rusul is employed, and glossed nabi in the exegetical tradition.« Of the later doctrinal development which granted the Arabian prophet superiority (sayyid aUmursalin) over God’s other emissaries, there is no unequivocal trace in Muslim scripmre.‫ ؛‬Indeed, such statements as Q. 2: 285 ‫( ال ﻳ ﺮ ق ﻳ ﻦ ا ﺣ ﺪ ﺑ ﻦ رﺳﻠﻪ‬similarly 2 : 3 ,‫ل‬3‫ ة‬: S3)clearlymake the opposite point, namely, that among prophets there was no distinction in rank. That view is also emphasized in Q. 41: 43 ٠‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻐﺎ ل ﻟ ﻚ ا ال ﻣﺎ ﺗ ﺪ ﻧ ﻞ الرﺳﻞ ﺑ ﻦ ﻗﺒﺔث‬ and 46: 9 ‫ ﻗ ﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛ ﻨ ﺖ ﺑﺪﻋﺎ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﺮ ﺳﻞ‬in both of which the addressee was traditionally seen to be Muhammad. In flat contradiction to such passages is Q. 17: 55 ‫( وﻟﻘﺪ ﻓ ﻨ ﻨ ﺎ ﺑﻌ ﺾ اﻟﻨ ﺴ ﻦ ﻋ ﻞ ﺑﻌ ﺾ‬cf. the imagetyin 17: 21) and by implication 4: 125 ‫( ﻓﺎﺗ ﺨﺬ اﻟﻠﻪ اﺑﺮاﻫﻴﻢ ﺧﻠﻴ ال‬identiral phraseology differently applied in 17: 73, 25: 28), of which the latter may be compared with D m of Isaiah 41: 8.٥ Moreover, Q. 4 2 - 171 ‫ ؛‬and 19: 19 m aybe thought to accord a special distinction to Jesus, while a num ber of verees ‫ ا‬Itqan iv, 58-67 ‫و‬ cf. Speyer, Erzählungen٠ 416 n. I . 2 ‘Saläm und Islam.. 9 5 ^ . 3 S e. above, I pp. 12-13‫ ؛‬cf. Horovitz, op. cit. 4 6 ‫ ؛‬Wensinck, op. cit. 184. and id. Creed, 200-2, 204. ٠ e.g. Zamakhshari, Kashshdf iv, 1 8 . ad loc. ‫ ؛‬See Andrae, Person, 245-89, esp. 2 4 7 -5 . for SulamJ.s systematic elaboration of that

arriment. ٥ Cf. Geiger, W a s h at Mohammed, 11۶ 2٠ ; Speyer, Erzählungen , 73 ‫ا‬.

56

Q U R A N IC S T U D IE S

based on the imagety of Q. 2: 253 (those prophets to whom God spoke) allude to Adam (2: 31» 37), Abraham (2: 124), but especially Moses (4: 164, 7: 5-30 ‫ل‬43 ‫ ا‬26 : 10, 27 ‫ ﻟ ﺆ ذ‬2٠ 2‫) ذة‬, reflecting thus the data of the exegetical tradition.! Such as it is, the scripttrral material may be enlisted to support the particular position of Moses in the prophetical hierarchy, but hardly that of Muhammad. The p a r a d i ^ was not only Biblical, but Rabbinic.2 The certainty that already in the Hexateuch the figure of Moses was the product of literary elaboration is of some relevance to a description of the analogous process for Muhammad.3 There, however, the literary development is confined to the non-canonical revelation: the prophetical Sunna together with a Muhammadan evangeHvm fomrulated as a history of the Hijazi Arabs.« Like its Mosaic Vorbild the portrait of Muhammad emerged ^ d u a lly and in response to the needs of a reli^ous community.‫ ؟‬But unlike the Hexateuch, from which could be inferred at least the outlines of a historical portrait of Moses, the role of the Qur٠5n in the delineation of an Arabian prophet was peripheral: evidence of a divine communication but not a report of its circumstances. The historical value of Muslim scripture lies, it seems to me, not in its role as source for the biography of Muhammad, b u t ratlier as source for the concepts eventually applied to composition of the Muslim theology of prophethood. The latter are both directly accessible in the text of scripture and susceptible of schematic realization, while the very notion of biographical data in the Qur’än depends upon exegetical principles derived from material external to the canon. T he satisfaction w ith a century of Quranic studies expressed by Paret is thus in my opinion hardly Justified.. His re co ^ itio n of the arbitrary value of variae lectiones and of the real contrast between orthographic and interpretative variants, as well as of the problems posed by parallel passages, could have provoked some doubt about the reliability of the .Uthmanic recension ttaditions, rather than questions about Muhammad’s articulation of dogma.? Further, his distinction bettveen an *äusserer Geschichtsablauf’ and an *innere Einstellung’, and his admission that only for the latter ran the Qur’an be of some docum enta^ value, is merely a reflex of the now well-established method of psycholo^cal description.» That the prophetical Sunna itself contains ample evidence of community practice {ius consuetdnis :sunna m u ttà 'à ) as well as practice ascribed * Sec above, I pp. 35-8‫ ؛‬and cf. Torrey, Foundation, 75-82 w. Wellhausen. 2 Cf. Speyer, op. cit. 419-20; Jeffei^, 'Scripture., 1 0 8 1 , 1 2 6 ^ ‫ ؛‬Katsch, Judaism, 172-3. 3 Von Rad, Theology i, 2 8 9 9 6 . ٠ See below, pp. 6 5 ^ 3 . » Cf. Andrae, Person , 186. ٥ ‘Der Koran als Gwchichtsquelle', 24-42. 7 Pare،, op. ci،. 28, 31-2. ‫ﺀ‬Pare،, op. cit. 33 ff; see above. I pp. 43-4, 51-2.

EMBL EM S OF PROPHETH OOD

57

sperifically t . the prophet (sunnat a l - É ) is clear from the well-known document conveying the caliph .Umar’s instructions to the ‫ ﺀﻳﻘﻮ‬٠Abu MUsa ’1-Ash'ari, in some recensions of which surma was transmitted (or glossed) sunnat al-nabi.1 I consider at least questionable Margoliouth’s assumption that the two sources of law were (٠) texts of the Qur’än, and (‫ )ﺀ‬practice.٤ From the document itself it is impossible to insist upon a neat distinction befiveen community and prophetical practice, or between *texte of the Qur٠5n’ and what I have in the foregoing pages dfôignated prophetical logia. Qur*ân was an۴ ay glossed or transmitted in some recensions b ita b a l l ) which may not have been the same thing.3 T he purpose of the caliph’s letter was of course justification of resort to a n alo g , and the authenticity of the document may well be doubted.. The contrast between s u m as practice of the comm unity and sunna as practice of the prophet, analogous to the Talmudic distinction between minhag and halakhahyS could be and was neutralized by recourae to a simple and transparent expedient: elevation of all statutes, whatever their origin, to the stattis o f revelation vouchsafed to a single identifiable recipient. A Muslim formulation of that dogma reads ‫ ال وف ا وﺗﻴ ﺖ اﻟﻘﺮآنﺀ وﻣﺜﻠﻪ‬1 ‫وﻗﺎ ل < ا اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ‬ ‫ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻳ ﻌ ﺌ ﻰ اﻟﺴﺌﺔ‬.‫ ه‬R eco^ition of the (prophetical) Sunna as Mishnah may be regarded as yet another element in what could be described as the *Mosaic syndrom e’ of M uslim prophetology. Within the community the didactic principle of im ita tio magistri ( ‫ ) ا أل ﺻ ﻞ ا ال ﻗﺘ ﺪا ﺀ‬was realized as magister d ix it (cf. ٩۴٠٥ ‫ اا‬٠‫ ? ا ه‬n.Vn), in the f o m of symbolic acts (:‫ﺷ ﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ‬

٥^ ٥) and sayings(7.(٥٩٦2‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﻗﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬: ٦ Co-ordination of the Quranic revelation with that process of Gemeindebildung was the achievement of haggadic exegesis, in which the essen, tially anonymous references of the text of revelation were carefully related to the originally independent figure of the Arabian prophet. The haggadic literary devices were many and varied.» T he extent to which the haggadists were concerned primarily to elucidate a fixed scripmral text has perhaps been exaggerated.» To describe at least part of Ibn Ishaq’s activity, for example, as exegetical (tafsir) is convenient but, if the technical term is construed in its traditional sense (explication de texte)) possibly misleading. ٠ Margoliouth, .Omar's instructions., esp. 309-10. ‫ ا‬Margoliouth, op. cit. 313. 5 See below, pp. 74 ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ٠ 4 Cf. the author.s appropriate obsei^ations, 326‫ ؛‬and see below, IV pp. 158-9. 5 ^ e below. IV pp. 1 9 9 2 .0 . ٥ Suyufi. Itqdn iv, 1 7 .‫ ؛‬cf. above, I pp. 5 1 -2 ‫ ؛‬Goldziher, Studien ii, 20‫ ؛‬Andrae,

Person, 1 7 9 8 0 ‫ ؛‬Schacht, Origins, 149: the tradition was known to Ibn Qutayba but not to Shafi.i. 7 Cf. Strack, Introduction, 9, 17‫ ؛‬Gcrhardsson, Memory, 82, 120-1. ٥ See below, IV pp. 122-48. ٠ Cf. Becker, ‘Grundsätzliches., 520-7: Watt, ‘Materials., 23-34‫ ؛‬and my observations in B S O A S xxxi (1968) 148-9.

58

QURANIC S T U D IE S

In this context Sellheim’s structural analysis 0‫ ؛‬the Sira deserves notice.* The a u th o rs discernment of a three-tiered composition (pp. 4 8 1 ) derives from a separation of three kinds of material: the Hijazi environment (Grundschicht: pp. 73-8), prophetical legend (erste Schicht: pp. 53-73). and Justification of the 'Abbasid dawla (zweite Schicht: pp. 49-53). The taxonomy depends upon material distinctions rather than formal (stylistic) ones, and appears to be at least partly informed by relation to the agreed data of Ib n Ishaq's own career. As such it is a valuable contribution towards solving the familiar problems about motives and materials in the earliest stages of Islamic historiography.2 Now, the M uslim concept of Heilsgeschichte depended, not unexpectedly, upon the didactic value of exempla, and those constimte in turn a major portion of scripnire.3 Whether such reflect M uhammad's idea(s) of histoty is irrelevant. That they represent the organizing principle of Ibn Ishaq’s composition is relevant: the figure of an Arabian prophet, warts and all, m ight be thought to provoke the question not so much of historicity as of faithfulness to the traditional (Judaeo-Christian) concept of prophethood. From the point of view of form-criticism Sellheim’s Grundschicht may be a misnomer, if by *basic’ he would propose a contrast bettveen a nucleus of historical ‘trtith’ and, on the one hand, the embroidery of prophetical legend (erste Schicht) and, on the other, the transparent motives of political patronage ( â t e Schicht). All three of the structural levels exhibit a single impulse, namely, a concern to locate the origins of Islam in the Ilijaz. T h e emergence of an Arabian prophetical tradition, of which the earliest agent appeare to have been the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, may well have contributed to its author’s dispute about methodology with Malik b. Anas and his subsequent departure from Medina. Indeed, an important problem in the analysis of the Sira, and one only alluded to by Sellheim, is Ibn Ishaq’s treatment of material presertfed also as the canonical text of revelation.*

From the Quranic data themselves emerge several characteristics employed by the exegetes to establish a relation between the utterance of God and its appointed recipient. These concern modes of revelation and . m e to figure significantly in the literary elaboration of a biography appropriate to the prophet of Islam.‫ ؟‬As was noted, exegetical discissions of Q. 42: 51 stressed the equivalence wahy:ühäm٠from which it was inferred that one mode of revelation consisted in divine ‘inspiration’. That justification for ‫ ا‬.Die Muhammad-Biographie’, 3 3 1 1 . ‫ع‬ Cf. Rosenthal, ‘Influence’, 35-45. ‫ ا‬E g. the employment of ’ibra by Tabari, A nnales 1/78, cited by Rosenthal, op. cit. 3 8 1 ‫ ؛‬cf. Abbott. S A L P i٠ 61. ٠ Sellheim, op. cit. 47, ‫ ؟‬1 ‫ ؛‬see below, IV pp. 127-9. ‫ ا‬See above, I pp. 34-8.

EMBL EM S ٠ F PROPHETHO OD

5‫و‬

this inference had t . be based ٠n extra-canonical usage is clear from the single (problematic) occurrence in scripts ‫ﻓﺄﻟﻬﻤﻬﺎ‬ ‫رﻫﺎ‬ (Q. 9 1 8 ‫)؛‬, itself the subject of dispute between two interpretations: infomed/communicated by God, or created/implanted in the soul by God. In the lexicon of scriptural exegesis, as contrasted with that of philosophy, it was the fo m e r interpretation which prevailed, attested as early as Kalbi,

ad Q. 12: 15 ‫ وأ و ﺣﻴﻨﺎ ا ﻳ ﻪ اﻟﻰ ﻳﻮﺳ ﻒ أر ﺳﻞ اﻟﻴﻪ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ وﻳﻘﺎل أ ﻟ ﻬ ﻤ ﻪ‬, though only as one alternative to the rendering of awha as irsäl (dispatch).! In later usage ،‫ئ‬

is unambiguously inspiration, e g

‫اﻟﻠﻪ اﻟ ﺨﻠﻔﺎ ﺀ أﻟ ﻬﻢ‬

2.‫ ذ ﻟ ﻚ‬W hat appears very likely to have been the source of the semantic juxtaposition of wahy and ilham is reflected in a passage from the seventh/ thirteenth-century theologian Ibn ‫ ؟‬udama *1-Maqdisï ‫ﺛ ﻢ ﻳﻠ ﺰ ﻣ ﻜ ﻢ ان ﺗﻘﻮﻟﻮا‬ ‫ا ذ ا ﺋ ﻌ ﺮ ﻳﺮآﻧﺎ (ﺀآﺀ) الن اﻗﻌﺐ ﻋﺰ و ﺟ ﻞ أﻟﻬﻢ ﻗ ﻮ ل ا ﺳ ﺮ واﻗﺪ ر ﻋ ﻴ ﻪ ﻛ ﺎ ﺳ ﻢ‬ ‫ﺟﺒﺮﻳ ﻞ ق‬. ‫ إ‬It seems not unreasonable to regard U m in the

‫ﻗﻮﻟﻜﻢ‬

SOTse of inspiration a borrowing from the te m in o lo ^ of (profane) rhetoric and the several attem pts (not supported by Zamakhshari and the Mutazila) to preserve a distinction between ilham and wahy (as dispatch) areartion to the source of that bonowing and ensuing confusion.. Other tenns appropriate to the modes of revelation may be thought to corroborate this a rrim e n t. Even the word tanzil) a scriptural convention for ‘revelation’ (e.g. Q. 69 ‫ذ‬ 40-3), could be employed to describe poetic inspiration (scil of HassSn b. Th5bit).5 O f si^ificance in this respect is collocation of the verb tanazzala (descend) with Satanic agents (shayatin) in Q. 26 2- 221 ,210 ‫ذ‬, exhibiting the specifically Quranic imagery in which shaytdn was identified as an agent of evil.٥ T hat this was not always so is clear from the report, adduced by inter alios Suyütï, according to which delay in revelation to the prophet M uhammad was the result of desertion by his shaytan: ‫اﺷﺘ ﺶ‬ ٠۶‫اﻟﻨﺒ ﻰ ﻓﻠ ﻢ ﻳﻘﻢ ﺑ ﻠ ﺔ اوﻟﻴﻠﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﺎﺗﺘ ﻪ اﻣﺮاة ﻓﻘﺎﻟ ﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻣ ﺤ ﻤ ﺪ ﻣﺎ اوى ﺷﻴ ﻄﺎ ﻧ ﻚ ا ال ﺗ ﺪﻳ ﻜﻠ ﻒ‬ Tabari’s reports on the Satanic agents operative in the utterances of false prophets reflect of couree Islamic dortrine on the modes of revelation. ٠ Tafsir, M S Ayasofya 118. I 2 9 r ; but c f. the same author's interpretation of atvhd in Q. 12: 102 as akhbara, above, I p. 34. 2 Itqan i. 164. 3 Gold2iher, Abhandlungen i, 6 n. 5 ‫ ؛‬see also Heinrichs, A d is c h e Dichtung, 3 5 4 ; cf. B S O A S xxxiii (197.) 6 6 ‫ل‬ . 4 Pace Heinrichs, loc. cit. ‫ ا‬See Jeffery, 'Scripture., ‫وا‬ ٠ ; Blachère, Histoire ii, 333; Shahid, .Contribution., 573. ٥ Shahid, ‘Contribution’, 569-72, 577-8. 7 Itqan i, 91; Zamakhshari, K ê h à f iv, 765-6 ad Q. 93: 3 identifying the woman as Umm Jamïl/Jumayl, wife of Abu Lahab; for the several traditions in Tabari, cf. Birkeland. The L ord guideth, 13-8; and Bukhari: ‘Der Schaitan der Propheten ist der Engel Gabriel., cited Wellhausen, Reste, 34‫ ا‬n. 2.

Q U R A N IC S T U D IE S

T he essentially neutral content of shayfin (daemonic as opposed to diabolicaljin the passages from S u ^ tJ a n d Bukhari could be interpreted as evidence of a situation in which prophetic and poetic inspiration were, if not identical, at least closely related.* T hat the tale reported of the poet Umayya b. Abi .1-Salt, in which his breast was opened and filled (with the gift of inspiration), should figure among the infancy stories of the prophet Muhammad m ight be thought to have similar significance.* Negative statements in scriptare traditionally associated with the Arabian prophet. such as Q. 69: 4 1 ‫وﻣﺎ ﻫ ﻮ ﺑ ﻐ ﻮ ل ﺷﺎﻋﺮ‬, 6‫ و‬: 4 2 ( ‫ » وال ﺑﻘﻮل ﻛﺎ ﻫ ﻦ‬and 37: 36 ‫ وﻳﻨﺎ ﻟﺘﺎ ر ﻛ ﻮا اﻟ ﻬﺘﺘﺎ ﻟ ﺜﺎ ﻋ ﺮ ﻣ ﺨﻮن‬as well as the celebrated attack on the

,

‘poets’ (26: 221-7), exhibit exceptive constructions in which the content of the message rather than the source or mode of inspiration is impugned .3 References to the prophet as visionary (2 Samuel 24: 11), as se e r(i Samuel 9: 9), as mad (Hosea 9 7 ‫)ذ‬, anyway contain such traditional im ages as seriously to diminish the im pact of whatever invertive they might bear, perfectly expressed in Q. 51: 52 ‫ ﺗ ﻰ اﻟﻦﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ‬1 ‫ﻛ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻣﺎ‬

‫ ﻗﺒﻠ ﻬ ﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺴﻮل ا ال ﻗﺎﻟﻮا ا ﺣ ﺮ وو ﻣ ﺠ ﻨ ﺊ‬. Instructive examples of parallel p h ra se o lo . for divine and Satanic inspiration are generated by Quranic application of the verb ‫( ﻗ ﻴ ﻪ‬literally to cast, b u t often sjmonymous with arsala) or with awhä) in the sense of dispatch), e.g. Q. 40:15 ‫ ن‬٠ ‫ﻳﻠﻘﻰ اﻟﺮوح‬ ‫( اﻣﺮه‬cf. 4: ‫ل‬7 ‫ د ﻋﻪ ذل‬a simdar constmction w ith

n a fa k h a

2

1

3

9

‫ ى‬٠‫ وأﻟﺒ ﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﻣﺤﺒﺔ م‬and 8: 12 ‫ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻰ ف ﻗﻠﻮ ب اﻟ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﻛ ﻔ ﺮ وا اﻟ ﺮ ﻋ ﺐ‬.« Th‫؟‬ rnagery was perpetuated in the exegetical tradition, e.g. ‫أ وﻳ ﺤ ﻔ ﻆ ق ا س‬ ‫ اﻟ ﻤ ﺤﻔﻮ ظ ﻓﻴﻨﺰل اﻟﻰ اﻟﺮﺳﻮل وﻳﻠﻘﻴﻪ ﻋ ﻴ ﻪ‬describing the activity of Gabriel.‫ ؟‬In Q. 22: 52. however, that same activity is a to b u te d to a Satanic agent ‫وﻟﻨﻰ‬ ‫ ﻓ ﺴ ﺦ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻘﻰ ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻴ ﻄ ﺎ ن‬. . . ‫( ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻴ ﻄ ﺎ ن ق اﻣﻨﻴﺘﻪ‬cf. 22: 53, and 20: 87 with reference to al-sâirî).1 *367T h e centrality of Q. 22: 52 in discussions of the Islamic theory of abrogation has been demonstrated by Burton, and it seems clear that pertinent interpretation of Satanic alqä required that it be underatood as counterpoint to ansä (to make forget), e.g. Q. 6: 68, 12: 42, 18: 63, 58: 19.7 The si^ificance in those discussions of Satanic, as opposed to divine, agency consists in the light it throws upon the semantic 1 Goldziher, Abhandlungen i. 1 .7 - 8 ‫ ؛‬cf. Jeffery. .S criptu re.. ‫ ا وأ‬n. ! . . » Goldziher, Abhandlungen i. 3, 2 1 3 ‫ ؛‬Horovitz. H im m elfahrt’, 171-3‫ ؛‬ace below, pp. 6^ 7 . 3 Pace Sliahid. ‘Contribution’. 568-72. ٠ Cf. Goldziher, Abhandlungen i, 5 ٠ 7 on nafakhalnafatha. ‫ﺀ‬

Suyûtï, Jtqân i. 125.

٥ Cf. Geiger, Was hat Mohammed, 163-4‫ ؛‬Horovitt, Untermhungen) 114-15‫ ؛‬and the

literature cited Paret, Der Koran, 334-7, esp. Yahuda, ‘T h e Golden Calf and the Samiri’. 7 ‘Cranes’, 253-4» 265‫ ؛‬see below, IV pp. 195-6.

:20 ,

EMBL EM S OF P ROPHETHOOD evo lu ti.n o f sh a yta n : from p o etic muse to G o d ’s particular advereaty, from shaytan a s jin n i lo s k y tu n ‫ لآلآ‬ib lis'

The parallel and easily confused sources of prophetical and poetic inspiration noticed here have an approximate Biblical counterpart in conflicting reports on the motive of the Davidic census, related in 2 Samuel 2 4 : ‫ ا ل‬and I C hronicle 2 1 7 - 1 ‫( ؛‬cf. I Samuel 16 1 4 ‫ ؛‬on Saul and the two spirits of God). Quranic adaptation of the Judaeo-Christian Satan will not have been a consequence merely of antonomasia, nor yet of an attempt to separate prophet from poet (for both m ight be divinely inspired), but rather, of a pereuasion that all inspiration required an intermediary. It may also be o b s e ra d that W idengren.s description of the prophet as recipient of revelation concedes b u t nominal reco۴ ition of this very characteristic element in the Muslim concept of scripture by stressing inordinately his movement towards and confrontation w ith God.2 T h a t imagety, too, belong to the exegetical tradition, but seldom, save in allegorical and sectarian interpretation, im p in g e upon scholarly understanding of the modes of revelation. W hatever body of prophetical ‘wisdom’ might from time to tim e have been regarded as sup p lem en tal to the contents of scripnire, it was with an organized corpus of reco^izable logia that the mainstream of Islamic theology was concerned, and not with a source of concealed wisdom for the elect. The appearance, at several levels of popular and sectarian thcolo^, of elements drawn from the inexhaustible pool of Oriental Gnostic concepts is undeniable, b u t did not m uch influence the stability of orthodox Muslim doctrine regarding the content and mode of the Quranic revelation.3 T h e ag en cy o f m ediation is sym bolized, som ew hat in gen u ously, in tw o scriptaral passages: Q. 6 : 1 1 2

‫و ﻛ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﺟ ﻌﻠ ﻨﺎ ﻟ ﻜ ﻞ ﻧﺒ ﻰ ﻋﺪوا ﺷ ﻴﺎ ﻃ ﻴ ﻦ اال ض‬

‫ ﺑﻌﺾ زﺧﺮف اﻟﻘﻮل‬.‫ واﻟﺠﻦ ﻳﻮﺣ ﻰ ﺑﻌ ﻀﻬﻢ اﻟﻰ‬and 7 2 ‫ ؛‬2 7 - 8 ‫ ى ﻣﻦ‬٠‫ا ال ﻣﻦ ار غ‬ ‫ ن ﺗ ﺪ اﺑﻠﻐﻮا رﻣﺎال ت رﺑﻬﻢ‬٠‫ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻳﺪﻳﻪ وﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻔﻪ وﺻﺪا ﻟ ﻴ ﻌ ﻠ ﻢ ا‬٠‫وﺳﻮل ﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﺳالث‬ W hile the firet p osttilatesfor every prophet ( nabi) a Satanic tem pter h o stile to the d iv in e m ission w ith w h ich he has b e e n entrasted, th e second p rovides for a guardian angel (‫؛‬r asad) to en su re that the m issio n is fulfilled:

‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﺜﻴﺎﻃﻴﻦ‬

‫اﻟ ﻤ الﺋ ﻜ ﺔ ﻳﺤﻔﻈﻮﻧﻪ‬

‫رﺻﺪ ﺣﻐﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ‬..

T h is anthropom orphic e x -

pression o f th e sources o f d iv in e com m unication found significant elaboration in M u slim view s on th e part played b y th e angel G abriel in the p rocess o f revelation. In Juwayni’s typology it is m a d e quite clear that G abriel w as the agent o f transm ission fo r b oth Qur’ân a n d Sunna, th e f o m e r literally

١ Cf. Goldziher. Abhandlungen i, 7, 106-17; id. ‘Ginnen.. 685-90; Geiger. Was hat Mohammed, ‫ و‬8‫ ; س‬Horovitz. Untersiuhungen, 87. 120-1‫ ؛‬Ahrens, *Christlich« im Qoran’. 176. ‫ل‬Apostle ٠ ‫ر‬God, ‫ ةل‬4‫ د‬7٠ 2.7 - 8. ‫ا‬١ ‫س‬٠ ‫ س‬op. cit. 1.0 n. 2٠ ٠ Zamakhshari, Kasfohdf iv, 633 ad Q. 72: 27-8.

QURANIC S T U D IE S (bil-lafz) a n d the latter conceptually (bil-ma*na).i W h ile later ex egetes appear to h ave a ^ e e d u p o n the Q urSn as referent for th e accusative p ronoun in Q . 9 7 : I , B arth.s proposal that it w as Gabriel dispatched by G o d in Laylat al-qadr is n o t o n ly likely from th e point o f v ie w o f syntax, b u t ‫ ئ‬su p p orted by K albl.s interpretation o f a sim ilar con stru ction in Q. 12: 2

‫ﻣﺠﺮى ﻟﻐﺔ‬ ‫واﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬

‫< ا ﻣ ﺤﻤﺪ < ا‬

‫إﻧﺎ أﻧ ﺰﻟﻨﺎ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻘ ﺮ ن‬

‫ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺎ ﻳﻘﻮل‬

‫ﻗ ﺮﻧﺎ‬

‫أﻧﺰﻟﻨﺎه‬

‫إﻧﺎ‬

E xp licit m en tion o f Gabriel in M u slim scripture (Q. 2: 9 7 - 8 .

66 : 4) w o u ld seem hardly to bear the b urden o f exegesis produced to d ep ict his central role in the m ech a n ics of revelation: Zam akhshari found it w orth w hile to exp lain that th e accusative pronoun in

‫ﻓﺎﻧ ﻪ ﻧﺬﻟﻪ ﻋﻞ ﻗﻠﺒﻚ ﺑﺈذ ن اﻟﻠﻪ‬

referred to th e Qur'ân .3 B u t paucity o f reference could b e and was c o m pensated fo r by id en tify in g Gabriel w ith the sp irit, e .g . rüh al-qudtis (Q . 2: 253, 5: IIO , 1 6 : 102), al-rüh a l-am in {26: 193), rühanä (19: 17), al-rûh (4 0 : 15 etc.), an equation d i f e u l t to recon cile w ith Q. 17: 85 and th e elaborate sto ry o f M uham m ad, Gabriel, and th e rabbis o f Y athrib.. In the lig h t o f both B ib lical and R a b b in ic allusions to G abriel, th e M uslim alleg a tio n that h e w as regarded b y the Jew s as an en em y p oses so m eth in g o f a problem . M ost o f th e reasons usually adduced to support th is contention are se t out in Zamakhshari: ( ٠) that G ab riel had revealed to the J ew ish prophet («'£, cf. Jeremiah 2 7 ) G od 's in ten tio n to d e stto y th e T em ple through the a g en cy o f N ebuchadnezzarj ( ٥) that God h a d com m anded G abriel to esta b lish prophethood am ong th e Jew s but h e h a d taken it elsew h ere {sell, to th e A rab s) ‫ )ﺀ) ؛‬that he had revealed the se c r e ts o f the Jew s to M uham m ad. T h ese details, together w ith an account o f an altercation betw een ‘U m a r and the rabbis o f Y athrib about the rela tiv e merits o f G ab riel and M ichael, w ere tenuously attached to th e Quranic phrase (2: 97): Say, w ho is an en e m y of G abriel? Itself p olem ical in tone, th e phrase m ight b e thought to reflect the several vereions o f a test o f ‘tru e prophethrod' im po sed by th e J ew s o f Y athrib/ M edina u p o n M uham m ad or by Q uraysh w ith their assistance, in ea ch instance thw arted by th e in te ^ e n tio n o f G abriel on b e h a lf o f the Arabian prophet.‫ ؟‬T h is interpretation would poin t to the third o f th e three reasons for h ostility bettveen G a b riel and the Jew s, namely, tha t h e had revealed their secrets to M uham m ad. T h e nattire o f the p olem ic m u st, I think, b e u n d erstood as exclusively Judaeo-M uslim , and the role o f Quraysh seen as a literary em bellishm ent d esign ed to sh o w that opposition to M uham m ad was (also) Arabian. G a b riel's position in M u slim p rop h etology is, after all, 1 Cited above. I pp. 51-2. ٠ See above, I pp. 34.5; Barth, *Studien', 119‫ ؛‬KalbJ Tafsir, M S Ayasofya 118, 128'. 3 K è h â f i , 169 ٥ ٥ Q. 2: 97. 4 See below, IV pp. 1 2 2 ، * K à h â f ; loc. cit.; tf. Suyüçi, Itqan i, 97.

EMBLEM S OF PROPHETH OOD

63

not qualitatively different fro m th at predicated of him in D aniel 8 :1 5 ,9 :2 1 , possibly 10: 9 ff .١and in R ab b in ic literattire.i In M u slim , as in R abbinic, tradition one of Gabriel’s prim ary functions is that of p éd ag o g ie: as h e h a d been ^ lid e a n d m entor to Joseph (T arg u m P seudo-Jonathan ad G enesis 37: 15‫ ؛‬T a lm u d Babl. S o tah 36b) and to Moses (E x o d u s Rabba I 67b), so too for M uham m ad he perform ed the rites of initiation into prophethood, instm cted h im concerning ablutions an d the tim es o f prayer, g u id ed him during his ascension to heaven, an d arranged fo r him the c o n te n t of revelation during m eetings in Ramadan.* For the A rab ian prophet th a t instruction was of particular si^ ific a n c e since, according to the trad itio n al interpretation of ٠‫ آ س‬in Q. 7: 157-8 h e was illiterate: ‫ﻳﻘﺮأ‬

‫اﻟﺬى ال د ﻛ ﺘ ﺐ وال‬. T h e m anner in w hich this dogm a

influenced discussion of th e m odes of revelation has b e en noticed.* T h e consequent postulation o f an equivalence ummî:*am ha-ares may reflect a m isunderetanding of Q . 2 7 8 ‫؛‬.. On the o th er hand, a sim ilar d o ^ i a ti c impulse in Patristic literatu re, according to which Jesus a n d the apostles were d escribed as anthropoi agrammatoi, w as adduced by W ensinck.s T he basis in Christian scrip ttrre for that view , e.g. John 7 : 15, Acts 4 : 13, might be th o u g h t to e x h ib it a specifically anti-R abbinic (Pharisaic) te n dency. A n analogous o rien tatio n in M uslim tradition is illustrated by several elem ents in the M uham m adan evangelium.b T he sam e Quranic passage (7: 157) provided a point of deparftire for th e allegation th a t the A rabian p rophet had b een p ro ^ o s tic a te d in H ebrew

‫ ﻛ ﻮ ا‬٠ ‫اﻟﺮﺳﻮل اﻟﻨﺒﻰ األﺗ ﻰ اﻟﺬى ﻳ ﺠﺪوﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻓﻰ اﻟﺘﻮراة واالﻧﺠﻴﻞ‬. D esp ite the further charge that sectaries of b o th

and C h ristian scripture: ‫ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ﻫ ﻢ‬

religions h a d falsified a n d concealed (takrif, kitman) th o se parts of th e ir scripture w h ich predicted th e coming o f M uham m ad, the search fo r proof-texts ( te s tim â ) w as notably successful .7 Since the technique itself h a d clearly been d eveloped and refined in the cracible of JudaeoChristian polem ic (cf. L u k e 24: 27). it is o f some in terest that its earliest attestation in Muslim literattrre should b e an interpretation of A hm ad/ M uham m ad as the Paraclete of John 15: 23 -1 6 : 1.8 O n th e other h a n d , the classical loci probantes from Hebrew scripttire w ere (curiously, in ‫ ا‬Cf. Geiger, W as hat M oham m ed, 12-15, 200; Katsch, J à i s m , 8 5 1 1 ; Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 46, 1 .7 ‫ ؛‬Pedersen, E I, S.V. Djabrâ’ïl. ٤ References in Wensinck. H andbook, 59‫ ؛‬see above. I p. 37. ‫ ا‬See above, I p. 36: m m a jja m opposed to jum la. 4

See above, pp. 53-4‫ ؛‬cf.

GdQ i,

14.

5 ‘Propheten’. 191-2.

‫ﺀ‬Cf. Koch. Growth, 88‫ ؛‬Gerhardsson, Memory, 1 2 -3 ‫ ؛‬and see below, pp. 7 . 1 .

’ See below, IV pp. 189-90. ٠ Ibn HishSm, Sira i. 232-3 ‫ ؛‬cf. G d Q i, 9 1 . i, 289.

n. I

‫ ؛‬and b ib lio^ p h ical references G A S

QUR ANIC S T U D IE S

64

the light o f Christian figurai interpretation of the im agery in Isaiah, Jerem iah, etc.) not th e prophetical books, but, ra th e r, passages from the T o rah , e.g. Genæis 17: 20, D euteronom y 18: 15, 33: 2, all objects of later and detailed refatation by M aim onides.i But in the later efflorescence of that ^ l e m i c references to Isaiah especially, but also to the other prophets a n d o f course th e Psalter, were abundant.» T h e passages -adduced consisted o f such as were traditionally recognized (by Jew ish and C hristian exegetes) to contain obviously messianic symbolism, a n d their use by Muslim polemicists displays familiarity w ith both substance and techniques o f Biblical exegesis. One exam ple was the atte n tio n devoted to num erical value of the letters in the name(s) of the A rabian prophet, A H M aD (Q . 61: 6) and M uH aM M aD (3: 144, 33: 40, 47: 2, 48: 29), the results o f w hich calculations were seen to corcespond to (num erical) equivalents in selected Biblical p h ra seo lo ^ , e.g. Genesis 17: 20. M ention of this device (hisab al-jum m al) ‫ ف‬attested in the earliest Q uranic exegesis and related th ere to Jew ish practice (sal. ppnou and ‫ا؟ا‬٠٦٠‫( ال ه‬.‫ل‬ In M u slim scripture itself both A hm ad (Q. 61: 6

‫وﻣﺒﺜﺮا ﺑﺮﺳﻮل ا ق ﻣﻦ‬

‫ )بﺀدى ا ﺳ ﻪ و ﻣ ﺪ‬and Muhammad (33: 4 ٠ ‫ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎ ن ﻣ ﺪ اﺑﺎ ا ﺣ ﺪ ﺑ ﻦ رﺟﺎﻟﻜﻢ‬ ‫ول اﻟﻠﻪ و ﺧﺎﺗ ﻢ اﻟﺌﺒﻴﻴﻦ‬٠٠‫ ) وﻟ ﻜ ﻦ و‬occur in contexts exhibiting distinctly messianic imagery. T h e locution ‘seal o f the p rophets., traditionally interpreted as reference to th e last link in a chain of prophetical election (‫األﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ‬

‫) آﺧﺮ‬, can, if som ew hat arbitrarily, be related to occurrence of

finite fo m is of the verb khatama in th e sense ‘to place a seal u p o n ’ (Q. 2: 7, 6 : 46, 36: 65. 4 23 :45 ,24 ‫)ذق‬. A s such it w as synonym ous w ith Quranic fabaa (e.g. 9: 93), and th at equivalence ( ‫ ﺧ ﺎ ﺗ ﻢ‬: ‫ ) ﻃﺎ ح‬was incorporated in to the exegetical tradition.. T h e eschatological significance of Q. 33: 40 is, however, unm istakable, a n d the veree m ig h t be understood to constittite an exception to th e attested principle that a p rophet be elected from w ith in his own com m unity: thus, ‘M uham m ad is n o t the father of anyone o f yo u , but rather th e messenger o f G od and seal o f the pro p h ets’. T hat Q. 33: 40 contains one of the fo u r occurrences in scripture o f the name M u h am m ad suggests a particular polemic, in w hich not only the credentials b u t also the id en tity of the A rabian prophet w as in dispute. T h e caique pro p o sed by H irschfeld, ٥fln (H aggai 2: 23, cf. Jerem iah 22: 24), required th a t the Arabic cognate be interpreted, indeed, as signet ( ta b ) ‫ ا‬Iggeret Tem an, 36-7‫ ؛‬cf. Steinschneider, P o l ä s c h e Literatur, 326-7. » See Steinschneider, bp. cit. 3 2 5 1 , 3 - 2 , and separate entries nos. 2, 14/66, 105; Goldziher, .Polemik», 372-9; Schreiner, .Zur Geschichte», 595, 599-601, 613, 625-8,

641-7. ‫ ا‬e.g. Kalbi, Tafstr fldQ. 3: 7 ٠ M S Ayasofya 118, 29 ‫ﺀ‬ ‫أ‬Muqatil. T afsir intro. and a d Q. 3: 7, M S H . Hüsnü 17, 2r, 35 ٢ ; cf. Sacher, Terminologie i, 127, ii, 27-8, respectively. ٠ e٠g. Zamakhshari, K à h â f iii, 544-5 ‫ د ه‬Q. 33: 40.

EMBLEMS O F P R O P H E T H O O D

65

indicating divine election.! That put fo^vard by Horovitz, (T^payls ( I Corinthians 9 : 2 ٠cf.Rom ans 4 : I I ) e q u a t e d w i t h m u siq {co rro boratio), th at is» verification of earlier prophets and scriptures, a frequent Quranic usage (e.g. 2:101, 3 : Si).2 The teleolo^cal interpretation suggested by Jeffery, î â OS vopov (Romans 10: 4, cf. Daniel 9: 24) was in harmony with traditional Muslim exegesis, as well as attested in Manichean literattire.* Only the last proposal would seem to do justice to the eschatological flavour of Q . 33: 40, and of 61: 6 where, incidentally, it is Jesus, not .he who shall come after me., who is designated musaddiq. Both verses contain the kind of material from which the Islamic Prophetenkultus was elaborated, and might be thought to refute the view that the latter was diametrically opposed to the Quranic portrait of an Arabian prophet.. T h e inherent weakness of tliat view is its dependence upon a clear distinction between a later, sectarian (even extremist) development of the concept 6 ( 1 0 5 avdpcuTToS) and an orignal, facftial, and sober account of the pious m an summoned by God. So tidy a dichotomy is supported neither by the content of revelation nor the chronology of early Islamic literature. Despite protests of the type ‘I am only . . ../‘I am nothing but . . (e.g. Q. 7: 188, 18: 110‫ ؛‬the type is fom ulaic, cf. 26: 115 for Noah, and 19: 19 for Gabrieli), the biography of Muhammad formulated in exegetical literattire cannot be said either to distort or to contradict scriptural data on the words and deeds of prophets in general. Indeed, from the point of view of a litera‫ ؟‬analyris, it can be ar^ied that the principal difference between the text of scripture and the Muhammadan evangelium lies merely in the canonical status of the former. Thematic and exemplaty tteatment of prophethood in tlie Qur’än was refonnulated in the evangelium (sunnajsira) as the personal history of Muhammad.»

As in th e classical literature of Hebrew prophecy, accounts of the prophetical call in Muslim scripttire begin abmptly with one or another of the fom ulae of commission, and dispense with description of whatever preparation may have preceded the call.٥ I should hesitate, however, to concede ‫ ﺀ‬silentio there was no such preparation for the reception of revelation.7 For the pre-classical period of Hebrew prophecy evidence of such was occasionally transmitted, e.g. for Samuel (1 Samuel 1 : 2 . 8 , 2: ‫ ﺀ ل‬2 ‫ل‬٠ 3: 1-4), presumably in the original documents underlying the Elijah/ Elisha cycles, but especially for Moses (Exodus I : 3‫ ﺀ‬: I ff.).8 The infan‫؟‬ ‫ ا‬Researches, 23 ‫ ؛‬cf. Goldziher, ‘Bemerkungen zur neuhebrâischen Poesie.. 724-6, for ،he poetic use of khatam: m i s r à (Isaiah 9: 6). * Untersuchungen, 53-4. ‫‘ل‬Scripttire’, 266-7. ٠ Andrae, Person, 292-3. 5 See Horovitz, ‘Biblische Nachwirkungen’, 1 8 4 1 , on the rather facile equations of Jensen. 'Das L e b Muhammeds’, 8 4 ^ 7 . ٥ See above, I pp. 12, 23-5. 7 Pace von Rad, Theology ii, 5 0 1 . ٠ a Eissfeldt, Einleitung٠ 349-56.

.33.CT&

٠

QURANIC S T U D I E S

stories of Samuel and Moses have at least two motifs in common: election/ dedication at birth, and a mode of life designed to induce responsiveness to the word of God. The importance of the Mosaic exemplum, which also dominated Jewish prophetology, in both M uslim scripture and exegesis has been noticed.* That the two motife should figure in the evangelium infantine of the Arabian prophet is not unexpected, though it is of courae quite possible that the immediate Vmbild was not Moses.2 It may. on the other hand, also not have been Jesus. T he typology of such motifs, as set out by Andrae, may be underetood to represent or to be drawn from a pool of narcative in^edients traditionally appropriate to the lives of holy men.3 The manner in which these could be adapted to a particular ambient emerges from Kister.s study of the descriptive tenninology employed in accounts of Muhammad's piety prior to his call.. Collation of Gospel material with Islamic tradition, as undertaken by Goldziher, is obviously of value but could be misleading.‫ ؟‬As a distinct literary type the Evangelien was not restricted to the Christian canon, b u t represented the historicization of logia traditions found not only in Biblical but also in Rabbinic and Gnostic literature^ The M uslim temi pertinent to that genre is mab*ath (mission), in which historical development is symbolized in the thematic polarity: prom isefulfilm ent. The ingredients of the Muhammedan evangelium vary from one collection to another, but most had achieved literary stabilization by the beginning of the third/ninth century. Literary transmission did not necessarily entail a fixed order, and fluctation of three elements in particular has been remarked and analysed, namely, the purification, the beatific vision, and the ascension/noctm al journey.’ T h e Quranic evidence for rach of those inridents in the life of Mlihammad is tenuous indeed, and such a^eem ent as does exist in exegetical literature on chapter and veree exhibits acceptance of several arbitraty connections between scripture and the prophetical evangelium. For example, the r i ta l opening of the breast, or purifiration, reflects undoubtedly a fom ula for the origin of poetic inspiration, and juxtaposition of its Muhammadan vereion to Q. 94:1-3 rests upon the semantic equivalence shaqq batnisharh sadr. Now, Schrieke has argued perauasively that such and similar rinials are almost invariably preliminary to an ascension (confrontation with deity), indicating thus a syndrome whose internal lo ^ c requires no scriptural support.» The exegetical (as opposed to historiral) ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 55-6, and I pp. 3 5 - 8 ‫ ؛‬cf. Maimonides. D d à ü j à . 3 3 - 4 5 , esp. 3 6 . » Ibn HishSm, S ira ‫؛‬٠ 155‫ ؟‬, 335 . ‫ ا‬Person, 28^56. ٠ ‘Tafcannuth., 223-36. ‫ ا‬Studien ii, 3 8 3 ^ 3 ‫ ؛‬id. ‘NeutCTtamentliche Elemente., 390-7. ٥ Cf. Koch, Growth, 59-6.. 7 See Bevan, ‘Mohammed’s ascension., 51-61‫ ؛‬Schrieke, ‘Himmelsreise Muhammeds', 1 - 3 .‫ ؛‬Horovitz, *Muhammwls Himmelfahrt', 159-83. * ‘Himmelsreise Muhammeds., ^ 9 ‫ ؛‬cf. also W idenj^en, A p é ‫ره‬G od, 8 ^ 5 , 199216 on the ascension as a lit e r a l ، ‫ه‬ ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ ؛‬BiAeland, The Lord g à t h , 39-55, speaks, however, o f the theological distortion o f ‘an original experience ‫ى‬ God in the Prophet’s

EMBLEM S OF P R O P H E T H O O D

67

link between ritual purification and Q. 94: 1-3 !‫ﻟ ﻢ ﻧﺸﺮح ﻟ ﻚ ﺻﺪر ك ووﺿﻌﺘﺎ‬ ‫ ﻋﻨ ﻚ وزرﻟﺪ اﻟﺬ ى اﻧﻘ ﺾ ﻇﻬﺮ ك‬is none the less a legitimate one, and was of particularvalueindiscussionsofthedogmarelafi perfection/ infallibility (٠‫ ( د ا‬. ‫ ل‬Firet articulated in Fiqh Akbar I I (dated by Wensinck towards the middle of the fourth/tenth century), the dogma exhibits elements of both sectarian emphasis upon the qualities of the imamate and of Rabbinic views on the kings and prophets of I s r a e l Application to the Quranic text enabled exegetœ to identify the ‘burden, {wizr) o fQ . 94: 2 w ithapparent mention of earlier transgr^si٠n(dÄ٥w٥) and ercor (‫ )إةإﻫﻲ‬in the life of the Arabian prophet (e.g. Q. 40: 55, 48: 2, 93: 7), necessitating in turn postulation of the earliest possible date in his life for the act of purification. In the evangelium itseifthe dogma found elaboration in the stoty of the attem pt by ‫ ﻟﺘ ﻲ‬raysh to seduce Muhammad with offere of power and wealth, to which nattJrally he did not succumb.3 Simdarly, the second element in the s۴ drome o f prophetical initiation, the beatific vision, may exist independent of scriptural support, which, however, could be and often was adduced in discussions not so much of M uhammad’s prophetical experience as of whether and when the faithful m ight be expected to see God.. 'Ihose verees which were considered relevant to M uham mad’s vision, e.g. Q. 53: 11-18, 81: 19-25, 48: 27, were the object of ertensive and contradictoty exegesis, resolved, save in the litteratim theses of the mystics, by resort to compromise in the fonn of a spiritual vision ( ‫رؤﻳﺔ ﻓﻰ‬ ‫ اﻟ ﻘ ﻠ ﺐ‬c f . ‫ ا??اد‬m ) . s T h e vision was intimately related to the third element in the syndrome of initiation: the ascension. T hat ascension (rm'räj) and noctural journey (isra) exhibit fissiparous production from a single tradition seems clear: their not quite consistently separate treatm ent in exegetical literature betokens a concern for chronological development in the evangelium.) in which the ascension was combined with the already preposited ritual of purifiration.٥ T he Quranic verse to which that exegetical tradition was invariably atta‫؟‬hed is 1 7 :1 ‫ﺳﺒ ﺤﺎ ن اﻟﺬ ى اﺳﺮى ﺑ ﻌﺒﺪه ﻟ ﻴ ال ﻣﻦ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺪ اﻟﺤﺮام اﻟﻰ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﺠ ﺪ‬ ‫ا ألﻗﻌ ﻤﺎ‬. T he anonymity of this reference was conceded only by Bevan.7 own life*; id. ‘Legend., 12‫ ؛‬. distinguished the shaqq batn version as an ‘investigation, motif, separate from the purification and prior to the vrcation. ٠ Cf. Andrae, Person٠ 1 3 4 1 ‫ ؛‬Birkeland, ‘le g en d ., 42-7, on the transition shaqq.sharh. ‫ ا‬Creed, 192: articles 8-9, commenta^ 217-18. 3 Ibn HishSm, Sira i, 2 9 5 -7 ‫ ؛‬cf. Matthew 4: 1-11, etc.‫ ؛‬and see below, IV p. 122. 4 Wensinck, Creed, 6 3 ) s Andrae, Person, 6 8 -85‫ ؛‬W id en .cn , ‘Oral tradition*. 2 5 8 - 6 .‫ ؛‬Goldziher, Richtungen٠

105-6‫ ؛‬a rationalistic in terrelation worthy o f Noldeke may be read, appropriately, in DeGoeje, ‘D ie Benifung M oham m eds, 1-5. ٥ Schr'ieke, ‘Himmelsreise Muhammeds’, 14‫ ؛‬Horovitz, ‘Muhammeds Himmelfahrt.. 174-5 ‫ ؛‬Birkeland, ‘Legend., 5 4 4 7 ‘Mohammed's ascension’, 53-4.

Q UR ANIC S T U D IE S

The alternative, namely, th a t ' M can only be Muhammad, Unplies submission to an interpretation of all the Quranic data which, in m y opinion, has yet to be demonstrated.* Far from providing unambiguous witness to the Arabian prophet, this particular scriptural image (‫وﺳﺮى‬ ‫ )ﺑﻌﺒﺪه ﻟ ﻴ ال‬is employed, in but slightly varying fom s, only to describe Moses’ departure from Egypt (Q. 20: 77, 26: 52, 44: 23‫ ؛‬laylan may reflect the im ages of Exodus 12: 29-34).2 Moreover, the introductory foimula ‫ ﺳﺒ ﺤﺎ ن ا ﻟ ﺬ ى‬is m ost probably of cultic origin and general application.3 W ithout specification of the tem in al points in the journey ‫ﻣ ﻦ‬ ‫ا أل ى‬

‫ اﻟ ﺴ ﺠ ﺪ اﻟﺤﺮام اﻟﻰ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺪ‬, probably

a gloss, identification of *abd

with Moses might be thought confimed by the following verses (17‫؛‬ 2 £ ) . 4 On the other hand and without exception, it is with Q. 17: I that the isra, and more often th an not the mi*räj) are linked in the exegetical tradition. In the light of the clearly Mosaic fomiulation of Muslim prophetology, that connection can hardly be described as arbitra^ or fortuitous, but may reflert as well a mixtare of motifs.‫ ؛‬Sudden transport by the spirit of God from one place to another is a motif not uncommon in the literature of prophetical expression (e.g. Elijah: I Kings 18: 12, 2 Kings 2: I I , 16‫ ؛‬Ezekiel 2 : 1 2 ,8 : 3 ,1 1 : 1 , 4 3 : 5 ‫ ؛‬cf. 2 Corinthians 12: 2-4), and it may be that some such instance of divine intervention lay behind the hymnic imagerçv of Q. 17: I .٥ T hat transposition of imageiyv, from what must have been in ori^n a reference to the Mosaic exodus to an expression of ecstatic movement, can have been effected only by means of the phrase ‘from the sacred mosque to the filrthest mosque, which, I have noted, may be an exegetical gloss d e s ire d to accommodate within the canonical text the ascension episode of the Muhammadan evangelium. Allusion in Q. 17: 60 to a vision (‫وﻣﺎ‬ ‫ئ الﻧﺎس‬

‫ ) ﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ اﻟﺮؤﻳﺎ اﻟﺪى ارﻳﻨﺎ ك ا ال‬and in 17: 93 to an ascension (‫ﻟ ﻮ رؤ ى‬

* Cf. G d Q i, 134-7, ii, 8 5 -8 ‫ ؛‬W iden^en, Apostle ٠ ‫ر‬God, 96-114; Schrieke, .Himmelsreise Muhammeds‘, 13 n. 6 ‫ ؛‬H.rovitz, .Muhammeds Himmelfahrt., 160-1: uncharacteristically ingenuous, and ironic in the light o f his further observation on another identifiration (162), ‘Dass auch die europäische Forschung sie bisher ohne Nachpriifung übernommen hat, beweist nur, dass sie sich keinwwegs uterall von dem Banne der ialamischen Tradition befreit hat‘. ٤ A related lrcution ‫ئ‬ used twice of Lot's departure from Sodom, Q. ri ‫ ؛‬81, 15: 65 ‫ل‬ see above, I p . 8. ‫ ا‬See above, I pp. 17-18. 4 All o f Q. 17: I was judged an inte^olation by G d Q i, 136-7, though Weil’s proposal o f a fo r g e r was rejected. G d Q ii, 85-8. 5 e.g. the pseudepipaphic Assumptio Mosis, cf. Eissfeldt, Einleitung, 770-1; M ouforac.s linking, Abraham, 59-60, of Q. 17: I w ith the Abraham traditions ‫ئ‬ in my opinion unjustified, though it was of course a Meccan sancftiary tradition which facilitated interpretation ofm asjidh ardm and m asjidaqfd as toponyms, cf. A b r à a m , 53-81. T he Biblical Abraham was not m erely a seeker of God, but also a founder of sanctuaries, e.g. Genesis 12: 7, 8, 13: 4, 18, 22: 9. ٠ Cf. G d Q i, 134 7 ‫ه‬.

EMBL EM S OF P R OPHE THO OD

69

‫ ) ق اﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ‬are hardly relevant to the content of ‫ل‬7 ‫ ذ‬I . Both are polemical and the latter hypothetical, as is the ascension imagety in Q. 6: 35 and 15:14. In the exegetical tradition the sacred mosque was identified as the K a٠ba in M ecca and the fu rth est mosque simply as Jenisalem.i In JertJsalem the Rock (sakhra) m ight also be specified, but relation of the ascension as well as the nocrnmal journey to Q. 17: I would appear to support identification of th e filrthest m osque with heaven.* A corcesponding spiritualization of the point of departure ( ‫ )؟‬for both ‫ ئ‬discernible in statements ascribed to 'Abdallah b. .Abbas, according to which it was the spirit (mh) of Muhammad which m ade the journey from a point depicted not specificity as the sacred mosque, .but more generally as sacred enclave (,haram).3 But a tendency in the opposite direction, namely, to fix the tem in al points of the journey at the K a٠ba (Mecca) and at the A q‫؟‬â mosque (Jerusalem) attests to the political si^ificance of Islamic sancttiaries and only incidentally to the exegesis of Q. 17: 1.4 The link between revelation and the evangelium was, however, not neglected. The celebrated tradition prescribing three p l u m a g e s (‫ ) ال ﺗ ﺜ ﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﺎل اال اﻟﻰ ﺛ ﻠ ﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﺪ‬appears in M uqätü.s discussion of Q. 17: I , together with several stories about the sanctity of Jerusalem, exhibiting conflation of masjid d-aqsä with s à a bayt al~mqdis.s One is tempted, if not quite constrained, to see in those sanctuary traditions the origin of the ù ra jâ 'râ j story, imposed upon Q. 17: I much in the way £ ‫ ى ة‬٤ was made the peg for a similar sanctuary tradition concerning Mecca.٥ If, indeed, the exegesis did not in both instances precede the revelation, it would none the less appear to have originated independently of the verees it purported to explain. T h at same ambivalent relationship between scripture and interpretation holds for m uch of the content of the Muhammadan evangelium. Attached also to Q. 17: I is a chararteristic example of prophetical v a t i à â ex eventu ((akhbdr al-ghayb): Quraysh, appropriately astonished by Muhammad’s report of his nocttjrnal journey, challenged him to describe a caravan of theire at that moment returning to Mecca from Syria (sic). T his the prophet duly met, adding details of its leading camel and predirting its arrival in Mecca next m .ming.7 That the source of the ‫ ا‬e.g. Zamakhshari, K a sh sh d f ii, 647 a d Q. 17: 1‫ ؛‬cf. Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 140-1. 2 See Schrieke, .Himmelsreise Muhammeds», 13-15‫ ؛‬Horovitz, ‘Muhammeds Himmel, fahrt», 162-9: the Rabbinic/Christian concept o f ‘celestial lentsalem». ‫ ا‬Zamakhshari, loc. c it.‫ ؛‬Kalbi, Tafsir ٠ ٥ Q. 17: I, M S. Ayasofya 118, 156^ possibly to accommodate a report that the prophet had begun the night in the house of Umm HSni. bint Abt Talib. ٠ S ee Kister, ‘Three mosques», 173^6: the traditions adduce, inconsistently, both the Aq‫ ؟‬ä mosque and the D om e of the Rock. Cf. Paret, Der K o ra n , 295-6. ‫ ا‬T a h ir , MS H. Hüsnü 17, .‫ل‬ 57٢ - 8‫ﺀ‬ ٥ P ace Birlreland, T h e L o r d guideth, T O O - i; see above, I p. 42. 7 Ibn HishSm, S ira i, 4 .2 -3 , and moat commentari« ad loc., e.g. Zamakhshari, Kashsh df ii, 647‫ ؛‬see below, IV pp. 120-1.

QUR ANIC S T U D I E S

anecdote is the evangeliunt, not the document of revelation, is clear from its inclusion in treatises on the proofs of prophethood (dalâ'ü a l-m à îtm ).i A product of haggadic exegesis, its hinction was primarily entertainment, but the concluding foraiula ‘and still they did not believe' sis a ls its incorporation into the mass of criteria assembled to distinguish the true from the false prophet, i.e. fulfilment of the prediction (e.g. Deuteronomy 18: 22). T h e classic reference in scripture for the v ä d n a tio is of couree Q. 30: 1-4, the dominant interpretation of which provided not only evidence of genuine prophethood but also comment on the course of Oriental history; T h e range of à h b â r al-ghayb includes another kind of utterance, which m ight be designated figurai (^ .lo g ic a l). An example was the warning given by M uham mad’s camel at Hudaybiya to halt and negotiate at the perim eter of the Meccan h a r m , interpreted by the prophet as manifestation of the force which had arrested Abraha’s elephant.3 That an animal should have been appointed instalm ent of God's will (cf. N um ters 22: 22-35) is in this particular context less significant th an the fact that ,Muhammad alone could understand and explain the camel’s action to his puzzled companions. Sittiations in which the inscmtable wisdom of the prophet was demonstrated are not uncommon. A familiar mise en scene is the confrontation bettveen Muhammad and the rabbis, in which the agency of Gabriel was central. In one such episode Muhammad proved himself able, without the aid of Gabriel, to confound the rabbis, namely, in the case of the couple taken in adultery. The story is conventionally formulated in terms of a prophetical test, based on two alternatives: if Muhammad elected to punish the couple by flogging, public humiliation, and banishment (comprehended in the tenn tajbiya) he was clearly a king‫ ؛‬if, on the other hand, he sentenced them to death by stoning he m ust be a prophet. His firet step was to engage the Medinese rabbis in dispute, during which he could display his superior knowledge of God’s law. In one account it was Muhammad who got the rabbi *Abdallah b. Süriyä to admit tliat the stoning punishment was attested in the T o rah ‫ ؛‬in another it was the Jewish convert to Islam, *Abdallsh b. Saiam, who revealed the treachery of an unnamed rabbi who had, during the dispute with .Muhammad, held his hand over the relevant passage in the Mosaic law. Muhammad thus trium phed, and the couple was stoned at the gate of his mosque in Medina.. Traditions relating this story to the ertswhile Quranic ‘stoning verse’ (ayat al-rajm) belong to the principal loci probantes in discussions of the Islamic dortrine of ‫ ﺀ ا‬.‫ ﺀ‬٠ *Abd al-JabbSr, T a t i dalail nubuwwat sayyidind Muhammad, MS Shehid AJ‫ ؛‬Pasha 1575, 22 ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ ‫ ا‬See below. IV pp. 144-5. ‫ ا‬Ibn Hisham, Stra ii. 310‫ ؛‬Wâqidî, K ita b a l-m agh azt, 587‫ ؛‬cf. Vermes, Scripture,

-4٠-35‫أ‬ ٠ Ibn HishSm, S ira

564-6; cf. Hirechfeld, ‘C ontroversé., 109-16.

EMBL EM S OF P R . P H E T H O O D

71

abrogation.* The Sitz im Leben of the story itself, however, is the M uham madan evangelim developed out of Judaeo-Muslim polemic. Elements like the marital states (‫؛‬ihsän) of the accused couple and the rabbi’s concealment (kitman) of the pertinent portion of the Torah with his hand exhibit a seconda^ stage of accretion, in which doctrinal significance preceded polemical value. T h e latter is reflected in its anti-Rabbinic flavour, common to a wide range of anecdotes ‫ ئ‬the evangelium, and might be thought to share a symbolic quality with the adulteress pericope in the gospel of John (7: 53-8: I I ) . The intentions of the two stories are admittedly opposed: the action of Jesus was to supereede the Mosaic law, that of Muhammad to revive it (‫ ﻣﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ و ﻛ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ و ﻋ ﻤ ﻞ ﺑﻪ‬1 ‫) ﻓﺎﻧﺎ أ و ل ﻣﻦ أﺣﻴﺎ‬, to rescue it from dereliction at the hands of faithless custodians.» None the less, the anti-Pharisaic propaganda of the one is reflected in the antiRabbinic propaganda of the other. T h at John 7: 53-8: I I was itself drawn,, perhaps later than formation of the Christian canon, from a pool of narrative elements traditionally associated with opposition to established authority has been proposed.* A theme common to all such material was public demonstration of true prophethood, one which could hardly have real significance outside the Judaic tradition. Halakhic elaboration of the theme stressed two different but related aspects: the source of prophetical authority and the extent of prophetiral jurisdiction.. In its primitive and unembellished haggadic fo m , however, the theme is essentially apologetic, and reflects a widespread and popular l it e r a l type. Im portance of the Mosaic law is exemplified in yet another component of the Muhammadan evangelium : the story of the prophet’s abstention from food sacrificed to idols.* Kister demonstrated that conflicting versions of the tradition exhibit the entire range of feasible positions with regard to the onset of Muhammad’s perfertion/infallibility ( i ß ) , and in particular whether it began before or at the moment of his prophetical calling. W ith the gradual crystallizing of Islamic orthodoxy the quality of * i ß was seen to be contenninous with the lffe of the prophrt, conforming thus to other data in the evangelim.6 But the subsrance of the a rrim e n t about food was susceptible of halakhic extension, as fonnulated in the complementarçr prescriptions of Q. 6: 118 (eat of that over which G od’s name has been uttered) and 6: 121 (eat not of that over which G od’s name has not been uttered). T he sacrificial ordinances were thus neither dissolved as in the ] Cf. references in Wensinck, H an àoo k , 221—2; Goldziher. .Usages juifs., 79; Hirschfeld. Researches, 137; G d Q i, 248-52; Schacht, Origins, 53 n. 4, 73-4, 191 n. 5. 1 Ibn Hisham, Stra i, 566. ‫ل‬See, Metzger, N eu Testam ent, 223-4 and references 273 ‫ ؛‬but cf. Derrett, L a w , 156-88; T oney, Foundation, 149-50. 4 See below, IV pp. 192-6. * Kister, ‘Bag of meat, 267-75. ٥ Cf. above, pp. 65-7; Birkeland, The L o rd Guideth٠ 28-32.

QURANIC S T U D I E S

Synoptic tradition (Matthew 15: 10-20, M ark 7: 14-23), nor figuratively transposed as in Pauline doctrine (1 Corinthians 8), but rather, epitomized as in the Apostolic promulgations to prosel^rtes (Arts 15: 20, 28-9, 21: 25).! In the Muhammadan anecdote not adjustment of but adherence to the Mosaic law was stressed (e.g٠ Leviticus 17: 7), in particular by the Arabian prophet, whose exemplair figure was being delineated for edification of the community. Now, discussions of their precise relation to the Mosaic law were characteristic of sectarian literattire emanating from communities in the Judaeo-Christian environment, and inclusion of this anecdote in the Muhammadan evangelium might be thought to reflect a similar concern. Specific mention of idols in connection with dietaty laws, e.g. Q. 22: 30 ‫واﺣﻠﺖ ﻟ ﻜ ﻢ ا ألﻧ ﻌﺎ م ا ال ﻣﺎ ﻳ ﺘ ﻞ ﻋ ﻴ ﻜ ﻢ ﻓﺎﺟﺘﻨﺒﻮا اﻟﺮﺟﺲ ﻣﻦ األوﺛﺎن‬ can of couree be, and often was, constmed as allusion to the practices of pagan Arabia. But here, as elsewhere in the historicriation of prophetical logid) even perauasive elements of local colour must be judged against the possibdity of assimilation from a literaty source. Like the Muslim canon, the Muhammadan evangelium applied directly and graphically figures from Biblical imagety. In the stoty of the first pubhc recitations from revelation it is told how Quraysh, sceptical and sttrbbom, taunt Muhammad with their refusal to listen to and understand his proclamations. Thereupon was revealed the verse ‫واذا ﻗﺮأ ت اﻟﻨﺮآن ﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ‬

‫( ﺑﻴﻨﻚ وﺑﺘﺘﻦ اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ال ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮن ﺑﺎآلﺧﺮة ﺣ ﺠﺎﺑﺎ ﺳ ﻮ وا‬Q. ‫ل‬7 : 4 5 ( ٠‫ ﺀ‬The setting ‫ف‬ contrived and the motivation transparent, but the required exegetical peg was provided: the obdurate audience rendered victim of its own u tte m c e . Veils were placed over their hearts and deafness in their ears, and a screen ererted between themselvœ and the prophet. The Quranic imagety (Q. 17: 45-6, 18: 57, 6: 25, and in the mouths of the scoffere 41: 5) is developed round the m otif ‘hardening of the heart., condensed in 3: 13 ‫وﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻗﻠ ﻮﺑ ﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬. In the literature of prophetiral expression the classic example is Isaiah 6:9 -1 0 , where, during the commissioning of the prophet, the plight of Israel is so described.* T h e rather ingenuous point of departure for the anecdote in the Muhammadan evangelium, namely the assertion by Quraysh that their hearts were veiled and their eara deafened, is contained not only in Q. 41: 5, but also 2: 88 ‫ وﻗﺎﻟ ﻮا ﻗﻠﻮﺑﻨﺎ ﻏﻠ ﻒ‬. The latter veree, however was traditionally interpreted as reference to the Jews (cf. Leviticus 26: 41 Vl٥n ‫)? ا ﺗ ﺘ ﻪ‬, the transfer of imagety to Quraysh being a frequently attested ‫ ا‬Pace Geiger, W as hat M oham m ed٠ 197‫ ؛‬cf. Katsch, Judaism, 121-4‫ ؛‬Gerhardsson, Memory, 314-18. ٠ Ibn HiahSm. S ira i. 314-17. ‫ ا‬Cf. von Rad, Theology ii, 151-5.

EMBL EM S OF PRO P H E TH O O D

73

device of the exegetical tradition.* T he Biblical motif is also Mosaic, e.g٠ Exodus 4: 21 1 ?‫ اداا‬ptrw ! (referting to Pharaoh), and Pauline exegesis of Exodus 34: 33-5 linked the veil (m .0) of Moses with the obduracy of Israel (2 Corinthians 3 1 8 - 12 ‫ ؛‬KaXvfifia).2 The dual function of the veil, symbolic of both the hardened heart and the protected messenger of God, found expression also in Muslim scripttrral interpretation. In his commentaty to Q. 17: 45 Tabari explained hijab as k i â (veil, derived from akinna in the following veree, cf. Q. 6: 25, 5 :‫ل‬8 ‫ ذ‬57, 4 ‫) ل‬, or as satir (screen) and glossed the entire locution *screened from the people, who could thus not see h im .(3.( ‫ ﺳﺘ ﻮ را ﻋﻦ اﻟ ﻌﺒﺎ د ﻓ ال ﻳﺮوﻧﻪ‬This additional interpretative element was elaborated in later exegesis, where the hijab was seen as a shield to protect the prophet from attempts on his life.. Interpretation of hijâb as sätir (screen) might, convereely, be applied metaphorically, as in Saadya.s Arabic rendering of Psalm 88: 15 (١‫ ﻫﻬﻞ‬٦٩٥ T l ) as Sinn à ٦n٥n v In Q. 17: 45 the Mosaic Vwbild is unmistakable, and the functional equivalence of hÿâb'.masveh (Exodus 34: 33-5) merely another instance of resort to traditional imagery in the elaboration of Muslim prophetology. T he ambivalent relationship between scriptural data on the qualities of prophethood and the material of the Muhammadan evangelium is especially conspicuous in Muslim discussions of prophetical thaumattrrgy. The latter consists exclusively of not very convincingly adapted stereotypes of miracles traditionally associated with men of God, and catalogued in the dalail a l - î i à m a literattire.٥The a rb itra ^ assignment of Quranic chapter and verse to those components of the evangelium has been noted. Despite elaboration of a systematic test by means of which the acceptability of a miracle could be detennined, the theological relevance of that material remained minimal.7 N either eliminated nor replaced, it was instead superseded by refinement of a dogma in which the document of revelation could play a rather more central part, and by which the role of the Arabian prophet could be assessed in terns of historical perapective. Adduced by jahi?, th at dogma found rudimentaty expression in the typology set out by ٠ Cf. Geiger, Was hat M ohammed, 12‫ ؛‬G.ldziher, Richtungen, 175-6. * Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 3٠ ; Gerhardsson, M emory, 285-6; Ahrens, ‘Christliches im Qoran., 17.. 1 T a fsir XV, 66. ٠ e.g. Ibn Kathlr, T afsir iv, 314‫ ؛‬SuyUtf, in Tafsir a l - J à î a y n , 386, both a d Q. 17: 47; the s to ^ , without scriptural reference, is retailed in Ibn HishSm, S ira i. 355-6, where the agent o f the assassination attempt is identified as the wife o f Abu l^hab; cf. the commentaries to Q. 93: 3, and above, p. 59.

‫ ة‬١ ‫ ه‬٦١

١ ‫ ه س ه‬١‫ ا ء ء‬Saadja, T a w , TV. .٦ ٥ e.g. Abu N u 'a^ i and Bayhaqi, cit^ Andrae, Person, 57-91. 1 Cf. Andrae, Person, 3 ‫ل‬ ٠ ‫ا‬-٠ citing IjJ K ita b alM avodqif.

Q UR ANIC S T U D I E S Ibn Q utayba: the m iracles (si ۴ s) of M o ses were characteristic of an a g e of sorcery (zaman al-sihr), th o se of Jesus o f an age o f m ed icin e {zaman ‫ﻟﻤﻪ‬-.‫) ﺀة' ه‬. th at (sic) o f M u h a m m a d o f an age o f eloquence (zaman aUbayan).! E m phasis u p o n the single m iracle of M uham m ad, the book revealed to h im by G od, m ig h t be th o u g h t to co n to d ic t th e data of th e M uham m adan evangelium٠ w hile attestin g sim ultaneously to the gen era l validity o f miracles as p roof of p rop h eth o o d . A pplication o f that criterion was co n sistent, ev en w hen tta d itio n provided no e x p licit record o f a miracle, as in the case o f Shu'ayb, e.g ٠Zamakhshari’s u nequivocal assertion ad Q. 7: 85 with reference to the lo c u tio n ٠ 2‫ﻣﻦ ودﻛﻢ‬

‫ﻗﺪ ﺟﺎ ﺀﺗﻜ ﻢ ﺑﻴﻨﺔ‬

D erivation of th e

procedure from a C hristian Vorlage ‫ ذ‬hardly necæ sary. d esp ite the nattrre o f the m aterial upon w h ich th e M uhamm adan evangelium drew . T h e jud gem ent o f H orovitz, that th e C hristian origin o f the infancy and other stories was so pronounced as to p reclu d e thrir em p lo y m en t by th e M uslim adversaries o f Jo h n o f D am ascus, is somewhat ingenuous. O n e could as easily argue th a t th e content o f th e Qur.ân, w h ich consists a lm o st exclusively o f elem ents adapted from t h e Judaeo-C hristian tradition, m u s t have disabled its sectaries in controversy w ith Jews a n d Christians.^ T h e role o f th e miracle as prophetical cred en tia l was o f su c h currency in th e fo m u la tio n o f m on oth eistic reli^on as to make derivation from a sin g le source a ftitile exercise indeed.« Rabbinic efforts to rircu m scrib e the adm issibility of su ch m ust be w eig h ed against e x p lic it pronouncem ents on the su b ject expressed in term s o f popular faith, fo r example, b y M aim onides.5 T h e thorough ly traditional chararter o f M u slim p olem ic m ay be judged from the protests of m o rta lity and disclaim ers o f m iracles in the text o f scripttire itse lf.. What b eca m e, despite th o s e assertions, th e specifically M uham m adan miracle is a llu d ed to in p assa g es containing a demand n o t m erely for credentials, b u t fo r written co n finn ation o f th e w ord of G o d ,

e.g. Q. 4: ‫ ة ل‬3 ‫ ن ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺎ ﺀ‬٠ ‫ أ ﻫ ﻞ اﻟ ﻜﺘﺎ ب أ ن ﺗ ﻨ ﺰ ل ﻋﻠﻬﻢ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ﺑ ﺎ‬4 ‫ ﺳﺊ‬٠ T hat particular request is attrib u ted to those alread y in p ossession o f a scripttjral revelation (ahl ül-hitäb). S im ila r instances m ay lo ^ ca lly b e ascribed to the sam e quarter, even w h e n n o t explicitly stated, e.g. Q. 1 7 : 93,21:5, 43 : ‫ ا‬Jafoi?, K i t ê H ujaj al-nubuwwa, ‫ل‬ 45 ٠ ‫ه‬ ‫ ا‬but ‫؛‬n a context in which the objective historicity of prophetical biographies is critically examined ; Ibn Qutayba, Ta'w il, 10. 2 K a sh sh d fii, 127: no prophet without a miracle‫ ؛‬conversely, there could be no miracle without a prophet, cf. 'Abd al-Jabbar, Tasuih a l-Q u r'â n , 4 8 . ad S ü r a 1.5 . 3 .Zur Muhammadlegende., 4 1 - 9 ‫ ؛‬a n t - e d by Schreiner, ‘Zur Geschichte., 593-5 ‫ل‬ apparently shared by Becker, ‘Christliche Polemik», 437, and Wensinck, ‘Propheten., 192-8. Conclusions drawn from the w ritin . ascribed to John of Damascus are a n y w a y qurationable unless restricted, as they s e i d , are, to an assessment o f polemical tactics, see my observations B S O A S xxxiii (197.) 391-3. ٠ Cf. Jeffery, ‘Scripture., 1 3 2 -3 ‫ ؛‬Khou^, ‫ئ‬ ‫ﺀ‬Théologiens byzantins, 89. 5 Iggeret Tem an, 56‫ ؛‬cf. Gerhardsson, Memory, 178, 213. ٠ See above, p. 65‫ ؛‬and I, pp. 6 -7 .

EMBLEM S OF PR O P H E T H O O D

75

31, 47: 20. 74:52. Collocation in scripture of ‘prophethood and the book. (‫ اﻟﻨﺒﻮة وا ﻟ ﻜ ﺘ ﺎ ب‬Q. 29: 27, 57: 26) or ‘the book, judgement/wisdom, and prophethood.(

6

‫ اﻟ ﻜﺘﺎ ب واﻟ ﺤ ﻜ ﻢ واﻟﻨﺒﻮة‬3 :

to th e Jews.1 For v e r se s o f outspokenly polem ical con ten t, like Q . 3 5 : 40 ‫( ام آ ﺗ ﻴ ﻨ ﺎ ﻫ ﻢ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ﺑ ﺎ ﻓ ﻬﻢ ﻋ ﻞ ﺑ ﻴ ﻨ ﺖ ﻣﻨ ﻪ‬cf. 37: 157» 46:4)» I am inclin ed to ‫ ئ‬terpret kitâb as decree/authority (.sultan, cf. 7 : 71, 37 156 ‫)؛‬, rather than book (scripture), a conjecture su pported by Zam akhshari as w e ll as by Q uranic usage.* ‫ اﺀ‬٠ *‫ ﺀة‬as scripture is seldom differentiated in th e Q ur.Sn, and exactly which scrip tu re is m ean t can be elicited o n ly from context.* T h e inherent a m b i^ iity sensed by ex eg etes for m any passages is reflected in Abu *Ubayda’s g lo s s o f dhalika ٠l-kitab (that book) in Q. 2 2 ‫ ؛‬as hädhä *l-qur*än (this Qur’ä n )..

A ttem pts at closer definition of kitab, such as nasib min a!~kitäb (a portion of the book, Q. 3: 23, 4: 44, 51, 7 3 7 ‫)؛‬, do not in fart eliminate the ambiguity, though in the exegerical tradition those passages were interpreted as allusions to the Torah.5 On the other hand, tafsil al-küäb (analysis/explication of the book) is once (Q. 1 0 3 7 ‫ )؛‬expressly predicated of the Q ur’än, while the tenn tafsil is elsewhere ( 6 1 4 5 ‫ ؛‬154, 7 ‫؛‬, poss 1 7 1 2 ‫ )؛‬a reference to the Mosaic revelation. The locution kitdb allah (book of God), occurring nine times in M uslim scripttrre (five of which may well mean ‘decree’), shared in the exegetical tradition a similar ambivalence. The alternative kitab allah and qur'än in variant traditions of *Umar’s instnrctions to Abu M ösä have been noticed.6 A number of revealing anecdotes are related of the same caliph, e.g. that retailed by Ib n Hazm, according to which *Umar was one day approached by the rabbi Ka*b carrying a book (sifr 1), who said to h im ‫ ؛‬Here is the Torah, read it 1*Umar replied: If you are certain that that is what God revealed to Moses, then I will read it night and day! The variant reply ‘T hen read it during the night and day’, ill suited both to the preceding imperative in K a.b’s utterance and to the spirit of the stoty, reflects the do۴ atic impulse responsible for another anecdote, in which Muhammad forbade *Umar to read the Torah.7 Just before the caliph’s assassination the same rabbi informed him of his imm inent death, indirating that he had found it predieted in the book of God, the Torah ( ‫إلﻟﻪ ﻋﺰ و ﺟ ﻞ اﻟﺘﻮراة‬١‫ ق ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ب‬٠‫ (أ ﺟ ﺪ‬. ‫ا‬ ‫ ا‬Cf. H.rovitz, Untersuchungen, 73 : ٥ conjectured calque of Hebrew tripartite Scriphire. K â h â f iii, 617 a d Q. 3 5 : 4 ٥ ٠ iv, 64 ‫ ﻣﻤﻪ‬3 7 : 157 ‫ ؛‬cf. Augapfel, ‘Das “kitab“ im Quran.,

‫ا‬

393 .

3 See Kiinstlinger, *Kitab', 238-47; id. *Gottes-Schriften., 72-84. .Periphrastic ciegesis., 2 5 ., 256. s Cf. KUnstlinger, *Matham', 5‫ ؟‬w ٥ See above, p. 57. 7 K ita b al-Fisal v d - m i l a i i, 217‫ ؛‬Goldaiher, .Polemik', 345. ٠ Tabari, Amtales 1/2722-3 ‫ ؛‬cf. m i (1968)614-15, and M ow , IV pp. 1 8 ^ ,0 . ٠ —

QURANIC S T U D IE S

76

In a different context altogether, Ibn Hajar was constrained to obsera that the locution hitab a l i i could refer to the Quranic codex 0mushaf,>٠‫ا‬ Collective desi^ation of scripUire(s) as kutub allah (books of God) occurs in enumeration of the si^ s, as in Q. 2: 285 ‫ﻛ ﻞ آ ﻣ ﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ و ﻣ ال ﺋ ﻜ ﺘ ﻪ‬ ‫( ^ ﺗ ﺒ ﻪ ورﻣﻠﻪ‬cf. 4:136, 66: 13, and the pair, 34: 44 and 68: 37, in which is stressed the plight of those not panted a scriptural revelation). In exegetical literature the total number of kutub alläh was given variously: 70,104,125, 163, the lowest figure being in all likelihood a reflex of 4 Ezra 7.٤- 45 ‫ل‬4 ‫ذ‬ .Books, as prophetical credential is a notion widely attested in JudaeoChristian literature, for which the p arad ier was undoubtedly the Mosaic revelation.3 In view of the central role played by the figure of Moses in both the scripture and prophetology of Islam, his relegation to the rank of sorcerer in Ibn Qutayba’sty p o lo ^ of miracles is striking. So too, the dichotomy between the Arabian prophet of the evangelium and the recipient of God’s final revelation, itself a miracle. Implicit in the ty p o lo . is not merely the initial exchange of roles, but also precedence of the book over the prophet. It seems to me unlikely that such a development could have taken place outside the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism, in which Moses the leader of his people was succeeded by Moses the bearer of divine revelation. Translation of the word of God into a written record (scripttire) was an essential element in the Mosaic tradition (Exodus 34: 27), perpetuated in the imagery of classical Hebrew prophecy (e.g. Isaiah 30: 8٠ Jeremiah Guranic reference to the word of God may also, and not unexpectedly, be allusion to scripttire, e.g. Q. 4: 46 ‫ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﻫﺎدوا ﻳ ﺤﻨﻔ ﻮ ن اﻟ ﻜﻠ ﻢ ﻋﻦ‬ ‫( ﻣﻮاﺿﻌﻪ‬similarly 5: 13, 41)» in which the action explicit in tahrif could only apply to the written word.5 Conceptually related to kalim (words) in those verses is ‫ ﻫﻮ‬٠ ‫( ل‬speech)inQ. 50: 29 ‫ﻣﺎ ﻳ ﺒ ﺬ ل اﻟﻘﻮل ﻟﺪ ق‬, as well as kalimät (words) in 6: 115 ‫( ال ﻣ ﺒ ﺪ ل ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺗﻪ‬similarly 10: 64) and kaldm (speech) in 48: ‫ ل‬5 ‫( ﻳ ﺮﻳﺪ و ن ﻟﻦ ﻳﺒﻨﻠ ﺮا ﻛ ال م اﻟﻠﻪ‬cf. 2: 75). In three of its four occurrences kalim requires to be understood as scripttne (viz. Q. 4: 46, 5: ‫ ل‬3 ‫ ا‬4 ‫ ذل‬the exception in 35: 10). Similarly all four occuroences of kaldm, which appeare only in construct with allah (viz. Q. 2: 75, 9: 6, 48: 15, 7: 144, the last with an appropriate pronominal suffix). Qawl may be interpreted as scripttne not only in Q. 50: 29, but also 23: 68 I A p u d Suyütî, Itqan .221 ,‫؛‬ ‫ ا‬See Abbott, S A L P i, 54Î Widengren, A p o stle o f God, 139-46; Eissfeldt. Einleitung,

773.

* Von Rad. Theology ii, 40—5. ٠ Cf. Jeffery, ‘Scripture., 127. * See below, IV pp. 1 8 8^ 2.

EMBLEM S OF P R O P H E T H . . .

77

and 39: 18. th.ugh it m .re often renders ‘word of God. in the sense of an expression of divine win (decree, e.g. 16: 40, 27: 82, 37 ‫ ذ‬3 ‫)ل‬. In that dynamistic sense kalimdt is a ls. employed, e.g. Q. 2: 37 (Adam) and 2: 124 (Abraham), but more common in that usage is the singular kaltma, save for amr (utterance) the standard Quranic locution for G od’s decree, whether retributive (10: 33, 39: 19) or creative (7: 137, 37‫؛‬ ‫ل‬7 ‫(ل‬. ‫ ل‬T hus may be underetood also those passages designated by O’Shaughnessy the .Christolo^cal verees’ (i.e. Q. 3: 39, 45, 4: ‫ل‬7 ‫(ل‬. ‫ ة‬It is only in the context of Quranic kalima/amr that one may speak of a reflex of the logos doctrine in Muslim theology, and that in a Philonic rather than Trinitarian sensed A possible influence of the Christian doctrine might, however, be seen in sertarian phraseology, for example, interpretation of kalimat al-fasl in Q. 42: 21 as .Ali b. Abi Talib, or in the extreme foraulations of the mystics on the creative power of the prophet M uham mad.. For th e Ash.arite doctrine on the eternity of the Qur.ân it is kalam a l l (scripftire) which was the subject of controversy, and which may be dis. tinguished from kaUma, rather as in Christian theology logos and rhema refer respectively to Christ and scripture.5 In Hebrew scriptttre the locution ‘word of G od’ (mn٩٦‫ت‬٦) is characteristic primarily of the prophetic oracle, and its status constructus may be judged comparable to that of Q uranic kalam a l l .6 The semantic range of the Hebrew formula includes scripture (e.g. Jeremiah 30: 2, 36: 1-2), but also the episodic expression of God’s will (e.g. I Samuel 3: 7, I Chronicles 22: 8), which corresponds to Quranic kalim\amr. T he specifically creative command of Psalm 3 3 : 9 ٦n I RII ١m I m ‫ ال‬may be compared with Q. 2:1 1 7

‫ض ﺀﻣﺮا ﻓﺈﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻮل ﻟﻪ ﻛ ﻦ ﻓﺪﻛﻮن‬

‫ وإ ذ ا‬, or the retributive utterances of

Isaiah 9: 7 and Amos 1: 2 with «,٥٠٥٠٥ '1 -qawl (the word fell) in Q. 27 : 82, 85. For the metaphorical sefatai of Psalm 89: 35 Saadya employed Arabic qawli (my speech), not only to avoid the anthropomorphism but also as reflex of a Quranic term for command.’ T h e extraordinaty position occupied by ‘scripture’ in Muslim prophetology re q u ire to be examined in the light of two doctrines commonly in te g ra te d as unique to the theology of Islam, namely, that the Q ur’Sn is inimitable and the word of God uncreated. Discussion of both turned upon the form and content of ‫د‬ a l l y which m ight seem to have taken on a dimension out of all proportion to its role as prophetical bona fides. While that role was never neglected, it would be more realistic to suppose ‫ ا‬But cf. Baljon, .Amr o f God‘, 7-18‫ ؛‬equating amr with Biblical ' e f à » K o r a n ic Concept, 24 ‫ل‬ ‫و‬ ٠ ff. ‫ ا‬P a c e Bouman, Conflit, 15-16‫ ؛‬cf. Speyer, Erzählungen, 24-5. ٠ Goldziher, Richtungen, 3 .4 ‫ ؛‬Andrae, Person, 333-57: haqtqa m u h m m a d iyya . 5 O ’Shaughnessy, K oranic Concept, 62. ٥ V on Rad, Theology ii, 87-8. ’ Galliner, Saadja, n v i , 5٠ ٥ . 18.

7٥

QU R A N IC S T U D IE S

that the qualities of inimitability and eternity were fom ulated in the attempt to secure a position within the M uslim community for the document of revelation. The fact of canonicity, here postulated as sum of a long and uneven process of Gemeindebildung, m eant acceptance of scripture not merely as evidence for the divine commission of one man, b u t also and more especially, recognition of its authority in the life of the community. Establishment of a historical connertion between revelation and its recipient was, on the other hand, not simply a corollaty of canonization.. In the preceding pages it has been argued that the historical portrait of the Arabian prophet confonns to a pattern composed partly of the Quranic data on prophethood, in character emphatically Mosaic, and partly of motifs drawn from a nartative tradition typically associated with men of God. The centrality of that portrait in the description of its origins formulated by the Muslim community lies in the role of the prophet as paradigm ( - ) . T he extent to which the specifically prophetical Sunna represented a refashioning of customaty law and commtmity prartice is not easy to detem ine.a T h e tendency to subsume as m uch as possible of juridical precedent under the heading sunnat al-nairi was clear at the end of the second/eighth century. For a num ber of reasons, adduced at the end of the last chapter, the introduction of scripture as supplementaty source of doctrine cannot have been earlier. The apprarance of technical literature on the dogmas of its inimitability and eternity was even later. Now, from chronolo^cal indications alone it might seem that the document of revelation had achieved canonical status without being defined either as inimitable or as uncreated, but rather by virtue of its association with the prophet of Islam. I am inclined to interpret that link as one designed to support not merely the claim of Muhammad to prophethood (reflected in ^ lra n ic emphasis upon the Mosaic revelation), but also the claim of revelation to an effective role in the life of the community (already regulated by the prophetical Sunna). Of the three qualities predicated of Muslim scriptttre it was undoubtedly that of faithfully preserved prophetical logia which accounted for its acceptance as a source of doctrine. T hat the logia, once collerted and canonized, might be granted enhanced stattis as the inimitable and uncreated word of God, would not appear to have been either logical or necessaty. Both qualities, however, may be seen as reflexes of Rabbinic attitudes towards the Mosaic revelation, possibly adopted and modified in the courae ofJudaeo-M uslim polemic. In the document of revelation itself that polemic is exhibited in those verees containing a demand for *scripttjre. as sign, e.g. fàtâb) sukuf, sura, qur*ä T hat such demands originated in a Jewish milieu is occasionally explirit (e.g. Q. 4: 153) and elsewhere a logical inference. If Christian, the ‫ ا‬See above, I pp. 47-52. * Cf. Schacht, O rigins, 180-9: legal maxims in traditions.

EMBLEM S OF P R . P H E T H O O D

79

reference will none the less have been to Hebrew scriptiire, equally canonical and perhaps the only meaningful instance of specifically scriptural revelation for adherents of that faith.i Attempts in the exegetical tradition to ascribe those demands to the pagan A rate of Mecca represent, in my opinion, elements of a Nachdichtung designed precisely to illustrate the Hijazi origins of Islam.2 For that particular arrim en t the exegetes were able to call into evidence an undisputed ‘fact, of Arabian h is to ^ in the seventh century, namely, the rhetorical accomplishment of the Arabs. Similarly I would subm it that the concomitant challenge to produce an identical or superior scripttire (or portion thereof), expressed five times in 5 2 ,8 8 the Quranic text (the ‫ ﺳ ﻬ ﺆ ه ﺀ‬verses: Q. 2 3 3 - 4 ) , can be explained only within a context of Jewish polemic. In three of those veraes (Q. 1 0 : 3 8 , I I : 13, 5 2 : 3 3 - 4 ) the challenge: T hen produce a ٠ ٥ /ten surasjz hadith ( ‫ )إ‬like it, follows immediately upon an allegation of forgety {yaqutün aftarâujtaqawwalühu), a charge which might be thought to come from those familiar with scripttiral revelation. Further, the principal of the tahaddi verses, Q.

17: 88

‫ﺋ ﻞ ﻟﺌ ﻦ ا ﺳ ﻌ ﺖ ا ال ض واﻟ ﺠ ﻦ‬

‫ ﺛ ﻞ ﻫ ﺬا اﻟﻘﺮآن ال ا ﺗ ﻮ ن ﺑﻤﺜﻠﻪ‬٠‫ ﻋ ﻞ أن ا ﺗ ﻮا ب‬appears in a context introduced b y a O ^ ^ r i ^ f o r t h e celebrated‘rabbiniral’ testofprophethood(i7:85 And they ask you about the spirit). Finally, a paraphrase of the challenge may be found in Q.

28: 49

i f • ‫ﺗ ﻞ ﻓﺎﺗ ﻮا ﺑ ﻤ ﺎ ب ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ اﻟﻌﻪ ﻫ ﻮ أ ﻫ ﺪ ى‬

where the quality of excellence is predicated alike of Qur’an and Torah. In what precisely the inimitability of Muslim scripture (i'jäz al-qur'än) consists was the subject of long, ardent, and finally unresolved dispute.3 Considered schematically, the material ofcontroverey included arguments based upon: (٥) divine prevention of the prophet’s contemporaries and posterity from producing a successful counterfoil (۶٥ ٠ : a position traditionally associated with the Mu'tazili Na??äm); (٥) the contents of the document, seen to include infom ation about mattera past, present, and futtire which could not possibly have come by nattiral means to the unlettered prophet (akhbar al-ghayb: thus the dogmatic emphasis upon M uhammad’s illiteracy.); (‫ )ﺀ‬its composition (nazmlta'lif), an area extended to include not merely linguistic form but artistic structure in the broadest terms possible, a consequence in part of r e je to n of the sarfa argument, seen by some to reduce the Q ur’an to the stattis of any phenomenon contra naturam (khariq lil-*äda). ‫ ا‬Gerhardsson, M em ory٠ 226. * See above, pp. 58, 62, 7 2 ‫ ؛‬I pp. 36-7; and below. IV pp. 122-6: the 'rabbinical, teat ofprophethrod. ‫ ا‬A synoptic view in Suyü ٢ î, Itqan, 1 ' 64: iv, 3-23‫ ؛‬cf. Schreiner, .Zur Geschichte», 663-75: von Gmnebaum, E l , 8٠ v. I.djäz. ٠ See above, pp. 62 -3 ‫ ؛‬I p. 38.

:1 7

QURANIC S T U D IE S

From those three basic orientations elements were combined and varied with considerable ingenuity producing, save in the close rhetorical analysis of Jurjani and, to a lesser degree, of Bâqillânï, a final synthesis characterized by subjective expression of the document’s unimpeachable wisdom and clarity.* T he slightly unrealistic and, in the end, unsatisfactory nature of the sarfa argument, whose very terms were self-defeating, followed from its precluding the test which itself would demonstrate the inimitability of the ty r .ä n . Thus it was that references to content, with appropriate stress upon the vatidnatio, and to form may be seen to represent the dogma as distilled from the tradition. Assessment of the content of scripture tended to be ethical rather than aesthetic and expressed as wonder that one book could contain so much, indeed all that might be of utility to men. That its incomparable composition was not self-evident seems clear from the am ount of literature produced to support the argument that it was. In this field attitude ranged from a scropulous desire to avoid the stigma of preciosity (takalluf) attaching to the Quranic style to the express intention of finding there the archetypes of all rhetorical device.» Views on the applicability of the rhetorical sciences to the problem of tjd z include the affim ation of Suyütï, that such could be apprehended only by means of those sciences (îmcCànï) bayän, badi'), the denial of Ibn Hazm, that the word of God (kalam allah) could in any manner be compared to human utterance (kalätn al-makhlüqin)٠and the carefully qualified statement of Bäqillänl, th at while a variety of rhetorical embellishment was exhibited in scripttire, such must be irrelevant to the fact of its inimitability.3 The si۴ ificance of the i'jäz controversy may, I think, be sought elsewhere than in its theological implications. In the courae of those diseussions it was, nattirally, asked whether the Torah and Gospel(s), being the word of God, did not share with the Q ur’än the quality of inimitability. The reply, not surprisingly, was no: (٠) though like the Qur’an they did contain reports of the unknown 0àhbâr alàghayb)) there was nothing of the miraculous in their style (nazm) or their structtire (ta'iïf); (٥) this because God had not described them as such, nor had the challenge ( tahadi ) been referted to them, nor did the language(s) in which they were written contain anything of eloquence (fasäha)\(‫ )ﺀ‬and finally, because no such claim had been m ade for those books by their sectaries.. A further point, attributed to Zarkashl and Zamakhshari, stressed the Quranic ٠ See Weisweiler, .Unnachahmlichkeit., 77-12»; v .n Gmnebaum. Tenth-C entury Document-, Bouman, C onflit; Suyütï. Itqan iv. 11-7. » e.g. the dispute about m adhhab kaldmt, see below, IV pp. 232-3 ‫ ؛‬cf. v .n Grunebaum, Tenth-century Document, XV on the Venerable Bede. ‫ ا‬Suyütï, Itqan iv. 186; Ibn Hazm, K itab a l-F ifa l iii, 18-19‫ ؛‬Bâqillânî, I'jäz, 107, I I I 12‫ ؛‬von Gmnebaum, op. cit. 49, 54-5‫ ؛‬Bouman. Conflit, 71. ٠ BSqillSni, I'jä z, 3‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ ؛‬Bouman. G ^ i ، . 66.

EMBLEM S OF P ROP HE THO OD

arrangement (tarlib) in suras according to divine plan, while such divisions in the texts of other scriptures were the work of their compilers.! Of those arguments only one might be thought to contain some objective basis outside the immediate tenus of the controversy, namely, the conviction that eloquence was peculiar to the Arabic language. Introduction of that element into what puqjorted to be theological doctrine s e r a d a dual purpose: Muslim prophetology was enriched by the concept of a lingua sacra) and the elaboration of Islam characterized by its exclusively Arabian origins. Exegesis of the tahaddi verses, in order to underline the complete failure to m eet the challenge {muärada: the absence of logic in that reasoning was never admitted), presupposed the specifically Arabic eloquence of all contestants.* When these failed, as indeed they m ust, how could the claim to inimitability be denied? Rather more important than the challenge which, paradoxically, must have been addressed to those familiar with scripttire, was the notion that the word of God could be bound to a particular medium. For a number of reasons such a view was hardly possible for Christians, though evidence of an emphatically consedative attitude to the Biblical text was not wanting even there.3 On the other hand. Rabbinic (and T a ^ m ic ) designation of Biblical Hebrew as the lingua sacra(leskon ha-qodesh) m ight seem to have provided the immediate Vorbild for M uslim usage.. Now. there is admittedly no equivalent in Rabbinic theology to the dogma of Vjaz al-qur'än, and Jewish polemic concerned with that doctrine appears to have taken as point of departtrre, by calling into question, the Muslim premiss that the Quranic style was demonstrably superior to that of profane compositions in Arabic.‫ ؟‬It might indeed be supposed that no other couree was open to those whose notion of lingua sacra was not bound to Arabic: aesthetic assessment of the Quranic style was almost necessarily a preoccupation internal to the Muslim community. Two aspects of the dogma which, however, could have been devised to meet the needs of external polemic were the fact of a sacred language other than Hebrew, and its appropriate bestowal upon a people whose appreciation of rhetorical niceties was established.. A third aspect of the Vjaz controversy generated an independent series of dogmatic propositions. In retailing Mu.tazih views on the inimitability of the Q ur’an Ash.arl cited the insistence of Nazzam on the sarfa argument and added that both Hishâm Fuwa‫؟‬ï and *Abbad b. Sulaymän refused to ‫ ا‬A p u d Suyütï, Itqdn i, 1 8 ^ 7 ; cf. the opposition munajjam : ju m la in discussions o f the mode of revelation, above, I pp. 3^ 8. 2 e.g. as in Ibn Qutayba, T aw iI, 17; Bouman, Conflit, 66-73, seems here to have missed the point of the arriment. ‫ل‬See Loewe, ‘Latin Vulgate., in CHB ii, I - . ٠ Cf. Segal, Mishnaic H ebrew, 2-3. 5 Cf. the fra ^ en ts in Steinschneider, Polemische L iteratur , 1.3, 314 n. 23. ٠ See below. III pp. 9 3 -9.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

acknowledge the Qur'an either as witness to the existence of God or as credential for the prophet.i While the sarfa argument could be inverted to demonstrate the foct of Arab eloquence (in the absence of which divine prevention of an imitation would have been unnecessary 1), the rejection of revelation as miracle provoked a different kind of rebuttal. The rejertion was based upon an assertion that the word of God. hence the Qur.an (‫ﺀﺀ‬٠‫)ﺀ‬, could only be described in relation to the existence of G od as contingent ( ‫) ﻳ ﻰ ﻫﺎ‬: the Mu.tazik definition of God’s unity (٤‫ اﻟ ﺲ‬٠‫ )ق‬precluded adducing contingencies as witness either to His being or to His actions. Now, it is generally assumed that the Mu'tazili position represented a reaction to an earlier and more ۴ pularly held view that the word of God, hence the Qur’an (sic)) was neither contingent nor created but, rather, inseparable from the unqualified existence of its creator. But it is difficult indeed to discern from the expression of Mu.tazili views, most of which are preserved only in the later works of their trium phant adverearies, whether they exhibit opposition to other views already expressed, or merely the articulation of conclusions derived from their own creed. W orthy of remark is that the three Mu'tazili spokesmen cited by Ashari all lived in the firet half of the third/ninth century, and that the utterances ascribed to them were m ade with s^cific reference to the inimitability of the Qur’än. I t might be thought that acceptance (or rejection except on the condition of sarfa) of its inimitability somehow entailed definition of the Qur’an as uncreated. As I have indicated, both qualities appear to have been formulated with less concern for the description of prophetical bona fides than for assertion of the docum ent’s canonical status within the community. It may of course be argued that the evidence for a connection of the two dogmas is too circumstantial to be of real value, and that, in any case, the relation between the two cannot be described as causal. A sh ari noted that most membere of the M utazila accepted the inimitability of the Qur'an (defined in terms of its composition!) without, apparently, admitting that it was uncreated.* The converae could hardly have been postulated. In Fiqh Akbar I there is, expectedly, no mention of the uncreated Qur’än. In the Wasiyat AbtHanifa) dated by Wensinck towards the middle of the third/ninth century, the dogma is set out in Article IX, but without mention of inimitability.3 Those data accord with what seems to have been the chronological framework of the controversy, from which emerged an instructive termnus ad quem; c. 235/850.. T he opinions of the dissenting Mu.tazila cited by Ash.ari had been expressed at about that date. T h e harmony between these details and the chronology p o i s e d for the proI M a q d ld t al-Isldtmyytn, 225-6; cf. Bouman, C on flit ٠ ‫ول‬. » M ¥ l â t ) Ioc. cit.î ٠ ٠ example was the Mu.tazili .Abd al-JabbSr, cf. Bouman, .D octrine.. 67-86. ‫ ا‬See above, I p. 44‫ ؛‬Wensinck, Creed .187 ,٠ ‫ ﺀل‬7 ٠ ‫ل‬ 4‫و‬ _‫ﺀ‬ ‫ل‬ ٠ Cf. Watt. ‘Early discussions’. 29 n. 5, 33. 36.

E MBLEM S OF P R O P H E TH O O D

83

cess of canonization ought not to be overlooked. Now, that process m ight be described as the collocation of several elements: a corpus of prophetical logia, the figure of a prophet, a sacred language, and an unequivocally divine sanction for all three. Reconstruction of the manner in which these elements were evolved and adjusted to produce a more or less final and satisfactory synthesis can only be conjectural. It may be clear from th e preceding obserations that I regard the acquisition within the community of these elements as having taken place in the sequence set out above. T heir interaction might be envisaged as follows: attribution of several, partially overlapping, collertions of logia (exhibiting a distinctly Mosaic imprint) to the image of a Biblical prophet (modified by the material of the Muhammadan evangelium into an Arabian m an of God) with a traditional message of salvation (modified by the influence of Rabbinic Judaism into the unmediated and finally immutable word of God). Achievement of the final stage in the process may be equated with the declaration that the Q ur.än was uncreated. Identification of the Q ur.än document with the word of God (kaläm a li i) was derived from a traditional metaphor, e.g. Q. 9: 6 ‫ ﺣﺘ ﻰ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﻛ ال م ا اله‬.‫ ﻓﺎ ﺑ ﺮ‬. A further identification of the Q ur’Sn documentwith the word of God as interpreted in the discussions of divine attributes (sifät)] appears to entail a transition from metaphorical to veritable sense, which may be ttaced to the imagery of Q. 85: 21-2 ‫ ﺑ ﻞ ﻫ ﻮ ﻗﺮآن ﻣ ﺎ د ف ﻟ ﺢ ﻳ ﺤﺜ ﻮ ظ‬٠The concept of a celestial archetype evoked by this verse, which was cracial in the sifät discussions,* belongs to an ancient and well-attested tradition, in which of course the referent was the word of God as injunction, law, even register, but not ‘scripture’ in the sense of record of revelation.* From the notion of ‘law’ inherent in the use of lawh (tablet) it is at least conceivable that qur'än in Q. 85: 21-2 could be functionally equated w ith the Mosaic law, and more particularly with the Rabbinic concept of the pre-existent Torah as the immutable word of God.. T h a t the ultimate authority of God’s decree might thus be fixed provided a more or less satisfactoty solution to the problem of scripture as normative in the life of the community. But theological difficulties provoked by the possible charge of dualism remained, and attempts to solve or to evade these are evident in the works of masoretic exegesis, e.g. Abu .U bayda’s interpretation of Q. 85.. 22 as ‫ م‬lühin m ahfm nS T he ‫ ا‬e.g. Ash.ari, M aqaldt, 582-607; cf. Goldziher, ‘Fachr al-dîn al-Râzï’, 245-7. 2 Cf. Ash.ari, M aqaldt, 549 ff. ‫ ا‬Cf. H o o v itz, Untersuchungen, 65-6; Jeffery, ‘Scriphirc., 51-3; but also Widengren, Apostle o f G od, 115-61 : for the equation Wisdom-Tablet-Book. ٠ e.g. Talm . Babl.. Pesahim 54a. Nedarim 39b, and the Midrashic reftrences in Speyer, Erzählungen 34 n. 2; see above, I pp. 35-6. ‫د‬Wansbrough. ‘Periphrastic exegesis., 252 no. 29‫ ؛‬cf. Zamakhshari, K a sh sh d f iv. 733 ad loc.

84

QUR ANIC S T U D I E S

reading *preserad in an atmosphere, m ight be thought analogous to Saadya.s theory 0‫ ؛‬awir sheniy formulated to avoid the implications of a hypostasized word of God.1 In contrast with the masoretes, Muslim theologians found satisfaction in distinguishing between the eternal word of of God as concept (mana) and its reproduction (1daliljtanzil), an argument derived from a series of grammatical oppositions: q ira a n a q rU y kitdbamaktuby d h ik r - m d k u r . T h a t fom ulation appears to have been the work of Na??äm (d. 231/846) or Ibn Kullab (d. 240/854). incorporated finally into the theories of BaqillanJ (d. 403/1013). Its refittation by the late Mu.tazill *Abd al-JabbSr (d. 416/1025) was unconvincing.* Such problems, with their solutions, remained peripheral. Textual explication of Muslim scripture was able to accommodate variant, emendation, anomaly, ellipsis, pleonasm, in short all that might be described as characteristic of any literarçr record, ircespective of convictions about its source. T he most interesting aspect by far of the application of literary criticism to the text of revelation was the extrapolation, from an allegedly profane tradition, of aesthetic criteria formulated to describe the substance and function of a sacred language. T h at was the product of masoretic exeg»is.3 T he Muslim masoretes were above all grammarians, whose primary task was to relate the anomalies of a lingua sacra to the demands of a nonnative description of langage. W ith analysis of that process the following chapter is concerned. ‫ ا‬Altmann, *Theory., 20-4. 2 Bouman, C on flit٠ 20-3, 37-8, 7 3 -8 .Î id. ‘Doctrine., 74-84. » See below, IV p p . 2 .2 -2 7 .

Ill O R I G I N S OF CL AS SI CA L ARABIC descriptions of the Arabic language are reminiscent of a celebrated discussion among Renaissance humanists about the intrasion of Italian into areas allocated by tradition to classical Latin. Against the isolated conjecture that the literary (Latin) and vernacular (Italian) languages were coeval but ftinctionally separate was ranged a series of arguments concerned to describe a developmental relation between s e n urbanus and sermo plebeius : the latter was the product either of barbarians, misuse of the former, or of local (indigenous) defam ation; convereely, sermo urbanus might be described as a conscious (social and aesthetic) refinement of sermo plebeius.: T he hypothesis of a fanctional dichotomy, to be qualified by the observation th at usage varied not with social position but w ith the demands of a given linguistic sittiation, was both nonev o lu tio n al and not very forcefully asserted. T h e three evolu tio n al concepts appeared, on the other hand, to make some sense of the historical data, and have survived as points of departure for those theories of linguistic genealogy which have not been entirely discredited. Nowhere have such proved more durable than in sttidies of the position occupied by Classical Arabic in the historical development of Semitic languages. An inclination to see in Classical Arabic (CA) at least the phonological and morpholo^cal constituente of a hypothetical ProtoSemitic is both underetandable and of some value for comparative and diachronic analyses. T o draw from the same data conclusions about the origins and evolution of CA involves implicit acceptance of considerable non-linguistic material often and erconeously supposed to be ‘historical fact». I refer to such assumptions as that of the isolation of speakers/writers of Arabic within the Arabian peninsula up to the seventh ccnttity, or that of the existence of a ne varietur text of the Islamic revelation not later than the m iddle of the same century. Both the origin and the utility of those assumptions are patent. Evidence of abrasion (phonological/morpholo^cal) and of interference (syntactic/lexical) could be ascribed to the use of CA by fo rei^ ere or to widepread dislocation within the Arabic-Speaking community, both being consequence of the expansion of Islam during the seventh century. Moreover, that CA could survive to seive as model (ortho۴ phic/grammatical) for a literaty language could be explained by H isto rica l

\o s% \e t ٠ Einführung ins Vulgärlatein,

QURANIC S T U D IE S

the fixed, sacred, and immutable text of the Qur’an, representing the highest form of rhetorical achievement in Arabic. Provision of a geographical and chronological setting for the diachronic examinarion of CA enabled obse^ere of the purely linguistic phenomena to interpret these as evidence of a more or less unintem jpted process of decline: movement away from a point of linpiistic (and ethnic!) purity towards a sittiation characterized by frapnentation, dialect cleavage, unattainable ideals, and a p em anent tension between theory and practice. The historical assumptions underlying such an interpretation of the data are, however, not merely unverifiable, but also internally inconsistent and, in some respects, demonstrably false. Now, the marshalling of phonological evidence (consonantal range/ vocalic quality and position) as well as of that pertaining to m orpholo^ and, in the strictest sense, to grammar (inflexion: case/mood) might be thought unexceptionable, so long as it is recognized that such material reflerts the highly specialized and often idiosyncratic usage of rather meagre literaty records preserted in comparatively late recensions.» Syntactical evidence has been interpreted as exhibiting the effects of a nom ative process, and thus as proof of some distance bettveen CA and Proto-Semitic, whree proximity, on the other hand, had been inferred from the witness to p h o n o lo ^ and morphology.* There is, of course, no compelling reason why any of that linguistic material should yield conelusions of a chronological, as opposed to structural, nature. In the context of evolutionary interpretation, the work of Vollers with reference to the consonantal range of CA as exhibiting, in relation to Proto-Semitic, not prœervation, but rather, phonetic proliferation, and to the essentially euphonic and rhetorical significance of the Vrab phenomena, represented a reaction to traditional views, but required at the same time, in order to fit the geographical/chronological environment alleged to have produced the earliest Arabic literature, a very questionable reconstruction of the histoty of the Quranic text.3 The concept of CA as a kind of linguistic (and literary) canon, apart from reflecting a well-attested and strongly entrenched tradition of rhetorical criticism, may owe something of its putative authority, at least for modem philological scholarship, to its role as confimation cum source of Proto-Semitic reconstrtictions. For identification of acttial specimens of CA, exponents of that scholarahip have for the most part been content to accept the received tradition as found in works of rhetoric and exegesis, namely, that CA is exhibited in the c o ^ u s of pretty described as pre-Islamic and in the document of I ..g . G V G i. 23-4, 120-1, 45 ‫ب‬2٠ 554 ‫ ؛‬Moscati, C om parative Grammar, 14. 52.

95-6..5- 34‫ا‬ ‫ ا‬. . g . Bergs trisser, Einführung, 134-5‫ ؛‬Blau, .Problems., I . ‫‘ ا‬Arabisch und Semitisch., 165-217‫ ؛‬id. Review: NOldeke, Z u r G r a m m i , 1 2 5 -3 .‫؛‬ id. Volkssprache, 55-175.

O R I G I N S OF CLASSIC AL ARABIC

87

Islamic revelation. T h e only deduction possible was that, within the bounds imposed by available literary remains, CA stood at the beginning and not at the end of or at a point in the couree of a long and varied linguistic evolution.! T o interpret that evolution, which seems always to to have been identified with description of the vicissitudes of CA in a postclassical environment, two criteria in particular have emerged with an apparently reasonable claim both to utility and to objectivity. T h e first of these m ay be described as a cluster of interpretative principles derived from the concept of koine) adduced to provide a terminus ad quem for the historical evolution of CA. Kmne has been employed to designate: ( I ) the la n g a g e of pre-Islamic poetry and Qur.än, (2) a kind of bedouin lingua franca, and (3) the hypothetical source of m odem sedentarçr vernaculara.2 Despite the inadvisability of accepting one tenn for such varied phenomena, the several applications of koine reflect a certain unity of impulse, namely, to describe difference in terms of diver, gence from a single source, anintellectaal principle commonly associated with genetic linguistics. Though the implications of kmne taxonomy for the history of Arabic, particularly in respect of its second and third uses, have been questioned and cventaally modified, the definition of CA as the language of poetry and of revelation has not been unseated.! T he koine principle was also applied to the scanty and problematic evidence of dialect cleavage to produce a series of plausible if necessarily hypothetical polarities: e.g. re^onal (Nejd-Hijaz), economic (nomadic-sedentaty), social (patrician-plebeian), ethnic ('aralh'ajam). One result of the experiment was to demonstrate that, contraty to the assertions of Muslim pliilologists, CA was not and had never been identifiable with any single Arabian dialect.. By a somewhat eccentric application of logic, that negative argument confimed the identification of CA with the ineptly formulated ‘poetic kmne*. T h e second criterion adduced to describe the fortunes of CA includes several variations upon the theme of pseudo-correction. As a descriptive principle pseudo-correction presupposes the existence of an acknowledged standard of linpiistic (or literaty) excellence and witness, across a range of individual speakere/writere, to incomplete mastery of it.5 T hus, the evidence of pseudo-correction cannot alone be employed to demonstrate ‫ ا‬W hich did n.t, . ‫ ؛‬course, preclude versions . ‫ ؛‬a hypothetical prehistory, cf. Rabin. ‘B e^ n n in ^ .. 35-6. ‫ع‬ Cf. Blachère, H istoire i. 79-82: Fiick. *ArahiyO) 7; Noldeke, ‘Das klassische Arabisch und die arabischen Dialekte», B S S , 13; Ferguson, ‘Arabic koine», 6 1 ^ 3 .. 5 Cf. Cohen, *Koinè», 1 1 .- 4 4 ‫ ؛‬Blau)Emergence, 10-18; ٠ ۶ G i , 23: Spitaler, Review: Flick, ٠ A ra b iy a , 145. ٠ e.g. Rahin, . 17-24‫ ؛‬id. ‘Beginnings», 32-4: the view that CA could be traced ultimately to a dialect was, incidentally, not the exclusive property o f Muslim scholarship. ‫ا‬ 1 ١‫ اال‬Pseudo-corrections, n -22.

QURANIC STUD IE S

existence of a linguistic/literary standard, proof of which must already have heen established. For the history of CA it need hardly be added that applications of this criterion will not be very helpful in determining Just when th at particular form of the lan g a g e attained its status as standard.! But the usefulness of the principle is not thereby exhausted. Absence of pseudo-correct feattires may indicate either mastery of the standard or, alternatively, that the standard is not distinguishable from the 1 loquettdi. The two possibilities may, it seems to me, be regarded as mutually exelusive, evident from the composition of works in faultless CA by authors who could not conceivably have spoken that language. T o insist that the absence of pseudo-cortect feattires in the Qur'an (accepting that such is the case) reflects not mastery of the literary idiom bu t rather the ‘true vernacular of Mecca, involves an assumption based on non-linguistic evidence, namely, that at the time the Qur’an was recorded in writing the l i t e r a l and spoken langages were, at least in Mecca, indistinguishable.* Necessarily conjectural, that assertion would appear also to preelude an alternative possibility: that when the Q ur’Sn was recorded in writing the grammar of CA had been formulated and could be learned by someone whose mother tonale it was not. Chronological problems are, of course, not thereby solved, but neither are they prejudged by tacit acceptance of the .Uthmanic recension traditions. T he criterion of pseudocoreection, like that of the koine concept, has se^ed illogically to conflnn the position of CA in seventh-centar Arabia by dependence upon it as a historical fact. As instalm ents of synchronic analysis both criteria are of indisputable value‫ ؛‬for p u rp o se of historical description they are at best convenient fictions. For the diachronic sttidy of CA linguists have naturally, if somewhat ingenuously, had recourse to the framework supplied by historians of the early centtiries of Islam. In their constrtiction ofthat framework historians, in ttirn, have relied largely upon a corpus of literattire extant only in recensions dating from the be^nnings of the third/ninth centuty. Exceptions to that circumstance are few, indeed, the major one being, in the consensus of Muslim and Orientalist scholarship, the text of the Islamic revelation itself. & neral assent to .le fait coranique’3 links in an extraordinary m anner the most disparate and even contradictor interpretations of early Islamic history, a secondaty consequence of which has been affirmation of the ‘fart’ by virtue of repeated assertion. In an essay which did not depart significantly from the traditional view of the Hijazi origins of Islam, th e historian C. H . Becker proposed a distinrtion between the ‫ ا‬Consider the dates of the material so careftdly analysed by Blau in his G ram m ar o f Christian A ra b ic , 2-36‫ ؛‬cf. B S O A S xxxi (1968) 610-Î3. ٤ Cf. Blau, Pseudo-corrections, 57-8 esp. n. 15. ‫ا‬

Blachère, Histoire ii, 230-41.

O R I G I N S OF CLASSIC AL ARA BIC

89

processes of Arabicization and Islamization, in his opinion separated by a period of from two to three centuries.* The former term was applied to the several reli^ously neutral factora thought to have effected the movement of the Arabs beyond the frontière of the Arabian peninsula‫ ؛‬the latter to the subsequent imposition of religious uniformity upon subjert peoples by an Islamic power. While not at all concerned with the problems being examined here, Becker’s work provided a valuable lesson in the typological differentiation of source materials, according to which ‘Ie fait coranique) might indeed qualify as *fact, but apparently only as one whose historical effect was (temporarily) suspended. On that particular point there is at least room for argument,* but the example is none the less instinctive. I should like to propose a metaphorical extension of Becker’s dichotomy by defining Arabicization as the expression of a centrifugal force and figure of expansion‫ ؛‬conversely, Islamization could be interpreted as a centripetal force and figure of contraction. Materially the antithetical fib res m ight be understood to represent, on the one hand, the spread of Arabic dialerts at a pace approximately consonant with that of the A rab conquœts, and on the other, the imposition of CA as a lin^listic/literary standard, symbolically the contrast would be one between nattiral, uninhibited division and artificial, consciously directed restriction. Linguistically Arabicization is characterized by a concept of language as the m ost convenient means for meeting the demands of normal communication (Mitteilungsbedürfnis)) and Islamization by a concept of language as an instrament of education (Bilkngsprinzip). An example of the first was the introduction of Arabic as official language into the Umayyad chancetyj the example of the second was, of couree, the Qur.än. Now, it has for some time been assumed that both the chancery language in question and that of the Qur'an represent CA, and further, that both reflect the ‘poetic koine* asserted to have been the medium of pre-Islamic poetty. Since all three may be described as forms of literaty expression, the equation is at least theoretically valid. And from the notion of continuity implicit there was bom the concept of kmne as descriptive principle in the historical analysis of CA. A e t h e r or when the koine might have been even approximately similar to an Arabic vernacular is a problem still awaiting solution, or refom ulation. Rather m ore important, in my opinion, is whether the equation is in practice justifiable. May one, in fart, identify the language of poetry with that of scripttire and, in turn, both w ith that of the earliest chancery papyri? Further, what chronolo^cal conclusions can legitimately be drawn from the purely linguistic content of that material? Orthographic and morphological feattires common to all three perm it a degree of synchronic comparison. Lexical, symtactic, and above all, stylistic requirements of each of the three genres might be ‫‘ ا‬Der Islam als Problem.. 6-7.

‫ﺀ‬See above, I pp. 43-52.

QURANIC S T U D I E S

thought to preclude a diachronic analysis. Assertions of linguistic con. tinuity can here only be based upon non-linguistic data, and the first century of Islam can hardly be described as ‘a period billy in the light of history..I From employment of the koine concept as an explicative mechanism to assertion of its historicity is, after all, a long and si^ificant step. If it is to be attem pted at all, the points of departure must be an examination of five kinds of linguistic material, each w ith some claim to be representative of the earliest fonn of CA: 1. Poetry (pre.Islamic and early Islamic). 2. Qur.än. 3. Hadith (subsuming siraiaghazi literature).

4. A y y k 5. Papyri. With the exception of the papyri, use of these data is subject to three caveats of general nature as well as to a num ber of specific reservations for each category. First, the purpose of each may be described as essentially educative rather than merely communicative. Literary composition with an avowed aim must be evaluated in term s of the rhetorical schemata consciously employed to achieve that aim, whether aesthetic, cultic, juridical, or historical, and seldom if ever constitutes disinterested linguistic evidence.* Second, a curious quality of simultaneity characterizes the recensions in which this material has been p reserad , as well as the commentaty and other critical literature generated by it: all appears to have come into existence at the end of the second/eighth and beginning of the third/ninth centuries. A concomitant homogeneity of subject-matter ‫ئ‬ reflected in the overlapping of genres‫ ؛‬poetry placed within a narrative frame, prose relieved by poetic insertions both as exegesis and OTÉUS) juridical and lexical problems solved by reference to scripttire, scriptural problems solved by reference to jurisprudence and lexicography, all with approximately the same end in view‫ ؛‬historical description of a situation two centliries earlier.* T hird, prartical application of the linguistic data preserced in that literature has tended to blur what m ight be thought a traditionally valid distinrtion between prose and poetty‫ ؛‬freely variable syntax as a fimction of rhetoric. Fonnulation of grammatical roles from poetty, from the style of scriptore, or from ornate prose is bound to result in a vety specialized table of correct procedures, not in a generally useful description of language. Resort to such m ay produce a circumscribed and tmrealistic image, which will thus become a decidedly unattainable ideal. ٠ As i . Rabin, .^ n n i n g s ' , 29. » See Wehr, R e - : Fiick, *A rabiya , 185. » See Spitaler, .Arabisch». 125.

O R I G I N S OF CL ASSIC AL ARABIC

91

From the point of view of the Arab ^am m arians that may not have been unintentional. Results are, after al،, as much conditioned by method as by material.* It m ight seem from these obse^ations that the real value of this material lies in its relevance to lit e r a l and scholarly activitiœ within the community of Islam at about the turn of the second/eighth and third/ninth centuries. Such, at least, would be my provisional conclusion, but it is worth noting that despite the limitations set out here and acknowledged elsewhere, acceptance of the sources at face value continues to find adherents.» Now, the single exception to a very strong possibility of Nachdichtung is the linguistic content of the chancery papyri. T h at has been assessed as exhibiting CA with some slight deviation of colloquial origin, or Middle Arabic admixttire.3 However that early chancety lan g ag e may be described, it is clearly not the lan g a g e either of poetty or of scripture. It could thus be allocated to the sphere of CA only by reference to a standard posterior in time to the composition of the documents them selves. Consideration of the resultant anachronism may have led Rabin to the hypothesis that the language of the papyri might be ‘a Classical Arabic {sic !) not yet standardized by grammarians».. In practice it is essential to distin^iish between adaptations and translations from the Byzantine epistolaris s e n and free composition in what could be called sub-literary or *business» Arabic, b u t also to obseiwe that the chancety language as such eventually was, and in fact had to be, elaborated from both sources.‫ ؟‬Consistent deviation from a hypothetical CA in the language of the papyri may only be interpreted as such by reference to a standard for which there are no extant loci probantes. Even the literaty p a p ^ studied by A bbott exhibit the same departures from *classical» Arabic.^ It might indeed be thought that these re s e c tio n s contribute to ٠ the unitaty concept of a *literaty koine* and, more especially, of its development no later than the sixth century. Lexical and syntactical disparities between the styles respectively of poetry, scripture, and chancety doCTiments represent functional cleavages of a sort difficult to reconcile with the notion of a single source for CA. It can, in fact, be argued that neither p o e ty nor scripttue could have, or ever did, become canons . f a c i a l linguistic usage, as opposed to sources ‫ ا‬Spitaler,‘Arabisch., 126‫ ؛‬id. Review: Bloch, Vers und Sprache, 317-18‫ ؛‬Ullmaim, R agazpoesie, 218-32. 2 ..g . Rabin, ‘Beginnings., 21-2‫ ؛‬the same curious and quite illogical position seems to be that underlying BlachèreS in many - r t s v e ^ useful H istoire. 3 Sec e.g. Grohmann, Einführung, 103-7‫ ؛‬Blau, Emergence, 123-32. ٠ E I , S.V. ‘A rabica: I, 564. 5 Consider the rhetorical components o f classical inshcT, as extrapolated from Qalqashandi by BjOrkman, S taatskanzlei, 8 7 7 2 ‫ ؛‬but also the medieval Euro^an development o i CITS dictamvms, C u iU us. Europäisch« L iteratu r. %‫لآ‬٠ ٥ e.g. S A L P ii‫ ؛‬my references in B S O A S r a i (1968) 614-16.

QURANIC STUD IE S

of grammatical theory.1 Assertions to the contrary exhibit theological orientations defined to accommodate two dogmas inextricably p a rt of the traditional assessment of Islamic origins, namely, those of the inimitability of the Qur٠än and of the rhetorical potential of the Arabic language.2 Both played considerable roles in the establishment of a chronological and geo^aphical framework for the diachronic description of CA. On the other hand, the evolution suggested by an examination of the papyri displays what m ight appear to be a nonnal process of refinement : from the exigencies of administrative communication to the luxuty of an elaborate Kunstprosa in the third/ninth century. For that development we have, at least, the requisite lod probantes: bilingual and monolingual chancery papyri, monolingual literary papyri, the prose parts of sira.) maghäziy and ayyam , as well as the hadith literature. Save as sources of stylistic embellishment (iqtibas) and lexical exotica, scripture and poetry will hardly have affected the elaboration of a CA prose style, whether discursive or narrative. In their earliest definitive forms these styles may be studied in recensions of the third/ninth centuty, indicating thus a chronological span which might be thought to correspond to the time-lag of two to three centuries postdated by Becker for the separate processes of Arabicization and Islamization. Neither religious orthodoxy nor linguistic standard could be imposed before each had achieved canonical status. Administrative employment of Arabic symbolized the beginnings of acculturation. On the basis of the chancety papyri that event could be dated to about 86/705.3 Against the ethnic composition of the Arab dominions at that time, the role of Arabic must be seen as primarily that of a practical instrument of communiration (Vàhrssprache). Its subsequent development can be interpreted as the compound result of several nonlinguistic factore: social and economic necessity, formation of urban centres of division, and pratige of the nding minority. Evidence of bilingualism (substrate phenomena) and of diglossia (dialertal phenomena) ought not to be assessed with reference to a normative CA, for w hich there are no contemporary source materials, but rather with a view to th e requirem ents of the community serced by that sub-literary language. I t is important to remember that from the beginning of that evolution to its end the evidence is always that of a written language, whatever its pre-history may have been. T h e material is thus always witness to fonnal and/or formalized communication, for which emergence of a standard of excellence was not only its organizing principle but also its logical conclusion.. T h e evolution so projected does not, however, require the existence of a pre-Islamic kmne, and especially not one whose linguistic description can ٠ ? : See above. II pp. 79-82. Geschiditrigyptens i. 1 3 .-1 ; BlachCe, Histoire iii. 718. Cf. Weinreich, Languages in Contact, 74-82, 83-1 JO ‫ ل‬Garbell, ‘Remarks., 3 .3 -5 .

‫ ا‬See wlow. pp. !‫ئ‬٠ 5 Becker. ٠

O R I G I N S OF CLASSIC AL ARABIC

93

only be elicited from a corpus of bedouin and courtly poetry.I T h e trans. formation of functional prose, of which the primary characteristic and criterion is efficiency, into artistic prose will nartirally reflect the impingem ent of a rhetorical tradition. Communicative efficiency will be gradually superseded by a conscious sttiving for what is often called .elevated language., of which the underlying motive is not Mitteilungsbedürfnis but Bildungsprinzip. It is then, and probably only then, that the rhetorical embellishment associated with poetry and scriprtire may be seen as operative in the formation of prose style. For the history of Classical Arabic, however, those two sources of rhetorical schemata were defined, p re se ra d , and transm itted not as accessoty to the basic task of communi. cation, but as fo m ativ e prinriples of lin^iistic description. T h e presuppositions were two: ( I ) that eloquence and clarity were properties exclusive to the Arabic language, and (2) that by virtue of divine election Arabic was also a sacred langage, for which change could only mean corruption.

Any sampling of the Orientalist tradition will reveal the axiomatic quality of Arab eloquence,* an impression derived presumably from the writings of such celebrated scholars as Ibn Qutayba, Bâqillânî, and S u ^ çï, as well as from exegesis of the tahaddi verses.* But the Muslim tradition, considerably older than the dates of those authora, exhibits in its earlier stages remarkable absence of unanimity on such questions as the presence in Arabic of foreign lexica, the grammatical and syntactical idiosyncrasies of poets, and the paradi^natic quality of Quranic style.. Predictably dogmatic positions on these g e stio n s were taken up in the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centtiries, .llm inating in the systematic and isago^c works of scholare like Ibn Faris and SuyUtî.5 In a chararteristic discussion o f eloquence ( fasdha) as partaking of both diction and elocution, S u ^ t ‫؛‬ adduced the by th at time traditional pair of assertions that the most eloquent of men ((afsah al-khalq) was the propliet Muhammad, and of the Arabs (afsah al-'arab) Q u ra y s h .6 T h e non-linguistic nature of the argum ent, which might ultimately be traced to a sancttiaty tradition concerning Mecca, emerged clearly ‫ ئ‬the famous prophetical

‫اﻟ ﻌ ﺮ ب‬

‫ ح‬١۵‫اﻧﺎ ات‬

‫ ا‬Pace Rabin, *Beginning*, 29‫ ؛‬cf. B SO A S r a i (1968) 611. ‫ﺀ‬A random selection might include e.g. Schreiner, ‘Zur Gwchichte», 66 3 ‫ ؛‬Fischer, ‘Usaiiid usw.’, 581 n. 2 ‫ ؛‬NOldeke, NBSS, 5, 22‫ ؛‬Andrae, Person, 95-7‫ ؛‬Blachère, Histoire iii, 719, 725, 7 3 .‫ ؛‬accounting thus for approximately a century of European scholarship. 3 Ibn Qutayba, Taivil, 17‫ ؛‬BSqillani, rjdz, 24, 2 5 .‫ ؛‬Suyü ١ ï, Itqdn ii, 2 7 ., iv, 4, 16‫؛‬ id. Muzkir i, 2 ^ - 1 0 ‫ ؛‬see above, II p. 79. ٠ See Kopf, .Religious influence’, 33-59.

‫ ؛‬See Goldaiher, *sprachgeleh^mkeit. iii, 511-52. ٥ Muzhir, . . . 9 ‫ذ‬i, 184-213» csp. 2 . 1 0 .

94

QURANIC STU DIES

‫ إ ﻳ ﺪ أ ﻧ ﻰ ض ﻗ ﺮﻳ ﺶ‬. ‫ ا‬Suppression of claims made on behalf of other tribal groups to the title afsah al‘*arab is sjrcnbolized in the account ascribed to F a rra .o f how the inhabitants of cosmopolitan(!) Mecca (i.e٠Quraysh)wcre in a position to recognize and adopt the best ingredients from each of the bedouin dialects in Arabia.* Besides drawing attention to the role of M ecca as cultic and commercial centre, this tradition, like the ones it eventtrally replaced, served to identify the northern regions of the Arabian peninsula as the cradle of CA at a date prior to the proclamation of Islam. W orthy of note in SuyU‫؟‬ï’s treatm ent of Arab eloquence is regular use of the elatives aftah, abyan, ablagh, and arab in adverbial constructions with lisan and lugha to signify clear and effective speech.3 Their terminological antithesis is conveyed by ajam , glossed la yufsihy and it seems more than likely that Quranic employment of the contrasting pair djamiJarabi was intended to express just such a distinction.. T h e semantic evolution ùi 'aràï\drâbi is not unfamiliar: in the corresponding series k tlic h j deutenjdeutsch the formative element diutisk > theodiscus was, after all, a linguistic designation prior to becoming an ethnic and ultimately a geographical title.s But such an interpretation m ay not be adduced to demonstrate that the locution afsah al-'œrab is merely a tautology., the reference was to bedouin Arabic speech. A natural, though perhaps not quite logical, inference from discussion of Arab eloquence was that the language spoken by bedouin m ust be identical with that of the poetry called pre-lslamic (J U i) . Opinions of scholare about that equation range from the almost vehement affim ation of Noldeke across the nicely qualified acceptance of Blau to the outright rejection of Wehr and Spitaler.٥ Even qualified assent will postulate a dual role for the bedouin in question: ( I ) as referees if not arbiters in linguistic disputes, and (2) as preservers and transmittere of Jdhili poetry. Emphasis upon the first of these roles is symbolized in M uslim tradition by the claim of Basran ^am m arians to have got their lin^ristic infom ation from none but authentic dwellers in the desert: ‫ ﻧ ﺤ ﻦ أل ﺧ ﺬ اﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﺷﺔ اﻟ ﺨ ﺒ ﺎ ب‬, a figure expanded to include the second role and m ade the object of not vety subtle caricature in the fifth/eleventh century by Ma.artï.7 Though stories of the unreliability, venality, and even treachery of bedouin infom ants I Cf. Mehren. Rhetorik, 120-1, but als. Rabin. West-Aräan, 22-3. ‫ﺀ‬Suyüfî. M uztn r i. 22 1 ‫ ؛‬cf. Kahle. ‘Readers.. 7 .-1 : the story was pressed into the

service o f a number of distinct but related causes‫ ؛‬for the lit e r a l effect of similar traditions see also above. I pp. 42-3. II pp. 6 ^ 0 . » M uzhxr i. 2.2. 209-10 and passim. ٠ See below, pp. 98-9. 5 Cf. Weisberger. Deutsch als Volksname, 96. 252. 2 7 8-86‫ ؛‬Kluge-Gotze, Wörterbuch, 132 .3 . ٥ Noldeke, B S S , 4-5 vs. Wetzstein, see below, p. 2 4 9 ‫ ؛‬Blau, ‘Bedouins., 42-51‫؛‬ W ehr, Review: Fuck, 183-4‫ ؛‬Spitaler. Review‫ ؛‬Fuck, 145-6. 7 See Weil. Schulen, 41 n. I ‫ ؛‬Ma.arri. R isa la t al-ghufran, 1 6 8 9 on the name/sobriquet o f the mukhadrami poet A.shS.

O R I G I N S OF CLASSIC AL ARABIC

95

m ay reflect nothing more than school dispute, it would seem that these hardly functioned as disinterested referees.* It m ight be thought that the principle significance of the tedouin contribution, whether real or fabricated, to the formation of CA lay in the grammarians, concept of ïrâb: as a te n n of linguistic description it may, after all, denote a self-conscious process of bedouinization.2 As reference to a historical event ïrâ b is supported by evidence of a substantial Volkerwankung.3 For our purposes it is well to remember that the written record of transactions bertveen bedouin and philologist dates only from the third/ninth century, and is thus coincident with the literary stabilization of b oth Quranic exegesis and M uslim historio^aphy. T h e reputation of bedouin as custodians of Arab eloquence rests upon the link connecting them with the CTeation, preservation) and transmission of Jahili poetty. For at least the second and th ird elements of that link Noldeke’s pessimistic assessment in 1864 was not materially modified by BlachCre’s cautiously optimistic account written nearly a century later.. Such factora as varias îec tà S } infinitely variable line sequence, and a system of attribution which can only be described as irresponsible, do not inspire confidence in the philological tradition. O n the other hand, disputes about the authenticity of the Jahxli poetty seem to me almost entirely futile, so long as the evidence ( ۶ ٠ et ‫ﺀ‬٠‫ ) س‬is assessed in the light of traditional chronolo^. Two examples of this approach were the essay of M argoliouth and the retort of Bräunlich:‫ ؛‬acceptance of the identity of scriptural with poetic language, of the historicity of the prophets quarrel w ith the poets, and of the allegation that poetty was from the very firat employed for scriptural exegesis (i.e. by .Abdallah b. .AbbSs), exhibits an unjustifiable and quite unnecessa^ acquiescence in the data of a normative tradition. It may be usefill to distinguish between the content of the poetry and the use made of it by philolo^sts. Assent to a putative bedouin environment requires analysis of both theme and imagery. Elements of either for which only bedouin o ri^ n ‫ ئ‬conceivable are very few indeed.‫؛‬ A nd even those wdl not support unequivocal conclusions about the date of composition of the verees in which they appear. Such at least is the only legitimate inference from the contents of the anthology transmitted as the legacy of B. Hudhayl, thought to have been composed bettveen 550 and 700.7 Its value as historical source, for the ‫ ا‬Cf. Blachère, H istoire î.7 ٠ ‫ﺻﻞ‬ ‫ﺀ‬Cf. Fleisch, EI, S.V. I'räb; and see below, pp. 106-11. 3 See Caskel. ‘Zur Beduinisiening Arabiens», .2 8-36.. ٠ K enn tnis der Poesie, vi-xviij Blachère. H istoire i, 83-186, esp. 1 - 9 . 5 ‘Origins’. 417-49.. ‘Frage der Echtheit», 825-33‫ ؛‬cf. Shahid. «Contribution», 564 n. 3. following Arben ٢ and Gibb. ٥ See Blachère, H isto ire ü, 36^ 453‫ ؛‬Brfiunlich, *Vereuch», esp. 222-38.

7 Bräunlich, ‘Vereuch‘, 201-11.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

96

origins both of CA and of Islam, m ust be accordingly modified. Bedouin poetry was not so m uch ‘pre-Islamic’ as it was ‘un-Islamic’, a distinrtion surely of some relevance to its use in solving chronological problems. Delineation o f a j l x ethos by reference to the binary opposition muruwwa (virtuSy àp(T7])\dïn (religion, law) is subject to the same reseration.i " " " conclusions on the nature of the conflict between Islam and paganism reflect an arbitrary chronolo&r imposed upon rather than elicited from his source materials. N either muruwwa as the em todim ent of valour (haäsa)> nor din as essentially asceticism (zuhd) exhibits a chronological line of demarcation between Islam an d jâ iliy y a . Bedouin rejection of religious prescription represents, after all, a constant in Islamic history, and can more profitably be interpreted as a reflex of social, economic, even regional dichotomies, and chronolo^cally unlimited.2 For the bulk oijahili poetry infom ation is more, not less, refractory than that pertinent to the Hudhall diwdn : quite apart from the notoriousdack of scruple attributed to transmitters (‫؛‬ruwät), themselves often ambitious apprentice poets, biographical notices of Jahili authors are known to confonn to a very few stereotypes extrapolated from the imagery of whatever verse might (fortuitously) have been ascribed to them.3 T hat historiographical technique, by means of which metaphor generated reality, was the object of considerable parody in those passages of M a'art's R. Ghufran depicting the encountere of his protagonist Ibn al-Qarih with a series of celebrated poets.. Easily the most famous example of aetiolo^cal exegesis is that of the M uallaqat being ‘suspended’ in the K a.ba: a combination of sanctuary tradition and witness to Arab eloquence was a temptation not easily resisted, even though only as an afterthought.‫؟‬ It is, curiously,'the religious imagery in hadari {]) poetty. historically as^ciated with the ‘seeker of God’ (،hard] ) in Arabia, that appeara to exhibit a link with the themes of Islamic revelation. Hirschberg’s treatm ent of that material fllustrated its ambivalent documentary valued For each element there three distinct problems arise : relation of the verae in question to the Judaeo-Christian tradition (whether written or oral)‫ ؛‬relation of the veree to the Q urS n‫ ؛‬and finally, the authenticity of the verae. But solutions to the last tended to be subjective, and naturally based upon the traditional chronology of Islamic origins. Rejertion of an intentional Muslim forgery ofth at poetry on the grounds that such would have undermined claims to ori^nality made on behalf of the prophet of Islam is ingenuous: both the

è

I As in Goldziher, Studien i. 1-39. ‫ﺀ‬Cf. Bravmann, ‘Back^ound., 317-24, w ho regarded ،he concepts of

not as antithetic! but as complementary. 3 Blachère, Hâtoire i. 9 6 - 1 ^ . 161-6. 4 Ma'arri. R isdlat al-gkufrdn, 187 ff: ‘Adiy b. Zaydj 191‫ ؛‬Abu Dhu.ayb. 5 Blachère, Histoire i, 144‫ ؟‬, following Noideke, Kenntnis, xvii-xxiii.

‫ا‬٠ Lehren. ‫ ة‬- \ ٠ .

muruiotva and

ORIGINS OF CLASSICAL ARABIC

97

c٠ntent of scripture and of the exegetiral tradition presuppose close association with Judaeo-Christian sources. On the other hand, the hypo, thesis of widespread forgery is unnecessary: isolated occureence (however numerous the examples) of the schemata of revelation does not indirate imitation of the canonical text of scripture, or even that the canon existed. T h e recensions of source material for urban (Umayya b. Abl .1-Salt) and court poetry (A diy b. Zayd, Nabigha DhubySni, ASha) are, after all, quite late.* It is not entirely insignificant that precisely this corpus of poetry was not accepted by (Muslim) philologists as evidence of Arabian fasäha.1 B ut literary analysis of the schemata of revelation must take account of the possibdity at least of Arabic Vorlagen, and an Arabian tradition of monotheism m ight be thought, from the point of view of later Islamic orthodoxy, to have provided more appropriate reference than Arabic vereions of Jewish and Christian materials. T h a t such reservations were not, however, characteristic of the earliest M uslim exegesis is clear from examination of the haggadic literattrre.3 Whatever may have been the original motives for collecting and recording the ancient poetry of the A rabs,, the earliest evidence of such activity belongs, not unexpectedly, to the third/ninth century and the work of the classical philologists. The m anner in which this material was manipulated by its collertors to support almost any a rrim e n t ap۴ are never to have been very successfully concealed. T he 'procedure, moreover, was common to all fields of scholarly activity: e.g. the rarly dating of a verae ascribed to the mukhadrami poet Nabigha Ja'dî in order to provide a pre-Islamic proof text for a common Quranic construction (finite verb form preceded by direct object),‫ ؟‬Mubarrad.s admitted invention of a j i t verse as gloss to a lexical item in hadith٠٥and Abu 'Amr b. 'A la’s candid admission tliat save for a single veree of .Amr b. KulthUm, knowledge of Yawm Khazaz would have been lost to posterity.? The three examples share at least one common motive: recognition of pre-Islamic poetty as atithority in linguistic matters, even where such contained non-linpiistic implications. Also common to all three is another, perhaps equally significant feature: Ib n Qutayba, who adduced the veree of Nabigha to explain/justify Quranic syntax, lived at the end of the third/ninth century, as did M ubarrad‫؛‬ Abu *Amr, of whom no written works were preseived, lived in the second half of the second/eighth century, but this particular dicttim was alluded ‫ ا‬Hirschberg, Lehren, 14, 32-4.. ‫ﺀ‬Hirschberg, Lehren, 25-6, n. 3 ‫ ؛‬see below, pp. 1 .5 -6 . 5 See below, IV pp. 122-48. ٠ A not very convincing enumeration in Blachère, Histoire i. 94-5. 5 Spitaler, Review: Bloch, 32.. ٥ Margoliouth, .Orions», 43 ‫ل‬ . 7 Ibn *Abd Rabbih, Äl-'Iqd al-farid iii, 1 ^ 7 ‫ ؛‬the problematic character of this particular one o f the ayydm al-'arab may be guessed from its inclusion in ja b i? . Kitdb

al-Tarbi, 433.C76

IO I. E

٠8

QURANIC S TU D IE S

to only in Jahiz (third/ninth cenmry) and explicitly stated in Ib n *Abd Rabbib (fourth/tenth cenmry). Now. that pre-Islamic poetry should have achieved a kind of staftis as linguistic canon some time in the third/ninth cenm ry may provoke no quarcel. T hat it had achieved any such status earlier must. I think, be demonstrated. The fact that it had not, in one field at least, can be show n: the absence of poetic shawahid in the earliest form of scripniral exegesis might be thought to indicate that appeal to the authority of Jähili (and other) poetry was not standard practice before the third/ninth century.‫ ؛‬Assertions to the contrary may be underetood as witness to the extraordinary influence exercised by the concept oifasähat

al-jahiliyya. T he utility of that concept is nowhere more apparent than in the inter, pretation of what othe^vise might be held comparatively neutral references to langage in the text of the Q ur’an. That Q. 14 ‫ ؛‬4 ‫١K) and is the only one that actaally interprets the scriptural term burhän by adduring the gloss sura, and thus isolating the notion of ‘manifestation’.} Ad 12: 67 Kalbi explained Jacob’s advice to his sons to enter Egypt not by one bu t by several gates as the father’s fear that their striking beauty could attract the evil eye: ‫ وﻛﺎ ن ﺧﺎ ف ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﻳ ﻌ ﻘ ﻮ ب ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌ ﺲ‬٠with which may be compared Genesis Rabba 91, 2 OdVd m 1 ‫ ا‬in « n n w 10DI1 Vn p n ١٥٥ ٦n،t ٥١p٥x ٠ T h a t kind of haggadic accretion, which must be distinguished from material of strirtly Biblical ori^n, was not limited to the writings of exegetes like Kalbi and M uqatil, suspect in the judgement of later generations for their undisciplined employment of Jewish material.« I tq d n ,70 ‫ االد‬: mubhamdt al-Q ur'ân ‫؛‬V, 79-100. ‫ ا‬Tafsir, M S Ayasofya 118» I3 ٠ f. ‫ ا‬See s ^ y e r , Erzählungen , 201-3; Geiger, W a s A .، Mohammed, 1 3 9 4 0 ‫ ؛‬Schapiro, Elemente} 4 0 - 1 ‫ ؛‬Rabin, Q um ran, 113 n. 5‫ ؛‬the standard explanation was burhän:äyät, see Suy٥ *ï, Itqdn i, 115. ٠ See Speyer, op. cit. 214; Geiger, op. cit. 144-5. 5 See Suyuti, Itqdn iv, 2 0 7 -9 ‫ ؛‬Goldziher, R ichtungen , 58-6., 87, 112. ‫ا‬

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X EGESIS

137

It is also fo u n d in the w ork o f their contem porary, Sufyân T haw ri, to w hom that s ti^ n a did n o t attach. T he Q uranic exegesis o f SufySn (d. 161/778), parts o f w h ich have for m any years b een known fro m citations in later writere, is extant in a unique m anuscript at R am pur.i T he w ork, contained in eigh teen fo lio s, consists o f som ew hat disjoin ted o - a t i o n s on fo ٩ ٢ -nin e suras (from B f a to Tür ٠m issing o u t Dukhaft and Muhammad) in th e order o f th e canonical te x t, though the internal sequ en ce o f verses ‫ ط‬n o t that o f th e canon. T h e f r a ^ e n ta r y a n d uneven character o f the work m ay be no m ore than an accid en t and th e com pilation m erely an a g ^ e g a te o f S u fyän ’s opinions extracted from later works. T h a t assessm ent w ill n o t, h ow ever, explain th e internal order o f com ment n o r the quality o f th e explicative elem ents them selves. It is those which, in the absence o f a narrative framework o f the sort encountered in M u q âtil, Ib n Ishâq. and K alb l, require partiCTilar scrutiny. In Sürat Yüsuf) for exam ple, th e s ^ b o l i s m o f Joseph’s dream (Q. 12: 4 ) w as interpreted *his parents and his brothers’ and, alternatively, ‘his father, his brothere, and his au n t’, taking in to account R a ch el’s death befo re that event.2 A lthough K albl had not m ade explicit h is know ledge o f th is fart until h e reached veree 99, it w ould, I think, be an error to assum e that Rachel’s earlier death w as n o t generally known to th e exegetes as w e ll as to the nartators o f both th e Quranic an d Biblical v ersio n s of the story. 3 A t Q. 12: 2 4 burhän w as interpreted b y Sufyan as th e figure o f J a c o b ‫ ؛‬at 12: 67 it w as Jacob’s fear o f the evil ey e w hich prom pted the w arning to his so n s‫ ؛‬a n d at 12: 88 the locution bidaa muzjät w as glossed both ‘little m oney’ a n d ‘butter, w o o l’ (sic), reflecting the m uch m ore detailed inventoty o f com m odities adduced by K a lb l to make u p th e gifts brought to Egypt b y Joseph ’s brothera on their third (‫ﻟﺊ‬٠‫ )ﺀ‬visit, a description v ery likely inspired by that o f G en esis 43: 1 1 -1 2 and one th a t became a sto ck item of th e exegetical tradition.. V ery o c casionally S u fy a n is more in fo m a tiv e than K albl, as at Q. 12: 77, where th e Ctyptic ‘if h e has stolen th e n a brother o f h is stole before h im ’ w as in terpreted ‘J o se p h had stolen their gods’, exh ib itin g a co n fo sio n bettveen Joseph and R achel w hich w ith vety few exceptions pereisted in M u slim exegesis to th is veree. K a lb l has m erely an in conclusive reference to Josepli, from w hich it is im possib le to say w hether the coat o f m any coloura or Laban’s id o ls were in te n d ed .‫؟‬ ‫ ا‬G A S i, 5 1 8 -19‫ ؛‬ed. Imtiyaz .All .Arshl. : Tafstr, 9 5 - 1 .7 ‫ ؛‬the editor has rearranged the material in can.ni . 1 order and indicated the manuscript sequence in his numbering of the separate entri«. ‫ ا‬Sufyan, T afstr, 95‫ ؛‬Kalbl, T afstr, ‫ل‬ 35٢ ‫ص‬ ‫ﺀ‬Speyer, op. cit. 194 with reference to Genesis 37: 10 and 44*. 20‫ ؛‬cf. Geiger, op. cit. 147-8. ٠ SufySn, Tafstr, 98 (adducing two traditions), 1 .2 ,1 .4 , respectively‫ ؛‬Kalbl, T a fstr, ‫ل‬ 35 ٢ ‫ ؛‬Zamakhsharl, Kashshaf ii, 5،x> ٥ ٥ Q. 12: 88. ‫ ا‬Tafstr, 1 0 3 ‫ ؛‬Kalbl, Tafsir, ‫ل‬ 34 ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ ؛‬cf. Speyer, Erzählungen, 215-16‫ ؛‬Geiger, ۶ ‫ ﻟﻪ‬٨٠، Mohammed, 145.

QU RANIC S T U D IE S

‫؛‬38

It w ill b e clear from th e se few exam ples that both th e range and th e quality o f SufyänS g lo ss e s may justifiably be com pared with th o se o f K albl. T h e r e is a sh a red tendency to transm it m ore than one in terpretation o f a Quranic lo cu tio n and, sim ilarly, a co n cern w ith variae

lectiones. F o r example, ad Q . 12: 31 K alb l com m ented / ‫وا ﻋﻨﺪ ت ﻟ ﻬ ﻦ ﻣﺘ ﻰ‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻮ ل ا أل ﺗ ﺮ ج‬

‫إ ن ﻗﺮوت ﻣ ﺜ ﺪ د ة وإ ن ﻗﺮات ﻣﺨﻔﻔﺔ‬

‫ و د ا ﻳ ﺪ ﻳ ﻜ ﻦ ﻋﻠﻴ ﻬﺎ‬leaving o p en

the o p tion betw een cu sh io n and citrus (٠etrog: som e m anuscripts read utrunj), w h erea s Sufyan, a lso adducing a variant, restricted the choice to one. b etw een foodstuffs ‫ ﺗ ﻜ ﺎ‬٠ ‫ﺳ ﻮ ر ﻋﻦ ﻣ ﺠﺎ ﻫ ﺪ ﻗﺎ ل ﻣ ﻦ ﺗﺮوﻫﺎ‬

‫ﺣﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﺳﻔﻴ ﻦ ﻋ ﻦ‬

‫وﻧﻮﻧﻬ ﺎ ﻗﺎ ل اﻟ ﻄ ﻌﺎم و ﺑ ﻦ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳﻨﻮﻧﻬﺎ ﺗ ﺎ ل االذرذج‬. ‫ ا‬Since th e entertainm ent provided b y Potiphar’s w ife clearly d rew upon R ab b in ic tradition, it may reasonably be su g g ested that Sufyan »S represents th e earlier choice o f interpretations, and th a t th e proposal to read .cushions» 0muttakcLan : tcasdyid) exh ib its yet a n o th er i n s t a r o f redactional intervention in the transm ission of K albFs commentary.* T o M u q ä tils g lo sses, too, th o se o f Sufyan m ay be com p ared , as for in sta n ce ad Q. 18: 4 6 and 19: 7 ‫ة‬ al-hdqiyat ül-sälihät w ere interpreted as th e five (ritual) prayers, that is, as salât rather than as dud) but the equivalence w orks: prayers is a com m on g rou n d .‫ ذ‬T h u s, from this sam p lin g o f its in gred ien ts the e x egesis o f Sufyan can b e described as b elo n g in g to th e haggadic ty p e . T here are none the le ss so m e conspicuous lacunae: n o t only is Surat al-Kahf shorn o f its trad ition al narrative framework, passages n o m a lly pegs for exten siv e and v aried anecdote, like the opening verses of suras 17 and 3 0, are here g iv e n no attention whatever. O m issio n s such as these, lik e absence o f c o m m e n t for Dukhän and Muhammad in th e Ram pur m anuscript, are difficult to exp lain , even if that docum ent w ere to be n o m ore than an extrapolation o f SufyS n ’s u tteran ces from later writers (e .g ٠ .Abd al-R azzSq, Tabari, R 5 zï), rather th a n the fragm ent o f an in d ep en dent work. External evidence, such as it is, appears to le n d support to th e latter alternative, though I am unable to accept w ithou t reservation th e remark o f I b n AbJ H atim th a t Sufyan disapproved of th o se w ho, like K alb l, com m ented on the entire tex t o f a sura ev en where there were n o problem s to be solved.« Sufyan.s g lo sses are o f th e quality characteristic o f an original narrative framework a n d are virtually interchangeable w ith th o se o f his contem poraries, here design ated haggadic. B ut it may b e recalled that for posterity th e reputation o f Sufyan, u n like those of M u q atil, K albl, an d Ibn Ishaq, rem ained unblem ished. P rob lem s o f transm ission and redartion h isto ty are n o toriously com plex. ‫ ا‬Kalbl, Tqfsir٠ 13O‫ ؛‬Sufyan, TafstT) I . . . 2 Cf. Speyer, ٠ p. cit. 2 .5 - 6 ‫ ؛‬Geiger, ٠ p. cl،. 1 4 .- 2 ‫ ؛‬and see above, pp. 132-3. 5 T afsir, 136, 147‫ ؛‬cf. above, p. 133, for Muqatil. TafstT) 0 ‫ * ا أ‬a d Q: 18: 46. ٠ Editor’s introduction, 3 3 -8 ‫ ؛‬T a q d im , 79. cited in introduction, 16.

P R I N C I P L E S OF EXEG ESIS

A parallel to the relationship between the Rampur manuscript and those dicta ascribed in later works to Sufyan (as set out in the editor’s detailed apparatus) could probably be found in a comparison ofopfoions attributed to Mujahid b. Jabr(d. 104/722) and adduced by Tabari (d. 311/923) with the Cairo manuscript of M ujahid’s Tafsir.] Remarkable indeed is the use by Tabari of Mujahid to support what Goldziher described as .rational‫'؛‬stische Koranausleping’.z In the light of that argument it would be of considerable value to examine Mujahid’s methods in the context of his own work. An obstacle to the kind of comparison suggested is posed by the prartice, widespread in later exegetical writings, of introducing minority, dissenting, and unpopular interpretations anonymously.* The technique may be illustrated with reference to Q. 12: 31, noticed above in a comparison of Kalbl with SufySn: now. Zamakhshari (d. 538/1143) offered for the enigmatic muttakanlmuttaka'an the following possibilities: place in which to recline (literal), place in which to eat (metaphorical), food whole o r sliced (metonymical), and citrus (caique of Hebrew etrog) in that sequence and with several orthographical variants, some attributed others introduced ‫ ا‬٠‫ ط " ؟ ه‬/»,‫ ه‬- ‫ أ ص‬٠. Out of context as it were, andanonymous, the etrog etymology neither served the same purpose nor produced the same effect as when situated within the haggadic framework.. Zamakhshari’s work presupposed both methods and results of the haggadic. halakhic, and masoretic types. Quranic interpretation had long since achieved the status of n om ative discipline and the exegete was free to selert from the tradition those elements best suited to his purpose and, moreover, to arrange them according to one of a large number of priorities. The original aim and/or significance of a gloss might be accidentally overlooked or intentionally discarded, its typical context thus ultimately forgotten. Drawing upon these elementaty obse^ations I would submit that the attempt to extrapolate from later works those of earlier authorities is bound to produce both incomplete and inaccurate results. It was, not surprisingly, Wellhausen who firet applied the (Pentateuchal) Urkundenhypothese to Arabic literattire. The end of that exercise, available in both his Skizzen und Vorarbeiten VI (1899) and Das arabische R ä und sdn Sturz (1902), was to isolate regional and partisan tendencies in Tabari’s monumental histOty of the Islamic world. While it would be ungracious not to acknowledge that this was an interesting and valuable experiment, one will be chaty of concluding from it that Tabari’s primaty sources have been or can be recovered in a fonn at all close to their original state. T o assert the contraty would imply that Tabari’s work is merely a compilation, exhibiting little ‫ ا‬G A S i, 2 9 ‫ ؛‬see Horat, ‘Zur Uberliefemng., *95-8, 3 ^ . 1 Richtungen , 88, 1 .7 -1 .. ‫ل‬See above, pp. 1 2 .1 for an example ٥ ٥ Q. 7: 158. 4 K a s h s h d fn , 462-4 ad Joe.

QU RANIC S T U D IE S

or no trace of the writer’s craft. Such I find impossible to accept and in illustration mention the artfully composed account of Ibn Ash.ath’s revolt, allegedly transmitted from Abu Mikhnaf (d. 157/774) and consisting almost entirely of ayyam motifs constructed round a fluctuating employment of first-person narrative.! For application of the Urkunkhypothese, and of other principles of Biblical lite r a l (documentary) criticism, it is well to distin^tish between questions about origins {chronologische Ansetzung) and those desired to isolate parallel, divergent, and conflicting strands within the literaty tradition {Herausschälung der Fäden).i From the point of view of chronolo^, the development of Muslim exegetical literattire envisaged here required a span of approximately a centiity and a half, from Muqätil (d. 15./767) to Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889). Within that period the principles of exegesis were evolved and perfected, and it would not be too much to say that thereafter few, if any, methodologeai innovations were introduced. For isolation and description of its components the selection of criteria is a matter requiring the greatest care. In his analysis of Tabari’s history Wellhausen employed exclusively the factor of ascription, a choice rendered deceptively attractive by Tabari’s fairly consistent use of chains of transmission. But even when supported by a highly differentiated nomenclatureforthe modalities of transmission,ascription can be remarkably unstable .3 It is on the one hand vitiated by internal contradiction (as in dicta attributed to authorities like Ibn 'Abbas and the prophet), and on the other attenuated by anonymity (wa-qilalwa-quri*a). Ascription is also arbitra^: bio^aphical information on the exegetes is found exclusively in literature composed to impugn or to vindicate {jarh wa-tadil) or to assess relative merit {fàqât)) and as such constittites merely a pseudo-historical projection of the acceptance or dismissal of their views. For these reasons I have thought it best to i^ o re , or at least to discount, ascription and, by concentrating on the elements of explication both in and out of contert, to isolate and identify methodological devices which can be recognized without resort to biographical data. In the four examples of exegetical- writing so far considered I have underlined the centrality of the narratio, which is nom ally accompanied by or appeara itself to generate a number of typical deuces. Many of ‫ ا‬Amtales ii, 1064-77; cf. B S O A S xxxiii ( 6 ‫ و ل‬7٠ ( 6 ‫ ; ل‬on Tabari's manipulation tradition cf. Birkeland, The Lord Guideth, 9 , I ٠ , 16, 22, 21- 40 ‫و‬٠; and Widengren, ‘Oral tradition'. 244-58. ‫ ع‬See Eissfeldt. Einleitung, 185-216; and above, I pp. 1^17 on Wellhausen's Reste-, for the tyranny of the .literal critical, method see also the observations of Mowinckel, ‘Psalm criticism', 13-33, and Richter, Exegese٠ 66-7, 120-2, 145-52. ‫ ﺀ ا‬٠‫ ﺀ‬٠ Abbott, s A L P i, 5-31. ii, 5-83, 106-13; Se2^n, G A S i, 53-84, 237-56; despite careful and often illuminating analysis of technical tcjm inolo. the stadi« of both authora suffer, in my opinion, from an ingenuous acceptance of the i ä d apparatus, but represent at the same time a not altogether unexpected reaction to the work of Goldziher and Schacht.

P R IN C IP L E S ٠ F EXEGESIS

141

those are means of sustaining continuity: prolepsis and cross-reference, repetition/subsumption, variable connectives, interpolation and paraphrase. Others, like segmentation, supercommentary, apostrophe/parenthesis, and recurrence of the minimal units, would seem to, but in fart do not, interrept the nareative flow. In addition to those stylistic devices, narrative elemente such as anecdote, prophetical e d itio n , identification of the vague and am bitious (tayin al-mubham)} and description of the occasions of revelation {asbdb al-nuzüï) are present in varying quantity, always sufficient to identify the haggadic type. Even where the narratif) itself is absent, as in the Rampur manusCTipt of SufySn’s exegesis, the presence of a number of these elements makes possible identification of the type. O f the ficlve explicative elements proposed as criteria for a descriptive analysis of exegetical literature, three at least may be regarded as typically haggadic: anecdote, prophetical tradition, and identification. Others of them are also found there, but in a relation to the type which I should call acridental rather than essential. Some, like poetic loci pro• bantes and variae lectiones (and the related alternative explanation), are clearly intrasive, not least owing to their disruptive effect upon the

iT d tio . A special case ‫ ئ‬description of the occasion of revelation, chararteristic of halakhic exegesis but present in underdeveloped form in the haggadic type.. By that I mean merely that the essential function of the sabab al-nuzüï (or tanzil)٠which was to establish a chronology of revelation, is not evident in haggadic exegesis. T here the value of the device is exclusively anecdotal, and may provide the narrative framework for an ertended interpretation, either of a whole sura as in M uqail or of fragments of many siiras as in Ibn Ishaq. In that sense of couree it could be argued th at the entire narratio functions as tanzil. T h e fom ulae usually employed to intr^uce the device are nazalat (hädhihi *l‘äyä)fifulän and wa-àâlika hinajamdu qdla fuldn, often accompanied by an anecdote to provide background or local colour. B ut almost never in haggadic exegesis is the tanzil qualified by alternative explanations of the circumstances of its revelation or followed by a discussion of its juridical significance. Even where interpretation was adapted to an over-all narrative structure, as in M uqatiis treatment of Surat al-K àf) separate occasions of revelation may be adduced. An example may be seen ad Q. 18: 28, where ‘you desire the vanity of this world’ was said to have been revealed in reproach of the extreme vanity o U y a y n a b. H‫?؛‬n during an inte^iew with Muhammad, into the account of which was inserted an allusion to the social inequality obtaining between Arab and mawld. Since U yayna’s vanity was proverbial, it may well have been not that but the social m otif which prom pted inclusion of this particular tanzil.1 An occasion of revelation may be 1 See below, pp. ‫ل‬ 77 ‫ ا‬٠ *Tafsir , i 6 ç r.

QURANIC S T U D I E S

gratuitously specified, as in Kalbl ad Q. 12: 7, where the passage ‘there are lessons for those who ask’ is followed by ‘this veree was revealed with reference to a story of the Jews’. T he purpose of that disclosure in a context exclusively Israelite is not immediately clear, b u t since it is the only example of tanzil in Kalbi's treatment of Surat Y l f ) I am tempted to regard it as merely formal acknowledgement of a methodological principlc incorporated into a later redaction and foreign to the orignal version of Kalbi’s exegesis.. T he frequency of tanzil in ha^adic exegesis varies, and in SufySn is concentrated in i s containing in fact a high degree of halakhic content. But even there it is sporadic and unpredictable, and its value merely anecdotal, e.g. ad Q. 2: 125, 2: 164, and 2: 186. Exceptions are seldom, as at Q. 2 4 - 143 ‫؛‬, where the change of qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca was dated.* For later theorists the expression ‘this veree was revealed about. . contained a significant ambiguity, by means of which it became possible to distinguish between a cause (sabab) of revelation and a report (khabar) about it. According to that distinction tanzil of the sort found in haggadic exegesis could be relegated to the status of khabar.3 The m ost flagrantly intttisive of the explicative elements found in haggadic exegesis is poetty adduced to explain Quranic lexica. It is not present in MuqStil, Kalbl, or SufySn, and instance in the Sira may be attributed to the editorial intervention of Ibn Hisham. T h at method of interpretation belonged to the masorah and was intimately related to the contemporary development of techniques for the transmission of poetic texts.. Solutions to lexical problems were sought by the haggadists within the vocabulaty of scripture itself, by recouree to a crude but apparently effertive kind of texttral analogy. For that device MuqStil employed the te m nazir, but also mithl and shûbà) and occasionally the particle ka. W ith the exception of nazir1 these terms dwignating analogue appear also, though less frequently, in the work of Kalbl and Sufyän. Together with the term wajh (‘reference’ as contrasted with ‘information’), these form ed a technical vocabulaty for the distributional analysis of meaning in scripture.‫ ؟‬Closely related thereto is a series of concepts attaching to the term s m ushtäh and m utddbih which, with zvujah and nazair, were not fully developed before elaboration of the masorah.. I have therefore defereed discussion of them, though it may be observed that as with tanzil, concern with recurrent and even crucial terms in scripture is found in its earliest stage of development in the haggadic literattire. Another kind of lexical treatment was that accorded hapax legomena and words conceded to be of fo rei^ origin, as when MuqStil ad Q. 1 8 3 1 . ‫؛‬ explained is tà a q as a Pereian word (lughat faris) for brocade, or ad 18‫؛‬ ‫ا‬

Tafsir, 128..

» Tafsir, 9٠ 14. 17, II, respectively.

3 CI. Suyü١ ï, l ¥ n 90 ,‫ ;؛‬see above, I pp. 41-2. and below, pp. 177-8. ٠ See above. III pp. 94-8‫ ؛‬cf. RiSOÆSxaiii ( .616 .39٠ (7‫ و ل‬٠ ‫ ا‬See above. III pp. ٠ 9٥ ٠ ، ٠ ٥ , See below, pp. 2.8-16.

P R IN C IP L E S OF EXEGESIS

1.7 firdatvs as Latin/Greek (iughat al-rüm) f .r walled garden.i T h at procedure, found als. in SufySn, e.g. for qisfäs in Q. 17: 35.2 but not in Kalbi, may be of some value in dating efforts to derive the scriptural lexicon from exclusively Arabic Orions, a process which, though associated with the name of Ibn ٠Abbäs٠was almost certainly the product of masoretie exegesis.3 Like the variants (both textual and explicative) found in the work of Kalbi and Sufyän (but not in that of Muqatil and Ibn Ishaq), concern with the lexicon might be thought to presuppose a standard if not quite ne v à t w r text. T h e earliest m ethod for dealing with basic (crucial) words/notions appeare to have been simple paraphrase, as in Kalbi ٠٥ Q. 12: 87 ‫ ﺑ ﻦ وﺣﻤﺔ ا ال ه‬/ ‫ ح ا ال ه‬۶‫ و ال ﺗ ﻴ ﺎ ر ا ﻣﻦ و‬.. The elements here briefly described and chararterized as intrusive within the haggadic type belong, with one exception, to the interpretative paraphernalia of the m asorettt. The exception, mention of the occasion of revelation, is essentially halakhic. Now, isolation of these devices at the haggadic level ‫ ظ‬difficult, owing to thevirttial absence of fixed technical tem inology. Save for nazir (analogue). Muqatil employed in his Tafsir only two other terns which could be described as of more or less rigorous technical application: ٤‫ﺀﻳﺊ‬٠‫ة»ل‬/ (juncture) and taqiim (hyperbaton). Even that minimal evidence of technical vocabulary cannot be found in the works of his contemporaries, and it is not quite impossible that these terms, too, could be regarded as intrtisive. While there is not for Muqätil evidence of redactional activity of the kind available for Ibn Ishaq, the following entty ad Q. 18: 22 deserves notice:‫ ا ﺻﺎروا ﺑﺎﻟ ﻮا و الﻧ ﻪ ا ﻧ ﻘ ﺢ اﻟﻜالم ؟‬٠‫ﺋ ﺬ‬ ‫ ﺣﺎﻟ ﻬﻢ‬. ‫ اﻟ ﻮا و واو اﻟ ﺤﺎ ل ﻛﺎ ن ا ﺳ ﻰ وﻫﻦ‬٠‫ آﺛﺮاﺀ ﻫ ﺬ‬١ ‫ﻗﺎ ل أﺑ ﻮ اﻟﻌﺒﺎ س ﺛ ﻌ ﻠ ﺐ ﺗﺎ ل‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧ ﻜ ﺮ‬. It may first of all be remarked that this kind of close

‫اﻟﻜﻠ ﺐ‬

philolo^cal treatment ‫ ف‬not at all typical of M uqätils exegesis. Insertion of a conjunction into the last only of a series of distributive enumerations was not the sort of problem which interested the author of that work, and one is thus not surprised, apart from the anachronism, to find cited the grammarians Farea’ (d. 207/822) and Tha.lab (d. 291/904). Curiously, the explanation is not found in the commentatyof Farrä٠, for which Tha.lab was principal ram, despite concern there with grammatical niceties.^ Nor do the several examples of hyperbaton adduced by Muqatil for Surat altf٥ ٧ (i.e. verses 6,10,21.25, 31 : all instances of an indefinite accusative/ adverbial, shifted from a logical to a pausal position) figure in Farea٠s treatment of those verees, though these were admittedly not refereed to the later authority. Now, the recension in which M uqatils exegesis was ‫ا‬ ٠ ٥

Tafsir, 173 ‫ ل‬6‫ و‬٢٠ r. 1 Tafsir, 131. 5 See bel.w» pp. 218-19. Tafsir, I35r. ‫ ا‬Tafsir, 168.. M a'dm ,l-Qur'ân 138 ,‫ ؛؛‬top, ad loc.; G A L i, 116, Suppl. i, 178 (FarcS.)‫ ؛‬G A L i,

118, Suppl. i, 181 (Tha.lab).

144

QU RANIC S T U D I E S

transmitted is that of Hudhayl b. Habib, who can hardly have been responsible for mention of Tha.lab and probably not even of Farrä ’.١But external evidence of that kind is after all serondary, since the intrusive character of the commentary to Q. 18: 22 can be established on structtiral grounds. Similarly, structural analysis of Kalbi’s exegesis provokes some doubt about the authenticity of variae le c tà s attributed to the author.* There the elliptic phraseology m ight seem to presuppose the detailed discussions of texttial variants found in masoretic authorities, e.g. FarrS*. Because of its fragmentary state Sufyän’s exegesis is more difficult to assess. As in other examples of haggadic commentaty the explicative elements there consist mostly of paraphrastic equivalents, but shorn of an over-all narrative structtire which could have provided stylistic uniformity. References in the body of the Tafsir to Sufyân.s râwï) Abu Hudhayfa (d. 240/ 854)» e.g. at Q. 2: 297 and 36: 12. supply a date which might explain the occasional appearance there of masoretic (varia lectio) and halakhic (tanzil) elements .3 It m ust, I think, be recognized that extant recensions of exegetical writing here designated haggadic, despite biographical infom ation on its putative authors, are not earlier than the date proposed to mark the beginnings of Arabic literature, namely 200/815. For the relationship bettveen (canonical) text and commentaty the implications of that acknowledgement wdl be obvious: original distinctions have been blurred by redactional activity. The fact itself of literary transmission, moreover, will have contributed to a degree of stylistic and methodological uniformity throughout the range of exegetical literattire that makes difficult, if not quite impossible, description of the Sitz im Leben of any of its types. At the beginning of Sûrat al-Rüm, MuqStil told the stoty of a wager bettveen Abu Bakr and Quraysh on the num ber of years to pass before a Byzantine victoty over the Pereians would wipe out the humiliation of their defeat by the latter m entioned in scripttire. Besides emphasizing the reading gkulibat and glossing consistently the scriptural muminUn as muslimünt the story combines an example of Quranic prognostication (akhbär al-ghayb) with a neat connection between events in the llijaz and the wider world.« The prim ary motif, a natural alliance between Muhammad’s followere and the Byzantin» (both being ‘people of the to o k ’) against his opponents and the Pereians (both being idolatere), became a constant in Quranic exegesis and a ‘fact’ of oriental history.‫ ؟‬The circular argumentation underlying that proc»s is graphically illustrated by the manner in which Ahrens drew upon Wellhausen’s assertion (itself apparently an inference from the h a . d i c interpretation of Q. 30: 1-4) 1 G A S i, 3 7 ‫‘ ؛‬der noch 190/805 lebte.. » See above, pp. 132-3. ‫ ا‬Tafsir, 22, 208‫ ؛‬G A S ٤ ٠ 41. but cf. the editor.s introduction. Tafsir, 38. adducing the dates 220/835 and 226/&.1. 4 Tafsir, 23 ٠ ٧ ad Q. 30: 1 - 4 ‫ ؛‬see above, II pp. 69-70. ‫ ا‬e.g. Ibn Sa*d٠ Tabaqat ii, 2 4 ‫ ؛‬and references in Kister, ٠ AI-H‫؛‬ra٠ , 144 nn. 2-3.

P R I N C I P L E S OF EXEG ESIS

that the Jews in Arabia (hence opponents of Muhammad) had traditionally (!) sided with Persia against Byzantium, to prove, conversely, that Islam was influenced in its development by the prophets sympathetic attitude to Christianity.! I have mentioned the absence of comment to this passage in the Rampur manuscript of SufySn‫ ؛‬Kalbl alluded to the wager and, like MuqStil, linked the evenUral Byzantine victoty with the M uslim one at Badr. Thus, what for the exegetes could only be regarded as vatidnatio ex eventu fam ished anecdotal material both entertaining and edifying.* Narrative ingredients such as that may be described as pseudo-historical d i^ e ssi.n s .3 Other kinds are also found, e.g. the prophetical hadith adduced by MuqStil in which was descrited the bareier erected against the depredations of God and Magog, or by SufySn, where three gentlemen, physically ample but intellectually feeble, discussed in an ingenuous way the kind of convereation G od might be expected to overhear.. Each story provides a very literal, almost tactile, realization of the verae in question. Related to these features is the ajwstrophe (parenthesis), in which the exegete addressed his atidience by paraphrasing and amplifying a scriptural locution, as in Muqätil ad Q. 18: 69 ‫ ه ﺻﺎﺑﺮارﻗﺎل‬٧‫ ﺗ ﺠﺪﻧ ﻰ إن ﺷﺎه ا‬٠ ‫ﻗﺎ ل‬

‫ ﻗ ﺎ ﺗ ﻞ ﻓﻠ ﻢ ﻳ ﺼﺒﺮ ﻣﻮ س وﻟﻢ ﻳﺎﺛﺮ ﺑﻘﻮﻟﻪ‬٠(‫ ك‬or Kalbi, ad Q. 12: 99 ‫وﻗﺎل اد ﺧﻠ ﻮا‬

‫وةد ﺷﺎﺀ اﻟﻠ ﻪ آﻣﻨﻴ ﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟ ﻌ ﺪ و واﻟﺮ ﺀ‬/‫ ر إ ن ﺷﺎﺀ اﻟﻠﻪ آﻣﺬﺀن‬١‫ ﻣﻊ‬.‫ ه‬Like m ost of the haggadic techniques examined here, of which the primaty example is the narratio itself, digressions such as those do not so much explain scripture as render it familiar. No device could, after all, have been more appropriate to the task of making familiar than provision of names (ta'yïn) for the anonymous.7 The situation into which such procedures could be insinuated m ight be thought a very informal one indeed. I have suggested that regular expression of connectives and employment of supercommentoty could indicate oral delivery‫ ؛‬simdarly, ‘stage directions» following qäla, as well as serial repetition and circular explication, would seem unnecessary in a text designed to be read rather than heard.» That the evidence both of style and of content should point to the popular sermon as Sitz im Leben of haggadic exegesis is hardly suqjrising.. For the ‫ ا‬.Christliches im Qoran’, 148 ‫و‬ Reste, 236; what may have been the source of this alignment is attested in the history of Palestinian Jewry, see Mann, F a tim id Caliphs i, 42 citing Graetz. » See above, p. 138‫ ؛‬T afsir , 2 ٢ 8 ‫ة‬٢ ; worthy ٠ f remark is the unquestioning acceptance by the haggadists of the reading cf. G d Q i, 149-50‫ ؛‬Goldziher.Richtungen 9 ٠ ‫ل‬ 8- ‫ا‬٠ ‫ ا‬The example is not isolated, cf. Goldziher, Richtungen, 58-61, especially on Muaatil ٠ S e c 3 bove, p. 133‫ ؛‬Tafsir, 226-7 adQ - 4 .22 ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﺗ‬ ‫ ا‬Tafsir, M S H. Hüsnü 17. 171.. ٠ T afsir, M S Ayasofya 11S, 7 .35‫ل‬ ٧ See above, pp. 135-6. ‫ﺀ‬See above, pp. 128-31. ٠ See above, I pp. 46-52, esp. pp. 4 8 1 .

146

QURANIC S T U D IE S

histoty of Arabic literature a long period of oral composition and transmission, or possibly of oral delivery from notes, is commonly supposed to have preceded the redaction of more or less fixed texts. It is the chronology of that process which eludes satisfactory description. T w o points in this respect deserve some attention. First, literature exhibiting the haggadic type is preserved only in recensions dating from the third/ninth century. The presence there of what I have described as intrusive elements, though indicative of an incipient sophistication of exegetical method, is not of such dimension as to distort the ba'sic character of the type, which remained recognizable and continued presumably to perform some useful hrnction in the community. Second, it seems clear from the manner in which textual problems were treated, or ignored, that development of the haggadic type preceded in time the refinement of method characteristic of masoretic exegesis. An alternative would be to suppose that the two types developed in m utual isolation and perhaps simultaneously. T h at view could derive some support from scattered attempts to perpetuate the haggadic type, for example, by Dlnawari (d. 308/920) or Qumml(d. 309/921).! The former work, a nearly verbatim reproduction of Kalbl’s commentaty and like the latter transmitted on the authority of Ib n *Abbas, is hardly conceivable at a time when the writings certainly of Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) and probably of Tabari (d. 311/923) were available. It may be that Dinawari considered the work of his contemporaries (quite correctly) inappropriate to the pulpit, but if that were so the work of Kalbi himself or of Muqatil could have been used. Qum m i’s Tafsir (here the title could be authentic), on the other hand, may have been composed to m eet a different need. Purportedly derived from the authority of Ja'far al.gadiq and of his father, the commentaty consists entirely of haggadic elements applied to sertarian theology and displays, curiously, vety little in common with the allegorical exegesis contained in writing attributed to Ja*far.٤ lex ic a l explanation is based on paraphrastic equivalence, textual emendation on *Alid symbolism, poetic shawâidzre minimal, and the use of n a r r é abundant and in confo m ity with haggadic practice. An interfôting variation, in his account of the ‘rabbinical’ test of prophethood, was location of the rabbis at Najrän .3 Perpetuation of the haggadic type m ight thus be ascribed to the su^ival of its traditional function within the Muslim community‘, it can hardly be explained within the framework of literaty histoty. Fom ally haggadic elements in the exegesis of Tabari and his successore were functionally of another order, and had been adapted to a different set of priorities. Source materials for the popular sennon and other fonns of public ‫ ا‬G A S 42 ,‫( ؛‬DJnawari), M S Ayasofya 2 2 1 -2 ‫ ؛‬G A S i, 45-6 (QummJ). ‫ع‬ CI. G d Q ii, ، 8 . ‫ ؛‬Goldziher. Richtungen, 27 ‫و‬ff‫ ؛‬G A S i. 528-31 (Ja.far), and see

b٠l٠w, pp. 245^. 3 Qumml, Tafsir i2- 31 ,‫ ؛‬a d Q. 18: 9.

P R IN C IP L E S ٠ F EXEGESIS

147

oratory are remarkably unstable. An apposite illustration is the h f b a ascribed by Jahiz to *Abdallah b. M asUd, adduced verbatim by Wâqidî, who attributed it to the prophet during his expedition to Tabuk.i L it e r a l form can be of assistance in detem ining date if not always authenticity. It is perhaps not without interest to observe that the parallel employment ofelative constructions in that khufba is found also in the laudatio of Umm Ma'bad, allegedly composed during the prophet's hijrat and in the address to Q uraysh by Nadr. b. Harith on the appearance in their midst of M uham . mad.2 T h e earliest examples of oratory seem to have been characterized by synonymous or synthetic parallelism (m utkqa) rather than by rhymed prose (‫’رهﺀ‬٠(‫ ا‬a conclusion supported by the fonn of speeches in the ayyam literature . 3 It is. on the other hand, quite impossible on the basis of such material to date the appearance of rhymed prose or. more important, to infer reasons for abstention from that particular form.4 Now, a historical development described in tem s of evolution from pre-Islamic khatib to Islamic qäff might be thought to reflect the argument in -favour of fasähat al-jähiliyya, were it not invariably accompanied by a portrait of the popular preacher as degenerate and irtesponsible p u ra y o r of fable.» T hat the designation qdss became an epithet of abuse may have been a consequence in part of the fact that he remained a .popular preacher, on the periphery of the religious establishment. Opprobrium might thus reflect as much functional eccentricity as doctrinal irregularity.^ M uch if not all of his material, however, is found in the writings of the haggadic exegetes. It may not be irrelevant to note that the Quranic scrolls from Damascus, composed certainly for the purpose of private and possibly communal devotion, contain almost exclusively scriptural passages which could, and did, generate haggadic material, e.g. prophetology, eschatology, and paraenesis.? To perceive in the origins of Arabic literaty prose a combination of public oratoty and elaboration of ‘prédication coranique, is undoubtedly sound.8 Elaboration m ust of courae be understood as interpretation, of which in this context the typical variety was that represented by the aetiological legend, like those related of Abraha’s elephant and M uham m ad’s norturnal journey.. T he narratio was both didactic and ‫ ا‬Jäh‫?؛‬. A l-B aydn w a l-tabyin ii, 5‫ﺀ‬ ‫ل‬Wâqidî, K itd b a l-M a g h d zt, 1.16. ٤ See Fischer, ‘Umm Ma'bad-Legende', 318-27; Ihn HishSm, Sira I, 29 9 -3 0 .; cf. also Stetter, Topoiund Schem ata, 42, 45-6. 3 See Caskel, ‘Aijam al-.Arab‘, 45-6. ٠ P a c e Goldhizer, Abhandlungen i, 57-76, esp. 67-8‫ ؛‬cf. Fischer, ‘Um m Ma ١ ad_ leg en d e., 318 n. 1; B S O A S xxxiii (1970) 39 ٠ ; and see above. I l l pp. 116-17. ‫ ا‬See above. III pp. 9 3 -9 ‫ ؛‬cf. Goldziher, S t d e n ii, 1 6 1 -7 .‫ ؛‬id. Richtungen, 5 ^ 6 1 ‫؛‬

id. ‘Chatfb‘, 97-102; id. ‘N eue Materialien‘, esp. 4 7 89. ٥ See Pedersen, ‘Islamic Preacher‘, 2 2 ^ 5 1 ; id. ‘Criticism‘, 215-31. , See Ory, ‘Un nouveau type‘, 87-149, esp. 144 1 . ‫ ا‬See Blachtre, Histoire iii, 717-36, 737-8.3, though I am unable to accept the author٠ s proposed c h r o n o lo . ٠ See above, I pp. 42-3, II pp. 67-70.

148

QURANIC S T U D IE S

entertaining, and anecd.tal accreta appended to scriptural texts conformed admirably to tbe pre-halakhic concept of pious and edifying tradition, symbolized in the fonnula ‫( ﺣ ﺪ ﻳ ﺚ ﺿﻌ ﻒ وﻟ ﻜ ﻦ ﻳ ﺎ ﻧ ﺲ ﺑﻪ‬poorly accredited but of therapeutic value).! To the long and many-faceted process of Gemeindebildung which culminated in the canonical text of Muslim scripture, the sermon (khutba) m ust have been central, as the instrument of both transmission and explication of the prophetical logia. T he role of Haggadah was described by Zunz as that which m ost easily and nattirally met similar needs in the post-Exilic Jewish community.* The m anner in which the popular se m o n and the popular preacher were eventually incorporated into, or eliminated from, the orthodox establishment belongs to the internal histoty of the religious community. T h e strictures of halakhic and masoretie exegesis did not of course preclude oral delivety, but probably limited such to the lecrtire room. T he requirements of a wider public were not for that reason neglected. 2. D E U T U N G S B E D Ü R F T I G K E I T

Concern with both hermeneutical value and grammatical form of revelation could be justified by recourse to scripture itself, whose DeutungsbedUrftigkeit was in more than one passage explicitly stated .3 The related but distinct processes of hermeneutical derivation and textual adjustment, neither of which figured more than marginally (or intrtisively) in the work of the haggadists, were conveniently described by Vernies as ‘applied’ and ‘pure’ exegesis res^ctively.. Those labels are eminently practical, and indicate functional value rather than methodological content of the exegetiral types. Related to the formation of the Islamic community, and measured against the data of Arabic literary history, to th kinds of exegetical activity(or ratlier, henneneutics and exegesis proper) represent phenomena typolo^cally distinct from the haggadic expression analysed in the preceding pages. These phenomena consist principally in the elaboration of analogical method and in the concomitant acquisition of a technical vocabulary. While elements of the latter can often be traced to scriptural usage, the further semantic development of exegetical terminology usually followed paths divergent from, and even contraty to, the rudimentaty associations of scriptural contett. T h at such is so for the vocabulary of Bibliral exegesis was stated recently by l^ e w e and is amply demonstrated in Bacher’s lexicon.‫ ؟‬If the elaboration of Rabbinic, and sectarian, exegesis ‫ ا‬GoJdziher, Studien ii, 15 4 ‫ ؛‬c i.B S O A S xxxi (1968) 615. * Vorträge, 342-441, csp. 354-73‫ ؛‬and Grünbaum, Sagenkunde, 1-54‫ ؛‬cf. Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 194-8‫ ؛‬Seeligmaim. I d m c h e x e g e s e ., esp. 176-81‫ ؛‬Vennes, Scripture, 126- 67 ‫ا‬- ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ٠ . 5 See above. I l l pp. 9 ٠ ٠ .2 ‫‘ ﻟﻮ‬Bible and Midrash., in C H B i. ‫ل‬ 9 ‫و‬23 ‫ل‬ ٠ 5 'The “plain” meaning., 154‫ ؛‬Bacher, Terminologie i-ii ,‫دهﺀ‬

PR IN C IP LE S O F EXEGE SIS

can be shown to reflect the impingement of Hellenistic rhetorical tradition»! the corrreponding evolution of Muslim exegetical tenninology, closely associated with the Jewish tradition, was even more complex. T he emergence, at the end of the third/ninth century, of rhetorical critirism appar. ently derived from and certainly directed to works of profane literature may be, and indeed has been, interpreted as evidence of Hellenistic influence upon the Arabic science of rhetoric.* T hat particular view is of course only one of several possible. B ut whatever the ultimate source of any given procedure or device, it is quite impossible to separate the development of profone rhetoric from th at of scripftiral exegesis, at least in any but the haggadic sense of that expression. However contrived and exclusively theoretical the relation of Arabic eloquence to the word of God might seem, the tendency to seek in scripture authority for the principles of rhetoric was very real .3 Symbolic of the alliance between the two disciplines was the use made of Q. 3: 7 ‫ﻫ ﻮ اﻟ ﺬ ى ! ﻧ ﺰ د ﻋﻠﻴ ﻚ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺘ ﺎ ب ﺳﻪ آ ﻳ ﺎ ت ﻣ ﺎ ت ض ا م ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺎ ب وأﺧﺮ‬ ‫ ﺗ ﺜ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ ﺳ ﻪ اﻳﺘﻐﺎﺀ اﻟﻐﺘﺘﺔ واﺑﺘﻐﺎﺀ‬L ‫ﺑ ﺜ ﺎ ﺑ ﻬ ﺎ ت ﻓﺄﺑﺎ اﻟ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﻓﻰ ﺗﻠ ﻮﺑ ﻬ ﻢ زخ ﻓ ﺴ ﻌ ﻮ ن‬ ‫ﺗﺄ وﻳﻠ ﻪ وﻣﺎ ﻳ ﻌﻠ ﻢ ﺷ ﻠ ﻪ ا ال اﻟﻠﻪ واراﺳﺨﻮن ف اﻟ ﻌﻠ ﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮ ن آ ﺑ ﺘﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻛ ﻞ س ﻋﻨﺪ‬ ‫ ر ﺑ ﺎ وﻣﺎ ﻳ ﺬ ر ا ال ا وﻟﻮا ا ألﻟﺒﺎ ب‬. Com m enta.’ on this passagC, unanimously a^eed to represent the point of departure for all scriptural exegesis, itself exhibits a historical and typological spectrtnn of interpretative method. T he operative terms in the veree were seen to be three: muhkam, mutashabih) and m m al-kîtâb, each of which came to be assigned a distinguished if uneven semantic histoty. Concern at the haggadic level was namrally with unitary definitions, and for MuqStil the äyät muhkamat were those verses whose prescriptions were to be implemented, further specified (or exemplified) as Q. 6: 151-3. Such were designated m other/ source of the book (umm al-kîtâb: asl al-kîtâb) since they were not only preserved with God {fl-law hi )1 -mahfüz: sic, cf. Q. 8 5 2 - 21 ‫ )؛‬but also in the scripttires of all peoples (‫)ض‬.. KalbJ’s view was not dissimilar, but included the additional qualification that these verses set out pemtission and prohibition and were ones which had not been abrogated (m à y y în â t

bîl-halàl zoal-hardm lam tunsakh)} For both exegetes the äyät mutashäbihdt were th e four initial sigla ‫ آ ﻟ ﻢ واﻟﻤﺺ واﻧ ﺰ واز‬found in thirteen siJras, and here of numerical and ajwcalyptic value, related to the taunts » Cf. Loewe, op. ci،., 140-54‫ ؛‬Daube, ‘Rabbinic methods., 23 ‫ص‬ 4 ‫ ؛‬Gertner, ‘T e m s . 27‫ ؛‬id. ‘Pharisaioi.. 2 4 5 ^ 8 . 1 See TShS Husayn, ‘La Rhétorique arabe', 3-24‫ ؛‬Heinrichs, Arabische Dichtung , I I - 18, 105-70, with reference to von Gnjnebaum, 'Die aesthetischen Grundlagen der arabischen Literatur’, K r i ti k , 130-50. 3 See above, II pp. 79-80, and below, pp. 232-9. 4 Tafsir, MS H. Hüsnü 17, 35٧ . 5 Tafsir, MS Ayasofya Ji8, 29*. I-

QURANIC S T U D IE S

of Muhammad.s Jewish opposition.! T hat this kind of inte^retation served a useful, if lim ited, pu^ose may be clear from the preceding obse^ations on haggadic method. It could not, and did not, su ^ iv e the more exacting demands of halakhists and masoretes. Kalbi's reference for muhkatn to the principle of abrogation (rtaskh) necessitated a correlation mutashäbih : mansiikh) implicitly ascribed to Ibn .AbbSs and extending considerably application of the te m mtashäbih. In rather more detail, and with explicit ascription to Ibn 'Abbas, was the introductory statement of Abu 'U bayd (d. 224/838) in his treatise on abrogation, for which Q. 3: 7 m ust have seemed to the author an appropriate peg: ‫اﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﻜ ﻤﺎ ت ﻧﺎﺳﺨﻪ‬ ‫و ﺣ الﻟ ﻪ وﺣﺮاﻣﻪ وﻓﺮاﺋ ﻀﻪ وﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺆ س ﺑﻪ ال ﻋ ﻤ ﻞ ﺑﻪ واﻟ ﻤﺘ ﺸﺎﺑ ﻬﺎ ت ﺿ ﺮ ﻧ ﻪ وﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬ ‫ ل ﺑﻪ‬٠‫ وﻣﺆﺧﺮه واﻣﺜﺎﻟﻪ و ا ﻗ ﺎ ﻣ ﻪ وﻣﺎ ﻳ ﺆﻣ ﻦ ﺑﻪ و ال ﻳ ﻢ‬٠‫ ﺀ‬By means of that aphoristic formulation, w hich did not add appreciatively to delimitation of a technical vocabulary, scripbiral material not of regulative content, in the opinion at least o f A bu 'Ubayd, was relegated to the statas of mutashdbih: .the objert of belief but not of condurt’. T h at functional cleavage could hardly be of use for the masorah, and it is thus curious to find repeated by FarrS. the infonnation in MuqStil and Kalbi, including the allusion of the latter to abrogation.^ The same material was also adduced ad loc. by Zajjaj (d. 311/923) who, however, proposed a further contrast: muhkam verses were immediately meaningful owing to their straightforward/obvious expression (‫ ي‬٨٤‫ ر‬bayyin), while mutashabih verses in order to be underetood required insight (nazr) and reflection (،٠‫ﺑ ﻄ ﺔ ﻫ ﻰ‬ tadbir). Examples of th e first category were the stories of the prophets and of creation (‫(ﺀﺀئ‬٠ of the second the claims for the fact of resurrection.* Explicit reference to th e ‘plain meaning’ of scriptare m ight seem arb itra^ , if not quite insidious, in a work where the muhkamât were also subjected to exegesis. Even a theoretical postulate that the muhkamât were immediately clear {icddih mubtn) was rejected by Mâturïdï (d. 333/944) in his detailed survey of the several traditions relating t o Q . 3: 7.5 A series of contrasting paira was set out: the meaning of muhkamât could be rationally apprehended (fi.l-'aql bayänuhu), that of mutashabihat only by recouree to authoritative tradition (bi-ntaTrifat a ls a m ); muhkamât were verses of regulative content (‫ ل(ﻣﻠﺮؤه‬while knowledge of the m tâ éâ b ih â t was not even necessary llaysa hil-nas haja ilä U-.ilm i y ١ iH hcw iat were abrogating, mutashäbihät abrogated; muhkamât could be understood ‫ ا‬Cf. G d Q i ‫؛‬, 68- 7 8 ‫ ؛‬an d a b .v e , II p. 6 4 ‫ ؛‬M uqStil and K a lb i are .to. allusive*, the entire anecdote on tte e x p e c te d duration of M uham m ad.s p ow er is retailed in SuyU tJ Itqcm n i ١ ‫ ة ة‬-(>. » G A S i. 4 8 ‫ ؛‬M S A h m et I I I 143, 3,. 3 M a 'â n î ٠ 1-Q urân, M S N u rosm an iye45 ‫ و‬٠ 2 ‫و‬٧ad Ioc. 4 G A S i. 4 . ‫ ؛‬M S N uroam aniye 115, 67.: en titled 'Ird b jM a d m 'l-Q ur’ân. ‫ ؛‬G A S i, 49, 6 ٠4‫ ؛ﻳﻰ‬T a t v il d t al~Qur*ân, M S M edine 179, ‫ل‬، ‫ة‬٧‫ ا‬7 ‫ﺀ‬.

P RIN CIP LE S OF EXEG ESIS

by meditation (ita fa k k u r l t a a m m u l / n a z r ), b a h th ); m u h k a i could be known, m m u td â b îh â î

m

t ä i ä t

u td a b ih ä t

by research (;fa la b j not at ail. Finally,

might be explained by reference to ٠ ‫ ة ﺳ ﻪ‬، : ‫وﻗﺒ ﻞ ال أ و ز ا ن‬

‫ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺸ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ ﺑﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻜ ﻢ‬، < ‫ ﻳ ﻮ ق‬, a rational postulate which might be thought to eliminate the conttadictions inherent in the preceding seriœ. For MSturidi, it m ay be noted, the antithfôis zähir : bdtin m eant not the *literal* as opposed to the ‘concwled* significance of the veree in question, b u t rather the *apparent' as contrasted with the *real’ meaning, a distinction which became the point of departure for his methodological application of tazvil.' I t was the explicit relating of m u î d â â t to muhkamät, the latter in the role of exegetical point d’appui, that provided a foundation for both halakhic and masoretic exegreis. Jassas (d. 370/981) considered that relation central to the task of exegesis, but admitted that not every possible meaning (mana) or aspect (m jh) of the mutashäbihät could thus be discovered: ‫ﺷ ﺖ ﺑ ﺬﻟ ﻚ ا ن ا ﻟ ﺮ ا د ﺑ ﺎ ﻟ ﺘ ﺜ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ ا ﻟ ﺬ ﻛ ﻮ ر ق ﻫﺬه ا آلﻳ ﺔ ﻫ ﻮ ا ﻓ ﻆ‬ ‫ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻞ ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻰ اﻟﺬى ﻳ ﺠ ﺐ وده اﻟﻰ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﻜ ﻢ و ﺣﻤ ﻞ ﻋ ﻞ ﺳ ﻨﺎ‬. ‫ إ‬. T he procedure of referring m u td ä b ih a t to tn u h k a Ê might entail reasoning {'aql) or recourse to authority (MOT'), though the former could not be the undisciplined application of independent reason, but rather the rational employment of scholarly tradition.3 Juxtaposition of muhkamät and mutashabihät involved explicit recognition of analogy as an exegetical principle, whether texnial or dortrinal, and this became the cornerstone of scripUrral interpretation.. T h a t the initial im petus in the application of analo^cal deduction to scripture was halakhic, rather than masoretic, might be thought cortoborated by the asraption to Shâfi'ï (d. 204/820) of the earliest work entitled A hkäm al-Qwr'än.s More systematically formulated even than the work of Jas?a? was the Ahkäm al-Qur*än of Ibn *Arab! (d. 543/ 1148) who, in his com m enta^ to the Sahih of T im id h i reiterated the relation of analogy obtaining between muhkamät and m u td ä b ih ä t and drew attention to the spirittial value of the exegetical activity which must result from inclusion in scripture of the two kinds of versed On the necessity of that differentiation Ibn Qutayba had been even more explicit: ‫وﻟﻮ‬ ‫ﻳ ﺴﺘ ﻮ ى ﻓﻰ بﺀرﻓﺘﻪ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺎ ﻟ ﻢ واﻟ ﺠﺎ ﻫ ﻞ ﻟ ﺒ ﻄ ﻞ‬

‫ﺣﺘﻰ‬

‫ﻛﺎ ن اﻟﻘﻮآن ﻛ ﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮا ﻣ ﻜ ﺜ ﻮ ﻓ ﺎ‬

‫راﻟﺘ ﻔﺎ ﻏ ﻞ ﻳ ﻦ اﻟﻨﺎ س وﺳﻘﻄﺖ ا ﻟ ﻤ ﺤ ﺔ و ﻣﺎﺗ ﺖ اﻟ ﺨ ﻮا ﻃ ﺮ‬ ‫ ا‬See below, pp. 154-8. 2 G A S i. 444-5 ‫ ؛‬Ahkäm û l-Q u r â n ii, 3. 5 Ahkân » ii, 5 ، . See below, pp. 16^70. 5 G A S i, 484-9.. esp. 4 8 ^ no. V IIj tbe recension is that of BayhaqJ (d. 458/1066),

from which it may be necessary to conclude that only the organising principle, not its ** can be dated as early as the end o f the second/eighth century. ٥ G A L i, 412-13, Suppl. I, 632,663. 7 3 2 ‫أ‬on the margin ofTirmidhi, Sah ih xi, 114-2.. 7 Ta'unl, 62.

QURANIC STUDIE S

T h is view of scriptural exegesis as a divinely imposed task inherent in the very structure of the document of revelation exhibited considerable advance towards the scientific fomrulation of interpretative method and away from the haggadic division of G od’s word into prescription, narrative, and paraenesis. The obligation to study, to immerse oneself in reli^ous science (;räsikhß-*ilm), could be and was derived from the much-disputed segmentation of Q. 3: 7, namely, whether interpretation (itavnl) of the mutashabihät was limited to God alone or to G od and to those firmly rooted in reliÿous knowledge. Ibn Qutayba argued that since the prophet m ust have known the meaning of those verses (1), such was necessarily transm itted to his companions and thus made accessible to the community.. T he question of juncture (istVnäfjibtidä)) in Q. 3: 7, between alläh and m l - r â h ü n ) may be understood to symbolize all argument about the limits of exegetical activity. Insistence upon a disjunctive syntactical value for the particle WOW) as articulated- by Suyütï,2 was neutralized by the admission that not every facet of their manifold significance could an۴ vay be w rang from the m u t â â i à t .3 T hat something of the m ystety of revelation should be reserved to its author could be accepted without encroaching unduly upon the domain of the xegetes : ‫واﻟﻰ ون ﺑﻌ ﺾ اﻟ ﻤ ﺘ ﺜﺎ ﺑ ﻪ‬ ‫ ﺑ ﺨ ﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﺗ ﻌﺎﻟ ﻰ‬.« T heir unceasing effort to understand was not thereby circumscribed, concisely expressed by ZamakhsharJ ‫ ﻗ ﻪ‬Q. 3: 7.5 T h at the ultim ately prevailing point of view should be identical with the attitude of Rabbinic Judaism towards the study of scripture will, in view of all that has so far been adduced, hardly surprise. Authority was after all provided by scripttrre iteelf, e.g٠ Ezra 7: 10, Nehemiah 8: 7, where the basic ingredients of a technical vocabulaty were also found.٥ Isolated attempts, already remarked, in Muslim exegetical literattire to equate muhkam with zahir (obvious, in the sense of unambiguous: wähiä) represent a polemical tendency, if not specific school disputes, and may be compared with such disam ing statements as D٦N.‫ﺗﻞ‬ ٠ F ١?D min ٦٦‫ د‬٦ or ،n p ٥ fN I D ١٦٩٥ KST.7 It is at least not beyond reasonable doubt whether the te rn s peshatjpakut si^ ified the ‘obvious’ or ‘literal’ meaning of scripttire, though in the context of dispute they might tendentiously be so used: m ore realistic are Loewe’s proposals ‘familiar’ in the sense of vddespread, and ‘authoritative’ in the sense of interpretation sanctified by tradition.» Save in the polarity zähir-.bätin employed for allegorical exegesis, Muslim ‫ ا‬T a g , 72-42 Itqdn iii, 5-6. a ls. 253 ,‫؛‬. 3 e.g. ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ‫و‬ ‫؟‬ ‫ة‬ ‫و‬ ‫ ا‬A M à al-Qur’än ii, 3 ٠ ٠ Suyûtï, I t q ä iii, .‫و‬ ‫ ا‬K â h â f ï , 337 ~8 ; translated in Goldziher, Richtungen, 1 2 7 1 . ٥ See Zunz, Vorträge, 13-36‫ ؛‬Elbcgen, Gottesdienst, 194-8. 7 Bacher, Teminologie i, 98, ii, 1.3, 173.

‫‘ ﺀ‬T h e “plain" meaning», 158-9, 167, 176-82‫ ؛‬cf. Bacher, op. cit. ii. 172-3.

P R IN C IP L E S OF EXEGESIS

153

use o f the tenn zahir signified ‘obvious, only in the sense that one’s own a rrim e n t was felt to be more compelling than that of one’s advereary.* Identification in Q. 3: 7 of the muhkamät with umm al-kitab was uniformly understood to refer to the divine archetype of scripture, i.e. its nucleus (asl al-kitab)) analogically deduced from the two other Quranic occurences of the phrase umm al-kitab ‫ل ت‬3 : 39 ‫ وﻋﻨﺪه ام اﻟ ﻜﺎ ب‬. . . ‫اﻟﻠﻪ‬ and 43: 4 ‫ واﻧ ﻪ ق ا م اﻟﻜﺘﺎ ب ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ‬. Though it may be objected that the deduction was faOle and hardly substantiated by the respective contexts of the locution, the only modifiration ever proposed was that the m uhkndt) containing as they did divine prescription, enjoyed priority of rank over verees which were not regulative, and in that sense could be designated 'm other of the book., a phrase often and for quite different reasons applied to Siirat al-Fätiha.1 Only in Q. 3: 7, where it could be an interpolation, may umm al-kitab refer not to scriptural archetype, but rather to exegetical print d ’appui. Such of couree would have been more satisfactorily expressed by a constrtJrtion *umm lü-kitäb exhibited in the Rabbinic precepts DK .... Horowitz was probably right to rejert the equivalence on th e grounds that phraseological similarity was belied by their quite different applications.* On the other hand, that view of the muhkamät as reference (maradd) for interpretation of the m u t ä ä h ä t might well be thought comparable to the Rabbinic notion of em as *authority... Allusion to the ultimate necæsity of exegesis is contained also in Q. 75 : 19 ‫ ﺛ ﻢ إن ﻋﻠﻴﺘﺎ ﺑﻴﺎ ﻧﻪ‬. T he two other Quranic occuraences of bayän, in 3: 138 and 55: 4, as well as the single instance of tibyän in 16: 89, designate *sign', revealed as guidance and mercy.5 Such also is the ftinction of the exclusively substantival bayyinajbayyinät) while the participle mubin is in scripture employed only as attribute (as also adjectival bayyin in 18: 15 and bayyina in 2: 211 and 29: 35). In Q. 75 19 ‫ ؛‬bayän was understood by exegetes to signify not merely ‘clarity, but also *clarification», that is, equivalent to tabyin.٥ In that veree the agency was divine, as in all occurrences of the transitive finite fo m s, which have as objert the word ‘signs* (äyät; e.g. Q. 24: 18, 58, 59, 61) or a noun clause (e.g. 16: 44, 64). Bayän as exegesis was thus sanctioned by scripttrral usage, though the Quranic locution had not quite the paideutic sense of Biblical hebin, e.g. Nehemiah 8: 7 1 , Daniel I I : 33.7 Synonymous with Quranic bayän is the term tafsil) also ‘clarification, and restricted to the agency of God: cither the ‫ ا‬S ee below, pp. 242-3. 2 e.g. Maturidl. T a w ila t, M S M ^ in e ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﺟ‬ 9٠ ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻟ‬7‫ﺀ‬ ; Suyütï. Itq ä n iii. .‫ﻟﻠﻮ‬٠

‫ ا‬Untersuchungen, 65; T o c h e r ' s conjecture, apud Augapfel, ‫“ ا‬Kitab” ’٠ 387, presupposed in ٥ ٥ y case a misunderetanding. 4 S ee Zunz, Vorträge٠ 338 n. (b); Bacher, Terminologie . i, JI 9 .Î I . ‫ ا‬S ee above. I pp. 5-6. ٥ e.g. Zamakhsharl, K à h à f iv, 661 ad loc. 7 Cf. Gcrtncr, .Terns*. 21 n. 3.

QURANIC STUDIE S

book makes all things clear (Q. 6: 154) or is itself made clear (6: 114) by the act of revelation. T he notion of being made distinct by separation/ demarcation (cf. Q. I I : I . 41:3) provided a technical te m for Quranic periodization.! Interpretation of fassalajtafsil as separation and hence Specification is reminiscent of Rabbinic and ‫؛‬Qumranic peresh:2 the M uslim term was employed predominantly in halakilic exegesis. T h e generic desi۴ ation of Quranic exegesis is in scripture itself a hapax

legomenon: Q. 25: 33 ‫ وال ﻳﺎﺗ ﻮﻧ ﻚ ﺑ ﻤﺜ ﻞ ا ال ﺟﺌﻨﺎ ك ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻖ واﻣ ﺶ ﺗ ﻔ ﺴ ﺮا‬. The subject of yatünaka is .those who reject/disbelieve. (alladhina kafarU in the preceding verse), and the entire passage an assurance that opposition to G od’sm essengerw illbecountered by divineassistance. The unique context of the t e m tafsir is thus polemic, of a kind frequently alluded to in the exegetical tradition.3 Zamakhshari.s gloss takshif referred to the ‘uncovering, of a (maliciously) concealed truth, and represents a standard charge in sectarian dispute. A similar, but rather more arademic, lexical exercise is contained in the e tym olo^ by metathesis (itafsir : tasfir— ,unveiling’) proposed in a commentary to Mânirïdï's T am lät.‫ ل‬But it seems more than doubtful that for the technical term tafsir either the Quranic veree 25: 33 or the metathesis exhibits an authentic S i t z ‫ «'ا‬Leben. 6 It may further be doubted whether tafsir ever meant, or could really mean, uncovering, in the sense of bringing to light a concealed significance. The hermeneutical process involved in tafsir becomes clearer from examination of what became the standard binaty opposition tafsir.taw il There the several attem pts to define the contrast were based on primarily epistemological considerations. In a synthesis of pertinent arguments Suyütï established a dichotomy of exegetical modes in which tafsir was defined as the transmission of authoritative witness, scil. to the occasions of revelation (riwäyal samajshahada), and t a ' ë as the product of ræearch and expertise, scil. in the analysis of scripture (diräya/istinbät). 1 The polarity had found diagrammatic expression in the work of Maturidi: tafsir belongs to the companions of the prophet, taym l to those learned in doctrine (‫ا ﻣ ﻴ ﺮ ﻟ ﻠ ﺴ ﺎ ﺑ ﺔ‬ ‫ ( واﻟ ﺘ ﺸ ﻞ ﺳ ﻬ ﺎ ﺀ‬٠‫ ه‬Now, it is hardly possible that these comparatively formal ‫ ا‬See abeve. III pp. 116 -1 7 ‫ ؛‬fasilalfaioapl. 2 e.g. K à h â f IV, 184 ‫ه‬ ‫ى‬ Q. 41: 3 (with formal but unnecessa^ reference to a reading without tashdid); cf. Gertner, ‘Pharisaioi., 254-5.

» See above, pp. 122-7‫ ؛‬and I. pp. 3& S.

٠ K a s J u h d f ١ ‫\ ا‬٠ ‫ أ‬٦ ‫ لآ‬aA \oc.%

٠

t o t k itm d n jta h rv flta b d il, s e e \je \o -w p p .

‫ووةا‬٠.

5 Samarqandi (‫ﺀ‬ ‫ه‬ ٠ 540/1145 (‫ ؛‬see GOtz, ‘Maturidi., 35-6‫ ؛‬adduced anonymously by Suytiti, Itqdn iv, 167. ٥ See below, pp. 2 3 3 -5 ‫ ؛‬Wieder.s relating Karaite(?) mashpirim to Arabic ta sfir might

be linguistically sound, but it may be noted that the Arabic word was never an exegetical term, and further, that in Arabic lexicolo^ this kind of e c o l o g y (metathesis) need not be taken seriously, see Wieder, Scrolls, 59 n. 4. 7 Itqdn , now' 77: iv, 1 6 7 ^ 3 ‫ ؛‬K itdb a l-M a b à n ï, ch. VII, 172-82. ٠ T a w ild t, MS Medine 18., I*‫ ؛‬cf. GOtz, ‘Maturidi., 31-8.

P RIN CIP LE S ٠ F EXEGESIS

definitions antedate by much the generation of Tabari and MaturidI (end of the third/ninth century). But th e antithesis tafsirita'wil appears in inverted form in a radimentary classification of exegesis at the beginning of Muqätil.s Tafsir where, on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas, it was stated that tafsir is what was known by scholara { 'u la ä ) and tawil by G od alone.* To the problems attending the recension of M uqatil’s Tafsir, it may be added that the same tradition from Ibn *Abbas was adduced by S u ^ ‫؟‬I, but contains the term tafsir throughout.* It ‫ ئ‬perhaps not without interest that in his exposition of the tüfsir'.tcCé polarity S u ^ tï employed as generic designation of exegesis the te r n s bayan and irab) explaining that the use of irab in the sense of grammatical s i ^ (hukm nahwt) was in fart a neologism.3 T hat irab could, in the light of philologists, use of drab and of Quranic ٠arabi, signify ‘clarification, is not at all unreasonable, and that usage was embodied in the titles of the commentaries ascribed to Farrâ. and Zajj‘aj.4 In addition to the almost purely fom al criteria reprwented by the àâya'.dirâya contrast, a substantial distinction between tafsir and ta*toil was also formulated. Tafsir was methodologically limited to scriptural passage bearing b u t a single interpretation, ta'ml to those bearing more than one: .5.‫ﻟﺊ) وﺟﻪ و ا ﺷ ﻞ ذا وﺟﻮ‬٠‫ ﻓ ﺎ ﺻ ﺮ ذا (ﺀ‬The operative tenns were wajhjmjuh (aspert) and räjihjmarjüh (prevailing/preferred), used respectively to d e s i^ a te the range of options and of those the optimum. As with most technical terminology ultimately associated with a particular discipline, the locution à ü m jn h retained its earlier and general significance, and could refer simply to the many facets of the Quranic message, e.g..‫ اﻟﻘﺮآن ذﻟﻮل ذ و و ﺟ ﻮ‬o r .‫ واﻟﻘﺮان ﺣ ﺘﺎ ل ذو و ﺟ ﻮ‬The proximity

o im ju h to the Tannaitic was pointed out by Goldziher, in respert of which it may be noted that both terms were employed in halakhic as in other types ol exegesis.7 It could be ar^ied that the distinction benveen tafsir and t d ë remained a theoretical one Î Abu *Ubayd, whose interest in the text of scripture was primarily halakhic, had asserted that ‫ ا‬T afsir, M S H. H iisnii ‫ل‬7 ‫ ا‬2 ‫ﺀ‬٠ ‫ ا‬S e . above, pp. 143-4: the introduction i٥ lull of technical terms which seldom or never appear in the body of the work; Itqan iv, 188 : i.e ٠ , some tafstr can be known to men. other tafsir only to Gal. 3 Itq a n iv, 172-3.. iftild h hadith٠ , see above. III pp. 1 . 1 1 . ٠ See above. III p p . ‫و‬ 3- 4 ٠ ‫و‬ 8- ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ‬e.g. M S Nurosmaniye 459 and 115, respectively‫ ؛‬cf. G A S i, 4 9 ‫ؤ‬ . 5 MaturidI, TaTvnldt, M S Medine 18., » ٧ ‫؛‬Suy ٥ tï١ l ¥ n iv, .67 ‫و‬ ٥ Suyûtî, Itqan iv, 184‫ ؛‬NaJtj al-baiagha , cited Goldziher, Vorlesungen, 41, 74, n. 4 ‫؛‬ cf. also Abbott, S A L P ii, n. 48. 7 Richtungen, 8 4 -5 ‫ ؛‬cf. Bacher, Terminologie ii, 157, and on panim as synonym of te'am im , i, 15 ! ‫ ؛‬for the locution 1 ' 'l-tuqjh, as caique of mah ha-fa'am , an example may be found in ZamakhsharJ, K ashshaf i, 5 1 9 2 . a d Q. 4: 48.

156

QURANIC S T U D IE S

they were one and the same.* The difficulty lay in determining which Quranic verses might be characterized as containing more than one aspect (‫ﺀ‬٠‫ره‬٠‫ ) ة‬and hence suceptible of interpretation by tawil. From Q. 3: 7 it was clear th at ta.ïWf was applicable only to the mutashdbihät) identification of which was, as noted, remarkably unstable. The analogical relationship seen by MaturidI and Ja‫?؟‬a? to obtain between muhkam and mutashabih meant th at in practice the latter could be explained by reference to the former, even though not every aspect of the mutashabihät could be so illuminated. T he methodological difference between tafsir and t a d might seem thus at least blurred, if not entirely effaced, by the admitted interdependence of muhkamat and mutashabihät. T he formal difference could, however, be maintained: in contrast to t a d ) which involved investigation and research, tafsir depended upon tradition. The same solution to a scripbiral problem might, in other words, be reached by different m ethods: its acceptability was often no more than a m atter of presentation, that is, with or without the requisite witoess (shääjriw äya). It seems clear that the tafsir :t a ' d dichotomy symbolized a dispute rather more fimdamental than one merely of method or te m in o lo ^ , namely, the exegetical relationship bettveen canonical and noncanonical material in the witness to revelation p re se ra d and transmitted by the Muslim community. T he necessity of resort to tradition as interpretative complement to scripture was the crux of sectarian dispute bettveen and within the Jewish and Christian communities. The extent to which tradition could be regarded as dispensable depended upon the successftil elaboration of exegetical techniques which might be seen to elucidate scripttire, as it were, from within. W ithout stressing unduly the essential fiitility of steps taken to that end, it is w orth obse^ing that there is about them a considerable measure of unifonnity. The ‘Torah-centricity. of such groups as the Qumran sectaries, the Apostolic Christians, and the Karaites generated a series of interpretative principles which might have been, and in some instances acttrally we're, freely exchanged.» One such common element was the division of scripture into ‘manifest, and .concealed' parts, the latter epithet employed not in th e sense of esoteric but of am b itio u s or equivocal, in short, deutungsbeàftig. It would, in my opinion, not be unjustified to see in the antithesis m uhkm ät ’.m tä ä b ih ä t a reflex of niglot iistarot) and in particular of the contention that in each pair the second element m ight be elucidated by reference to the f i r s t In Muslim prartice that process of analo^cal deduction presupposed 1 A p u d SuyUtf, Itqan iv, 167. ‫ع‬ See G e rh a rd in , M em ory, 172-3, 233. 284-7; Wieder, Scrolls, 53-62; Rabin, Q um ran, 95-111. ‫ ا‬W i^ er , Scrolls, 7 ^ ; Rabin, Qumran, 99.

PR IN C IP LE S OF EXEGESIS

the self-sufficiency of the Qur.ân, and as such m ust be regarded as polemical in character. T h e dispute was articulated, if never quite satisfactorily resolved, in the elaboration of halakhic exegæis.ï T he notion of ambiguity in the term m tâ â b îh , as partaking of more than one semantic aspect, was reinforced by identification with mushtMh , possibly an allusion to the parallel passages Q. 6: 99 and 6: 141, or others, e.g. Q. 2: 25 and 2: ‫ ﻟ ﻞ‬8,‫ﺀ‬ b u t more probably engendered by its antithetical relation to muhkam. The synonymity of mutashabih and mushtMh ‫ ئ‬explicit in Zamakhshari ad Q. 3 7 ‫؛‬, and had m uch earlier become axiomatic for masoretic exegesis.3 I t would be misleading, depite the centrality of Maturidl in its fonnulation. to suggest th at scriptural exegesis which dispensed with tradition was invariably designated ta'ioil. In scripture itself the term occure seventeen tim es and, save for Surat Yusuf{ Q. 12: 6, 21, 36, 37, 44, 45. 100, IOI) where it could only be rendered *dream-interpretation’ (tabir ül-ruyä ), it was consistently glossed ‘outcome’/‘sequel’ ( ‫) هﺀ'ﺀوةﺀ‬, thus lending the term a distinctly eschatological flavour which accorded nicely with the haggadic definition of mutashabihät as four of the Ctyptic Quranic sigîa. 4 I t seems to me th a t this eschatological, or at least pronostic, sense fits rather better than *interpretation’ the use of taTwil in the much-cited verse of *Abdallah b. Rawaha: ‫ ا ﻗ ﺘ ﻠ ﻨ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ ﻋ ﻞ ﺗﺘﺰﻳﻠﻪ‬٠‫ذﺣﻦ ﺗ ﻠ ﻨ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ ﻋ ﻞ ﺗﺄ وﻳﻠ ﻪ ك‬.‫ﺀ‬ It was partly owing to that application that the term t a ë ï achieved enduring status in allegorical exegesis, which was largely though not exclusively sectarian.. Function as generic designation of scriptural exegesis devolved thus upon tafsit) eventually employed for most if not quite all varieties of that exercise. That its S itz im Leben was almost certainly the lexicon of profane rhetoric does not of course exclude influence from other quartere.7 W hether the literary activity of the haggadists was actually described by its authors as tafstr is, owing to redactional complications, not easdy answered. In his historical suiwey of exegetical method Goldziher described that .prim itive’ interpretation as the nucleus of what became traditionist tafstr (tafstr manqül) and as secondaty to establishment of the text of scripttrre ( Textgestaltung).8 T h a t view of the anterior existence of a ne varietur text gradually subjected to intCTpretation reflerts of course the *Uthmanic recension traditions with all their very familiar implications. A complem entary feattire of this traditional view of Islamic Orions is th e assertion that early attempts to interpret the text of scripture were frastrated by an I See W ow, pp. 175-7, 188, 201-2. * Cf. Ibn Qutayba, T a w il, 74. 3 See below, pp. 2 1 2 -1 5 ‫ ؛‬Kaskshaf i, 337-8. ٠ See above, p. 149. 5 Tabari, Annates 1/1595‫ ؛‬cf. Goldziher, Studien ii. 112 n. 5‫ ؛‬id. Abhandlungen i. 6 . 0 . 2 ‫ ؛‬id. Richtungen, 278. ٥ See below, pp. 243-6. 1 See below, pp. 233-5. ٠ Richtungen , 55-85 and 1-54, respectively.

158

QURANIC STUDIES

.fficial prohibition, or at least restriction, of exegetical activity.! Reason for the official measures, invariably associated with the figure of .U m ar b. Khatyâb, was seen to be an expression of extreme piety. Modifications of this view have subsequently appeared, notably those of Birkeland and Abbott.» Birkeland recognized that the alleged opposition was a late formulation exhibiting school disputes about the form in which tafsir ought to be transmitted, a contention often and misleadingly expressed in term s of the opposition tafsir bil-*üm:tafm biUra'y.3 Abbott's insist, ence upon the historicity of the stoty of *Umar and Sabigh seems to me to have missed the point entirely, as do her simplistic references to

mutasHabihat ‫ص‬

tafsir a kabL .

T h e figure of *Abdallah b. *Abbas (d. 68/687) as tarjumän al-Qur*än m ight be thought to pose something of a problem. Birkeland's relegation of th at figure to a personification of consensus (ijma), symbolized in particular by the isnäd Ibn Sa.d-Ibn *Abbas, is a reasonable hypothesis indeed, especially if qualffied by an admission that the historical process reflected in tafsir cannot be reconstructed before the beginning of the third/ninth century.5 References in the tabaqät literature to earlier authorities, almost without exception disciples of Ibn *Abbas transmitting on his authority, can hardly be said to represent more than the proliferation of companion Ü É shown to be characteristic of legal traditions. Impetus for the production of both legal and tafsir ttaditions was halakhic, and objections to ‘tafsir' are in my opinion to be underetood only secondarily as disapproval of independent reasoning (ra'y) as opposed to traditional science (,ilm). The primaty dispute was about the sources of doctrine (usai al-fiqh) and reflected in the respective claims to priority put f o ^ a r d by advocates, on the one hand, of canonical revelation, and on the other, of non-canonical revelation.. The role of *Umar in the a n t i - t e ^ traditions m ight be compared to that of *UthmSn in the canonization traditions: an explanatoty mechanism d e s ire d to attest the earliest possible ori^ns for the components of Islam .7 The absence ofscripttiral interpretation before the generation ofhaggadists does not require an explanation so contrived and internally inconsistent. T h a t during the second/eighth century halakhic disputes were Ksentially ones about prinriples as opposed to methods may be thought coraoborated ‫ ا‬Richtungen, 55-64. » M uslim O pposition ; and S A L P ii, 106-13. ‫ ا‬M u slim O p p o s i k , 28-32. ٠ S A L P ii, 106-13; ،hat the story of .Umar and ‫ ؟‬abigh constitated proverbial illustration o f tiresome interrogation, not only about the mutashabihat, but also halakhic material

in scripture, seems clear from Malik's reference in a discussion of the spoils o f war, M u w a tta ٠ , 455: K itab a l j i h d d no. 19. ‫ ا‬M u slim O p p o s ih , 32-42; I am not quite certain, however, whether Birkeland would accept that qualifiation. ٠ See above, I p^ 51-2; and below, pp. 161-3. 188. ‫ ؟‬See B S O A S m i (1968) 613-16.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E XEGE SIS

by the witness of two documents often adduced as milestones in the juridical and political development of Islam. T he first of these is the RisälafiUsahäba of Ibn Muqaffa. (d. 142/759).* T he standpoint of the author in matters pertaining to the practical administration of justice was characterized by Schacht as a recommendation of procedural uniformity, to be imposed by the government (»،‫ )؛‬upon a situation of juridical chaos.» T h e elements of confusion could be identified as regional dispute, about the priority of sunna (as ius consuetuàis) and r a y (as practical inference), overlaid by the legacy of Uma^tyad administrative practice. It may well be th a t Ib n Muqaffa.’s proposals were derived from Persian models, but the notion of charismatic leadership underlying his emphasis upon the position of the caliph hardly required foreign inspiration .3 M y interest here lies exclusively in the role of scriptare in Ib n Muqaffa"s suggestions for organizing the Islamic community. As a source of caliphal authority the Qur.än (designated kitäb) received but scant attention, usually in tandem : al-kîtâb w e tk r m a , and was only once cited, as ‘revelation’ (1ianztl), i.e ٠ Q. 7: 43 ‫ ﻟﻨ ﻬﺘ ﺪ ى ﻟﻮال ا ن ﻫ ﺪاﻧﺎ ا اله‬o r ‫ وﻣﺎ‬in a context which recommended, appropriately, recourse to sound reasoning.. Arbitrary employment of reason was condemned, but also arguments based upon sunna which could not be derived from the prophet or from one of his rightly guided successore (!) . ‫ﺀﻟﻰ ﻋﻬﺪ رﺳﻮل ا ال ه آو اﺛﻤﺔ اﻟ ﻬ ﺪ ى ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ‬.‫ ﺀ‬Sound reasoning consisted in the caliphal application of analogy (،‫ " ﻫﻪ‬٢ Züa-qiyäs), and in mattere of dispute the caliph was to employ that instrument: ‫ﻓﻴﺌﻈﺮ‬ ‫ا ﺧ ﺪ ل‬، ‫ و ﻓﻴ ﻪ اﻟﻰ ا س اﻟﻐﺮﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ ﺼﺪﻳ ﻖ ووﺷﺒﻪ األﻣﺮﻳﻦ إ‬A reference to the significance of à l al-fiqh mi-surma ml-siyar zval-nasiha leaves a distinct impression that the fimction of scholarehip was to enhance the caliphal authority.? Now, the tenor of this official communication might be thought to corroborate a good deal of similar evidence that at m id second/eighth centu ry revelation had yet to achieve status as recognized authority for doc. trine or for policy within the M uslim community.» T he appeal to analo^cal reasoning reflects a stage of doctrinal development prior to the onset of formalized transmission of authoritative opinion, and a period in which the celebrated instructions to the qadi of *Umar b. Khattab m ight well have been composed.. Further evidence of Ibn M uqaffa.’s attitade to Muslim ‫ ا‬G A L i, 138, 151, Suppl. I» 2I ٠ , 2 3 6 ‫ ؛‬in M . Kurd ‘A lï, R asä'U a l U z g h d ’, 117-34. * Origins, 5 8 1 . 95, 1. 3 - 3 , 137. 5 Schach،, Origins, 95 ‫ ؛‬cf. Goitein, ‘Turning p .in،’. S tu d ies, 149-67, cap. 163-4, where the theory of a Persian model ia modified. s R isala, 126. ٠ R isdla f lS a h d b a , 121, 123, 122. 7 R isala 127. ٥ R isdla, 127. ٠ See above, II pp. 5 ^ 7 ‫ ؛‬and below, pp. 16^ 7. ٠ See above, I p. 44.

‫ل‬6٠

QURANIC STUDIES

scripture might possibly be elicited from the refutation of arguments ascribed to him by the Zaydi imam Qasim b. Ibrahim (d. 246/860).! Attribution of the work being refuted was rightly considered by Guidi to be very questionable indeed.* So little of that ascribed to its putative author is prese^ed in the refutation that it is quite impossible to say more of Qasim ٠s advereaty than had he not existed he would have had to be invented. References to the document of revelation consist exclusively of ingenuously literal interpretations of Quranic phraseology, e.g. descriptions of God as wager of war, as destroyer of the umam khaliya , as seated upon His throne, etc.,3 each deftly and in turn thrown out of court by Qasim, whose display of expertise in the metaphorical exegesis of anthropomorphic expression was faultless. That the author of the Risäla fil-sahaba, a work both formally pious and substantially sophisticated, could have been responsible for the trivial argumentation attributed to him by Qasim is unlikely. A t several points the latter found occasion to criticize severely his opponent.s knowledge of Arabic, and accused him of having composed a barbarous book (a'jam al‘bayän).A Childishly inept humour like the alleged beginning of the book: ‘In the name of the m erciful and beneficent light’ ( b à i ٠l-nüri *1 -rahmäni *Ibrahim) can be taken seriously only as caricature and point, not so much to a muarada of the Q ur ٠5 n (traditionally ascribed to Ibn Muqaffa.), as to an ideal target for the vituperative criticism of the M u.tazili QSsim.‫ ؛‬T he major portion of the reftitation, thus presumably also of its ‫ ر‬٠۶‫ ﺀﺀ‬et origo, consists of polemic about the principles of divine creation and of G od’s justice and retribution, suspiciously appropriate, it m ight seem, to a Mu.tazili tour deforce. Significant in a way quite different from the Risäla fil-safmba of Ibn Muqaffa. is the work entitled Risäla fil- q à r and ascribed to Hasan Basri (d. 110/728).‫ ؛‬Its authenticity and ascription were accepted by R itter and by O bcm ann; and its authenticity, if not ascription, by Schacht.? The argument of the tract, essentially d o ^ a t i c and in fact little m ore than identification of Satan as agent and repository ofEvil, was found offensive by Shahrastani (d. 538/1143), who was thus willing to ascribe it to Wasil b. *Ata’ but not to Hasan.8 Schacht remarked the exclusive employment of Quranic shawäkid in the work and a concomitant absence of 1 G A S i, 561-3 ; K i t â a l-radâ'alà *1-sin d ïq , in Guidi. L a L o tta ٠ arabic pagination 3-55. 2 L a L o tta , viii-xi. though he Judged it to be a typical product of the period in which Ibn Muqaffa. lived, cf. xxi-xxiii; also, Nyberg, 'Zum Kampf.» 425-41. esp. 431-2. 5 L a L otta, arabic pagination 17-26. 2 9 -3 1, 35. ٠ L a L otta, arabic pagination 8٠ 10. 31, 33. 39-40, 43. ٥ L a L otta, arabic pa^nation 8 ‫ ؛‬cf. Goldziher, Studien ii. 401. ٠ G A S i. 591-4, esp. 592 no. 3 ‫ ؛‬M S Köprülü 1589. Ayasofya 3998‫ ؛‬in Ritter. ٠ Frömmigkeit., 67-82‫ ؛‬for an analysis .f it s contents, see Schwara. *tetter', 15-3.. 7 Ritter. ‘Frömmigkeit', 62-4‫ ؛‬Obennann, ‘Political t h e o lo .' , 138-62. esp. 154-8‫؛‬ Schacht, Origins, 74, 141, 229. ٠ Kitdb al-mlal wal-nihal, on the margin o f Ibn Hazm, Kitab al-fifal I, 59.

PRIN CIP LE S OF EXEGESIS

traditions from companions or prophet, arguing ‫ ﺀ‬nlentio for composition at the beginning of the second/eighth cenmry, chronologically consonant with the scholarly activities of Hasan.I There are, indeed, ninety-five verses and parts of verses adduced (five of them twice), from thirty-nine well-spaced suras of the canonical text of revelation, a few passages consisting of nothing more than a concatenation of scriprtiral loci. 1 None of the scriprtiral material may be described as regulative, but rather, as admonitory and paraenetic, drawn from eschatological contexts stressing the ethical implications of the Quranic theodicy. T he over-all stnrcture of the risala is polemical rather than halakhic, fom ulated as epistolary addrtts and regularly p u n c ta te d by imperatives be^nning . 0 commander of the faithful., with one passage based on sustained employment of the apostrophic ‘And if you were to say.. .٠(zva-law qulta).3 T he main body of the treatise contains a series of allegedly disputed points in scripture, thirteen in all and introduced ‘There is dispute about His word’ (fa-yujädüünj y u n â z ïü n fï qawlihi), in which the author disposes in a tidy though facile manner of his anon۶ ous adversaries.. Those disputes could have no basis in fact, since scripture (kitab ‫ ﺳ ﻪ‬generally., quran occasionally) contained neither inconsistency nor contradiction unless it had been tempered with (iwa-harra/âü ).‫ ل‬Reference to the reliability and omniscience of scripture is sufficiently recurtent and emphatic as to provoke the question of the author’s real purpose. It might seem that the verçr absence of all but scriptural shawakid and the exprœs insistence that all answers were to be found therein could suggest an usai controverey, in which the ‘plain meaning’ of scripmre was being asserted in the face of analogical reasoning and of tradition, whether from companions or prophet. Some support for this conjecmre is found in what may be d e si^ a te d the ‘framework’ of the risä k The request of the caliph *Abdalmalik for information on the problem of qadar (iliberum arbitrium) was constructed round his wish to know whether Hasan’s knowledge had been derived from tradition(s) from companions of the prophet, his own opinion/reasoning, or from an argument confim ed in scripttrre:

‫اﻋﻦ وا ﻳ ﺔ ﻣﻦ اﺣﺪ ض اﺻﺤﺎب‬

‫ ورﺳﻮل اﻟﻠ ﻪ أم ﻋﻦ راى راﻳﻘﻪ ام ﻋﻦ اﻣﺮ ﻳﻌﺮف ﺗ ﺼﺪﻳﺘﻪ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻘﺮآن‬. T he reply was interestingly circumstantial: he (Hasan) had learned from his predecessore who lived according to the word of God and transmitted His wisdom, who followed the surma of the prophet (sic), who knew right from wrong, and who did not assert other than that which God had Himself expressed for the benefit of mankind in His b o o k : ‫ ﻳ ﺮ‬٠‫ا د ﻧ ﻜ ﻨ ﺎ ﻳﺎ ا‬

‫ ﻟ ﺪه و و وا ﺣﻜﻤﺘﻪ وا ﺷﻨﻮا‬٠ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﺑﺪﻳ ﻦ اﺻﻠﺤﻚ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ا ﻓ ﻠ ﻒ اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻮا ﺑﺎﻣﺮ‬ ‫ ا‬Origins , 229. ٠ Ritter, 7 2 -8 ..

. 8 8 .C 7 &

‫ ا‬Ritter, ‘Frömmigkeit., 7 ‫ل‬ < 7 3 , «2 . 5 Ritter, 7٠ line ‫ل‬ 5‫ع‬ 7‫ل‬ line 2 .

G

‫ إ‬Ritter. 75 . ٥ Ritter, 67 lines 8-9.

‫ل‬6‫ل‬

QURANIC S TU D IE S

‫ﺑﺴﺌﺔ وﺳﻮد اﻟﻠﻪ وﻛﺎﻧﻮا ال ﻳﺘﻜﺮون ﺣﻘﺎ و ال ﻳﺤﻔﻮن ﺑﺎ ﻃ ال وال ﻳﻠﺤﻘﻮن ﺑﺎﻟ ﺮ ب ا ال‬ ‫ ا ال ﺑﻤﺎ اﺣﺘﺢ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋ ﻞ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻓﻰ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ‬.‫اﻟﺮ ب ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ وال ﻳﺤﺘﺠﻮن‬

‫أﻟﺤﻖ‬

‫ ا‬٠.‫ل‬

Sim ilarly, in the ‘cu verin g letter, from Hajjaj to th e caliph recom m ending H a sa n ’s treatise, th e Quranic sources o f Hasan’s v iew s were stressed by m ean s o f a paraphrastic conflation o f the caliph.s ow n inquiry.* T h u s, prophetical Sunna an d com panion traditions w ere included th ere as respectable sources o f knowledge, th o u g h inferior to scripture:

‫ وا ﻋﻠ ﻢ اﻧﻪ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳﺒ ﻖ ﻣﻤ ﻦ أ ﺧ ﺬ‬. . . . . ‫ رﺳﻮل اﻟﻠﻪ‬i j

‫ويﺀرﻧﻰ‬

‫ﺗ ﺼﺪﻳﻘﻪ ﻓﻰ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ب اﻟﻠﻪ‬

‫ﻋﻦ ا ﻟ ﺴ ﻒ اﻟﻤﺎ ض ﻣ ﻦ أ ﺳ ﺎ ب رﺳﻮل اﻟﻠﻪ أ ﺣ ﺪ ﻫﻮ أ ﻋﻠ ﻢ 'ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻪ ﻧﺤﺎﻟﻰ وأﻓﻘﻪ ﻓﻰ دﻳ ﻦ‬ ‫ اﻟﻠﻪ ووﺗﺮأ ﻟ ﻜ ﺘ ﺎ ب اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺼ ﻦ‬. P rotestations lik e *Any a r r im e n t not based on scriptural proof is fallacious’ ( ‫ ﻛ ﻞ ﻗ ﻮ ل ﻳ ﺲ ﺀﻟﻤﻴﻪ ﺑ ﺮ ﻫﺎ ن ﻳ ﻦ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ب‬٠ ‫ إ(اﻟ ﺪه ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ ﺿ الﻟﺔ‬or ‘T h u s does scripture speak, 0 commander of the

faith-

ful. ( ‫) ﻫ ﺬ ا ﻳﺎ أ س اﻟ ﺆ ﻣ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ب اﻟﻠﻪ ﻳﺌ ﻄ ﻖ‬. might seem to indicate a more than merely casual concern for usai priorities. Reference to the deform ation (tahrif) of scripture is not infrequent,* as also to arbitrary or otherwise unsatisfactory exegesis,, twice specified as interpretation by personal opinion/reasoning: ‫ ﻳﻴﺖﺀزﻟﻮن ﻧ ﻠ ﻠ ﺪ ﺑﺮوﻳﻬﻢ‬and ‫ر ﺳ ﺮ و ن ذﻟ ﻚ ﺑﺮﺀﻳﻬﻢ‬ T h at particular charge can hardly be taken seriously, since it was the m ethod employed by the author himself throughout the treatise, and the epithet may have been nothing more than a tag for opinions from which he dissented. His own exegesis consisted in the ingenuous assertion of scripttire’s ‘plain m eaning’, easily apprehended by the unprejudiced eye and a basic knowledge of Arabic. Though quite unconcerned with linguistic or rhetorical analysis, he adduced in two instances examples from the 1

loquendi (kaldm ‫ﻟﻤﻪ‬- ٠‫) ﺳ ﻪ‬: ad Q. 19 ‫ ؛‬59 ‫أ ى ﻋ ﻨﺎ ﺑﺎ أ ﻳ ﺎ وﻗﺪ‬

‫ﺗﻘ ﻮل اﻟ ﻌ ﺮ ب ﻟﻨﻰ ﻓ ال ن اﻟﻴﻮم ﻏﻴﺎ أى ﺿﺮﺑﻪ األ س ﺿﺮﺑﺎ ﺷ ﺪ ﻳ ﺪا وﻋﺬﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﺑﺎ أ ﻳ ﺎ‬,‫و‬ and 3: 178, where a line of poetry was offered and the locution qur>än ' . ٢٥Wapostrophically(and predirtably) explained a sa concomitant of Arabi 1 Ritter, 68 lines 3 ^ . ‫ ﺀ‬Ritter, 8 .- 1 ‫ ؛‬note (MS Ayasofya 3998). 3 Ritter, 68 lines 13 -1 4 ‫ ؛‬cf. Schacht, O rigins, 141. ٠ Ritter, 69 line 13 ‫ ؛‬curiously, the parallel constriction in Q. 45: 29 was not adduced by the author 0‫ ؛‬the r i i I. i.e. hâdhà k i t à n â ya n tiq ‘alaykum bil-haqq ‫ ؛‬while in the w . reference to scripture is unmistakable, it could be of interest to note that Qummi, Tafsir ii, 295, emended kitdbund to bi-kitabina, thus making the prophet, not the book, the spokesman o f God. probably a reflex of ImSmi apologetics, similar to the emendation u m m a : a m m a in Q. 2: 143 and 3: IIO, T a fsir i, 63 and 110, respectively‫ ؛‬cf. Goldziher, Richtungen, 281.2. 5 Ritter, 68 line II, 69 line 19, 70 line 16‫ ؛‬see below, pp. 1 8 ^ 0 . ٥ Ritter, 69 lines 19-20, 75 line 2 (74 ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ه‬ ٠ ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ ‫آل‬ ( ‫؛‬line 2, 78 line 16 (ta a u m il). 1 Ritter, 74 line 6, 78 line 5 : ، ‫ه‬٠ ‫ ﻃﺪه‬and fassara synonymous. ٠ Ritter, 79 lines 8-9.

PRINCIPLES ٠ F E X EGESIS

163

eloq u en ce ‫ﺰﻟﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ اﻟﻰ ﻗﻮم ﻋﺮ ب ﺧﺎ ﻃﺒ ﻬ ﻢ‬ ‫ﻳﺎ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﺮﻳﻰ اﻧ‬ . ‫ﻣ ﻌﻨﺎ‬

‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮ ن‬

‫واﻟﻘ ﺮآ ن‬

‫ﺑ ﻜ ال ﻣ ﻬﻢ اﻟ ﺬ ى‬.‫ل‬

M eth od and sty le in the risäla, unblem ished b y textual and sem antic p rob lem s or scholarly apparatus, are not unlihe those o f th e haggadists, characterized b y straightforward equations an d absence o f authorities. O ccasional em p lo y m en t o f the con n ectives a y an d y a m , even y ¥ l * i may b e thou gh t to a tte st to that sim ilarity, corroborated by a sim p listic interp retation of the K h id r verses (Q. 18: 6 0-82) in order to d em onstrate the com patibility o f free w ill with d iv in e foreknow ledge.) In th e ligh t of e x p licit reference to companion tradition, prophetical Sunna, w ith w hich m ay b e contrasted m en tion of sunnat allah in Q . 4 0 : 85,4 a n d exegetical r a ) > it could be a r ^ e d that the ex clu siv e em p loym en t of Q uranic loci was n either fortuitous n o r a consequence o f the early com position o f th e risäla.s I am inclined to a ssig n the treatise to the end o f th e second/eighth centtity. after th e develop m en t o f ha٠ d ic exegesis and during the p erio d o f m l d isp u tes represented by, at least, th e conflirt bettveen traditionists and M u ta z ila . A scrip tion o f this hortatoty and ed ify in g work to a figure like H asan Ba?ri hardly requires explanation, and m ay b e compared to a similar ten d e n c y serving th e reputation o f *Abdallah b. *Abbas. O n e point in th e risäla deserves further m ention. T h e author.s assertion that th e text o f scrip ttire was free o f inconsistencies and/or contradictions rested upon tivo assum ptions: first, that such as m ight be fo u n d m ust be th e result of (m a licio u s) alteration, second, that th e meaning o f mutashabih w as ‘analogous’, in th e sense o f m utually coreoborative (as in Q . 39: 23):

‫ﻗﻮل اﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ ﻴ ﻜ ﺬ ب‬

‫ﻛﺎ ن‬

‫وﻣﺎ‬

‫و ﺣﻨﻔ ﻮ‬

‫اﻟﻘ ﻮم ﻳﺎ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟ ﻤ ﺆﺑﻨﻴ ﻦ ﺑ ﻤ ﺎ ب اﻟﻠﻪ‬

‫ﺧﺎ ف‬

‫وﻟﻘﺪ‬

‫ف اﺳﻦ اﻟ ﺤ ﺪﻳ ﺚ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ﺑ ﺎ ﻣ ﺘ ﺜ ﺎ ﺑ ﻬﺎ ﻳ ﺜ ﺒ ﻪ ﺑﻌ ﻀﻪ‬ ٠ ‫ﺀ ﺑﻌ ﻀﺎ ﺑ ﺰ ﻫ ﻮ ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ و‬ ‫اﺑﻌ ﻀﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻌ ﺨﺎ و ال ﻳ ﺨﺎﻟ ﻒ ﺑﻌ ﻀﻪ ﺑﻌ ﻀﺎ‬.‫ ﺀ‬T h u s , the an tith esis m uhkam :mutashdbih co u ld , once form u lated , be adduced in justification not o n ly o f *applied’ b u t also of ‘p u re’ ex eg esis .7 Preoccupation w ith apparently contradictory statem ents in scripttrre generated tw o separate b u t interdependent view s w ith in whose te r m s a very carefully delim ited typology o f contradiction {ikhtiläfjtanäqud) co u ld exist sid e b y side w ith w hat m ight b e called a r e c o ^ iz e d set o f *standard p u zzles’. W hat m u st b e the earliest vereion o f th e latter is fo u n d in the f o m o f an appendix to M uqStil’s T afsir alk h ü â m i ' a t dya.% T h e relation o f th e appendix, contained in fo lio s io o v to ‫ ا‬Ritter. 76 line 20 -7 7 line 3. » Ritter, e g . 7 ‫و‬line 8, 68 line 15. 67 line 12. 5 Ritter, 77 lines 1 2 -1 9 ‫ ؛‬see atove, p. 128. ٠ Ritter, 79 lines 3-4. ‫ﺀ‬Pace Schacht, O rigins, 74, 141, 229‫ ؛‬in this connection the observation o f 0 bemann.

.Political theolo^., 142 n. I I , that these technical terms here make a remarkably early appearance, gains fresh and certainly unintended significance. ٥ Ritter, 70 line 15-71 line 2. 7 See above, p. 148. * G A S i, 37 no. I ‫ ؛‬M S British Museum Or. 6333‫ ؛‬Abbott, S A L P ii, 9 6 ‫ ؛‬cf. B S O A S 4‫ ) ئ‬1968( 6 ‫ل‬ ٠

QU RANIC STU DIES

164

I03r, t . th e body o f th e work is som ething o f a p ro b lem . For th e cop yist o f th is m anuscript (an umcum, dated 4 JumâdS I 7 9 2 /2 0 April 1390) the a p p e n d ix clearly b elo n g ed to the m ain text (sam e paper, ink, h a n d , etc.), b u t w a s separated therefrom by a fresh basmala a n d tw o abrupt ch a n g es of su b ject. T h e style is haggadic and alm ost certainly that o f M uqStil (or of th e w ork s traditionally ascribed to h im ), beginning w ith a tcCyin o f Q . 18: tafsir: ‫ا ﺳ ﻢ اﻟ ﺬ ى ﻛﺎ ن ﻳﺎ ﺧ ﺬ ﻛ ﻞ ﺧ ﻨ ﺔ‬ ‫ ﺑﺎ ا ﺑ ﻦ ﺟﻠﻨ ﺪا‬٠‫ ﻏ ﻊ‬.‫ ا‬O n ce the dram atis personae o f th e M U sa-K hidr stoty

6 0 - 8 2 identical to th a t o f his m ajor

w ere identified, a n e w

introduced the topic o f scriptural contradiction related on th e authority o f Ib n 'Abbas, a n d illu s. trated b y the fo llo w in g nine problem s:*

(٠ikhtildf al§Qur*än),

I . W hether on the day o f Judgement there shall be communication between those being tried: Q. 23: IOI vs. 3 7 :2 7 (3 7 :5 0 , 52:25). 2 ٠ W hether on that day polytheists w ill or can avail themselves of the se^ ices o f their d eiti«: Q. 6 2 2 ‫ ؛‬vs. 6: 23. 3. W hether God created heaven or earth first: Q. 79: 2 7 -3 0 vs. 41: 9 -1 1 . 4. W hether the grammatical value o f kdna in Q. 4: 23, 4: 134, etc. reflects a permanent or a temporary quality. 5. W hether the promise in Q. 20: 124 (he who ignores m y admonition shall live in penuty) is confirmed or belied by experience. 6. W hether the promise in Q. 16: 9 7 (goodness shall be rewarded) is co n firm ^ or belied by experience. 7. W hether on the day o f Judgement those being tried shall be asked about their m isdeeds: Q. 55 : 39 vs. 1 5 :9 2 -3 . 8. W hat is the precise meaning of .guidance, [ h à n ) in G od’s warning to Adam and Eve: Q. 20:123 ? 9. W hat is the p r a ise meaning o f ‘before him’ {amdmuhu) in Q. 75: 5 (but man desires to sin before him)? T h e solutions p rop osed by Ib n .A bbas to th e se problem s w e r e une q u iv o ca l and u nsophisticated, an d evoked a p rim itiv e level o f popular d isco u rsed T he exegetical principle involved in th e elim ination o f apparent contradictions w as that w hich distinguished b e tw e e n different contexts (mawdfin) despite sim ilar or id en tical phraseology. T h u s , nos. 1 , 2 , 3 , and 7 d id n o t contain .real» contradictions because th e o p p o sin g verees referred to q u ite different situations, or to different asp erts o f the sam e situation. N o s . 5 and 6 were, o n th e other han d , allusions to esch atolo^ cal fulfilm ent or, alternatively, v irtu e as its ow n reward. T o th e lex ic a l problem s in n os. 4, 8, an d 9 solutions w ere evaded b y resort to t h e o l o ^ : kdna pred icated of G o d m u st signify an eternal attrib u te‫؛‬, ‘guidance’ w a s the Qur’an., ‘before him» indicated progression in disob ed ien ce (qàmanfil-ma'âsï). ‫ ا‬T a fsir ٠ MS. H. Hüsnü 17, ‫ل‬ 7 ‫أل‬2 ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ ؛‬see a b o e. pp. 128, 135-6. 2 T a f s ir , M S BM Or. 6333, ioov- i r.

5 T afsir, 4

.‫ا‬٠ ‫ﺀا‬ 2‫ﺀ‬Cf. Reuschel, 'W a ~ k ä m M

* i m a r i , 147-53.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E XEGE SIS

165

A schematic and slightly mere sophistirated version of what eventually became the standard (!) s^ p ftira l puzzles was attributed to MuqStil and included in his Kitäb aï-taàh wal-radd by A bu Husayn Mala‫( ؛؟‬d. 377/ 987).! The extracts from MuqStil, adduced by M alaji without supporàng reference to Ibn *Abbas, are two:2 on Quranic contradictions, and on sem antic and phraseological correlations, of w hich the first seems to be a systematic expansion of the material described above from BM Or. 6333. I have found no other work of M uqatil in which this material appeare, or in this form could appear, except as appendix or as some other variety of formal intrusion. 3 In M alays version,* the num ber of scriptttral contradictions was increased to ttventy-five, including four examples from BM Or. 6333 (nos. I , 2, 3, 7). T h e principles of harmonization remained the same, but were enhanced by differentiated and nom ative expression. Each solution was, for example, introduced by the fom ula ‫ﻟ ﻬ ﺬا ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣ ﻦ‬ ‫ذﺗﺔﺧﻰ وﻟ ﻜﺌ ﻬ ﻤﺎ ق ﺗ ﻔ ﺴ ﺮ ﻛ ﺬ ا‬٠‫ ه ﺑ ﺚ وﻟ ﺺ ب‬١‫ ﻳ ﺠ ﻬ ﻞ ا ﻣ ﻴ ﺮ ﻳﺌﻔ ﺾ ﺑﻌﻢ‬and the reason for the apparent discord specified as different contexts {mawdfin m ih ta lifa ), similar phraseology in analogous circumstances (silat al-kaldm mushtabihalijüh. al-hâlât i s H t a É ١ü l â f al-hälät lihtabiK ), UÏÏVÇOTally separate aspects of the same sittiation (m juh taqdim ül-kaläm mushtabiha), etc. That in exegetical usage mushtdih and mutashdbih were functionally synonymous has been n.ted.5 T h e manner in which this kind of problem, together with its attendant loci probantes, became a constant in the literatare of scripniral exegesis may be elicited from SuyUtiS chapter on the subject in his Itq d n ) where the notion of ‘contradiction, was appropriately described as ircesponsible fantasy and beneath the dim ity of God’s word ‫ ﻳ ﻮ ﻫ ﻢ اﻟﺘﻌﺎر ض‬i ‫واﻟﻤﺮاد ﺑ ﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ا آلﻳﺎ ت و ﻛ ال ﻣ ﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟ ﻰ ﺷﻨﻪ ﻋﻦ ذ ﻟ ﻚ‬, and illustrated by ‫؛‬our standard examples from Ibn *AbbSs (nos. 1-4 in BM Or. ‫ ة‬333 (.‫ ه‬But for Suy ٥‫؟‬i thtte were merely a point of departure for asuivey of elaborate rhetorical techniques designed to prove what had been unequivocally asserted, namely, th at the text of revelation contained neither contradiction nor inconsistency. So stated, that position was manifestly indefensible, in tacit re co ^ itio n of which recouree was had to more sophisticated terminology. Ibn Qutaybawas able, for example, to distinguish between contradirtion proper {ikhtilaf tadadd) not found in the Qur.an save in cases of regulative abrogation, ‫ ا‬G A S ‫؛‬٠ 607 ‫ ؛‬in Dedering, Bibliotheca Islamica IX. » K ita b al-Tanbih, 44-56 and 56-63. rwpectively‫ ؛‬see below, p. 210. 3 Pace Abbott, S A L P ii, 96; manuscripts have so far been discovered for three, not four, separate works o f MuqStil, cf. G A S i, 37‫ ؛‬the extracts from MalatJ were published separately, and earlier, by M assi^on, Recueil, 19.-21.. 4 K ita b û l - T a à h , 44-56. 5 See above, p. 157. ٥ Itqan, naw' 48: iii, 79-89.

166

QURANIC STUDIES

and difference by variation (ik htilä f taghäyur) of which an example was the w ord umma in Q. 12: 45, expressing both period (hin) and forgetting (nisyän).i This argument did not, however, prevent his adducing a shnpliStic harmonization of the by th at time traditional instance of contradiction: in the question of conversation on the day of Judgement.2 For Ibn Taymi^tya the distinction lay between contradiction proper (ikhtiläf ta d ä d d ) and variation (here ik h tilä f tanawm *) of which only the latter could he found in scripture. 3 For Kirmani the antithesis was expressed as concepts muttjally exclusive (ta nd q u d ) not present in the Q ur’ân, and relational difference (ikhtiläf ialäzu m )) found in scripture as multiple variations upon a single theme.. T hat proliferation of technical vocabulary is witness to an abiding concern with texftral consistency. It was one form of exegerical activity in which no serious scholar ever adduced in support of his arrim ent the ‘plain meaning, of scripture. T h e concept of ik h tilä f as variation, and not simply as flagrant contradiction, presupposed or at least implied some degree of both texmal integrity and conceptual unity in the document of revelation. T h e manner in which those were perceived or, perhaps more accurately, were created, emerges from examination of the work of halakhists and masoretes. Their primary, and indispensable, instrum ent was analogy. Under that general title was subsumed a number of related but methodologically distinct procedures. The basic distinctions were two: between deductive and inductive establishment of an analogical relation, and between halakhic and masoretic application of the instrument. W hile a general impression that the Arabic term qiyas denotes an exegetical procedure both inductive and halakhic is not altogether unjustified, it is also an over-simplification. An example can be seen in Bergsträsser.s selection of q a l wa-homer as illustrative of qiyas m ethod: ‘da sie nicht wie die anderen die Interpretation eines normativen Textes, sondern die Gewinnung einer neuen Bestimmung aus einer vorhandenen regeln soll’.5 In fact, qiyäs was employed both for extrapolation of fresh principle from existing premisses and for interpretation, as well as for establishment, of the scriptural text, though the appearance of fixed and consistent te m in o lo ^ was admittedly later than the phenomena themselves.. W hat must be the earliest, or almost the earliest, reference to recouree to analogy forhalakhah occurs in the R isä la ß -S ü h ä b a of Ibn Muqaffa.: ‫ﻓﻴﻨﻈﺮ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟ ﺼﺪﻳ ﻖ واﺷﺒﻪ األﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻟ ﻌ ﺪ ل‬

‫ﻓﻴﻪ اﻟﻰ اﺣﻖ اﻟﻐﺮﻳﻘﻴﻦ‬.‫ ؟‬T he locution

‫ ا‬T a tv il, 3 ‫ ل‬٠ ‫ﺀ‬ 47 ‫ﻟﻪ‬Q. 77: 35 vs. 39:31, one of several sets of contradictory verses on that subject, e.g. BM Or. 6333 no. I, K itdb a l - T d i h , 44. 5 A p u d Suyuti. Itqdn iv, 176-7. 4 A p u d Suyütï, Itq d n iii. 89. 5 BergstrSsser, *Anfänge», 81. ٥ S e e T a h a n a w J Iftild h d t, 1 1 8 - : q iya s lughatvt and qiyd s shar'i. 7 R isala ß -S a h ä b a , 127‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 158-6..

P R I N C I P L E S OF EXEG ESIS

‫ﺀل‬

7

à a h al-amrayn bîl-'adl can .n ly refer to *equitable comparison of two cases., in the sense that their respective merits and demerits were to be juxtaposed. In that particular context it was the reasoning of the caliph which was evoked to produce a solution. Possibly contemporary with, but probably later than that passage is the recommendation ascribed to *Umar b. Khattab in his instrecti.ns to Aba MUsa: ‫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻴﻪ ﻗﺮآن وال ﺷ ﺔ‬L*

‫واﻋ ﺮف ا أل ﺷﺒﺎه وا أل ﺷﺎ ل ﺛ ﻢ ض ا أل س ﺑﻌﺪ ذ ﻟ ﻚ‬.‫ ا‬T hat the imperative qis here signified ‘juxtapose’ was recognized by Margoliouth, who related that usage to Talm udic hiqqish.2 O f similar importance in the recommendation are the term s ashbah and amthäl (probably hendiadys), referring to those common elements in (two) propositions which may be juxtaposed (‫ﺀﺀﺀ‬٠‫ﻟﻢ‬٠for the p u ^ o s e of comparison). The explicit condition ‘in those matters for which there is neither qur dn nor surnia* suggests, in my opinion at least, a date later than the corresponding passage in Ibn Muqaffa*, which reads ‘in halakhic dispute (ikhtiläf al-ahkam) either about a m atter transm itted from the ancients (mathür *an alsalaf) . . . or about a case ofarbitrary reasoning (ra*y ajrahu à lu h u *ala7 - 3 .’(‫ ﻫ ﺰ ج‬The use of sh ä a h a fo analogical juxtaposition is attested elsewhere, e.g. in M alik, and in Bukhârî.5 Whatever the linguistic relation of Arabic . ‫ ﻟ ﺔ‬to Hebrew hiqqish, it may seem that shabbaha was equally appropriate as notional equivalent to the Hebrew term. In the contexts adduced above the terms a s h b à \ â â \ s h è b â can hardly refer to juxtaposition based on identiral or even similar phraseology. Introdurtion of a tertium comparationis is at least implicit in Bukhari’s discussion of the legatee’s obligation to fillfil a pil^im age vow derived from a duty to pay the outstanding debts of the deceased.. Employment of Talmudic hiqqish was chararterized by the same latiriide: some but by no means all of the examples assembled by Bacher depend upon a recurring locution or even textual juxtaposition in scriptore.7 Methodological distinction in reasoning by analog w ith and without a third term became evident only with the refinement of technical tem inology, of which a valuable illustration is afforded by the evolution of Talm udic g e z d shawah. T hat that tenn came to, but did not originally or consistently, d e si^ a te analogy based on occurrence of the same word has been often and convincingly demonstrated.» In halakhic argument the principle of ‫ ا‬Margoliouth, .Ornats instaictions', 3 .9 , 3 2 .‫ ؛‬Goldziher, Zafnriten, 9. ‫ﺀ‬Margoliouth, loc. cit. ‫ ؛‬8‫ﺀ‬ ‫ﺀ‬ also Schacht, Origins, 99. ‫ل‬

Rùâk fU٠ $ahàba٠ n

.٦

٠ Mudavnuana ii, 94. cited Schacht, Origins, 117: ‘to assimilate.. ‫ ا‬$ahîh, ‘Kitâb al-I‘ti$Sm٠ , no. 12, cited Goldziher, Zahiriten, 1.7. ٥ Goldziher, loc. cit. 7 Terminologie i, 44-6, ii, 57-8. 8 See Bacher, op. cit., i, 13-16‫ ؛‬Gertner, .Terms', 24-5 ‫ ؛‬Loewe, ‘The “plain" meaning'. 1 6 4 -5 ‫ ؛‬and cf. the Pauline application in Romans 4 9- 3 ‫ذ‬ , which did depend upon an identical word, Gerhardsson, M emory, 287-8.

QURANIC STUD IE S

168

inductive analogy, by which I m ean those varieties involving a te rtiu m c o m p a r a t i à or r a tio , is likely to have antedated insistence that the ana. logue be an identical phrase. It must, on the other hand, be adm itted that contexts held to be analogous could in the first instance have been so related by reference to common phraseology. T h e com plem ents^ principle of deductive a n alo g may be thought to have had its origin in masoretie rather than halakhic argument.* In Muslim juridical literattire the appearance of argument based on inductive analogy preceded by about a century systematic use of the technical tenn ٠ilia for ratio, a notion for which Shafil employed a sl (root/base/basis) and m a n d (meaning/sense).* W ith the development of (fundamentalist) opposition to inductive analogy (called ta 'lil), differentiation crystallized in the antithesis ta 'U l.m a n s û s , the latter term being employed, at least by sertaries of the school, for a n a lo g based on a textual similarity.‫ ؛‬The generic term itself for analogy, qiycis, came increasingly to be modified by such epithets as were found necessaiy to describe the relation to one another of its components, e.g. j a l t y l z ä k i r ( t x p Y i c i i ) , k h a fiy (implicit), and even by phrases which effaced the opposition ta 'lü : m a n s ü s , such as ٠ilia m a m a and qiycis m a 'q ü l a l-n a s s .4 M uch of that proliferation of technical terms reflected (often necessary) steps to circtimscribe the range of analo^cal argument, frequently undisciplined and far-fetched.‫؛‬ Masoretic analogy was, on the other hand and by its very naftire, mostly deductive. T hough designated q iy a s and defined in terms identical to those

zahiri

employed for its halakhic counterpart, e.g. by Ib n Anbârï ‫وال ﺑﺪ ﻟ ﻜ ﻞ‬ ‫ ﺗﺎ س ﻣﻦ ارﺑﻌﺔ اﺷﻂﺀ ؛ ا ﺻ ﻞ وﻧﺮع وﻋﺒﺔ و ﺣ ﻜ ﻢ‬٠‫ ه‬the role of a te r tiu m co m p a ra tio n is (*ilia) was largely formal. T h at consisted often in the articulation of a grammatical ‘rule., not adduced as justification for the analog in question, but rather deduced from its firat and second ten n s and seldom of general prescriptive value. T he restrirted usefulness of that kind of reasoning was enshrined in the Basran dictum cited earlier: ‫ﻓﻤﺠﺮد د ﻋ ﻮ ى ال وﻗﻮم ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬ 7.‫ ﻟ ﻠ ﻴ ﻞ ا ال ﺑﻮﺣﻰ وﺗﻨ ﺰﻳ ﻞ‬The analogical foundations of (all) gram m ar were not thereby shaken, though it is worth noting that those had, in the face of pious objections that the word of God was unique, from time to time to be reasserted:

٠. . ‫ان إﻧ ﻜﺎ راﻟﻨﻴﺎ س ﻟﻰ ا ﺳ ﻮ ال ﺑﻤﺤﻘﻖ الن ا ﻟ ﺌ ﺤ ﻮ ﻛ ﻠ ﻪ ﻗﺈس‬

٠‫ا م‬

‫ د ض‬٠ ‫ا م ا ﻟ ﺌ ﻌ ﻮ و ال يﺀﻟﻢ ا‬

‫ا ﺳﺎ ﺀ‬

‫اﻋﻠﻢ‬

‫ س ا م اﻟ ﺬا س ﻳﻨﺪ‬.‫ ﺀ‬In ite

1 below, pp. 2 .8 -1 2 . » Schacht. Origins, I I .125 ,7 ٠ .‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻟ‬ ‫ ا‬Goldziher. Z ahiriten, 11-12, 4 ‫ال‬, s 6 ٠ 91-3: D lw üd al-^âhirî, ٥ . 270/884. ٠ Cf. TahSnawJ. Iftildh dt) 1192-5‫ ؛‬Tyan. .Méthodologie'. 79-109, esp. 92 ff. 5 For similar tendencies in the application of Talmudic ™‫ﺀآ‬ ‫ﻊ‬ ‫ﺋ‬،, see i^ew e, .T h e “plain” meaning'. 152-4, and Bacher, Terminologie .11^ 11 ,‫؛‬ ٥ Weil. Schulen, 19 n. 3. 7 See atove. III P. JOI. ‫ ا‬Ihn Anbari, cited Weil, Schulen, 29 n. I.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X EGESIS

169

masoretic fo rm grammatical analogy consisted essentially in th e process o f textual restoration/em endation called ultim ately ta q d lf) b u t in earlier stages also m a jd z .] T he m an n er in which potentially a rb itrary applica. tion of m a jd z lta q d ir was restricted by th e form ulation o f ^am m atical norm s illustrates perfectly th e emergence of masoretic a n a l o g and its conformity w ith halakhic standards.* B ut th a t conform ity was always relative, and reflected as m u ch of bew dderm ent at scriptural gram m ar as of piety b efore the word o f God. Both sentim ents fo u n d expression in the com m ent of Ibn M unayyir on Zam akhshari a d Q. 6: 137, th at scriptural d ata w ere to b e ^ v e n preference over the gram m atical norm s .3 Form al p ro test against the use o f a n a lo g in scriptural exegesis is th u s n o t unexpected, b u t an exam ple of such adduced by S u ^ t ï from the specialized m aterial of Q uranic readings and attributed to D ânï (d. 444/ 1053) may b e thought v itiated by the latter.s em ploym ent of a n a lo g ( q iya s ) in h is ow n work.. A type o f an alo ^cal reasoning found in b o th halakhic an d m asoretic exegesis is th a t based upon th e relation betw een general a n d particular statem ents ( k h ä s s : 'ä r m or k k u s ü s '/u m ü m ). M ade theoretirally complex b y dispute ab o u t whether all propositions w ere primarily/exclusively of general or o f particular significance, application of the principle was in practice easy.s A pparently general statem ents in scripture like .1 am th e first of the M u slim s. (Q. 6: 163) and ‘I am th e first of the B elievere'(Q . 7 : 143) were in terp reted by Ib n Qutayba as particular, on th e grounds th a t *first, was o f tem poral value { a l - a w w a l f i z a m a n i k i ).٥ T he a r r im e n t was of course doctrinal (there had been M uslim s an d believers from the vety beginning o f tim e), but th e sam e reasoning could be ap plied to texm al problems, su c h as the often wa ٣ ard treatm en t of nu m b er and concord in scripttiral grammar.? T h e corresponding Talm udic p recept (1k e l a l : p e r a t) was o f sim ilar application.8 M ore often th an not, a n alo g es based on this principle depended u p o n recurtence o f th e same w o rd or phrase. T h u s S u y .tï, in an argum ent for the general applicability o f particular Q uranic veraes, adduced as p ro o f the p ro p h e t’s ju rtap o sitio n of Q. 6 8 2 ‫؛‬

‫ﻳﻠ ﺴ ﻮا وﺑﺎﻧﻬﻢ ﺑﻄﻠﻢ‬

‫ وﻟﻢ‬a n d 3 1 ‫ ؛‬13

‫ﻟﻈﻠﻢ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ‬

‫ وإ ن اﻟ ﺜ ﺮ ك‬T h e i r co m m o n

element, th e w o rd z u b n (wrong/sin), was desipiated n a z t r (analogue): it is that te rm which, together w ith s h à b à , characterized th e m asoretic as I Wansbrough, ‘Periphrastic exegesis., 247, nn. 1-2. » See bel.w , pp. 2I ۶ 24. ‫ ا‬K à h û f ii, 6 ‫(ﺳﻮ‬commentary); see below, pp. 223-4. ٠ Itqân ‫ ؛‬. 2 1 1 ‫ ؛‬Dânî, T a ysir, 2 34.128 ,22 ‫ا‬٠ , etc. in the questien ٠ ‫؛‬phonological assimiIation (idgham), without tertivm eomparationis, for which however cf. Itq a n i, 214-15. and G d Q iii. 154. ‫ ؛‬See Goldziher, Zdhiriten, 1 2 . 4 ‫ ؛‬Schacht, Origins٠ 56, 125. ‫ﺀ‬T aw il, 217. 7 Wansbrough. ‘Periphrastic exegesis., 261 nn. 51-2. » Bacher. Terminologie i, 79-82, 152-3, ii. 83-5. 161-2. ٠ Itqdn i, 86.

QURANIC STUD IES

‫ ل‬7٠

contrasted with the halakhic use of analogy. T he utility of naztr/shabah was m ost apparent in the solution of textual and grammatical problems by recouree to the many techniques of restoration and emendation {majazj t a q ir )١but was of course not restricted to such. An example of its application to what became a point of doctrine may be seen in the standard interpretation of ‫ ﺳ ﻞ‬ül-kitäb in Q. 3 7.1 ‫ ت‬Descriptions like ‘basis’ or ‘nucleus’ (‫ )اﺑ ﻪ‬or ‘that which is common to all divine revelations’ required, as link to the ‘presertfcd tablet’ of Q. 85: 21-2, the coreotoration allegedly found in the two other Quranic occurrences of umm al-kîtâb (13:39 and 43: 4). Now. that kind of analog (nazir) could founder on contexttial dissimilarity, and that such did not go unnoticed may be inferred from the several exceptions to the standard interpretation which identified umm with ‘precept’ and ‘authority’. Those were the muhkamat) in reference to which all exegesis was justified.

3.

H A L A K H I C EXEGESIS

Am ong the several topics treated by MuqStil b. SulaymSn in his Tafsir alihhaäm i'al äya was the obligation to wage war on God’s behalf against H is enemies.‫ ؛‬T hat section consists of eighteen Quranic passages (containing twenty-nine verses) related in the following pattern to six them es:

1. Divinely imposed obligation to fight cqitäl): Q. 2: 216, 22: 3940. 9: 29, 49: 9 1 0

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Reward for fighting on behalf of God: Q. 61: 4, 10-13, 4: 95-6 Observing Gal's covenant(‫)ﻣﻤﻬﻪﺀ‬: Q. 9: III, 4:74, 3: 200 Martyrdom and its reward: Q. 2: 134. 3: 169-70 Divine aid against the enemy: Q. 8: 15-16, 65-6. 3 2 5 :9 ,155 ‫؛‬ Division of spoils: Q. 8: 41, 3: 161-3

A degree of thematic overlapping, eliminated from this diagrammatic exposition, put Q. 3: 200 after 3 :1 6 9 7 0 , and Q. 9: 29 and 49: 9 1 0 at the end of the section, where the introductoty theme was appropriately given final mention. MuqStil’s method can hardly be described as systematic or thorough: omitted were not only juridical questions traditionally associated with the subject of Holy W ar (‫) ىﻗﺔ'ا'ر‬. e.g. safe conduct (amdn), but also a number of Quranic loci pertinent to the themes which he did adduce, e.g. covenantal obligations.^ It may none the less be inferced from his organization of the material that the halakhic them e had priority over the scripttiral evidence marehalled in its support. Selection, and especially assessment, of the latter were to some extent arbitraty. Introduced by a tanzil fom ula, the decree sanctioning war was expressed in terms stressing contrast with its earlier prohibition, chronologically separated by the Hijra ‫ا‬ 3

S e e above, pp. 153. S e e above, I pp. 2 ‫ﺀ‬-‫ل‬٠

٤ See

above, pp. 1 6 3 - 4 ‫ ؛‬M S BM Or. 6333, 93v- 8 r.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X E G E S IS

‫ل‬7 ‫ل‬

‫ اﻟ ﻘ ﺘﺎ ل وآذن ﻟ ﻬ ﻢ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎن ﻧ ﻬﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻋﻨﻪ‬٢‫ ﻓ ﺘ ﺰ ﻛ ﻜ ﺸ ﺐ ﺀ ﺑ ﻢ ﻳ ﻌ ﺘ ﻰ ذ ر ض ﺀﻟ ﻢ‬. ‫ ا‬That same context provided an opportunity to fix tatohid (profession of faith). salat (rittial prayer), and zakät (voluntaty almsgiving: ghayr muwaqqat) as duties imposed upon Muslims during the Meccan (!) period. The graduated and contrasting rewards for those who participated in Holy War (mujâhîdün) and tliose who did not ( q a i k ) were modified by a distinction, not further specified, between non-participants who were excused/ exempted (‫ل‬m a à ü r) and those who were not.* The passage setting out the rewards for m a ^ rd o m was inserted into the framework of a threefold address from God to the recipients of H is favour, culminating in the familiar story of their desire to return to the world in order to be killed anew.3 Verses a ttirin g to divine assistance in battle and, conversely, to its withdrawal, e.g. Q. 8: 65-6 and 3 ‫ل ذ‬55‫ ﺀ‬were related anecdotally to the battles of Badr and Uhud, and Q. 9: 25 of course (textually) to Hunayn.. In the passage describing division of spoils the rule for allocation of the prophet’s fifth after his death was not only enhanced by, b u t also seen to derive from, an amicable interview between .Ä’isha and. .All b. Abi Tälib.5 The style of the whole is unmistakably haggadic, characterized by the serial repetition of explicative elements and by a profusion of anecdote. Both devices sertie to create an atmosphere of narratiO) so far as such was possible in the thematic arrangement of material, and the result may be compared w ith the style of the Sira in the story of JaTar b. Abi Talib and the Najâshï.6 Muqätü’s use of scripttiral shawähid gains significance by juxtaposition with the treatment of Holy W ar in the nearly contemporary Muzoatfa* of Malik b. Anas (d. 179/795).‫ ؟‬There, the relevant section(٠K. Jihad') contains twenty-one chapters related to four them es:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Desire (targhib) to wage Holy War: chapters I , 17-19: Q. 99: 7-8, 3: 200 Conduct in Holy War: chapters 2-5 Dirision of spoils: chapters ^1 3 . 20, 21 : Q. 16: 8, 8: 60 Martyrdom and its reward: chapters 14-16, 21

T he four Quranic passages (containing five veraes) appear here not in the role of organizing principle, bu t as an alm ost superfluous embellishm ent. Q. 99: 7-8 is paraenetic, quite unrelated to the subject, and was adduced by means of a prophetical hadith beginning: Nothing else was revealed to me on that matter (scil. insfilling a desire to wage Holy War) save for the general admonition {àya jantta fààdha) ‘Whoever does an ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 141-2; Tafsir. 93V. 2 Tafsir, 94.٧ ‫ ل‬Tafsir٠ 95 f; see Wensinck. H andbook, 148 .for references in the hadith literaftirej see above, p. 125. ٠ Tafsir, 96r-v. ‫ ا‬Tafsir, 9 7 r. ٥ See above, p p . I 2 ۶ 3 ٠, 133-4‫ ؛‬and I pp. 38-43. , G A S i, 4 5 7 ^ 4 ‫ ؛‬M uivatta', 443-71 : .Kitab al-Jihad..

QU R A N IC STUD IE S

atom ’s weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil shall see it’.. In the same chapter, Q. 3: 200, which recommends perseverance, is rather more appropriate to conditions of battle, and was adduced for the same purpose by Muqätil.2 In chapter 12, on the division of spoils according to men and m ounts, Q. 8:60 is but generally pertinent, while 16: s was employed to support a halakhic subtlety: whether in the allocation of plunder donkeys, mules, pack animals, and nags qualified as m.unts.3 In addition to these four passages, only one of which can be regarded as se e in g a juridical purpose, Malik referred twice to ‘revelation’ as a source of authority: in chapter 10, Ibn 'Abbas refused to specify further the atifäl ‘mentioned by God in His book’ (presumably the hapax legomenon at Q. g: I); and in chapter 14, the prophet supported his own view in a discussion about the rewards of martyrdom by asserting: And thus I was told by Gabriel.* In neither case was a serious appeal made to the text of scripture. Moreover, in chapter 10, where the battle of Hunayn was adduced as precedent, no mention was made of its only Quranic occurrence (9: 25), employed by M uqatil for another purpose.‫ ؛‬In chapter 4, two utterances of Malik on the honouring of safe conduct ( aman) did not include reference to what became the locus classicus (Q. 9: 6).٥ Now, it m ight be argued that neither Q. 9: 25 nor 9: 6 is strictly relevant to the juridical points argued by Malik, but consideration of the entire section on jifidd tends to stren ^h en an impression that the role of scripture as witness to correct procedure was indeed minimal. The tendency towards ‘Islamization' discerned in the Muwaifa' by both Bergsträsser and Schacht can only refer to an effort to sittratc as early as possible the constituents of sunna, not to find cortoboration thereto in the text of scripture.7 T h e earliest evidence of the latter is to be found not in the Muwatta'y but rather in the Tafsir a l - k à ï a t äya attributed to Muqätil. T he only extant recension of that work is ascribed to H udhayl b. H abib (d. after 190/805), responsible also for the only version preserved of M uqätü’s major Tafsir.٥In an introdurtion typically haggadic the essential components (arkan) of Islam were summarized by means of a parable related on the authority of MuqStil himself: ‫؛‬٠‫ﻗﺎ ل ﻳ ﻘ ﺎ ﺗ ﻞ إ ن ﻋ ﻞ ﺟﺴﺮ ﺟﻬﺬ‬ ‫ﺳﺢ ﺗﺘﺎﺣﺪر ﻣﺤﺎﺳﻦ ﻳ ﺴﺎ ل اﻟ ﻌ ﺒ ﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ا وﻟ ﻬ ﻦ ﻋﻦ ا إلﻳﻴﺎ ن ﺑﺎالﻟﻪ ﻋﺰ و ﺟ ﻞ ﻓﺈن ﺟﺎﺑ ﻪ‬

‫ﺗﺎﻣﺎ ﻣ ﺨﻠ ﺼﺎ ﺟﺎ ز اﻟﻰ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ ﻓﻴ ﺴ ﻞ ﻋﻦ اﻟ ﺼﻠ ﻮة وإن ﺟﺎﺑﻪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑ ﺎ ز اﻟﻰ اﻟﺜﺎﻟ ﺚ‬ ‫ﺳ ﻞ ﻋﻦ اﻟ ﺼﺎ م ﺛﻤﺈذ ﺑ ﺎ ﺑ ﻪ‬

‫اﻟﻰ اﻟ ﺮا ح‬

‫ﺗﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺟﺎ ز‬

‫ ﺟﺎﺑ ﻪ‬0 ‫ ا‬٠ ‫ﺳ ﻞ ﻋﻦ اﻟ ﺰ ﻛ ﻮ ة‬

‫ ا‬Muwaffa*, 445• ‫ ا‬M u ic a tta , 446. ‫ذ‬M uw atfa*, 447. ٠ M u w aifa٠ ٠ 455 and 461, res'pectively. 5 M uw afta', 454-5 î cf. Schacht, O rigins, 70-1. 286. ٥ M u w a tfa ٠ ٠ 448-9. 7 Bergstrasser, ‘Anfänge., 7^ 80; Schacht, Origins, 283.14- 311 ,‫؟‬ ‫ ا‬See above, p. ‫ل‬ 44‫ل‬ the isndd of M S BM Or. 6333 (1.) consists o'f the last five links in

the chain of transmission for MS H. Hüsnü 17 (Ï ) .

P R I N C I P L E S ٠ F E XEGE SIS

‫دس ﻓ ﺴ ﻞ‬٧ ‫ﻧﺎﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ز اﻟﻰ اﻟ ﺨﺎ س ﻓ ﺴ ﻞ ﻋﻦ اﻟﺤﺢ ﻓﺈن ﺟﺎﺑ ﻪ ﺗﺎﻣﺎ ﺟﺎز اﻟﻰ ا‬. ‫ ﺗﺎ ؛ ﺟﺎ زاﻟ ﻰ ; ال ع ﺑ ﻞ ﻋﻦ ا ﻳ ﻈ ﻠ ﻢ ! ﻳ ﻴ ﻜ ﻦ‬: ‫ ﺟﺎ‬f r ‫ﻋﻦ ا ﻛ ﺮ ة‬ ‫ ﺛﺎ ﺣ ﺬ ؛ ﺟﺎ زاﻟ ﻰ اﻟﺠﻨﺔ‬The imagery'generated by .the c o n ce p fo f.a purgatorial bridge (here ‫ ة' ر‬and qantara, but elsewhere also sirdt)) separating Û

each soul from its destiny by a series of trials (traditionally seven), was somewhat unstable.* In M uqâtü’s seven stages: (i) Faith, (2) Prayer, (3) Almsgiving, (4) Fasting, (5) Pilgrimage, (6) Lesser P il^ m ag e ( ٠i r ٥(٠(7) Wrongs (;mazdlim), it may be that the sixth exhibits contamination with the preceding one and might well, in the context of the whole work, have been instead Holy W ar{jihdd). In any case, the subsequent literaty history of this cautionary tale was such that its employment here deserves notice.3 The treatise covere in fact rather more than the material of the seven rubrics contained in the introductory parable, though these were ^ven firat places: Faith (fols. r - 2 v), Prayer (fols. 2٧- ‫ ل‬2٧(‫ ا‬Alms^ving (fols. ‫ ل‬3 ٢- 2 ‫ ل‬٧ : including z à â t and s à q a ), Fasting (fols. 2 iv-25r). Pilgrimage (fols. 2‫ ؤ‬٢- 33٧ ‫ ذ‬including hajj but not *umra), Wrongs (fols. 34 ٢“ 4 ‫ل‬٢(‫ ا‬Testam ents (fols. 4 ١(44‫ل‬٢- ٢ Miscellaneous (fols. 45r-49v: including prohibition of usury and of wine). Marriage (fols. 5or-59v), Divorce (fols. 6o ٢_72 ٢), Adultery (fols. 72٢_77٧), Miscellaneous (fols. 77vl 3 r : including thefts, debts, contracts/tr^ti«, sacrifice). Holy War (fols. 93vi 8 r), Miscellaneous (fols. 981103[.. including informal prayer and *contradictions’ in scripture, the latter as an appendix)..

Treatment of each topic confom s with that described above for Holy W ar: concepts which are essentially, or even potentially, juridical are presented as ethical categories, exemplary and hortatory, but rarely prescriptive. The scriptural loci probantes are tentative and experimental: fom ing the principle by which material appeare to have been included, but not that by which its halakhic validity was demonstrated. Muqatil’s ethical categories are mdimentary: haläl w -hardm , glossed by the parable of the purgatorial bridge. T h e antithesis is itself found in scripture, fomiulated negatively (Q. 10, 59, 16: 116), but in the exegetical tradition positively, e.g. as two of the seven (here modes) ٠5 and in the earliest literature as gloss to muhkamdt.6 The five legal categories of classical jurisprudence were later, and do not apprar to represent merely elaboration ‫ ا‬Tafstr, M S BM Or. 6333. Iv. ‫ع‬ Cf. references in Wensinck, H andbook٠ 40‫ ؛‬id. Creeds 232-3.

3 See Asfn Palacios, 91- . 18 .‫ﺀﺀﺀ‬٠٤٠‫ئﺀئ‬, esp. 181, 183 (where according ٠٠ Ibn 'ArabJ the sixth bridge was neither ٠‫ ﺀ ﺳ ﺎ‬HOT jihad, but w u d u : ablutions), and 5 6 8 1 ; Ceralli, Libro della S ca la , 2 .2 -5 (paras. 299 ,(3- 2٠ ‫(و‬paras..2- 530 ‫ة‬ ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ 8 ‫ا (آل‬ ٠ See above, pp. 164-5. ‫ل‬i.e. as two of the seven .types, o f material included in revelation: .^ m issio n . and ‘prohibition.‫ ؛‬cf. Ibn Qutayba, T a 'w ïl, 26‫ ؛‬SuyUti. Itq a n i, 136‫ ؛‬Goldziher, Richtungen,

، See above, pp. 149-51.

QURANIC STUD IE S

of the basic opposition haläl.haränty which did not as such achieve hermeneutical stattis.* As ethical categories halal wa-haräm may be compared to Talmudic ٦^٦٥ and ٦٦٠«, or to the related Pauline TVTTOS SiSaxrjs.z Their value for the earliest Muslim exegesis lay in the facility with which they could be directly and unambi^rously applied to the text of scriptare, a procedure which in its most unsophisticated form can be obserad in MuqStils treatise. Comparison of the author's method with that of MSlik reveals a difference which eventtially became an opposition, namely, Sunna vs. Qur.än as source of law. The dates of Malik, of MuqStil’s ravji Hudhayl b. Habib, and of ShafiJ, with whom the opposed tendencies found polemical expression, make the end of the second/eighth centuty a likely chronologeai focus for the dispute. It was the merit of Schacht to demonstrate the cmcial role of Shâfi'ï in that dispute, though I am most reluctant to accept that the ahl al-küläm ‘had a precureor in the author of the dogmatic treatise ascribed to Hasan Basri», or that the evidence of ‘problems which were based from the beginning on the Koran» proves beyond reasonable doubt existence of the canonical text of revelation.3 On the other hand, Schacht’s description of ‘Koranic legislation.(‫ )ﺀآﺀ‬as ‘the essentially ethical and only incidentally legal body of maxims contained in the Koran» is in my opinion especially felicitous, as is his observation that ‘Even as regards his questions which presuppose the rules given in the Koran, we notice that an^rthing which goes beyond the most perfunctory attention given to the Koranic nom s and the most elementaty conclusions drawn from them, belongs almost invariably to a secondaty stage in the development of doctrine».. In the light of those statements it would not, I think, be unjustified to interpret referenœs to the *Koran» throughout his book as of essentially polemical connotation, employed, as they for the most part are, in contexts describing ShafiTs quarrels with his contemporaries and predecessore.s In Shafil allusions to the Qur’an tend to be perfunctory and usually in tandem (fil~çur*ân ml-sunna), which suggests a fom al hendiadys alluding to a single source of law, scil. revelation (consisting of both Qur’n and Sunna).٥ T he sunna elevated to the stattis of revelation was of couree the prophetiral Sunna, not the ‘living tradition», and one might be parI Cf. Schacht» O rigins, 133: post-Shâfi'ï; id. In tro ä c tio n , 120-3: d esi^ a ted ‘religious qualifications’. * See Gerhardsson, M emory, 3 .3 -5 : for Romans 6: 17, and 309. 313; cf. references in Jastrow. Dictionary, .946 ,349 8‫و‬ ٠ ‫ ا‬Origins, 224-5» esp. 224 n. 2 ‫ ؛‬see above, pp. ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻬ‬ ‫ﺤ‬ ‫ اﻟ‬and I, pp. 44-5. ٠ Origins, 224-7, ‫ل‬ 9 ‫أ‬: examples are found on 193-8, 2 .4 , 2.8, 210-13, 215, 218, 2 5 .1 , 2 7 ^ 8 , 279-80. ‫ ا‬The references to Qur’an, Origins, 2» seem to me to be ambipious. ٥ Schacht, O rigins , 12, 14, 18, 19. e.g. 16: hikma as sunna, 135: ‘the two sources’ (‫ )„ﺋﺒﻪ‬and Shafi.ï’s ‘lip-se^ice to the ovemiling authority of the Koran» which he did not recopiize in practice’‫ ؛‬and cf. Shaft‘!, R i â , 106-46. tr. Semaan, ‘A l-N asikh’, 11-29.

P R INCIPLE S OF E X EG E S IS

175

doned for asking Just what evidence there is for supposing that prior to Shaft‘‫‘ ؛‬revelation» meant exclusively the canonical text ofscripture.i

Opposition to Shaft.‫ ؛‬was heterogeneous and widespread, and an important, but by no means the only, element drew its arguments from the text of scripttire.* Aphoristically fonnulated ar^rm ents like ‘the book explains everything.(e.g. Q. 6 1 2 ,154‫ ؛‬: I I I , 1 6 1 2 ‫ ؛‬89 , ‫ل‬7 ‫)؛‬. o r ‘th scriphire’ and ‘any argument not based on scriptural proof is fallacious», belong to the imagery of polemic and are not likely to have been uttered from positions unchallenged, or unless pleading a special case.3 What seems to be a merely fonnal recognition of scripture as source of authority‫؛‬ ‘what is and/or is not found in Q ur’Sn and Sunna», was chararteristic not only of Shaft.‫ ؛‬b u t also of his prcdecessore, e.g. Abu YUsuf, and the same formula was employed to justify recourse to analogy!. At that stage in the development of halakhah resort to strirtly textual exegesis was rare indeed, e.g. a varia lectio ‫ ﻣﻤﻪ‬Q. 65 6.5 ‫ ؛‬The use ofscripttiral passages like ‘There is a f t n e example (‫ ا ال‬hasana) for you in the Messenger of God» (Q. 3 3 2 1 ‫)؛‬ m ay be understood as nothing m ore than the obveree of ‘scripttire explains eveQrthing» argumentation, both of which exhibit dispute about sources, not merely methods.٥

Now, it has more than once been found convenient to distinpiish between the textual relation of law to scripture and their historical relation to one another. In studies of the Judaic tradition such distinction permitted the assertion that ‘In many cases it is quite certain that the Halakhah antedates the scripttiral proof by which it is propped up’.7 In the Muslim tradition a parallel distinction was often and intentionally obliterated by secondaty and pseudo-historical conclusions of the kind noticed above in Muqatils daring of the divine decrees respectively for Holy War, the Profession of Faith, Rittial Prayer, and Almsgivings Th‫ ظ‬version of the matter, dependent upon a chronology generated by the story of the prophet’s exile (kijra) from Mecca, reflated a working premiss not unlike that expressed in the Talmudic fonnula ١[٠٠0٥ n V roVn.. But while the paideutic function of that and related premisses recommended their e m p lo ie n t in the description of Islamic ori^ns, the haggadic vereion proved ultimately something of an embarrassment. The reactions of the ‫ ا‬Schacht. Origins, 58-81, 149: Shâfi'ï’s ignorance o f that particular tradition equating Sunna and Qur.ân is hardly relevant, save possibly as evidence that connection of both with the prophet required still to be articulated‫ ؛‬see above, I pp. 51-2, II pp. 5^ 7. » Schacht, Origins, 224, 258‫ ؟‬, but also 4 5 2 ‫س‬ : for several significant SOUTC« of .nonQuranic' opposition. 5 See above, p. 162. ٠ Schacht, Origins, 2 8 -3 ., 101-6. „ 9 , 122‫ ؛‬and see above, pp. 166-7. ‫ ﺀ‬Schacht, Origins, 225, 231-2. ٥ Schacht, Origins, 34, 53, 253-4. 7 Strack, Introduction, 10‫ ؛‬cf. also Gerhardsson, M em ory, 83 and the references nn. 1-2. ‫ﺀ‬See above, pp. ‫ل‬ 7‫ﺺ‬ ‫ﻟ‬: Tafsir, MS BM Or. 6333, 93V. ٠ Bacher, Terminologie i, 42, ii, 54-5‫ ؛‬see above, II pp. 5 ^ 7 .

176

QUR ANIC STUDIES

halakhists were summarized by Suyütî in the form of two complementary principles: material of which the regulative content was effertive prior to its revelation (‫ ﺗﺄ ﺧ ﺮ ﻧﺰوﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺣ ﻜ ﻪ‬U) and material revealed prior to its becoming effective ( ‫)ﻣﺎ ﺗﺎﺧﺮ ﺣ ﻜ ﻤ ﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺰوﻟﻪ‬. I T h e halakhic relevance of the latter prinriple was secondary to its historical function in establishing a chronology of revelation, by means of which the a rb itra^ assignment of Quranic verses respectively to Mecca and to M edina might be lent a degree of consistency, if not always of plausibility, ^ u s , the scriptural props for decrees relating to Almsgiving. Fasting. Holy W ar, and Ritual Prayer were regarded as belon^ng to the earliest stages of Muhammad's prophetical experience (jrif. Meccan), though their regulative content (hukm) was not enforced until the Muslim community had been founded at Medina. Revelation ()nuzül) of that sort was described as containing a divine promise (wad)) and may be compared to evidence of the prophetical vaticinatio in the Muhammadan evangelium, e.g. Q. 30: 1-4.2 Rather more important for juridical purposes was the firet principle, according to which ordinances already established and effective were ratified by revelation. Examples adduced by SuyU‫؛‬ï were Ablutions and Almsgiving, both of which were known and practised before their Quranic attestation: ‫ﺳ ﺮ ﻓ ﻬﺎ ﻗ ﺒ ﻞ ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎ وﻟ ﻢ زﻛﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ ( ا ﻟ ﺰ ﻛ ﻮ ة ) ﻗﺮآن‬

‫ﻧﻜﻮن‬

‫ﻓﻘﺪ‬

.‫ﻣ ﺘﻠ ﻮ ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ﻛﺎن اﻟﻮﺿﻮﺀ ﻣﻌﻠ ﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻗ ﺒ ﻞ ذزوال ا آلﻳﺔ ﺛ ﻢ ﻧﺰﻟ ﺖ ﺗ ال و ة اﻟﻘﻮآن ﺗ ﺎ ﻛ ﻴ ﺪ ا ﻟﻪ‬ T h e operative tenns are malum ٠matlüw\ti]àwa> and ta'kid, which appear 3

respecrively to signify: promulgated/published (m ade known), articulated/ articulation in scripture, and corroboration/ratification. Not specified here are the source and mode of legislation prior to articulation in and ratification by scripttire. Of such material the greater quantity by far never was articulated in scripture (‫ة‬٠‫ ﻟﻤﻮؤه‬m a th ) ) but was none the Iras regarded as revelation (wahy ghayr matlüwlwahy m ä y ). T h e distinrtion between Quranic and non-Quranic revelation is one to w hich I have several times alluded: both were the word of God (k a lk a l ) and, hence, of identical authority.. The distinguishing element itself was purely fom al: tildwa is a synonym of qur*än, in the generic sense of recitation.5 The term m ight be used of recitation in prayer, as mode of delivery, and by antonomasia of the canonical revelation. For the halakhists there was and could be no material difference between that which was recited as qur'än and that which was transm itted as sunna of the prophet. Tilatoa was in fact a reference to *status as scripture’, that which with the canonization of revelation could in fact be found in the document, and may not be interpreted as indication ‫ ا‬Itqdn , M l.' 12". i, 104-6. » Itq d n i. 1.6 citing Ibn I.Ii‫؟‬är. » See G d Q i. 258, iii, 144 n. 5.

2 Sec above, pp. 144-5, and II pp. 69-70. ٠ Suyütî. Itqdn i, 127-8, iv, 174.

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S IS

177

of contrasting modes of transmission (oral and written) anaiogous to Rabbinic tem inology.i T he significant parallel between the Judaic and Muslim traditions was insistence upon a single source of legislation, which was divine. Verses of regulative content, but not including the many non-prescriptive passages which might be adduced as loci p rà n te s by the halakhists, make up approximately one.sixth of the Q u ra n . More than half of these are found in sUras 2-9, though material of potentially legal application is scattered throughout the book in no discernible pattern of distribution. Explirit reference to the commandments of G od (1hudüd a llâ ) is rare and unsystematic, e.g. Q. 2: 187 (fasting), 2: 2 2 3 ‫ و‬٠ (divorce), 4: 13-14 (verees 1-12 concern testamentsly matters), 9: 97 (on the treachery of bedouin in contractual obligations), 9: 112 (paraenesis, but related to the foregoing), 58: 4 (verses 1-4: divorce), 65: I (divorce). T he technical t e r a hadd in penal law is thus only symbolically related to the scripttiral hudüd.% More important than hudüd, and not resrticted to penal law, was the hem eneutical concept muhkam, related from the time of MuqStil to the general prescriptions in Q. 6: 151-3 and by Mâturïdï to both Q. 6: 151-3 and 17: 22-39.3 D esi^ation of these two passages as the Quranic ‘Decalogue’. is thus not quite so fanciful as Oberm ann appears to have believed, though a verse-by-verse correspondence is not really justified .5 But if the principle contained in muhkam offered a theoretical point of departure for both halakhic and maroretic exegesis, the finding of specific and usefid juridical material (ihukmlahkdm) in the text of scripture was in practice fmstrated by the absence of an unambiguous and uncontradictoty historical framework. Solutions to the problems resulting from that condition were sought, and for the most part found, by imposing upon the document of revelation a chronological stencil. Historical order could thus be intro, duced into what was essentially lite ra l chaos. To that end the primary device employed was description of the circumstances of revelation ((asbab al-nuzüî) but also mazodfin, awqdt) waqidt, akhbdr). I have touched upon the incidence of its haggadic application, in which concern for the narratio was paramount.‫ ؛‬Elaboration and refinement of the technique were the work of the halakhists. An instmctive ‫ ا‬See Goldziher, Studien ii. 194-202‫ ؛‬in Rabbinic tem inology stress was anyway on mode of delivery rather than of transmission, see Strack, Introduction, 12-20. ‫ع‬ Cf. Schacht. Origins, 126. 191. 208-10. ‫ل‬MuqStil, Tafsxr, MS H. Hiisnii 35‫ل‬ 7‫ ا‬٢ ; see above, p. ‫ل‬ 49 ‫ل‬ Maturidi, MS M edin. 179, „ 6٧ - 77٢ . 4 e.g. Hirschfeld, Researches, 8 1 -2 ‫ ؛‬Speyer, Erzählungen, 3 .5 -1 0 ‫ ؛‬Goitein, .Birth-hour’, in Studies, 132‫ ؛‬Katsch, Judaism, 152. 5 Obermann, *Agada., 38 n. 2 ‫ ؛‬to contend that the only Quranic occurrence of covenant (mithdq) with allusion to B. Israel is Q. 2: 83 is arbitrary and ircelevant: the Mosaic context of both Q. 6: 151-3 and 17: 22-39 is quite clear. ٥ See above, pp. 141-2, and I pp. 38, 41.

178

QU R A N IC S T U D IE S

summary of that process may be read in Suy ٥t‫؛‬.i A considerable portion of the discussion was devoted to the precision of temporal and spatial occasions of revelation, from which emerges an unmistakable impression of arbitrary, if not irresponsible, a ssig n m en t For most of the Ion probantes there adduced, non-regulative and hence halakhically neutral, the epithets ‘Meccan’ and ‘Medinan’ were not even mutually exclusive. For regulative material the contrast specific :general (khäss:'ämm) proved of some value in distinguishing just which of many possible verses represented the first and particular enactment of a decree (awail makhsüsa), e.g. for Holy W ar (qital), dietary laws, prohibition of wine, etc.3 And further differentiation was available. Quranic revelation was alleged to be of two kinds: spontaneous {ibtidaan)) or in response to an event or a query {'aqiba wäqi'a I sual). Application and reference of the latter were not, however, limited to the particular event or quety which had inspired them : the operative distinction was found to lie bettveen particularity of cause ikhusüs al-sabab) and generality of expression (٠umüm al-lafz ).٠ But the arbitrary character even of this ruling becomes apparent in a discussion of the elative al-ütqä in Q. 92: 17 ‘He who is (the) most pious shall be spared’. Desire to restrict that reference to Abu Bakr provoked some very dogmatic obsecrations on the grammatical function of the definite article.‫ ؛‬T he agreed general chronology of revelation (twenty to twenty-five years divided approximately between Mecca and Medina) generated yet a further distinction between ‘cause of’ revelation (sabab) and ‘report about’ revelation (fctahflr): an example was Sura 105 and the stoty of G od’s protection of the Meccan sanctuary.^ Even that technique, which could be applied to all Quranic data on G od’s earlier interventions in histoty, was suæeptible of modification: the reported miracle m ust be seen to have a cause, which was G od’s bestowal of His word upon His prophet, whether or not the latter was identified. T he khabar was thus also a sabab.i Moreover, a single verse might have had several causes/occasions of revelation, e.g. both Q. 9: 113 and 16:126 could each be traced to three separate events, well spaced in the career of Muhamm‫ ؛‬d and hence both Meccan and M edinan: ‫ﺳ ﻤ ﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ‬

‫ ﻫ ﺬ ه ا أل ﺣﺎدﻳ ﺚ ﺑﺘ ﻌ ﺪ د اﻟﻨﺰول‬. Recognition of that possibility was natUally exploited to explain the phenomenon of repetition (‫؛‬takrär) in the document of revelation.» Now, it ought to be clear from this sum m aty of methods pertinent to ‫ ا‬Itqan, artwa 1-15: i. 22-115, drawing extensively upon the classical work of Wahid‫؛‬ (d. 468/1.76). G A L i, 411-12. Suppl. I, 73٠ ‫ل‬ ‫ﺀ‬ K ita b Asbab al-m iziil. * Itqan, anw a 1-8: i. 22-81‫ ؛‬see atove, pp. 126-7. ‫ ا‬Itqan i. 74-6. 4 Itqan i, 82, 85. 5 Itqan .87 «‫؛‬ ٥ Itqan i. 9 0 ‫ ؛‬see above, I pp. 42-3. 7 See .Abd al-Jabba, T an zih a l-Q u r ’ân, 480‫ ؛‬and above. II pp. 73-4. 8 Itqan i, 95-6, 1.2-3.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X EG E S IS

Quranic chronology that the historical value of such material is restricted. A single criterion, articulated by Wahidl, found general acceptance: valid reports about the occasions of revelation m ust be based upon eye-witness accounts.‫ ؛‬W ith that statement the entire subject was subsumed under the general rubric Tradition, and its expression can be assessed only by reference to the standards generally obtaining for evaluation of hadith literaftire. Production ofthat literature rested upon two convictions: that the reliability ( thiqa) of a witness could be known, and that for such continuity of transmission {isnad) could be established. T h e manner in which that was accomplished in the field of legal traditions was described by Schacht.» T h at so-railed ‘historical, traditions came into existence in precisely the same way as legal ones is clear from examples like those pertaining to the marriage of the prophet to Maymöna.3 It seems at least doubthil whether for exegetical (‫؛‬tafsir) traditions a different origin can be claimed. T h at these exhibited a reaction to the undisciplined employment of subjective criteria in scriptural interpretation was proposed by Goldziher.. From a purely fomial point of view there is something to be said for that proposal, but from the point of view of substance, it m ay be obse^ed that exegesis provided with formal isnää can rarely be distinguished from that without. T h e supplying of isnads, whether traced to the prophet, to his companions, or to their successora, may be underetood as an exclusively formal innovation and rannot be dated m uch before 200/815. T h at ShafiTs stringent standards w ith regard to prophetical h a i h s were not applied in the fields of histoty and exegesis is an impression derived from a wholly artificial classification of their contents. The substance of histoty, of exegesis, and of law was identical: its d e ^ e e of attestation depended upon the particular use being made of it. And the quality of isnad (marfti) muttasil, mursaly maqttfy etc.), too. varied for the same material according to its employment.‫ ؛‬The frequently adduced view that the text of revelation was easily underatood by those who had witnessed its first utterance, as well as by their immediate successore, but by later generations could not be, is in my opinion not merely ingenuous, b u t belied by the many stories of early efforts towards the interpretation of scripture associated with the figures of *Umar b. Khattab and *Abdallah b. *Abbas. W hatever the reasons for production of those stories, it seems hardly possible that at the beginning of the third/ninthcenttity the Muslim community had to be reminded of what it had once known. Tafsir traditions, like traditions in evety other field, reflect a single impulse: to demonstrate the Hijazi origins of Islam. The earliest extant work on the circumstances of the Quranic revelation 1 Apud Suyûtî, Itqdn i, 89. 2 Origins, 163-75. ‫د‬Origins, 1 3 8 -4 ., 153. ٠ Richtungen, ( n - y . tafsirm anqul i‫؛‬b il- ٠ ilm ١ as a‫ ؟‬a\t\a ١ tafsir b il-ra y. 5 Pace Horst. ‘Zur Überlieferung., 3 .5 - 7 ‫ ؛‬and cf. Birkeland, M uslim Opposition٠ 28-42.

180

QUR ANIC S T U U I E S

is ascribed t . Ibn ShihSb Zuhri (d. 124/742) and entitled Tanzil alQur'än.i T b e ascription is arbitrary, but need not mislead: th e recension is that of the Süfï exegete Sulaml (d. 412/1.21)2 and in complete accord with the later accepted tradition on the chronological order of suras, shorn of the subtleties appropriate to scholastic discussion of the subject, and even of recognition th at a single sura might contain material of b o th Meccan and Medinan origin. On that particular point the author was revealingly explicit: 3.‫ ﻛ ﻎ ﻛ ﺒ ﺖ ﺑ ﻬ ﻜ ﺔ‬٠‫ وﻛﺎ ن وذا ﻧﺰﻟ ﺖ ﻣﺮوة ب‬The num ber of suras a s s i e d to Mecca is 85 and to Medina 29,4 and the internal order corcesponds to th at of SuyUti’s third list.5 For the history of Quranic exegesis this bald statement of fact circulated in the name of Zuhrl is quite without value. T h e isnad is an۴ ay defective and the last authority but Zuhrl, one Walld b. Muhammad Muqarl, was considered matrük al-haäh.t More im portant for the study of both tafsir traditions and asbab al-nuznl is the ‘K itab Tafsir’, included as-chapter 54 in the Sahth of Muslim (d. 261/875).? T h at vety brief freatise consists entirely of witness to the occasions of revelation for sixteen Quranic verses, traced to the authority of *Ä.isha, *Umar, Abu Hurayra, and Ibn *Abbas, with general mention of suras 8, 9, 59. and of the prohibition of wine. Reference to abrogation (naskh), the only reason for halakhic interest in the chronological order of revelation, is explicit: Ib n *Abbas declared that Q. 4: 93 ‫و س ﻳﻘﺘ ﻞ ﻣﺆﻣﺘﺄ‬

‫ﺟﻬﺘﻢ‬

‫ د أ ﻓﺠﺰاؤه‬٠‫ ﺋ ﻊ‬was the last to have been revealed and had thus not

heen a b ro g ated : ‫ﻟ ﺘﺪ اﻧ ﺰﻟ ﺖ آ ﺧ ﺮ ﻣ ﺎ !ﻧﺰ ل ﺛ ﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺳﺨﻬﺎ ﺷﻰﺀ‬.‫ و‬In a discussion of whether Q. 5: 3 (dietary laws) had been revealed about the Jews, *Umar asserted his authority on the grounds th at he knew all of the asbab alnuzül. 9 Ib n Mas.öd dated the revelation of Q. 57: 16 by reference to his own conversion four years earlier.!. M uslim ’s material contains the premisses b u t not the arguments of halakhic exegesis: the chapter ‫ف‬ fragmentary and badly organized, and may owe its vety existence to the author’s recognition that in a collection of traditions a few on the subject of scriptural exegesis would not be out of place. From that admittedly conjectural reading of the evidence one m ight conclude th a t for traditionists, even after the canonical text of revelation had been established, the Qur’an was merely one topic among many requiring th e formal embel* G A S i. 283. » G A S i, 671-4. 3 Zuhri, T a m il al-Qur'än, 32. ٠ Duplication of Siira 7 and absence of S ura 33, copyist’s errors, are remarked by the editor, 3 ٠ n. I . ‫ ا‬Itqdn i, 26-7; reproduced G d Q i, 59-60. ٠ Cf. GoJdzibcr. Studien ii, 144. 7 G A S i, 13 ^ 4 3 ‫ ؛‬$ahih viii, 237-46. ٠ Muslim, Sahih viii, 241 i adduced by SuyUtf, Itq d n i, 8٠ , among a number of equally well-attested candidates for that honour. ٠ Muslim, 238. ٠ ٠ Muslim, 243.

P R IN C IP LE S OF E X EG E S IS

lishment of hadith. The hypothesis might be thought corroborated by the treatment of tafsir in other collections of traditions. In the Sahth of Bukhari (d. 256/870) the ‘Kitab Tafsir. (chapter 65) occupies a prom inent ۴ sition.i In the corpus of 475 traditions evety Quranic süra received some attention from the author, if only in the form of a simple lexical identification on the authority of Mujahid or Ib n *Abbas, of one of the latter’s disciplw. or occasionally without citation of any authority at all.2 Bukhari’s lexicology could be described either as decidedly primitive or as presuppœing a long tradition in the couree of which Standard solutions to major problems had crystallized and no longer required authentication. Whichever of the alternatives is more likely, the presence of such material in a collertion assembled to demonstrate the importance of traditional authority do« not inspire confidence^ A popular etymology for the name Gabriel, adduced from *Ikrima ad Q. 2: 97, deserves notice:

‫ ﺟﺒﺬ وﻣﻴ ﻚ وﺳﺮاف ﺀﺑ ﺬ إﻳ ﻞ اﻟﻠﻪ‬.. T his was followed by a tradition from Anas on the .rabbinical test ofprophethood’, here put to Muhammad by *Abdallah b. Saläm.5 Q. 2: 31 berame a peg for asserting, by means of a Purgatory motif, the rank in heaven of Muhammad above all other prophets.^ A d Q. 2 1 3 6 ‫ ؛‬A b . Hurayra was cited for the prophet’s prescription on the proper conduct of Muslims towards Jews.7 A d Q. 2: 183 a hadith from *Abdallah b. *Umar announced the substitution of Ramadan for the earlier pagan Arab fast (sic) of *AshUrä’.8 Ad Q. 17: 85 definition of the Spirit (rüh) was related to the Jews.. T he entire passage on Surat aUKahf was devoted to the story of Müsä and Khidr (Q. 18: 6^82), w ith special concern for the identity of MösS.1. Bukhari’s exegetical method was, in brief, predominantly haggadic, and the absence of anecdotal material for such popular passag« a sQ .3 0 :1-4,85: 21-2,and Süra 105,must be regarded as fortiitous. T h e essential difference between Bukhari and the haggadists is the insertion of appropriate isndds, many of which, however, were carried no farther than to a s u - r (e.g. Mujahid). The occasional intrtision of an element specifically halakhic or masoretic may be noted: e.g. whether the ‘compensation clause’ with regard to fasting in Q. 2: 1 8 4 (fidya ta'äm miskin) had or had not been abrogated‫ ؛‬whether the waiting period ('idda) for divorced and/or widowed women was r e fla te d by Q. 2: 234 or by 2: 232‫ ؛‬the relative merits of the variants a n y a tta m a f and alldyattawwaf in Q. 2: 158‫ ؛‬explanation of lakinna in Q. 18: 38 as n and) produced by acom binationofelisi٠n(^^A ^andassim ilation(,'٠ Ä5 w).ii Observations ‫ ا‬G A S i, 1 1 5 -3 4 ‫ ؛‬ed. .390- 193 ,‫؛؛؛‬ ‫ ا‬See W ow , pp. 2 9 ‫ا‬6- ‫ل‬ ٠ * See aWve, pp. 122-6. 7 Bukhari, 197. ٠ Bukhari, 2 7 5 ‫ ؛‬sec above, pp. 125. 128. ٠ ٠ Bukhari, 2 .2 , 2 .7 , 20., 276, respectively.

‫ ا‬Cf. BirkeJand, The L o rd guideth, 40. 4 Bukhari, ?ahih iii, 196. ٠ Bukhari, 194-5‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 172-3. ‫ ا‬Bukhari, 2.1-2 (variant: Quraysh). ‫ا‬٠ Bukhari, 277-82‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 128.

‫ل‬8‫ﺀ‬

QURANIC S T U D IE S

on the occasions of revelation are circumstantial only» and never explicit as in Muslim's Sahih. What m ust be regarded as the raison d*être of tafsir traditions in the major collections was m ost clearly formulated in the *Kitab Tafsir’ of T im idhi (d. 279/892). as chapter 44 of his Sahih.i While the material itself is haggadic and for the most p art identical to that adduced by Bukhari, the chains of transmission are not only more complete, but each provided with comment on its degree of acceptability (e.g. sahih, hasan, gharib). Explicit reference to the purpose of that exercise was set out in an introductory para۴ ph, in which is stressed the danger of subjective exegesis (tafsir bü-ra'y) and. convereely, the necessity of authoritative tradition (film).2 Coverage of the text of scripture is not complete (unlike Bukhari), though adequate up to Sura 75 (a total of ^ e n ty -o n e sUras was not provided with comment). For verses containing a crux interpretum٠ e.g. Q. 3: 7, alternative isnads were adduced .3 Verses traditionally em . ployed as pegs for anecdote, like Q. 17: I , 18: 60-82, 30: 1-4, were treated as in Bukhari, perhaps even more generously.« References to the asbdb alnuzQlaie, as in the latter, merely implicit and circumstantial. Allusion to the instrument of abrogation is explicit for the qibla controversy, e.g. Q. 2:115 and 134.5 O f texttial exegesis there is virtually none, save for the variants ٥« and alla ad Q. 2: 158.5 Lexical explanation resem ble that of Bukhari, but is sporadic and not, as in the latter, adduced in concentration at the beginnings of sUras. Chapters on thawäb al-Qur'ân and qiradt in Tirm idhi (nos. 42, 43), like the chapter on fadä*u al-Qurän in Bukhari (no. 66), attest to a view of scriptural studies somewhat more sophisticated than that displayed by their contemporaty Muslim, but at the same time exhibit rather more of cliche and stereotype forniulation. The rhetorical analysis of hadith literattire, as contrasted with its exploitation for legal, historical, and sociological purposes, has attracted very little scholarly attention. Two studies in particular deserve mention: Vajda, *Juifs et Musulmans selon le hadïî’ (1937)., and Stetter, Topoi und Schemata im # 0 .(1 9 6 5 ) . T he most significant feature of that literattire, signalled by both Vajda and Stetter, is its schematic formulation. Employment of m uch circumstantial and *naturalistic’ detail, judged also by Schacht as indicative of firtive situations,? tends to fall into recognizable and even predictable patterns. For example, emphasis upon the pastoral simplicity of jahiliyya and early Islam, accompanied by unsubtle hum our at the expense of bedouin mannere, attention to every aspect of the prophet’s pereonality, and recu len t use of expressions implying intimate i, 1 5 4 1 ‫ ؛‬٠٥. xi, 6 7 -x ii. 264. T im iid h l, xi, ‫ﻟﻞ‬4‫ ال‬٠‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 5 3 ‫ل‬4 ‫و‬- ٠ xi, 290-3, xii, 2 - 1 3 , 6 ^ 7 2 , resp ectively. 5 Tirm idhi, xi, 79-88, esp. 80. ‫ و‬Schacht, O rig in s ٠156. ‫ ا‬GAS

2 T irm id h i. S a h ih xi, 6 7 -8 .

5

٠Tirm idhi,

٥ Tirm idhi, xi, 90.

P R IN C IP LE S O F EXEGESIS

‫ل‬8‫ل‬

‫ﻛﺄﻟﻰ‬

recollecti.n (e.g. ‫وﻧﻈﺮ‬ and ‫ ا ﻳ ﺨ ﺎ ل اﻧﻰ‬٠‫ )ؤي‬are of such re ^ la rity as to suggest a common pool of narcative ingredients.» T hat circumstantial description might also contain elements of halakhic value, in particular references (explicit and implicit) to time and place, must be acknowledged. But the very ubiquity of both motif and formula is significant. The hadith literature reflects bothfonn and substance not only of juridical concern with the actions and utterances of the prophet of Islam and with the contents of the Quranic revelation, b u t also of its haggadic (narcative and historical) expression in stray maghäziy and ayyäm. T he presence of isnads as halakhic embellishment is, from the point of view of literaty criticism, a superfluity. The substance of Bukhari, Muslim, and Tinnidhi is that of Muqatil, Ibn Ishaq, Sufyan, and Kalbi. It is also that of the entire exegetical tradition, excluding the masoretic literamre, up to and including SuyU‫؟‬ï. A single dlustration in place of m any: a flagrant tendency discerned by Vajda in the hadith literature was the transposition of anti-Jewish elements of Islamic prescription into the category of superseded jahili custom. One example was designation of .Ashörä’ not as a Jewish, but as an ancient Arabian practice.* Othere were abolition of tlie custom of public lamentation at funeral processions and of abstention from se rial intercouree during menstmation, both identified with pagan Arab practice.‫ ؛‬The incidence in haggadic exegesis of that kind of transposition, by which the roles of Arabian Jewry and Quraysh were exchanged or combined or otherwise blended, has been described.. The ultimate value of the technique was doctrinal ‫ ذ‬its origin, however, was polemic, not quite effaced from the memoty of the Muslim community even in the third/ninth century. T he several ways in which the halakhists employed tafsir traditions may be seen in three kinds of exegetical literature: ahkdm (prescription), ikhtilafidispute), and naskh (abrogation). While the scope of each extended beyond exclusively midrashic exploitation of the text of scripture, it is with that procedure in particular that I am concerned. T he extrapolation of law from revelation was, in the Muslim community as in others organized on similar theocratic principles, a tortuous and interminable process.‫ ؛‬Exceptions to the accord and harmony symbolized in the notion of consensus secured recognition in the complementary notion of pem itted areas of dispute. For very few problems was there ever a final solution or even a set of ap-ced scripmral references. Prescriptions relating to Holy War are a case in point. For Ja??a? the obligation to fight in the way of God was derived ٠ Stetter, Topoi und Schem ata, 4-34. ‫ﺀ‬Vajda. ‘Juifs et Musulmans., 122.3 ‫ ت‬Bukhârï, Çahîh iii, 2 .1 - 2 ‫ ؛‬see ab.ve, p. 181. 3

Vajda. ‘Juifs et Musulmans.. 78 n. I and 69-75, respectively.

4 See ab.ve, P P . 122-7, and II P P . 62-3, 7 . 3 . 5 e.g. Rabin» Qumran, 82-94, 95-111.

‫ل‬8‫ب‬

Q U R A N IC S T U D IE S

n .t from Q. 2: 216 (as for Muqatil) but from Q. 2: 19. ‫وﻗﺎﺗﻠﻮا ق ﺳﺐﺀل‬ ‫ اﻟﻠﻪ اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﻳ ﻘﺎﺗﻠ ﻮ ﻧ ﻜ ﻢ وال ﺗ ﻌﺘ ﺪ وا إ ة اﻟﻠﻪ ال ﻳ ﺤ ﺐ ا ﺳ ﺪ ﻳ ﻦ‬in which was stressed the exclusively defensive character of combat imposed upon Muslims.* Precluded by its terms were thus non-combatants, such as women, children, and hermits/monks {ëbân/ashâb ül-sawämi). A different qualification was that made b e ^ e e n infidels (mushnkün) and scriptuaries ( ٥٨; ‫ ;ه‬٠٨‫ا‬٠‫ ) ة ى‬as liable, by divine decree, to attack by believere. Of the four verees (Q. 2: ‫ ﻟﻮل‬and 4: 91, 4: 89 and 9: 5) adduced to support the profession from defensive to offensive warfare and from selected targets to a general declaration of hostility to non-Muslims. . . 9 : 5 became the scriptural prop of a formulation d e sife d to cover any and all situations which m ight arise bertveen the Muslim community and its enemies, and included lingering compunctions about clauses attaching to the sacred m onths ( a s k hurum) and the sanctuaty at Mecca (masjid hararn). Called in the exegctical tradition the sword-verse (ayat al-sayf), Q. 9 5 ‫؛‬ ‫ؤإذا ا ﻧ ﺎ خ ا ال ﺻ ﺮاﻟ ﺤ ﺮ م ﻓﺎﻗﺘﻠﻮا ا ﻟ ﺠ ﺮ ﻛ ﻦ ﺣﻴ ﺚ و ﺟ ﺪ ﺗ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ و ﺧ ﺬ و ﺑ ﻢ وا ﺣ ﻌ ﺮ و ﻫ ﻢ‬

‫واﻗﻌﺪ وا ﻟﻬﻢ ﻛ ﻞ ﻣ ﺮ ﻣ ﺪ ﻓﺈن ﺗﺎﺑﻮا وأﻗﺎﻣﻮا اﻟ ﺼﻠﻮة و ﺀاﺗ ﻮا اﻟﺮﻛﻮة ﺳﻠ ﻮ ا ﺳ ﻠ ﻬ ﻢ إ ن‬ ‫ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻏﻔﻮو و ﺣﻴﻢ‬achieved a quite extraordinary states in the elaboration of Islamic jurispradence, as the alleged abrogant of 124 Quranic verses.*These included all passages in scripture which could be interpreted as recommending lenienty ($a/h wa-'afw\ cf. Q. 2 1 3 :5 ,1 .9 ‫ )؛‬towards unbelieve The range and variety of such were equally extraordinary, at least as set out in what became the classical work on Quranic abrogation, the Kitab aî-nâsikh wal-mansM of Hibatallah (d. 4 3 .(9‫ل‬0‫ال‬0 ‫ ل‬T he ubiquity of th abrogant ayat al-sayf in that treatise suggests that it was not the law of Holy W ar at all, but the presence of legislative repeal in the text of scriptere which was being argued.« But Hibatallah represented the final stage of halakhic exegesis, in which general conclusions could be advanced without authorities and shorn of scholastic justification. A century earlier Nahhas (d. 338/950)5 had observed that ayat al-sayf, at least with regard to the treatment of prisonere o f war, was itself abrogated by Q. 47: 4, the view of Hasan Basri and 0there.٥ Some, on the other hand, held that the opposite was true: the leniency of Q. 47: 4 had been abrogated by Q. 9: 5. Nahhas himself a rfie d that neither had been repealed, that both vers« were muhkamät (‫لﺀ‬٠‫ﺀ‬, cf. Q. 22 52 ‫ )ذ‬since they were not mutually exclusive, and that decision on the treatm ent of prisoners lay with the imam. That view was supported by several traditions on the action of the prophet during the ‫ ا‬A h kdm al-Q ur'ân 63- 256 ,‫ ؛‬: .Bsb FanJ aj-jih ad j see above, p. 1 7 .. 2 e.g. Ibn *Arabl, apud S u ^ ١ ï, Itqdn 5 .69 ‫؛؛؛‬٠ G A S .8- 47 ‫؛‬٠ ٠ Hibatallah. K itab a l - ä k h w a l - m a n s l , 251 .38 .37 ‫و‬ ٠ , and passim , esp. 53-88 for suras 11-54, most of which could boast only one verse abrogated‫ ؛‬see below, pp. 196-7. ‫ ا‬G A S i. 49. ٥ NahhSs, K itd b aî-nâsikh wal-mansükh, 165-6.

P R I N C I P L E S OF EX EG E S IS

185

conquest of Mecca. M uch later Ibn 'Arab‫؛‬, in whose discussion the general status of dyat alsayfdS abrogant attributed to him by Suyütï is in fact not found, employed the instrument of khdssfdmm to demonstrate that although the specific reference of Q. 9: 5 was to pagan Arab idolaters ( 'ä d lil-wathan), the verse was generally valid for all who rejerted G od’s message, whether during the sacred m onths or within the Meccan sanetuaty.i The employment of tafsir traditions in the ahkdm literature was not limited to precision of juridical niceties. For Q. 3: 200 ‫اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ آ ﻣﻨ ﻮا‬

‫ﻳﺎﻳﻬﺎ‬

‫اﺻﺒﺮوا وﺻﺎﺑﺮوا وراﺑﻄﻮا واﺗﻘﻮا اﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ ﻌ ﻠ ﻜ ﻢ ﺗﻔﻠ ﺤﻮ ن‬, adduced by both M uqätil and Malik in the spirit of general paraenesis, Jassas adduced two utterances of the prophet equating ribdt for the sake of God with the virtue deriving from fasting and prayer.* But the primary purpose of such traditions was halakhic: to render explirit that which was seldom more than implicit in the text of scripture, by establishing a specific historical context for the revelation in question. In the much-disputed problem of reference in Q. 5: 33 ‫ ورﺳﻮﻟﻪ و ﺳ ﻌ ﻮ ن ﻓﻰ‬.‫ اﻟﻠﻪ‬.‫ﺟﺰاﺀ اﻟ ﻨﻴ ﺊ ﻳﺤﺎرﺑﻮن‬

‫إﻧﻤﺎ‬

‫آالرض ﻓﺴﺎدا أن ﻳﺜﻠ ﻮا آو ﻳﻌﺬﺑ ﻮا أو ﺳﻄﻊ أﻳﺪﻳ ﻬﻢ واوﺟﻠﻬﻢ ﻣ ﻦ ﺧ ال ف أو‬ ‫ﻳﻨﻔﻮا ﻣ ﻦ األرض ذﻟ ﻚ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺧﺰى ﻓﻰ ا ﻟ ﺪ ة وﻟﻬﻢ ﻓﻰ اآلﺧﺮ؛ ﻋﻨﺎ ب ﻋ ﻈﻴﻢ‬ Jassas provided two hadiths : one from Ibn 'Abbas applying the verse to polytheists (mushrikün)) and another from Ibn .Um ar identifying ‘those hostile to God and His prophet, as the clan of B. 'Urayna (٠U ra n i^ n ).3 Summing up the evidence (there are several additional hadiths from Ibn ‘Abbas, conflicting and w ith different isndds) as offering a choice between poljttheists and apostates, Jassas found himself constrained to reject both on the grounds that whatever the occasion of the revelation, its semantic content was clear: reference was to all transgressore of G od’s law. T he principle thus enunciated was that juridical application could not be based upon an ‘occasion’ (prœum ably a historical accident) but only upon the general validity of the scriptural expression: ‫ال ن ال ﺣﻜﻢ ﻟ ﺒ ﺐ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ وإﻧﻤﺎ‬

‫ﻟﻌﻤﻮم اﻟﻠﻐﻆ‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‬

‫اﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬.. T he manner in which this

kind of arrim ent cut

across earlier exegetical method based on the chronolo^cal arrangement of s ^ p tu r e emerges from a comparison of Ja??a? with Abu 'Ubayd, who reported that the incident involving B. .Urayna had taken place in the early yeare of Islam (‫ م‬atowal al-isldm) before the revelation of these prescriptions ( q â ٥« tunazzal al-hudnd), and that according to Ibn *AbbSs ( (‫ا‬ ‫ ا‬Ibn Arabj, Ahkdm al~Q ur'än 70-369 ,‫؛‬. * A h kdm al-Q ur'än ii. 45: the metaphorical extension of that concept, from ribdt a lk h a y l to ribdt al-nafs, generated some interesting pseudo-histo^ in medieval North

Africa, see Noreis, ‘Origins of the Almoravid movement., 255-68, esp. 263-5. ‫ ا‬A h kdm al-Q ur'än ii, 406-8.

4 ‫ﻞ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ‫؟‬ ‫؟‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ا ؟‬loc. cit.î see above, p. 178.

Q U RANIC S T U D IE S

the contents ofQ . 5:33 left the precise punishment of transgressor to the discretion of thei'mW.ï Now, the chronological relationship between that particular event and the revelation repealing the prophetical Surma based upon it is anything but obvious. Undated in the Sira and fixed at ShawwSl 6/February-M arch 628 by Wâqidî, the affair of B. 'Urayna a p p ea r to have been one of several movable feasts in the early Islamic calendar.* Its assignment to the earliest period of prophetical activity by Abu 'Ubayd and to a much later date by w aqidi was evidence of concern not w ith its historical truth, b u t with its juridical value. The implications of Q. 5: 33 were never unanimously clarified, though that could hardly have been for want of effort. As an appendix to the sertions onjihdd and jizya in his Ikhtiläfal-fuqahayT abari adduced in his treatatent of the subjert a degree of consensus on identification of the muharib as sinner (fdsiq) rather than as infidel (ikâfir), b u t added that the protected non-Muslim (dhimtnt) was also liable to the ahkäm al-muhânbïn> since transgression was tantamount to violation of a treaty. 3 It was filrther stipulated that the affair of B. .Urayna had taken place before revelation of Q. 5: 33, and that that was juridically relevant. The sophisticated lo^c of Jassas’s argum ent had presumably not yet been form ulated.. The ahkäm al-muhàrïbîn are the subject also of a short treatise tentatively, but incorrectly, ascribed to *Ata Khurasäni (d. 136/757).‫ ؟‬In fact the work, contained in seven folios inserted at the beginning of M S Ahm et III, 3 ‫ل‬0 ,‫ه‬ represents a post-Tabari stage of ikhtilâf. Considerable attention was devoted to the circumstances in which Q. 5: 33-4 had been revealed, and a series of traditions adduced, claiming ‘some group of ahl ül-kitäb who had broken their covenant with the prophet, (sic), of B. Qurayza when they had planned to assassinate the prophet, or (unspecified) infidels, or finally, B. ٠Urayna.7 W hether the scriptural passage could be held to have abrogated the prophetical sunna explicit in the B. *Urayna tradition depended upon the identification of muharib (enemy) w ith mwrtadd (apostate), an equation for which corroboration m ight be found in the reference to tawba (contrition) in Q. 5: 34. F or the author of that tteatise consensus doctorum seemed to support the identification, and the remainder of the text is ‫ ا‬See above, p. 150: K itdb û l - É i k h wal-mansUkh, MS Ahmet III, 143, 94v-6 r. 2 Cf. Jones, ‘Chronology‘, ٥ 53, 279. ‫ل‬Tabari, K itd b Ikhtildf al-fuqaha , 2 4 2 9 : an example of a n a lo g by ta'lïl, see above,

pp. 167-8. ٠ That the proper concern of the lawgiver was with general principles rather than with specific circumstances (inferable, after all. by a n a lo . and other h em eu tic devices), had been articulated in both Hellenistic and Rabbinic legal literature, see Daube, ‘Rabbinic methods., 247-51. 5 G A S i, 33 ‫ ؛‬MS Ahmet III, 3 1 ., 1-7. ٥ One o f many copi« of Qâçlî 'Iyad, K itd b a l-S h i/â ': no. 2733 in Karatay, Topkapi Sarayi M iiz e s i Kiitiiphanesi A r a p fa Y a z m d a r K a ta lo g u , ii. under which entry this insertion w ith separate pagination is not mentioned. 7 MS A hm et III, 31., 2r-v.

P R IN C IPL E S OF EXEGESIS

187

devoted to defining transgression of the divine Jaw 0kudad a l l ) as consisting primarily in m urder (qatl)) theft (saraqa)} and banditry (qaf allariq). Two technical terms employed in Ahmet III. 310, and elsewhere in the ahkämjikhtiläf literattire(s), deserve notice. In discussion of the punishment w hich could be imposed upon the muhariby a problem was created by the options set out in Q. 5: 33 : he was to be killed, or crucified, or have his hands and feet severed, or be banished. The choice might be left to the discretion of the imam or based upon a precise definition of the cu lp rits offence. T abari was stated to have preferred (murajjih) the latter, and that view was preferable (räjih) since it confom ed to the text of scripture (hum nass al~äya).\ On the manner of cracifixion where such was deemed appropriate, the view of Shafil was that the offender should be crucified alive and then killed on the CTOSS, that being explicit in scripture (huwa yl-azhar min al-âya) which recommended an exemplary punishment. ‫ﺀ‬ Now, in neither instance does connection of räjih or azhar with the text of the verse in question indicate an obvious interpretation derived from the .plain m eaning’ of scripture.3 From the syntax of 0 . 5 : 33 it was not quite possible to insist that the series of proposed punishments exhibited gradation according to the nattjre of the offence, or that the notion of ‘exemplary’ punishment (matkula) was dominant. Limitation or exclusion of the imäm's discretion and interpretation of ‫( اةى'و‬recompense) as deterrent reflert substantial and sophisticated additions to the wording of scripttire, and may be traced to the story of the prophet’s artion in the affair of B. *Urayna. Employment of the term azhar (or zdhir) was emotive, of räjih (or arjahlmarjuh) subjertive or at best conjectural.. Halakhic use of tarjih for *preference of one of several options’ was a process justifiable only by resort to the abiding distinction bettveen muhkam and m u t ä b i h y itself postulated as an integral characteristic of scripture.‫ ؛‬In more general exegetic usage tarjih was required to confom to the normative standards of analog based upon juxtaposition of identical and similar passages.. In Ahmet I I I , 310 the term s zdhir and räjih are synon۶ ous and interchangeable and, save for the very special usage of the zahiri madhhaby such rem ained the practice in Muslim exegetical literature: ‫ﻓﺎ ﻟ ﻈﺎ ﺀر ق‬ 7.‫ اﻟ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻫﻮ ا ال ﺣ ﻤ ﺎ ل اﻟﺮاﺟﺢ‬Worthy of mention is Maimonides’ use of zähity w ith appeal to the text of scripture (nass), in an exegetical context ‫ ا‬M S Ahm et III, 31., 3 ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ 4‫ﺀ‬ ٠ ٤ M S Ahmet III. 3 1 .. 3▼. ‫ل‬See above, pp. 15 . 1 , 152-3. ٠ A point insisted upon by Fakhr al-dïn Râzï, apud Suyûtï, Itq d n iii, 12. ‫ ا‬Itqdn iii, 31-2, also citing Râzï; see above, pp. .2- ‫ل‬ 5‫ا‬ ٥ Particularly for the masorah, see Suyüçî, Itq d n i, 31, 58, 93-4, 229, and ii, 264, where a distinction betw een marjoh and zdhir may be thought scarcely discernible. ’ Goldziher, Z â ir ite n , 24 n. 4 citing Juwaynl.

188

QURANIC S T U D I E S

requiring even more imagination than the allocation of penalties in Q. 5: 33. namely, the messianic symbolism of Daniel 7 -8: ٦n٥n ٦٦٠« rn m p ١?x 0.1[ ٦٦‫ ﻫﺚ‬The concept of ‘plain m eaning’ was indeed a generous one. Whatever the linguistic and logical assertions made about the ipsissima verba of scripture, halakhic exegesis turned upon the assumption of a chronological, and hence causal, relation between Qur’5n and (prophetical) Sunna. T he question of priority, though hedged with qualification, was generally answered in favour of the latter. Ja??a?. who had elsewhere dismissed the occasion of revelation as irrelevant to interpretation of the Quranic text (in the case of B. .Urayna and Q. 5: 33), admitted that in juridical matters the specific meaning ( tafrfists) of the Q ur’än could be determined by reference to a prophetical tradition, provided such was widely (min fariq al-tawätur) not sparsely attested (bi-ükhbär al-ähäd).2 T he particular context of that declaration was the abrogation (naskh) of Q. 7: 3

‫ اﺗﺒﻌﻮا ﺑﺎ !ﻧﺰل ا ﺑ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ ض أل ﻛ ﻢ‬by 5‫و‬: 7 ‫وﻣﺎ آﺗﺎ ﻛ ﻢ اﻟﺮﺳﻮل ﻓﺨﺬوه و ا ﻧ ﻬ ﺎ ﻛ ﻢ‬ ‫ ﺀذ ه ﻓﺎﻧﺘﻬﻮا‬٠ Resort to Sunna was thus justified by Qur’an, and the conelusion drawn that for halahhah the prophet was of the same authority as the text of scriptore: ‫ ﻓﺎﻧ ﻪ ق إﻳ ﺠﺎ ب اﻟﺤﻜﻢ ﺑﻐﺰﻟﺔ اﻟﺘﺮآ ن‬. The locution .of a status with (=f like) Q ur’än’ could be misleading: it is quite clear from the context that it was scripmre being subjected to interpretation, an operation for which the hermeneutical instrument was tradition, in the form of words and deeds attributed to the prophet. These were preserved and transmitted with the care prescribed for canonical revelation.3 References to tlie contrast litteratim transmission (riwäyajnaql bil-lafz): paraphrastic transmission (1riwäyajnaql bil-m(inä) may not be understood as allusion to mutually exclusive modes, but, rather, to a polemically fonnulated concern for the authority of the Quranic text.« Paraphrastic transmission was anyway, in the view of the halakhists, limited to utterances from the companions of the prophet (1ü l-sahâ ), an attitude which may indeed have had its origins with, b u t was not restricted to, the ?ShirJ madhhab.5 An indication of stringency in the transmission of Sunna may be seen in Abu *Ubayd’s discussion of the prophet’s action in the affair of B. *Urayna: the phrase ‘he put out their eyes with spikes (iron)’ was prese^ed in two versions exhibiting the purely phonological contrast samalaisamara, to which the author remarked ‘in our opinion the correct version is ‫ ﻃ ﻠ ﺪ‬٠) ‫ ﺣﺬوظ ﻋ ﻨ ﺪ ا اﻟ ال م‬٠‫(ال‬.‫ه‬ ‫ ا‬Jggeret Teman, 8٠ lines 15-16. ‫ﻞﺀ‬ ‫ﻫ‬ ? ? ‫ة‬ ?, A h kam al-Q ur'än iii, 28-9. ‫ ا‬e.g. Goldziher, Richtungen٠ 3٠ . 4 Pace Goldziher, op. cit. 3 4 ‫ ؛‬id., Studien ii, 201, 242-3‫ ؛‬and Blachère, Histoire iii,

798 n. I ‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 176-7, I pp. 51-2. 5 Goldziher, Zahiriten, 33-4: on consensus ( .(‫ى‬ ‫ؤا‬ ٠ ٥ K ita b al-ndsikh wal-mansUkh, MS Ahmet III, 143, 95 ‫ﺀ‬ ٠

PR IN C IPL ES O F EXEGESIS

189

For Ibn 'Arab! the problems relating to transmission of Sunna were clearly of polemical character.. His point of departure was the familiar charge against the Jews that they had altered God’s word, e.g. in Q. 2: 59 ‫ ﻓ ﺒ ﺬ ل اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﺧﻠﻠﻤﻮا ﻗ ﻮ ال ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟ ﺬ ى ﻗ ﻴ ﻞ ﻟ ﻬﻢ‬, referting specifically to hitta in the preceding veree (and Q. 7: 161). a much-disputed term thouglit to exhibit the malicious alteration of i n (sin) into n .n (wheat: Arabic hitita).1 Whatever the historical background to that charge may have been, it was interpreted in the M uslim exegetical tradition as proving wdful distortion of a divine command. Ibn .Arabi’s argument was that if an act of worehip (taabbud) depended upon the actual expression (lafz) employed, there could then be no question of paraphrastic transmission. The latter was in any case an indulgence limited to the companions of the prophet, and only for non-liturgical formulations. Now, Q. 2: 59 (like 7: 162) is one of many Quranic passages assumed by exegetes to refer to a conscious and malicious distortion of the word of God.* The three technical terms tM il) tahrifj and kitmän, employed to describe that procedure are amply attested in scripture, each in a variety of contexts permitting association of the act with written texts, and thus tantamount to forgety(e.g. Q. 10: 15, 4: 46, 2: 174, respectively). Haggadic embellishment of the charge ttirned mostly upon the absence from Hebrew scripmre of proof-texts announcing the mission of Muhammad, symbolized by the many stories connected with the Jewish convert to Islam Ka'b al-A hbär.. No one in Medina was more familiar with the T orah than Ka.b, and in one account he specified ten Quranic verees (six of them concerned Abraham) which the Jews had allegedly erased from their scripture because they contained predictions of the advent of Islam: ‫ﻧ ﻈ ﻔ ﺘ ﻬ ﺎ (? ﻃ ﻠ ﺘ ﻬ ﺎ ) اﻟﻴﻬﻮد وأﻣﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﺪق ال ﻳﺸﺘﻬﺮ أﻣﺮﻫﺎ‬ F or the halakhists recouree to tactics such as those was hardly adequate, and the accusation of forgety was ^adually elaborated to include both textual alteration and exegetical ercor, the latter in the sense of intentionally false interpretation. Intennediate and combined positions were also possible, and each had its origin in Judaeo-Muslim polemic.. The implications for Quranic exegesis were articulated by Ja??a?.. the concept tahrif in Q. 5 :1 3 ‫ ﻳﻌﺬﺑﻮ ن اﻟﻜﺒﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮاﺿﻌﻪ‬was lim itedt‫ ؟‬interpretation (tazvil) 0‫ ؛‬the kind which necessarily resUlted from lack of or from arbitraty method, * A h k d m al-Q ur'än i, 10. 2 See Hirschfeld. Researches, 1 .7 ‫ ؛‬Speyer, Erzählungen, 33 7 -8 ‫ ؛‬and the discussion ‫ئ‬ Paret, D e r Koran, ‫ل‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ‬2 ‫ه‬ad loc. 3 See above, pp. 1 5 4 -5 ‫ ؛‬II pp. 63, 76. 4 See above, II pp. 7 5 -6 ‫ ؛‬and Rabin, Quntran, 116, 118, 123-4. ‫ﺀ‬Perlmann, ‘Another Ka.b al-Ahbar s to ^ ', 48-58. ٠ See Steinschneider. Polemache L ite ra tu r٠ 320-2, 3 ‫و‬ 2 ‫ ؛‬Gold2iher, ‘Polemik», 345, 3 6 4 -7 2 ‫ ؛‬Schreiner, ‘Zur Geschichte’, 599-601. ،13-14, 626-8, 634-5, 640-7‫ ؛‬Hirschfeld, ‘Mohammedan criticism., 222-4 ٠ .

190

QURANIC S T U D IE S

e.g. elucidation of the mtashabihät without reference to the muhkamät. Tahrif in the specific sense of alteration (taghyirjtaghayyur) could not be applied to any text whose attestation and transmission were derived from widespread authority (istifädajtawätur)) since that would diminish and even cancel the value of all tradition.i The semantic position thus defined for tahrif was rather more constructive than one from which merely abusive assaults on the integrity of Hebrew scripture could be m ade and, not unexpectedly, generated a more sophisticated polemic. For charges of maliciously false interpretation (!) levelled at one another by communities sharing a set of scripttrres were a commonplace of sectarian strife.* That the quality of invective elaborated there might serve as model for dispute about the content of another scripftjre seems not unreasonable: the language of polemic is remarkably uniform. But in a primardy consonantal text interpretation might easily involve argument about variants in the received tradition, for which of course tahrif as t e r r a i ‘alteration’ could prove a convenient tag. It will, however, be useful to remember that the existence of texttial variants presupposed rather than prefigured divergent interpretations.^ T h e acttial condition of the textus receptus could always be justified, and even turned to advantage. For example, absence of tlie hasmala at the beginning of Surat al-Barä'a caused Ibn ‘Arab‫ ؛‬to obseive not only that the unity of subject-matter in Süras 8 and 9 had naturally (and logically) precluded insertion of the formula, but also that such was proof of the divine origin of analogy.4 His argument was that the similarity ( tashbih) of the two Suras had, in the absence of specific textual indication (*tnda *adm al-nass), caused the companions of the prophet (!) to resort to analogical juxtaposition (qiyas al-shûbà) of the two ori^nally separate revelations. T h at solution is less far-fetched than Noldeke-Schwally appeared to believe, as ought to be clear from the use made of verses from both suras in discussion of the presCTiptions for Holy War.5 N ot only a n a lo ., but all other methods of demonstrative proof (sair durüb al-istidîàî) could, in the opinion of JassS?, be ’derived from the text of scripture.. Designation of the book as ‘clarification of all things' (‫؛‬tibyan li-kull shay') constittited an invitation to the exercise of logic, pem issible in the absence of explicit answera in Qur’an and Sunna, or of consensus: ‫ﻣ ﺎ‬ ‫إذا ﻟ ﻢ ﻧ ﺠﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﺎددة‬ ‫ب ف اﻟﻜﺘﻞ ب وال ﻟﻰ اﻟ ﺴ ﻦ وال ﻓﻰ ا إل ﺟ ﺎ ع وﻟﺪ ! ﺗ ﺒ ﺮ اﻣﻤﻪ ا ن ﻓﻰ ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺂ ب‬ 1 Ahkdm al-Qur'än ii, 39 8 -9 . * F o r Q um ran a n d th e K araites, see W ie d e r, Scrolls٠ 1 3 5 -5 3 , 1 6 1 -3 ‫ ؛‬a n d c f. e .g . Jere. m i a h 2 3 : 36. 3 S e e below, pp. 2 0 2 -8 . 4 Ahkdm al-Qur'än 366 ‫ ؛‬٠a d loc.‫ ؛‬cf. GdQ ii, 79-81. » e .g . in T abari, K itd b Ih h tildf d - f u q ä ' y passim. ٥ A h kdm d-Q ur*än iii. 189-90 ad Q. 16: 89.

P R I N C I P L E S OF EXEGESIS

‫ﺗﺒﻴﺎن ﻛ ﻞ ذ ئ ﻣﻦ آﻣﻮو اﻟ ﺪﻳ ﻦ ﺛ ﺒ ﺖ ا ن ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ اﻟﺘﻈﺮ و ا ال ﺷ ﺪ ال ل ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻴﺎس ﻋ ﻞ ﺣﻜﻤﻪ‬ For Jassas consensus represented the uninterrupted transmission of community opinion from the time of the prophet, the t e m WWW. (nation) in Q. 2: 143 being interpreted as a general i'ämm) not a specific (khass) epithet for ‘witness’.‫؛‬ Instances of incompatibility or of conflict between scriptural passages containing juridical material were resolved by the halakhists with the aid of three related but distinct hermeneutical devices: takhsis (specification), tafsir (here coroboration), and naskh (abrogation). Takhsis provided a means of linking a general statement to a particular situation, and was generously employed in identifying the mushrikün of Q. 9: 5 and the muharMn of Q. 5: 33.2 Application of takhsis presupposed a very flexible standard of generality against which particularity was measured: it was thus found that the adjective ‫( إ ﻟ ﻂ‬all/each) as well as the various relative pronouns, the definite article, and even indefinite predication, could be both general and particular.3 The option in any given instance entailed almost invariably acknowledgement or rejection of a point of doctrine hardly adumbrated in the scriptural passage itself. Halakhic takhsis, in brief, depended upon the kind 0‫ ؛‬analogy called ta'lïl) or inference from a tertium comparationis* A n example was the ‘specification, of Q. 5 :3 (prohibition of carcion) by Q. 5 : 96 (extension to carrion from the sea) and by 6: 145 (extension to flowing, as opposed to coagulated blood), in which the ratio ('ilia) was contained in the opposition haräm'.haläl.5 Another case was specification of Q. 2 4 :2 (punishment for fornication) byQ . 4: 25 (extension to the betrothed), by reference to the (general) fact of punishment.. More often than not it was Sunna to which appeal was made for specification of Qur.Sn, a procedure defended by both Shâfi.ï and Jassas, and of which an example was specification of Q. 2: 275 (prohibition of usuty) by traditions extending the sanrtion to similar transactions, e.g. 'aräyä.1 Exclusion of the slave from inheritance by application of tM sis to Q. 4: 11-12 and 2: 180 belongs to the same category, though there the procedure was probably a device to conceal the priority of an established legal maxim.» Like takhsis, the technical tern tafsir in halakhic usage exhibits a for. mula of hamonization d e s ire d to restrict the sphere of abrogation (naskh)) itself the final court of appeal in the more general effort to demonstrate a scriptural source of authority for all Islamic law. An essential advantage of both takhsis and tafsir) and to a considerable extent the difference between them and n M ) was that Quranic verees so treated remained effective ٠ A h k d m al-Qwr'ân i, 88 -9 0 ad loc. ‫ﺀ‬See above, pp. 185-7. ‫ ا‬Cf. ‫ج‬ ١ ‫ص‬ ‫؟‬ ‫ذ‬ ٠ Itqdn, i . 45 ‫ت‬ iii, 43-51, esp. 43-5. ٠ See above, pp. 166-8. SuyU tf, l ¥ n iii. 44» 4 7 . ٥ Itq d n iii, 48. 7 l ¥ n , loc. cit. : see above, pp. 175, 188. » Pace S u y ü ١ï, Itqdn iii, 4 8 , w ho considered it scarificatio n b y co n sen su s‫ ؛‬see S c h a c h t, Origins. ‫ ة ل‬4 ‫ ة ل‬. 5

QU R A N IC S T U D IE S

(muhkamät). An example of tafsir, though the term was not used, was the argument of NahhSs about the relevance of Q. 9 : 5 (ayat al-sayf) and 47: 4 (recommending leniency) to the treatment of prisonere of w ar: the two verses were not mutually exclusive but corroborative, and the option lay w ith the imam.] The secondaiy role of scripture in that argument is, incidentally, illustrated by its appeal to prophetical traditions pertinent to the co n q u it of Mecca. Similar reasoning was adduced by Abu *Ubayd, on the authority of Ibn *AbbSs, in a discussion of the lex talionis (qisäs)) for which Q. 5: 45 was held by some to abrogate the stricter ruling of 2 ‫ل ذ‬7‫ و‬.٤ W ith regard, however, to the distinction between free men and slaves in Q. 2:178. Abu 'Ubayd argued that the locution ‘a life for a life, in 5:45 was not the abrogant but, rather, the cortoboration of equality within the separate categories of retaliation: ‫ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻧﺮى اﻟﻰ ق اآلﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻰ ﻓﻰ اﻟ ﻤﺎﺋ ﺪ ة اﻓﻐﺲ‬ ‫ ﺑ ﻨﺎ ﻃ ﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻰ ﻓﻰ اﻟﺒﻘﺮة اﻟﺤﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻦ واﻟ ﻌﺒﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺒﺪ و ال ﻫﻰ ق ﺧ ال ﻓ ﻬﺎ‬: . ..‫ﺑﺎﻓﻨ ﺲ اي‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻟ ﻤ ﻔ ﻤ ﺮ ة ﻟﻘ ﻰ ق اﻟﺒﻘﺮة‬

‫رأى ا ن اﻟﻨ ﻰ ق اﻟ ﻤﺎ ﺋ ﺪ ة‬

‫اﻧ ﻪ‬

‫آال‬

‫ ﻃ ﻤ ﺎ ت‬٠ ‫وﻟﻜﺌ ﻬﻤﺎ ﺟ ﻤﻴﻌﺎ‬

‫ ا وﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑ ﻴ ﺌ ﻬ ﻢ‬٠٠‫ﻓﺘﺄول ا ن ﻗ ﻮﻟﻪ اﻟ ﻔ ﺲ ﺑﺎﻟ ﻔ ﺲ إﻧ ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋ ﻞ ا ن أﻧﻔ ﺲ ا أل ﺣ ﺮا ر ت‬ ‫ دو ن اﻟﻌﺒﻴﺪ‬. T he use of tayawwala in this passage for 'interpretation' might be thought to confirm the specialized meaning of m u f à a as ‘corroboration., antithetically juxtaposed to (abrogant). T hat the hermeneutical principle of abrogation (naskh) did not refer to supersession of earlier divinely revealed startites (sharä’i* al-anbîyâ') by Muhammad’s law (shanai muhammad) was expressly articulated by Jas?ä?.3 It was, rather, the instrument by means of which particular statements (khass) could be distinguished from general ones Çântm)) and polyvalent utterances (mutashäbih) referred to univalent ones (‫؛‬muhkarn). In that formulation takhsis (specification) was subsumed under the general rubric naskh, but though certain of the phenomena which re^ilarly appeared in discussions of scriptttral abrogation were sometimes designated takhsis, it is both convenient and realistic to distinguish the two. The concept of Islam as the supereession of earlier dispensations was of course not alien to the Muslim exegetical tradition, and might even derive some support from scripture, namely Q. 5:50 ‫ ن‬٠٠‫أ ﻃ ﻢ اﻟﺠﺎدﻟﻤﻴﺔ ﻳﺒﻐﻮن وش أ م‬ ‫ا ﻟﺘﻮم ﻳﻮﻗﻨﻮن‬٠‫ س اﻟﻠﻪ ﺣ ﻚ‬٠Explicit reference to a *pagan dispensation’ (hukm al-jâhiliyya) was interpreted by Goitein as s t a l l i n g the commencement of a specifially Muhammadan legislation derived from material up to that point diffuse and only paraenetically expressed.. Acceptance of jahiliyya as a te rn ira i rather than psycholo^cal or sociolo^al concept and acquiescence in the utility of dating the contents of the Qur’Sn reflect a ‫ ا‬See atove, pp. 184-5. * K ità b al-nâsîkh toal-mansukh) M S Ahmet III. 143. 93r-v. 3 A h k al-Q ur’ân i. 58-6.. ٠ G.itcin, .Birth-hour., 132-3.

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S IS

view of Islamic origins which can hardly profit from modification of details. The context of the entire passage Q. 5: 4 2 -5 1 is polemic and was so acknowledged by Muslim exegetes. whose view of the prophet’s jurisdiction can only with difficulty be related to pagan practice in the process of replacement by divine decree. T he historical circumstances envisaged by, and if not invented then certainly elaborated witilin, the exegetical literature were those surtounding Muhammad’s celebrated confrontation ittforo externo w ith the rabbis of Medina. The essential truth elicited from th at stoty was, it may be recalled, that the role of the Muslim prophet lay not in abrogation or superaession of the Mosaic Law (!), but in its restoration and fulfilment.! Now, in his m onopaph on the phenomena of abrogation, which apart from the Risäla of Shafil must be the earliest treatment of that subject,* A bu .Ubayd found it convenient to link discussion of the penalty for fornication with that of Muslim jurisdirtion among non-Muslims. 3 In the firet sertion the a u th o n rg u e d th at both Q. 4: 15-16 and 65.. I (on those justly charged with fornication) had been repealed by 24:2 (which specified the punishment as 100 lashes) and the stoning penalty. In one of the two traditions adduced, both traced to Ibn *Abbas, stoning was re s e ra d for those offcndere who were rnhsan (i.e ٠chaste, betrothed, possibly martied, free, Muslim, etc.).. Though the stoning part of the penalty was there specified as Sunna, two versions of a tradition from *Ubada b. garnit immediately following leave no doubt that, Sunna or not, the stoning

‫ﻗﺎل وﺳﻮل اﻟﻠ ﻪ ﻧ ﺬ وا ﻋﻨﻰ ﻗﺪ‬ .‫اﻟﻠ ﻪ ﻟﻬ ﺊ ﺳﺒﻴال اﺑ ﻜ ﺮ ﺑ ﺎ ﺑ ﻜ ﺮ واﻟ ﺸ ﺐ ﺑﺎﻟ ﺸ ﺐ اﻟﻴﻜ ﺮ ﻧ ﺠ ﻠ ﺪ ﻧ ﻨ ﻔ ﻰ واﻟﺜﻴ ﺐ ﻳ ﺠﻠ ﺪ وﻳ ﺮ ﺟ ﻢ‬

penalty had been revealed to the prophet: ‫ﺟ ﻌ ﻞ‬ 5

Thereafter, the author turned his attention to the problem of punishments (hudtid) to be inflirted upon ^ . - s , and the question of the abrogation of Q. 5: 42 by 5: 48. T hat the particular case envisaged was fom iration is clear from the gloss of bi-mä anzala ' l l in Q. 5: 48 as al-rajm (stoning), th u s chararterized again as ‘revelation’, though th at point was followed by disCTissions of the lex t a l i d and the m u h â È n .b In the second section the abrogation of Q.

‫ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﻤﺎ اﻧﺰل اﻟﻠ ﻪ‬

5:

42 ‫ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ا وا ر ض ﻋﻨ ﻬﻢ‬

‫ﻓﺎﺣﻜﻢ‬

‫ﻓﺎﺣﻜﻢ‬

‫ﺟﺎؤو ك‬

‫ ﻓﺈن‬by

5 :

‫و‬

was also illustrated by the stoning penalty, this

tim e specified as the prophet’s stoning of the two Jews ‫اﻟﻨﺒ ﻰ اﻟﻴ ﻬ ﻮ د ى‬

‫وﺑﻢ‬

‫ ا‬See above. II pp. 7 .-1 . ‫ﺀ‬See above, P. 175. 3 K ita b al-näsikh wal-mansükh٠ M S Ahmet III. 143: ٠ Bâb al-hudud', 88*17', and ‘Al-Hukm bayna ahl al-dhimma., .'4 - ' ‫ل‬ 7‫ﺀ‬ ٠ Cf. Ibn Qutayba. T a ’toil, 3‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ‬٠ ‫ ا‬Abu .Ubayd, op. cit. 89V and 9٠ ': variant prefaced by a naturalistic description of the prophet in a stote of ‘reception., widely em ploy^ in the hadith literature, e.g. Bukhari, Ç ahïh, .Kitab alShahadat. 2, 15‫ ؛‬and references Wens in ck, Handbook, 162-3. ٥ Abu ‘Ubayd, ‫و‬ ٠ ٧ -‫ل‬ '‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 192 and 186, respectively. 433.075

H

Q URANIC STUDIES

‫ واﻟﻴ ﻬ ﻮدﻳ ﺔ‬.‫ ا‬In the opinion of the Iraqi jurists that incident ha‫ ؛‬established the precedent for dealing with litigations among dhintmh, while the Hijazis argued that it had taken place before imposition of poll-tax (jizya) and thus did not afford a precedent for the later period, when administrative procedure tended towards judicial autonomy within dhitntni communities. Abu .Ubayd rejected the latter position on two p o u n d s: first, that traditions did not in fact state that the stoning incident had taken place before theimposition of jizya; second, that even had that been so it would not preclude dealing with litigation among dhimmis after imposition of the tax. Prior to that condition in fact, they would not have been Hmmis but merely in treaty relationship ihudnajmuwädaa) with Islam like other infidel nations (iumatn alshirk ). T he question of jurisdiction would not even have arisen.* But once established, the contract between the M uslim community and the newly recognized dhimmis enabled the latter to resort to Islamic jurisdiction. The implication was that Q. 5: 48 abrogated not only the circumstances described in 5: 42, but also those of 5: 5٠.‫ د‬In the light of that argument it must, I think, be conceded that hukm al-jdhiliyya (Q. 5: 50) refereed to, or at least included, Jewish practice prior to the prophet’s intervention in that much-disputed litigation. Though Abu 'Ubayd did not specify dyat al-rajm (stoning ‘verse’), it is clear from his presentation of the traditions from *UbSda b. Samit that the stoning ‘penalty’ was of revealed status, that is Sunna but not Qur.än. The movement exhibited in the transposition of stoning penalty into stoning verse, may be understood to reflect elevation of the Quranic text to canonical status: a source of legislative authority. The role of dyat al-rajm was henceforth (beginning of the third/ninth century) intimately connected not merely with the historical description of Judaeo-Muslim polemic, but also with the principle of legislative repeal in scripture. As a piece of historical evidence dyat al-rajm may be assessed by its haggadic projection, and especially within the narrative framework of the Muhammadan evangelium. As witness to a hermeneutical principle, it may be judged by its halakhic value in establishing, in the context of disputatiofori) that scripture was the ultim ate source of all legislation. T he literaty forms generated by Muhammad’s conftontation with the rabbis of Medina were signalled by Goldziher in a study ofjew ish practice as described in Muslim literature.‫ ؛‬That those represent variations upon the archetypal thetne informing the account of Jesus with the Pharisee was not mentioned by Goldziher. T he conclusion of Vajda that there must be a nucleus of historical truth in the stoty ٥ nnot of course be ruled out, ‫ ا‬Abu ‘Ubayd, 4 ‫ل‬ 72 ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ل‬ %esp. I 7 3 r. ‫ع‬ Abu ‘Ubayd. 173*. 3 Abu 'Ubayd. I 7 4 r : suht is glossed .bribe '( . ( ‫ﻫﺮد‬ ٠ Variants of the latter were assembled by Suyü١ ï٠ Itq d n iii, 7 2 - 3 , 7 5 - 7 ‫و‬ cf. G dQ i, » 4 8 -5 2 . ‫ ا‬See above, II p . 7 1 ‫ذ‬reference n. I .

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

195

but neither can it be demonstrated.! The entire literary complex belongs to a cycle of ‘tests of true prophethood' widely distributed in Muslim exegctical literature, and hardly susceptible of positivist interpretation, such as Muhammad’s being forced by circumstances to abandon a hareher penalty for adultery in favour of Rabbinic leniency, or as posterior justification of 'U m a r’s condurt in stoning for adulte^.2 In his impressive, if not entirely convincing, mise en scène of the adulteress pericope (John 7: 53-8: I I ) D errett stressed the qualification of witnesses, rather than the nature of the punishment or its scripttiral sanrtion. The assumption must be that Jesus was approached not as a prophet (like Muhammad), but as a rabbi especially competent in the laws of evidence. Such was undoubtedly the si^ificance of a link between the pericope and the story of Susanna and the elders, but not, I think, ofits inclusion in the Muhammadan evangelium. 3 For the sliglitly modified Muslim version, the observation of Ibn alJawzi that the .Torah passage’ adduced by the rabbis contained the (Quranic) stipulation on the necessity of four (!) witnesses to the act' of fornication (Q. 24: 4), m ight be thought sufficient indication of the polemical purpose for which the account of M uhammad’s triumph had been devised, namely, the maliciously concealed coincidence of Muslim and Jewish scripture: ‫ ذ?ا‬٦٩ ٤٠٥٥ ٤٠٦٩٥ ‫ل‬7‫ ذ?ا‬٦١ .٦٠١٤٠٦ ٥٦‫د‬٤٠ ri٥3 ٦« ٦٦٠ ٤٠٦٤٠ 4.»?‫ ذه‬٦ ٦‫?ا‬٦‫?اﻫﺔ‬٤٠ ٩٥ ‫ﺣﺎ‬١‫ اه‬Reference in the same report to Jeràsh abandonment of the scriptural (1hadd) penalties after destruction of the Second Temple (idh kdn al-mulk land) seized as motive to M uhammad’s restoration {ihya) of the Mosaic Law, and may be exegetically related to hukm alijdhiliyya in Q. 5: 50. Halakhic elaboration of the story had as point of deparrtire the interesting circumstance that neither stoning penalty nor stoning veree was ineluded in the canon. That such gave less cause for alarm than might be supposed will be clear if it is underetood that the principle of abrogation, as well as the development of ahkdm (halakhot), concerned the entire, vety flexible, corpus of revelation, of which the Qur.än was only part. Efforts to relate the phenomena of abrogation to the canonical text exhibit not a necessity but merely a tendency to seek scriptural support for positions already occupied and for the m ost part consolidated. Neither the principle of abrogation nor the fomiulation of ahkdm required support in scripture until scripture itself came into being as a result of external prœsure in polemic. For dyat al-rajm Burton put the case well: ‘T he “ process” here promised was later “appointed” in the revelation of the stoning penalty. The stoning penalty, and not the QurSn, was thus the historical source of ‫ ا‬Vajda, ‘Juifs et Musulmans.» 93-9. ‫ﺀ‬S e. Vajda, loc. ci،.: Hirschfeld, Researches, 1.3, 137. ‫ ا‬Law in the N e w Testament, 1 5 ^ 8 8 . 4 Goldziher, ‘Usages juifs», 326; f .r the description of consummation cf. Talm. Babl. Makkot 7a.

Q U RANIC ST U D IES

196

the ..stoning verse” .’‫‘ ؛‬Later appointed’ is a reference to a variant reading in Q. 2: 106 ‫ ﻣﺎ ﻧ ﺸ ﺦ ﻣﻦ آﻳﺔ أ و ﻧ ﺸ ﺒ ﺎ ( ﻧ ﺸﺎ ﻫﺎ ) ﻧﺎ ت ﺑﺨﻴﺮ ﻣ ﻨ ﻬ ﺎ آ و ﻣﺜﻠ ﻬﺎ‬, which became the locus classicus for the doctrine of abrogation. The variant itself, ‘we defer’ as opposed to ‘we cause to forget’, drew upon that category of d d b ül-nuzül which included the concepts of promise and ratification, by whose means the arbitraty data on Quranic chronology could be conveniently neutralized.» For Jassâs.3 a variant reading was unnecessary: the verb ansä might signify either forgetting (nisydnY or deferm ent (ta'khir), both in the sense of exchange { t ä l ) for the public weal (maslaha: iuspropter utilitatem publicam).5 Examples were the exchange of çi٥&(Mecca for JerusalemJand the repeal ofQ .8:65 by8.٠66(،٥Ä٠ ),which together dlustrated the principle that Qur’an could abrogate Sunna and Q ur’an, the term dya i n Q . 2 : 106 being a reference not to the ipsisnma verba of scripture {tildwa) but to the precept contained or implied therein (htikm). T h at particular view of the range of abrogation was only one of five, set out by N ahhäs:٥ Q ur.än could abrogate Qur’än and Sunna (the a rrim e n t of the Kufans)‫ ؛‬Q ur’än, but not Sunna, could abrogate Qur’än (of Shâfi'ï, whose concern w ith Q ur’ân was anyway peripheral) ;7 Sunna could abrogate Qur’ân and Sunna (anon^unous)‫ ؛‬Sunna, but not Qur’an, could abrogate Sunna (also anonymous)‫ ؛‬these categories were not mutually exclusive and each case had to be judged on its merits (ascribed to Muhamm ad b. Shuja'). In practice only the last could survive as a working principle, and few if any cases were ever decided by an actual appeal to the priority of one over.another kind of revelation. O f four major works devoted to the phenomena of abrogation, two were concerned primarily to demonsttate the presence of such in th e text of scripture: those of Nahhas and of Hibataliah. Each introduced his work w ith the stoty of *All b. AbJ T ٤§ and the preacher in Kufa who was banished from the mosque for not knowing his principles of abrogation.8 T h at level of discourte was hardly modified throughout the treatise of Hibataliah, who defined naskh as removal/cancellation (‫و ﻛ ال م اﻟﻌﺮب ري‬ ‫ا‬

Burt.n. ‘Cranes., 261.

2 See above, pp. 175^.

‫ ا‬Ahkdm d-Q ur'än i, 58-60. ٠ On the problems provoked by the interrelation nisydn, see Burton, ‘Cranes., 260-3‫؛‬ to which might be added the observation that in the Quranic lexicon ‫ ﻧﻞ‬is not infrequently

connected with Satanic agency (e.g. Q. 6 1 9 ‫ ؛‬68 , 12 ‫ ؛‬42 , 18 ‫ ؛‬63 , 5 te e n employed as metaphorical counterpoint to the verb alqd (e.g. Q. 4 1 7 1 ‫)؛‬. The conjecture is in no way weakened by explicit reference to divine agency in Q. 2: 106 and 59 19 ‫؛‬, and to Satanic agency with alqd in 2 0 8 7 ‫ ؛‬and 22 3- 52 ‫؛‬, and could be related to the neutral concept ‘inspiration, by mediation, characteristic of Muslim prop hetolo^ ‫؛‬ see above, II p p ..‫ة‬8‫م‬6 ‫ل‬ ‫ ا‬See GoId2ihcr, ‘Istishab., 22٣ 3.٠ ‫ ر ه ة آ ء‬١‫ ه ة ر‬٠ Kitab a l - i i k h tu a l-m a m i. (‫< ؛‬-٦ ٠ 7 Cf. Schacht, Origins , IS: tacit correction of Goldziter, Studien ii, 20. ٠ NabbSs. op. cit. 5 -6 ; Hibataliah, K î t ê al-ndsikh w a l- m a n s l, 3-5.

P RIN CIP LE S OF E X EG E S IS

‫ ) ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻰ‬and lim ited its incidence in the QurSn t . explicit command and prohibition ( i tt>٥-„ ٥Ay) or to reports (akhbar) containing or implying such. Of these he found 239 instances in 71 suras, a consequence of massive and undifferentiated assertion, rather than of subtle and reasoned analysis: 1.7 occurted in Saras 2-9 and Q. 9: 5 (dyat al-sayf) fibred as abrogant 124 times.i For N ahhas the problem was less simple. The term naskh m ight mean cessation (izdla) or transfer (rtaql)) and the Quranic principle of abrogation was based upon the latter.» He also found expedient a distinction between „‫ ﺳ ﻪ‬and h i * : the fom er m ight apply only to command and prohibition, the latter to instance of contradiction or inconsistency (apparent!) in reports, to which one could attach a limitation in terms of altered time or place. e.g. the changing circumstances of nartative, as in the stories of the prophrts.3 O f abrogation according to his 0 1 definition NahhSs found 137 instances in 48 suraSyof which 75 appeared in Suras 2-9. Common to Hibatallah and Nahhas was a typology o f the modes of abrogation attested in s ^ p tu re .. These were three (the authora employed different terminology, and NahhSs, perhaps for the sake of lexical tidiness, included a fourth which identified naskh in the sense o f‘copy.)., abrogation of both w ording and rtiling ( ‫واﻟﺘ ال وة‬

‫ ﺳ ﺦ اﻟ ﺤﻜﻢ‬/ ‫أ ( ﺳ ﺦ ﺧ ﻄﻪ و ﻋ ﻜ ﻤ ﻪ‬

abrogation o f wording but not of rtiling ( ‫ ﺳ ﺦ‬٠/‫ﻃ ﻪ وﺑﻘﻰ ﺣﻜ ﻤ ﻪ‬

‫ﺳﺦ‬

‫ ;) اﻟ ﺘ ال و ة دون اﻟﺤﻜﻢ‬abrogation of ruling but not of wording ( ‫ﺳ ﺦ اﻟ ﺤ ﻜ ﻢ‬ ‫ﻋ ﻤ ﻪ و ض ﺧ ﻄﻪ‬

‫) د و ن ا ﻟ ﺘ ال و ذ ا ﻓ ﺦ‬. That these formal distinrtions con-

tained. and were also very likely meant to conceal, essentially irreconcilable views on the constittient parts of Muslim law was indicated by Burton.» For my purpose here it is sufficient to state that the modes of abrogation set out by N ahhas and Hibatallah reflert a concerted effort to identify „٠‫س‬ as an originally Quranic phenomenon. Once seen to enjoy scriptural sanction, the principle of abrogation could in theory and w ith impunity be applied across the entire range of source materials for the fom ulation of Muslim law. A favourite example of naskh in the Quranic text was the alleged repeal of Q. 8: 65 by 8: 66, where the num ter of enemy which Muslims were experted successfully to oppose in combat was reduced (‫؛‬t akhfif : lightened) from a ratio of io : I to 2‫ت‬I , e.g. in Tabari: ‫د ﻓ ﻨ ﻒ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻨ ﻬ ﻢ ﻧ ﻤ ﺨ ﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ آلﻳﺔ‬ ‫ا أل ﺧﺮ ى‬.‫ ه‬Belonging to the third mode (above), that instanCe of abrogation was typical of nearly all those adduced by Nahhas and Hibatallah, pride of ‫ ا‬Sec above, pp. 183-5. 2 Nahhas. 8 ٠ 5 Nahhas, 1 0 -1 1 ‫ ؛‬see Goldziher, E I , S.V. Bada'. ٠ Hibatallah, 5—6 ‫ ؛‬Nahhas, 8-9. 5 .Cranes., 258-64, and discussed in detail in the study referred to there, 249 n. 4. ٥ Tafsir X, 27 ad loc.

198

Q URANIC S T U D IE S

place going of course to äyat alsayf. To illustrate the first mode (above), the much-discussed ‘satanic verses’ alleged originallyto have been at Q. 53 : 19-22 and abrogated by 22: 52 were invariably adduced, and the several motives which led to that assertion were analysed at length in Burton’s sttidy.i It was to demonstrate the second mode (above) of abrogation that äyat al-rajm was commonly introduced into halakhic controversy, namely, as an example of a valid rtjling whose wording had been removed from the text of scripture. Now, that the origin of the stoning verse lay in the account of the stoning penalty has been proposed. That the origin of the stoning penalty may be sought in the haggadic topoi traditionally employed to illustrate the test(s) of ‘trtie prophethood’ seems more than likely. Juridical appropriation of that particular topos, however transparent the motive, was the inevitable consequence of pressure compelling recognition of the Qur.än as a source of le^slation equal to the Sunna. T h e adjustment exhibited in the transposition: stoning penalty-^stoning verse was only necessaty after establishment of the canonical text of revelation. Acceptance of the transposition, or even of the second mode of abrogation, was not univereal: Nahhas, for example, recognized the isnäd a( äyat al-rajm as sound but insisted upon regarding it as Sunna, and thus not as evidence of Quranic abrogation.» Two other works dealing with nashh were less concerned with the specifically Quranic data and rather more with the principle of abrogation as a valid juridical premiss. From what has been said of Abu 'U bayd’s treatise on nankh wa-mansukh it ought to be clear that status as Q ur’an or Sunna was hardly operative in his fommlation of the rules. Arrangement of the material is topical, rather than by Quranic division, and most, if not quite all, chaptere bear the subtitle ‘that which abrogates and is abrogated in both Qur'an (kitab) and Sunna’. The twenty-seven chapters contain the conventional range of ahkänt, e.g. Prayer (fo ls .3‫ و‬٧- ‫ل‬٢), Almsgiving (fols. 14L19V), Fasting (fols. 20r-4 6 r), Marriage (fols. 46174[), Divorce (fols. 74 ‫ﺀ‬- 8‫)[و‬, etc.3 Whether Abu 'Ubayd (d. 223/838) was the first scholar to treat mono^aphically (!) the subject of abrogation can probably best be answered with reference to the chronological development of Quranic studies, rather than to reports of earlier w ritten works. One such is the ascription to Z uhri(d. 124/742) of a book entitled Nasikh wa-mansukhfilQur'än.4 Like the quite worthless Tanzil al-Qur'än attributed to the same author,‫ ؛‬the work on abrogation is preserved in the recension of the Sufi ‫ ا‬Burton, .Cranes.: t . the ‘historical’ (Orientalist) references mentioned there, 2 4 6 1 , may be added Andrae, Person, 129-32. 2 K itàb al-nâsïkh wal-mansükh, 9î cf. the dissenting opinions recorded in Suy٥ ‫؛‬ï, Itqdn iii, 72‫ ؛ ؟‬and the anonymous ikh tild f in Ash.arl, M a q d ld t , 607-11. ‫ ا‬K itdb al-ndsikh w a k a n s ü k h , M S Ahmet III 143; cf. the arrangement in MuqStil’s halakhic treatise, MS BM Or. 6333, above pp. 173-4. ٠ G A S i, 283 no. 4 ‫ ؛‬MS Beyazit 445. ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 179-8..

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

199

exegete Sulami (d. 412/1021) and will, even if it exists, hardly contribute to the history of naskh theories prior to Abu 'U bayd. However that may be, the manuscript ßeyazit445 ‫؛‬sn o t the work of Zuhri-Sulami, b ut of .AbdaiqShir Baghdadi (d. 42‫و‬/‫ ل‬0‫ ة‬8(. ‫ ا‬T he significance of Baghdadi’s position in the sttrdy of naskh is that long after NahhSs (d. 338/950) and some time after Hibatallsh (d. 410/1019) a work methodologically similar to that of Abu *Ubayd should be written at all. The a u th o r’s primaty concern was with the theoretical elaboration of naskh) its justification as a juridical principle, and its attestation in Sunna as well as in Qur’än. In the three chapters containing instances of Quranic abrogation the m atter was introduced in the fonn of dispute (ikhtildf) and consensus (;îjmà*), and the total number of verses adduced only 59.‫ ﺀ‬In an introductorçr chapter the notion of n i as removal/cancellation 0raft) or cessation (izälä) was rejerted in favour of a combination of specification (itakhsis) and transfer (‫؛‬tahml).3 T he author’s conclusion may be cited:4 ‫أ ﻣ ﻮ را ﺛ ﺒ ﻞ‬

‫وﻣﻨ ﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎ ل ﻛﺎ ن اﻟﺘﺒ ﻰ‬

‫ ﻫﺎ ق ﻛ ﻞ ﺷ ﻰ اال ﻓﺪﻣﺎ ﻧ ﺴ ﺦ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺜ ﺮﻳ ﻌﺘ ﻪ‬١ ٠‫ﻧﺒﻮﻧﻪ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﻌﺔ اﺑﺮا ﻫﻴﻢ وﻟﺰﻣﻪ اﻟﺘ ﺼﺎث‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‬

‫ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ اﻟ ﻮ ﺣ ﻰ ا ﻳ ﻪ و ﺀذا ﻫ ﻮ ا ﺳ ﻨ ﺢ‬. ^ a t naskh might indeed refer to

the abrogation by Muhammad's revelation of an earlier divinely revealed stattite (here the ‘law of Abraham ’) was a possibility never quite suppressed.‫'؛‬ Abrogation as supersession of earlier dispensations was of course hmdamental to the character of Judaeo-Christian polemic. T h at the Jews allegedly rcjerted the specifically Islamic principle of n d h as in their opinion nothing more than retraction/substitution owing to the emergence of new circumstances (bada) was one among a num ber of problems raised by SuyUti, himself satisfied that God was capable of revereing (faks) any of H is artions or decisions, and that such had indeed been many times attested in the histoty of divine revelation.. T h e allegation is puzzling, since the retraction, revereal, and change of G od’s .word was familiar enough from Hebrew scripttrre, e.g. 2 Kings 9: 1-12 and Hosea 1: 4-5, as well as the cnrcial ‘new covenant’ of Jeremiah 31: 31.7 Moreover, the integrity of the Mosaic Law, explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 13: I (and cf. Qohelet 3: 14), was never intended to preclude progressive modification according to altered circumstances in th e community. T h e necessity of and capacity for modification is amply attested in the term in o lo ^ of * G A L i, 385 ‫ ؛‬G d Q i. 54 n. I. ii, 16 n. 5 : MS Petermann I, 555. Baghdad?, MS Beyazit 445, 7rl 6 r, 4 4 ‫ آل ﻟ ﺒ ﺔ‬7‫ ل‬- ٧٠

z

5 Baghdadi, 2 r- 3 r. ٠ Baghdadi, 76*. 5 See above, pp. 192-3; and Hasan, .Theo^ of naskh', esp. 182-3, where naskh as

abrogation was denied, but acknowledged as the supersession of earlier revelation(s). ٥ Itqdn iii, 6; see above, p. 197. 7 Cf. Eissfeldt, Einleitung , 694; and above, I pp. 11-12.

2٠٠

QURANIC S T U D IE S

Rabbinic exegesis, e.g. in the fomula* ‫ت‬٦‫?ل ﻫﺪه?ا ا؛?ات‬ 1‫ﻫﻞ‬, the antithœis» ٥١٩۶ vs ‫?ا‬٠٩‫ د‬or ٩٥٠» and the notion of normative, as contrasted with prescriptive, legislation contained in the terms‫ ﻫال؛د ؟‬and ٢٦» ٦٦٦. The extent to which those formulations may be interpreted as evidence of abrogation depends of couree upon the precise meaning of that term. It must by now be clear that if there was ever a^eem ent among Muslim scholars on the semantic content of naskh) such would indicate general acceptance of .change’ or .transfer’, reflerted in the terms naql and tahzvil. T h e genuinely halakhic e m p lo ie n t of naskh meant the unceasing interpretation o f scripture by reference to the example of the prophet, and for the halakhists both so u rc e were equally part of revelation. Discussions of specifically Quranic abrogation, on the other hand, represented a polemical defence of the text of scripture, and were only marginally related to the formulation of law. And yet it was precisely that latter aspect of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation which in fo m ed Judaeo-Muslim controverey about its exegetical relevance. For example, Saadya’s rejection of naskh consisted entirely of arguments designed to prove that there were no contradirtions in the Biblical text, but only occasional passages which could be seen to require hemeneutical complement or specification, e٠g ٠ whether sacrifice or circumcision could be perfom ed on the Sabbath.4 Similarly, the five points adduced and rejerted as evidence of naskh by Sa'd b. MangUr (Ibn KammUna) reflect an attitude towards the text of scripture nearly unrelated to the eventual necessity of halakhic modification of ite contents.‫؟‬ In his rebuttal, on the other hand, the author invoked the traditional areenal of Rabbinic terminology to prove that such modification was possible, e.g. ‫ وول‬٠‫ ﺑ ﺚ‬: Vlp m .6 Those arguments for naskh in Hebrew scripture adduced and so easily dismissed by Jewish apologists can hardly be said to exhibit either the subtlety or the range of M uslim discussions of abrogation. A degree of misrepresentation or, at least, of incomplete representation of opposing views is not unexpected in,polemic, but that the methodological proximity, even identity, of Rabbinic and Sunni Muslim halakhah should be ipiored, or suppressed, in the polemical literature might be thought to require an explanation. Among Jevtish scholare were some who did in fart acknowledge the presence of naskh in ‫ ا‬Bacher, Terminologie !٠ 5 3 .6 ‫ ؛‬cf. Zunz, V orträge٠ 54 n. (e)‫ ؛‬and Eibogen, ٠ ٠ » » ٠ dienst. ‫لآ‬5 ‫ ة‬٠ 2 Bacher, Terminologie i, ‫ل‬ 7 ‫ه‬- 2 ‫ ا‬ii, 142, ‫ل‬ 86 ‫ل‬ 9 , 239 ‫ ؛‬Gerhardsson, Memory, 97 n. 7,

233 n. 2, 264, 287. 5 Bacher, op. eit. 25 ,‫؛‬, ii, 4 . 1 ‫ ؛‬Gerhardsson, op. cit., 117, 182. 256, 3.5, 317-2.. ٠ Saadya, K itd b al-Am änät, 128-45, esp. 1 4 .5 ‫ ؛‬cf. Schreiner, ‘Zur Geschichte., 6 0 4 6 . 5 Ihn Kammöna, Tanqih a l-abh äth , 45-7‫ ؛‬cf. Steinschneider, P olm ische L itera tu r , T a n # al-abHath. ‫ آبم‬٠

P R IN C IP L E S ٠ F E X EG E S IS

2 .1

Hebrew scripture, for example, Abraham b. David,* w h . regarded as permissible abrogation in the sense of recognizing the temporal and/or spatial limits of certain divine pres^ptions, in other words bada or takksis. But the preoccupation of Jewish apologists was naturally, in the light of M uslim claims that predictions of the advent of Islam had teen removed from Hebrew scripture, with the unassailable character of their book, and one cannot help b u t suspect that it was abrogation in the sense of supereession which, d e si^ a te d naskh in the polemical literartire, was being unconditionally rejected. That was not the meaning of naskh in M uslim halakhic exegæis, but the overtones of abrogation as reference to the supereession of earlier revelations had never been quite eliminated, e.g. in Baghdadi, and could even be derived from the principal Quranic lociprobantes traditionally adduced in support of the dortrine: Q. 2 : 1 0 6 but also 2 2 : 5 2 , 1 6 : I O I , 1 7 : 7 6 , and and 13: 39. As a contribution to the history of terminolo^cal complexity, the lapsus calami in the Hebrew translation of Maimonides. Pereq Heleq, which resulted in rendering ٦0‫ ل‬not as ‫( ﺗﻬﺎ ?ا‬naskh) but as pJW (naql)) is not without interest: it was the abrogation of the Mosaic Law by subsequent revelation(s) which the author was concerned to deny.» One can hardly insist that the course of polemic on the subject of abrogation was influenced exclusively by exploitation, or ignorance, of the ambiguity inherent in the Arabic te n n naskh. It does, however, seem clear that the real dispute was not about differences of exegetical procedure, of which there were virtually none, but about the respertive claims of Torah and Qur’an to be the word of God.» In the fom ulation of a h k k y which could only retrospertively be understood as the derivation of law from revelation, the fart of a canonical text of scripture was, if not quite a hindrance, then of very little help and probably regarded as something of a challenge. N o element in either the Style or the stmcture of halakhic exegesis points unmistakably to the necessity, or even to the existence, of the canon as uMmately preserved and transmitted. It may of course be ar^ied that the m dim ents at least of a comparative method can be inferred from the chronological artangement of scriptural passages, from the juxtaposition of muhkam and mutashabih) and from the opposition of näsikh and mansukh٠But the comparison was of parts to parts, not of parts to a whole.. As hermeneutical instruments chronolo&r, ‫ ا‬Cf. Steinschneider, ٠ p. cit., 353 n ٠ . 5‫ل‬ Schreiner, ٠ p. cit., 635-». ‫ع‬ See Hyman, ‘Maimonides. “Thirteen Principles'» », 128 n. 58. ‫د‬And thus more approximately related to the Muslim charge, o f fo rg er (‫؛‬t ahrif ) ٠ see above, pp. 1 8 ^ 0 ‫ ؛‬on procedural similarity it may be noted that one of Ibn Kamm٥ na»8 a lim en ts, Tartqih, 46, a .in s t naskh (ric) was that scripture commanded obedience to the

prescriptions articulated by successive prophets‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 174-5. ٠ A halakhic midrash is unattested before Quipibi (d. 671/1272), cf. G A L i, 415-16, Suppl. I. 737.

Q U R A N IC STUD IE S

2 .2

analog, and abrogation were, in respert of the existence of the canon, neutral. Similarly, the employment of traditions ([ahadith) to link Sunna and Q uran emphasized the role of revelation b u t not exclusively of scripture. The dichotomy of ‘Q ur’än as document’ and 'Qur.ân as source’ proposed by Burton, while no t without a certain methodological utility, is misleading if meant to postulate the historical existence of the canonical text before it became a source of law.1 Logically, it seems to me quite impossible that canonization should have preceded, not succeeded, recognition of the authority of scripture within the Muslim community. Chronologically, the data of Arabic literature cannot be said to attest to the existence of the canon before the be^nning of the third/ninth centtity. These tentative and admittedly conjectural conelusions might be thought to derive some support from the form of scripture in halakhic argumentation: the prartice of adducing selected and discrete passages provides negative evidence of a kind comparable to the absence of explicit reference to the Qur’5n in other related contexts.* Moreover, the marginal character of lexi.1, grammatical, and syntactical analysis in the work of the halakhists indicates little concern for a ne v ä t u r or even relatively stable text of scriprore.3 My own hypothesis, that establishment of such a text presupposed rather than prefigured acceptance of the Qur’an as a source of law, gains some strength from the sudden efflorescence of masoretic exegesis soon after the l i t e r a l formulation of the a h k k . 4 . MASORETIC EXEGESIS

T he Quranic masorah consists basically of three elements: lexical explana. tion, ^am m atical analysis, and an agreed apparatus of variant reading. Its elaboration required two exegetial instruments: texttial a n a lo g and periphrasis, as well as the introdurtion of evidence from a large and conveniently flexible corpus of Arabic poetty. A single ‘non-textual’ component of the masorah, and curiously, the only one adduced in the ٠roj^l* Egyptian edition of the Q ur’Sn, is desi۴ ation of the place of revelation (mawätin al-nuzüî), the purpose and derivation of which were not masoretie but halakhic.. But even th at material is of some comparative, methodolo^cal value for a study of the masorah proper, especially of the variae lectiones. Ascription and ttansmission, both of information on the circumstances of revelation and of reports on variant readings, were formulated exclusively as traditions from the companions of the prophet, and are thus subject to the analjrtical criteria appropriate to, say, legal and ‘historical’ traditions. It m ight be argued that a possible exception to this role is ‫ ا‬.Cranes», 251-2, 259. 5 See above. III pp. 100-1.

See above, I pp. 4 4 -5 . II pp. 82-3. 4 See above, pp. 177-81.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X EG E S IS

2 .3

represented by the existence of *regional» codices, but those appear to be not only later than the *companion’ codices, but like them also largely fictive.* Of genuinely textual variants exhibiting material deviation from the canonical text of revelation, such as are available for Hebrew and Christian scripture, there are none. The Quranic masorah is in fart entirely exegetical,* even where its contents have been transmitted in the guise of textual variants. An example will illustrate this not uninteresting phenomenon: in what appeara to be the earliest collertion of variants (masähif) from the con. sonantal text of the .Uthmanic recension (imäm), a chapter entitled ‫ﺑﺎ ب‬ ‫ ] اﻟ ﺰ واﺋﺪ ﺑ ﻦ اﻟﺤﺮوف اﻟﺘ ﻰ ﺧﻮﻟ ﻒ ﺑﻬﺎ اﻟ ﺨ ﻂ [ﻓﻰ اﻟﺘﺮآن‬in the Fadä'U ‫إ ه‬Qur'än of Abu *Ubayd (d. 224/838), Q. 18: 79 was rendered , ^ ‫ن وراﺀﻫﻢ‬ 4

‫ * ﻳﺎ ﺧ ﺬ ﻛﻞ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺻﺎﻟﺤﺔ ﻏ ﺼﺎ‬and the intrusive (non-ranonical) ٠säliha»

attributed to the codex of Ubayy b. Ka.b.3 Using the same source, Bergstrasser-Pretzl described säliha (sound, in good repair) as an aetio. logical addition (motimerender Zusatz)) an obvious assessment from the point of view at least of the canon’s tertual integrity.. But attribution to Ubayy was arbitraty.. the reading with ßüha appeared not only there but also in the codiere of 'Abdallah b. Mas.üd and Ibn *Abbäs.5 T he transparency of that device, by means of which an exegetical gloss could be constrtied as evidence of a tettual variant, emerges from examination of Muqatil’s treatment of Q. ‫ل‬8 ‫ ذ‬7 9 ‫ ﺑ ﺔ ﺻﺎﻟﺤﺔ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﺳﻮﻳﺔ ﻏﺼﺒﺎ‬٠‫ﻳﺎ ﺧ ﺬ ﻛ ﻞ‬ ‫) ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ر ﻳ ﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﻏ ﺼﺒﺎ ﺑﻦ ا ﻫﻠ ﻬﺎ‬7 : ‫ل‬9°( ‫ ﺟ ﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻓﻠ ﻤ ﺎآ ﺗﺎ ﻫ ﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﻟﺤﺎ‬. ‫ﺀ ﻛ ﺘ ﻮﻟ ﻪ‬ Were it not for the chararteristically fluid boundaries between text and commentary,’ the epithet säliha could Justifiably be regarded as scriptural and glossed by the analogous usage in Q. 7: 190. On the other hand, the further epithets sahiha and ‫ ؛‬٥ ٠ ٥ (both signifying ‘sound, in good repair») could be interprrted as supercommentaty, with which haggadic exegesis was liberally strewn.» But whatever the texftial state of M uqatilS scripture, the process by which *variants» to the *Uthmanic canon were produced and allocated to one or m ore of the ‘companion’ codices is worthy of notice. T he examplre collerted by Goldziher ran hardly be interprrted as other than exegesis to the canoniral text.. Goldziher’s understanding of those phenomena as evidence of the generosity with which the text of ‫ ا‬Sec above. I pp. 44-6. 2 P a ce G d Q iii, 1.8. ‫ ا‬Spitaler, *Ein Kapitel., 7 no. 39, 9 no. 59. 4 G dQ iii, 69. 5 Jeffe^r, M ate ria ls , 143, 57,200, respectively‫ ؛‬Zamakhshari mentioned both Ubayy and Ibn Mas'öd, k h s h a f ii, 741 ad loc. ٥ Muqatil, T afsir, MS H. Hüsnü 17, 172». ’ See atove, pp. 127-9. ‫ ا‬See above, loc. cit.‫ ؛‬in Ubajrçr *sdliha’ may be scriptural, Jeffeiy, M aterials, 143. ٠ Richtungen, 4—32: consonantal, vocalic, additions, synonyms, emendations, *sCTibal

ercors.‫ ؛‬cf. S e e li^ a n n , ‘Midraschexegese’, 1 5 - .

QURANIC S T U D IE S

scripture was treated need n . t be discounted, but the chronological evolution of the majdhif literature strongly suggests that the *companion, codices were manufactured from exegetical material in support of an arrim en t central to the traditional account of canonization, namely, the .Uthmanic recension. Much of that material pemisted anyway in the form of standard deviations from the canon, accommodated by the ٥^ n ^ d ٥ctrine,i evidence in my opinionof a tendency to p re se ra rather than to neutralize. With the (later) delimitation of scripmral text and commentary, exegetical glosses of the sort represented by *saliha٠ achieved a very special status tantamount to revelation, as may be inferred from Suyûtï’s observations on the *readings, salät al-*asrjwa-saldt al-*a$r ٥d Q. 2: 238.2 Citing Abu 'Ubayd’s Fadail aUQurdri) he ascribed the reading w ithout the conjunctive MW to both Haf?a and *Ä.isha.3 and argued that the function of the isolated variant (qirä*a shâdhdha),4 although basically exegetical. was of an order higher than that of mere exegesis: ‫اﻟﻤﺘﺼﺪ ض اﻟﺘﺮاﺀة اﻟ ﺜﺎ ﻧ ﺔ‬

‫ ﻓ ﻬ ﻮ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻀﻤﻴﺮ وأﻗﻮي ﻓﺄدﻧﻰ‬. . . ‫ﺗﻔﺴﺮ اﻟﻘﺮاﺀة اﻟﻤﺜﻬﻮزن وﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﺑ ﺤﺒ ﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻒ اﻟﺤﺮوف ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣ ﺤﺔ ا ﻟ ﺸ ﻞ‬. T hat the origin of the readings) was not textual but doctrinal, despite the apparatus of transmission, might be inferted from the juridical as well as I i t u . c a l significance of the V prayer.‫؛‬ Now, elevation of the exegetical gloss to the status of *companion’ reading did not preclude the stigma which m ight attach to designation of such as interpolation (mudraj). Critical evaluation of textual variants (masdhif) and/or readings (qiraät)6 depended primarily, if not exclusively, upon attestation (ùnüd), as may be seen in the relevant nomenclature, e.g. mutawätir, mashhür, âhàdy shàdhà , etc.7 Supplementary, b u t second, ary, criteria were grammatical feasibility (wajhfil-'aràyya) and agreement with the consonantal skeleton (muiodfaqa 'aid r a m j l t t ), the latter appropriate in practice only to modification of pointing and of vowels. In practice, too, the hierarchy of attestation and of ttansmission cnaql) might include the other criteria, so that the designations mtawatir (generally attested) and thiqa (soundly attested) could be in all three respects valid for the seven m ajor *readings'.» D ânï’s description of the science of qiraa ‫ ا‬Goldsiher, op. cit., 35-51 ‫ل‬ GdQ iii. 1.6-8; and see above, I p. 45.

2 Itqdn 8 - 227 ,‫؛‬.

3 Apparently corcectly, but see GdQ iii, 150 n. I ; cf. Spitaler, .Ein K ap itel, 4-5 nos. 12-20, esp. no. 14, though nos. 12-13 do identify ٧ af‫؟‬a with the reading wa-fülät alV ; for the sake o f tidiness it may be added that the same reading was ascribed to yet another wife of the propliet, Umm Salama, see Jeffery, Materials, 235. ٠ Cf. Gd٥iii, 136-7, 155, 228-30. * See Goldziher, Richtungen, 14-15; and id. .Nachmittagszeit., 294-302. ٠ Often undifferentiated, see GdQ iii, 6 ٠ n. 2, but cf. Jeffeiy, Materials, 13-14. 7 See Suyfltf, Itqdn i, 21.-29; GdQ iii, .4 ٣ 57‫ل‬ ٠ e.g. SuyUtf. Itqdn i, 225.

PRIN CIPLES ٠ F EXEGESIS

2.5

as one necessarily guaranteed by authority {surma m u ü èa d ) may be seen as theoretical acknowlwlgement of the primary criterion.! Into the conventional lists illustrating the relative ranks of .reading»,» examples of acknowledged interpolation m ight be fitted by restrirting numerically the extent of attestation: SuyUtlS loci probantes included ‘min umm* ad Q. 4: 12 and ‘‫ م‬mawasim al-kajj* ad Q. 2: 198, and might be thought not very different from those examples allegedly derived from ‘companion» codices and discussed above. TCiat a considerable amount of exegetical gloss was not in this way relegated to the masorah. b u t rather left undisturbed in the text of scripture, has been proposed.5 The closed system of‘reading, symbolized by acknowledgement of the Seven/Ten/Fourteen authorized versions represented a generously defined consonantal text whose stabilization was chronolo^cally fixed by recourse to the familiar device of ascription. Illustration of the produrt of that method ‫ ئ‬found in the collertion of readings ascribed to Hasan Basrl (d. 110/728).. T he textual standardization exhibited there, e.g. the reduction of variants to vtralic and diacritic mutation, interapereed with allegedly ‘dialectal» forms, did not suppress altogether the exegetical moment, as can be seen in yu'badltubad for tiabud ٥d Q. I : 4,5 and k ä for kadkib ad Q. 12: 18.. T he role of Hasan as eponym in the elaboration of a Basran tradition for the science of Q ur.än reading was very si^ificant indeed, despite his praum ed insignificance (‫ )ض‬in that very tradition :7 it was of course as a source of tafsir that he was selerted to be the fi^jrehead of a re ^ o n al tradtion, a tendency reflected also in ascription to him of the polemically e x o tic a l Risala ß-qadar.% The polarization round celebrated f i b r e s of ori^nally anonymous dirta, whether in hadtth) tafsify or qirä*ät, reflerts an exclusively methodological and tendentiously formulated a rrim e n t of the Islamic sciences, from which objective historical data can hardly be elirited. The same m ethodol^cal tendency may be deterted in the three criteria (shurut) employed to the validity of a scripttiral reading: acceptance for cultic p u ^ o s e s required authoritative and collertive attestation (،‫ ﺀه‬٠‫ ة‬turjnaql al-îhiqàt), which logically presupposed both agreement with the consonantal skeleton of the *Uthmanic recension and grammatical ‫ ا‬Apud SuyUtf, Itqdn if 2 „ ; see ab ٠ ve٠ p. 169. 2 e.g. of I b n J a z a ri, apud Suyüçl, Itqdn i, 2 1 5 -1 6 . 3 See above, I p p . 27-9. ٠ B ergsträsser, ٠K o ra n I ٥١٠g', e sp . 2 0 - 4 6 ; GdQ i i i , 1 . 4 ٥. I , I JO. 5 'K o ra n le su n g ', 2 0 ‫ ؛‬c ٤ above. I I I p. 1 .8 w h e re th e ‘read in g ' w as a d d u c t in a q u ite different c o n te x t. ٥ 'K o ra n le su n g ', 36 ; a a - o u s l y ad d u ced b y K alb J. Tafsir, M S Ayasofya 118, I 2 9 r 0

٠‫ ه‬7‫ ﻗ ﺔا ل‬iii. 165. 177. ٠ S e e a to v e , p p . 1 6 . 3

‫ ؛‬th e chronolog ical co n clu sio n s o f GdQ iii, 1 . 4 n . I , are d e riv e d fro m a histo rical f ra m e w o * now here atte ste d in th e c o l l e c t i f its e lf o f H a s a n 's ‘readings*.

QURANIC S T U D I E S

feasibility‫ ؛‬acceptance for exegetical purposes might waive agreement with the consonantal skeleton but such precluded cultic employment: ‫ﻳ ﺠ ﻞ وال‬ ‫إﻗﺮا ﺑﻪ‬.‫ ﺀ‬T h e distinction was later defined as that obtaining betareen mash-

hvr and shâdhâ) terms related, not surprisingly, to degrees of attestation rather than to fonctional values. Dispute (ikhtiläf) engendered by contradictoty readings or which employed alleged variants as proof-texts, e.g. 2 2 2 2 ‫؛‬, or lämastum V. lamastum ٥٥ Q. 4: 43, could always be resolved by the customary reference to attestation, though multiple readings were seen by some to reflect the superiority of the Qur.än over other scriptures, whose revelation (and hence, by a curious

yathurna V. yatahharna ٥٥ Q.

logic, their interpretation) was limited to a single ‘aspect’ (wajh): ‫ و‬1‫إ ﻇﻪ‬

‫ ﻟﻬﺎ وﺷﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻋ ﻞ ا ﺋ ﺮ ا أل ﻣ ﻢ إ ذ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳﻨﺰل ﻛ ﺎ ب ﻏﻴﺮﻫﻢ اال < ا وﺟﻪ واﺣﺪ‬١‫ﻓﻎ‬.‫ﺀ‬ Option in that kind of dispute was m ore often expressed by the term

ikhtiyar than by tarjihj f ite possibly owing to the suggestion of a tertium comparationis in the latter, which was essentially halakhic.3 The extent to which the term s were interchangeable m ust be qualified in the same way as e m p lo ie n t of the term qiyäs by halakhists and masoretes respectively.. Acknowledgement of a multiple reading m eant in theoty recognition of a multiple revelation (i.e. ‫ ه’ ىص‬was elevated to the stattis of ‫(ﻫﺮوة‬,‫ ﺀ‬an example of which was 'ajibta V. 'ajibtu ٥٥ Q. 37 ‫ل ؛‬2 .‫ ه‬But an exegete like Zamakhshari, preoccupied with textual tidiness, found it expedient to rationalize: the first-person pronoun m ust indicate indignation rather than surprise, or be interpreted as hypothetical, or be annulled by insertion of *qui

Muhammad':7 The intrtisive chararter of variae lectiones in the exegesis of Muqatil, Kalbi, and Sufyan has been noticed.8 T h a t the Quranic masorah had not yet been elaborated could be inferred not only from the paucity in haggadic exegesis of textual discussion bu t also from the elliptical form of such w hen found, suggestive of later redactional activity presupposing masoretic fonnulations. For example, M uqatilS proposal ٥٥ Q. iS: 44 that one may read M aya (،mulk: domfoion) or waldya (‫؛‬nusra: support) is found folly documented in Farra’.. Similarly, MuqatilS interpretation ٥٥ 1 Suyüçl, Itqdn i. 213-14. 2 2 5 ‫ ؛‬cf. Ibn Qutayba, T a ’zvil, 32‫ ؛‬G d Q iii, ‫ل‬ 2‫و‬ ٠ * Suyüfï, I ¥ n i» 226^ , cf. also iv, 1 .3 -4 ‫ ؛‬that argument may be compared with the antithesis m unajjam :jum la zvahida, above. I pp. 3 ^ 8 . ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 187-8‫ ؛‬G d Q iii. 1.7, 12^ 37. ٠ See above, pp. 167-9‫ ؛‬cf. Suyütî. Itqdn i. 229 for tarjih. ‫ ا‬Suyütî, Itqdn i, 227. ٠ See Goldziher, Richtungen, 21-2 ‫أ‬reference Tabari, Tafstr xxiii, 26 ad loc. 7 K a s h s h a fiv , 37-8 ad lo c .‫ ؛‬the third explanation is an application of taqdXT, see below, p p .219-21. ‫ ا‬See atove» pp. 127, 132-3, 138. ٠ MuqStil, Tqfstr, ‫ل‬ 7٠ ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ ؛‬Farra., M a dm 'l-Q ur'än ii, 145-6.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X E G E S IS

١ Q. 18: 8٠ of khashina (we fe a re d as ' a k a (we knew) might be thought to require the documentation of Farrä ٠, in which reference was made to the codex of U b a ^ .i As has been noted, ascription of variants to ‘companion, codices was characteristic of masoretic exegesis, in which specific authority was sought for traditions up to that point anonymously prese^ ed and transmitted. T h at the equivalence k h é i . ' d i m n à for Q. 18: 80 cannot in fact be derived from the codex of Ubajty is hardly surprising‫ »؛‬some impression of the cavalier treatment of ‘companion, codices can be gained from comparison of the diametrirally opposed views of Ibn Hazm and Ibn Hajar on the exact contents of the codex of .Abdallah b. Mas.öd (i.e. the presence/absence of the m u a m i k ta n ) } For a textual histoty of Muslim scripttire, as opposed to drctrinal statements on the formation of the Quranic canon, the parallel passages which I have described as ‘variant traditions, may be thought relevant.. Unlike the exclusively exegetical variant ra d in g s , glosses, interpolations, and synonym-equivalences, the variant traditions exhibit at least the components of a process by which scripttire was produced from revelation. T hey represent the only material variants w ithin or outside the canonical text, and were to some extent so acknowledged in the works of Horovitz

VKoranische Untersuchungen) aivA (JHe biblischen Erzählungen im ‫)„ ى ﻫ ﺞ‬. As m ight be expected, masoretic employment of this material was seldom explicit, but one example is BaydSwi’s reference for the Zechariah traditions ad Q. 19: 10 (three nights) to the complementaty locution ‘three days’ in Q. 3 : 4 1 : ‫و إ ﻧ ﺎ ﻧ ﻜ ﺮ اﻟﻠﻴﺎﻟ ﻲ ﻫﺌﺎ وا ألﻳﺎم ف اق ﻋﻤﺮان‬

‫ﻟﻠﺪالﻟﺔ ﻋ ﻞ اﻧﻪ ا ﺷ ﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ اﻟ ﻤ ﺦ ﻣﻦ ﻛ ال م اﻟﻨﺎ س واﻟﺘﺠﺮد الﻧ ﻜ ﺮ واﻟﺜ ﻜ ﺮ ﺛ الﺛﺔ‬ .‫ وﻳﺎ م و ﻳ ﺎ ﻳ ﻬ ﻦ‬It could, on the other hand, be argued that the masoretes'

5

use of both textual analogy and periphrasis involved at least implicit recognition of variant traditions, perhaps in the form of similar contexts rather than as multiple veraions of a single narrative. Now, for the transmission histoty of Hebrew scripttire the role of the Masoretes ‫ ئ‬often seen to have been mechanical rather than creative.. That they were working within the (perhaps not so confining) limits of a littir^cal tradition cannot, and need not, be refilted. An essentially consonantal text is, however, susceptible of a variety of interpretations, semantic as well as grammatical. Establishment of a vocalized text would otherwise hardly have been necessary. Even in the selertion of one of two or more purely orthographic alternatives a degree of underetanding, and hence of interpretation, was essential. ‫ ا‬Tafsir, \ ‫ ا‬2 ‫ \ ل‬M a 'ä m ٠ 1-Q u rä n ii, 157. » Cf. Jeffery, M aterials, 144; G d Q iii, 88. 3 SuyUtf, Itqdn i, 221 ٠ G, dQ ii, 41-2, iii, 179. ٠ See above, I pp. 2 ^ 7 . ‫ ا‬BaydSwi, A n w a r al-tanzil iv, 4. ٥ Cf. above. III pp. 100-1 ; B an , Comparative P h ilology , 188-222.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

More complex is the character of lingua sacra iteelf, for.which apparently simple procedures like punctuation and segmentation could, and often did, involve a doctrinal commitment. F or the textual history of Muslim scripture the activity of the masoretes was not only creative but productive : of postdates which became the foundations of both grammar and lexico. graphy.i M y use of the phrase *masoretic exegesis, is intended to convey precisely those creative and productive aspects of the process by means of which revelation became scripture. The creation of a scriptural apparatus (masorah) coincided with, or was slightly posterior to, the establishment of a scriptural basis for Muslim jurisprudence, and represents acknowledgement of the authoritative stattis of revelation as one source of doctrine. T he employment of scripmral shamhid in halakhic controversy required a fixed and unambiguous text of revelation, or at least one in which ambiguity was conventionally limited. The result was the Quranic canon. The major premiss of masoretic a n a lo g was insistence upon the conceptual unity of the Quranic revelation.2 Formulated as the binary opposition muhkam.mutashabih, that premiss justified comparison of the parts to one another and eventtially of the whole to its constituent parts. In its initial stages the procedure tended to be self-contained: the kind of analogy employed was thus dedurtive. Its basic operations were two: semantic collation (lexical) and periphrastic restoration (grammatical). The first of these found rudimentaty but eminently practical expression in a work ascribed to MuqStil b. SulaymSn and entitled Kitdb a l- m j â wal-nazair,] alternatively K . tafsir m jü h al-Qur'än and Al-Ashbäh m l-

nazir tyic١ j i tafsir ٥ l-Qi4T١än١٠ Äl-Ashbäh i i - n a ‫ ؟‬ä١iT ‫ ؛‬WujiiH harf aiQur*än>6 the last-named adduced as the title of MuqätilS work from which the ertant recension was made. An undated papyrus fragment of a version of this work was published and described by Abbott as earlier than the recension preserved in Beyazit 561, itself (like Topkapi Emanet 2050) the work of one Abu Na?r, apparently a student of MuqStil but not the ttansmitter of his other-two exegetical treatises.? Neither her reasons for that conclusion, nor her reference to M uqätü’s ‘linguistic’ tafsir, inspire confidence.» It would be difficult indeed to characterize Muqâtü’s exegetical interests as ‘linguistic... and while there may be some connection ‫ ا‬For the Biblical Masorah Gertner emphasized, in my opinion rightly, the complementary relation between puncUiation/vt^lization/accentuation on the one hand, and interpretation on the other: see .T he Masorah and the Lerites., esp. 244-52. His stress upon the n a t iv e work of the Invites may, however, be thought somewhat to restrict appreciation of the same quality in the activities of the post-Talmudic Masoretes. ‫ﺀ‬See above, pp. 16^70, but also 149-53, 155-6. ‫ ا‬G A S i, 37 no. 3 ‫ ؛‬MS Beyazit 561, Emanet 2 ٠ 5٠ ٠ . M S Beyazit 561, ‫ﺀل‬٠ ‫ ا‬MS Beyazit 561. 138'. ٥ M S Emanet 2٠ 5٠ , I r. 1 Abbott, S A L P il , 92-7; see above, pp. 144, 172: Hudhayl b. Habib. ‫ ا‬Abbott, S A L P i l ٠ ٠ 6٠ 95, 1 .6 . ٠ See above, pp. 143-4.

P R IN C IP L E S OF EXEGESIS

2.9

between his teaching and this particular wo*. I am inclined to regard it as an essentially independent composition and as having been composed not earlier than the beginning of the third/ninth century. Appearance (twice!) of the term ashbâ in Beyazit 561. but not in Topkapi Emanet 2050, poses something of a problem , and may represent an attempt to classify this treatise with the m ore or lö s contemporary mutdabihj m ushtäh lexical collections.* T he Kitab al-§juhwal-nazair (Beyazit561) contains 186 lemmata in no recognizable order: conceptual schemata rather than separate lexical entries. A typical example is the material assembled sub voce wahy\i

‫ ن‬٠ ‫( ﻣﺘﻬﺎ اﻟ ﻮ ﺣ ﻰ اﻟﺬ ى ﻛﺎ ن ﻳﻐﺰل ﺑﻪ ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ‬I) ‫ﺗﻔ ﺴﺮ اﻟﻮﺣ ﻰ ﻋ ﻞ ﺧ ﺲ وﺟﻮه‬ ‫ﻟﻌﻪ ﻋ ﻞ ا ألﺑﻴﺎ ﺀ ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ إﺗﺎ ا و ﻫﻨﺎ اﻟ ﻴ ﻚ ﻧﻌﻨ ﻰ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﻛ ﺎ ووﻫﻨﺎ اﻟﻰ ﻧﻮح‬١ ‫واﻟﻨﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪه ﺛ ﻢ ﻧ ﻜ ﺮ األﻧﺒﻴﺎﺀ ﻓﻘﺎل وا و ﺑ ﻨ ﺎ اﻟﻰ إﺑ ﺮا ﻫﻴﻢ وا ﺳ ﻌﻴ ﻞ اﻟﻰ‬ ‫) وﻧﺤﻮه‬6 ‫ل ذ‬9( ‫) وﻗﺎل واوﺣﻰ ا ذ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺘﺮآن ال ﻧ ﻨ ﺮ ﻛ ﻢ ﺑﻪ‬4 ‫ ة ل ت‬3( ‫آ ﺧﺮ اآلﻳﺔ‬ / ( 2 ) ‫ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ف اﻟ ﻤﺎﺋﺪة وإذ ا و ﺑ ﺬ‬.‫واﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ اﻟﻮ ﺣ ﻰ ﻳ ﺾ ا إلﻟ ﻬﺎ م ﻓﻨ ﺲ‬ I I I ) ‫رﻟﻰ‬-‫اﻟﻰ اﻟ ﺤﻮاوﻳ ﻦ ﻳﻌﻨﻰ اﻟ ﻬ ﻤ ﺖ اﻟﺤﻮارﻳ ﻦ ا ن اﻣﺌﻮا ﺑﻰ ىر‬ ‫اﻟﻨ ﺤﻞ واو ص رﺗﻠﻒ اﻟﻰ اﻟﻨ ﺤ ﻞ ﻳﻘﻮل واﻟ ﻬ ﻢ وﺗﻚ اﻟﻨ ﺤﻞ ا ن ا ﺗ ﺨﻨ ﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟ ﺠﺒﺎ ل‬ ‫ را ن ﻟﺰإﻛﺮﻳﺎ‬٠‫ل ) (ت) واﻟﻮﺟﻪ ا ﻟ ﺜ ﺎ ك اﻟﻮﺣﻰ ﻛ ﺎ ب ﻓﺬﻟ ﻚ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﻓﻰ آ ل ﺀ‬6 ‫ ذ‬68( ‫ﺑﻴﻮﺗﺎ‬

5) ‫ وﻛﻘ ﻮﻟ ﻪ ف‬:

(4 ) ( ‫ل‬9 ‫ ؛‬I I ‫ﻓﺎوﺣﻰ اﻟ ﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ﻳﻘﻮل ﻛ ﺐ اﻟﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ﻛ ﺬا ﺑﺎ ا ن ﺳﺒﺤﻮا ﺑﻜﺮه وﻋﺸﻴﺎ (إ‬ ‫ ا د ﺑ ﺪ ة وأوﺣ ﻰ ﻓﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻤﺎﺀ‬۶ ‫واﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﻟﺮاﻳﻊ اﻟﻮﺣﻰ اﻣﺮ ﺑﺬﻟ ﻚ ﻓﻮﻟﻪ ﻓﻰ‬ ‫) وﻓﺎل ﻓﻰ ا ألﻧﻌﺎم ﺷﻴﺎﻃﻴﻦ اإلﻧ ﺲ واوﺟﻦ ﻳﻮﺣ ﻰ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ اﻟﻰ‬4 ‫ ذل‬12 ( ‫اﻣﺮﻫﺎ‬ ‫) وﺗﺎ ل ﻓﻰ ﺳﻮره ا ألﻧ ﻌﺎ م وإن اﻟﺜﻴﺎ ﻃﻴ ﻦ‬6 : 112( ‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﻳﻘﻮل ﻳﺄﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﺑﻌﻀﺎ‬ ‫) واﻟﻮﺟﻪ‬5( )6 : ‫ل‬2 ‫ﻟﻴﻮﺣﻮن اﻟﻰ اوﻟﻴﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﻨ ﻰ ﻧﺎﻣﺮوﻧﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﻮﺳﺔ واﻟﺘﺰﻳﻴﻦ (ل‬

‫اﻟﺨﺎﻣﺲ اﻟﻮ ﺣ ﻰ اﻟﻘﻮو ﻓ ﺬﻟ ﻚ ﺗﻮﻟﻪ ﻓﻰ إ'ذا زﻟﺰﻟ ﺖ األرض ﺑﺄن رﺗ ﻚ او ص ﻟﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻰ‬ (99: 5) ‫ ﻗﺎ ل ﻟﻬﺎ‬. Thus, for five allegedly distinct uses of the term . ٠ ٠ nine scripttiral passages were adduced: 1. ^ . : r e v e l a t i o n ( . . 4:163, 6 : ‫)ول‬ Wahy: i n s p i r a t i o n {ilhdm) (Q. 5: I I I , 16: 68) 3. Wahy: w r i t i n g {kitab) (Q. ‫ول‬: I I ) 4. Wahy: command (٥«r)(Q. 41: 12, 6: 112, 6:121) 5. Wahy: speech (qaml)(Q .5 :‫) و و‬ 2.

Selection of the verses was a rb itra ^ : of seventy-taro occurences in the Qur.än of a finite form of the verb awha and six of the substantive wahy) not more than five, possibly six, separate contexts can be elicited, and those correspond roughly to the five .aspects, {mjuh) of Beyazit 561. But some qualification, as well as differentiation, is necessaty. T he first a s^ c t ‫ ا‬See below, pp. 212-16.

2 MS Beyazit 561. 94r- 5 ٠ .

QURANIC STUDIE S

(revelation) is, for example, logically misleading since, as a descriptive term for divine communication, it m ust include the remaining four asperts. Strictly interpreted, the definition of revelation as ‘that mediated by Gabriel to the prophets, cannot be reconciled with Muslim doctrine on the modes of revelation, but if that difficulty is overlooked, wahyjawhä as ‘revelation’ will account for a quarter of its Quranic occurences (of which seven refer to Moses, and five to Noah).! F o r the second aspect (inspiration) the ttaditional locus probans was indeed Q. 16: 68‫ ؛‬inclusion here of Q. 5: I I I presupposed a sophisticated distinction between prophets and apostles, but one well established in the tradition of JudaeoChristian polemic, possibly the source of the semantic equivalence w ahy : ilhäm . 2 Logically, the passages alluding to demonic inspiration (Q. 6: 112, 6: 121) belong here and not under the fourth aspect (command/ decree), which exhibits wahy as manifestation of the divine will in creation. For th at function of wahy, Q. 41: 12 is appropriate, as would have been inclusion of Q. 99: 5. U se of the latter to illustrate the fifth aspert (speech) is curious. In fart, a separate funrtion of wahy as speech is only significant as one component of the conttast between the fifth aspert and the third (writing), for which the choice of Q. 19: I I m ight seem singularly inappropriate.} Incidentally, the conftision here between Suras 3 and 19 seems to reveal uncertainty about the place of variant traditions in the canon.« T hat for the third aspert kitab cannot be ‘decree’ seems clear from the separate listing of the fourtli aspect.‫ ؟‬T he intended reference may have been to wahy as scripttire, for which Q. 17.. 39, 1 8 1 1 4 ‫ ؛‬27, 2 29: 45, etc. could be proposed. And Q. 19: I I would illustrate wahy as speech. Absent from the lexical analysis in Beyazit 561 is the notion of wahy as dispatch {irsä[)y for which Q. 42: 52 might have been adduced.. The polysemy of wahy in the document of revelation is thus attested, but in a m anner clearly anterior to the elaboration of sophisticated semantic analysis. T h at example is characteristic of the 186 lemmata: with the exception ol deveiv ‫ ا‬١‫ ث ط‬paiftdts*. 1١١ sîu)â١ k l ١ j î ١ è ١ ٥ ١ ٠ ١ ٥ m١ jû ١ ٥ qa١ tïui١ hattäy and ilia) all may be described, within the framework of lingua sacra, as theological concepts, e.g. h u k ) kufr, k y ithniy dalal) siräpy etc. But the principle by means of which the several uses of each were differentiated was of broader linguistic application: namely, the reference to context. However inappropriate the acttial loci probantes might seem, the num ber of aspects (wujtih) for any particular item approximates very closely to the num ber of scriptural contexts in which the locution appeare. T he I

See above, I pp. 33-8.

»

See above, II pp. 5 8 -9.

‫ ا‬T hus Ibn Qutayba, T atvil, 373-4 S.V. wahy. ٠ Cf. e.g. B a y .w ï ٠ ٠ the same subject, above p. 2.7. ‫ ا‬See above, II pp. 76-7. ٠ T hat sense was adduced by Ibn Qutayba, Tam il, 373-4, using Q. 6: !..

P R IN C IP L E S OF EXEG ESIS

211

١ lexical d a ta th u s isolated m ig h t more accura‫؟‬ely be described as reference rather th a n as in fo m atio n .. T his kind of lexicography was exclusively concerned to elucidate scriptural imagery, and hence avowedly exegetical. T he ty p e, exemplified in th e prim aty title of Beyazit 561, K. al-îvujüh m l-nazair, became a gen re of exegetical literature and a basic com ponent o f th e masorah. A scription of its origins to M uqStil was occasionally explicit.2 M alafr too, in h is K. T a ä h ascribed to M uqStil a series of sem antic e q u iv a l e n t in w hich m uch of th e scriptural lexicon was reduced to a lim ited num ber o f standard synonym s .3 But the m ethod em ployed there w as th e obveree o f M u q ä tü ’s ‘aspects’: only one ‘m eaning, was adduced fo r each scripfoiral concept in w hatever context (cf. the introductOty fonnula: kuüshaÿfi'l-Q ur'ân . . .ycCni...) . T he m aterial includes m ost of what I have designated m inim al units o f explicarion, e.g. kadhâlikaihakaä ) l à y n â :٠ indana, laallaAikay,4 b u t also several w hich presupposed a rather m o re complex interpretation, e.g. khâtam:tàb\ ghuluf.akinna.‫ة‬ In th a t arcangement th ^ in fo rm in g principle was n o t ‘aspect’ (1wajhj m j â ) b u t ‘analogie’ (naztrjnazair). B oth m ethods are illustrated in SuyU‫؟‬ï's c h ap ter on ûl-wujüh m l-nazair, in which the nazcCir (kull shay* f i ٠l-Qur*än) were qualified b y specifying the exceprions to their general ‘m eanings’.‫ ؛‬T h u s gradually, a more o r less fixed p a tte rn of sem antic distribution was elaborated for the lexicon of scripftire which included to th polysem es and/or hom onym s czuujuh) and synonym s (nazatr).7 T hough th e early stages o f the process exhibit a concern prim arily w ith substantives, the dozen o r so purely gram m atical elem ents in Beyazit 561 g en erated a similar b u t separate treatm ent of particles (adätjadawät)} which in S u y ô tï’s treatise ranged from the intertOgative hamza to the vocative 8.‫ةرو‬ T h e earliest uses of th e te n n nazir v a ry :, in the w orks ascribed to M uqätil th e ‘analogy’ is explicitly textual, e.g. for bakhi*un nafsàa (Q . 2 6 ‫؛‬ 3 ad 18: 6), for shafaian (Q. 38: 22 and 72: 4 ad 18: 14), and for saffan (Q. 20: 6 4 ad 18.. 48).!. I n Bayazit 561 the term « ٥^ occurs pasnm , always, a n d not unexpectedly in view o f the nature o f th e collection, to introduce an anal‫؟‬ based upon an identical word o r phrase. In b o th H. H ü sn ü 17 and Beyazit 561 the te n n was employed interchangeably ‫ ا‬See above, ‫ ا‬See above, ٠ See above, ٥ ‫ ل‬¥‫ أ ل‬, n a v f

p. 142, and III. pp. 99-100. » e.g. Sujrätf, ltq a n ii. 121. pp. 165-6; Malati, K itd b al-tanbih) 5 ^ 3 . pp. I2۴ 3٠ . 5 Cf. above, II pp. 64-5 and 72-3, respectively. 39: ii, 121-39(122-31 and 1 3 2 1 , respectively); th e » specifically masoretic terns are n ot to be confitsed with the later juridical â â h z v a -n a za ir, though the principle of a n a lo g underlying them is of course the same, cf. Schacht, Introduction, 114, 265. 7 The had an ancient ^ d igree from the Hellenistic schools o f rhetoric and became eventually a source for both halakhic and masoretic exegesis, cf. Daube, IRabbinic methods', 241 n. 7; and WUrthwein, Text, 21-2 (e.g. Okhla tve-okhla). ‫ ا‬ltq a n , now* 4٠ ‫ذ‬ii. 140-259. « See above, pp. 127, 7- 169 ‫ل‬ 43 ‫ا‬. . I. MuqStil, T afsir, MS H . H üsnü 17, 167., ‫ل‬ 6‫و‬ ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ ‫ا‬7٠ ‫ﺀ‬ ٠ respectively.

QURANIC S T U D IE S with mithluha and ka-qawlihi: ‘textual a n alo g es’ were derived exclusively from th e tex t of scripture. T he significance of that m eth o d emerges from com parison of M uqätil w ith his contem porary SufySn T haw rl. T he latte r’s use of analogy, introduced not by nazir , but rather by ka-qawlihi or mithlu (٠ qawliki)٠was lim ited to scriptural shawahid b u t not to Utteratim constrictio n s. For exam ple, the connection between Q . 2: 28 and 4 0 : I I derives from the fact/assertion of re s u re c tio n b ut n o t from linguistic expression of that fact/assertion in th o se passage.* Similarly, acknow . ledgem ent o f divine CTeation is the only link bettveen Q. 3: 83 and 4 3 : 87, and no attem p t was m ad e to elucidate th e grammatical a n d lexical characteristics o f one passage by reference to th e other.» In th e work of Sufyan, as it has been preserved, masoretic m aterial is unm istekably intrusive, and the sam e m ay be said a t least of M u q ä til’s Tafsvr (H . Ilü sn ü 3.(7 ‫ ل‬T h e relationship of Beyazit 561 to M uqätil is, as has te e n noted, problem atic: its contents, like the lexical data ascribed to M uqatil b y M alati. signal the beginning, rather th an th e end or a stage along the way, of the exegetical developm ent which I have called m asoretic. With th a t developm ent the term nazir came to d e s i ^ a te syntactical/grammatical analogue generally, and n o t m erely with reference to the la n g a g e of scripttire. For exam ple, in F arrä. Q. 49:

II ( t f

‫ ن دﻛﻮﻧﻮا ﺧﻴﺮا‬, ‫ﻣﻰ‬٠ ‫ ﺀ‬was proposed as nazir to the

construction with an auxiliary verb in 18: 31 ‫ ﻧ ﻌ ﻢ اﻟﺜ ﻮا ب‬.. T he analogy was th u s based upon scriptural usage b u t not upon a n identical phrase. Similarly, Zam akhshari introduced w ith nazir an analogy to Q. 4 :4 8 ‫إ ن اﻟﻠﻪ‬

‫ ال ﻳﻔﻐﺮ أ ن ﻳ ﺜ ﺮ ك ﺑﺪ وﻳﻐﻔ ﺮ ﻣﺎ دون ذ ﻟ ﻚ ﻟ ﻦ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ‬from the USUS loquendi (qawhuka) ‫ إ ن ا أل ﺻ ﺮ ال ﻳﺒﻨ ﻖ اﻟ ﺪ ﻳ ﻨﺎ و وﻳﺒﺬ ل اﻟﺘﻨ ﻄﺎ وﻟ ﺾ ﻳﺸﺎﺀ‬by m eans of which th e ellipsis in th e scripniral passage could be resolved.‫ ؛‬In F arrä. are fo u n d also the locutions mithla, ka-qawlihi, and wa-hiya bi-manzilat qawlihi, b u t more often th an not to in tro d u ce analoges based upon identical w ording.. I t was th at m ethod which rem ained characteristically m asoretic and in w hich exegetical use of the te rm nazir had originated. F ro m delim itation o f hom onyms/polysem es and synonym s it w as b u t a sh o rt step to a distributional analysis o f Quranic diction. Its fonnative principle was d e s i^ a te d mushtabih (variant: m utashai)? T he earliest collection o f data organized according to that principle is ascribed to the m asorete an d (seventh) *canonical read er. K isâ ٠ï (d. 189/804).. T h e work ‫ ا‬Sufyan, Tafstr, 3. * Sufyan, T afsir, 37. ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 132-3, 138. ٠ M a 'd n î 'l-Qwr'ân ii: 141-2. 5 K a sh sh d f i, 519—20‫ ؛‬an alternative to his resolution of the construction by taqdir,

cf. Wansbrough, .Periphrastic exegesis'. 259, and below, pp. 219-24. ‫ ؛‬M adni ٠ l-Q u r’än ii, 137, 157, 5, respectively. 7 See. above, pp. 157,165. t p A S ‫؛‬, 17, 48 ‫ ؛‬MS Beyazit 436, entitled K itd b mushtabihdt al-Q ur'ân, hut given 7‫ة‬ ‫ﺀ‬ as K itd b al-M utashdbih‫و‬ see also G dQ iii, 1 8 ., 188, and p a à .

P R IN C IP L E S O F EXEGESIS

213

consists of serial enumeration by sura of locutions whicb occur once, twice, and from three to ten,* fifteen, and twenty times in the text of the canon. Appropriate illustration is provided by the material assembled under the heading *once, for Surat al-Baqcara:٤ ‫ﺑﺎ ب اﻟ ﻮا ط ﻣﻦ ﺳﻮره اﻟﺒﻘﺮة ذ‬

‫ ﺀ) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآن اﺗﻘﻮا رﺑﻜﻢ وﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺎﺗﻮا ﺑ ﺮ ر ة ﻣﻦ‬: 2 ‫ﻳﺎﻳﻬﺎ اﻓﺎ س اﻋﺒﺪوا ودﻛﻢ (ل‬ ‫ ) واﺋ ﺮ‬2 : 23( ‫ ) وا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﺷﻠﻪ ﺑﻎﺀر ﻣﻦ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ وادﻋﻮا ﺷ ﻬ ﺎ ﺀ ﻛ ﻢ‬2 : 23( ‫ﺷﻠﻪ‬ ‫ذ) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآن‬: 4‫ ﻣﺮﻓﻮﻋﺔ اﻛﺎﺀ (ل‬.‫ ﻣﻦ ا ﺷ ﻄﻌﺘﻢ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ واﻣﻨﻮا ﺑ ﺎ اﻧﺰﻟﺖ‬٤‫اﻟ ﺘﺄ ز‬ ‫) واﺋ ﺮ اﻟﻘ ﺮ ن ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﺣﻖ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ واﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬2 : ‫ ؤ‬1( ‫ﻣﻨﻌﺒﺮﺑﺔ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻴ ﻦ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﺤﻖ‬ ‫) وا ﺋ ﺮاﻟ ﻐ ﺮ آ ن واﻟ ﻤﺎﺑ ﺌ ﻮ ن ﻓﺒ ﻞ ا ﻓ ﺎ ر ى وﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬2 : 62( ‫ﻫﺎد وا واﻟﻨ ﺼﺎر ى واﻟ ﺼﺎﺑﺌﻴ ﻦ‬ ‫ ) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآ ن ﻣ ﻌ ﺪ و دا ت وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ال ﻳ ﺨﻔ ﻒ‬2 : 8٠( ‫ﻟﻦ ﺗ ﺴ ﺸﺎ ا ﻓ ﺎ ر ا ال ا ﻳ ﺎ ا ﻣ ﻌ ﺪ و دة‬ ‫ و ال ﻫ ﻢ ﻳﺘﻈﺮون وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑ ﻞ‬.‫) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآن‬2 : 86( ‫ﻋﻨ ﻬﻢ ا ﻟ ﻌ ﻨ ﺎ ب و ال ﻫ ﻢ ﻳﻨﺼﺮون‬ 2 ) ‫ ﺣﻠ ﻪ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ اﻟ ﺬ ى ﺟﺎ ﺀ ك ﻣﻦ‬.‫ ﻟ ﺺ ف اﻟﺘﺮآن‬: IOO) ‫ا ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ ال ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻮن‬ ‫ ﻫ ﻢ‬٠‫ ك وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﺘﻠﻮا ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ آ ﻳ ﺎ ﺗ ﻚ الﻋﻞ‬، ‫) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآﻣﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ا ﺟﺎ‬2 : 120( ‫اﻟ ﻌﻠ ﻢ‬

‫) و ا ﺛ ﺮ اﻟﺘ ﺮﺑﺎ وﻳ ﺰ ﻛﻴ ﻬ ﻢ ﻧ ﻌ ﻠ ﻤ ﻬ ﻢ وﻟﻬﺎ‬2 : ‫ل‬2‫ ة و ﻳ ﺰ ﻛﻴ ﻬ ﻢ (و‬٠‫اﻟ ﻜ ﺘﺎ ب واﻟﺤﻚ‬ ‫) وا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮآﻣﻦ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﻳﺎﺀ وﻟﻴﻬﺎ و ا اﻫﻖ‬2 : ‫ل‬5٠( ‫ﻓ ال ﺗ ﺨ ﺸ ﻮ ﻫ ﻢ وا ﺧﺜ ﻮ ق ﺑﻴﺎﺀ‬ ‫) وا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺘﺮن ﻟﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻪ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ وال ﻋﺎد ﻓ ال وﺛﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬2 : ‫ل‬73( ‫ﺑﻪ ﻟﻐﻴﺮ اﻟﻠﻪ‬

(73‫) ﻳ ﺲ‬2 : ‫ ةل‬5( ‫) وﻟﺺ ف اﻟﻘﺮآن ﺷﻠﻪ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ و ش ﻛﺎن ﻣﺮﻳﻐﺎ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ ﻃ ﻜ ﻢ‬2 : ‫ل‬ ‫) و ا ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﻘﺮآن‬2 : 2 ‫ل‬8( ‫ف اﻟﻘﺮ ن ﺣﻠﻪ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ إ ن اﻟﻨﻴﻦ آﻣﻨﻮا واﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﺎﺟﺮوا‬ ‫) ﻧ ﺎ ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﺰآن‬2 : ‫ ة‬7‫وﻫﺎﺟﺮوا ﻟﺺ ﻓﻴﻪ واﻟﺬﻳﻦ وﻓﻴﻬﺎ وﻧﻜﻔﺮ ﻋﺘ ﻜ ﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣ ﺴﺌﺎدﻛﻢ (ل‬ ‫) ﻳ ﺎ ﺋ ﺮ اﻟﻘﺮن‬2 : ‫ل‬7٠( ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ آﺑﺎﺀﻧﺎ‬- ‫ ن وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ اﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎ‬٠ ‫«ا ﻟ ﻜ ﻢ ﺑﻐﻴﺮ‬: ** ‫ﻋﺌ ﻜ ﻢ‬ ‫ﻟﻞ) ﻳﺎ آدم‬٠‫ ﻋ ال وﻓﻴﻬﺎ وﺗﻠﺖ (ﺀ‬.‫) وﻏﻴﺮ‬2 : 35( ‫و ﺑ ﺪ ا وﻓﻴﻬﺎ و ﻛ ال ﺣ ﻬﺎ وﻏﺪا‬ ‫) ﻟﺺ ق اﻟﺘ ﺮ ن ﺣﻠﻪ‬2 : 233( ‫) وﻓﻴﻬﺎ ال ﺗ ﻜﻠ ﻒ ﻧﻔﺲ‬2 : 35( ‫ اذﻛ ﻦ اﻧ ﺖ وزوﺟﻚ‬. In this passage twenty-one instances of ‘unique, phraseolo^ were adduced, and in all but one (the second example for Q. 2: 35) their uniqueness either reiterated (laysaft ٠l-Qur'än mithlukulghaynthu: 2: IOO, 2: 173. 2: 183, 2: 233) or contrasted with what is apparently ‘normal’ Quranic usage {wa-sâ'ir al-Qur*ân . . .). T h e contrasts thus established are not semantic but grammatical, and tarn upon the presence/absence of particles and prepositional phrases, variation in word order, in inflexion, and in o rth o ^ p h y . As in the lexical collations of Beyazit 561 and similar works, the shawähid are entirely scriptaral, and no effort was made to justify a particular constmction by reference to usage outside the QurSn. On the other hand, the selection of contrasts might be thought arbitrary: the locution ubuda rabbakum (Q. 2: 21) appeare also in Q. 22: 77 and, in a slightly expanded form, in 5:72 and 5: 117. If it is the apostrophe yä ayyuhä *l-näs which is here operative, that appeare in combination with ‫ ا‬Read 8٠, for *eleven., 61..

K itäb im htabihdt al-Qvr*än,

‫ل‬٢‫ ﺀ ا‬٠

QURANIC ST U D IES

ittaqU rabbakum only three times (Q. 4 :

I, 22: I , 31: 33), from which a stylistic norm can hardly be elicited. Rather m ore valuable would have been reference to the contrast between Q. 2: 21 and the collocation of yd ayytthd ٠lladhttta ämanü as the mode of address with the imperative ittaqü ylläh(e.g. Q. 2: 278, 5: 35, 9: 119, 33: 70, 49: I ) . But isolation and comparison of formulaic phraseolo^ as an exercise in literary analysis was not the author’s purpose, though the material assembled here may be useful to that end. Acknowledgement of variants in the fomt of inflexion (Q. 2: 62, but also 22: 17‫ ؛‬only 5: 69 has casus rectus) and of orthography (Q. 2: 150, but the alternative spelling occurs only twice, in 5: 3 and 5: 44) exhibits concern for the concepttial unity of scripture, noticed above for the lexical category of m j à . T hat acknowledgement emerges very clearly from the inclusion here of Q. 2: 233, whose locution ‫ ال ﺑ ﻜ ﻒ ﻧﻔﺲ‬and

attendant pointing w ith the internal passive may profitably be compared with the occurrence of ‫ ﻳ ﻜ ﻠ ﻒ ﺷ ﺎ‬/ ‫ ال ذ ﻛ ﻒ‬in 2: 286, 6: 152, 7: 42, 23: 62, 65: 7, but also 4 ‫ ذ‬84 ‫ ال د ﻛ ﻒ ا ال ﻧ ﻔ ﻚ‬. Like the variant traditions, of which these instances represent the formal aspect, the textual variations preserved in the canon might be thought to throw some light on the formation of Muslim scripttrre.i In K isaT s work the principle of m ià tâ h â t was sound, its application fra ^ e n ta ry . Subsequent elaboration of the genre provided m ore complete coverage of the phenom enon.2 I t may plausibly be argued that the coUation of mushtabihdt reflects awareness, on the part of the masoretes, not only of the Qur’ä n ’s stylistic homogeneity but also of ite structural idiosyncrasies, and finally, of the necessity to explain these in term s of intrinsic analoges. An example is Q. 2: 35 ‫وﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﻳﺎ آ د م اﺳﻜﻦ ا ﻧ ﺖ وزوﺧﻚ اﻟﺠﻨﺔ و ﻛ ال ﺑﻨﻬﺎ‬ ‫ اﻟ ﺜ ﺠ ﺮ ة ﻓ ﻜ ﻮ ﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻈﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ‬٠‫ رﻏﺪا ﺣﻴ ﺚ ﺷ ﺌ ﺘﺎ وال ﺗﻘﺮﺑﺎ ﻫﺬ‬incompletely and incorrertly adduced by Kisâ'ï. T h at the veree is a variant of the Adam tradition in Q. 7: 19 ‫ آ د م ا ﺳﻜﻦ اﻧﺖ وزوﺧﻚ اﻟﺠﺌﺔ ﻧ ﻜ ال ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ‬1‫وي‬ ‫ اﻟ ﺜ ﺠ ﺮ ة ﻓ ﻜ ﻮ ﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻈﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ‬٠‫ ﺷﺌﺘﻤﺎ وال ﺗﻘﺮﺑﺎ ﻫﺬ‬hardly requires demonstration. Juxtaposition of the two verees, not as masdhif but as mushtMhat, generated the following exegesis: because in the firet verse the divine command was to ‘dwell and feast’, the co-ordinating conjunction («,٠-) was employed to link the two artions as one divine favour, the limitless extent of which is emphasized in the tenns ‘copiously’ (iraghadan) and ‘wherever you like’ (haythu shituma) ‫ ذ‬in the second verae the command was to ‘take (up) residence, then nourishment’, separate artions requiring ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 207-8. 1 See Suyup. Itqan , natv' 63: iii, 3 3 9 1 4 , and the late works mentioned there, 339, to which may be added RSghib IçfahSnl, H a ll mutashdbihdt al-Q ur'ân.

PRINCIPLE S OF EXEG ESIS

to be temporally distinguished by the subordinating conjunction (‫ﻫﺮ‬-), its restticted largess expressed by omission of .copiously' and by insertion of a limiting preposition (min) before ‘wherever you like’.* Whatever suspirions that interpretation might provoke, it ought to be quite clear that the presence of doublets in the text of scripture could not be an embarrassment. But all such material, absence of which could reduce the size of the canon by forty to fifty per cent, lends itself admirably to the kind of documentary analysis proposed for the Shu'ayb traditions and the ‘double-garden’ imagery.* That in the Muslim tradition recouree was had not to documentary analysis, but to exegesis, may be illustrated by considering the number of Mu.tazilites responsible for works in the genre of m uàtaÈ t\m utààbihât.} An element of rhetorical criticism is also evident, at la s t in the later development of the genre. Repetition in scripttrre came to be described and evaluated in specifically aesthetic terms, and textual variation regarded as stylistic embellishment. The technical vocabulaty fomiulated to that end, e.g. muÉaba/îrtîbât (filiation) and tafannun (elegant variation), presupposed the strurtural integrity of a single document of revelation.. T hat tenninological refinement, not yet expressed in the work of Kisâ.ï, reflected the doctrine of ïjâ z al~Qur*ân, a post-masoretic phenomenon. Once acknowledged as an appropriate object o f rhetorical analysis, the text of scripture was safely removed from the danger of dissolving into its orignal and fragmentary components.‫؛‬ T h e exegetical procedures symbolized by the term s vmjah, nazaify and mushtdihat/mtashdbihdt were derived from a view, of scripture as selfcontained and self-explanatoty. The logic of that view rested implicitly upon acknowledgement of lingua sacra as a special mode of communication. T h e schemata of revelation were, so to speak, sui generis and could gain little or nothing by reference to the elements of nonnal lin^iistic usage. T o describe th at mode of communication as the ‘word of God’ m ight be thought perversely dogmatic, but points none the less to the fondamental distinctiveness of the literaty expression which is the subject of these studia. T h e manner in which originally or basically neutral elements in language (if such can ever be said to exist) achieve separate reality as the ingredients of fixed and traditional imagety (whether or not ‘scriptural’) is well known: all ‘m in in g ’ is related to context. Thus, the m ost recent attem pt to analyse the lexicon of Muslim scripture derives from a semasiolo^ not appreriably different in kind from that underlying the ‘aspects’ of Beyazit 561: namely, Allard’s Analyse conceptuelle à ‫ا‬ ‫ذ‬ 4 5

S uyü.î, Itqdn 340 ‫؛؛؛‬٠. See G A S i, 618-19, 622, 626, but also 13, 44. SuyUtf, Itqdn iii, 340, 342, and i n . 6 2 ‫ ؛‬iii, 322-38. See below, pp. 227-46, and above, II p p . 77-83.

» Sec above, I pp. 20-7.

216

QURANIC STUDIES

Coran sur cartes perforées (1963).‫ ا‬Though the author was unable to resist including in his 4 3 . cards some irrelevant infonnation (e.g. the .chronology’ of revelation under (B) C é ) , the results which can be obtained from manipulation of his system are comparable to those elicited from a literary analysis (recurrent phraseology, as opposed to separate lexical items, is unfo^m ately accessible only through non-literary headings: anthropologie, théologie, éthique-religion). To establish, quickly and conveniently, statistics on concepttial distribution, the method is admirably su ited ‫ ؛‬to anyone at all familiar with Muslim scripture the results are invariably predictable (e.g. quantitative emphasis upon the .Mosaic syndrom e’ in Quranic prophetology).* Now, in the Muslim exegetical tradition efforts to clarify the lexicon and im a g e s of scripmre were not always confined to the material of the document itself. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to detennine chronologirally the point at which the problems of lingua sacra could be fntitfully refemed to the data of profane literature. From what appear to be its earliest attested stages, the procedure was at first essentially lexical and methodolo^cally atomistic. Lexical treatment in haggadic exegesis seldom consisted of more than a sttaightfortvard equivalence adduced w ithout authorities, occasionally of a fo re i^ etymology for exotica and hapax legomenat both prartices hardly altered by the halakhists.a For neither may sporadic reference to .Abdallah b. *Abbas be underetood as appeal to an authority specially qualified in the sphere of lexicology. A nd yet, the origins ofliterattire concerned specifically w ith the scripttrral lexicon, not solely as the expression of theolo^cal concepts but as communication drawing upon the resources of a national language, are almost always connected with his name.. At least three titles o f such works have been p re s e ra d : Kitab ghartb al-Qur'ân, Kîtàb\Bayân lughat al-Qur*än, and Masa il Nafit ٥. Azraq.s The substance of the material desi^ated by these titles has been transmitted in several scarcely varying recensions, and is synoptically accœsible in Suyûtî’s Itqän.6 A e t h e r or not the Berlin MS P e tem a n n II, 405 is an extrart from Suyiitl, may, in view of the widespread transmission of the material and of the legendary stature of Ibn *Abbas, be thought quite vtithout significance.‫؟‬ T h e collertion of lexical explanations known as Masä'U Näß' ‫ﺀ‬. Azraq exhibits an exegetical method considerably posterior to the activity of ‫ ا‬Cf. also Allard, .U ne Méthode nouvelle., 5-21 ‫ ؛‬a primitive, because d e^ nd en t upon non-linguistic data, application of ‘c o n t e r a i semantics, m ay be seen in Izutsu, Ethico religious Concepts.

* Allard, ‘Une Méthode nouvelle., . ‫ل‬ ‫و‬ ‫و‬See a ^ v e ٠ pp. 124, 143, and 181, 182, respectively. ٠ See Goldziher, Richtungen, 6‫ا‬ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ‬7 ‫ل‬ . G A S i, 2 7 -8 nos. 2, 4, 3, respectively. ٥ Itq d n , natv' 36: ii. 6-46, 47-54, 55-88. 1 M S Petemann II, 405, 93-1.1, and ‫ ا‬¥ ‫ا‬%ii, 55-88‫ ؛‬cf. G A S i, 27 no. I vs. G A L , Suppl. I, 331, and Mitavoch, ‘Ahlwardt N o. 683.. 339-44.

PR IN C IPL ES

٠

F EX EG ESIS

217

Ib n ٠Abb5s (٥. 68/687): namely, the reference of rare or unknown words in scriptare to the great corpus of early Arabic poetry.! That method was in fact so conscientiously and consistently applied in the M ä ' i l as to provoke the question whether the real purpose of the work was not to furnish an ancient and honourable pedigree for what became, with the masoretes, a very important exegetical principle. Lexicology, like the other Islam ic sciences, was ultimately defined in te rn s of traditional authority, w ith the customary reference to the linguistic competence of the companions of the prophet: what they did not know could not be known.* T h a t one of those companions, Ib n .AbbSs, should be able for each of 0‫ول‬ Q uranic locutions* to cite a verse from Jahili or MukhadranU poeto (many anonymous) was indeed an accomplishment worthy of note. Suspicion of a tour deforce is cortoborated by appearance of the same lexica in other scriptural vocabulary lists, also ascribed to Ib n 'Abbas but vdthout poetic shatoahid.٠ T h at principle of which the M ä ' i l represent an almost polemical expression was e x p li^ly articulated in dirta attributed to Ibn A b b a s: ‫( اﻟﺜ ﻌ ﺮ دﻳ ﻮا ن اﻟﻌﺮب‬Poetty is the regster of the Arabs, sàl. of their language)‫ ؛‬or, in m ore detail, to *Umar b. K hattab: ‫ﻋﻠ ﺪ ﻛ ﻢ ﺑﺎﺷﻌﺎر اﻟ ﺠﺎ ﻫﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺀ‬٠‫( ﻓﺎ ن ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗ ﻐ ﻴ ﺮ ﻛ ﺎ ﺑﻚ‬Leam the poetry of the Jakiliyya , for there you will find the interpretation of your scripture).. Sim dar exhortation, but here chronologically unexceptionable, was ascribed to Tabari, Sharif Murtada, and Jubba١i,7 by whose dates the prartice was well established. T hat it was not so prior to the third/ninth century is, in my opinion, very significant A v iv ra i termnus ٠ quo may be elicited from Ib n HishSm.s recension of the Sira: e.g. for bakhi'un n a fs ä in Q. 18:6 a line from Dhu Rumma was adduced, for shafatan in 18:14 a veree from A.shS.. Application there was exclusively lexical, and thus provides a neat contrast to the haggadic m ethod of dealing with the vocabulaty of scripture. In BukhSri.s K. Tafsir only one line of poetry (anonymous) was cited, for la-amdkun in Q. 9: I!4.٠٠ln Muslim a single veree was adduced, atQ . 7: 31,” and in T iim id h i none in an exegetical sense.!» Poetry was very occasionally cited, for lexical explanation, in the works of the halakhists, such as Ja§?s? and ‫ ا‬See atove, pp. 142-3. and III. 9 7 -1 .2 . * e .g . ‫ﺻﺎة‬ ‫آا‬٠ Itqdn ii. 3-4. 5 N e t 14., as in M i ^ o c h , op. cit. 342. ٠ e.g. SuyOti, Itqdn ii. 6-54. and see below, pp. 218-19. ‫ ا‬Suyütï. Itqdn ii, 55 ; cf. Goldziher, Richtungen, 70 esp. n. 3: there is on the contra^

everçr reason for not accepting the authenticity ofthat report. ٥ Goldziher, op. cit. 69 n. 4. 7 Goldziher. op. cit. 92, 116, 130. respectively. » P ace NOldeke, B S S , I I n. 6 ‫ ؛‬cf. G d Q ii, 192 (revised and appropriately sceptical). ٠ Ibn Hisham, S ira i, 302, 3.4. I. Bukhari, Çahîh iii, 248. ٠ ٠ M uslim, Sahth viii, 244. It A line ascrihed to the. prophet was incidentally included ‫ده‬Q. 53: 32, in TinnidhI, $ a h ih ii i, 173, a jpatuitous insertion comparable to the line from H - b. Thsbit ad Q. 2 4 1 5 ‫؛‬, in BukhSri, §ah ïh iii, 297.

QURANIC STU DIES

Ibn *Arab!. The earliest exegetical composition in which poetic shawâid were regularly employed is the Ma'äm 'l-Qwr*än of Farrä. (d. 207/822).* But there application of the principle was not limited to lexis : ^am m atical phenomena were also justified by reference to profane literature. For example, the locution wa-îqâm al-saîât in Q. 24: 37 required, in the view of Farrä٠, to be explained as an apocopate permitted by status constructus, i.e. for ¥?nat al-saîât. An anonymous verse containing *ida 1 ‫ ا‬-amr for 'idata ٠1 -amr was adduced in support of the contention.2 The technique could be extended also to syntactical problems, accessory to the periphrastic principle known as ta q è /m jâ z. 3 In the related field of profane lexicography a parallel and contemporaneous prartice has been noted‫ ؛‬in Khalfl.s Kitab al-'Ayn verses of ninety-nine poets together with some anonymous lines were adduced in support of the usus loqueni ٠ For the scriptirral lexicon, however, there appears to have been some opposition to that meth.d.5 One title recorded for the collertion othe^tise known as Masail Ndfit ٥. Azraq is Kitab gharib al-Qur'än,6 b u t a separate work, also entitled K. gharib al-Qur'än and also ascribed to Ib n 'Abbas, does not contain the Masä*u and does «٠٤ employ poetic sküwähid.1 It is instead a plaidoyer for the exclusively Arabic vocabulary of scripttjre, an a^um ent set out in the following preface ‫ﻋﻦ «؛‬ ‫اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺎ س ف ﺗﻮ ل اﻟﻠﻪ ﺑ ﻔﺎ ن ﻋﺮﺑﻰ ﺋ ﺎ ل ﺑﻠﺴﺎن ر ﻳ ﺶ و ﻟ ﻮ ﻛ ﺎ ن ﻏﻴﺮ ﻋﺮﺑﻰ ﺑﺎ‬ ‫ ﻛ ﺎ ﺑ ﺎ ا ال ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ؤﻛﺎن ﺟﺒﺮﻳﻞ ﻳﺘﺮ ﺟﻢ ﻟ ﻜ ﻞ ﻧﺒﻰ ﻗ ﻮﺑﻪ وذالث‬٩‫ﺑﻬﻤﻮا وﺑﺎ أﻧ ﺰ ل اال‬ ‫ة ا ألﻣﻢ‬:»».‫ ﻣ ﻦ الو)ل اال ﺑﻠ ﺴﺎ ن ﻗﻮﻣﻪ وﻟﻴ ﺲ ﻟ ﻤ ﺎ ن ﻣﻦ أل‬l i* j î ‫ ه ﻳﺘ ﻮ ل وﻣﺎ‬٧I ‫ا ن‬

‫ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬١ ‫واﻗﻔ ﺖ‬ ‫ﻳ ﺨﺎﻟ ﻄ ﻪ ﺷﻒ‬ tions of Q. remarked..

‫أ و ح ﻣ ﻦ ﺑ ﺎ ن اﻟﻌﺮﻣﺐ واﻟﻘﺮآن ﻟ ﺺ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻟﻐﺔ اﻟ ﻌ ﺮ ب و رﺑﺎ‬ ‫ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﺎ ت ﻓﺎﻣﺎ ا أل ﺻ ﻞ واﻟﺠﻨ ﺲ ﻓﻌ ﺮﺑ ﻰ ال‬. T h e conflicting interp^ta1 4 4 ‫ ؛‬and the ambiguity of the locution lisän *arabi have been A sentiment similar to th at of Ibn 'Abbas was attributed to

Sufyan Thawri ‫ﻟﻢ ﻳﻨﺰ ل وﺣﻰ ا ال ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺛ ﻢ ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﻋ ﻞ ﻧ ﻰ ﻟﻘﻮﻣﻪ ؛‬,*‫ ه‬while M uqâtil reported, on the authority of Sa.ïd b. Jubayr that all languages were represented in the Qur٠ân ‫ ا ق األوﺧﻰ ﻟﻐﺔ ا ال وﻧﺰﻟﻬﺎ اﻟﻠﻪ ق اﻟ ﻘ ﺪآ ن ؛‬٠.‫ال‬ T he latter view was amplified by Suyütî to assert the universality of Muhamm adS mission: ‫ ) ﺛ ﻤ ال ﺑﺪ وا ن‬. . ‫ل‬4 ‫ ذ‬4 ( ٠ . . ‫ل‬ ‫ ا‬See

‫ا ﻟ ﺒ ﻰ ﻣﺮﺳﻞ اﻟﻰ ﻛ ﻞ‬

‫واﻳﻀﺎ‬

a b o v e . P . IS O .

2 M a 'â n i ’l'Q ur'ân ii. 254 ad loc.‫ ؛‬cf. Vollere, Volkssprache , 156-7. 5 See below, pp. 223-4. ٠ Wild, D a s K itâ b d - 'A in , esp. 42-51.

» Cf. S u ^ t ï , ‫ ل‬¥‫ أ ا‬ii, 55 i and see below, pp. 2 2 3 -. ٥ Mittwoch. .Ahlwardt No. 683., 341. 7 G A S i. 27 no. 2 ‫ل‬ M S Atjf Efendi 2815. » M S Atif Efendi 2815, 102*. ٠ See above. II pp. 53. 81, III p p ..‫و‬ 8‫وا‬ ‫ل‬٠ A p u d Suyütî. Itq d n i. 130. ” MuqStil. Tafsir, M S H. Hüsnü 73 ‫ل‬ 7٠ ‫ل‬ ٧ at the end of S u r a t al-K a h f; cf. Itqctn ii. 106.

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

,

219

‫ ن ﺑ ﺎ ن ﻛ ﻞ ﺗ ﻮم وان ﻛﺎ ن أﺻﻠﻪ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻗﻮﻣﻪ ﻫ ﻮ‬٠ ‫ﻳﻜ ﻮ ن ف ا ﻟ ﻜ ﺘ ﺎ ب اﻟ ﻤﺒﻌ ﻮ ث ﺑﻪ‬.‫ا‬ Some portion of the contradiction was neutralized by resort to the notions of coincidence between languages {tawäfuqjtawärud al-îughât) and assimilation (tarib) ascribed to Ib n *Abbas and A bu *٧ bayd.٤ T he concept of ‘pure Arabic. ('arM mahd) forcefully asserted by Abu *Ubayda became an axiom of masoretic exegœis.3 T he lint with Ib n *Abbas was, however, maintained. T h e third work of lexical chararter ascribed to him is entitled Bayan lughât àl-Qur'ân\al-lughàt f i ٠l~Qur*äTi)A at least one manuscript version of which contains the same material as K. g h é al-Qur'än, with an identical preface.‫ ؟‬They are a compilation by ٠ ٥ of standard lexiral explanations, unaccompanied by authoriti» or loci p rènteSj either from scriprtire itself or from profane literature, and similar to the list of such transmitted from Ibn *Abbas via Tabari by S u ^ ‫؛‬i.٥ The central position occupied by Ibn *Abbas in the lughâtlgharib literattrre emerges from examination of the data collected by Sezgin for those titles: we are confronted not by several independent traditions but by scarcely discernible variations of a single tradition.7 The lexical data ertracted from Bukhari and alphabetically assembled by *Abd al-Bâqï contains the same standard material, and belong to the same collective tradition.® I t was not until elaboration of the genre by Ibn fhitayba (d. 276/889) and Sijistäni (d. 330/942) that the traditional stock was refurbished, substantially and methodolo^cally.» More important for the Quranic masorah than either variant reading or lexical explanation was the analysis of ۴ m m ar and syntax represented by the exegetical principle taqdirlmajäz. T he earliest fom ulation of that principle is found in the work of Abu *Ubayda (d. 209/824) entitled Majäz al-Qur*ân.io In an inttoductory chapter the author enumerated thirtynine kinds of majäz occurring in the text of scriptttre, illustrated by sixty s h ä k id ) ten of them adduced twice, to different ends.” Abu *Ubayda.s typology includes six categories of grammatical and syntactical phenomena, of which three contain solutions proposed to m ore or less straightforward texttjal problems, i.e. lexis (no. 28), varia lectio (nos. 27, 29, 38), and concord (nos. 4-13). of the last-named categoty are explanations ‫ ا‬Itqan ii, 1.7. Cf. SuyUtf, Itqan ii, 1.5, 108-19‫ ؛‬sec Kopf, 'F orei^ words', 191-2.5» esp. 2 .2 -4‫؛‬ and id., 'Religious influenc«', esp. 34-8, 40-5. ‫ ا‬e.g. Abu *Ubayda, Majäz al-Qur'än i, 8, 17. ٠ GAS i, 28 no. 4; MS Esad Efendi 91‫ ؛‬I have not seen Munajjid's edition of the ZShiriyya MS (Cairo, 1946). ‫ ا‬i.e. MS Atif Efendi 2815‫ ؛‬thia prefoce is at I٠ 4r of MS Esad Efendi 91. ٠ Itqdn ii, 6-46. 7 See GAS i. Indices: Büchertitel. ٠ *Abd al-Bâqï, Mu'jam g h é al-Qur*än, 1-233. ٠ GAS i, 48 and 43-4, resjttctively. I» GAS i, 48‫ ؛‬ed. Sezgin, see Wansbrough, *Periphrastic exegesis., 248. II Abu 'Ubayda, Majäz al-Qur'än i, 8-16: set out with translation in Wansbrough, op. c it 248-54 (where the locution mold là f a - a w lâ , Q. 75 : 34, under nos. 17 and 2٠ , may better be rendered *Woe unto thee, woe’, see Zamakhsharï, K â h â f î v , 664 ad loc.). ٥

QURANIC ST U D IE S

involving a constructio ad sensum, employed to neutralize contradiction between fom al and concepmal reference to number, person, and gender, e.g. Q. 2 2 5 ‫( ؛‬no. 4) ( ‫ ﻧﺨﺮﺟﻜﻢ ﻃ ﻐ ال (أﻃﻔﺎال‬. In another category, ellipsis (nos. 1-3). the same concept was employed to justify periphrastic r ۶storation. On‫ ؛‬example of the latter deserves notice, Q. 1 2 8 2 ‫( ؛‬nO. ‫وﺳﻞ (أﻫﻞ ) ( ة‬ ‫ اﻟ ﺮﻳ ﺔ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻰ ﻛ ﺘ ﺎ ة ﻳ ﻬ ﺎ و ( ﻣ ﻦ ق ) اﻟﻌﻴﺮ ا ﻟ ﻨ ﻰ أ ﺋ ﺒ ﻨ ﺎ‬. Insertion o f‘the inhabitants

of. before ‘village*, and of ‘those in* before ‘caravan* is not really essential to understanding the passage, but indicates, rather, the author's consciousness of a metaphorical contraction. It is thus quite unlike th e other illustrations of ellipsis included there (Q. 38: 6, 2 7 3 ‫ ؛‬26 , 39 ‫ )؛‬and qu tatively distinguished from the examples of irregular concord. But a further category of majäz (nos. 14-23, 26) contains a num ber of rhetorical phenomena, e.g. fictio personae, apostrophe, chiasmus, from which together with Q. 12: 82 it would be tempting to infer that for Abu .U bayda the term majäz designated figurative usage. That it did not, however, seems clear from the bulk of his 60 loci p rà n te s , and in particular for the categoty of idiom and/or solerism exhibited in nos. 24, 25, 3 7 ‫ص‬, most especially no. 39. Here majäz represents the rationalization of careless style, of sjmtactical ambiguity, even of ۴ mmatical error, by m eans of restoration according to the n o m s of scriptaral usage. T h e method is, at least implicitly, that underlying the type of analysis identified by mushtabihat.1 The functional confusion between nomen regens and nomen reclum exhibited in Q. 2 8 7 6 ‫(؛‬no. 24) and 2 1 7 1 ‫( ؛‬no. 25) required justification‫ ؛‬occurrence of the second example in the text of scriptore is fairly frequent.» Variable funrtion of particles (no. 3٠), as in Q. 2 2 :8 3 ,20:71 ,26 ‫؛‬, and 43: 51-2, was explained by a series o b u t not quite ^responsible equations, e.g. fam qahä'.dünä , fi\*alä) etc. O n the other hand, Q. 79: 30 ‫ع ) ذﻟ ﻚ د ﺣﺎ ﻫﺎ‬٠( ‫ واألوﺧﻰ ﺑ ﻌ ﺪ‬involved a dogmatic postdate relevant to the chronology of divine creation and was recoptized as one of the ‘standard puzzles* of scriptare3‫ ؛‬substitution of ‘together with* for *after* was thus, in the precise sense of the term , exegetical. The presence of particles (nos. 31-3) was in the examples here adduced (Q. 8 3 9 8 ‫ ؛‬1- 3 , 1 ‫ ؛‬5, 16‫ )؛‬exclusively grammatical, firet two majäz represented the resolution of synthetic construirions. With regard to the third, it might well be argued that the absence/presence of bi after qara*a, contrasted in Q. 1 6 9 8 ‫ ؛‬and 96‫ ؛‬I, is not merely not optional b u t reflerts, indeed, a semantic distinction. Conversely, the majäz proposed for Q. 20:69 (no. 36) ‫ وﻧﻤﺎ ﺻﻨﻌﻮا (إ ن ﺻ ﺴ ﻌ ﻬ ﻢ ) ﻛ ﻴ ﺪ ا ﺣ ﺮ‬indirated a genuine, and frequent, option, which may be regarded as stylistic rather than 1 See ٥ b٠ ve, pp. 212-15.

‫ع‬

See above. III pp. 113-41.

» A ٥, for example, in M uqStil, Tafsbr , M S B M Or. 6 3 3 3 ‫ ؛‬aee above, p. 164, n o . 3.

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X E G E S IS

grammatical Common, or optional gender for collectives (no. 34) can be demonstrated by reference to Q. 26 ‫ ؛‬105 ‫ ﻳ ﻦ‬٠٠‫ ر‬٠‫ﻛ ﺆ ﺑ ﺖ ( ﻛ ﺪ ب ) ﻗﻮم ﻧﻮح ال‬ b u t not of course to 16: 66 ‫ ئ ﺑﻄﻮﻧﻪ‬L ‫و إ ذ ﻟ ﻜ ﻢ ق ا أل ﻧ ﻌﺎ م ﻟ ﻌ ﺪ ر ﺳ ﻤ ﻜ ﻢ‬ ‫) )ﺑ ﻄﻮﻧﻬﺎ‬. Finally, the inconcinnity exhibited in Q. 73: 18 (no. 35) ‫اﻟ ﺴ ﻤﺎ ﺀ‬ ‫ ) ا ﺳ ﻒ) ﺷﻐ ﻄﺮ ﺑﻪ‬and 55: 22 . . . ‫( ول‬no. 37) ٠ . . ‫ﻣﺮج اﻟﻴ ﺤﺮﻳ ﻦ ﻳﻠﺘﻘﻴﺎ ن‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺎ (ﻣﻦ أ ﺣ ﺪ ﻫ ﺎ ) اﻟﻠﺆﻟﺆ واﻟﻤﺮ ﺟﺎ ن‬:.‫ ﻳ ﻐ ﻴ ﺢ م‬could not seriously be interpreted as fiprrative usage or even stylistic option. Their presence in this collection, lite th a t of nos. 24 and 25 (Q. 2 8 7 6 ‫ ؛‬and 2: 171), can only be justified by a principle of inclusion which took account of passages requiring texttial emendation. Now, the possibility of error in the text of scripture, whether as ungrammatical usage (‫ را س‬or lapsus calami (khafa ül-kuttäb)) was ultimately rejected.! In a transparently dogmatic discussion of two celebrated dirta, one attributed to 'Ä’isha: ‫أ ﺧ ﻄﺌ ﻮا ف اﻟ ﻜ ﺘﺎ ب‬

‫اﻟ ﻜﺘﺎ ب‬

‫ ﻫ ﺬ ا ﺟ ﻤ ﻞ‬٠ and

the other to .U thm 5n: ‫ﺗﻐﻴ ﺮ ﻫﺎ‬. ‫ ال ﺗﻐﻴﺮ و ﻫﺎ ﻓ ﺈ ة اﻟ ﻌ ﺮ ب‬, SuyGti argued from the authority of Ib n Anbari and Ibn Ashtah, as well as from his own convirtion, that neither report could be true sfoce (٠) the e lo q u e n c e ^ .? .) of Muhammad.s contemjwraries was well k n ow n,(‫ )ﺀ‬other equally wellknown and better accredited e d itio n s demonstrated the care taken by 'Ä ’isha in the presentation and by *UthmSn in the recension of the Quranic revelation, and (‫ )ﺀ‬such evidence of texmal instability as did exist was neither lahn nor khafa ül-kuttäb, but, rather, scriptio defectiva or otherwise iiregular ortho^aphy ( ‫) ﺧﺎﻟ ﻒ ﻟﻔ ﻈ ﻬﺎ رﺳﻤﻬﺎ‬, or variai lictiones ( ‫(وﺟﻮه اﻟﺘﺮاﺀة‬.‫ ﺀ‬Reference to Arab eloquence, neutralization of refractory hadith by other hadiths,) and accommodation of te ^ ia l variants under the rubric ‘seven (canonical) readings, (e.g. ‫ ﺳ ﻌ ﺔ‬١ ‫األﺣﺮ ف‬

‫ﻣﻦ‬

‫) ا ﺧ ﻴ ﺎ ر ا أل وﻟ ﻰ‬

reflect the procedural devices traditional to the solution of Quranic problems, and ought by now to be familiar.3 It may be obseived that Suyütï's denial of lahn in the text of scripttire was part of his general discussion of Vrab) a te rn whose semantic range included not only ^am m atical phenomena (‫ ر ب‬, b u t also clarity (bayk) and euphony {astoät toa-luhOn) . 4 ‫ ا‬Such is the substance of the firet five chapters of Ibn Qutayba's T a'ioil mushkil al-Q ur'än (10-75), in which the document of revelation was defended from evety kind of assault upon its linguistic and literary excellence, e.g. lapsus calami, ^ m m a tica l error,

sjmtactic inconcinnity, semantic contradiction, and stylistic in co n sisten t‫ ؛‬the author's postulate were those whose d a t a t io n has been described here: all q irä 'ä t were equally reveal^, p o e ^ could be a d d u ct to demonstrate analogous constructions (3^ 40), comiption by fo r e ig n .„ (abna al-'ajam ) was neutralized by the reliable wimess of transmission from companions of the prophet (41-2), etc. ٤ Itq d n ii, 2 6 9 7 7 . ‫ ا‬See above. III pp. 9 3 7 ‫ ؛‬and 178-82. 202-8, r e s t i v e l y . ٠ Itqdn, natu' 41: ii, 2 ^ 8 . ‫ ؛‬see above, p. 155‫ ؛‬and III p. 1.4-11 for references to Itq d n iv, 172-3, ii, 3.

QURANIC STUDIES

It is also in that chapter that locutions pem itting any one 0‫ ؛‬the three irab vowels were listed.* The possibility of serious linguistic aberration in scriptare was very restricted indeed. T h e locus clasncus was always Q. 20: 63 ‫ إ ن ﻫﻨﺎ ن ﻟ ﻤﺎ ﺣ ﺮا ن‬. SuyutTs synthesis includ» the entire spectrum of textual treatm ent, as well as a conventional notice of dialectal usage: (٥) in some dialects, e.g. of B. Kinana and B. Harith, the dual is expressed by alif in all three cases‫؛‬ ‫ ))ﺀ‬a pronoun anticipating the subsequent proposition (damtr al-shan) has been omitted, i.e. ‫ )ﺀ) ;إﺑ ﻪ ﻫ ﻨﺎ ن ﺑﺎ ﺣ ﺮا ن‬in addition to the ellipsis assumed in (٥) a further omission of an inchoative of which sahirän is the predicate, i.e. ‫ )ى) ; إ ﺗ ﻪ ﻫﻨﺎ ن ﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﺳﺎﺣﺮان‬inna in this locution signifies *yes/surely/indeed» and thus does not require casus obUquus‫ )ﺀ) ؛‬hä is here an anticipator pronoun (damtr al-qissa), and the remainder of the proposition an independent predication, i.e. ‫إﺋﻬﺎ ﻧﺎ ن ﻟ ﻤﺎ ﺣ ﺮا ن‬. ٤ A t least two other kinds of solution had been earlier articulated. In addition to citing the dialertal usage (here of B. Balharith b. Ka.b), Ibn Qutayba recorded appropriate variants (masahij) from two *companion, codices, namely Ubayy ‫ﻧﺎ ن ا ال ا ﺣ ﺮ ا ن‬

‫إذ‬

and Ibn MasUd ‫ أ ق ﻫ ﻨﺎ ن ا ﺣ ﺮ ا ن‬or

‫ إ ن ﻫﻨﺎ ن ال ﺣ ﺮ ا ز‬or 3.‫ إ ن ﻫ ﻨﺎ ن ﺳﺎﺣﺮان‬The exegetical character of such ascription has been noted.. Of equal interest was th e view, attributed by Ib n Qutayba to *Asim Jahdari that one wrote ‫ إ ة ﻫ ﻨﺎ ن‬and read ‫ إ ذ ﻫ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ‬, th u s providing explicit support for the U thm an tradition on lahn in the text of scripttire, i.e. : ‫ ا ن وﺣﻤﻪ اﻟﻠﻪ‬٠‫ ا ﻓﺮ ق ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﺮاﺀة واﻟ ﻜ ﺘﺎ ب ﻟﺘﻮل ﺀث‬٠‫ىذ‬ 5.‫أر ى ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﺤﻨﺎ و ﺳﻘﻴ ﻤﻪ اﻟﻌ ﺮ ب ﺑﺄ ﻟ ﺸ ﺘ ﻬﺎ ﻓﺄﻗﺎﻣﻪ ﺑ ﻨ ﺎ ﻧ ﻪ وﻧﺮﺑﺪ اﻟﺮ ﺳﻢ ﻋ ﻞ ﺣﺎﻟ ﻪ‬ Such was the solution proposed also by Abu *Ubayda in slightly different tem is: ‫إ ن ﻫ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﻟﺴﺎﺣﺮان ق اﻟﻠﻐ ﻆ و ﻛ ﻘ ﺐ ﻫ ﻨﺎ ن ﻛ ﻤ ﺎ ﻳ ﺰﻳﺪ و ن و;ﺗﻘﺼﻮن ق‬ ‫اﻟ ﻜ ﺘﺎ ب واﻟﻠﻔ ﻆ ﺻ ﻮا ب‬. ‫ ه‬All of the *standard, orthographic deviations, not only Q. 20: 63, but also 2: 177 (îval-sâbirïn:sabirün), 4: 162 {mlmuqimin: muqimUn), and 5: 69 (1wal-sâbi'ûn:sâ*ïti)> could be and often were emended in this way.7 Other problems, semantic rather than grammatical, might be exposed to the same treatment, e.g. Q. 56: 29 {wa-taVin

i n d i n lot 1-IaUùnY* ‫ ا‬See above. I ll p. 1 .8 , referring to Itqän ii. 277.8a * Itq ä n ii, 273-4. 5 T a v jil, 3 ^ 7 ‫ ؛‬aee Jeffe^ , M aterials, 146 and 6٠ , r e a -iv e ly . ٠ See above, pp. 2 .3 -7 . ‫ ا‬Ibn Qutayba, T a 'tvil, 37‫ ؛‬see G d Q iii, 4-5. ٥ M a jd a al-Q ur’ä ii, 2 1 -3 ‫ ؛‬see Wansbrough, .Periphrastic exegesis , 264. 7 e.g. Ibn Qutayba, T a'w il, 37‫ ؛‬sec above. III p. 108. ٠ Goldxiher. Richtungen, 36‫ ؛‬Zamakhshari adduced a scriptural analogy from Q. 5٥ : ! .. k h s h d f i v , 461 ad loc.

PR IN C IPL E S

٠

F EX EG ESIS

223

T he masoretic principle of 3 7 0 : ١٦۶ was perpetuated in the ‫ ﻛ ﺒ ﺔ‬: ‫ﻟﻐ ﻆ‬ ‫ ﻛ ﺎ ب‬: ‫ ))ﻗﺮاﺀة‬of the Muslim exegetes. Its application in the Quranic masorah may, in my opinion, be ascribed to caique rather than to inherent necessity. T h e methodological significance of such devices as ketib.qere and al tiqra is generally seen to be evidence of a fixed, im m utable text.1 For the text of Muslim scripttrre standard deviations were a n ^ a y accommodated by the system of .canonical, readings, within w hich a distinction bettveen kitba and lafz merely symbolized an option (tkhtiyar).2 It will, I think, be conceded that fonnulation of the Biblical masorah included a period in which emendation to a still fluid text was n o t only possible, but in fact took place. T h e activities attributed specifically to the post-Talmudic masoretes exhibit only the final expression of a long and complex process, to which elements of the masorah like tiqqunei sofmm and miqra soferitn attest.3 For the Quranic masorah the concept of emendation is explicit in the principle of majäz as employed by Abu *Ubayda: for the solerism in Q. 20: 63 the qere (lafz) was expressly ‘coreect’ (‫»ﻋﺊ‬7‫( ﻓﺔ‬٠ But emendation was not by any means limited to, perhaps no t even primarily concerned with, irregularities of grammar and syntax. Exegetical, often dopnatic, ends were equally seized. One example, ‫ ﻗ ﻪ‬Q. 37: 12, has been noticed‫؛‬, another was the alteration of i h u to aüäha in Q. 4:164, producing ‘Moses spoke to God» rather than *God spoke to Moses., a change reflecting Mu.tazill circumscription of the notion of G o d ’s speech.‫ ؛‬However, vety few of Abu 'U bayda’s sixty shawâid required to be emended for reasons of dogma or doctrine.* Masoretic majäz) like the grammarians’ principle of taqdir, had been fom ulated primarily with a view to obviating th e angularities of scripftjral syntax. The non n against which such were measured was often provided by scripture itself, but also and with increasing frequency by the data of profane literature. These m ight consist either of real, or conttived, examples of the usus loquendi (introduced by qawlukd) ka-qawlika), or of lociprobmtes from Arabic poetry.7 In support of the dialectal Orions of hâàâni in Q. 20: 63, for instance, Ibn Qutayba adduced two lines of I e.g. Barr, C om parative Philology, 45-6. 214-17‫ ؛‬cf. Wiirthwein, T ex t, 12-22, 7 5 ‫ا‬-٠ * See above, pp. 205‫ ؛ ؟‬and cf. Rabin.® r e f - to the .limited variability of the text o f scripUire attested also in Qumran. cited Gerhardsson, M em ory, 37 n. 2. 5 See Bare. op. cit., 2I ٣ 2I; Gerhardsson, M em o ry , 33-42, 43 -5 5 ‫ ؛‬and Gertner, .T h e Masorah and the invites., 2 6 ^ 0 . 4 See above, p. 2 .6 . ‫ ا‬See above, I pp. 3 4 6 , II pp. 8 1 -4 ‫ ؛‬Goldaiher, Richtungen, 174-5‫ ؛‬a more radical solution to the dogmatic problem which did not require te r r a i emendation was derivation of kallama in this passage from halm (wound); cf. Zamakhshari, K a sh sh d f i, 5۴٠ ‫؛ا‬ but also Ibn Qutayba, T aw iI, 82. ٠ Wansbrough, ‘Periphrastic exegesis., 256‫ ؛‬three instancra only, to which may be added, under no. 3 ٠ , Q. 79: 30‫ ؛‬see above, p. 220. 7 See atove, pp. 211-12, 216-18; and Wild, ‫ ﻟ ﻌ ﻪ‬K i ta b 44 n. 16.

QU RA N IC STU DIES

verse (anonymous) demonstrating the expression of both casus rectus and obliquus (dual) with alif.1 T he eventual opposition, hardly unexpected, to that technique,» found unequivocal expression in the observation of Ibn Munayyir to Zamakhshari’s commentary ad Q. 6: 137: ‫وﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﺮﺿﻨﺎ‬ ‫ ﺣ ﺘ ﺢ ﻗ ﻮا ﻋﺪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮاﺀة‬١‫( ﺗ ﺼﺤﻬﺢ اﻟﻘﺮاﺀة ﺑﻘﻮاﻋﺪ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺑ ﻞ ﺗ ﻪ‬O ur purpose is not correction of scripttire by reference to Arabic grammar, but, rather, correction/establishment of Arabic grammar by reference to scr‫؛‬ptare).3 It need hardly be remarked, in view of the role played by *Arabian eloquence, in Quranic theology, that this admonition remained a very dead letter indeed. Lip-service to an ideal had, however, been exprœsed.. Another exclusively interpretative element of the Quranic masorah, and hence one which did not always require tertual emendation, concerned the problem of juncture. An example was the question of pause after

ka M lika in the messenger form ula ‫وال رﺗ ﻚ‬

‫ﻛ ﺬﻟ ﻚ‬

).‫( ) ﻗﺎ د رﺗﺎ ﻟﻮا‬Q. ,9 ‫ل‬9 ‫ذ‬

‫ل‬9 : 21 , 5 ‫ ل‬: 3٠(*‫ ﺀ‬T he alternatives were to read with pause making the particle disjunctive, or without pause acknowledging the formulaic locution, i.e. „ ٦٠٦١٦٥» „ ٥ . Zamakhshari appears to have preferred the fo m e r ‫ﻛﺬﻟ ﻚ‬ ‫ ﺗ ﺼﺪﻳ ﻖ ﻟ ﻪ ﺛ ﻢ اﺑﺘﺪأ ﻗﺎ ل وﺗ ﻚ أ و ﻧ ﺴ ﺐ ﺑﻘﺎ ل‬٠‫واﻟ ﻜﺎ ف وﻧﻊ أ ى ا ال ﺑ ﺮ ﻛ ﺬ ال ث‬ T he ten n for disjunctive syntax (Zamakhshari employed i b t i ) was usually ùti'nàf) found already in M uqatil’s Tafsir ‫ ﻗ ﻪ‬Q. 3: 7, for which verse of course the arrim ent was doctrinal and not at all syntactical.‫؟‬ In his chapter on juncture (ül-mawsül lafzan ml-ma/sül manari) Suyütï provided several illusttations of that kind of theological grammar.8 For Q. 7: 1 - 0 the charge of poljrtheism against Adam and Eve was made quite explicit by context (.riyäq). But Adam was a prophet (‫ ا’ س‬and therefore immune from sin { m a ß ) . A solution to the dilemma was found in the change of pronoun from dual to plural, making the referent of ‫ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻟ ﻰ اﻟﻠﻪ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻳ ﺸ ﺮ ﻛ ﻮ ن‬not the inhabitants of Eden bu t the pagans of Mecca. SuyUti called the trope thus isolated an example of *transition and digression’ {altakhalliuf wal-istiträd) ) 9 ignoring conveniently the distinrt likelihood that the form yushrikUn reflerted the pattern of verse segmentation at th at point of the ‫د‬ . On the other hand, it may be argued that not merely ‫ ا‬Ibn Qutayba, T a tv il, 36. ٥ e.g. Suyütï. Itq d n ii. 55. ‫ ا‬Ibn Munayyir. IntifAf, ٠ n the margin of k h s h d f ii, 69-70: cited also Goldaiher, Richtungen٠ 5٥ n. 3 ‫ ؛‬Ullmann, R aiazpoesie, 2 2 2 -3 n. IOJ see above, p. 168. ٠ See above, II pp. 78.81. s See above, I pp. 12-13. ٥ k h s h d f in, 6 a d Q . 9 ‫ ذ و ل‬. ’ See above, p. ‫ل‬ 5‫ﺀ‬ ‫ل‬appearance o f the technical term is ttn d f in MuqStil, Tafsir٠

M S H . H tisn. 17, 36', may well be a consequence of later redaction, cf. above, pp. 143-4. ‫ ﺀ‬Itq d n , nato' 2‫ ذ و‬i, 252-4, an appendix to his disCTMsion of pausal phenomena iD aqfioal-ibtidd): rum * 28: i, 23‫ س‬5 ‫ ل‬٠ ٠ See Mehren, R h e t d , 13., 145.

(‫ﺧﻤﻪ‬

P R IN C IP L E S OF E X E G E S IS

the plural yushrikûn but the entire locution exhibits a form ula of periodization, and need not therefore be semantically related to the preceding Adam tradition.! Easily the most celebrated of such passages was Q. 1 0 6 :1 ‫ إل ﻳ ال ف ﻗﺮﻳ ﺶ‬, for which the function of lam as inchoative provoked some very imaginative grammatical the.ry.2 T o those disatisfied with exegesis, textual emendation was possible: Suras 105 and 106 were read as a syntactical unit, for which of course support could be found in a ‘companion, codex (i.e. Ubayy).3 But however the two suras, were written (generally with the disjunrtive basmala) they were understood as a nareative unit attesting to God’s benevolence towards Quraysh.. Problems of the sort found at Q. 106: I have also been noted in the transmission histoiy of the Biblical text, e.g. ‫ ه‬١‫د‬٠‫ ه‬٠‫ د‬vs. ٥٩٣٥ ٦٠٥ in Proverbs zb: 23, dwcribed by Barr as a ‘graphic disturbance’.‫ ؟‬Ellipses and anacolutha in the Quranic text often exhibit illogical juncttire rather than defertive syntax: for example. Abu *Ubayda’s inclusion under ellipsis (no. 3) of Q. 39: 73, in which the second dependent clause of the hattä ،٠ ٠ construction is the following veree, introduced by the coordinate (!) conjunction waio.6 Abu ‘Ubayda’s contribution to the Quranic masorah consisted primardy in the rationalization of solecism, but also in the resolution of synthesis and the alleviation of ellipsis. T h e periphrastic technique, later desi^ated taqdir٠was also applied to the resolution of trope (a kind of inverse metaphor, as for Q. 12: 82) and to the elimination of anthropomorphism.7 For the history of the text of scripture one question in particular requires at least to be articulated, if not answered: was the principle of majäzjtaqdir und ereto ^ as emendation or as exegesis? Now, copies of the Qur.ân, whether manuscript or printed, do not contain masoretic material, and may for that very reason be misleading: the impression is unmistakably that of a single ne v à u r text. But even the m ost cursory examination of the masoretic literattire m ust dispel that impression as illusoty T h e chronology of that literattire indicates a period of approximately two ‫ ا‬See above. I l l pp. 113, 115, 117. Analy^d in Birkeland, The L o r d guideth, 1.2-30. 3 Suyup, Itq d n i. 186‫ ؛‬J é r y ٠ M ate ria ls , 179‫ ؛‬sectarian appropriation of that view is 8‫ ^ ؛‬٤ ficant only as an expresion o f opposition to the .Uthmanic recension, cf. G d Q ii. ‫ع‬

33 n. 4, 96 n. 3. 4 e.g. I bn Qutayba, Ta'wil, 3 1 9 -2 0 ‫ ؛‬and Birkeland’s interpretation, op. cit. 122-3... .God’s interaention in histoty as the first stage of Muhammad’s prophetical a ^ r ic n c e ’. 3 C om parative Philology, 219‫ ؛‬cf. also Germer, *The Masorah and the Invites., 247 for Exodus 23: 2. ٠ See above. III pp. 114-15‫ ؛‬Wansbrough, *Periphrastic exegrais., 248. 255‫ ؛‬Brockelmann.s explanation of that phenomenon, G V G ii. 669, as *die Neigung des semitischen Sprachgeistes 2U einfacher Satebildung eine komplizierte Périmé wieder in einfache Formen (zu zerlegen)’ cannot, in my opinion, be sup^rted by Quranic examples. 7 Wansbrough, op. cit. 2 5 4 1 .

nzoäya).\ I t was only after the articulation of law as divinely decreed that a scripttiral canon was established, the result prim arily of polemical pressure.2 Once stabilized, the do cu m en t of revelation was no longer exclusively the ‘word o f God» but also, and equally im portant, a m onum ent o f th e national literattrre. In th a t capacity its sertrice to the comm unity, a n d to the cause o f polemic, was unlim ited.

5.

R H E T . R I C A N D AL LEGORY I N EXEGESIS

A cknow ledgem ent of m etaphor in the la n g a g e of scripttrre could be as m u ch an expression of piety as of aesthetic appreciation. E lim ination of anthropom orphic imagety pred icated of G o d was the p rim a ry fonn of th a t piety, p ractised by both Q u ranic and Biblical exegetes.3 B u t whatever th e orignal m otive, exegetical speculation w as ultimately coupled w ith recognition o f scripttire as the articulation o f literary forms a n d related to an attested rh eto rical tradition. F o r example, b o th the obvious and quite unnecessary in sertio n (majaz) o f à l into Q. 12: 82 and the n o t so obvious b u t equally unnecessary insertion ( taqdir ) o f am r into Q. 8 9: 22. were adduced by S h a rif M urtada (d. 436/1044) as illustration of th e particular capacity for fi^ rrativ e expression (m ajazät) o f th e Arabic l a n g a g e : ‫إ ﻋﻠﻢ ؛‬

‫ ن ﻋﺎدة اﻟ ﻌ ﺮ ب ال ﻳ ﺠ ﺎ ز و ا ال ﺧ ﺘ ﺼ ﺎ ر و ا ﻟ ﺤ ﻨ ﺒ ﻄ ﻤﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﺼﻴﺮ ا ﻟ ﻜ ال م واﻃﺮاح ﻓ ﻀﻮﻟﻪ‬٠‫أ ن‬ ‫ ر ف‬١‫ وأﻧ ﺖ إ ذا ا ﻣ ﻠ ﺖ ﻳ ﺮ و ب ا ﻟ ﺠ ﺎ ز ا ت ا ﻟ ﺘ ﻰ ﻳ ﺘ ﻢ‬. . . .‫وا ال ﺷﻐﻨﺎ ﺀ ﺑﻘﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻤﻬﺎ أ ﻫ ﻞ ا ﻟ ﺒ ﺎ ن ﻓﻰ ﻣﻨ ﻈ ﻮ ﻣ ﻬ ﻢ و ﺷﺜﻮوﻫﻢ و ﺑ ﺪ ﺋ ﻬﺎ ﻛ ﻠ ﻬ ﺎ ﻣﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﻋ ﻞ اﻟ ﺤﻨ ﻒ‬ ‫ ا اﻟ ﺤﻨ ﻒ‬٠‫ ل)م‬2 ‫ ذ‬82 ( ‫ ) و ا ا ل اﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ‬8 9 : 22( ‫وا ال ﺧﺘ ﺼﺎ ر و ال ن ﺗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟ ﻰ و ﺟﺎﺀ وﻗﻚ‬

‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ‬. S tress in that passage lay on the qualities of conciseness

(ijd z),

brevity ( ë t i s â r ) , and ellipsis ( h i f ) inherent in Arabic, th o u g h t for th at reason inter a lia to be superior to otlier la n g a g e s . T h e shift o f emphasis by m eans of w hich those and o ther phenom ena o f th e scripttrral style became points of d e p artu re for the elaboration of an extended corpus of literaty theory is the su b je ct of this, th e concluding, section of these s tu d io . T h e standard apologia for fi^rrativ e usage in scripttire w ould seem to ‫ ا‬G ertncr, op. cit., esp. 255^. ٤ See above, pp. 158-63, 194-5, 2.1 -2 . ‫ ا‬See Wansbrough, .Periphrastic exegesis’, 259 ( l b . IJazm), 262, 264 (Saadya), 266 (Maimonides); cf. Goldzilier, Richtungen, 116 nn. 2, 3, 7. ٠ Wansbrough, op. ci،. 254-5, 257. 259. ‫ﺀ‬G A L i, 4 .4 - 5 , Suppl. I, 704-6; A â l ï ii (Takmila), 309-11.

228

Q URANIC STUDIES

presuppose an expressly fomiulated opposition to such, and occasionally indeed, that opposition was identified with scholars of the zahiri, Mâlikï, or Hanbali schools.* In fact, even the alleged opponents of Quranic majäz were constrained, when confronted by anthropomorphisms at least, to resort to exegetical devices like taqdxr for the resolution of metap h o r.٤ The apologia was none the less articulated, in a form both simple and effective, by Ibn Q utaybaJ ‫وأﻣﺎ اﻟﻄﺎﻋﻨﻮن ﻧ ﻞ اﻟﻘﺮآن ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺠﺎز ﻓﺎﺗ ﻬ ﻢ‬

‫ ) و ﻫ ﺬا ﻣﻦ‬12: 82( ‫ ﺗﻴ ﻞ ) واﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ ال ﺋ ﺎ ل‬77( ‫زﻋﻤﻮا اﻧﻪ ﻛ ﻨ ﺐ ال ذ اﻟ ﺠ ﺪا و ال ﻳ ﺮ ﻳ ﺪ‬

‫أﺷﺦ ﺟﻬﺎ الﺗ ﻬﻢ وأدﺗﻬﺎ ﻋ ﻞ ﺳ ﺆ ﻧﻈﺮﻫﻢ وﺗﻠﺔ أﻗﻬﺎﺑﻬﻢ وﻟ ﻮﻛﺎ ن ا ﻟ ﺠ ﺎ ز ﻛ ﻨ ﺒ ﺎ وش‬ ‫ ﻛ ﺎ ن أ ﻛ ﺜ ﺮ ﻛ ال ﻣ ﻨ ﺎ ﻓﺎ ﺳﺪا الﺋﺎ ﻟﻘﻮل ﻧ ﺒ ﺖ‬- ‫ ب اﻧﻰ ﻏﻴﺮ اﻟ ﺤﻴ ﻮا ن ﺑﺎ ﻃ ال‬٠٠٠‫ﻓ ﻤ ﻞ دئ‬ ‫ اﻟﺒ ﻘ ﻞ و ﻃ ﺎ ك اﻟﺜ ﺠ ﺮة وأﻳﻨﻌ ﺖ اﻟﺜﻤ ﺮة وأﻗﺎم اﻟ ﺠﺒ ﻞ ورﺧ ﺺ اﻟ ﻤ ﻌ ﺮ‬. T he truism th at for the mimetic fimction of speech m etaphor was indispensable symbolized fo m al and collective recognition o f an exegetical fartor comm on both to halakhic dispute (ikhtiläf) and to masoretic emendation (‫؛‬majäz)٠namely that language could not be construed as having merely or exclusively an immediate (verifiable and quantifiable) relation to the data of experience it purportedly described. A gw d deal of halakhic exegesis tu rn ed upon that very point: e.g. derivation of a series of graded punish, m ents for muhârîbün from the syntactic sequence o f Q. 5: 33,. or the (perhaps) e h e rn e argument according to which a blind husband could be excluded from the provisions of Numbers 5 13.5 ‫ ؛‬F o r the Quranic masorah, A bu *UbaydaS majäz, when not directed to flagrant examples of grammatical irregularity, was applied to idiom and conventionally ambiguous usage, rather than to the analysis of metaphor as consciously formulated imagery.^ Ibn QutaybaS m ono^aph on the style o f scripture exhibito the transitional employment of majäz: from an interpretative device to an aesthetic category. T h e earlier sections of that work are concerned primarily to refute allegations of solecism (lahtt) and contradiction (tanäqud) in the text of scripture, and belong thus almost entirely to the masoretic tradition (i.e. chaptere I V ) as exemplified by Farra. and A bu ٠U b a y d ^ 7 I t is in the m iddle sections (i.e. chaptere V I-X II) that the author treated the phenom ena of figurative language, after a general discussion, under six headings:» metaphor, invereion, ellipsis, repetition and pleonasm, metonymy and ‫ ا‬e.g. Suyütf. Itqdn iii, 1.9. » e.g. Ibn m , see Goldziher. Zdhiriten, 164-8. 5 Ibn Qutayba, Ta*wil, 99، ٠ See above, pp. 187-8. » Gertncr. .Terms., 20. ٠ See above, p. 220. 7 Ta*m l, 10-75; see above, p. 221 n. I. ٠ T a w il, 76-229 subdivided‫ ؛‬general (7 ^ 1 .1 ), metaphor (1.2-41), invereion (142-^1), ellipsis (162^9). repetition and pleonasm ( 1 - 8 ) . metonymy and allurion (199-212), idiom (213-29).

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

allusion, idiom. At only one point (though admittedly conceivable in a num ber of other similar contexts) did he employ the locution wa~majazuku in the manner of Abu 'Ubayda (i.e. ‘and its restoration is. o r ‘and it ought to read’), namely, for the not veiy problematic expression ‫ﺳﻨﻔ ﺮ غ ﻟ ﻜ ﻢ‬ Q. 55:31, interpreted as ‘And we will attend to you (‫ﺀﺀﺀ‬٠‫ﻟﻢ‬. after long nCglect and delay).. I T h a t for Ibn Qutayba majaz did not only signify metaphor (istiara) is clear not merely from the organization of his loci probantes b u t from his express declaration: ‫ ا ﻟ ﺠ ﺎ ز ﻳ ﻖ‬/ \ ‫وﻧﺒﺪ ا ﺑ ﺒ ﺎ ب ا ال ﺗ ﺎ و ة ال ن‬ ‫ ذه‬.‫ ع‬His illustrations of istxara range from examples of genuinely tropical usage, like the expression ‫ ﻳ ﻮ م د ﻛﺜ ﻒ ﻋﻦ ا ق‬in Q. 68: 42, in which ‘shank, is a metaphor for resolution/energy ( ‫ ﻗ ﺘ ﺮ ﻋﻦ‬: ‫وى ﻋﻦ ﻗ ﺪ ة ﻣﻦ ا أل ر‬ ‫ ال ق ف ﻣﻮﻧ ﺢ ا ﻟ ﻐ ﺪ ة‬١ ‫ (ا ﻗ ﻪ ﻓﺎﺗﻴ ﺮ ت‬, ‫ ذ‬across the onomatopoeic ejaculation

uff in Q. 17: 23, explained as an instance of synaœthetic fonnation (٠‫)وأﺻﻞ ﻫﺬا ﻧ ﻔ ﺨ ﻚ ﻟ ﻠ ﺜ ﻰ ﺳ ﻤ ﻂ ﻋ ﻴ ﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺗ ﺮا ب أ و رﻣﺎد وﻏﻴﺮ ذﻟ ال‬,, to the standard example of etiipsis in Q. 12: 82.5 In view of the ubiquity as locus probcms of Q. 12: 82 in exegetical literatare, it is worth recording that this and other instances of ellipsis ( h é f ) were not, when unaccompanied by a change in trab) considered to qualify as figurative usage by the major theorist of Arabic rhetoric, *Abd al-Qahir Juijani (d. 47 ‫ل‬/‫ل‬٠78(.‫ ه‬T hat arprm ent, applied also to pleonasm (ziyäda) ) 7 drew attention to the essentially stylistic function of both phenomena by stressing the intentional dislocation of the entire utterance. Ellipsis and pleonasm were thus regarded as tropes and required to be appreciated, rather than merely clarified or emended. Ib n Qutayba.s inclusion of Q. 12: 82 under metaphor (isti'ârà) might be thought evidence of a similar, if somewhat less sophisticated, point of view. The fact th a t Q. 12: 82, together with 2: 177 and 47: 13, was adduced also in his sertion on abbreviation/ellipsis (M tis a r jh if) may betoken some indecision about that construction.» But the position of Ibn Qutayba in the evolution of rhetorical exegesis is, in my opinion, transitional, though his precise description of the nattrre of the ellipsis in Q. 12: 82 coreesponds to th at of Jurç.Snï, i.e. ‫ون ﺗ ﺤﻨ ﻒ‬ ‫ ا ﻟ ﺨ ﺎ ﻧ ﻰ وﺗﻘﻴﻢ ا ﻟ ﺨ ﺎ ف ا ب ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻪ و ﺗ ﺠ ﻌ ﻞ اﻟ ﻔ ﻌ ﻞ ﻟ ﻪ‬. It was th at connection of ellipsis and pleonasm w ith syntartic function {träb) which was preserved in the exegetical tradition.‫؟‬ ‫ ا‬Taitfil) 77. * T aioil, 1.1 ‫ ؛‬cf. provisional definition of m j ä z ä t f i l - k à m ) 15-16. 3 T am il, 103. 4 T a ’tüïL, III. 5 Ta*tvil, 129, applied also to ٠ . 44: 29 and 47: 4. ٥ G A L i, 341-2. Suppl. I, 5 .3 - 4 ‫ ؛‬A srd r al-B aldgha, paras. 26/1-3‫ ؛‬see Wansbrough. *periphrastic exegesis., 255 n. IO. 7 Jurjani.A srd r , paras. 26/4-1.. ٠T a m il٠ 162. ٠ e.g. Suyû ١ î, Itqdn iii, 124-5, citing Zanjani and Qazwinl.

23.

QU RA N IC STU D IES

Ib n Qutayba’s second category of majäz includes two kinds of .inversion. (maqlub): one semantic, the other syntactic. The first consists primarily of locutions ‫ ص‬a n t i p h r à ( ‫ﺑ ﻐ ﺔ ﺻﻔﺘﻪ‬

‫اﻟﺜ ﻰ‬

‫اﻟ ﻘﻠ ﻮ ب أ ن ﻳ ﻮ ت‬

‫ ) وﺑ ﻦ‬employed

as omen (tatayyur/tafaul) particularly in onomastica, but also as hyperbole (mubalagha) and ridicule (istihza). An example of hyperbolic usage, or m ore correctly perhaps of litotes, was zann (conjecture) for yaqtn (certainty) in contexts of eschatological reference, in which of course there could be no question o f ‘doubt., e.g. Q. 2: 249, 18: 53, 69: 20.1 Syntactic inversion, on the other hand, was for Ibn Qutayba hyperbaton, as in Q. 3: 40 ‘And old age has overtaken me’ for ‘I have attained old age’.z Although he appears to have denied presence in the Qur'an of hysteron proteron (maqlub *alä *l-ghalaf) ) 3 the inclusion of recognized ‘problem passages’ like Q. 2: 171 and 28: 76, as well as 18: 1-2. must be interpreted as tacit acknowledgement of such.. None of the three exhibits the rhetorical embellishment illustrated by Q. 3: 40. Similarly, Ibn Qutayba’s eight kinds of ellipsis include several examples of the rhetorically effective omission of an apodosis, e.g. in a hypothetical constriction (Q. 13: 31), and in an oath (Q. 50: ‫(ل‬.‫ ﺀ‬But ellipsis is also represented by z e u ^ a , e.g. Q. 10: 71 and 17: 23, and also by sheer carelessness, e.g. Q. 38: 32 and 97: 1.6 Mention there of the sjmthetic constriction in Q. 83: 3 (wazanUhum for wazanU H u m ) can only be underetood as a surrival from the masoretic tradition.7 In his treatment of repetition and pleonasm ( t à r â r W ü -ziyäda ) the author distinguished on the one hand repetition of narrative passages, duly related to the doctrine of ‘serial’ revelation (‫؛‬m unajjamanjnujUman ),٥ and on the other, the verbatim repetition of specific locutions, as in Suras 55 and 109.. Reason for both, as for repefition of single words in verees like Q. 2: 196 and 7: 12, was emphasis and drill (taw kid W üäißäm )} a view of that particular Quranic phenomenon which has informed all subsequent scholarship.i.Unlike Ju rja n , Ibn Qutayba applied the term ziyä da exclusively to (in his opinion) otiose elemente like the particle b i in Q. 96: I ," but also the word wajh (face) in Q. 2: 115, 6: 52, 28: 88, and 76: 9, Ta'tvil, 142-4. 2 Ta'tvil, 149. » Ta'tvil, 154. ٠T a m il, 1 5 3 -8 ‫ ؛‬cf. Wansbrough, ‘Periphrastic exegesis.. 2 5 1 -2 (n ٠s. 24 an d 25), and above, p . 2 2 0 ‫ ؛‬ZamakhsharJ, K a s h ih d f ii, 7 . 2 a d Q. 18: 1 -2 . » Ta'tvil, 165, 173. respectively. ٥Ta'tvil, 164. 167. and 174‫ ؛‬the p ronom in al reference in Q. 97: I was in fa ct a matter o f doctrinal significance, see above, II p . 6 2 . 7 C f. W ansbrough, op. cit.. 253 (no. 3 1 ) and 256. ٠ S ee above, I p p . 3 6 -8 . ٠ Ta'tvil, 1 8 . - 2 ‫ ؛‬see above, I pp. 2 5 -6 . ٠ ٠ See atove. II I p p . 111-12. ٠ ٠ T h u s also A b u .U bayda, see W ansbrough, op. cit., 253 (no. 33) and 257. ‫ا‬

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

231

exhibiting of course neither ^am m atical nor rhetorical, b u t rather doctrinal concern for the anthropomorphic attribute.! Allusion (tarid) was teminologically distinguished from metonymy (kinäyä), though Ibn Qutayba’s analysis of the two was, rightly, synoptic.* T h e latter includes the kunya itself (onomastic), the kind of allusion commonly resolved by haggadic ta*yiny e.g.fuïâmm in Q. 25: 28,3 and finally, the generic application of the definite article, e.g. al-zalim in Q. 25: 27 or ül-käfir in Q. 78: 40. The last represented a rhetorical elaboration of the halakhic khusüsfumüm ar^rm entation.. For Ib n Qutayba, tarid itself meant the kind of euphemism exhibited in Q. 18:73 or the circumspection of Q. 3 4 2 4 ‫؛‬. In both passages harshnæs was alleviated by recoume to circumlocution, but not to the extent of suppressing altogether the facts of ‘forgetting/forgetfulness’ and ‘error/sin’, respertively. T h e opposite of

ta*rid in that sense was tasrih‘) its synonym was t â y a ( ‫(وﺗﻲ ﻋﻦ ذ ﻛ ﺮ ﻫ ﻢ‬.‫ل‬ O f some interest for the development of rhetorical exegesis is comparison of Ibn Qutayba’s treatment of Q. 34: 24 with Abu .Ubayda’s ^am matical cum dogmatic *restoration’.6 It is in the section dealing w ith idiomatic expressions (entitled ‫ﻣ ﺨﺎﻟﻐﺔ‬ ‫ ) ﻃﺎ ﻫ ﺮ ا ﻟ ﺊ ﺳ ﺎ ه‬that Ibn Qutayba adhered m ost closely to the masoretic tradition, treating in ttirn problem s of morphology, tempora, junctore, number, and specification.? T hree other elements belong m ore properly to rhetorical analysis: (٠) imprecation as dirine utterance (e.g. q ä t ä u m *llah in Q. 9: 30) was interpreted as hypothetical‫ ) ؛‬٥) rhetorical questions were analysed as si^ifydng affirmation ( / f i r , as in Q. 20: 17), wonder ( ta*ajjub), or reproach (/‫ )ﺀ) أ ( ﻇ ﺴ ﻠ ﺞ‬prohibitives/imperatives might convey threat (tahdid)) admonition (ta*dîb)y even exemption (ibähüy as in Q. 62‫؛‬ 10).» Thus, majdz in the work of Ibn Qutayba, as for Saadya, might be underetood to include not only trope, but also idiom and popular usage.» T hat the latter should be subsumed under the general robric of rhetorical device may, in my view, be attributed to the dominant role of scriptural exegesis in the elaboration of Arabic literary theory. As in philology, so in rhetoric the tyranny of lingua ‫ ا د‬was not merely felt, but found expression as a criterion of excellence. However the d o ^ a of i*jäz 1 Cf. Saadya a d Psalm 88: I S , in Wansbrough, Op. cit. 264. » Ta'toil, 19 ^ 2 .4 ‫ ؛‬that pattern of exposition was characteristic also of the later theorists. see von Grunebaum. Tenth-century 3 8 1 ٠ ‫ ﺳ ﻪ‬، ‫ ا‬n. »97. 3 See above, pp. 1354 ‫ ؛‬See atove, pp. 169-7., 191. 5 Ta'ivil, 210, but also the entire section, 2.4-12‫ ؛‬thus considerably earlier than Zamakhshari, pace Bonebakker, Tawriya, 27-8. ٥ Wansbrough, op. cit. 2 5 ^ . 7 Ta'vnl, 213-29: morphology (228-^), tempora (227-8), junettire (22^7), number (218-26), specification (217-18). ‫ ا‬Ta'vnl, 213-15, 215-16, 216-17, respectively. ٠ Wansbrough, op. cit. 265-6: references in nn. 79‫م‬ .

Q URANIC S T U D IE S

al-Qur*än was interpreted (theologically or rhetorically or both), comparison of the profane and sacred styles was inevitable. A perfect illustration of the double standard applied to such comparison was the observation of Bâqillânï about a line from Imru ١1-Qays: that ‫ﻟﻤﺎ ﻧﺴﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨ ﻮ ب وﺷﻤﺎل‬ ought to have read . . . . .

‫ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻧﺴﺠﻬﺎ‬٠ and that even poetic licence could

hardly justify interpretation of the pronoun ma as feminine.! Now, in the light of su ch examples of wayward concord as Abu U b ayd aS nos. 34and35, that stricture must appear harsh if not pe^erse.2 But BSqillani.s contribution to th e science of rhetoric was marginal indeed: it w as his merit as a theologian to fom ulate the i'jâz arrim ent in terns borrowed from the works of contemporary rhetorists, but not without the over-simplification inherent in synthesis .3 With its application to the scriptoral style, rhetorical tem in ology exhibited evidence both of m utation and of proliferation. M uch o f that was the consequence o f seeking, and findings in the text of scripture at least one example o f eveQT fi^ire known to the profane tradition. A trace of embarrassment, not quite concealed even in the assertive and confident approach of Bâqill5 nï, led to increasing temfinological differentiation in order to prove the divine origin o f all rhetorical device. A minor b u t none the less significant illustration of that process was the evolution o f the trope known as madhhab k ä m t : from conceit to the syllogistic formulation called enthymeme.4 The figure itself appeare to have been originally the paronomastic epigram, of which a m ost artful example was composed and included in his rhetorical treatise by Ibn al-M Utazz (d. 296/^8) 5‫؛‬

‫ ﻣ ﺶ دﻫﺎﻧﻰ‬٠‫وذﻟﻠﺚ‬ ‫ ا ق‬٠‫ﻛ ﺘ ﻤ ﻎ ﻛ ﺖ‬

‫ﺑﻔﺎﻧﻰ‬

‫ﺑﻦ ﻧ ﻜ ﺮه‬

‫ﻟ ﺮ ش ق اﻟ ﻜﺘ ﻤﺎ ن‬ ‫ﻛ ﺚ ﺣ ﺒ ﻚ ﺣﺘ ﻰ‬

‫ﻟﻰ ﺑﺖ‬

‫وﻟﻢ دﻛﻦ‬

Now, to locate in the docum ent of Muslim revelation so cunning an artifice as that w ou ld have required considerable ingenuity, and it is hardly surprising that the earliest theorists, e.g. Jahiz and Ibn al-M u.tazz himself, denied its presence there.. When evenm ally the madhhab kalämi was discovered to be of scriptural origin, the figure had altered quite beyond reco ^ itio n , the work o f two late scholastic theorists: Ib n Abl ٠1-I?ba' (d. 654/1256) and Khatlb Qazwini (d. 738/1338). The locus classicus was Q. 21: 22 ‫ ﻟ ﻬ ﺔ ا ال اﻟﻠﻪ ﻟ ﻔ ﺴ ﺪ ﺗﺎ‬1 ‫ ( ﻟ ﻮﻛﺎ ن ﻓﻴﻬﻤﺎ‬I f there were in them , scil heaven ‫ ا‬BäqülänJ I 'jä z al-Qur*än ٠ 161; trans. v .n Gronebaum. Tenth-century Document, 63. ‫ﺀ‬Wansbrough, ٠ p. cit. 253. ‫د‬See v .n Gronebaum. Tenth-century Docum ent ٠ 6 n. 43‫ ؛‬id., K r itik , 8 7 -1 ..: the .missing w ٠ rk7 ٠ )‫و‬ ) is Ibn Wahb, k h a n , cf. B S O A S xxxiii (1970) 616. ٠ See Wansbrough, 'Note’, 5 5 ^ 3 . ‫ ا‬G A L i, 81 ‫ ؛‬K itd b al-badi , 5 6 ‫ ؛‬trans. Wansbrough, ‘Note., 59. ١٠ K ita b a l - b a d s \ s v

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

233

and earth, gods other than God, both would have perished), that verse being interpreted as an a^um ent for a single author of creation. The transition from epigram to dialectic (with the suppressed middle t e m chararteristic of the philosophers’ enthymeme) can only be explained by reference to the earlier inclusion under madhhab kaldmioi parodistic compositions ridiculing the language of philosophers and theologians.! In the search for Quranic shatcMd the element of parody had nattirally been ignored, or forgotten, and each example exhibited, at least vaguely, a kind of apodictic syllo^sm : e.g. since the repetition of divine creation is easier than creation itself, it (scil. resun٠ection) is ipso facto possible (Q. 30: 27)‫؛‬ the moon may vanish, but God doœ not vanish and therefore the moon carmot be G od (Q. 6: 76); you are punished, but the sons (of God) are not punished, therefore you are not sons of God (Q. 5: 2.(8‫ ل‬For Ibn Abl ’1-I?ba٠, Q. 21: 104 and all related assertions of the resurrection were employed to illustrate the ‫ ﺳ ﺪ‬٠‫ ﺀ‬k a lM , the arguments an elaboration of the type employed by ‫ ﺗ ﻤ ﺪ‬for Q. 30: 27.3 It seems unlikely that fftd h a b kalâmï would, Wthout the challenge offered by scripttire, have evolved much beyond its employment as caricaftjre of technical jargon,

‫ﻟ ﻪ ﺧ ال ف ﻟ ﺨ ال ف ا ﻟ ﺠ ﺒ ﻞ‬ ‫و ﺑ ﻐ ﻨﺎ ﻳ ﺲ أﻓﺌﺪة اﻟ ﺮ ﺟﺎ ل‬

‫ﻓ ﻴ ﻚ ﺧ الﻧ ﻰ ﻟ ﺨ ال ف اﻟﺬ ى‬

‫ ن‬٠٠٠‫ﻛ ﻞ ح‬

‫ﻣ ﺤﺎ ﺳ ﻪ ﻫﻴﻮﻟﻰ‬

Application of the te m to so serious a subject as a r^ m e n ts in support of monotheism (the theme common to all of the scripttiral shawahtd) might be thought to require a very sharp divergence of the profane and sacred rhetorical traditions.‫ ؛‬It could even be ar^ied that description of the phenomenon as exegetical appropriation of a profane term inus technicus is faede and simplistic.. Rather more complex than the mutation of madhhab k a k i was the rhetorical-exegetical development of the figure ori^nally called ta fsir.i While for m adhhab ‫ آ ﻃ ﻪ ﺀ‬retention of one name for three separate phenomena might justify a hypothesis of adaptation, the evolution of tafsir into la jfw a in a sh r (inter alia : versus rapportati) involved changes in fo m , content, and nomenclamre. T h e specifically exegetical residue from that compound process consisted of two Quranic constroctions: the firet ‫ ا‬Wansbrough. ‘N ote’. 5‫ ئ‬٠ » Qazwiiu, Idah) in ShurHh al-talkhtf iv. 365^70. 5 Ibn AbJ ’1-I‫؟‬ba ٠ , B a d ? al-Qur'än, 3 7 -42‫ ؛‬Suyütï, Itq d n iv. 52-5. 4 Subki. ,ArtiSj in Shuruh al-talkhif iv. 372-3. 5 Cf. G.Jdziher. Z ê t r i t e n 33٠ ‫ا‬٠ ٥ Cf. Wansbrough. ‘Qur’anic exegesis’, 469-70: it seem s to me unlikely that Ibn Athir’s m a'iiä '1-san'a can have si^ifiedm ore than ‘schemata’ in general, cf. Heinrichs, A r ä s c h e Dichtung ٠ ‫ﻮ‬ ‫ ﻟ‬n. 3. 7 Wansbrough. ‘Qur.anic e x ^ s is ’. 469-85.

QU RA N IC S T U D IE S

represented by Q. 28: 73

‫ﻟﺒ ﻪ‬

‫ ﺟ ﻌ ﻞ ﻟ ﻜ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﻴ ﻞ واﻟﻨ ﻬﺎ ر ﻟﺘ ﺴﻜﻨﻮا‬-

‫وش‬

‫ وﻟﺘﺒﺘﻐﻮا ض ﻓﻀﻠﻪ‬and 30: 23 ‫و س آ ﻳ ﺎ ﺗ ﻪ ﺣ ﺎ ﺑ ﻜ ﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻴﻞ واﻟﻔﻬﺎر واﺑﺘ ﻐﺎ ؤ ﻛ ﻢ ص‬ ‫ وﻓﻀﻠﻪ‬the second by 2: I I I ‫وﻗﺎﻟﻮا ﻟﻦ ﻳ ﺪ ﺧ ﻞ اوﺟﻨﺔ ا ال س ﻛﺎن ﻫ ﻮدا وو ﻓ ﺎ و ى‬ and 2: 185 . . . ‫ﻓﻤﻦ ﺷ ﻬﺪ ﺣ ﻜ ﻢ ا ﻟ ﺜ ﻬ ﺮ ﻓﻠﻴﺼﻤﻪ و س ﻛﺎن ﻣﺮﻳﻀﺎ أ و ﻋ ﻞ ﻃ ﺮ‬

‫اآلﻳﺔ‬.‫ ا‬The syntactic phenomenon, of which the types were respectively designated (separate/diffuse) and (composite), was nothing more than a proposition containing a gloss in the form of a subordinate clause. Hence, its original name: tafsir (subnexio). T he different between the mufasçal and rmijmal varieties lay in the ratio of elements in the gloss to those/that of the referent: in the former there were two or more in each, in the latter two or three in the gloss to one in the referent. Frequently adduced, and certainly the most graphic illustration of the ntujmal construction was Q. 13: 12 ‫و و ا ﻟﺬ ى ﻳ ﺮدﻛﻢ اﻟﺒﺮق‬ ‫ﺧﻮال وﻃﻤﻌﺎ‬.٤ Now, the exegetidl moment in the tafsirjlaff wa-nashr evolution was not quite the same as that in the development of madhhab kalatni. In the latter the evidence suggested that Quranic loci had at all costs to be found for every component of rhetorical ornatus (badi*);3 in the former a genuine problem of scripttiral syntax, subtly identified with a trope well established in profane literattire, was lent a kind of rhetorical legitimacy. Qne element common to both problems, however, dese^es notice, namely justification of U f a sacra by reference to the data of profane rhetoric. In prartice at least, if not in theory.* For a figure conventionally represented by sequences of multiple imagety, e.g.

‫و ﻏﺰال ﻟﺤﻈﺎ وﺗﺪا وردﻓﺎ‬

‫ﻛ ﻴ ﻒ أ ﺳﻠ ﻮ وأﻧ ﺖ ﺣﻘﻒ و ﻏ ﺾ‬

the role of mujmal constructions in exegesis remained oddly anomalous, despite the likelihood that the exegetiral laffwa-nashr owed its name, if not its very existence, to just such constructions.‫ ؛‬Scholastic elaboration of the fi^ire produced a number of useful modifications d e s ire d to accommodate an infinitely variable ratio of gloss-elements to referent-elements, e . g . j i '٠ tafriq, taqnm.) and combinations of all three.. The sharply defined distinctions bertveen adverbial and relative constructions, and bettveen explicit and implicit connection of gloss with referent, were thus gradually attenuated.? The final synthesis included apposition as well as attribution and predication, so long as either referent or gloss contained at least two elements. All such phenomena could be covered by the term tafsir, if not always by ‫ ا‬Wansbrough, op. cit. 478-82. ‫ﺀ‬ Wansbrough, ٠ p. cit. 475. ‫ ا‬Thus» the work of Ibn AbJ ٠ 1-I‫؟‬ba٠ might be described as the consummation of that begun by Ibn alM u'tazz. ٠ See atove, p. 224. ‫ﺀ‬Wansbrough. op. cit. 471, 481-3. ٥ Set out in Q a^ în ï. T alkhif, in Skurikh a l-ta lk h if iv, 329-47; Mehren, R hetorik, 1.8-11. ’ Wansbrough, op. cit. 477-8., 483-4.

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

laffwa-nashr. That */٠/»< ٠was as much the product of concern for rhetoric as for ‘interpretation, in general seems ccrtain.i The polarity reprwented by tafsir.taioil, obscured in most varieties of exegetical literattire, was for the most part maintained in rhetorical exegesis. In the Amâlî of Shartf M u rta d , for example, tawil is employed throughout for the interpretation of scripture, of tradition (hadith), and of historical reports (àhbâr), while tafsir designates, at least in the Supplement (takmila), the interpretation of poetry. The essentially literaty character of that work is evident even in its external structure (ämälil majdlis), within which the analysis of poetty was skilfully and felicitously blended with that of the three basic fonns of Arabic prose.» Despite predilection for M utazili authorities and reasoning, the author.s generosity in mattere of d o ^ a tic controverey is ubiquitously apparent, and quite explicit in his observations on the question of junctare in Q. 3 ‫ ؛‬7 ‫ ؛‬even if the râsîkhün were syntactically separated from allah) and such was by no means necessary, it was essential to recall that their exegesis could in many instances be no more than conjecttiralJ M urtadas method was to adduce all possible aspects ( m j l ) equally weighted and documented, an example of which may be seen in his five proposals for reconstruction of the problematic syntax of Q. 2: 171.. Only one of these required acknowledgement of the equivalence fa ilim a fn l (as in Abu .Ubayda), a typically masoretic device; the others reflected solutions of common sense based upon very reasonable, and obvious, suggestions of ellipsis, e.g. ‘The example of him who admonishes (waiz) the disbelievers. . ...5 Similarly, ad Q. 17. 85 the haggadic tale of a ‘rabbinical» test of prophethood was rejerted on the pounds that a question about the Spirit crüh), had it ever been posed, could not be a snare and therefore not the occasion which provoked the Quranic revelation.. The conspicuously rationalist approach of M u rta d might also be applied to the logic of scripttiral style, e.g. an isolated and somewhat ambitious utterance in one of the Shu.ayb traditions:’ (Q. 7: 89) ‫وﻳﺎ دﻛﻮن ﻟﻨﺎ أ ن ﻧﻌﻮد‬ ‫ﻟﻴﻬﺎ ا ال ا ن ﻳﺸﺎﺀ اﻟﻠﻪ رﺑﺎ‬. In reply to the question: could God will sin and/ or disbelief? he distinpiished cultic and legal prescriptions ('ibädät ‫ﺀ‬٠‫ ه‬s h a r iy y a t) from the elements of belief or dogma (i'tiqädät), and produced seven arguments to demonsttate that for one who had professed his faith in God memberehip of any confessional community (m ilk ) other than God’s ‫ا‬

Sec ab٠ ve٠ pp. 121, 154-6.

‫ ﺀ‬See Goldziher, Richtungen٠ ‫ ﻟ ﻞ‬4- ‫ ل‬7 ‫ أ‬id., *Fachr al-dïn aI-R^i٠, 216. » Amâlïi, 479-42 ‫ ت‬majlis 33‫ ؛‬cf. Ja‫؟؟‬a$, above, pp. 151, 154-5. ٠ 5 ٥ 7

Cf. Wansbrough, ‘Periphrastic exegesis’, 251-2 (no. 25)‫ ؛‬and above, pp. 22٠ , 23.. Sharif Murtads, Amâlïi, 215-19*. majlis 15. Amdli 12- 11 ,‫؛‬: majlis 2‫ ؛‬see above, pp. 122-7. See above, I pp. 21-2: component VI in vereion A.

236

Q U RA N IC STU DIES

was impossible.* The phrase .unless our Lord God wills it’ could be understood only as acknowledgement of God’s infinite mercy, not as allusion to unpredictable and capricious behaviour. Mu.tazill theology drew its precepts from the intention, as well as from the fom al expression of the theodicy. But Murtads could also express interest in the parts of speech, e.g. the particle Ärt in Q. 4 2 :11 ‫ ﺛﻠ ﻪ ﺷﻰﺀ‬٠‫ ﻟ ﺼ ﻚ‬was not to be interpreted as pleonastic embellishment ( z i y â à ) to m ithl) but as altering the quality of negation in la y sa: from specific to generic, analogous to the relation of m a in to n i 2 In that argument the operative fartor was the function of k a in the entire phrase, rather than merely as (tautological) proclitic, and the reasoning may be compared with that of JurjSnl for the same construction.^ Save for a very few isolated vestiges of the masoretic tradition, majäz in exegetical writings after Ibn Qutayba signified figure or trope. That scholar’s defence of metaphor in the language of revelation found expr٥ sion more precise and sophisticated with Ju٧ 5 nî, whose principal concern was to establish the role of context in figurative usage. His method was to stress the difference between the primitive/traditional symbolic value of separate words (e.g. yad as nVma, or yad as qudra) and the variable fiinction of such in extended imagery (e.g. the impossibility of saying/writing: The ‘hand’ (as *benefit’/‘power’) manif«ted iteself in the land).4 Thus was fonnulated the antithesis majdzihaqiqa (tropicahveridical), differentiation of which required attention both to context (ta'lif/naipn) and to the psychological participation (itaamml) of the hearer/reader.‫ ؟‬The cardinal point of Ju^ânî’s thesis, however, lay in his insistence that the language of scripture was neither more nor less than the established lexical stock of Arabic as hätually employed by speakers of that tongue, and that the incidence of figurative usage, wrongly denied by some and equally wrongly exaggerated by othere, corresponded to the character of the language as a whole, profane or sacred:‫واش ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎ ن ﻳﺌﺒﻐﻰ ون ﺗﻌﺮﻗﻪ اﻟ ﻄﺎﺋﻔﺔ ؛‬ ‫األوب وﻫﻢ ا ﻟ ﺪ و و ن ﻟ ﻠ ﺠ ﺎ ز أ ن اﻟﺘﻨ ﺰﻳ ﺪ ﻛ ﻤﺎ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳ ﻘﻠ ﺐ اﻟﻌﻔﺔ ف أوﺿﺎﻋﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﻔﺮدة‬ ‫ ﻛ ﺬ ﻟ ﻚ ﻟ ﻢ ﻳﻐﺾ ﺑﺘﺒ ﺪﻳ ﻞ ﻋﺎدا ت‬. . . . ‫ وﻟ ﻬﺎ وﻟ ﻢ ﻳﺨﺮج ا ألﻟﻔﺎ ظ ﻋﻦ دالﻟﺘﻬﺎ‬٠٠‫ﻋﻦ ا‬ ‫أﻫﻠﻬﺎ وﻟﻢ ﻳﻨﻘﻠ ﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ د ﻟ ﻴ ﺒ ﻬ ﻢ وﻃﺮﻗﻬﻢ وﻟﻢ ﻳ ﻤﻨ ﻌ ﻬﻢ ﻳﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺎرﺗﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺑ ﻦ ا ﻟ ﺘ ﺒ ﻴ ﻪ‬ ‫ واﻟﺘ ﻤﺜﻴ ﻞ واﻟ ﺤﺬ ف وا ال ﻗ ﺎ ع‬. The significance of that argument can hardly be overstated. Assessment of the lingua sacra as partaking of the normal potential in Arabic for rhetorical embellishment and stylistic variation ‫ ا‬A m d li i. 4 .2 - 5 ‫ ؛‬majlis 3٠ . » A ä l i ii (Takmila), 311. 3 JrjSnJ A sra r, paras. 26/5-8‫ ؛‬Murtada did not, however, adduce the condition of change in the i'räb in order to distinguish pleonasm from trope. ٠ Asrar, paras. 21/1-16. ‫ ا‬Asrar, paras. 23/3. 23/5. 2 3 /1 .‫ ؛‬Wansbrough, op. cit.. 266. ٥ Asrar, paras. 23/12-16. esp. 5‫ ؛‬.

PR IN C IPL ES OF EX EG ESIS

was the acknowledged point of departure for the analysis of scripttire as literaftire. Even the hearty-handed tactics of theologians concerned to demonsrtate the inimitability of the Q ur’ân or the divine Orions of the Arabic language addressed to Muhammad never quite obscured that basic premiss. Among the several disciplines competent exegetes were experted to acquire figured the rhetorical trivium: mdänt) bayän٠hadi .I In his final synthesis of the Quranic science S u ^ ‫؟‬i devoted seven chaptere to the componente of scripttiral rhetoric.» In S u ^ t î ’s synoptic survey of the exegetical tradition categorical distinctions were inevitably effaced and tenninological niceties blureed. The binary opposition mjäzihaqtqa was, for example, not demonstrated but merely asserted. Following what m ust have been the tradition from Juq'ânï, ^ ‫ره‬٠‫ ﺀة‬was described as either concepttial (aqli) or formal (،lughawt), exhibited respectively in compound constrictions (tarkib) and in individual words (mufrad)} An example of the fo m e r was Q. 8: 2 .When His signs are recited to them they are increased in faith», in which the causality inherent in ‘increase’ was related to the fact of recitation ‫ ل‬an example of the latter would be Q. 5 5 2 7 ‫‘ ؛‬The face of your Lord endures’, in which ‘face’ stood in place of being/essence (‫) ئ‬. T h e firet example might qualify as a general illustration of to p ic a l usage, the second only as an exegetical constant (to eliminate anthropomorphism) in the scripttiral lexicon. Majäz had indeed become, with specific reference to the Q ur’an, a vague and general designation of all phenomena requiring to be underetood other than literally, and finally included most of the texttial Regularities noted in the masoretic tradition, e.g. ellipsis, repetition, concord, and m orphology.4 But in Suyütî’s discussion, a curious and illogical blend of the material inherited from both Abu .Ubayda and Jurjänl, there ‫ ف‬a token effort to circumscrite the field of majäz by excluding or at least questioning the inclusion precisely of ellipsis, emphasis, simile, metonymy, chiasmus, and apostrophe.‫ ؟‬Trope in scripttire remained thus a subject of unresolved controversy. One refinement in particular dese^es notice: a kind of compound majäz {majäz al-majaz) was perceived in verees like Q. 7 2 6 ‫‘ ؛‬We have caused to descend upon you raiment’, analysed as rainfall producing flax from which garments could be made.٥ T hat posttilate of divine causality in three stages exhibits a greater concern for dogma than for rhetoric, b u t might be thought to reflect at least roughly JurjanlS vety subtle discussion of the fantastic aetiology {ta'ül takhyilt) amply attested in profane literattire.? T h e application for theolo^cal purposes of aesthetic criteria tended to result in mechaniral foraiulations of the sort produced 1 According ٠ ٥ one e d it io n 15 such‫ ؛‬see Suyû ١ î, Itqdn iv, 185-8. 1 Itqdn , am oa 52-8‫ ؛‬i i i , 89‫ا‬. 5 Asrâr> paras. 22‫ ا ا‬0 , ‫ﺀ‬ 5‫ ﻟﺌﺮ‬Itqdn ii i . .‫ا‬٠ ‫و‬ ‫ل‬ ٠ ٠ Itqdn iii. ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ 11- 23. ¥ « iii. ] 2 4 - 6 . ٠ Itqdn iii, >27‫ ؛‬cf. Isaiah 55: 10-11. ’ A srd r, paras. 16/1-24.

QURANIC S T U D IE S

238

in abundance by the later schoolmen.‫ ؛‬T hat tendency is perfectly illustrated in Suyütî’s discussion 0‫ ؛‬ornatus (٤‫ ا(" س‬in the course of which and on the authority of Ibn Abi ٠1-I?ba' no less than forty-three separate figures were found in the text of scripture.2 T he long and complex histoty of most, if not all, of those figures would undoubtedly show, as for madhhab kalâmï and laff wa-nasb) some very arbitrary procedures of identification and/or of adaptation. The models, as well as the terminology, were indisputably profane in origin. The contrary might be asserted, but could not be demonstrated. Another, related instance has been noted: despite theological objertions to their similarity, description of Quranic verse segmentation was derived, with vety little modification, from the technical vocaculary pertinent to rhymed prose.2 T he detection and analysis of rhetorical convention in scripmre went some way towards the isolation of typical structures, bu t not quite so far as recognition of traditional schemata.. In Muslim exegetical literattrre the rhetoric of scripttire was defined in te rn s of the particular historical and psychological relationship bettveen G od and His prophet. In Orientalist scholarship the cynosure was shifted ju st slightly from there to the relationship obtaining bettveen the prophet and his public, a point of view already implicit and occasionally explicit in the Muslim tradition. That approach to scripttiral rhetoric is adequately illustrated in the sttidies of Sister, Metaphern i d Vergleiche im 1‫ة‬.0‫ و ا ا ا ا‬٦‫ اا‬١٠١ ‫ لةاصة‬1‫أ\ عع‬١ La métaphore dam le Coran (1943). An element common to both is a description of imagery which could almost be called sociological: the acquisition by one man of linguistic expressions within a cultural environment whose com۴ nents were familiar and verifiable because so widely and well attested. Now, the examination of available source materials, such as I have attempted in these stiidies, would hardly seem to support the assumption of Urerlebnis exhibited in the analyses either of Sister (e.g. ‘Die N attir: Himmel und Gestirne, Gewitter, Farben, Landschaft, Tierwelt, Pflanzen‫ ؛‬Der Mensch und sein Leben: Körperteile, Familie, Freudenbote, Gesellschaft, LandWirtschaft, Kunst und Handwerk’, etc.) or of Sabbagh (e.g. ‘La nature: l'hom m e: les parties du corps humain, les fonrtions et l’activité du corps‫؛‬ la vie sociale', etc.). However, even so primitive a classification of metaphorical usage could be helpful, not of couree for tracing the literaty education of Muhammad nor for depicting the rtJStic Orions of Islam, but for semasiological analysis of the scripttiral lexicon.‫ ؟‬Secondly, the same infom ation might provide a statistical account of fo m u laic structtires and 1 See Wansbr.ugh, 'N ote’, 55-7, 1 3

4

.‫ا ه‬

l ¥ n , now' 58: iii. 249-89.

See ab٠ ve. I I I pp. 116-17. See ab ٠ ve, I pp. 1-33 ‫ ل‬I I I pp. 111-18.

5 See above, pp. 215-16‫ ؛‬it is precisely that element which is absent from Allard's .analyse conceptuelle'.

PRIN C IPL ES

٠

F EXEGESIS

239

systems, and hence a due to the composition of scripture.! Finally, and in my view of greatest si^ificance, would be an analysis of figure and trope in terms of archetypal patterns, that is, as the topoi and schemata of monotheisric revelation. From the premiss of B ild u n g s à h n is , in other words, the material assembled by Sister and Sabbagh, like that made avadable in the studies of Horovitz and Speyer, could be profitably pressed into the sendee of Quranic fonn criticism. Bound, as it has been, to the framework of a very dubious chronology, that same material is unlikely to produce more than pseudo-history. An example of archetypal imagety in which, moreover, the source is quite explicit may be seen in Q. 62: 5 ‫ﺑ ﺜ ﻞ اﻟﻨﻴ ﻦ ﺣﻤﻠﻮا اﻟﺘﻮراة ﺛ ﻢ ﻟ ﻢ‬

‫ ﻳ ﻄ ﻮ ﻫ ﺎ ﻛ ﺜ ﻞ اﻟ ﺤ ﻤﺎ ر ﻳ ﺤ ﻤ ﻞ أ ﻃﺎوا‬as designation not merely of the ignorant scholar, b u t also (jwlemically) of all those unable or unwilling to perceive th e ‘tiue meaning* of God's word: ٥١٦٥٥ 1 ٦1٥n.2 Now the Quranic mathal, is primarily an extended simile, and was classified, somewhat arbitrarily, by SuyG‫؟‬ï as either explicit (‫ ة ؟‬٨‫ )زا‬or implicit {kâmin).] The tenn itself occure in scripfcire eighty-eight times, often with ‫ﺳ ﺪ ي‬ e.g. Q. 30: 58 ‫ ن ﻛﻞ ﺷ ﻞ‬٠ ‫ وﻟ ﺘ ﺪ ﺿﺮﺑﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺎ س ﻓﻰ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺘﺮآ ن‬, occasionally with sarrafna, e.g. 17: 89 ‫ وﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﻨﻔﻨﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ س ﻓﻰ ﻫ ﺬا اﻟﺘﺮآﻣﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣ ﻞ‬.. Its basic funrtion is that of exemplum , and as such m athal may be regarded as synonymous with ¥ ) hadtthy and ‫د‬ ٠.‫ ل‬That functional equivalence is stressed in Q. 24: 34 ‫وﻟﻘﺪ وﻧﺰﻟﻨﺎ اﻟ ﺪ ﻛ ﻢ آ ﻳﺎ ت ﻣﺠﺒﺌﺎت و ﺣ ال ﻣﻦ اﻟ ﻨ ﻴ ﻦ ﺧﻠ ﻮا‬ ‫ ﻣﻦ ﻗ ﺒﺎ ﻛ ﻢ وﻣﻮﻋ ﻈﺔ ﻟ ﺴ ﻦ‬, exhibiting a parallelism of ä y a and m a th al identical to that of ٠٤ and mashed in Ezekiel 14: 8 7‫ ه‬٩‫ ا ! ا‬١n V l r p m m . On the other hand, the literary character of the Quranic m athal necessitates a distinrtion between it and the other narrative categories: it is intentionally anonymous and hence expressly symbolic.٥ Its range ‫ ظ‬thus not that o f the Biblical m ashal, which included taunt, oracle, poem, and song.7 It ‫ ئ‬w ith acknowledgement by the exegetes of the mathal* s symbolic quality th at I atn here concerned. Its functional value as exemplum was not thereby diminished, but rather, and perhaps predirtably, enhanced, A p r in t I See above» I pp. 4 7 1 . * Cf. Geiger, W as hat M oham m ed, ‫و‬ ٠ ' ‫ا‬Hirechfeld, Researches, 94 n. 61‫ ؛‬Sister, .Metaphern’, 126 n. 2 ‫ ؛‬Speyer, Erzählungen, 437, 441, 461‫ ؛‬Ahrens' proposed parallel with Matthew 23: 5, in ‘Christliches im Qoran’, 165, might almost be descrited as perverse. ‫ل‬ltqän, naw* 66: iv. 38-45. ٠ Cf. Sister, ‘Metaphern., 115-16. 5 See above, I pp. 18-20. ٥ See Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 7, 25 ‫ ؛‬a number of specimens were discussed, alw a^ from the point o f view of the prophet’s calculate appeal to his audience, by Hirschfcld, Researches, 8 3 ^ 7 ,. and Buhl, Vergleichungen’, 1-11. ‫ ؟‬See Eissfeldt, E i à tw ig , 73-100, 1 061; Johnson, ‘Mashal’, 1 6 2 1 ; the equivalence h ija jrajaz: m ash al as taunt (5 ‫ﺀ‬ 0 ،، ٤ ‫ﺀآ‬ ‫ى‬ ) was noted by Goldziher, Abhandlungen i, 44, 8 ٠ .

340

QURANIC S T U D I E S

d'appui was provided by Q. 25: 33 ‫و ال ﻳﺎﺗ ﻮﻧ ﻚ ﺑ ﻤﺜ ﻞ ا ال ﺟﺌﻨﺎ ك ﺑﺎﻟ ﺤ ﻖ وا ﺣ ﺴ ﻦ‬ ‫ » ﺗ ﺴ ﻴ ﺮا‬in which mathal is antithetically juxtaposed to tru th (‫ ؛‬. ) but also to interpretation (tafsir). In the polemical context of that verse, mathal was traditionally glossed ‘falsehood, {butldn))] but not without allusion to the notions of challenge (su*äl) and eni^na ( ‫وهﺀ‬٠‫(ﺀ ه‬.‫ ة‬The mathal contained an invitation to exegesis. From the antithesis mathalzhaqq was derived a number of interpretative procedure designed not only to locate figurative usage in the text of scripture but also to justify reading there several levels of symbolic meaning. Such did not ever eliminate entirely haggadic efforts to connect the mathal with known historical figures (ta’yïn), or to identify the occasion of its utterance (،tanzil), of which several not very pereuasive examples may be read in SuyU‫؟‬ï.3 The extent to which exegetes might have perceived a distinction between historical fact and historical truth, bettveen Wirklichkeit and W à h e it ٠ poses something of a problem. For the T almudic antonjrcns m ashaliegy Loewe found no eridence of that distinction, though mashal itself was one of the thirty-two m i ê t .i In Muslim exegesis a basic ‘historical, reference was seldom neglected, though often only as prelude to excursions into allegorical analysis.‫'؟‬ As an exegetical instrum ent mathal m ight designate rudimentary theological symbolism derived from imagery so traditional that a consciousness of figurative usage was not even necessary to its understanding: e.g٠ dart as the unnourishing food of the damned in Q. 88: 6, or zabad as the foam or dross of the purifying torrent and fire in Q. 13: 1 7 . 6 Such was described by Jurjani as linguistic (lughawi), as opposed to conceptual (’aqli) coinage: dart remained food, and zabad foam/dross.7 Ibn Qutayba's description of both as mathal (the term actually occurs in Q. 13: 17) may be thought to have referred not to the words dan and zabad, neither of which was metaphorically employed, b u t to the eschatological context of both passages. The notion of ‘likeness» inherent in mathal rested thus not upon the apprehension of metaphor, b u t upon assent to the author’s intention. The ‘parable, could be symbolic, even allegorical, but did not require analysis as metaphor. Related to the technical use of mathal in exegesis, and the source of some tem inological conftision, was the description of certain types of metaphor as tamthil That practice can be justified by the semantic element of ‘representation, common to most if not all formations from the root m-th-l, but is none the less misleading. Moreover, ‫ ا‬e.g. Zamakhshari. K â h d f iii, 37. ad I.C. 2 Cf. Buhl. ‘Vergleichungen., J I . ‫ ا‬Itqdn iv, 39-41; rf. also Hirachfeld, Researches, 87 n. 8, who could himself not resist the temptation, e.g. 95 a d Q. 7: 176. ٠ Loewe, .The “plain” meaning., 173-5‫ ؛‬see strack. I n t r à t i o n , 97 (no. 36)‫ ؛‬Bacher, T ä n o l o g i e i, 131- 3 , ii, 131. ‫ ا‬S e e below, pp. 3 4 3 - 5 . ٥ Ibn Qutayba, Ta'vnl, 4 9 and 3 5 1 , respectively. 1 See above, pp. 3 3 ^ 7 .

P R I N C I P L E S OF E X E G E S I S

the precise nature of the m etaph.r(s) qualified tamthil was never satisfactorily defined. Zamakhshari, for exampJe, ad Q. 33: 72 *We .ffered (Our) covenant/tmst to the heavens, the earth, and the mountains., sought to distinguish two kinds of image (taswir): (a) tamthil, derived from empirical data (‫ل‬muhaqqaqdt), and (b) takhyil) derived from hypothetical data (mafrüê dät)j the two being equally conceivable and equally dependent upon an exercise of imagination.* If Q. 33: 72 exhibited, in the opinion of Zamakh. shari, the takhyil variety, other vers« adm itted of both interpretations, e.g. Q. 41:11 ‘He addressed Himself to heaven while it was still smoke and said to it and earth “Come willingly or unwillingly” ’, which contained a trope that could be either tamthil or t M y i l : ‫ص‬

‫و ﻫ ﻮ ﻣ ﻦ اﻟﻤ ﺠﺎ ز اﻟ ﺬ ى‬

‫ م اﻟ ﺘ ﻤ ﺜ ﻴ ﻞ ﺋ ﺠ ﻮ ز ان ﻧﻜﻮن ﺗ ﺨ ﻴ ﻴ ال‬or Q. 59: 21 ‘Had W e allowed this Qur’an to descend upon a mountain you would have seen it humbly collapse from fear of God’, which was both: 3.‫ و ﻫ ﻮ ﺗ ﻤ ﺜ ﻴ ﻞ وﺗ ﺨﻴﻴ ﻞ‬It might well be argued that the operative fartor in all three examples is not metaphor at all, but prosopopoeia!fictiopersonae* Acceptance of the image as empirically or as hypothetically derived was not a problem of rhetoric but ofdo^na.5 The role of tamthil as metaphor found better attestation in the tradition of profane rhetoric.. For Juijani metophor was of two kinds: (٥) those derived from physical and other sensorily perceptible data whose apprehension required no interpretative process (ta*awm[)’y (٥) those derived from an intellectual/conceptual ('aqli) relation requiring interpretation. He called the form er tashbih) the latter tamthïl.1 An example of the tashbih was .He is a lion in battle’, of the tamthil ‘His argument is as clear as the sun’, the clarity of the sun (as opposed to its heat, brightness, etc.) requiring the additional qualification that nothing come b e ^ e e n it and the eye of the beholder. Description of the Qur’an as ‘light’ was thus tamthil, and the word ‘light’ so employed a mathal for the Q ur’an.8 T he basis of tamthill mathal was not linguistic and, strictly speaking, not metaphorical, though confusion may seem inevitable. Use of tamthil as a n a lo g contributed to that confttsion: appearance together of th e terms ä ä h and amthal, as well as the employment of tashbih and tamthil in the sense of ‘assimilation’ ١ K ashshaf \n ١ ‫ لآا؛ة‬. K à h â f iv, .‫ل‬ 8‫و‬ ‫ ا‬K à h â f iv. 5.‫و‬ ٠ ٠ Sec Wansbrough. .Periphrastic exegesis.. 5‫ﺀ‬ ٠ (no. 14). ‫ ﺀ‬See Goldziher, Richtungen, 131-4‫ ؛‬and et. Bonebakker, Taw riya, 24-7 for Zamakhshari’s use o f ta k h y il ٥ Cf. von Grunebaum, Tenth-century Document, 5‫ل‬n. 123. 7 Asrar, paras. 5/1-5, 14/1-3. ‫ ا‬Similarly, wine might be a tam thil for prophecy, but hardly a ‘metapnor., pace Wieder. Scrolls, 85 n. 3 ciring FasI, J a m ii, 52. 1

QURANIC S T U D IE S

(juxtaposition of things similar), arc amply attested.* T h a t imagery draw upon ‘analogous, fonnations could not, after all, be thought to represent a sttain upon the resources of any language. But for the teiroinology of rhetorical exegesis it is m ore accurate and convenient to maintain a strict separation of mathal from metaphor. T he latter was bound by linguistic considerations which could not be, or in practice at least were not, applied to the range of the former. In his treatment of mathal Suyüfî adduced (anonymously) the following definition :‫ﻓﺎق ا أل ﺷﺎ ل ﺗﻌ ﻤ ﺰ ر اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻧﻰ ﺑﺼﻮر ا أل ﺷ ﺨﺎ س الﻧﻬﺎ وﺛﺒ ﺖ ﻓﻰ ا أل ﻧ ﻬﺎ ن ﺀ‬ ‫ ال ﺷ ﻌﺎ ﻧ ﺔ اﻟﺬ ﻫ ﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻮا س‬. There the role of the scriptural mathal is explained as an aid to comprehension, achieved by report to the personification of concepts. The reference, in my opinion, can only be to allegory, of which the prosopopoeic verses adduced by Zamahhshari as tamthUj tàhyîl m ight be held to contain a pale reflection.3 For those, at least, the antithesis mMahhaqq is appropriate. T he Talmudic application of mashal also included, in addition to parable, allegorical interpretation, e.g. the fables of Jotham(Judges 9: 7-20) and Joseph (2 K in ^ 14: 8 - 4 .(4‫ ل‬Now, the designedly esoteric characterer of the Quranic mathal was explicit in th e te rt of scripture (Q. 2 9 ‫ ؛‬43(: ‫ ا أل ﻣﺜﺎ ل ﻧ ﻀﺮﺑﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﺎ س و ا ﻳﻌﻘﻠ ﻬﺎ اال‬.‫وﺗﻠﻠﺚ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺎﻟ ﻤ ﻮ ن‬, an admission of Deutungsbeèftigkeit comparable to Matthew 13: 10-13.5 T he assumption of those exegetes not concerned with identificationof dramatis personae or with relation of k m a th a l to a remembered historical event (real or fictive) was of emblematic language, by means of which levels of si^ificance could be discerned in scripture. These levels were not mutually exclusive, but rather, parallel and complementary. Ultimately incorporated into standard works in the exegetical ttadition, that principle was concisely set out in the introduction to the

Tafstr of Sahl Tustari (d. 283/896):. ‫وﻟﻬﺎ ارﺑﻌﺔ‬

‫اآلرن اال‬

‫وﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ آﻳﺔ ض‬

‫ ؤاﻟ ﻈﺎﻫﺮ اﻟﺘ ال وة واﻟﺒﺎ ﻃ ﻦ اﻟﻔ ﻬ ﻢ واﻟ ﺤ ﻦ ﺣ الﻟ ﻬﺎ‬.‫ﻣ ﻌﺎ ن ؛ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ وﺑﺎﻃﻦ وﺣﻖ و ﻃ ﻲ‬ ‫ وﺣﺮاﻣﻬﺎ واﻟ ﻄ ﺒ ﻊ اﺷﺮا ف ا ﻟ ﻘ ﻠ ﺐ ﻋ ﻞ اﻟﻤﺮاد ﺑﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻠﻪ‬Every Quranic. veree had thus four ‘meanings’: zäkir (literal), hatin (symbolic), hadd(presCTiptive), and mafia* (spirittial). My ttanslations are only approximate: in view both of their num ber and order of appearance coreelation with the quadririum of medieval Biblical exegœis may be justified:? ‫ ا‬S c. above, pp. 166-7; Goldziher, Z â h i è i , 104-5; TahânawJ, Ifpildhdt, 1193-4. » Itqan iv, 38. 3 See above, p. ‫ﺀ‬ 4‫ل‬ ٠ ٠ Bacher, Terminologie i, 122. ‫ ا‬Also Mark 4: 10-3, Luke 8: 9-10; one of these passages, probably Matthew 13. was mentioned by Suyütï, Itqan iv, 39. ٥ G A S i. 647; Tafsir, 3; adduced anonymously and abbreviated in SuyUtf, Itqan iv, 1 9 ^ ; see above. III pp. 1 .4 -5 . , See Lausberg, Handbuch, para. 9 .0 (according to Rabanus M aunis); Richter, E x e-

‫ﺀﺀﺀﺀ‬, 15. ‫ ا‬74‫ آل‬٠.

PRIN C IPL ES O F EX EG ESIS

‫ ؟‬ohir.historia batin'.aUegoria hadd'.tTopologia matXa ..anagoge While, in the Muslim traditi.n, the rich possibilities of polysemy and multivalence had already begun to be exploited by elaboration of methods derived from the principles of wujoh and tamlyi it is worth noting that the schematic arcangement of four levels of ‘meaning» for every ( ‫ )ا‬scrip, tural veree exhibited considerable refinement of the earlier binary opposition m u h k m .m t d ä i j m u s h t M ) in which theoretically (at least), only the latter were susceptible of more than one ‘corcect» interpretation. The fourfold system was, moreover, firet fom ulated and invariably advocated by exegetes whose concern with the literal sense (historia :secundum litteram)) even when expressly declared, was minimal. Here devoid (or nearly so) of the polemically charged connotations of halakhic usage,* the term zahir was reduced.to little more than a point of departtire for symbolic and eschatological speculation. E x is te n c e of four semantic values implied both equality and independence of funrtion: Jerusalem was thus the capital of the Jews {historia)) the church of Christ {allegoria)) the soul of m an (‫؛‬tropologia), and the city of God ((anagoge).3 T h e Muslim designation of that phenomenon was tatbiq, described by Suyütî as a kind of symbolic parallelism:. ‫ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ إﺷﺎرات ﺧﻔﻴﺔ اﻟﻰ دﻗﺎﺋ ﻖ‬٠‫ ع ذالث‬٠ ‫ و ص ﻋ ﻞ ﻇﻮاﻫﺮﻫﺎ و‬١‫ اﻟ ﺬ م‬٠An example is the interpretation imposed upon Surat al-Fîl by the Sufi Ibn 'A rab‫( ؛‬d. 638/1240): in the historical attack of Abraha on the Meccan sanctuary was reflected the assault of the powere of darkness upon the soul of m an, and in its repulsion deliverance of the soul from the snares of fantasy by the powers of intellect.* T h e exegetical principle itself m ight be described as tropologia) and ife relation to h i s t à defined as tatbiq.٥ Symbolic parallelism is the necessary substrattjm of all allegory, as well as of irony and caricattire. Its success required uninterrupted consciousness of the literal ‘ground», the source of whatever persuasive power the imagery of superimposed levels (whether a l l é g é ٠ tropologia) or anagoge) might possess. The relation is one of counterpoint, present in allegory both as creative mode and as exegetical device.7 It might not be unjustified to see in Philonic allegorism an identiral set of posttilates, for which paremphasis expressed the counterpoint tettveen literal (phaneros) and symbolic I See above, pp. 154-6, 208-12. ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 150-1, 152-3, 187-8. ‫ ا‬Lausberg» Handbuch , loc. ci،. ٠ Itq d n iv. 195‫ ؛‬read possibly haqaiq for daqaiq• 5 Cited GoJdziher, Richtungen, 242-4‫ ؛‬see above, I pp. 42-3. ٥ P ace Goldziher, loc. cit., who contrasted tatbiq with ta ’îvïl (the latter described as ‘wirkliche Allegorie»), following Ibn 'Arab‫؛‬. 7 CL F ^ e, A natom y o f C r i t i c k , 8 ^ 2 ‫ ؛‬the ‘contrapuntal technique».

QURANIC S T U D IE S

(hyponoia) levels of significance.* In Suyö‫؟‬i’s definition of tafbiq, the elements linking literal expression (nusüsjzawäkir) w ith arcane meaning (٠iaqaiq : ïhaqâ'iq) were designated *concealed allusions, {isharät khafiyya), or better ‘signs’.* The linkage which followed upon apprehension of the s i ^ was called ttäfär (transition)^ Unlike tatbiq and ishära, which were corollaries of the . e e m e n t to recognize manifold *meaning., ïtibâr was a reference to procedure.. It was not, however, Vtibar, but t a ' é which became the generic designation of symbolic exegfâis. Reason for termino. logeai development lay, of couree, in the close association of ta w l with the concepts of jwl^reemy/homonym (iuntjah). The antithesis ta 'é .îa fsir acquired new s‫ ؛‬ificance. From an almost neutral description of rational, as contrasted with traditional, interpretation,‫ ؟‬tauril became firat a collective expression for all save literal exegesis (zMr), and finally an epithet of abuse for Responsible, as contrasted w ith *respertable. scriptural exegesis (tafsir). Polemical reference to t a ' é was nearly always abusive, e.g. in the writings of Ibn H azm .٥ Among practitioners of t a ' é ) the te m tafsir described the necessary first step ( historia) of any interpretation, but no more th an that, e.g. in the work of Ib n ٠Arabi.7 Patronization of tafsir by Sufi exegetes found a complement in the criticism of their m rth ^ s by opponents who pervereely rejected Süfï exegesis precisely because it was not ٠tafsir .٠٥ In T ustari.s work symbolic interpretation is primitive and archetypal. The equivalence ^ripm re:light (qur'än.nür) was, for example, justified by reference to the intennediate tenn ‫ ؛ ؛‬dance’ {fruda)) derived explicitly from Q. 42.. 52 and implicitly from 24: 40.. A i Q. 2: 269 wisdom (‫ ؤ‬٤٠‫) ﻫ ﻂ‬ represented self-discipline in advereity, elimination of carnal appetites, and spiriftial vigilance. Wisdom also comprehended all of the sciences, the basis o f which was Sunna. Similarly, knowledge (,Um) was «sentially arcane, and those granted access to it (al-râsikhünfil-'îk) the special reci. pients o f divine favour.*. A d Q. 24: 35 the image illumination/wisdom was, not unexpectedly, daborated in some detail: i.e. divine light, the light of Muhammad, the heart of the teliever incandescent w ith the illumination ‫ ا‬Sec Loewe, ‘ ‫د‬ ..plain., meaning., 1 .3 - 5 1, esp. 148. » Goldziher, Richtungen, 225-7: .Hindeumngen'. ‫ ا‬Goldziher, ٠ p. cit, 2 .5 -5 1 : ‘HinUberschreiten'. 4 P ace Goldziher, loc. cit., where i'tîbâr ‫ئ‬ defined as the halalthic application ٠ ‫ﺀ‬ tafbiq. ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 15.-5. ٥ Goldziher, Zdhmien, 132 n. 2 ‫ ؛‬id.. V àsungen, 1.8, ‫ل‬ 5‫و‬ ٠ 7 Goldziher, Richtungen٠ 224-57, esp. 239 n. 2. ٠ See the discussion in Suyûfï, Itqdn iv, ‫ا‬94 - 8 ‫ ؛‬that view was to some extent shared even by m ^ erate Çûfi exegetw, e.g. Suhrawardi, see Goldziher, op. cit., t86 n. 1; Jullandri.a unqualified description of §üfi exegesis as *tafsir' is simplistic and misleading, as is his distinction between *symtolic tafsir٠ (ishdrijram zi) and *speculative tafsir* (nauari), cf. his stady .Qur.anic exegesis*, 105-19. ٠ Tustari, Tafsir, 5. ٠ ٠ Tustari, 32-3, and 3 ^ ‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻤ‬ ‫ﻣ‬Q. 3: 7.

P R IN C IPL E S OF EXEGESIS

of divine unity, and finally, the Q urS n as lamp: knowledge its light, comm andm ents its wick, and purity its oil.1 It is precisely such straightforward substiration/transfer which characterized this earliest symbolic exegesis: e.g. umtn d-qurä in Q. 42: 7 was both Mecca (zâiruha) and the human heart (1bâfînuhâ), its environs the membere of the hum an body., lazoh mahfûz in Q. 85:22 was the breast of the believer, in which trtith might abide.» Underlying interpretation of that kind was the acceptance of extended simile: the extent to which it may justifiably be described as allegorçr depends upon the naftjre of the scripmral passage subjerted to exegesis. Tustari’s work contains almost no commentary on the ‘n a m tiv e' sections of the Qur’än, that is, those which would lend themselves most easily to the action: imagety transfer typical of allegory (e.g. Suras 12 and 18). T he technique of dramatic allegorization found later and full explosion in the w riting of Ibn 'Arabï.3 Earlier traces may be seen in commentaries ascribed to Ja'far al-gadiq (d. 148/765) where, for example, the ascension of Muhammad (mïrâj al-nabt) was analysed as a threefold passage: from Mecra to heaven {malakut)) from Medina to power (jabarm ), and from birth back to his creator.. Recourae to s۶ bolic interrelatio n was very m uch a characteristic of sectarian exegœis, for an important part of which the names of Ja'far and his father Muhammad al-ßäqir were si^ificantly authoritative. But a more appropriate, because datable and indisputably authentic, illustration o fth at particular technique is found in the Tafsir of QummI (d. 309/921).‫ ؟‬There, adQ. 14: 24-6. the contrasting the good and the evil word (kalima) with the good and the evil tree (shajara) was interpreted as reference to the contrasting histories of the prophetical progeny (ahl al-bayt) and the disbelievers (kafirUn), with concomitant elaboration of the imagery derived from root, branch, and leaf.٥ Ad 0 . 1 5 : 8 7 the seven mathani were understood to refer to the Shï'ï imams;7 and ad Q. 18: 60-82 the long dialogue between Khidr and MUsa was related to a prognosis of M uham m ads appearance as herald of the true faith.» T he device by which agency in the narratio was transfom ed into imagery appropriate to the Islamic theodicy could be constmed as allegory, but because of the specifically historical m ention in such exegesis, it may more accurately be described as ty p o lo ^ .. T he historicization or acraalization of scriptural imagety is the convene and complement of allegorical in terrelation, and both require assent to 1 Tustari, 1.3.

» Tustari, 128-9 and 18.. respectively.

‫ ا‬See Goldriher, Richtungen , 233. ٠ G A S i. ‫ﺀ‬ 2‫ﺀ‬3‫ل‬ ٠ e.g. 529 n ٠ . 2 ‫ ؛‬MS Nafiz Pasha 65, 7 ٠٢-‫ ﺀل‬ad Q. 17: I ‫ل‬ see ab٠ ve ٠

II pp. 6 7 -9 . ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 1 4 ^ 7 ‫ ؛‬and Goldziher, op. cit. 27^309. ٠ Qummf, Tafsir i, 369. ’ Qurnmi, i, 377‫ ؛‬cf the emendation/exegwis ummaia’imma, above, p. 167 n. 4. ‫ ا‬Qurnmi, ii. 37-4.Î see atwve, pp. 127-8. » Cf. Lausterg. H a n k c h , para. 901‫ ؛‬Seeligmann» ‘Midraschexegese'» 167-76.

246

QURANIC S T U D I E S

the symbolic quality of the schemata of revelation. Definition of those schemata as the projection of cultural and spiritaal ideals into history, or as the refraction of histoty in poetic imagety, will depend upon the use to which they are being p u tt whether as rhetorical device (synthetic) or as exegetical technique (analjrtic). In Biblical literatttre the terms employed for typolo^cal exegesis originally designated the interpretation of dreams, i.e. patar and peshar.1 The ‘p ro n o stic exegesis» of sectarian Judaism, Qumranic and Karaite, consisted exclusively of typological equivalents drawn from different but allegedly parallel historical processes.2 W hile it is certainly tempting to see in the Islamic te rn tafsir a reflex of patarjpeshar>] the literaty evidence prorides little support for the conjerture. T he hapax legomenon in Q. 25: 33 referred not to dream nor to scripttire, but to mathaly and the origin of tafsir as terminus techmcus belonged to the tradition of profane rhetoric.. Now, the Quranic equivalent of p-t-r in Genesis 40: 8 and of p-sh-r in Daniel 5: 12 is ta'wil) which occurs eight times in Surat Yusuf) always glossed .dream-interpretation» (taTbir al-ruya), and nine times elsewhere, glossed .outcome٣ sequel» (*äqiba).s T h e eschatological and prognostic overtones of both uses render taym l an appropriate designation of typologeai exegesis. That the Muslim te n n tafsir might, on the other hand, have reflected a characteristically sectarian and polemical emphasis upon the recent fulfilment of a historical promise articulated in Hebrew scripture remains a distinct possibility. Such, indeed, was the function of all scriptural interpretation and the task imposed upon exegetes of every allegiance:

٦‫ د‬٦٦٠٥٥٦٦١ ١٥٦ □‫ د ا‬١٥

(Qohelet8.٠i) ‫ ا‬Bacher. T ä n o l o g i e ii, 1 7 7-8.. 173-4. respectively‫ ؛‬Germer. ‘Terms., 8 ‫ل‬ 7‫ آ‬٠ 2 See Wieder» Scrolls . ‫ل‬ 9‫ﻮ‬ ‫ﻟ‬٠ ‫ﻊ‬ ‫ﻟ‬3 ‫ ؛‬Rabin. Q u m ran , 117. 5 Rabin. Qumran, 117. ٠ See above, pp. 154, 233-5. ‫ ا‬See above, pp. 15^ 7.

IN D E X OF NAM ES A N D SUBJECTS .Abdallah b. *Abbâs, 36, 69, 95, 120, 133, 1 4.. 143. 146, 15 .. 155. 158, 1 6 3 -5 ,1 7 9 . 185, 192, 2 .3 , 216, 219 Abraham, 4 , 8, 19, 20, 21, 3 7 ,4 9 , 54, 56,7 7 Abraham b . D avid, 2.1 Abrogation, 1 8 ., 1 9 2 -2 .2 Abu 'U b a y d , 5 ٠, 1 5 ., 155, 188, 193-4, 198-9, 2 . 3 - 4 , 219 Abu *Ubayda, 75, 83, 2 1 9 -2 1 , 223, 225, 2 28-9, 235. 237 Ahl al-kalâm , 174 A n a lo g , 1 4 8 -7 0 , 175, 1 9 ., 208 A n g e l o l o ., 3 . - 1 , 58-63 Ash'ari, 8 1 - 2 .Ashura., 181, 183 Baghdadi, 199, 2 .1 B. ’U rayna, 185-8 Bâqillànï, 8 ٠, 84, 93, 232 Beduin, 9 4 - 6 Bukhari, 6 0 , 7 ‫ ل‬8 ‫ ا ل‬183 , 2 ‫ل‬

Hasan Ba‫؟‬ri2 .5 ,3 ٠ ‫ل‬ 6٠ ‫ل‬ Hibataliah, 184, 196-7 Hishamb. Kalbi, 16-17 Holy War. 5- 183 ,3 ‫س‬ Hudbayl b. Habib. 144, 172. 174 Ib n Abi ٠ J٠I‫ ؟‬ba ٠ . 2 3 2 -3 . 237 Ib n Anbari, IOI. 168, 221 I b n .Arabi. 151, 185. 189-90. 218 I b n HishSm, 9, 122. 217 Ib n Ishaq, 5 7 -8 , 1 2 2 -7 , 183 Ib n Kamm ûna (Sa'd b. M ançür), 20 0 Ib n M as'ûd, 2 .3 , 2 .7 , 222 I b n M uqaffa', 166 ,6 ‫ل‬5‫ و‬٠ I b n M u.tazz, 232 Ib n Qutayba, 7 4 . 1 . 7 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 5 2 1 9 ‫؛‬ 2 2 2 -4 , 2 2 8 -3 1 , 2 4 .

Inflexion, 1.4-5, ‫ﻬ ﺎ‬ Inimitability, 77-83

‫ﺨ‬

‫ﻟ ﻠ‬

Ja'far b. A bi T a lib . 3 8 -4 3 , 47 Ja'far al-Çâdiq, 146. 245 jafci?. 7 3 -4

Canonization, 43-51, 7 7 -8 4 Com panions, 2 .3 -2 5 Com panion codices, 2 .3 - 7 Contradiction, 1 6 1 6 Covenant, 8 -1 2 , 16

Jassas, 151, 156, 183, 188-9, 6‫ ل‬9 ‫ ل‬- 2٠

‫ و ل‬٠

Jesus, 8, 37, 55, 63, 65, 66, 71, 74, 195 Ju^ânî, 80, 229-3., 236-7, 2401

Dânî, 169, 20 4 -5 Dinawari, 146 Distributional analysis, 2 1 2 -1 6 Eloquence, 9 3 9 , 162-3, 221 Ethnocentricity, 53-4 Evangelium , M uham madan, 5 ^ 3 , 76. 83, 176, 1 9 4 -5 Exile, 7 - 8

Farra', 2 5 , 4 5 , 94. 1 2 0 , 1 3 3 .1 43.155. 2 0 ^ 218, 228 Figurative la n g a g e , 2 2 7 -4 6 F o m u la e i apodictic, 13-16 com m ission/m essenger, 1 2 -1 3 , 24, 53 narrative, 18-20 su p p lic a to ^ , 16-18 Fonnulaic language, 48. 1 1 7 -1 8

7

Gabriel, 12, 3 0-1, 34, 46, 6 1 - 2 , 63-5, 1 22-3, 126, 181 Gospel, 37, 63, 72

7 .»

.

Ka ٠bA!-Ahbär, 75, 189 Kalbi. 34, 59, 62. 115, 1 3 .7 . 1 4 .6 , ‫ل‬49 ‫ل‬ 5٠ , 183, 2.6 Kisä ٦, 45, 212-15 Koine, 87‫ ؛‬.

l^ ïic ٠ ۴

phy, 2 9

‫ﻟ ﺆ ل‬

L in p ja sacra, 9 ٣ i i 8 , 208, 210, 215, 231 Litany, 26 Logia, I, 4 ٠, 42. 4 7 . 4 9 -5 2 . 78, 148 L ogos, 77, 1 2 .-1

Ma.arri, 94, 96

Maimonides, 64, 74, 187-8, 2.1 Mala١ î, 165, 211-12 Malik b. Anas. 58, 171-2 ManaridJ, 121, 15.» 154, 156, 177 M oses, 4, 8 , IO, I I , 19, 2 0 , 29, 3 5 - 7 . 4 9 . 5 5 - 7 . 6 5 . 68, 7 1 -4 . 76, 78. 83, 9 9 , 95 ‫ا‬ M uqStil b. Sulaym an, 3 , 6 9 ,1 2 2 - 3 6 . ‫ل‬4 ‫ا ﺑ ﻰ‬ 11- 2 . 8 ,2 . 6 3 ‫ل‬49 - 5٠, 163 - 5 , 1 7 . 4 . ‫ول‬٠ , 212, 2 8 ‫ل‬

Muslim. 1 8 .1 , 183, 217 Mu'tatila, 79, 81-2, 84, 16., 215, 236

,

248

I N D E X OE NAMES AN D SUBJECTS SuJam J, 180, 1 9 8 1 S u n n a . SI, 5 6 7 , 7 8 . 159, .172 .1 63 ‫ل‬6 ‫ل‬٠ 2 .2 ,9 - 198 ,1 9 3 ,90 - 188 ‫ ل‬7 4 ‫ا ة‬

NafrfrSs, 184, 192, 8‫ل‬ 9‫ؤ‬ Narrative style/stnicture, 127-48 Papyri, 9 . 2 Pericopes, 2-5, 12, 20, 42, 49. 53 Periodization, 48, 11617 Poetrçr, jahiU, 94-8, 102, 1 .5 , 142, 21619, 226 Polysemy, 2 .8 -1 2 Prescription, 172-2.2 Prophethood, test of, 122-6, 146, 195, 198 Pseudo-٠ A١ â Khurasani, 186 Pseudo-correction, 87-8

S w o rd veree, 184-5» 1 9 7 -8

59»73. 197 86‫ل‬39- 4‫ ه‬٠ ‫ل‬4‫ل« ة‬55«‫ل‬٠» 217»29‫ل‬

T a b a r i,

^ a 'la b , 143 T h a i im a h ir ^ , 7 3 -8 3 T h e o d i ^ , ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬u m a m khaliya T i m i d h i . 182-3, 217

Qartajanni,‫ال‬٠ Qasim b. Ibrahim, 16. Qazwini, 232-3 Qummi, 41, 146, 245 Remnant, 4 , I I Restoration, 219-26 Resurrection, 31-3 Revelation, modes 0

Suî^çï. 14, 35. 41. 43. 46, 51. 55. 59^ 0, 93-4. ‫ل‬٠4‫ ﻳ ﻰ‬, I٠8-I ,152 ٠, ‫ ﻟ ﻞ‬6٠126, ‫ل‬3‫ ة‬٠ ‫ ة ل‬5٠ ‫ ة ا‬9٠ 176, 178. ‫ ا‬8‫ ه‬٠ i8s٠ 2 . 4 . 2. 5. 211, 29-237 «224 ,2-221 ,219 8‫ل‬6٠ 2‫ ا‬٠. 242. 244

Torah, 3 9 5 Tradition, 17^83 TustarJ, 104-6, 242. 244-5

‫ة‬

7‫ ا‬64, 75, 79, 83

U b a ^ b. K a ٠b ٠2 . 3 , 2 .7 , 222 U m a m khaliya, 3 - 4 , 1 . 1 1 , 21. 29, 53» 124.

1

^ 58 ,8 - 34 ,‫؛‬

Saadya, 5, 9, 35, 37, 77, 84, ! . . Sanctua^, 1 6 1 7 , 42, 69 Schemata, 1-33, 47, 1.0 Sectarian m ilieu , ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬Canonization Shâfi'ï, 151, 168, 174-5, 193, 196 Sharif Murtada, 217, 227, 235 Shu.ayb, 21-5, 28-9. 42, 235 Sibawayh, I I . Sign, 5 -7 , 18-19 Sira, 3 ۶42 ٠ 57-8. 121-9 Stoning verae, 70, 193^, 198 Sufyàn ThawTÏ, 137-8, 1 4 . 5 , 183, 2.6, 212, 218

.U m a r b . K h a « a b , 5 7 ,1 5 8 -9 ,1 7 9 , 195. 217 U n c re a te d Q u r’a n . 7 7 -8 4 U th m ä n /'U th m a n ic . 4 3 -6 , 49, 51. 115, 158, 2 .3 -4 , 221

V a ria n t r e a d in g , 2 . 2 - 7 V a ria n t trad itio n s, 2 . 8 , 2 .7

W âhidï,

1781

Z a ü â J 1 5 ., 155 Z am ak h sh ari, 12, 2 6 -7 , 35-6, 59, 6 2 , 98, 1 .1 . 1 .8 , 1 1 3 -1 4 , 115, 120, 139» 152, ‫ا‬54 . ‫ل‬ ‫ة‬ 9 . 2 .6 , 224 , ‫ﺀ‬ 42 Z u h rJ , 180, 1 9 8 ^

INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS âbâd, 2 . 4 'ahd, ٣ I2 , 16 abruf, 4 5 . 7 3 . 2 . 4 akhbSr al-ghayb, 6 ٣ 7 ٠, 7 ٣ 8٠, 144-5 alqS, 6 ٠, 196 am âna, I . 'am m /.um ùm , 169, 178, 185, 1 9 . am r, 77 apostrophe/parenthesis, 28 'arabï/.ajam l, 94, 9 8 -9 asbab/akhbâr a l-.u z ù l, 38, 41, 123, 127. 1 3 2 . 1 4 1 -2 . 1 7 7 -8 . 1 7 9 - 8 3 . 196

a‫؟‬l /u ? ü l ,7 ‫ ا‬58 , 102, ‫ل‬٠ 53‫ل‬ 8- ‫ا‬9 ٠ ‫ل‬

ibtida*. 152. 2 ٥ 4 identification, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬ta.yîn idgham, 181 ïjâz, 227 i.jâz ai-qur.ân, 7 ^ 8 3 , 231-2 ik h tila f, 1 8 3 ‫ ة ل‬3 ‫ ي‬٠

Sya, 6,

a y y a m ( a llà h /a l- 'a r a b ) , 4 . '2 9 . 1 2 5 . 1 4 .

badâ ٠ , 197, 199, 2٠‫ل‬ badï٠ . 234, 238 bä٢ in, 151-3 bayân/ba^ina, 153 berit. 9, JJ

ikhtiçâr, 227. 22 ‫و‬ ikhtiyâr, 223. 226 ilhâm, 34, 5 8 -6 ., 210 .ilia, 168 imäm, 54, 184. 187 interpolation/paraphrase, 27 i.râb, 95, 1 .4 -5 , 229 ,2- 221 ,155 ,‫ل‬ ٠ ‫ﻟﻠﺦ‬ ir e a l, 3 4 , 5 8 ^ 0 , 2 1 .

circular e x p li.tio n , 45 ‫ل‬3 ‫ ﻟ ﻮ‬, ‫ل‬ corrobo ratio. 13, 24

dabar, 77 dalâ.il a l-n u b u ^ a , 7 ٠, 73 D eutungsbedürftigkeit, IW . 118, 148-54, dhim m a/dhim m i, ! ٠, 194 dirâya, 154, 227 ellip sis, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬badhf erlebte Rede. 4 ‫ﺀل‬ e x e m p l u m , 4 ٠i 8 - 2 J , 2 4 ,

hebin, 153 bijab/satir, 3 4 -5, 73 hiqqish, 167 historia/allegoria/tropologia/anagoge, 242-4 hukm/abkam, 176-7, 183-8. 195, 2.1 hyperbaton, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬taqdim

47

» 5 ‫ل‬-2 ٠5 ‫ة‬

façâha, 8٠, 93. 97» 2 .1 fâçila, 6 ‫ﻟﻞ‬ fatra, 54 gazerah shawah. 167 g lo ss, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬interpolation b ab l, ro hadd /bud ud, 177, 195 hadd/m atla., 242-4 badhf, 181, 227, 229 hadfth/b• qudsï, 129, 133. 145, 179 balal/harSm , 173, 191 haqïqa-m ajâz, 2 3 ^ 7

irtibat, 215 ishârt, 244 ٠ i‫؟‬ma, 67, 71 isnSd, 17^ 83 isrà'/mi.raj, 66 -9 isti.àra, 229 i‫؟‬١ iiah٠ 1 .3 -4 isti.nâf, 143, 152. 224 i.tibar, 244 jam., 46 jarb wa-ta'dïl, 1 4 . jihad/qital, 3‫ﺀ‬ 7‫ﺀ‬ jumla. 36 kalima/kaläm (ajlsh), 76-7, 8 ٠ , 1.3-4, 120-1 kelal/perat, 169 kh2‫؟‬٠ /khu19 ,185 ,178 ,169 .‫؟‬٥‫ ؟‬. khatam, 64-5 khutba/khatfb, 147-8 kinâya, 231 kitstylwpjb (allâh). 57, 74‫ﻰ‬ ‫ل اﻳ‬ 6‫ل‬ kitba/Iaf223 ,‫؟‬ kitmàn. 63, 71, 189 ktib/qere, 223 Jaffwa-nashr, 233-5, 23» laf?/ma!fû?, 189. 226

25.

I N D E X OF T E C H N IC A L T E R M S

lafrn. I l l , 2 2 1 ,2 2 8 1‫ك‬ ‫ﺀ‬ ‫ﻪ‬ ‫ﻫ‬wa ٠ a‫؟‬wât, 104-5, I I I , 221 m adhhab kalâmï, 232-3, 238 majSz, 115. 120, 169, 2 1 9 2 6 , 227-38

mashal, 2 3 9 4 . mashhUr, 206 mathal, 2 3 9 -4 5 m a tl.w /g h a y r m ., 176 m etaphor, 2 3 8 -4 2 m inim al unite, ‫ل‬3‫ﻟﺲ‬ m lthaq, 8 m ithla/ka (qaw l). 1 2 7 ,1 4 2 -3 , 167, 212, 223

mUarada, 81, 16. m ubalagha, 2 3 .

rüh, 122-6, 181. 235 ‫؟‬ahifa/suhuf, 9، 78 saj*. 116. 147 çarfa, 79-82 serial repetiti.n, 130. 1 4 5 shabafyashbah. 142, 167, 169-70, 19., 209. shadhdh, 206 s h a y ., 59-61 ‫؟‬ißt, 83 simile. ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬tashblh stage-direction, 129, 145 subnexio, 234, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬tafslr supercommentarçr, 129, 2.3

mubham, 136 mufa?‫ ؟‬al, 234

mu^âribûn, 185-7, 193 muhkam, 1 4 9 5 7 , 163, 1 7 ., 173, 177, 184, 19., 2 4 3 mujmal, 234 munatfam/nujUm, 3 ^ 8 , 2 3 . munSsaba, 215 m uçaddiq, 65 mu‫ ؟‬ba‫؛‬/ma?âhtf, 43 - 5, 51, 2 . 3 - 4 m ushtabih, 142, 157, 165, 2 ٠815- 212 ‫آل‬ ‫ا‬, 220, 243 m utäbaqa, 147

mutashabih» 142, 14957, 163, 19., 192, 2 0 8 .9 , 2 1 2 , 243 narratio, 4 2 - 3 , 47, 127-47, 171, 177, 2 2 6 , naskh, 47» 1 5 ., 183, 191» 1 9 2 - 2 .2 na??/man?û187 ,168 ,‫؟‬ na?ïr/na?a ٠ ir, 127, 142-3, 1 6 9 -7 0 , 211-12 na?m, 7 9 8 . panjm, 155 parem phasis, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬ta١ bïq patar, 246 perw h, 154 periphrasis, 220, 225, ‫ ﺀﺀﺀ‬majSz peshar/pesher, 5٠, 246 peshat/peshut. 152 prolcpsis, 128 qSfiya, 116 qarina, 116 9 ‫ووة‬, 1 . 7 qirâ.a, 2 . 4 qiySs, 159, 166, 168, 1 9 . rajlh/marjüh, 155. 187 rasm/khatt, 2 . 4 ribst, 185 riwäya, 1 5 4 -6 , 227

ta.awwul, 236 tab., 64-5 tabaqat, 14., 158 tabdl, 189, 196 tatfsdd, 165, 228 taßnun, 215 tafçîl, 75, 153-4 tafslr, 57, 121, 127, 154-8, 191-2, ‫ ة‬34- 5‫ا‬ 244, 6‫ﺑﻊ‬ t٠ ddï, 7, 79-82 tahannuth, 18 tahlil, 17-18 tahrtf, 6 3 , 1 8 9 9 0 62‫ ا‬٠ takalluf, 8٠ takbir, 18 takshif, 54 ‫و‬ takh$ï$, 188, 191-2, 2.1 takhyïl, 24‫ال ل‬ takrär, 178, 23. ta.lïf, 79-80 talbiya, 1^17 ta.lïl, 168, 191 t a l l takhyl, 237 tamthll, 24٠ ‫ئ‬ tanâqud, 163. 165, 228 tanwln, 1*0 tanzll, 59, 84‫ ﺀعﺀ ؛‬asbâb al-nuzül taqdlm, 143 taqdir, 4, 115, 169. 21926. 227-8 tarannum, 111-12 ta.rib, 219 ta.rïd, 231 tarjJb, 187, 2.6, 226 tartib, 46, 80 tartll, 36 tasblb, 17 tasfir, 54 ‫ل‬ tashbih, 241 tasmiya, 16, 18 ta$rïh, 231 taçwîr, 241

I N D E X OF T E C H N IC A L T E R M S tatbïq, 243 tawafiiq/tawarud. 219 tawatur/mutawatir, 2 .4-5 ta’wïJ, 121. 152, 154-7, 189, 244. 246 tawqif. 1 .3 - 4 tawnj^a, 231 ta'yïn, 3 4 ٠ .‫ل‬ 35 ‫ي‬ ‫لا‬ 4‫ل‬ ٠ ‫ل‬ 45٠ ‫ل‬ ‫ؤ‬

Urtext, 43, 46 varia lectio, 21, 4 4 .7 , 121, 144 ,‫ا‬32 ‫اﺀ‬3 ‫و‬ » 2.2, 2.6, 221 vatirinati., 69, 145, 176

tilâ w a , 1 7 6 , 6 ‫و ل‬

waby,

34 » 58-6.» ‫ ة‬٠‫و‬-‫ﻫﻞ‬ wajh/wujuh, 142, 235 ,11- 2 .8 55‫ل‬ 5 ‫ا‬, ‫ل‬ ٠

um m al-kitSb, 149» 153» 1 7 . u n i , 5 3 -4 , 63

?ähir/a?har٠ 151-2, 187, 242-4 ziyada, 229. 236

‫‪INDEX OF QURANIC REFERENCES‬‬ ‫)‪(SELECTIVE‬‬ ‫‪ 286‬؛ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪2: 287‬‬

‫‪14. 1.8, 2.5‬‬

‫‪٠‬ل‬

‫‪ 7 ,‬اخ ‪5‬ل ‪ 5 3 ٠‬و ‪4‬ل‬ ‫‪2 3 5 ,2 4 4‬‬ ‫‪9‬ل «‪6‬‬

‫‪3:26‬‬

‫‪3 .6 4‬‬

‫‪3:67‬‬

‫‪189‬‬

‫‪ 79‬؛ ‪3‬‬

‫‪3:81‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪87‬‬

‫‪3:137‬‬ ‫‪39‬‬

‫‪5‬ةل ‪,‬ع ‪7 ٠-‬ل‬

‫‪i‬؛؛؛؛‬

‫‪3٠, 62, 126. 181‬‬

‫‪3: 161-3‬‬ ‫‪ 169-70‬؛ ‪3‬‬ ‫‪3: 188‬‬ ‫‪ 9٠‬ا ؛ ‪3‬‬

‫‪196, 2.1‬‬

‫‪1.8‬‬

‫ﺑﻮ ل ‪3 :‬‬

‫‪3 *.200‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬ا ‪ 3-‬ا ؛ ‪4‬‬

‫‪181, 182‬‬

‫‪158‬‬ ‫‪164‬‬

‫‪18,4.‬‬

‫‪164‬‬ ‫ة‪ 3‬؛ ‪4‬‬

‫‪76‬‬

‫‪9 7 -8‬‬

‫‪6‬ب‬

‫؛‪4‬‬

‫‪37 . 234‬‬

‫‪183‬‬ ‫‪184‬‬ ‫‪185‬‬ ‫‪196‬‬

‫‪17.2, 184‬‬ ‫‪218-22‬‬ ‫‪229-30‬‬

‫‪8٠‬ل‬ ‫‪4 : 9 5 .6‬‬

‫‪2 . 9 - 1.‬‬ ‫‪3 5 . 223‬‬

‫‪ 163‬؛ ‪4‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬ةل ذ ‪4‬‬

‫‪3 , 4 1 ,5 5 , ^ , 77‬‬

‫‪4: 7 -‬‬

‫‪٠‬‬

‫‪6, 19‬‬

‫عل ل‬

‫‪8‬ل‪.‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬

‫‪55 ,‬‬

‫‪238‬‬ ‫‪248‬‬ ‫‪259‬‬ ‫‪265-6‬‬ ‫‪282‬‬ ‫‪285‬‬

‫‪I N D E X OF Q U R A N IC REFER ENCES‬‬ ‫‪72 » 189‬‬

‫‪38‬‬

‫‪17.-2‬‬ ‫‪ 56‬؛ ‪8‬‬ ‫‪ ٠ 2‬ا ‪7‬ل‬ ‫‪ 7‬ة و ل ‪ 2,‬س‪ 7‬إ‬

‫‪8 :65-6‬‬

‫‪, 228‬ل‪9‬ل «‪185- 8‬‬ ‫‪192-5‬‬

‫‪ 33‬؛ ‪5‬‬ ‫ﺀ‪ -5‬ﻫﻪ ‪5 :‬‬ ‫ؤ‪ 9‬ذ ‪5‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪2 .9‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1.8‬‬ ‫‪ 8. - 5, 191-2« 197-8‬؛‬ ‫‪83‬‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪ 1٠‬ز‬

‫‪35, 2 . 1 .‬‬ ‫‪6٠‬ل‬

‫‪ 2‬س ‪7‬ل‬ ‫‪2- 7 ٠‬ل‬ ‫ل ‪ 3‬ﺀ ‪123 .‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬

‫‪9 , 25‬ل‬

‫‪9‬ة ل‬

‫‪170-2‬‬

‫‪٠ 2 . 1 .‬ل‪6‬‬

‫‪٦٦‬ا‬

‫‪76‬‬

‫‪ , 2 . 1 0‬ا‪8, 7‬ل‬

‫‪I .: 33‬‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫‪121‬‬ ‫ل ‪3‬ل‬

‫‪، 45‬‬

‫‪77‬ل ‪25 , 4 ٠ ,‬‬

‫‪!.:6 7‬‬ ‫‪I.‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬

‫‪5‬ل ‪6 :‬‬ ‫‪9‬ل ‪6 :‬‬ ‫‪ 2 2 -3‬؛ ‪6‬‬ ‫‪6 : 25‬‬ ‫‪6: . 6‬‬ ‫‪6 : 55‬‬ ‫‪6 : 82‬‬ ‫‪ 95‬؛ ‪6‬‬ ‫‪6 : 1.4‬‬ ‫‪ 1 .9‬ذ ‪6‬‬ ‫‪ 112‬؛ ‪6‬‬ ‫‪4‬ﻟ ﻞ ؛‪6‬‬ ‫‪5‬ﻟ ﻞ ‪6 :‬‬ ‫‪6:‬‬ ‫ذ‪6‬‬ ‫؛‪6‬‬ ‫‪6:‬‬

‫‪52 - 3‬ل‬ ‫‪54‬ل ‪٥:‬‬ ‫ل ‪6‬ل ذ ‪6‬‬

‫‪IK‬‬

‫‪15 , 237‬‬

‫‪7: 2Ô‬‬

‫‪8 .- 9 5‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪157 »245‬‬

‫‪^ ,‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪2 1 -5 . 235‬‬

‫‪7: .6‬‬ ‫‪7 :6 9‬‬ ‫‪ 7٠‬؛ ‪7‬‬ ‫‪ 5 ٩ 3‬ﺀ‪7 .٠‬‬ ‫‪7 : 1 .3‬‬

‫‪: . 7 -8‬‬

‫‪54, 63‬‬

‫‪9٠‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪:67‬‬

‫^‪22‬‬

‫‪227 ,‬‬

‫‪35-6‬‬

‫‪7 : 1. 3 -5‬‬

‫‪5٠ 12.‬ل‬

‫‪22.« 225 .‬‬ ‫‪: il l‬‬

‫و‪ 5‬ﺀ ‪7 :‬‬ ‫‪ 169‬؛ ‪7‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬ﺀا ؛ ‪7‬‬ ‫‪«7‬ل ‪7 :‬‬

‫‪65‬‬

‫‪٦‬‬ ‫‪8 :5‬‬

‫‪7 ،u] a lam [ya>tihim] naba*[(^; i 4 : 9 _ n o t 14:19— teaAs alam [yatikum ]naba ١ fa bi-ayy hadïth ba'dahuyu’m inUna [fa]ja.alnähum ahadith nahnu naquççu *alayka naba’a hum nahnu naqupsu *alayka ahsan âl-qaças tilka/dhalika m in anba) a-lam tara ilä/an aw-lam yaraw ilä/an aw-îamyasïrû f i >l-ar “veil" Tabari a d Q. 17:45 translated in the text Psalm 88:15 [= 88:14 KJV etc.J hiding Y our face from m e Do not veil your mercy. Saadya, Psalm 88:15 Page 7 4 Q; 7:85 ٩ 4:153

A sign has come to you from your Lord. The people of the book will ask you to bring down a book from heaven.

Page 75 ٩ . 29:27 Q: 3:79 Q: 35:40 T abari

Page 76 Q. 2:285 Q. 4:46 Q; 50:29 ٩ 6:115 ‫ آل‬48:15 Page 77 H ebrew Psalm 33:9

prophethood and the book (kitab) the book (kitab), wisdom, and prophethood Or have W e given them a book so that they have a sign from it? I found it predicted in th e book of God (may be He praised and elevated), the Torah.

Each one believes in G od and His angels and His books ( kutubihi) and His messengers. Some o f th e Jews change (yuharriftina) the words (kalirri) from their meanings. The word (qawl) is not changed with Me. None can change His w ords (kalimat). They desire to change G o d ’s s^ e c h (kaJäm).

debar Y H W H ٠"word o f G od” For he spoke, and it was; he commanded, and it stood firm.

276 Q 2:117

ANNOTATIONS And when H e decrees a thing. He says to it. "Be,” and it is.

Page 79

Q. 17:88

Q; 28:49

Page 83 Q. 9:6 Q. 85:21-22

Page 84 awir sheni

Say, “If men and jinn joined together to produce the like of this Q uran, they would not produce its like." Say, “Bring a book from God that gives better guidance than these fcvo.”

Grant him protection until he hears the speech of God Rather it is a glorious Q ir’än in a guarded (malilvz) tablet

“second air" (that being the spirit of God from which all things emanate, interpreted as a subtle, rarefied air in Saadya’s Comm entary on \ k Sefrr Ye$irah. ١ III

Page 88 le fait c٠ ran ‫؛‬٩ ue

the Q iran ic accomplishment

Page 93

hadlth

I am the most eloquent of the Arabs although/and I am from Qiraysh.

P a g 94

Basran grammarians

We took the dialert (information) from the hunters of lizards.

Page 9 6

Greek

aretey “excellence”

ANNOTATIONS

Page 8‫و‬ Q: 14:4 ٩ 41:44

Q. 16:103

Page 9 9 Q: 2 6 :1 9 4 -9 5 Zam akhshari on ٩ 13:37

We do not send a messenger unless (he comes) in the language ofhis people. And if W e had made this a f o re i^ Q ur5än they would have said, "w h y are its verses not distinguished? Is this a f o r e i^ (book) (w ith) an Arab?" In d e ^ , W e know that they say, “Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is foreign and this is clear Arabic speech.

Upon your heart so that you may be one o f the warners in a clear Arabic speech.

Q: 28:34 Q: 19:97 ٩ 55:17 Exodus 4:15

an Arabic ju d g m e n t-tra n slate d into the language o f the Arabs Unloose th e knot upon m y tongue. (he is) m ore eloquent than me in speech We have m ade it easy by your speech. We have m ade the Q ur’än easy. I will be in your mouth.

Page 100 Aramaic Abgerissenheit Stilmischung Vielschichtigkeit Hintergriindigkeit

bar anash disjointedness mixing o f styles multilayeredness enigmaticity

Q ‫ ؛‬20:27

Page 1 .1 Basran formula

This is a m ere claim for which there is no evidence except from ‫ ر ﺑ ﺪ‬and tanzll.

Page 1 .2 gehobene Sprache/ Verheissungsstil elevated language/oracular style tatallarische Übersicht tabulated ۴ opsis

278

Page 103 Q: 2:31 Suyütï Suyùtï

Page 104 Ezekiel 3:5

Q: 14:4

١\ 1‫ة‬٠ ١‫لات‬١‫ لم‬ftadïth Tustarl

Page 1 .5 Jahili poets

(Abdallah Page 107 Ibn Q rtay b a Ibn Q rta y b a

Q 36:76

ANNOTATIONS

H e taught Adam all ٠۶ the names. H e enabled Adam to bestow (the names) on them . W e do not know of a language which has emerged after him (Muhammad).

N o t to a people whose speech is thick and difficult have you been sent but to the house o f Israel. W e do not send a messenger unless (he comes) in the language of his people, translated in the text Recite the Q u ^ än with the rhythm ic embellishments o f the Arabs W thout burdening it with other things. Do not read it w ith the embellishments of the people of the churches and the synagogues, nor the people o f heresy and innovation. I and m y god-fearing community are relieved of (all) burdens. People after me will begin to return their voices to those of the singers with melodies, captivating their hearts by captivating the listening heart. Those are the heedless.

U ntil Iblls nrled their hearts just as he mled the hearts of the poets of k ja h iliy y a translated in the text

T his is the killer of my brother / This is a killer, my brother. A Qurayshi will not be kdled / Let him not kill a Qurayshi bound head and foot after today. Let not their speech grieve you. Indeed We / such that We know what they conceal and w hat t h ^ display.

ANNOTATIONS

Page 108

Zamakhshart li-i Q. 2:124

٩٠ 9:3

٩

35:28

Suyuti Q. 20:63 Q: 1:4 Q 41:17 ٩ 15:54 Q: 39:64

with the omission of the of explanation And remember when his Lord tried Abraham (compare: "when Abraham tried his lord," the more natural reading). that God and His messenger are free from the polytheists (compare: "that God is free from the polytheists and His messenger.” the more natural reading). Rather the learned ones among his servants who fear God (compare: “rather God fears the learned ones among his servants,” the more natural reading). What can be read three ways in the wording of the Qurian in hathäni la-sähi.räni iyyaka tu eb adu(You alone are worshiped): iyyaka n a (b udu (You alone we worship) amma ThamUdu/ThamUda fa-hadaynahum fe-bima tabashshiröna/tubashshirUni ٩ ula fag h ayr Allah ta’m urUnnl/ta’m urUnanl a'budu ay^aha aljahiluna

Page 1 .9

pièce justificative SuyUri

Vollers Wetzstein

supporting (“justifying”) document The intention of (the recitarion of the Qur’än.s) iän) and the Problem of Early teA/r Texts,” BSOAS 47 [1984]: 2 2 -4 3 [= A. Rippin, The Quran

and Its Interpretative Tradition (، MAetsW., UK. 2001), chap. 16] for the attribution of this text.) Ibn (Abbâs on Q . 4:93 W hoever slays a believer willhilly, his reward is h e l l - i t was the last o f what was revealed, so nothing can abrogate it. Page 181 Bukhari

Jabrai Mïka> and Sarâf{medn) “slave.’ and

11

(m eans) “God.” Page 183 Stetter

Page 184 Q . 2:190

Q; 9:5

As I obse^ed; according to how it appeared to me

Fight in the way o f G od with those who fight with you but aggress not: God does not love the aggressors. Then, w hen the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find then, and take them, and confine them, and lie in

ANNOTATIONS wait for them at evety place ٠٤ ambush. But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, them let them go their way; G od is Allforgiving. All-compassionate. Page 185 Q . 3:200

Q : 5 :3 3

Jaçsas

Page 187 Goldziher citing Juwaynl

Page 188 Maimonides (in Judaeo-Arabic) Q ; 7 :3

‫ة‬

597

[Jaçsâs] Abu 'Ubayd

0 you who believe! Be patient and strive in patience; be steadfost and foar God. Perhaps you will prosper. This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His messenger and hasten about th e earth to do comrption there. They shall be slaughtered o r cmcified. or their hands and foet shall alternately be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land. T hat is a degradation for them in this world and in the hereafter there will be a mighty chastisement for them . (This is) because no ruling is dictated by the occasion of revelation according to us; rather, for us, the nding follows from the general validity o f the scriptural expression.

The zähir is the literal meaning, which is the (most) probable and preforable ( räjih ).

These are conclusions that derive from ( tazhuni) from the plain sense of the text. Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord W hatever the messenger gives you, take, and whatever he forbids you, give over. In the obligatoty nature of the m ling, it is of a status w ith the Q u ra n . The correct text ( m ahfa?) is, according to US, (with) the Iäm.

294

ANNOTATIONS

Page 189 Q ; 2:59

a d Q. 2:58 Ka(b al-Ahbar

Q . 5:13

Then the evildoers ttibstituted a saying .th e r than th at which had been sent d.w n to them. sin: hatt>ä) wheat: hitfä The Jews made them into a charm (obliterated them?) a n d erased them in order that their content w ould not be known. They change ( yuhanifuna) the words from their places.

Page 190

Ja$$a$

w h en we do not find an explicit niling in the book o r in the sunna or in consensus that wdl apply to the incident, because God has said that in the book there is a clarification o f all things w ithin the realm o f religion, it is established that the way is to use reason and proof by m eans of a n a lo g to (achieve) the ruling about it.

Page 192

Abu (Ubayd a d Q . and 2:178

Q; 5:50

5:45 According to our opinion about this verse. which is in sürat al-malda (5), a life for a life, it is not an abrogator (näsikha) of w hat is in surat al-baqara (2) the free for the free and the slave for the slave. There is no contradirtion here‫ ؛‬rather, the two of th em agree in being valid n d in g s except to the extent that one considers th at (tile passage in surat) al-mâ*ida is to be taken as a coreoboration (mufassira) of (the passage in surat) al-baqara. So it w ould be explained (ta'awwda) th at (God’s) statem ent a life for a life applies to th e lives of free m en who are equal in what is due to tliem, b u t not to those w ho are slaves. Is it the judgm ent of the jahiliyya that they are requesting? Yet who is m ore fair in judgm ent than G od for a people w ho are sure in faith?

ANNOTATIONS Page 193 Abu U bayd

Q: 5:42 ^

5 :4 8

Abu (Ubayd

The M essenger of God said, "Take (it) from me. G od has given them a way, virgin for virgin, nonvirgin for nonvirgin. Lash, and then expel, th e virgin; lash, and then stone, the nonvirgin.” If they com e to you, judge bettveen them or turn aw ay from them Judge bettveen them according to w hat God has sent down. The p ro p h et stoned the Jewish man and woman.

P age 195

Goldziher

Page 196 Q . 2:106

W hen four people testify that they saw him enter in to her just as th e kohl pencil enters into the kohl container, th en (the penalty is) stoning. [This A rabic quote is from Ibn aljaw zl. It is printed in Goldziher in Hebrew script (as it appears here) probably because that was the typeface available in th at journal; it is not Judaeo-Arabic, of course.]

And for whatever verse W e abrogate or cause to forget (defrr). W e bring a better o r the like of it.

ius propter utditatem publicam law in the public interest In the speech of the A rabs (it is) som ething Hibatallah removed/cancelled. Page 7‫و ا‬ Arabic Tabari

translated in the text So G od lightened (it) for them and abrogated it by the other verse.

296 Page 199 Baghdadi

Page 2 0 . Rabbinic formula antithesis legislation Ibn KammUna

Page 201 Maimonides

ANNOTATIONS Among them are those w ho say that, before his entering into his time o f prophethood, th e prophet was ordered to follow the shari-Mïm al-sajda (Q . 41), And H e commanded ( 3 ‫ ) د‬to each heaven its command (Q ; 41:12). A nd He said in (sürat) al-An