Studies in Islamic Traditions and Literature 2022053887, 2022053888, 9780367531669, 9780367531690, 9781003080756

Citation preview

Studies in Islamic Traditions and Literature

A collection of articles and studies discussing early Islamic tenets and beliefs based on Islamic traditions and literature. A number of studies appear for the first time in English. The topics dealt with relate to the Islamic prostration in ritual prayer, Islamic traditions which are discussed through the analysis of hadith literature and reports and narratives related to the literary genre of the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Stories of the Prophets). The readers of this collection of essays are scholars and students of early Islam, of the development hadith literature and of the narratives on Islamic prophets; all together the studies bring to light the dynamics between the formation of early traditions and their role in the origin and developments of Islamic literature. Roberto Tottoli is Professor of Islamic studies at the Università di Napoli L’Orientale, Italy. His fields of interest are early Islamic traditions and literature and the Qur’an in European history.

Also in the Variorum Collected Studies series:

DAVID S. BACHRACH

Administration and Organization of War in Thirteenth-Century England (CS1088)

GÉRARD GOUIRAN, edited by Linda M. Paterson From Chanson de Geste to Epic Chronicle Medieval Occitan Poetry of War (CS1087)

JOHN A. COTSONIS

The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals II Studies on the Images of the Saints and on Personal Piety (CS1086)

JOHN A. COTSONIS

The Religious Figural Imagery of Byzantine Lead Seals I Studies on the Image of Christ, the Virgin and Narrative Scenes (CS1085)

WENDY DAVIES

Christian Spain and Portugal in the Early Middle Ages Texts and Societies (CS1084)

PEREGRINE HORDEN and NICHOLAS PURCELL The Boundless Sea Writing Mediterranean History (CS1083)

MOHAMED EL MANSOUR

The Power of Islam in Morocco Historical and Anthropological Perspectives (CS1082)

JOHN MARSHALL, edited by Philip Butterworth

Early English Performance: Medieval Plays and Robin Hood Games Shifting Paradigms in Early English Drama Studies (CS1081)

JENNIFER O’REILLY, edited by CAROL A. FARR and ELIZABETH MULLINS

Early Medieval Text and Image II The Codex Amiatinus, the Book of Kells and Anglo-Saxon Art (CS1080) www.routledge.com/Variorum-Collected-Studies/book-series/VARIORUM

Studies in Islamic Traditions and Literature Roberto Tottoli

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Roberto Tottoli The right of Roberto Tottoli to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tottoli, Roberto, author. | Tottoli, Roberto. Works. Selections. 2023. Title: Studies in Islamic traditions and literature / Roberto Tottoli. Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Variorum collected studies; cs 1112 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022053887 (print) | LCCN 2022053888 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Islam–History. | Islamic Empire–Intellectual life. | Islamic civilization–History. Classification: LCC BP55 .T68 2023 (print) | LCC BP55 (ebook) | DDC 297.09–dc23/eng/20221110 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022053887 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022053888 ISBN: 978-0-367-53166-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-53169-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-08075-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756 Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC VARIORUM COLLECTED STUDIES SERIES CS1112

CONTENTS

ix

Preface PART I

The Islamic act of prostration (sujūd)

1

1 “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Arabs and prostration at the beginning of Islam and in the Qur’ān” Studia Islamica, 88 (1998), 5–34; Listes des Errata in Studia Islamica, 89 (1999), 209–210.

3

2 “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature” Le Muséon, 111 (1998), 405–426.

32

3 “Traditions and controversies concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān in ḥadīth literature” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 147 (1997), 371–393.

52

4 “The thanksgiving prostration (sujūd al-shukr) in Muslim traditions” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 61 (1998), 309–313.

70

5 “Muslim traditions against secular prostration and inter-religious polemic” Medieval Encounters 5 (1999), 99–111 (special issue Avoda and ‘Ibada: Ritual and Liturgy in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, ed. S. Ward).

77

v

CONTENTS

PART II

Hadith, traditions, and literature

89

6 “Ḥadīth and Muslim dietary norms: some traditions on the goodness of meat and the permissibility of horse meat” [It. or. “Ḥadīth e norme alimentari musulmane: alcune tradizioni sulla bontà della carne e sulla liceità della carne di cavallo”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, s.o. 28 (1997), 99–118].

91

7 “ ‘Two rivers are believers and two are disbelievers . . .’ A sacred river geography in a saying attributed to Muḥammad?” [It. or. “‘Due fiumi sono credenti e due miscredenti’. Una geografia fluviale sacra in un detto di Muḥammad?” in Scritti in onore di Giovanni M. D’Erme, eds. M. Bernardini e N.L. Tornesello, Napoli 2005, 1221–1235].

106

8 “Islamic traditions regarding the use of fabrics and clothing” [It. or. “Tradizioni islamiche sull’uso di tessuti e vestiti”, in Tejer y vestir: de la Antigüedad al islam, ed. M. Marín, CSIC, Madrid 2001, pp. 43–72].

117

9 “Inna Allāh yubghiḍu al-balīgh min al-nās: a study of an early ḥadīth” Quaderni di Studi Arabi, n.s. 9 (2014) (Studi in onore di Lidia Bettini), 215–227.

140

10 “Methods and contexts in the use of ḥadīths in classical tafsīr literature: the exegesis of Q. 21:85 and Q. 17:1” Aims, Methods and Contexts of Qur’anic Exegesis (2nd/8th-9th/15th Centuries), ed. K. Bauer, Oxford, Oxford University Press in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2013, 199–215.

152

PART III

The staff of Moses, the prophets

167

11 “The staff of Moses transforming into a snake in Islamic exegesis and traditions” [or. “Il bastone di Mosè mutato in serpente nell’esegesi e nelle tradizioni islamiche”, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 51 (1991), 225–243, 383–394].

169

vi

CONTENTS

12 “Modern Islamic exegesis and the rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt: the legends about the staff of Moses transforming into a snake” [or. “La moderna esegesi islamica ed il rifiuto delle Isrā’īliyyāt: le leggende sul bastone di Mosè mutato in serpente”, Annali di Cà Foscari, s.o. 21 (1990), 25–35].

196

13 “At cock-crow: Some Muslim traditions about the rooster”, Der Islam, 76 (1999), 139–147.

206

14 “‘I just came to visit some relatives’. The wolf in Joseph’s story” [or. “‘Sono solo venuto a trovare alcuni parenti’. Il lupo nella storia di Giuseppe”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, n.s. 14 (2019), 201–216].

215

15 “Origin and use of the term Isrā’īliyyāt in Muslim literature”, in Arabica, 46 (1999), 193–210.

227 243 263

Bibliography Index

vii

P R E FA C E

The items included in this volume have previously been published over a long period of time, between 1990 and 2019. The themes in which the volume is organized reflect specific lines of research that originated in different moments of my career and under the guidance of those I consider as my mentors. Though conceived as a series of articles, the first items devoted to sujūd collected here in the first part were, from the beginning, conceived as a unit and were inspired by Meir J. Kister during my stay for my PhD studies in Jerusalem, Hebrew University, in 1993–94. The studies of ḥadīth which are collected in the second part of the volume were also largely inspired by his scholarship and are examples of a way of analyzing early Islam through inquiry into the dynamics of ḥadīth, traditions and Islamic literature. My PhD dissertation topic was Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ literature (an edition and translation of the work so titled by Ibn Muṭarrif al-Ṭarafī). The interest in this topic and the studies in the third part were brought about by Giovanni Canova during my BA studies in Venice in 1988 and in the following years. The articles on the staff of Moses originated there and were the result of discussions with him and that stimulating environment. Other studies on prophets relating to the topic are a follow-up to this. I would like to emphasize the significance of the translation of a number (6) of works that originally appeared in Italian and, in some cases, in journals not so easy to access. They are offered here for the first time in English translation. Arabic and Islamic studies in relation to most of the topics dealt with can now benefit from technological tools that help render the original sources more accessible than when most of these articles were written. Most of these items, if written now, would benefit from access to a larger amount of source material and a more focused evaluation of the dynamics of the diffusion of reports, tradition and literature, albeit not dramatically changing the picture offered. In only one case have I worked on a kind of update of one of these papers, the one dedicated to Isrā’īliyyāt, which appeared in Arabica in 1999 with “New material on the use and meaning of the term isrā’iliyyāt” (Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, “Studies in Honor of Ella Landau-Tasseron”, 50 (2021), 1–42). This last paper, not ix

P R E FA C E

given here, though focused more on the meaning of Isrā’īliyyāt, added a consistent amount of new material and more refined reconstructed dynamics and developments of the question but did not change the general picture. My thanks are due to the publishers of the journals and of the volumes in which the previously published articles and papers have appeared for kindly permitting me to reproduce or translate them in this volume: E.J. Brill, Leiden (1, 5, 14), Peeters and Le Muséon (2), The Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft and Verlag Franz Steiner (3), Cambridge University Press and the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (4), Editoriale Programma and Annali di Ca’ Foscari (6, 11), Università degli Studi di Napoli L’Orientale (7, 10), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones científicas (8), Istituto per l’Oriente Carlo Alfondo Nallino (9, 13), W. De Gruyter and Der Islam (12) and The Institute of Ismaili Studies (15). Finally, this volume would not have been possible without the help of a number of people. Claire Jenkins (7, 10, 11) and Mary Rose Longrigg (6, 8, 13) translated the papers originally from Italian, and Emanuele Maurelli carried out the first work on a number of scanned articles. Above all, Michele Petrone took care to correct previously scanned material, to scan the remaining ones and the painstaking work of making uniform quotations that were variously given in the originals. He also prepared the final bibliography and index of names. Without him this volume would have never appeared. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Meir J. Kister and to his unrivalled capability to master and read sources. If these articles reflect even a grain of his guidance and knowledge, I believe it was worth republishing them.

x

Part I THE ISLAMIC ACT OF PROSTRATION (SUJŪD)

1 M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I. Arabs and prostration at the beginning of Islam and in the Qur’ān

Prostration (sujūd)1 forms a fundamental part of the ritual prayer (ṣalāt), and in consequence, many religious traditions deal with it in great detail. Such material, collected in the ḥadīth works, is mainly concerned with giving a technical description of the act, so as to instruct the believer in the correct performance of it. Despite this, prostration is not only mentioned in direct relation to this act in the sujūd but throughout every genre of Muslim literature. References to the act of prostration can be found in poetry, the Qur’ān, Qur’ānic commentaries, ḥadīth collections, history books and in all works devoted to religious subjects. In this study a large amount of the early literature connected to the sujūd will be discussed, in an effort to identify the attitude of the Arabs towards this act during the early period of Islam.2

1 This article is part of a wider research dedicated to the prostration in Muslim traditions; see also R. Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature”, Le Muséon [here no. 2]; Id., “Traditions and controversies concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān in ḥadīth literature”, ZDMG 147 (997), 371–393 [here no. 3]; and Id., “The thanksgiving prostration (sujūd al-shukr) in Muslim traditions”, BSOAS, 61 (1998) [here no. 4]. I started my research concerning sujūd while I was in Jerusalem during the year 1993–94 for my PhD studies programme at the Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi of the lstituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; I would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust that granted me a scholarship to study that year at the Hebrew University. Concerning my research on sujūd, I am indebted to Prof. M.J. Kister for his many suggestions about this subject when I was in Jerusalem. 1 would also like to thank the Concordance of the Arabic Poetry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and especially the director Prof. A. Arazi, where I was able to find the verses of pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry concerning sujūd, and Prof. R. Contini and Prof. M. Lecker for their comments on a first draft of this article. 2 Firstly, pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry and historical reports will be examined, and secondly, the contents of the Qur’ān will be dealt with, where the prostration is often mentioned and indicates the Arab attitude at the time of Muḥammad. Most of the later religious literature connected to sujūd is discussed in Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning”.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-2

3

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

1

Prostration among Jews and Christians. The origin and meaning of sajada

The prostration to God performed by the Muslim believer during the ritual prayer was not an entirely new practice invented by Muḥammad. A great deal of evidence, not only from literary sources, points to the fact that this act was widespread in ancient times throughout the Middle East, from the Babylonian region to Egypt. Among these peoples prostration was used both as an act of religious devotion and as a way of greeting kings or the powerful.3 This is evident for instance in the Old Testament, where these different meanings and uses of the prostration can be found, and where the act is mentioned using the Hebrew word hishtaḥwāh, which matches the Arabic sajada. The act known as hishtaḥwāh did not necessarily involve falling down on the ground but also included such gestures as a simple bow. Moreover it was used among the Israelites in their religious rituals and as a way of glorifying God. At the same time, some other Old Testament passages state that it was also customary to fall down prostrate before idols, mainly among peoples other than the Israelites and, further, that prostration was also used as a secular way of greeting and of showing respect among men, as a way of paying homage to kings, and as a sign of submission to the authority.4 The use of prostration in these various ways is also well documented in later times. Instances of secular prostration include the Roman cult of the Emperor as well as the many examples in the Gospel. In fact many passages in the Gospel relate to prostration, which is referred to using the Greek term proskynesis, the same used to indicate the act in the LXX translation of the Old Testament.5 Needless to say, the large body of evidence concerning this act, extending as it does from the earliest times until Christian age, points to the wide diffusion of the prostration among Middle Eastern peoples in all its uses and forms, and, above all, demonstrates that it was an established practice among the religious communities of the region before the rise of Islam.6 3 See H.D. Preuss, “s.v. ḥwh”, in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (= TDOT), ed. by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, transl. by D.E. Green, IV, Grand Rapids 1980, 250–251, with the sources quoted here. See H. Greeven, “s.v. ηποσκυνὲω”, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (= TWNT), ed. by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, VI, Stuttgart 1957, 759–761, concerning prostration among the Greeks. 4 See the comprehensive discussion of these different kinds of prostration by Preuss in TDOT, IV, 251–256; and see in TWNT, VI, 761–762. Concerning the connection between the meaning of proskynesis and the Roman cult of the Emperor, see TWNT, VI, 761. 5 TWNT, VI, 761–766. 6 It is worth noting and relevant in relation to the Arab attitude towards prostration which will be dealt with here, that even in the Old Testament some passages express disapproval of the practice of prostrating oneself before men. See for instance in the book of Esther (3: 2, 5) where the refusal of Mordechai to prostrate himself to Aman is the starting point of the story. In more recent literature we find further evidence about this negative attitude towards secular prostration, see for instance Philo, in TWNT, VI, 762–764, or in the Gospel, as in the episode of the temptation by the devil, where Jesus states that prostration is due to God only: Mt. 4: 9 f.; Lk 4: 7 f.; concerning

4

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

The Muslim duty to fall down prostrate during ritual prayer is, from various points of view, a continuation of this uninterrupted tradition, which deemed that both religious and secular prostration were of great significance. Some studies have already dealt briefly with the questions of the origin of the Muslim act of prostration, and the origin of the Arabic sajada. Hirschfeld and Nöldeke were the first to indicate the derivation of sajada from an identical root in Hebrew and Aramaic.7 Schwally, discussing the same question some years later, maintained that sajada was identified solely with the cult of God in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, and that the Arabic root must have the same meaning. Schwally concluded that prostration was not particularly well known nor widely diffused among the Arabs, and that the secular use of the root sajada was evidenced only in the muʻallaqa of ʻAmr b. Kulthūm.8 Finally, Jeffery stressed the Aramaic origin of the term indicating prostration and relied principally upon the above-mentioned Western sources.9 Other studies have directly discussed the question of the origin of the prostration in the Muslim ritual prayer. In Wensinck’s opinion, the practice of sujūd (prostration), as well as that of rukūʻ (bow), formed an essential part of the Christian prayer, and, consequently, it was from this source that Muḥammad drew direct inspiration.10 Mittwoch, in a brief discussion on the topic, pointed out some similarities with certain Jewish ritual practices.11 No additional information can be found in more recent studies, where the established arguments are repeated. The conclusion is thus reached that along with the root sajada, the act of prostrating oneself was taken from Jewish and Christian tradition, and the only case where

7 8

9

10

11

the proskynesis in the Gospel and in the New Testament, see TWNT, VI, 764–766. Hints at the Jewish and Christian attitudes towards prostration after V sec. ad can be found also in relation to iconoclastic polemics, see P. Crone, “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine iconoclasm”, JSAI, 2 (1980), 68–70 and the bibliography quoted there, in particular n. 50; see also the considerations by P. Pizzo in T. Abū Qurrah, La difesa delle icone. Trattato sulla venerazione delle immagini, Milano 1995, 25–41. H. Hirschfeld, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Korān, Leipzig 1886, 41; Nöldeke in ZDMG, 41 (1887), 719, in a review of Reste arabischen Heidentums of J. Wellhausen. F. Schwally, “Lexikalische Studien”, ZDMG, 52 (1898), 134, but this verse had already been mentioned by Hirschfeld, Beiträge, 41. See also the comprehensive discussion, in the same vein, by A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, Baroda 1938, 162–163; and A.I. Hebbo, Die Fremdwörter in der arabiscben Prophetenbiographie des Ibn Hischām, Heidelberg 1970, 174. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary, 163. Jeffery also quotes Nöldeke, Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, Strassburg 1910, 36, concerning Ethiopian evidence about the root and the term of prostration, where Nöldeke stated that the Ethiopian term for prostration: “gilt freilich nicht Bioβ Gott, sondern auch Menschen gegenüber”. The root sgd is attested also in a Sabaic inscription, see the references given by R. Contini in Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 12 (1994), 218; and cf. A.F.L. Beeston, “Foreign loan words in Sabaic”, in Arabia Felix, Wiesbaden 1994, 43 no. 37. A.J. Wensinck, Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, transl. and ed. by W.H. Behn, Berlin 19822 [1st ed. Mohammed en de joden te Medina, Leiden 1908], 75–76; and see also Wensinck, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed., Leiden 1913–39, s.v. Ṣalāt, IV, 99: sujūd was one of the rites of the Jewish and Christian service. E. Mittwoch, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des islamischen Gebets und Kultus, Berlin 1913, 17.

5

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

there is evidence of the act of prostration in its secular use in pre-Islamic literature is the often quoted verse of the muʻallaqa of ʻAmr b. Kulthūm.12 Before beginning a direct discussion of the evidence from Muslim literature regarding prostration, some preliminary remarks are needed. It is already clear, from early Jewish and Christian traditions, that the term prostration was used to describe a range of acts with a variety of meanings. Along with the distinction between secular and sacred prostration, there is also an important distinction in the form of the act called sujūd: most of the time it involves the act of falling down touching the earth with the face, but sometimes it is a simple bow or a bending of the back. The full range of these various uses and meanings is also attested in the Arabic term sujūd and in the other terms derived from the root sajada. In fact, lexicographers distinguish separate acts in the root sajada. While the main meaning of sujūd is ‘falling down prostrate on the earth’, like that performed during ritual prayer, lexicographers state that in some particular uses which can be found in pre-Islamic poetry or in some Qur’ānic verses which will be discussed later and in connection mainly with the form asjada, the meaning of sujūd can be also ‘bow’, with a gesture similar to rukūʻ.13 Finally, it must be pointed out that, whatever form sujūd takes, it is a gesture of submission before God or men, and this is evident in the many idiomatic expressions of the root sajada found in ancient poetry.14

12 Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary, 163; his only evidence for the supposed ancient penetration of the term in Arabic is the verse of the muʻallaqa of ʻAmr b. Kulthūm; see also C.C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam, New York 1967 (1st ed. 1933), 71. See, concerning the same arguments, Hebbo, Die Fremdwörter, 174. 13 See, for complete descriptions of the root sajada, Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʻArab, ed. by Dār al-maʻārif, Cairo n.d., III, 1940–42; Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʻarūs, Cairo 1306–7 H., II, 371–372; Azharī, Tahdhīb al-lugha, ed. by ʻA.H. Hilālī and M.ʻA. al-Najjār, Cairo n.d., X, 569–572; Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila wal-dhayl wa-l-ṣila, Cairo 1971, II, 246–247, Ibn Barrī, Kitāb al-tanbīh wa-l-iḍāḥ ʻammā waqaʻa fī l-siḥāḥ, Cairo 1981, II, 26; Jawharī, Tāj al-lugha, n.p. 1282 H., 1, 232–233; Khalīlī, Kitāb al-ʻayn, VI, Baghdad 1982, 49; Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Cairo 1952, II, 310–311; Zanjānī, Tahdhīb al-ṣiḥāḥ, Cairo n.d., I, 222–223; Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam maqāyīs al-lugha, Cairo 1970, III, 133–134; Ibn Durayd, Kitāb jamharat al-lugha, Beirut 1987, 1, 447; Zamakhsharī, Asās al-balāgha, Cairo 1922, I, 423; Fayyūmī, Kitāb al-miṣbāḥ al-munīr, Cairo n.d., I, 129. 14 Some idiomatic uses of the root sajada in early poetry show the wide range of meanings associated with the image of prostration; see, in general, the verses quoted in the lexicographical sources quoted above, and in particular, concerning a sujūd by a ship, Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb al-shiʻr wa-1shuʻarā’, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1904, 146; concerning the sujūd of hills or mountains, see the verses in G.G. Freytag, Hamasae carmina, Bonn 1828, 1, 294; Abū 1-Baqā’, Kitāb al-manāqib al-mazyadiyya fī akhbār al-mulūk al-asadiyya, Amman 1984, I, 246; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ʻan ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, 1, 300, 365; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1967, I, 248; Jawharī, Tāj, 1, 232; Ṭūsī, al-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Najaf 1957–65, I, 148, 263; Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-muḥabbar, ed. by I. Lichtenstädter, Hyderabad 1942, 322. See also the expression sājidu al-mankhar, in Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, ed. by C.J. Lyall, Oxford 1918–21, 407 [XL, 99]; and Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, I, 635; cf. also Ibn Muqbil, Dīwān, Damascus 1962, 403. See also the use of sajada in the expression usjud li-qirdi 1-saw’ in a verse mentioned by Zabīdī, Tāj, X, 293; Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, ed. by ʻAbd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo 1965–69, I, 355; Balādhurī,

6

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

2 Arabs and prostration before the time of Muḥammad: evidence from poetry and Muslim historical reports Some verses from pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabian poetry and many Muslim traditions indicate that Arabs were acquainted with the act of prostration, and that they knew both that this practice was used by Jews and Christians as an act of devotion, and that it was widely diffused as a way of greeting figures of authority. Pre-Islamic poetry is evidence of great weight: the verse of the often quoted muʻallaqa of ʻAmr b. Kulthūm (d. 570 ad ca.), for instance, illustrates that prostration before another was a confirmation of the superiority of the one receiving it and, at the same time, an act of complete submission on the part of the one performing it. In fact in this verse, the poet ʻAmr b. Kulthūm praises the Taghlib, who will not suffer any humiliation: “when one of our children reaches the age of weaning/the powerful of the earth fall down prostrate”.15 Being the object of a prostration is thus a sign of the power and prestige and, in this verse, is a way of asserting the high status of the tribe. This is not the only case where prostration is mentioned in pre-Islamic poetry. A number of other verses that mention the root sajada contain similar images. Al-Aʻshā (d. 5–9/625–30),16 for instance, in one of his poems, describes the Tamīm and says that during the battle they fall down prostrate upon their chins before the one with the crown (i.e. the king).17 Also in a verse praising the powerful Hawdha b. ʻAlī al-Ḥanafī, the notion of the supremacy of the man who receives a prostration is evident: it is said that everybody meeting the crowned Hawdha falls down prostrate before him.18 Aʻshā again made use of a similar image when praising Qays b. Maʻdīkarib in his poems: when he enters a place, all the people who are present

15 16 17 18

Ansāb al-ashrāf, VIb, ed. by K. Athamina, Jerusalem 1993, 207; and cf. Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʻādin al-jawhar, ed. by B. de Meynard, P. de Courteille and rev. by C. Pellat, Beirut 1966– 79, V, 200 no. 3414. Another interesting verse is quoted by Masʻūdī, Murūj, V, 254 no. 3558: a man sees tempting food, and so he breaks fasting and ‘prostrates himself’ to it, i.e. he eats the food. Septem Moallakāt. Carmina antiquisslma arabum, ed. by F.A. Arnold, Leipzig 1850, 144 [V, 104]: idhā balagha l-fiṭāma lanā ṣabiyyun / takhirru lahu l-jabābirū sājidīnā. See on him F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (= GAS), II. Poesie, Leiden 1975, 130–132. R. Geyer, Gedichte von Abū Baṣīr Maimūn ibn Qaīs al-’AʻsāI, London 1928, 249 [no. 160]: wakharrat Tamīmun li-adhqānihā sujūdan li-dhī l-tājī fī l-maʻmaʻati. Man yalqa Hawdhata yasjud ghayra muttaʻibīn / idhā taʻammama fawqa l-tāji aw waḍaʻā; in Geyer, Gedichte, 86 [13, 47]; see also in Zabīdī, Tāj, I, 499, II, 585, V, 439; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, VI, 4745; Ḍabbī, Dīwān al -mufaḍḍaliyyāt, 709; Mubarrad, al-Kāmil fī l-adab, ed. by W. Wright, Leipzig 1882, 411; ‘Āmir b. al-Ṭufayl, Dīwān, ed. by C. Lyall, Leiden-London 1913, 118; and, with different wording, Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1992, I, 102; Abū l-Baqā’, Kitāb al-manāqib, I, 54, and see I, 55, with another similar verse praising Hawdha and going back to Aʻshā, but not included in his Dīwān. See also in a poem praising Abraha: Buḥturī, Kitāb al-ḥamāsa, ed. by L. Cheikho, Beirut 1910, 83.

7

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

prostrate themselves and remove their headgear, in this way showing respect and reverence towards him.19 Poetic imagery involving animals or objects making or receiving prostration attests, in the same way, to the high rank or supremacy of someone or something. This is the case, for instance, with al-Musayyab b. ʻAlas (b. 535 ad ca.) who, praising the high quality of a pearl found by a diver, says that all the other sailors prostrated themselves to it.20 Moreover, in a poem dedicated to the description of the frequent battles and skirmishes between tribes and clans, the poetess al-Khansā’ (b. 575 ad ca.) celebrates a victory with the image of the camels of the enemies intimidated and prostrated.21 There can be few doubts that these verses show that images of prostration, indicating the high rank of someone or something, were well known among the Arabs before the mission of Muḥammad.22 At the same time, some verses attest that Arabs at the beginning of Islam and in the early Islamic period were also acquainted with the fact that prostration was a devotional practice in use among Jews and, especially, Christians. A verse of Ḥumayd b. Thawr (d. 60/680 ca.),23 which is quoted very often in lexicographical collections to explain the meaning of sajada, makes use of the image of the prostration performed by Christians in a comparison hinting at a bow, where it is said: “like the sujūd of the Christians before their priests”.24 In a verse by al-Ḥuṭay’a (d. 69/668) another comparison is used in a poetical image to indicate a movement which resembles the prostration performed by Christians during prayer: “as if they were Christians who, when it is the time of the prayer, prostrate themselves”.25 In another verse it is also said that two she-camels bend their heads as a Christian woman does when she prostrates herself (during prayer).26 The term al-asjād, according to lexicographers, was an epithet of Jews and Christians

19 Fa-lammā atānā buʻayda l-karā / sajadnā lahu wa-rafaʻnā l-ʻamārā in Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIII, 69; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, V, 342; Zabīdī, Tāj, III, 423; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, IV, 3102; for another verse by Aʻshā praising Qays, see Geyer, Gedichte, 41 [V, 63]. 20 In Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, IV, 2432; Zabīdī, Tāj, III, 332; but cf. a differing version in Geyer, Gedichte, 352 [IX, 16]. See also a similar image in Nābigha: W. Ahlwardt, The Dīwāns of the six ancient Arabic poets, London 1870, 10; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 10; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, I, 369. 21 Khansā’, Dīwān, ed. by L. Cheikho, Beirut 1888, 82. 22 See also a similar image in the description of God as a king on the Throne in F. Schultess, Umajja ibn Abī-ṣ-Ṣalt, Leipzig 1911, 28 [25, 29], 58 [55, 2]. 23 See on him Sezgin, GAS, II, 247. 24 Fuḍūla azimmatihā asjadat / sujūda l-naṣārā li-aḥbārihim: see Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, 453 [44, 32]. Some sources have a variant version, with li-arbābihim instead of li-aḥbārihim; See, in general, Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 569; Jawharī, Tāj, 1, 232–233; Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam, III, 133; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, III, 1941; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 371–372; Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila, II, 346–347; Ibn Barrī, Kitāb al-tanbīh, II, 26. 25 I. Goldziher, “Der Dīwān des Garwal b. Aus al-Ḥuṭej’a”, ZDMG, 47 (1893), 173. 26 Fa-kiltāhumā kharrat wa-asjada ra’suhā / kamā sajadat nasrānatun lam tuḥannafi, the verse is of Abū 1-Akhzar al-Ḥimmānī, see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, I, 318; Ṭabarsī, Majma’, I, 102; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 369; see also the different versions in Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, VI, 4441; Zabīdī, Tāj, III, 569.

8

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

referring to their prostrations during their worship.27 The term can also be found in another significant phrase in a verse by al-Aswad b. Yaʻfur (b. 535 ad ca.), a poet of al-Ḥīra, where the poet mentions the darāhim al-asjād. These dirhems, as is explained by lexicographers, were Persian coins, minted with the image of the king, upon which people used to perform a sujūd or bow in reverence.28 Despite the fact that serious doubts can be raised about the authenticity of most Muslim historical traditions, they confirm in substance the picture given by the poetry and thus attest that Arabs, at the beginning of Islam, were already well acquainted with the sujūd and knew that this practice was diffused in the regions surrounding Arabia, and among Christians and Jews. Abū l-Baqā’ (d. VI/XII cent. ca.) records a particular episode regarding prostration at the court of the Christian kingdom of al-Ḥira: the bishop (usquf) of Mosul, giving thanks to God for the recovery of the king of al-Ḥira al-Nuʻmān, prostrated himself before the altar.29 Another tradition containing important evidence about prostration performed by Christians is that describing the expedition of Abraha’s troops against Mecca. Among the troops there were some Muḍarī Arabs who refused to eat a meal of testicles and to prostrate themselves before the cross, while the others, who were Christians, performed these acts.30 This tradition is important in many respects: it shows that Christians used to prostrate themselves before the cross and that this practice was rejected by some Arabs, since they considered it against the customs of their people, as is explained in the sources describing the episode. Other reports indicate that the custom of the prostration was also common at the court of the Negus in Ethiopia. Some traditions describing the mission sent by Meccans to Ethiopia, to claim back the Muslims who had found refuge there, state that the two from the Quraysh, ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ and ʻUmāra b. al-Walīd, entered into the presence of the Negus and prostrated themselves before him. On the contrary the Muslim refugees, when ordered, did not perform the sujūd to the Negus and said that in their religion it was not possible to fall down prostrate before a man, even if that man was a king.31 It is clear that this story was intended to under-

27 See Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila, II, 246; Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 573. 28 Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, 452–453; see also in E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, London-Edinburgh 1863–93, 1307c; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, IV, 1941; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 372; Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 569; Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila, II, 246; Jawharī, Tāj, I, 233; Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam, III, 134; Fīrūzābādi, al-Qāmūs, I, 310. 29 Abū 1-Baqā’, Kitāb al-manāqib, I, 269. See also Masʻūdi, Murūj, IV, 178–180 nos. 2458–2463: a king of al-Ḥīra, while drunk, killed two affectionate courtiers and later felt so guilty that he had a tomb built in memory of them and ordered that everybody passing it performed a prostration. 30 Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq fī akhbār Quraysh, ed. by Kh.A. Fāriq, Beirut 1985, 72; see also the discussion of this passage by M.J. Kister, “Some reports concerning Mecca from Jāhiliyya to Islam” (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, Variorum, London 1980, no. II), JESHO, 15 (1972), 72. 31 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, II, 187 no. 4400; see also VI, 232 no. 17792; and Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, VII, 494; Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manba’ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, VI, 24, 30, 32; Suyūṭī,

9

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

line the importance of the Muslim prohibition against prostration before men, and to contrast this with the customs and ideas diffused among unbelievers such as Christians. Indeed Muslim literature abounds with reports of this kind, such as those ḥadīths which tell of companions who saw prostrations performed before priests or generals in al-Ḥīra or in Yemen,32 or that describing a Christian native of Niniveh called ʻAddās who prostrated himself to the Prophet.33 A similar episode also occurred when the Prophet sent a letter to the king Heraclius in an attempt to convince him to become a Muslim. After reading the letter, Heraclius gathered his

al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., I, 149, II, 18; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut-Riyadh 1966, III, 69–71, IV, 142; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa-maʻrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʻa, Beirut 1985, II, 293, 298, 300; Ibn al-Jawzī, Ṣifat al-ṣafwa, Alexandria n.d., I, 166; Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, I, 243, 245, and in particular 252, where priests and monks urged Muslims to prostrate themselves before the king, but they refused; see also in Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VI, 31. Regarding only the prostration performed by ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ, see also Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. by M. al-Saqqā et al., Cairo 1955, II, 277. 32 See, for instance, some versions of the diffused ḥadīth in which the Prophet forbade the prostration to men saying that if it were permissible, he would have prescribed that wives prostrate themselves before their husbands. In a particular version of this ḥadīth it is said that Qays b. Saʻd asked the Prophet to prostrate himself before him when he had come back from al-Ḥīra, where he had seen people acting this way before a governor (li-marzubān); see Dārimī, Sunan, ed. by M.D. al-Baghā, Damascus 1991, I, 364 no. 1435; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1998, III, 250 no. 2140; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʻalā al-ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, II, 204 no. 2763; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1994, VII, 475–476 no. 14705. Nevertheless, some other variants show that the mention of al-Ḥīra is here only a pretext to point out the difference between Christian custom and Muslim precept; see the version attributed to Muʻādh b. Jabal, where it is said that some Christians in Yemen or Syria used to fall down prostrate before their bishops and generals: ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by Ḥ. al-R. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 19832, XI, 301 no. 20596: Syria; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VII, 103 no. 19420: the tradition gives the two possibilities, Yemen or Syria, VIII, 229 no. 22046: Yemen; Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d., I, 595 no. 1853: Syria; Ibn Ṣā‘id, al-Juz’ fīhi musnad ʻAbdallāh b. Abī Awfā, Riyadh n.d., 96 no. 4: Yemen or Syria, 97 no. 5: Syria; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., V, 208–209 nos. 5116–5117: Syria, and Muʻādh states he saw ahl al-kitāb, i.e. Jews and Christians; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 309–310: in Syria, he saw Jews and Christians. According to a slightly different version, Muʻādh saw Jews prostrating themselves to their rabbis and Christians prostrating themselves to their bishops, and this was the reason why he asked permission to Muḥammad to perform a sujūd before him: Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, I, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, 194; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 310; cf. also Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr (Mafātīḥ al-ghayb), Beirut 1990, II, 195. Regarding prostration in Yemen: it is said that in the jāhiliyya the sujūd was also performed by people around his castle, when the Yemenite king Dhū 1-Kalāʻ appeared: see Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, ed. by G. Maqdisi, Damascus 1961, 131 no. 305, and 132 no. 309, about his repentance in Muslim times; see also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 487. And see also Qur. 3:113: “Some of the People of the Book are a nation upstanding, that recite God’s signs in the watches of the night, prostrating themselves”. 33 And see also the miracle of the prostration of the trees and the stones to the Prophet that took place in Syria, a Christian stronghold; about all these episodes, see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) Il. The prominence”, nn. 66–67. See also Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 309–310, and Fakhr al-Dīn al Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 149: in Syria prostration was a way of greeting (taḥiyya) prophets.

10

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

generals and declared his new faith. The generals reacted angrily to this announcement, and Heraclius, fearing them, retracted, and following this his generals fell down prostrate before him.34 Whatever the historical value of the individual episodes, all this material no doubt points to a practice in use in Christian courts.35 Muslim historical reports indicate that the sujūd before kings and people of authority was also a widespread practice in Persia. This emerges in some of the reports discussed above about the practice of falling down prostrate in the kingdom of al-Ḥira; in fact these reports, along with the signs of the Christian cult, bear the imprint of the Persian customs.36 Moreover, other traditions attest that also the Sasanid king was greeted, by those entering his presence, with a sujūd, or, according to some reports, that he was honoured by a prostration performed by elephants, as a sign of his rank and supremacy when he passed during the review his troops.37 The same behaviour is attributed to the Persians after the advent of Islam. A grandee of Persia (dihqān), for instance, arrived in Medina to meet the caliph ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, and when he was informed that ʻUmar was not present he set off to find him. When finally he reached him, he fell down prostrate on earth, but ʻUmar summoned him to raise his head with the words that sujūd was due to God only.38

34 See Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-1-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrahim, Cairo 1960–69, II, 650, [= ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901, I, 1566]; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, V, 347 no. 9734; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, II, 4; Ibn Kathīr al-Bidāya, IV, 266. Cf. also a different episode in Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 150, and the prostration performed by a Jew in Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, III, 340. For a prostration by a priest before ʻAlī, see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 409. 35 This is not only confirmed by all Muslim sources but also by Christian sources themselves; see for instance the literature quoted in TWNT, VI, 762–766; and the defense of the secular prostration in the iconoclastic polemics by Abū Qurra: Théodore Abū Qurrah, A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons, ed. by S.H. Griffith, Louvain 1997, 52–53. 36 See pp. XX and n. 32 about the ḥadīth in which Qays b. Saʻd said he had seen people falling down prostrate before the governor (al-marzubān), in al-Ḥīra. 37 See, about the first episode, Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 221 [= I, 1048], and cf. Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 177 [= I, 996]; regarding the prostration performed by the elephants, see Masʻūdi, Murūj, I, 321 652; and Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 753; the prostration of the elephants before kings is also quoted by Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kubrā, Cairo 1978, II, 179. Cf. also Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 72 [= I, 859], and regarding the prostration by a king of Persia see Qazwīnī, ʻAjā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Cairo 1966, 86. It has already been said above (p. 9) that the darāhim al-asjād, dirhems minted with the image of the king upon which people used to prostrate themselves, were Persian coins. 38 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 408. The same happened to other companions. It is for instance said in the same source, Ibn Abī Shayba’s Muṣannaf (II, 409), that Persians used to address a sujūd also to the companion of Persian origin Salmān al-Fārisī (d. 36/656), and he used to answer to this prostration bending his head and asserting his submission to God. That the figure of Salmān was used by Muslim reports of this kind to indicate the diffusion of secular prostration in Persia is evident from another tradition which describes a prostration by the same Salmān before Muḥammad. The Prophet answered: “Do not prostrate yourself to me, Salmān, but prostrate yourself to the Living One that never dies”; see Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, Beirut n.d., II, 759, at Qur. 12:100 and III, 516, at

11

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

Further evidence describes the use of the secular prostration among other peoples. When Asa’s enemies sought aid in India, they fell prostrate upon the earth as they entered into the presence of the king Zerah.39 Another practice which attests to the diffusion of the prostration relates to the Chinese kings: it was their custom to bury the bodies of their parents, when they had died, in golden statues, and they used to perform sujūds before these statues every morning and evening.40 The recurrent description of prostrations among Christians and foreign courts shows the polemical bias of this material and makes the historicity of the related facts doubtful. This bias is particularly evident in those reports designed to discredit the foreign custom of performing sujūd before priests or kings. These reports were probably circulated to underline the originality of the Muslim precept, and to stress its incompatibility with the customs used by foreigners and believers of different faiths.41 Apart from these considerations, this material also confirms the picture painted in pre-Islamic poetry, i.e. that prostration was well known to Arabs, but, at the same time, there is no evidence that it was diffused among them to the same extent. Poetry and historical reports indicate that, at the time of Muḥammad, Arabs were acquainted with the sujūd, but that they considered it a foreign practice which could be appreciated as a poetic device for giving praise or performed to a certain extent before kings when abroad,42 but which was essentially alien to their pre-Islamic pagan customs.

3 The diffusion of the prostration among Arabs at the time of the Prophet The fact that Arabs considered prostration a foreign practice is confirmed by the scarcity of evidence regarding its practice among them before the rise of Islam. There are very few traditions dealing with actual prostrations performed by Arabs for personal devotion. One such example is that regarding a prostration performed by Zayd b. ʻAmr b. Nufayl, one of the earliest and most famous Meccan ḥanīfs, who met Muḥammad

39 40 41 42

Qur. 25:58. About prostrations performed by Persians, see also Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VI, 387, [II, 1131], and VI, 459 [II, 1224]: about a prostration after kissing the hand in Islamic times. Finally, concerning the prostration of Magians to the holy fire, see Masʻūdī, Murūj, II, 399, no. 1402. Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 520 [= I, 623]; about the prostration before images in India, see Maqdisī, al-Bad’ wa-ta’rīkh, ed. by C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919 [repr. Cairo n.d.], II, 91. Masʻūdī, Murūj, I, 156–157 nos. 316–318. See, about traditions of the same kind, M.J. Kister, “Do not assimilate yourselves. Lā tashabbahū”, JSAI, 12 (1989), 321–371. In fact a tradition states that Muḥammad’s grandfather ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib prostrated himself before the Yemenite king Sayf b. Dhī Yazan whereas he invited him to raise his head; see Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq, 431; a slightly different version is given also in Ibn ʻAbd Rabbihi, al-ʻIqd al-farīd, Beirut 1983, I, 292; Abū Nuʻaym al-Isbahānī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1986, I, 98 n. 50; Azraqī, Akhbār Makka wa-mā jā’a fīhā min al-āthār, ed. by R. al-Ṣ. Malḥas, Beirut 19832, I, 152. See also Abū-l-Faraj al-Isfahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, Cairo 1929 f., XVI, 77.

12

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

a short time before he started to receive revelations.43 According to the sources, Zayd abandoned the idolatry of Quraysh and professed to be a monotheist, neither Jewish nor Christian, but a true believer in the ḥanīfiyya.44 A notable report, in which the nature of his faith is fully described, says that Zayd pronounced the following words, while he was leaning against the Kaʻba: “O Quraysh, by Him in whose hand is the soul of Zayd, not one of you follows the religion of Abraham but I”. Then, according to some versions of this report, he said: “O God, if I knew how you wished to be worshipped I would so worship you; but I don’t know how”; he then prostrated himself on the palms of his hands (ʻalā rāḥatihi).45 All the particulars given here are of great significance: Zayd, who didn’t know the best way to address God in the vicinity of the Kaʻba, decided to address a sujūd to Him. At that time, among the Quraysh, Zayd was the only one to follow the religion of Abraham (dīn Ibrāhīm), and his sujūd looks like a new practice initiated by him in his worship. This was not an isolated episode since Zayd himself, while referring to the cult of the Kaʻba, said: “I follow the religion of Abraham and I prostrate myself towards the Kaʻba”. Finally the report ends with these words: and so he used to prostrate himself towards the Kaʻba in the Jāhiliyya.46 Significant evidence about prostration among the Arabs also comes from the traditions dealing with a particular prayer, the ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, which originally consisted of different acts connected to the cult of the Kaʻba. U. Rubin has already discussed the main features of this ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, in a comprehensive study which relied mainly upon ḥadīth collections.47 It is relevant to this research that the sujūd

43 See, concerning Zayd and his relation with Muḥammad, U. Rubin, “Hanīfiyya and Kaʻba. An inquiry into the Arabian pre-Islamic background of dīn Ibrāhīm”, JSAI, (1990), 99–102; on the meeting between the Prophet and Zayd, see also M.J. Kister, “‘A bag of meat’: A study of an early ḥadīth” (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, VI), BSOAS, 33 (1970), 267–275. See also J. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford 1978, 6–7, who considers that the story of Zayd was only a myth. 44 A lot of studies have been published concerning this ḥanīfiyya professed by some people at the times of Muḥammad; see the discussion of the argument, with all the references, in C. Gilliot, “Muḥammad, le Coran et les ‘contraintes de l’histoire’”, in The Qur’ān as Text, ed. by S. Wild, Leiden 1996, 6–17. See also M. Lecker, Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995, 156–164, where he discusses the case of the ḥanīfiyya of Abū Qays. 45 See Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra, I, 225 (transl. by A. Guillaume, The Life of Muḥammad, Oxford 1955, 99–100); this tradition is also mentioned in Yūnus b. Bukayr’s recension of the sīra of Ibn Isḥāq: Muḥammad b. Ishāq, Kitāb al-siyar wa-l-maghāzī (riwāya Yūnus b. Bukayr), ed. by S. Zakkār, Beirut 1978, 116. See also in Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq, 153; Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-muḥabbar, 171; Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, ed. by A. Sprenger et al., Calcutta 1856f., repr. Beirut n.d., III, 31; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 237–241; ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī, Cairo 1972, XIII, 366. The first part of this passage, without the particular of the prostration is also in Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 606 no. 3828, and it is translated by Rubin, “Hanīfiyya and Kaʻba”, 100, with other references at no. 75. 46 Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, II, 144, quoted and translated by Rubin, “Hanīfiyya and Kaʻba”, 101–102; see also Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut n.d., I, 162. 47 U. Rubin, “Morning and evening prayers in early Islam”, JSAI, 10 (1987), 40–53.

13

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

was among the various acts connected to this prayer, such as the circumambulation of the Kaʻba and the touching of the Black Stone. According to a tradition recorded in the Muṣannaf of ʻAbd al-Razzāq and going back to Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767), the first ones to pray this ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, were the Bedouins (al-aʻrab): when one of them sold a commodity, he would come to the mosque and say ‘Allāh akbar’, and then perform the prostration.48 It is clear that the mention of a mosque refers to the Muslim period, but, as has been already pointed out by Rubin, this practice dated back to the pre-Islamic period, and it was widely diffused particularly among the Bedouins, who celebrated in this way when they succeeded in their business in the markets.49 The lack of further evidence from the sources and the scanty evidence relating to the episodes described here suggests that prostration was performed only in particular cases, was not included in any practice of worship, and most importantly was not performed by Quraysh. In fact Zayd prostrated himself after he had abandoned the pagan religion of his people, and similarly, in the tradition of the ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, it is the Bedouins who prostrated themselves and not the settled population of Mecca. Moreover, it is worth noting that there is nothing to indicate the diffusion of prostration in the idolatrous rituals of the pagan Arabs. In fact historical sources, while describing the situation in pre-Islamic Arabia, do not mention cases of sujūd being performed before idols.50

4 Arab opposition to Muslim prostration Given the evidence discussed above there can be no doubt that the diffusion of Islam, with its precept of prostrating during the ritual prayer, represented a significant change in the Arab attitude towards prostration. It is not the point of this article to identify from where Muḥammad drew inspiration for this ritual, whether from Jewish and Christian traditions, as seems more probable, or from some practice of that kind already in use among Arabs. The significant point here is that of all the Muslim rites, it was the ritual prayer that met with the greatest opposition.51 The basis of this resistance, as has already been demonstrated by M.J. Kister, was the opposition to the act of the prostration itself: Arabs not only considered it an

48 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 79–80 no. 4872; cf. also Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, VI, 334: sajadū al-ḍuḥā; this tradition is translated and discussed by Rubin, “Morning and evening prayers”, 43–44. 49 See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 79 no. 4869; and Rubin, “Morning and evening prayers”, 44. 50 See for instance Ibn al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-aṣnām, Cairo 1993, where there is no mention of sujūd. Regarding secular prostration, Arabs, though considering it alien to their customs, probably could not avoid prostrating themselves when abroad and before kings, complying with the foreign use. This makes sense of ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib’s prostration before Sayf b. Dhī Yazan; see above, no. 42. 51 See Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Eng. ed. by S.M. Stern, London 1967–71, I, 39, 41–42.

14

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

alien practice, but they also refused to perform it, since they considered it humiliating in terms of their concepts of honour.52 This attitude towards sujūd emerges in some Qur’ānic passages which contain direct references to the unwillingness of the Meccans to prostrate themselves. For instance, when urged to perform a sujūd before the Merciful (al-Raḥmān), the pagans answered back: “And what is the All-merciful? Shall we prostrate ourselves to what thou biddest us?”53 Qur’ānic commentaries contain various explanations of this passage. According to Muqātil (d. 150/767), the Arabs present, including Abū Jahl, were unbelievers and did not prostrate themselves because they understood al-Raḥmān as the nickname of the false prophet Musaylima, and they did not know that al-Raḥmān was an epithet of God.54 These seem to be fanciful interpretations, and it is far more probable that the nature of the sujūd itself prompted those present to ask, with surprise and irony, who this God was and whether Muḥammad really believed that they would prostrate themselves to Him.55 Another Qur’ānic verse (Qur. 68:42–43) hints at this same unwillingness to

52 M.J. Kister, “Some reports concerning al-Ṭā’if” (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, no. XI), JSAI, 1 (1979), 3–6. This opposition towards prostration, as argued by Kister, is also the reason why, in negotiations between Thaqīf and the Prophet after the battle of Ḥunayn (8/630), Thaqīf asked the Prophet the permission not to prostrate during ritual prayer, together with other concessions. The clear-cut refusal of Muḥammad led to the breakdown of the negotiations. These reports show very clearly that the reason for the opposition was not the prayer in general, but the duty, during it, to bow and, then, to fall down prostrate on earth. And for this same reason the adversaries of Muḥammad, like the false prophets Musaylima and Ṭulayḥa, ordered the Arabs to pray upright like the noblemen and forbade them to prostrate themselves; this was probably intended to make their message more attractive. About these questions see the article by Kister, 4–6. Even the act of bowing, before the sujūd, was considered embarrassing: see Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by M.ʻA. al-Q. ʻAṭā, Beirut 1988, I, 34; rukūʻ was the hardest thing for the people of the jāhiliyya, so much so that they asked the Prophet permission to pray upright. See also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, III, 350: in ancient times Arabs disliked al-inḥinā’. 53 Qur. 25:60: wa-idhā qāla lahum usjudū li-l-Raḥmān qālū wa-mā l-Raḥmān a-nasjudu li-mā ta’murunā. The translation of Qur’ānic verses throughout this article is taken from A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford 1964; in some cases the translation has been slightly modified. 54 Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr, ed. by ʻA.M. Shiḥāta, Cairo 1979–90, III, 239; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIX, 28–29; Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-al-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, IV, 152–153; Samarqandī, Tafsīr (Baḥr al-ʻulūm), Beirut 1993, II, 464; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 517, where he also states that the mushrikūn used to prostrate themselves to false deities, such as idols; Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1968, II, 149; Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī maʻānī l-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, V, 106; Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl (sic), on margin of Khāzin’s Lubāb al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1955, V, 106; Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr (sic), Beirut 1983, VI, 268; Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn ʻAbbās, Cairo 1951, 227. 55 This consideration is also supported by a tradition inserted by some tafsīrs in the comment of this verse where it is said that, while Muḥammad and the first Muslim converts, like Abū Bakr, ʻUmar and ʻUthmān, prostrated themselves when this verse was revealed, unbelievers approached them only to mock them. This report is related as a comment on the end of Qur. 25: 60 “And it increases them in aversion”; see Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān wa-raghā’ib al-Furqān, Cairo 1967, XIX, 31; Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, Beirut 1986, VIII, 123; and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, XXIV, 91–92, who states properly that it does not make sense that the refusal to fall

15

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

perform prostration on the day of the Resurrection when the hypocrites “shall be summoned to prostrate themselves, but they cannot; humbled shall be their eyes, and abasement shall overspread them, for they had been summoned to prostrate themselves while they were whole”. This passage bears evidence that unbelievers refused to fall down prostrate on earth at the time of the Prophet, and this is the reason why they will be punished on the day of Resurrection, even if they try to fall down prostrate in extremis.56 The Qur’ān and ḥadīths give further details about the origin and the nature of this opposition towards prostration. The Qur’ān indicates very clearly that the reason was pride, when, for instance, it says in the sūra of the Battlements (Qur. 7:206) that the creatures close to God, i.e. angels, “wax not too proud (lā yastakbirūna) to serve Him; they chant His praise, and to Him they prostrate themselves”. This verse is by no means an isolated case, since some other passages mention pagan pride in connection with the refusal to perform the sujūd.57 Thus there can be few doubts regarding the Arab attitude which emerges from Qur’ān statements: Meccans disliked the Muslim precept to fall down prostrate during the ritual prayer because they deemed it a humiliating act. It prostrate was connected to the name al-Raḥmān. But cf. Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 744, where the Meccans refuse to prostrate themselves to God asserting that, instead, they fall down prostrate to their goddesses. 56 Qur’ānic commentaries usually add that on the day of Resurrection the backs of the unbelievers will be upright and tough as iron; see Mujāhid b. Jabr, Tafsīr, ed by M.ʻA. Abū 1-Nīl, Cairo 1989, 669–670; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, ed. by M.M. Muḥammad, Riyadh 1989, II, 310; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXIX, 42–43; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 638; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 395; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VIII, 253–254; Fīrūzābādi, Tanwīr, 364; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XXIX, 26; Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf ʻan ḥaqā’iq al-tanzīl wa-ʻuyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1972, IV, 147; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, X, 429–430: also with an interesting tradition from Kaʻb al-Aḥbār explaining why this passage was revealed; Khāzin, Lubāb, VII, 137–140; Baghawī, Maʻālim, VII, 137–140; see also al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Tafsīr, ed by M. ʻAbd al-Raḥīm, Cairo 1992, II, 361. Various ḥadīths, some of which are very long, although not quoting this Qur’ānic passage, contain the same detail: the back of the unbelievers will not be able to bend on the day of Resurrection; see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 35 no. 11127; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VI, 381 no. 4919, VIII, 541 no. 7439; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, 168–169 no. 183; Dārimī, Sunan, II, 782–783 no. 2700; Juz’ fīhi majlis min fawā’id al-Layth b. Saʻd, ed. by M.b.R. Ibn al-Ṭarhūnī, Riyadh 1987, 47: see also the references quoted at 49 n. 1; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsabūrī, al-Mustadrak, IV, 626 no. 8736; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1989, XIV, 441 no. 39198; Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, V, 268 no. 8149; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, IX, 235 no. 7333. See also Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VIII, 254–261: with a lot of traditions; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Huntingdon 388, 66a; Ibn Kathīr, al-Nihāya fī l-fitan wa-l-malāḥim, Beirut 1988, 263; Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī, al-Takhwīf min al-nār wa-l-taʻrīf bi-ḥāl dār al-bawār, Beirut n.d., 210–211; Abū Ḥanīfa, Musnad, in ʻAlī 1-Qārī, Sḥarḥ Musnad Abī Ḥanīfa, Beirut n.d., 281; Ḥijrī (Ps-Wahb), Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Alexandria, Ms Baladiyya B1249, 21b. 57 See Qur. 16:49: “To God prostrates itself everything in the heavens, and every creature crawling on the earth, and the angels. They have not waxed proud (lā yastakbirūna)”; see also Qur. 32:15. This strict connection is also attested in a tradition saying that one of the merits of the sujūd is that it cleanses one of arrogance; see al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 308 no. 19017: man sajada li-Allāh sajda fa-qad bari’a min al-kibr.

16

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

was pagan pride that inspired not only their hostility to the act itself, but also their attempts to harass the Muslims and mock the Prophet while he was prostrating himself. Qur’ānic exegesis and ḥadīth literature include some reports where this hostility was not limited to simple scoffs, and where the fiercest of Muḥammad’s enemies could not resist interfering him while he was prostrating himself.58 Various other traditions attest that the strongest objections to prostration were raised by the elders. Qurashī noblemen found Muḥammad’s claim that all the believers had to prostrate themselves surprising. They expected some exception to be made for the elders who were the most debilitated and the proudest. This material describing the refusal of the Qurashī elders to prostrate themselves is connected to sujūd al-Qur’ān: Umayya b. Khalaf did not prostrate himself at the recitation of the sūra of the Star because he was an unbeliever shaykh, and neither did the old al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, when the Satanic verses were revealed, because he was a shaykh and therefore was not able to do it.59 Some other important traditions point out in general terms that prostration was not appropriate to shaykhs, or that it was deemed humiliating for various reasons.60

58 See for instance Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 640: The Prophet fell down prostrate and the believers with him did the same, while the pagans clapped their hands over their heads and whistled. See, about whistling and clapping of hands by pagans in the rites around the Kaʻba, Qur. 8:35. A ḥadīth recorded in various versions with some slight differences attests that one of Muḥammad’s opponents of the group of Abū Jahl, usually identified in ʻUqba b. Abī Muʻayṭ, while the Prophet was praying, brought the foetus of a she-camel and threw it on Muḥammad’s back. The pagans present at the scene laughed at him, but he did not lift his head until Fāṭima arrived. See Bukhārī, Saḥīḥ, I, 81 no. 240, I, 164 no. 520, IV, 406–407 no. 3185, IV, 616–617 no. 3854; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 44 no. 3722, II, 95 no. 3962; Muslim, Saḥīḥ, III, 1418–1419 no. 1794 (two versions); Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991, I, 130 no. 296; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VI, 17–18; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VIII, 189 no. 6536; Ibn al-Jawzī, Ṣifat, I, 34; Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, I, 267 no. 200; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 205–206; Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 493; Ibn Kathīr, al-Nihāya, III, 43; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, 1, 276–277; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, II, 278, Ill, 82; some versions of this tradition make no direct mention of the sujūd, see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VIII, 441; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, ed. by Ḥ.S. Asad, Beirut 19892, IX, 211 no. 5312; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Ill, 317 no. 2934. Some other ḥadīths state that Abū Jahl threw stones at Muḥammad while he was prostrating himself; see Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, I, 206, II, 591; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, II, 190, 191. 59 Regarding this subject see Tottoli, “Traditions and controversies”. 60 See for instance Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 637, who relates in his tafsīr that Abraham said to a shaykh who was prostrating himself to an idol: “And do you, old one, prostrate yourself to this small (idol)? The small one should prostrate himself to the big one!” Finally, performing a prostration was deemed humiliating in the pagan Meccans’ opinion not only because it was an act denoting submission, but also because it was considered a possible cause of personal embarrassment. In fact Abū Ṭālib, when invited by the Prophet to join him for prayer, answered: “I know that you are right, but I do not like to prostrate myself so that my hindquarter is higher than the rest of me”, see Kister, “Some reports”, 4. This kind of embarrassment is also well attested by another tradition quoted by Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 99, in which one of the privileges God granted Abraham is described: when he was prostrating himself, the ground could not see his intimate parts.

17

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

5

Qur’ānic verses and traditions emphasizing the merits of prostration. The prohibition to prostrate before men

Indirect evidence of the negative Arab attitude towards prostration can also be found in some other Qur’ānic verses and Muslim traditions. Such is the case firstly in those Qur’ānic passages and traditions describing and emphasizing the high value and the merits of the prostration to God during ritual prayer, and, secondly, those reports underlining the Muslim prohibition of secular prostration. Some Qur’ānic passages point out the importance of ritual prayer and, in particular, the central role of the prostration in this ritual and the duty of the believer to perform it five times a day. In some verses sajada is even used as a synonym of the prayer, but this is not unusual since prostration constitutes its central and most important part.61 Besides this, some other verses bear further indication of the prominence of the sujūd, stating that everything in the sky, directly or by means of their shadows, as well as everything on the earth, performs sujūd to God.62 Many later exegetical reports and traditions proceed in this direction and emphasize the grace that the believer acquires from God when he performs this act. Further, many traditions often mention Muḥammad’s readiness to prostrate himself and his repeated exhortation to people not to be reluctant to perform sujūds. A typical report of this kind attributed to the Prophet states clearly that the nearest a believer comes to God is when he is prostrating himself.63 This is indeed the reason why the believer acquires so many blessings through the performance of this act: for every prostration performed by the believer, God raises the Muslim

61 See about all these questions, the Qur’ānic passages where prostration is mentioned: Qur. 2:125, 4:102, 9:112, 15:98, 22:26, 22:77, 25:64, 26:219, 39:9, 48:29, 50:40, 53:62, 76:26, 96:19. 62 See Qur. 7:206, 13:15, 16:48–49, 22:18, 55:6. The traditions about the prostration of angels, sun and moon and others are discussed in the first part of Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration II. The prominence and meaning”. See also, for the prostration of men and angels on the day of Resurrection, ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 565–566 no. 8702; and see Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, IV, 406: everything on earth prostrates itself to God. Prostration is also mentioned in some other Qur’ānic verses that specifically prescribe the duty to perform sujūd during the recitation of the Qur’ān. These verses contain a general prescription urging people to fall down prostrate when listening to Qur’ānic verses, but the specification of which verses in particular require prostration is only given in later exegesis and ḥadīth literature: Qur. 17:107, 19:58, 32:15, 84:21. Regarding the question of sujūd al-Qur’ān, see Tottoli, “Traditions and controversies”. 63 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 403 no. 9452; Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt, Beirut n.d., II, 225; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 350 no. 482; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 292 no. 18935, VII, 306 no. 19007; Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Tehran 1957–63, III, 324; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, III, 195 no. 1925; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr fī ḥadīth al-bashīr al-nadhīr, Beirut 1981, I, 201 no. 1348; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 127; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-Sunan al-kubrā, I, 242 no. 723; Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 773; ʻĀmilī, al-Jawāhir al-saniyya fī l-aḥādīth al-qudsiyya, Najaf 1964, 192; see also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, I, 312: a request is most likely to be granted by God if it is made when prostrating. See also the ḥadīth discussed by Ibn Fūrak, Mushkil al-ḥadīth wa-bayānuhu, Beirut 1985, 353: idhā sajada aḥadukum fa-innamā yasjudu ʻalā qadam al-Raḥmān. See also a complete treatment of the merits of prostration in Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, I, 155 f., and, against dissimulation in prostration, III, 280, 293–295, and IV, 321: prostration is what God likes most.

18

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

one degree higher in Paradise, ascribes him a good action and erases one of his sins.64 It must be pointed out that reports of this kind, emphasizing the value of the practices of the Muslim cult, are common in ḥadīth collections and do not only relate to sujūd, but to almost every practice. Notwithstanding this, the prominence of sujūd is so clearly underlined by traditions that it becomes a virtual symbol of the Muslim faith. Thus, while defining the condition of those guilty of great sins, Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī (d. 795/1393) maintains that the fire of Hell will not be able to devour their figures because of the sujūds they performed.65 Moreover, it is said that God explained why Muslims are the chosen people in these terms: no one attests the belief in the unity of God (tawḥīd) as many times as them, saying lā ilāh illā Allāh, and no one lowers his neck to prostrate himself as often as them.66 Assiduity in prostration was also considered such an important trait that some people had the nickname al-sajjād.67 64 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, I, 49 no. 149, III, 73 no. 4846, III, 347 no. 5917; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 501–502; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 153 no. 477; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 353 no. 488; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 287 no. 15527, VIII, 70 no. 21366, VIII, 73 no. 21375, VIII, 104 no. 21508, VIII, 269 no. 22202, VIII, 282 no. 22257, VIII, 287 no. 22283, VIII, 322 no. 22433, VIII, 323 no. 22440, VIII, 330 no. 22474, VIII, 335 no. 22505; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1968, II, 231 nos. 388–389; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, 243 n. 725; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, III, 117 no. 1732; Ibn al-Jawzī, Ṣifat, 1, 241; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 291 f.: nos. 18930, 18940, cf. 18969, 19003–19004, 19008, 1910–1916; Daylamī, al-Firdaws, IV, 11 no. 6028; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 457 nos. 14222–14224; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, Beirut 1990, 28 no. 81; Abū Ḥanīfa, Musnad, 125–126; Rūyānī, Musnad, Cairo 1995, I, 405 no. 617, II, 270 no. 1176; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, VI, 235; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 248. And see Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, V, 335: to enter Paradise the believer must prostrate himself many times. A tradition of this kind says instead that God ascribes a house in Paradise on behalf of whom performs twelve prostrations in one day and one night, in addition to those prescribed in the prayer; see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 108–109; Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, X, 234 no. 26831; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 503 no. 728; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, XIII, 44 no. 7124; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.M. al-Aʻzamī, Beirut 1992, II, 203 no. 1187; most of the versions of this tradition have rakʻa instead of sajda, see for instance al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 776–780; and see also all the references quoted in Abū Ya‘lā, Musnad, XIII, 44 n. 2. Among all the material praising the merits of prostration, see, for instance, Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 822: when the believer dies the places on earth where he fell down prostrate cry; and Abū Nuʻaym, Ḥilyat al-awliyā’ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyā’, Beirut 1987, VI, 29: Iblīs cries most when a Muslim is prostrate. Regarding kuthrat al-sujūd, cf. Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, IV, 321; and see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 291 no. 18934, VII, 307 no. 19009: from Ṭabarānī: when the believer prostrates himself, his sujūd purifies everything under his forehead to the limits of the seventh earth. 65 Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī, al-Takhwīf, 230. And see also, about the importance of the prostrations performed on earth on the day of Judgement, the tradition attributed to Kaʻb al-Aḥbār in Abū Nuʻaym, Ḥilyat, V, 374. 66 See Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 79. See also Ghazālī, lḥyā’, II, 21, about the importance of the frequent prostration, along with other devotional practices. 67 See, for instance, Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, Beirut 1970, I, 44, and Id., Ṣifat, I, 303: ʻAlī b. ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās had this nickname because he used to prostrate himself a thousand times a day; see in fact also Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-zuhd, Cairo 1993, 363 no. 451 and Abū Nuʻaym, Ḥilyat, I, 207. See also Masʻūdi, Murūj al-dhahab, III, 110 no. 1623: Muḥammad b. Ṭalha; al-Muʻāfā b. Zakariyā, al-Jalīs al-sāliḥ al-kāfī wa-l-anīs al-nāsiḥ al-shāfī, Beirut 1993, II, 161: ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī al-Azdī.

19

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

A peculiar group of traditions of this kind are those dealing with the mark appearing on the forehead of the Muslim who is particularly solicitous in performing sujūds. This sign of religious pre-eminence and deep devotion among the Muslims is mentioned in the Qur’ān: “The mark is on their faces, the trace of prostration” (Qur. 48:29). Qur’ānic exegesis of this verse exhibits the usual number of traditions and explanations of every particular regarding this athar al-sujūd, which is derived from “the earth which sticks to the foreheads of the faithful when they prostrate themselves”.68 Many reports mention this mark, always to underline its great religious significance. According to one such report, on the Day of the Judgement God will order to the angels to take the believers, and it will be possible to recognize them because of the athar al-sujūd on their foreheads, since God will not permit the fire of Hell to consume it.69 Moreover, on a man miraculously restored to life, the sign of prostration on his forehead indicated that he was a believer and a pious man throughout his life.70 Though the above discussion is brief and there is much other material collected in Muslim traditions about the merits of prostration, some general conclusions can nevertheless be drawn. Qur’ānic verses and traditions emphasizing the prominence of prostration in Muslim devotion served a clear function: to stress the importance of this act in the ritual prayer and, at the same time, to counter the opposition towards this act. In short, the Qur’ān and traditions undoubtedly attest to the fact that the believers had to be urged to perform prostration. This also explains why prostration to God occurs so often in every genre of Muslim literature in traditions 68 The quotation is from lbn Wahb, Tafsīr (ʻAbd Allāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ. Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, ed. by M. Muranyi, Wiesbaden 1993), 186 [22a]; but cf. the tafsīrs of Muqātil and ʻAbd al-Razzāq where it is simply stated that this is the mark of the prayer: Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 78; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, II, 228. See also the comprehensive discussion in Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXVI, 110–111; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 141–142; Māwardī, al-Nukat, V, 323; see also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, I, 129, IV, 331. But according to some interpretations, for instance, this verse does not hint at anything actual, but to humility, to insomnia or to the paleness of the faces of the believers on the day of the Judgement: Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 541–542; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, Ill, 259; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 312–313. 69 See al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 243 no. 806, VII, 262 no. 6573; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 165 no. 182; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, XI, 242 no. 6360; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XIV, 438 no. 39197; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 141; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1446–1447 no. 4326; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 110 no. 7721, III, 148 no. 7932, III, 635 no. 10906, and see also VIII, 173 no. 21799; Ibn Rajab, al-Takhwīf, 229; and Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, II, 227. 70 Ibn Abī 1-Dunyā, Man ʻāsha baʻda al-mawt, Beirut 1987, 58; see also Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, IVa, ed. by M. Schloessinger and M.J. Kister, Jerusalem 1971, 140; and the mention of the athar al-sujūd in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VII, 189 no. 19829. See also other traditions about this athar al-sujūd in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, Beirut 1986, 34 no. 88, 106 no. 341; Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, fac. ed., Amman n.d., XVII, 358; Ghazālī, Ihyā’, IV, 446; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 133; Qayrawānī, Kitāb al-jāmiʻ fī l-sunan wa-l-ādāb wa-l-maghāzī wa-l-ta’rīkh, Beirut-Tunis 1985, 176; Abū Zurʻa, Ta’rīkh, ed. Kh. al-Manṣūr, Beirut 1996, 56 no. 178. But see against a Khārijite with this mark: Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, Beirut 1983, 106, 109. And see also a report in Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 439, where the Prophet said that Muslims will be distinguished on the day of Resurrection since they will have a white mark on the forehead because of sujūd, see in fact also Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 213 no. 17709.

20

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

underlining a character’s faith and devotion, and why Muḥammad and the prophets preceding him are so often described as prostrating themselves: they serve as models to be followed by believers.71 Along with this material, some other traditions are dedicated to the Muslim precept forbidding the prostration before men. The Muslim opposition to the secular prostration is vehemently attested in ḥadīths, where some utterances of the Prophet clearly forbid prostration before men as an act of submission or as a greeting to kings or the powerful. Many reports attest the clear-cut refusal of the Prophet to accept the prostration from his followers as a way of greeting. Muḥammad rejected it and stated that he could not and he did not want to receive prostration from other men, saying that it was not at all necessary, since if God had prescribed secular sujūd, he would have ordered women to prostrate themselves to their husbands.72 According to one of the traditions attesting Muḥammad’s prohibition of secular prostration, the companions explicitly asked Muḥammad for permission to perform a sujūd before him “like before a king”. Other reports recount that on various occasions Muḥammad refused prostrations addressed to him from persons who spontaneously intended to greet and to honour him in this way.73 The firm opposition to secular prostration, and every act which suggested it, is indirectly confirmed in the Muslim prescription forbidding bowing and hugging as ways of greeting. In fact it is said that Muḥammad answered a specific question by Anas b. Mālik (d. 92/710 ca.) on this topic saying that to embrace and

71 This topic is discussed in Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning”. 72 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, XI, 300–301, nos. 20594, 20596; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 409: three different versions; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 15–16 no. 17, with also this statement: lā yanbaghī li-shay’ an yasjuda li-shay’, I, 364 no. 1435; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 250 no. 2140; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 317–318 no. 12614, VII, 103 no. 19420, VIII, 229 no. 22046, IX, 353 no. 24525; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 525 no. 1853; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, III, 456, no. 1159; Ibn Ṣāʻid, al-Juz’, 97 no. 5; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 293; Ibn Furāt al-Kūfī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1992, II, 388 no. 514; Daylamī, al-Firdaws, III, 344 no. 5038; Baghdādī (al-Shaykh al-Mufīd), Kitāb al-ikhtiṣāṣ, Najaf 1971, 296; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, V, 208–209 nos. 5116–5117, VII, 152 no. 6590; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak, II, 204 no. 2763; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, VII, 475– 476 nos. 14704–14705; Id., Dalā’il, VI, 19, 29; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 309–311, IX, 4–5, 7, 9; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, II, 437 nos. 7481–7482; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XVI, 332f. nos. 44773–44775, 44777, 44794–44795, 44797–44801; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VI, 183 no. 4150; Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, II, 379–385 nos. 276, 278, 281–282, 284–287; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, II, 57, 60; Māturidī, Ta’wīlāt ahl al-sunna, Baghdad 1983, 96; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs fī aḥwāl anfas nafīs, Beirut n.d., I, 44; see also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, II, 59; al-Qāḍī ʻIyāḍ, al-Shifā’ bi-taʻrīf ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā, Beirut 1988, I, 299; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 293. The same words, occurring in other versions of this same ḥadīth, were pronounced by Muḥammad when he likewise refused a prostration addressed to him by a Bedouin; see Dārimī, Sunan, I, 364 no. 1436; Rūyānī, Musnad, I, 78 no. 37; and Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, 390 no. 291. 73 Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 311. About the refusal of the Prophet to accept the prostration by a Christian called ʻAddās and by Salmān, see above, p. 10 n. 33; and the references given in “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning”, nn. 66–67.

21

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

to bow are not permitted when meeting an acquaintance.74 A number of reports then attest that when some Companions happened to be addressed with prostration, as occurred to Muḥammad, they rejected the gesture, stating that sujūd must be addressed to God only.75 The historicity of these traditions, focusing on the contraposition of the Muslim precept and the customs of unbelievers and foreigners, can hardly be accepted. They probably circulated or emerged when Muslim Arabs, after the conquests, came into direct contact and confrontation with communities of foreigners and the believers of other faiths.76 Notwithstanding this, the most evident trait of these traditions against secular prostration is their unquestionable continuity with the old Arab hostility discussed at the beginning of this article. Secular prostration is in fact viewed in this material as a foreign custom which was alien to Islam to the same extent that Arabs considered every kind of prostration alien to their tenets. It is thus evident that these reports reflect deep-rooted – and consequently early – beliefs that with the advent of Islam were expressed only in the condemnation of the practice of prostrating before men.

6

Other Qur’ānic verses concerning prostration. The exegesis of Qur. 2:34 and 12:100

Apart from the verses discussed above, sujūd is also mentioned in some other Qur’ānic passages from the qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, i.e. the narratives dealing with patriarchs and prophets. As a preliminary remark, it must be pointed out that some of the verses dealt with here have been commented upon widely in exegetical literature, where there is evidence of the interweaving of the old Arab concepts and the Muslim precepts regarding prostration. The first of these passages is Qur. 3:43, in which God ordered Mary to fall down prostrate: “Mary, be obedient to thy Lord, prostrating and bowing before Him”; in this case the prostration undoubtedly hints at a prayer. Another passage, Qur. 27:24–25, mentions prostration in connection with sun worship among the people of the Queen of Sheba: “I found her and her people prostrating to the sun, apart from God (. . .) so that they prostrate not themselves to God”. Qur. 41:37 also 74 See Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 394 no. 13043; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, V, 75 no. 2728; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1220 no. 3702; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, IX, 222 no. 25750; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1965, IV, 290; see also the comprehensive discussion in Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, IX, 265–266. It must be pointed out that Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, III, 350, asserts that Arabs, in ancient times, also disliked bowing. 75 These traditions have been already quoted above when discussing the prostration in use among Christians and in Persia. See in fact ʻUmar, when a grandee of Persia fell down prostrate before him, in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 408, or the similar reaction of ʻAlī with a Christian priest in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 409; see also, regarding ʻAlī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 195. 76 See above, pp. 10–12. See also the discussion of this question in Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning”, last chapter.

22

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

deals with the same question, but with the aim of commanding the Muslims not to prostrate themselves to the sun or the moon: “Prostrate not yourselves to the sun and moon, but prostrate yourselves to God who created them, if Him you serve”. Qur’ānic exegesis and later traditions could not but confirm this prohibition.77 In connection with the biography of Moses there is the episode of the prostration of the magicians who had been brought together by the Pharaoh to challenge Moses. The story is mentioned in various passages: the magicians were defeated because Moses’ rod changed into a snake and ate up their rods and ropes, “and the sorcerers were cast down, prostrating themselves”.78 The Qur’ān does not explain to whom this prostration was addressed, but exegetical literature usually adds that it was a sujūd to God and not to Moses. To smother every possible doubt on this point, a report states that the magicians fell down prostrate following the example of Moses and Aaron who, after the magicians’ defeat, had prostrated themselves to thank God.79 Prostration is then mentioned in connection with the vicissitudes of the Israelites at the time of Moses, when God had given them this order: “Enter this township, and eat easefully of it wherever you will, and enter in at the gate, prostrating”.80 The entire episode is unclear and has been interpreted in various ways by both exegetes and modern scholars.81 Despite this there can be no doubt regarding the order to fall down prostrate when entering through the gate: in this case the Qur’ān indicates with sajada a sign of respect before someone of higher rank, and thus not an act of physically throwing oneself on the ground, but merely of bending the back and bowing.82

77 See, regarding the prostration to the sun and the moon, Masʻūdī, Murūj, I, 169 no. 344: Persians prostrate themselves to the sun; and Ibn Taymiyya, al-Amr bi-l-maʻrūf wa-l-nahy ʻan al-munkar, Cairo 1987, 39: the worst sin is idolatry: i.e. invoking or performing sujūd to other prophets or to the stars, the idols etc. Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā ʻarā’is al-majālis, Cairo 1954, 314–315, specifies that the people of Sheba prostrate themselves to the sun when it rises and when it sets. In fact a tradition attributed to the Prophet states that he forbade people to pray during sunrise or sunset because this was too much like the practice of those prostrating themselves to the sun: see for instance Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 52–53 no. 17011, VI, 54–55 nos. 17015–17016, VIII, 292 no. 22308; and Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb mukhtalif al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1985, 118; and see also the references quoted by Kister, “Do not assimilate yourselves”, 322. 78 Qur. 7:120, 20:70 and 26:46. 79 See Majlisī, Biḥār, XIII, 79; but cf. Māwardī, al-Nukat, II, 246: annahum sajadū li-Mūsā taslīman lahu wa-īmānan bihi. 80 Qur. 2:58, see also Qur. 4:154 and 7:161. 81 Concerning the question, see the papers, and the literature there quoted, read at the VII Colloquium ‘From Jāhiliyya to Islam’, Jerusalem 28 July–1 August 1996, by U. Rubin, “The children of Israel and the Islamic historiography: The gate of Ḥiṭṭa”, and by H. Busse, “Bāb ḥiṭṭa in Jerusalem and Surah 2:58”. 82 In fact see the exegetical explanations, where it is said that this sujūd was in reality a rukūʻ, by Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, I, 300; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 121; Māwardī, al-Nukat, I, 125; cf. also Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, 109; Mujāhid, Tafsīr, 203; Māturidī, Ta’wīlāt, 149; and ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, I, 47: dakhalū mutazaḥḥifīn ʻalā awrākihim (they entered dragging themselves upon their hips); see

23

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

Two other episodes, described or alluded to by many Qur’ānic passages, are very important in relation to prostration: the sujūd performed by the parents and brothers before Joseph, as a fulfilment of his previous dream, and the prostration of the angels before Adam in Paradise. Many pages have been written in the commentaries to explain them. The first episode concerns Joseph’s premonitory dream, which he had when he was twelve years old, and in which the stars, with the sun and the moon, fell down prostrate before him. In fact, as stated in Qur. 12:4, Joseph told Jacob: “Father, I saw eleven stars, and the sun and the moon; I saw them falling down prostrate before me”. This dream was later fulfilled when Joseph, as the Qur’ān describes with no notable differences from the Bible, gained a high position at the court of the Pharaoh: all his family, when they visited him in Egypt, prostrated themselves before him. In fact, at the end of the story, as is said in Qur. 12:100, he “lifted his father and mother upon the throne; and all of them fell down prostrate before him”.83 There is no doubt that this is a significant example of secular prostration: the powerful Joseph is honoured through this act of respect and submission. In this case the Qur’ān stands in an embarrassing contrast with the Muslim precept forbidding the prostration before men, since father, mother and brothers fell down prostrate (kharrū . . . sujjadan) before Joseph (lahu). Faced with this apparent contradiction, the exegetes show a clear tendency to minimize the value and the meaning of the act in this case. Some exegetes, while conceding that this was a real secular prostration, consider that it took place at a time when this was a customary practice which was abrogated by Islam.84 Some exegetes take a different view and, relying upon the semantic range of sajada,

also Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 250; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 371; and see also the different explanations given by Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 324. A tradition attributed to Abū Hurayra states that the Prophet said that the Israelites changed the order and dakhalū yazḥafūna ʻalā astāhihim (entered dragging themselves upon their buttocks): see Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 480 no. 3403; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 2312 no. 3015; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 200 no. 8237, and cf. III, 186 no. 8116; Nasā’ī, Tafsīr, ed. by S. b. ʻAbd al-Kh. al-Shāfiʻī and S. b. ʻA. al-Jalīmī, Cairo 1990, I, 170 (with other references in the notes); al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, II, 4 no. 2886; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, V, 205 no. 2956: from ʻAbd al-Razzāq. 83 The Qur’ānic verse states that Joseph’s parent visited him, but his mother had already died; some traditions correct this statement and say it was his father and his aunt who visited him while other reports tell that his mother had risen to life. See Muqātil, Tafsīr, II, 351; Samarqāndī, Tafsīr, 177: it was his aunt, not his mother; but cf. Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIII, 67. The question is extensively treated in qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ collections; see the sources in R. Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, PhD Thesis, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli 1996, 461 no. 323. 84 Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIII, 68; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 362 [= I, 411]; Māwardī, al-Nukat, III, 82; Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 571; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 372; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, IV, 588; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, V, 341; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 759; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, IX, 265; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 77; Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Baḥr, I, 247; see also Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr wa-waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, Beirut n.d., 106: the prostration before kings was customary in Egypt, and thus Joseph ordered his soldiers to fall down prostrate to his parents. See also Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 196, who, for instance, relates other significant traditions to underline how widespread this act was at the time of the Israelites. So it is

24

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

point out that this sujūd was not a complete prostration and so was not like that in the prayer. Thus brothers and parents did not perform a prostration touching the ground with their foreheads, but merely a simple bow before a powerful figure, since it was a prostration of greeting or of thanksgiving and not a prostration of worship.85 Indeed, this last interpretation contrasts with what is explicitly stated in the Qur’ān, i.e. that brothers and parents fell down (kharrū) prostrate. Notwithstanding this, some other exegetical interpretations go even further, and explain that lahu does not mean that they prostrated themselves to Joseph, but that they prostrated themselves on his behalf (li-ajlihi) to God, and consequently, his parents and brothers prostrated themselves to God to thank Him or to obey Him, and performed this sujūd before Joseph “to greet him”.86 These interpretations are indeed not enough to explain away a verse containing such a clear contrast with Muslim precepts. What some exegetes found particularly disturbing was that the prostration was performed by Joseph’s brothers, who were considered prophets by some of the sources, as well as by his father. In fact Jacob should not have prostrated himself, because of his age and his high rank and, as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) said, because the young should honour the old.87 Given these considerations, it is not surprising to find severe censures of Joseph’s behaviour. Some Shi’i interpretations, for instance, stress that Joseph should have prevented his father from this humiliating prostration of submission, and that it is for this reason Joseph lost the gift of the prophecy for his progeny.88 The last episode to be discussed is from all points of view the most significant among all the passages mentioning prostration: the sujūd of the angels to Adam, at God’s order, and the refusal of Iblīs to perform it. The story is described and repeated in many chapters of the Qur’ān: “And when we said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam’; so they prostrated themselves, save Iblīs; he refused,

85

86 87 88

said that it was performed between Esau and Jacob, and that these secular prostrations were even performed between Jacob’s wife, his sons and Esau himself. See, in general, Muqātil, Tafsīr, 11, 351; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, I, 328: from Qatāda; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIII, 69; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, II, 177: wa-kānat taḥiyyatuhum an yasjuda al-waḍī‘ li-l-sharīf; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, IX, 265; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, IV, 588; Zamakhsharī, al-Kashf, II, 344; Māwardī, al-Nukat, III, 82; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, XVIII, 169–170; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XIII, 48; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, IV, 290; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, V, 342; Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1990, 230; Khāzin, Lubāb, III, 317; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 140; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 373; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-ta’rīkh, Beirut n.d. (an. repr. ed. C.J. Tornberg, Leiden 1867f.) I, 155; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 140; Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 570–571; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 373; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 251, 336–338; Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ʻalā ra’y al-imāmiyya, Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothek Petermann 1633, 79a. Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, V, 343; Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Tehran n.d., III, 49; Khāzin, Lubāb, III 317; Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, 231: Bayḍāwī, Anwār, I, 508; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, XVIII, 169; Id., ʻIṣmat al-anbiyā’, 84. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, XVIII, 169; wa-l-shābb yajibu ʻalayhi taʻẓīm al-shaykh, and see Id., ʻIṣmat al-anbiyā’, 84. Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī, III, 48; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 251, 336–338; Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 79a.

25

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

and waxed proud, and so he became one of the unbelievers”.89 When Iblīs refused to prostrate himself, God drove him away and damned him till the day of Judgement. What needs to be stressed here in relation to Iblīs’ refusal is that, as was the case with the pagan Meccans, he refused to prostrate himself because of pride (istakbara). In fact he felt that he was of higher rank than Adam, and this was the reason why he refused to follow God’s order to fall down prostrate.90 But whatever the origin and the details of this story, there can be no doubt that this is also a case of secular prostration: angels and Iblīs are requested to fall down prostrate to Adam, to attest the high rank of this man and prophet.91 Exegetes have dedicated a lot of space to the discussion of the questions emerging in the Qur’ānic verses concerning this episode. A clear tendency to mitigate the extent of this prostration can be discerned in this case as in that already described in relation to the prostration of the parents and brothers of Joseph. In fact, exegetes could not fail to notice that the Qur’ānic description of the story was in embarrassing contrast with the Muslim prescription forbidding secular prostration. For this reason it is said that God ordered the angels and Iblīs to prostrate themselves not to Adam, but ‘toward’ him, merely using him as direction, in the same way the Kaʻba is used as direction (qibla) in the prayer.92 In other cases, it is said that this was not a

89 Qur. 2:34 (the verse here translated), 7:11, 15:29–31, 17:61, 18:50, 20:116, 38:72–74. 90 Qur. 7:12; see also 15:33, 17:61, 38:76. It must be stressed that while the refusal due to pride is a common element between Iblīs’ behaviour and the attitude of the pagan Arabs, there is a substantial difference: the pagans were summoned by Muḥammad to fall down prostrate to God, while Iblīs was ordered to fall down prostrate before Adam, a man. 91 Many studies dealt with this story; most of them stressed the Christian origin of the Qur’ānic report; see already A. Geiger, Judaism and Islam, Eng. transl. Madras 1898, 77: “The legend bears unmistakable marks of Christian development, in that Adam is represented in the beginning as the God-man, worthy of adoration”; see also M. Grünbaum, Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sagenkunde, Leiden 1893, 60; H. Speyer, Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, Gräfenhainichen 1931 (repr. Hildesheim 1988), 54–58; J.W. Hirschberg, “Der Sündenfall in der altarabischen Poesie”, Rocznjk Orjentalistyczny, 9 (1933), 34; S.A. Haas, “The creation of man in the Coran”, The Muslim World, 31 (1941), 273; O. Masson, Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne. Études comparées, Paris 1958, I, 206–208; E. Beck, “Iblis und Mensch, Satan und Adam. Der Werdegang einer koranischen Erzählung”, Le Muséon, 89 (1976), 210f.; but cf. S.M. Zwemer, “The worship of Adam by angels”, The Muslim World, 27 (1937), 115–127. 92 Maqdisī, al Bad’, II, 88; Māturidī, Ta’wīlāt, 96; see also Masʻūdī, Murūj, I, 34 no. 41, I, 36 no. 45; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, I, 27; Bayḍāwī, Anwār, I, 48; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 194; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 293; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, I, 118; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, I, 123; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr; I, 247; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, I, 261; Māwardī, al-Nukat, I, 102; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 138. Ṭūsī, al-Tibyān, I, 150, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 194–195, and in particular Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, I, 103, dismiss this interpretation and point out that if it were so Iblīs would not have refused to prostrate himself. According to other interpretations, the prostration was not in this case with the forehead on the earth, like during prayer, but a simple bow; see the sources quoted above and Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, I, 64: adding that the most probable interpretation is that it was a prostration like in the prayer; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 43; Shāṭibī, Kitāb al-jumān fī akhbār al-zamān, Ms British Library or. 3008, 5b; see also the explanation in Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 194; and, in particular, in Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt, 99.

26

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

prostration of worship (ʻibāda) to Adam, but one of obedience and worship to God, and moreover, it was also a sujūd to honour (takrima) Adam and to greet him.93 Some reports state explicitly that it was a secular prostration and add that Adam was of higher rank than the angels.94 The angels are also described as being surprised by the order to fall down prostrate before Adam, since they considered themselves to be creatures of the highest rank till Adam’s creation.95 Needless to say most of these traditions describe the angels’ opposition in the terms of the old Arab hostility towards prostration. However, there are other reports that adopt different positions, underlining the merit of the angels who obeyed God’s order. Thus many reports say that the angels were very solicitous in prostrating themselves, including Gabriel and Michael, or that the first angel to perform the act, fulfilling God’s order, was Isrāfīl.96 93 See the explanations by Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 42b–43a: it was for obedience to God; see also Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī, I, 115; Ibn Furāt al-Kūfī, Tafsīr, I, 57; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 180, 193– 194; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, I, 27; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 293; Māwardī, al-Nukat, I, 101; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 110; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 195; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 139; Nisābūrī, Gharā’ib, I, 260; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, I, 123; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, I, 103; Maqdisī, al-Bad’, II, 88; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 44; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr, I, 247; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, I, 118; see also Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 29; Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt, 99–100. Most of the sources point out that this secular prostration was forbidden by Islam, and mention here, as another example, Qur. 12:100. In Muslim-Christian polemics, Christians say that the prostration to the cross is like that of the angels to Adam, not of worship, but of honour, see S.H. Griffith, “Islam and the Summa Theologiae Arabica”, JSAI, 13 (1990), 250; see also Abū Qurrah, A Treatise, 52, and, about Abū Qurra, S.H. Griffith, “Theodore Abu Qurrah’s Arabic tract on the Christian practice of venerating images”, JAOS, 105 (1985), 65–67. 94 Maqdisī, al-Bad’, II, 89; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, I, 103: prophets are superior to angels; Ṭūṣī, al-Tibyān, I, 150; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 198f., with a long discussion of the question of superiority between angels and prophets; see also Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, I, 262; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 179–180; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 140–141; and see Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 794: al-masjūd akram ʻalā Allāh min al-sājid. God gave the order to the angels to fall prostrate after he had breathed some of His spirit into Adam: see Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 91 [= I, 91]; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr, I, 247; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 86. 95 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 40a; see also ʻAyyāshī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, I, 51; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 148. 96 About the prostration by all the angels, see Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, I, 103; Abū Hayyān, al-Baḥr, I, 246. Regarding the mention of Isrāfīl as the first to prostrate himself before Adam, see Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-l-umam, Beirut 1992, I, 203; Id., al-Tabṣira, I, 15; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 174, 194; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 44; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, I, 123; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 46, 86; Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa jāmiʻ al-ghurar, I, ed. by B. Radtke, Wiesbaden 1982, 70; Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rikh, II, 625. But cf. Taqiyy al-Din, al-Awā’il, Beirut 1988, 38: for one report the first was Gabriel, for another Isrāfīl; in fact see Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 39, and Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 44: the first was Gabriel, the second Michael and the third Isrāfīl; see also Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Ms Leiden or. 14027, 7a. Some traditions state that not all the angels were ordered to prostrate themselves, see Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 29, and Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 95 [= I, 92–93]: only those with Iblīs; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 73: differing opinions. According to some Shi’i traditions the angels fell down prostrate in Kūfa, see ʻAyyāshī, Tafsīr, I, 53; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 149; and see also the references in M.J. Kister, “Ādam: A study of some legends in tafsīr and in ḥadīth literature”, IOS, 13 (1993), 142 n. 150; other Shīʻite traditions state that the angels fell down prostrate to the light of Muḥammad that was in Adam’s loins, see Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī, I, 115. The importance of obedience to God is evident also in a tradition in which it is said that God had created other peoples before the angels and that they had been destroyed because they did not follow God’s order to prostrate themselves, see Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 87 [= I, 84]; Id., Jāmiʻ, I, 227; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, I, 124.

27

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

These two opposing tendencies, the one mitigating the act and the other emphasizing the obedience of the angels, appeared inadequate to the exegetes, since there was no way of getting round the contrast between the Qur’ān and the Muslim precept: if the angels were praiseworthy for their obedience to God, they were at the same time guilty, since their behaviour contradicted the prohibition to perform the sujūd before men.97 This unavoidable contradiction is even more evident in the second episode mentioned in these Qur’ānic passages about the angels’ worship of Adam and Iblis’ refusal. Iblis did not feel at all inferior to Adam and refused to fall down prostrate because, as is stated in the Qur’ān, he deemed it humiliating to bend before a being created from clay: “I am better than he (i.e. Adam); thou createdst me of fire, and him Thou createdst of clay”.98 Many traditions try to explain this refusal, and, above all, the reason for his pride and his feeling of superiority towards Adam.99 The most significant point in the material regarding this question is that the same two tendencies can also be discerned in this instance: one aiming at a full condemnation of the act and the other trying somehow to justify it. Thus, according to the traditions emphasizing the gravity of the disobedience to God’s order, Iblīs was cursed by the angels who had prostrated themselves.100 The dreadfulness of the refusal is underlined by all the exegetical literature which aims to use the episode to make a theological point: it is said that Iblīs was the first unbeliever (kāfir) and the first to deviate from God’s will because he followed his own reasoning (qiyās).101 In ḥadīth literature some reports attest explicitly that Iblīs was damned and hated because of his refusal to fall down prostrate before Adam. Gabriel says that it is because of this that he considers Iblīs, along with the Pharaoh, the beings he hates most.102 Iblīs himself bursts in tears and says, when seeing a man prostrating himself at the recitation of the Qur’ān: “The son

97 Māturīdī, Ta’wilāt, 97: in this case the sunna abrogates the Book. 98 Qur. 7:12; see also 15:33, 38:76. 99 See for instance Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 188: Iblis refused to prostrate himself before Adam because he was the one who brought to God the mud from which Adam was created. According to a tradition in Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Paris Ms Bibl. Nat. ar. 1926, 4a, God had ordered him to perform only one single act of prostration (sajda). 100 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–23, 57. According to some traditions, Iblīs already made clear that he had no intention of prostrating himself even before God had finished creating Adam; see Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, I, 70; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 39a; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 106; see also Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 39: God had already known of his refusal before he refused; and see P.J. Awn, Satan: Tragedy and Redemption: Iblīs in Sufi Psychology, Leiden 1983, 33f. 101 Ṭabari, Jāmiʻ, VIII, 131; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 532–533; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 425; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 326; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, XIV, 26; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, IV, 499; Qummī, Tafsīr, I, 70; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 132, 141; Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī, II, 183; see also the references in Kister, “Ādam”, 163 n. 259. See also the other interpretations about the nature of Iblīs’ unbelief collected by Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 298. 102 About this tradition with Gabriel, see R. Tottoli, “Il Faraone nelle tradizioni islamiche: alcune note in margine alla questione della sua conversione”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 14 (1996), 23, and the references at no. 22.

28

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

of Adam was commanded to prostrate himself and he did so and he obtained Paradise. I was commanded to prostrate myself, but I refused and I am doomed to Hell”.103 It is worth noting that these traditions do not limit themselves to condemning the disobedience of Iblīs, but specifically note that it was his refusal to obey the order to prostrate himself which gave rise to his evil condition. However, other material looks more favourably upon Iblīs’ behaviour. Some exegetes could not avoid noting that, while guilty of disobedience to God’s order, Iblīs had refused to prostrate himself before a man, in this case Adam, and thus had observed the Muslim custom. A typical exegetical analysis of this type assumes, for instance, that Iblīs was not to blame for his refusal since God’s order was addressed to the angels, and Iblīs, being one of the jinn, was not obliged to fall down prostrate.104 Some interpretations, inspired by the Muslim precept against secular prostration, consider the refusal an honour for Iblīs, who mentions it with pride, when he introduces himself with the description that he was the one who refused to humiliate himself by performing a prostration before Adam.105 Nor, in other situations, when he is described as having the opportunity to gain God’s forgiveness, does Iblīs cease to feel a certain pride in relation to his act. In fact, some reports state that, when he asked Noah or Moses to intercede with God on his behalf, God stated that, to obtain His forgiveness, Iblīs would have to prostrate himself to Adam’s mortal remains, but Iblīs became proud and refused saying that he had refused to perform the act to Adam when he was alive and he had no intention of doing it now that Adam was dead.106

103 See the references in Tottoli, “Traditions and controversies”, no. 53. 104 See, regarding the controversial nature of Iblīs, in particular Māturīdī, Ta’wilāt, 100; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, I, 226; Id., Ta’rīkh, I, 87 [= I, 85]; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 294; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, I, 65; Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 121; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, I, 105–106. The controversial statements go back to contradictory passages in the Qur’ān: while in Qur. 2:34 Iblīs is apparently one of the angels, Qur. 18:50 states that he is one of the jinn. Some other reports point out that hatred of Adam, rather than the sujūd itself, was the cause of Iblīs’ disobedience. In fact Iblīs used to prostrate himself everywhere in the sky before the creation of Adam, but when he was ordered to perform a sujūd before him, jealousy overcame him, or following another interpretation, Iblīs tried to bargain with God, and offered to worship Him more than anyone in exchange for exemption from prostration to Adam; see Majlisī, Biḥār, I, 119; see also, about his frequent prostrations, Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 51; Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz, I, 244. 105 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 34–35 [= I, 810]; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ, 434. 106 Suyūṭī, al-Durr, I, 125, and Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rīkh, XVII, 363, 659–660, give the two versions. See, in general, Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 51; Siyar al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), London, Ms Brit. Lib. 1510, 28b; Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 39; Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, III, 31; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 50; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Kitāb al-majālis ʻalā ʻilm al-ta’rīkh), Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothck, or. quart. 1171, 158b; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 95. See also other sources in Kister, “Ādam”, 165 n. 272, and a version of this legend in Zwemer, “The worship of Adam”, 125, where Iblīs met Muḥammad und ʻUmar; cf. also Shāṭibī, Kitāb al-jumān, 6b. Another tradition states that Iblīs will prostrate himself before the Judgement saying: “God! Order me to prostrate myself to whomever you want”: see Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 312.

29

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

In a similar vein, there are also some conceptions which ennoble Iblīs’ refusal to fall prostrate, stating that in so doing he was following the Muslim precept not to address the sujūd to men, but to perform it only to God. From this point of view Iblīs is a perfect Muslim, since his refusal originates from a firm faith which prevents him from prostrating himself to a man. Iblīs himself, when asked by Moses about the reason for his refusal, answered that he had refused because he was a monotheist.107 These two episodes, and in particular that regarding Adam, attest that in the Qur’ān the custom of secular prostration was still deemed a sign of superiority of the man receiving it and a sign of submission on the part of the one performing it. The story of Adam and the angels is very clear: the angels and Iblīs received the order from God to honour Adam, and they fell down prostrate before him, attesting in this way his superiority. On this point the Qur’ān exhibits a different attitude than that forbidding secular prostration which became a central issue in subsequent literature and, in particular, in ḥadīth collections. This contrast is above all in evidence in the Qur’ānic commentaries, where many pages are dedicated to the explanation of these verses because they so clearly contrasted with the Muslim prohibition against prostration before men.

7

Conclusion

From the evidence preserved in the pre-Islamic poetry and historical reports discussed here, it is evident that at the time of Muḥammad Arabs were well acquainted with the various types of prostration. Arabs were also aware that it was used both in the cults of the Jews and the Christians and in the regions surrounding Arabia as a way of greeting kings or figures of authority. But the material also shows that prostration was not practised among the Arabs, since they considered it a humiliating act and a foreign custom. This hostility emerged in full strength when the Prophet called for his people to accept the new faith and to follow the precept to fall down prostrate during ritual prayer. The opposition to prostration survived among the first Muslim generations who evidently found it difficult to rid themselves of the old pagan attitude. The Qur’ānic verses and the many traditions

107 Ḥallāj, Kitāb al-tawāsīn, ed. by L. Massignon, Paris 1913, 45; Shāṭibī, Kitāb al-jumān, 5b, 6a; Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wa-l-mudhakkirīn, ed. by M.L. Swartz, Beirut 1986, 104 no. 221, and 106 no. 227 [transl. also by L. Massignon in Recueil de textes inédits concernant l’histoire de la mystique en pays d’Islam, Paris 1929, 96]; Maqdisī, Taflīs Iblīs, Cairo 1991, 66–67; and cf. Kister, “Ādam”, 165. Regarding ṣūfī conceptions about Iblis’ refusal to fall down prostrate before Adam and traditions of this kind, see the discussion and the sources quoted in Awn, Satan’s Tragedy, 124f., in part. 130–134; H. Ritter, Das Meer der Seele, Leiden 1955, 536f., in part 540–541; see also R.A. Nicholson, Studies in Islamic Mysticism, Cambridge 1921, 120; and L. Massignon, La passion de Husayn Ibn Mansūr Hallāj, Paris 1975, in part. II, 410–412. These conceptions are briefly mentioned and rejected by Qurṭubī, al-Jāmi‘, I, 297–298.

30

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I

emphasizing the merits of prostration demonstrate that believers had to be urged continuously to overcome their own reluctance to fall down upon the earth. The old pagan attitude towards prostration lived on in a different form, i.e. in the Muslim prohibition of all prostration other than to God. As has been seen, all the old Arab conceptions regarding prostration were redirected into the violent opposition against secular prostration, even if this precept does not seem to have emerged fully until the generations after Muḥammad. The Qur’ān in fact mentions secular prostration in some verses which contrast starkly with the Muslim precept. Moreover, it is significant that the Muslim prohibition of secular prostration is mentioned mainly in traditions underlining the originality of the Muslim practice and contrasting it with Christian customs. It is thus most probable that all this material was circulated or diffused widely only after the early Muslim conquests. Finally, all these different conceptions and various trends regarding prostration are also reflected in later literature.108

108 See, Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes toward prostration (sujūd) II. The prominence and meaning”.

31

2 M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature

Images and traditions describing all types of prostrations are widely diffused in Muslim literature. As was discussed in Chapter 1,1 the impact of the Prophet’s teachings upon the traditional Arab reluctance towards prostration (sujūd) is clearly discernable throughout ancient Arab and early Muslim traditions. However, contrasting trends and the intertwining of Arab and Muslim conceptions also permeate later literature, and in particular qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ collections, where there is a large body of evidence concerning sujūd. In this article the particularities of these traditions will be discussed, with the aim of accounting for the prominence of the sujūd in these reports, and pointing out its meaning. To that end this article has been divided into three parts, thus reflecting the differing meanings of the act of the prostration. The first part deals with the traditions describing prostrations to God Almighty, as a symbol of true faith; the second discusses images of the prostration reflecting the old conception that to receive a sujūd constitutes recognition of honor or supremacy; finally the third and last part of this article deals with prostration as a sign of evil behavior, if performed before anything other than God, i.e. before men or idols.2

1 See R. Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Arabs and prostration at the beginning of Islam and in the Qur’ān”, Studia Islamica, 87 (1998) [here no. 1]. I have also written the following articles in relation to sujūd: “Traditions and controversies concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān in ḥadīth literature”, ZDMG, 147 (1997), 371–393 [here no. 3]; and “The thanksgiving prostration (sujūd al-shukr) in Muslim traditions”, BSOAS, 61 (1998), 309–313 [here no. 4]. I started my research concerning sujūd while I was in Jerusalem during the year 1993–94 for my PhD studies programme at the Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi of the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; I would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust that granted me a scholarship to study at the Hebrew University. Concerning my research on sujūd, I am indebted to Prof. M.J. Kister for many discussions about this subject when I was in Jerusalem and for his most valuable suggestions. I would also like to thank the Concordance of the Arabic Poetry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and especially the director Prof. A. Arazi. 2 For a similar analysis, containing parallel versions of some of these traditions, about the different kinds of prostration in the Old Testament, see Preuss s.v. ḥwh in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, transl. by D.E. Green, IV, Grand Rapids 1980, 250–256.

32

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-3

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

1

Prostration as a sign of high devoutness and of Muslim faith

For the Muslim believer prostration is the highest act of devotion, and it is the symbol of his submission to God Almighty. Its importance in the conduct of a good Muslim is also underlined by various legendary reports about the creation of the world which emphasize the importance of the sujūd in the cult of God. In an interesting version of the cosmogony story in which an angel, a bull and a whale hold up the world, it is related that this whale had already asked God for permission to fall down prostrate. God had granted His permission to it and the whale prostrated itself and it will go on doing so, with its head plunged in the water, until the day of the Resurrection.3 According to another report attributed to Ka‘b al-Aḥbār (d. 32/652),4 every believer has an image or a statue (timthāl) similar to him under the Throne of God; when the believer prostrates himself on earth in prayer, the image prostrates itself too, and the angels see it and ask God to grant forgiveness to the believer.5 Some other traditions dealing with the prodigious tales of the eschatological times seek to underline the importance of prostration. In a long report going back to Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68/687)6 where the fate of the sun and the moon on the day of Resurrection is described, it is said that they fall prostrate under the Throne every day, along with the angels, but that day they will stay prostrate and they will ask God for His permission to rise again, but God will not answer.7 Ḥadīth collections relate a shorter tradition where the Prophet 3 See Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr fī waqā’i‘ al-duhūr, Beirut n.d., 9; in a version given by Tha‘labī it is the bull called Bahmūt which prostrates itself: Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā ‘arā’is al-majālis, Cairo 1954, 357; about this legend, see R. Tottoli, “Un mito cosmogonico nelle Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di al-Ṯa‘labī”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 18/3, serie orientale 20 (1989), 49–59. In the Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān of al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad (Princeton, Ms Yahuda 49, 2a) a report states that the first things created, the Pen (qalam) and the Tablet (lawḥ), fell down prostrate to God. See also Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, Beirut 1983, 192: after the creation of the letters of the alphabet, the bā’ prostrated itself to God. 4 He was a Jewish convert to Islam and a famous transmitter of traditions dealing with the prophets; see on him M. Lidzbarski, De propheticis, quae dicuntur, legendis arabicis, Leipzig 1893, 31–40; I. Wolfensohn, Ka‘b al-Aḥbār und seine Stellung in Ḥadīṯ und in der islamischen Legendenliteratur, Gelnhausen 1933; and B. Chapira, “Légendes bibliques attribuées a Ka‘b el-Ahbar”, REJ, 69 (1919), 86–107, 70 (1920), 37–43; M. Perlmann, “A legendary story of Ka‘b al-Aḥbār’s conversion to Islam”, in The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, New York 1953, 85–99; M. Perlmann, “Another Ka‘b al-Aḥbār story”, JQR, 45 (1954–55), 48–58. 5 Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-a‘yān, I, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, 170; see also Ḥijrī (Ps-Wahb), Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Alexandria, Ms Baladiyya B1249, 20a, concerning a sujūd by the Hell. 6 He is considered the father of Qur’ānic exegesis; on Ibn ʻAbbās see Encyclopaedia of Islam (= EI2), Leiden-London 1960f., s.v. (L. Veccia Vaglieri), and C. Gilliot, “Portrait «mythique» d’Ibn ʻAbbās”, Arabica, 32 (1985), 127–184. 7 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1960–69, I, 64, 70–71 [= ed. M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879f., I,61, 69–70]; see different traditions about the same subject in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ‘A.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, II, 643 no. 6898; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-lnihāya, Beirut-Riyadh 1966, I, 32; and Maqdisī, al-Bad’wa-l-ta’rīkh, Cairo n.d. (an. repr. ed. C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919), II, 22. See the interesting report passed on by Baghdādī (al-Shaykh al-Mufīd), Kitāb al-Ikhtiṣāṣ, Najaf 1971, 213–214: every day and night the sun prostrates itself four times.

33

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

himself said that every day the sun arrives under the Throne, prostrates itself and asks permission to rise, but a day will come when it will be ordered to rise from the west.8 Naturally, the angels in Heaven are solicitous in praising God Almighty and in submitting to His will and many religious traditions tell about their prostrations. Their devoted attitude is reflected in the reports describing their prostrations. In fact Muḥammad said that in the sky there is not even the space of four fingers where there is not an angel prostrating.9 Some other traditions state that these angels belong to a special category given to devotion to God (malā’ikat al-‘ibāda), which is one of the three categories of angels: those standing, those bending and, finally, those prostrating.10 Even the high position of Gabriel results 8 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, VI, 330 no. 4802, VIII, 534–535 no. 7424; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, I, 139 no. 159; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VIII, 81–82 no. 21410, VIII, 106 no. 21515, VIII, 129 no. 21597; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1962, IV, 479 no. 2186; Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, V, 342 no. 8378; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-‘ummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-af‘āl, Beirut 1989, VI, 172–173 no. 15244: see also the references given here, no. 15246; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-l-umam, Beirut 1992, I, 187; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 144; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 31. In various versions this tradition is given in the Qur’ānic commentaries as a comment upon Qur. 36:38 or other verses dealing with sujūd; see for instance Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr, ed. by ‘A.M. Shiḥāta, Cairo 1979–90, III, 579; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1993, III, 99; ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, Riyadh 1989, II, 142; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, XXIII, 5; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ‘ilm al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1965, IV, 454; Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī ’l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, VII, 56; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, Beirut n.d., III, 910–911. 9 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VIII, 121 no. 21572; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 556 no. 2312; Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by F.M. ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d., II, 1402 no. 4190; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ‘alā l-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, II, 554 no. 3883, IV, 587 no. 8633, IV, 623 no. 8726; Daylamī, al-Firdaws, I, 77 no. 233; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, X, 363–364 no. 29829, X, 367 no. 29838; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 193: some more references in n.1; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I,42; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 135. This ḥadīth is also quoted by some tafsīrs as a comment on Qur. 76:1. See also the different version in Maqdisī, al-Bad’, I, 175: mawḍi‘ shibr, with the isnād: Abū Ḥudhayfa (Isḥāq b. Bishr) > Muqātil (b. Sulaymān) > ‘Aṭā’, and also II, 11: mawḍi‘ qadam. Further reports, containing a variety of particulars which will be not discussed at length here, indicate the readiness of the angels in prostrating themselves; see for instance Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī, al-Takhwīf min al-nār, Beirut n.d., 98, 100: together with prophets the day of Resurrection; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 179: angels fall down prostrate when they hear the invocations by Jonas; Hannād b. al-Sarī, Kitāb al-zuhd, al-Kuwayt 1985, I, 129 no. 168; Ḥijrī (Ps-Wahb), Qiṣaṣ, 9b; Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 531, 532: when they heard the revelation, they fell down prostrate for fear of the Last Day; see also ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by Ḥ. al-R. al-A‘ẓamī, Beirut 1983, III, 565–566 no. 6702; Haythamī, Majma‘ al-zawā’id wa-manba‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, II, 327: the angels prostrate themselves together with the dead Muslims ascending to Heaven. 10 Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (in the Kitāb al-shāmil), London, Ms British Library or. 1493, 5b. See, about the categories of the angels, Maqdisī, al-Bad’, I, 171; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 42–43, 50; and a tradition in Ṭabarānī, al-Mu‘jam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., II, 184 no. 1751; Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, I, 152. See also the similar traditions in Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Huntingdon 388, 4b: these are the angels of the fourth sky, see also 7b, 177b; Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Cairo 1966, 35–36; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 367: it is the angel Rafā’īl to describe the different classes of

34

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

from his great devotion: a tradition describing the creation of the angels states that he is the favorite angel of God because he falls down prostrate on earth and he addresses his praises to God.11 Also Iblīs, before he fell from grace, would prostrate himself repeatedly: there was no place in the lower sky in which he did not prostrate himself.12 It is thus clear, from these reports, that the angels are a model of devotion and that in their solicitude all Muslims can find a stimulation to imitate their behavior or, at least, not forget prostration. The relevance of sujūd in Muslim religious conception is also evident in the way the past was interpreted in Muslim historiography: almost all the prophets, as role models for the believer, are described while prostrating themselves to God on different occasions during their lives. This material is collected in Qur’ān commentaries, but mostly in qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ literature.13 The first prophet mentioned in connection to the prostration is of course Adam, the first man, who, when he arrived on earth, fell down prostrate asking God’s forgiveness for his sin. Adam prostrated himself for a long time and the sources also relate other particulars concerning this episode.14 Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ literature deals with the prostration of the prophets following Adam. Idrīs, for instance, asked God to die while prostrating himself, and he prostrated himself when he interceded for Hārūt and Mārūt.15 Also Ṣāliḥ prostrated himself, both in the period preceding his prophetical mission

11

12 13 14

15

angels, see also Id., 14: the angels of the sixth sky; Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʻ alghurar, I, ed. by B. Radtke, Wiesbaden 1982, 72: the angels of the third sky; see also Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 289; Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, Beirut n.d., II, 117: from Isḥāq b. Bishr; Siyar al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), London, Ms British Library, or. 1510, 61b; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 166. See also Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, Beirut 1986, 130. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 8a, and see also 38a; some traditions relate that Gabriel was the first to fall down prostrate when God ordered the angels to prostrate themselves to Adam; see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, n. 96; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 51: the angel ‘Azrayā’īl stays in sujūd for forty years; see also Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., I, 94: about two sujūds performed by Gabriel towards the Ka‘ba. Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 131. See for instance Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 65b–66b, where all the prophets fall prostrate to God in a long tradition dealing with the pact between God and Adam’s offspring; cf. al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 18b–19a. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 49b: forty days, 56a; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–23, 56, 58; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 35: without mentioning a sujūd by Adam he states that Adam did not raise his head for three hundred years. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, Beirut 1970, I, 16; and Id., al-Muntaẓam, I, 213; and Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 206: sujūd of one hundred years in India. See also Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Paris, Ms Bibl. Nat. ar. 1926, 74a; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā (Kitāb al-majālis ‘alā ‘ilm al-Ta’rīkh), Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothek, or. quart. 1171, 144a; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, facsimile ed., Amman n.d., II, 631, II, 636: forty days; and Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār al-jāmiʻa li-durar akhbār al-a’imma al-aṭhār, Beirut 1983, XI, 162: fourty days, see also XI, 211: Adam cried for a hundred years and then performed a long prostration of three days; the last tradition is also quoted by Ayyashī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, I, 59. Also the king Gayomarth prostrated himself to God, see Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs fī aḥwāl anfas nafīs, Beirut n.d., I, 65. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 93b–94a; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 25b.

35

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

before starting to summon his people, and at the end of his life when he was glad to see that some of his people had become believers.16 When God asked the mountains which one of them would receive the Ark of Noah, the mount Abū Qubays was chosen because of its humble behavior: one report even states that God chose it because it fell down prostrate.17 The major prophets preceding Muḥammad are also the most solicitous in prostrating themselves. Abraham’s high rank is attested to by the fact that he fell down prostrate on earth the moment he was born. Moreover, one of the privileges he received from God was that the ground could not see his intimate parts when he was prostrating himself, and further he was named khalīl (friend) because of the great number of his sujūds.18 Abraham, like Idrīs before him, asked the Angel of death to let him die while he was prostrating himself, and he also fell down prostrate when the angels, who were bringing the message of the birth of his son, revealed the reason of their visit to him.19 Abraham also performed another sujūd with his son Ishmael, when God intervened as Abraham was about to sacrifice his son. Some other reports state that his son had asked him to be sacrificed prostrate.20 In the stories of Joseph various traditions point to sujūds of devotion that he and his father Jacob performed. Joseph fell down prostrate and called for God when Gabriel visited him in prison and reproached him for not having invoked God to be released.21 Jacob, in turn, prostrated himself in thanksgiving to God when he was informed by Mālik b. Dhu‘r that Joseph was not dead, and later on, when Joseph’s shirt was thrown at him so that he knew his son was still alive.22 Another prophet who was very solicitous in prostrations, as the sources show, was Job: when Iblīs managed to tempt him, he was prostrate, and even when his affliction was at its worst, he never ceased to prostrate himself and to call for God.23 16 See Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 114; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 150b. Regarding other prostrations performed by Ṣaliḥ, see Majlisī, Biḥār, XI, 383; Ḥijrī, Qiṣaṣ, 140a, 141b: sujūd shukran; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Cambridge, Ms University Library Add. 3258, 12a. 17 Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 23. Other traditions also recount that the prophet Noah prostrated himself to God, see Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek, or. quart. 1171, 157a. 18 Ḥijrī, Qiṣaṣ, 155a. Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 99; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 4. 19 Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 88; Diyarbakri, Ta’rīkh, I, 108. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 190a; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 161, and see I, 153: he prostrated himself when informed of the birth of Isaac. 20 Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 25a; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak, II, 610 no. 4049; see also Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 52a: a thanksgiving prostration. We even have evidence of other prostrations by Hagar, Sarah and Isaac, in reports that indicate their great devotion to God, see Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 143: Hagar, 150: Isaac prostrated himself immediately after his birth, 152: Sara; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII,122: the son asked Abraham to be sacrificed while in sujūd. 21 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 166; see also Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 268. 22 See Muqātil, Tafsīr, II, 326; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 310; and, concerning the second episode, Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Tehran n.d., III, 45; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, Cairo 1923–85, XIII, 154. 23 See, concerning the sujūd by Job, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, 72–73; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 323 [= I, 363]; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XVII, 59; Maqdisī, al-Bad’, III, 73; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-ta’rīkh,

36

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

Reports of this kind are also recounted in connection with Moses. There is a lot of evidence in the Qur’ān and in later literature regarding many episodes of his life, and these traditions describe Moses’ great devotion and his numerous prostrations. It is said, for instance, that Moses prostrated himself when he saw an angel in the middle of the road to Midian, or before the burning bush, or with Aaron, or when he called God for help against Korah.24 Other characters connected to the life of Moses are described as having the same pious behavior, such as his mother, or the carpenter that constructed the box in which Moses was abandoned in the Nile, or al-Khiḍr, or the seventy men Moses chose to meet God: all of whom fell down prostrate to God.25 The magicians defeated by Moses became Muslims and prostrated themselves; also the giant Og prostrated himself to ask for forgiveness, as did Balaam and even the Pharaoh, who performed sujūd and called for God without his people knowing.26

Beirut 1965, I, 128–130; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 156, 161–162; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 89b, 91a, 92a; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 181; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, II, 375; Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, III, 462; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 380–381; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 323 and Id., al-Tabṣira, I, 193; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 353, 369, 371; Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, 73b; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 222; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 654; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 84a; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 159–160; Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustazraf, Beirut 1991, II, 498; and Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, III, 254. 24 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 391 [= I, 451]: to the angel because he was afraid; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VI, 402: to the angel; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Biblioteca Vaticana, Ms Borg. 125, 107b (= ed. by R. Tottoli in Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, tesi di dottorato, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli 1996, 286): to the angel; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 175; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIII, 359: when talking with God; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 38b: Moses fell down prostrate before the burning bush; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 96a: before the burning bush; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 216: against Korah; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, I, 253, and Id., al-Muntaẓam, I, 367: against Korah; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 119b: against Korah; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 449 [= I, 524]: against Korah; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 205: against Korah; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 310: against Korah. Concerning a prostration by Moses when he heard a voice, see Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 119b; Azraqī, Akhbār Makka, ed. By R. al-Ṣ. Malḥas, Beirut 1983, I, 69; and when talking with God: Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 114b; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XVII, 358. See also Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 279, and Id., Tafsīr, II, 62: along with Aaron; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XVII, 304: after his birth; Muqātil, Tafsīr, II, 66: when he received the Torah; and see also Abū Nu‘aym, Ḥilyat al-awliyā’ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyā’, Cairo-Beirut 1986, VI, 18, 35. And see ʻĀmilī, al-Jawāhir alsaniyya fī l-aḥādīth al-qudsiyya, Najaf 1964, 33, for instructions from God about how to perform the sujūd. 25 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 211: his mother; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 124: his mother. Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 169: the carpenter; about the prostration of the seventy chosen by Moses, see Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 212; Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, 117; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 118a (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 316); Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, I, 291; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 192; Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. by M. al-Saqqā et al., Cairo 1955, I, 537. And see Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 135: al-Khiḍr owes his name to the fact that every place where he prostrated himself turned green; ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’ al-khalq wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. in R.G. Khoury, Les légendes prophétiques dans l’Islam depuis le Ier jusqu’au IIIe siècle de l’Hégire, Wiesbaden 1978, 23: al-Khiḍr; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XVII, 388: a prostration by the wife of Moses. 26 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 228: Balaam, 234: Og; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 238: Balaam; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 104b: the magicians did not raise their heads until they saw Heaven and Hell; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 256: when the magicians prostrated themselves they were able to see their rank in Paradise; the

37

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

Similar images, in which prostration is the most important indication of devotion to God, can be also found in the biographies of David and Solomon. The Qur’ān states that David fell down on earth bending his back (kharra rāki‘an; Qur. 38:24) when he recognized his sin, but exegetical literature usually states that this rukūʻ was actually a sujūd, and many reports describe this long prostration.27 Nevertheless, apart from this episode, David was particularly renowned in Muslim traditions as a model of devotion, and there is a large body of evidence regarding his sujūds.28 The same can be said for Solomon, whose deep faith is well documented by those reports describing his prostrations in several situations.29 Of the numerous episodes of his life the one that is mentioned most often is the following: when Solomon was again in possession of his ring, after forty days, the first act he performed was a thanksgiving sujūd to God.30 And finally, even Bilqīs fell down prostrate asking God for forgiveness when she became Muslim.31 Jonas is another prophet who was always ready to prostrate himself, e.g. when God chose him for his mission and when he was in the belly of the whale.32 The King Zedekiah too, when Isaiah informed him of his predictions, prostrated

27

28

29

30 31 32

prostration performed by the magicians is mentioned in the Qur’ān: 7:120, 20:70 and 26:46. See also Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 411; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 107b, concerning the sujūd of the Pharaoh; and see the other references and the discussion of this tradition in R. Tottoli, “Il Faraone nelle tradizioni islamiche: alcune note in margine alla questione della sua conversione”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 14 (1996), 28–29. Also those worshipping the calf asked for forgiveness and fell down prostrate, see Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 116b, and 123b, concerning Joshua. See Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 641; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXIII, 146; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 133; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 483–484 [= I, 568–570]; Ibn al-Mubārak, Kitāb al-zuhd, Cairo n.d., 103 no. 472f.; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, 115; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 282f.; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 261, 263 and see 265, where the invocation pronounced by David during his sujūd is quoted; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 143; and see Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, I, 277, 279; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 129b; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 55b; Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍā’il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-l-Khalīl wa-l-Shām, ed. by O. Livne-Kafri, Shfaram 1995, 245 no. 367; Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, ed. by G. Maqdisi, Damascus 1961, 16 no. 39; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 482, 487; ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 110; R.G. Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, Wiesbaden 1972, I, 80; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 27; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 66–67; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, V, 710. Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 307: he fell down prostrate while building the Temple; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 58a: before the building of the Temple; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 268, 276; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 17: he died while he was prostrating himself. See also Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns al-jalīl bi-Ta’rīkh al-Quds wa-lKhalīl, Amman 1973, I, 114; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Ms Gotha A1740, 164a. Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 492 [= I,581]; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 146, 147; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 278; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 320–321; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 236; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VI, 365; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 84b (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’di Ṭarafī, 211); Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Ms Gotha A1743, 46b f.; and see the tradition in Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 63a; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 82; Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib, 215. Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 499 [= I, 591]; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 324; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 144a; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 62b; ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 164; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 93. Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 309. See Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 248; and Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 124, about a sujūd by Aṣaf. Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 174, 178; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 233; Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak, II, 640 no. 4129; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 127; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 176, 178.

38

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

himself towards God, both out of devotion and to thank the prophet.33 In some reports Ezra performed a sujūd when his donkey was restored to life; a similar episode is also mentioned in the Qur’ān but without the prophet being clearly identified.34 Prostration is thus considered the natural religious conduct of a good Muslim. When, for instance, Zechariah received the announcement of the gift of prophecy from Gabriel, he fell down prostrate.35 Also Jesus is described as prostrating himself on different occasions during his life. Sujūd was a frequent act of devotion in his and his apostles’ lives and, in particular, they performed it when the Table descended from the sky.36 The prominent place of the act of sujūd in all these traditions is reflected, and further emphasized, in the reports describing Muḥammad’s readiness to prostrate himself to God. He was the last prophet and throughout his life was the most solicitous in performing sujūd: when affirming his submission to God’s will and the importance of prostration, when receiving God’s inspiration, and, in particular, when ascending to the sky (mi‘rāj) or interceding for mankind at the end of Time.37 The same tendency is of course also evident in the utterances attributed to him and collected in ḥadīth literature, where the praising of prostration forms the subject of many traditions.38 In fact, in all these traditions prostration almost became the symbolic act of the Muslim faith: patriarchs and prophets, preceding Muḥammad’s mission, were all true believers, and they displayed their faith through frequent and long prostrations to God. Muḥammad himself, as a role model for humankind, is often

33 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 533 [= I, 640]; Id., Jāmiʻ, XV, 23; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 330; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 70b; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 33 and II, 35: a sujūd by Jeremiah. See also ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 241, and 257: a sujūd by Jeremiah. 34 Qur. 2:259. See Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, 218; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 227; and see Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rīkh, Beirut n.d., I, 49, concerning Saul. The name of Alexander the Great can also be added to this list: his savants (ʻulamā’) used to perform sujūd to God, see Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 369; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 290; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 202, 205; and cf. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, I, 390: Alexander met a man in sujūd. 35 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 301; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 196. 36 Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 186; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 84a; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 141a; Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns, I, 162; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XIV, 52. See Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 241: before performing some miracles; and see Siyar al-anbiyā’, 165b; and Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 94a, 95a: about prostrations performed by the seven sleepers of Ephesus. And cf. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, II, 44, concerning the prostration to God by Nestorius. 37 So many traditions describe prostrations performed by the Prophet that it is not possible to discuss all of them here. Some have been discussed in the other articles dedicated to prostration and quoted at n. 1. For other material, see, for instance, Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 155, 178, 200: before the battle at Badr. Some traditions state for instance that Muḥammad fell down prostrate immediately after his birth: Abū Nu‘aym al-Iṣfahānī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut n.d., II, 611; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 48; Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, 152a; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XIV, 446 no. 39201: on the day of Resurrection Muḥammad will be brought before God, he will see Him on His Throne and he will fall down prostrate. 38 On these traditions see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 5.

39

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

described while prostrating himself, and many of the utterances attributed to him stress the prominence of this act in Muslim devotional rites. No doubt all this material had the function of encouraging people to perform sujūd and, at the same time, of overcoming any residual resistance to prostration among the believers.39

2 Traditional notions of supremacy connected to prostration in Muslim traditions Along with the material which has been referred to above in which sujūd symbolizes the profound faith of the prophets and their devotion to God, some other traditions from qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ literature bear the signs of the traditional concepts of supremacy associated with the image of the prostration. In this kind of report the prophets are the object of prostrations performed by others or even by things or animals which thereby attest to their high rank. It was customary for kings and figures of authority to receive prostrations in pre-Islamic Middle East. Traditions including this kind of secular prostration served as an indication of the high status of the prophets and as a confirmation of their prophecy. A large number of reports containing similar images of prostration relate to Abraham. It is said, for instance, in one of these traditions, that Nimrod saw a green branch growing from Terah’s loins in a dream, and that twigs then sprouted from the branch and twined around the east and the west and the Heavens. No one was left in the kingdom of Nimrod who did not prostrate himself before that branch, and even his palace and the throne and all the things in it joined in the prostration.40 Nimrod himself, mentioned simply as ‘the King’, fell down prostrate to Abraham, when he saw him emerging from the fire alive.41 Also animals were used to attest to the high rank of Abraham. A tradition in an early ḥadīth collection, the Muṣannaf of Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849), says that Abraham had to face two hungry lions which had been brought against him probably by Nimrod, but instead of tearing him to pieces, they started licking him and then prostrated themselves to him.42 Finally another tradition tells that the animals used to mimic Abraham’s behavior: when Abraham prostrated himself to praise God, they too prostrated themselves in worship.43 Some reports describe the old custom of falling down prostrate before men thus attesting that this was an ancient form of greeting. For this reason Esau performed sujūd seven times before his brother Jacob, and also Rachel and Leah, along with

39 See in particular Tottoli “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 4, on Arab hostility towards prostration. 40 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 127. 41 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 168b. 42 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, VII, 448; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, 127 no. 411; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 260; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, II, 321. 43 Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 178b.

40

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

their children, including Joseph, performed a prostration of the same kind.44 Particularly important in relation to this subject is Joseph’s dream and its fulfillment which are directly mentioned in the Qur’ān (Qur. 12:4 and 12:100), where the sujūd clearly signifies the supremacy of Joseph and his power.45 As usual the body of extra-canonical traditions enriches the description of this episode and some reports mention other dreams containing images of prostration.46 It is stated in another case that even Benjamin prostrated himself to Joseph (sajada li-Yūsuf), when Joseph, whom he had not yet recognized, pretended to read in a magic cup what had happened previously between him and his brothers.47 Finally a tradition states that also the cupbearer, when he went back to Joseph who was still in prison, fell down prostrate before him.48 Similar traditions can be found in the biography of Moses. Moses met with a flock of sheep and they, recognizing him as a prophet, fell down prostrate to God, speaking in an intelligible way and attesting their faith in God and in the truth of Moses’s mission.49 Even if the text clearly indicates that the prostration was addressed to God, there is no doubt that this report echoes other traditions in which animals prostrate themselves to prophets, thus attesting their prophetical mission. This is the case, for instance, with David: when Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon, the earth laughed and the animals fell down prostrate towards David.50 A further particular regarding prostration as a sign of supremacy is added in one report which states that the most important idol of the pagan people of Goliath prostrated itself to the Ark of the Israelites.51 The Prophet with the most prodigious power over animals was Solomon, and thus it comes as no surprise to find many reports about animals prostrating to

44 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 196. 45 On these Qur’ānic verses see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 6. 46 Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 29a; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 88b (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 226). In some traditions Jacob states that he will prostrate himself to Joseph, see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIII, 45; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 100a (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 261); Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 215. In some reports also Joseph’s mother Rachel was brought back to life again to prostrate herself to Joseph: see Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 373; Ṭabarsī, Majma‘ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1992, V, 341; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 290; this is an exegetical explanation of Qur.12:100 where it is stated that the two parents prostrated themselves, even though Rachel had already died. See Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 6, for more details and a comprehensive analysis of these questions. 47 Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 99a (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 257); Suyūṭī, al-Durr, IV, 506; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 150; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 133; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 355 [= I, 402]; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 81b. 48 Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 70b. The ‘king’ also fell down prostrate before Joseph, see Abū Nu‘aym, Ḥilyat, IV, 42. 49 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 207. 50 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 268. And see ‘Alī b. Rabbān al-Ṭabarī, al-Dīn wa-l-dawla fī ithbāt nubuwwat al-nabī Muḥammad, Beirut 1973, 140, 142, concerning prostrations mentioned in the translation of a Psalm. 51 ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 88.

41

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

him. It is said, for instance, that different animals used to prostrate themselves to honor him, as is the case with the ant of the well-known episode in the Qur’ān.52 Moreover, a tradition also quoted by tafsīrs in commenting on Qur. 38:34 says that when after forty days in the belly of a fish Solomon found his ring, everything which he met prostrated itself to him. Further particulars are added in an interesting version given by Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767): whenever Solomon used to pull on his ring, everyone who saw him, both the jinn and devils, prostrated itself before him.53 Other traditions state that when he had found this ring and regained his authority, even people used to perform a sujūd to honor him.54 The same episode can be found in the story of Jesus and John the Baptist. Before their births, their mothers met, and John’s mother told Mary she could feel the child in her womb prostrating himself to that in Mary’s womb. This tradition is usually quoted by tafsīrs commenting on Qur. 3:39: “God gives thee good tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of God”.55 Jesus was also the object of a prostration performed by animals. When the men who had been transformed into pigs asked him to intercede with God in their favor, they addressed this request while prostrating themselves to him.56 And finally, when Jesus was born, many traditions state that all the idols on earth crumbled and the devils, in alarm, ran to

52 Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 295: two larks; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 284: the ant, 285: the mosquitoes; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 83b (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 209): an ‘ifrīt; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 103: the ant prostrated itself to Solomon and said: ‘before prostrating myself to you I prostrated only to Abraham’, and see also XIV, 83, 85, and XIV, 108: a sujūd by Ṣakhr, XIV,127; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Gotha A 1740, 78b f. See also ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 139, about a prostration by the hoopoe when visiting the Queen of Sheba. 53 Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 645, and 646; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Ms Gotha A1743, 49a. See also ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, V, 428 no. 9753, and Id., Tafsīr, II, 165: every bird, beast or thing; Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib, 215; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXIII, 159: every tree, stone or thing; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 53: every bird or jinnī; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 186: everything; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 294: everything; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, I, 291: every man, jinnī, bird, stone or tree. 54 Māwardī, al-Nukat, V, 97; and see also Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 72, about a prostration before Solomon, even if it is indicated that it was a sujūd al-shukr to God. The same particulars are also mentioned regarding Alexander the Great: his ‘ulamā’, in addition to prostrating to God, fell down prostrate also towards him, before answering his request; see Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 202. 55 See Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, III, 253, XVI, 63; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, II, 189; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, I, 541; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 65; al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, al-Shifā’ bi-ta‘rīf ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā, Beirut 1988, I, 97; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 595, 599 (= I, 726, 733); Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 375, 383; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 133a; Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak, II, 649 no. 4156; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 569; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 213; Ibn Abī ‘Udhayba, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Jerusalem, Ms Khālidiyya, 23 Sīra, 126b; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 300, 309; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XIX, 527; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 187, 189; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 120b (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 332); see also Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 265: it was a sujūd taḥiyya; cf. Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, Beirut n.d., III, 131; and see the discussion in Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 65. John prostrated himself to Jesus to attest his supremacy, as it is clearly asserted by a tradition in a qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ collection where John’s mother said that Jesus belonged to a higher rank (afḍal) than John and that this was the reason for his prostration; see Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 78a. 56 Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 84b–85a; cf. the prostration in Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 19.

42

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

Iblīs. A notable version of this story, which was attributed to Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 110/728), specifies that the idols fell down prostrate.57 The same images also occur with regard to the prophet Muḥammad and are gathered in ḥadīth collections or in works dedicated to the signs of the prophecy (dalā’il al-nubuwwa). It is said, for instance, that Muḥammad’s father ‘Abdallāh had been born with a peculiar light in his face and that his father, i.e. Muḥammad’s grand-father, said that he had dreamt of a white bird coming out of ‘Abdallāh’s nostril; this bird, representing Muḥammad, flew over the Ka‘ba and the Quraysh fell down prostrate towards him.58 ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib dreamt of a tree with its top reaching the sky and its branches reaching East and West, to which Arabs and nonArabs prostrated themselves: this tree represented Muḥammad.59 Nevertheless, two episodes from Muḥammad’s life and connected to prostration are particularly important and dealt with extensively in the sources. The first one is the story of the prostration by stones and trees: it is said that every tree or stone the Prophet passed by prostrated itself to him. Some versions add that this happened in Syria before Muḥammad received his prophetical mission.60 A different tradition confirms this last particular: a man from Nineveh, a Christian called ‘Addās, prostrated himself to Muḥammad and kissed his feet when he received proof that he was a prophet.61 The second episode is the sujūd performed by a camel towards the Prophet. This is usually mentioned at the beginning of those ḥadīths where the Prophet rejects the attempted prostrations of his companions with the statement that sujūd before men is forbidden in Islam.62 All these traditions were meant to emphasize the high status of Muḥammad and the prophets through images connected to prostration.

57 Siyar al-anbiyā’, 150a; and cf. the different version in Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, XIX, 525. The three Magi also prostrated themselves to Jesus, see Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rīkh, I, 69. Regarding a prostration by idols at the revelation of a Qur’ānic verse, see Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, I, 362. 58 Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 48, and see also I, 85: Abū Ṭālib recites a poem praising Muḥammad where it is said that the learned men (aḥbār) prostrate themselves to him. See also Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 184a: when prophetical inspiration reached Muḥammad, the angels in the sky prostrated themselves. And cf. Abū Nu‘aym, Ḥilyat, V, 388, regarding the high rank of the Muslims: Moses read in the Tablets that mountains almost prostrate themselves to the light emanating from their hearts. 59 Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il, I, 99–100. 60 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VII, 430; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, V, 590 no. 3620; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak, II, 673 no. 4229; Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il, I, 171 no. 109: with other sources quoted; al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, al-Shifā’, I, 307, 309; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1985, II, 25, VI, 69; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 67, 83; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 278 [= I, 1125]; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 284– 285, III, 14. 61 Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, II, 416; Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il, I, 296; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, I, 182; but cf. Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra, I, 421, and Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 346 [= I, 1202], where the episode includes no mention of sujūd; in fact see also Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, III, 136: ‘Addās only kissed his hands and feet. 62 See Ibn Furāt al-Kūfī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1992, II, 388 no. 514; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VII, 436; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 317 no. 12614, IX, 353 no. 24525: the companions said: O Prophet, beasts and trees prostrate themselves to you; Baghdādī, Kitāb al-Ikhtiṣāṣ, 296; Haythamī,

43

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

Prostration as a sign of supremacy can be also found in the Arabic poetry of the early Muslim period. A very clear example can be found in a verse by Jarīr (d. 111–15/729–33 ca.) where the prince Mu‘āwiya b. Hishām b. ‘Abdallāh (d. 117–19/735–37 ca.) is praised: when the other kings see him appearing, they drop weapons and fall down prostrate.63 In a verse by Ṭurayḥ (d. 165/782) praising the caliph al-Walīd b. Yazīd (d. 126/744), it is stated that all the people prostrate themselves to him when they realize his power.64 Another verse praising a caliph, Yazīd b. ‘Abd al-Mālik (d. 105/724), also mentions the prostration performed by men to attest his supremacy: his valor and his courage in battle are so great that the crowned heads, i.e. the kings, prostrate themselves before him, in submission.65 There are also verses where images of prostration by animals are mentioned in poetical eulogies praising someone. In a poem Farazdaq (d. 112/730 ca.) mentions the prostration performed by some lions as a sign of power and submission: Bishr b. Marwān (d. 74/693) is thus compared to a lion at whose roar other lions fall down prostrate.66 In another verse it is said that wild animals fall down prostrate in the forest, as a sign of respect, before Yazīd.67 Many poetical verses contain mentions of prostrations performed by animals, and a list of the images of this kind would be very long. Indeed, what is particularly relevant in all these poems from the early Muslim period is the continuity of its images with those of pre-Islamic poetry.68

63

64 65 66 67 68

Majma‘, IV, 310–311, IX, 4–5, 7, 9; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kubrā, Cairo 1978, II, 329: two camels; Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il, 379–385 nos. 276–287, no. 276 in particular: sheep that prostrate themselves in front of the Prophet, 380 no. 278: a camel, 381–385 nos. 281–287: different traditions about the subject; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, VI, 28–29; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, II, 37, 38, 56–58, 60: sheep; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, VI, 135–136, 141, 143: sheep; al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, al-Shifā’, I, 312: sheep; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 44; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, VI, 183 no. 4150; Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, 168a. See also Anbārī, Kitāb al-aḍdād, Beirut 1987, 195: God gave this camel ‘aql when it prostrated itself to the Prophet. Jarīr, Dīwān, ed. by I. ‘A. al-Ṣāwī, n.p. 1935, 183,9: mā ra’atka ‘alā al-‘uqābi mulūkuhum / alqaw silāḥahum wa-kharrū sujjadā; see another verse by Jarīr, related to prostration, in R. Geyer, Altarabische Diiamben, Leipzig-New York 1908, 182. Similar images can of course be found in pre-Islamic poetry; see for instance Umayya b. Abī l-Ṣalt, who describes God saying that before Him, as before a king on the Throne, faces fall down prostrate: see in F. Schultess, Umajja ibn Abi-ṣ-Ṣalt, Leipzig 1911, 28 (no. 25,29), and also 58 (no. 55,2); and Anbārī, Kitāb al-Aḍdād, 80. Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, Cairo 1929f., IV, 324. Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VI, 585 [= II,1389]: . . . tarā dhawī al-tāji lahu sujūdā; the verse is by al-Quṭāmī. See Farazdaq, Dīwān, ed. by R. Boucher, Paris 1870, I, 173; and for a mention of another prostration by the lions, see Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-l-Farazdaq, ed. by A.A. Bevan, Leiden 1905–12, 255, (no. 44,5). Farazdaq, Dīwān, I, 184. See for instance Farazdaq, Dīwān, I, 185: a prostration by the jinn; see also Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-lFarazdaq, 487 (no. 55,43); al-Akhṭal, Dīwān, ed. by A. al-Ṣalḥānī, Beirut 1981, 243; Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, X, 233. For a verse of the same kind, see Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb alshi‘r wa-l-shu‘arā’, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1904, 419; and Carmina Hudsailitarum, ed. by J.G.L. Kosegarten, I, London 1854, 1 (no. 1,9); Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘arūs, Cairo 1306–7 H., II, 188; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab, ed. Dār al-ma‘ārif, Cairo n.d., IV, 2623. Cf. the similar verses given in R.

44

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

In conclusion it is evident that the reports and the verses discussed here show the continuity of the traditional ideas associated with being the object of a prostration. In fact sujūd, performed by animals, things and above all men, is a sign of submission and an acknowledgement of the supremacy of the man receiving it. Consequently, in religious traditions it is the prophets who are worthy of receiving prostrations, while in poems praising the kings or the powerful, they are the objects deserving prostration.

3

Prostration before men, idols or images as sign of evil behavior

Another category of traditions where sujūd is mentioned is that describing the prostration to men, or, in completely negative terms, by idol-worshippers to idols. In reports of this kind, prostration is a way of demonstrating that someone is not Muslim, since Islam prescribes prostration to God only and performance of sujūd before someone else, man or, above all, idol, breaks this rule. The Muslim opposition to secular prostration is well attested in ḥadīths, where some utterances of the Prophet clearly forbid falling down prostrate before men. Many reports in fact deal with the Prophet’s clear-cut refusal to accept prostration from his followers as a way of greeting.69 The evil nature of the prostration before men is further underlined in some other religious traditions mainly from qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ literature. Nimrod’s wickedness, for instance, grew to the extent that he expected sujūd from people visiting him, and thus he also asked Abraham to fall down prostrate before him.70 The symbol of evil humanity, the Pharaoh, could not be absent from this kind of tradition. Thus, it is said that he expected prostrations from people visiting him, as happened with the Israelites who either refused or, in other versions, prostrated themselves pretending to perform the act for the Pharaoh, but secretly dedicating it to God.71 Further reports attest that the Pharaoh was the object of a sujūd, from his people, or, in a very important tradition, from Iblīs, the faithful minister Haman and his ministers.72 Finally, prostration was included amongst the honors required in the presence of the king Nebuchadnezzar, but the

69 70 71 72

Geyer, Gedichte von ‘Abû Bas̤ îr Maimûn ibn Qais al-’Aʻšâ, London 1928, 53 (no. 5,63) and 352 (no. 9,16). For similar images in traditions, see Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, III, 10; Qazwīnī, ʻAjā’ib, 238. See Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 5, for a discussion of this question. Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 86: Abraham answered that the sujūd is due to God only; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, II, 319; and see Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 98: Iblīs prostrated himself before Nimrod; see also XIII, 110: kuffār prostrate themselves to Nimrod. Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 198–199; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 117. See Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 198; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 117; people prostrated themselves to the Pharaoh, see Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 218; Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns, I, 88; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 175–176, 207; and see also Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 89a. Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 99, mentions another prostration to the Pharaoh at the time of Joseph: the cupbearer prostrated himself to the ‘king’ when he brought him Joseph’s interpretation of his dream.

45

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

prophet Daniel took care not to perform this act of greeting, thus attesting his true faith.73 The same thing also happened around the time of the prophet Dhū al-Kifl, but the king was convinced by the prophet that prostration was not the correct way of greeting, and later, when he became Muslim, he forbade his people to fall down prostrate before him.74 If secular prostration represents the type of behavior which was contrary to Muslim precepts, prostration to an idol or to the devil is the sign of patent unbelief and of evil behavior that is not only alien to but also opposed to Islam. In fact, in many reports the fact that people prostrate themselves to idols serves as a clear-cut attestation of their evil nature. In most of these traditions describing idolatrous prostration the protagonist behind the act is Iblīs, as was the case with Cain’s offspring. When Cain died, the devil, disguised as an angel, convinced them to worship their father’s mummy which had been placed upon a golden throne and stated that everybody entering the room had to perform three prostrations.75 Even prior to Iblīs’ intervention there is some suggestion of the wickedness of Cain’s offspring: they used to prostrate themselves to images or idols.76 An often mentioned episode of this kind concerns Hārūt and Mārūt. When the two angels arrived on the earth, a woman led them astray and promised to give herself to them if they prostrated themselves to an idol. This story ends with the description of the prostration performed by the two angels when their will had grown weak because they were drunk.77 Moreover, also Noah’s people, summoned by the prophet to believe in God before the Flood, were idol-worshippers and used to prostrate themselves to their idols.78 Some reports recount that the enigmatic aṣḥāb al-rass who are mentioned in the Qur’ān (Qur. 25:38, 50:12) prostrated themselves to the devil, when he appeared

73 ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 273–274; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 338, and see also 342; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, I, 418; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 158a; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 157; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 73b; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 367, cf. also 370; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 159; Abū Nu‘aym, Dalā’il, I, 83–84 no. 44; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 325; cf. this motif in a Christian text, in G. Levi Della Vida, Note di storia letteraria arabo-islamica, Roma 1971, 146 (transl. 176). 74 See Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 105a (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 277); Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 47a; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ, 128a–128b; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, VI, 133; Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, 54 no. 130. A similar report states that the Yemenite king Dhū l-Kalā‘, when talking with ‘Umar, confessed to have committed a serious sin in the time of the jāhiliyya: he had accepted the prostration of about hundred thousand people; see Ibn Qudāma, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, 132 no. 309. 75 Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 50. 76 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 82b; Ḥijrī, Qiṣaṣ, 74a; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 151a; see also Abrégé des Merveilles, ed. by Carra de Vaux, Paris 1984, 94. 77 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 96a–96b; see also Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 143; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 53; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 26b; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 10b; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 522–523; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt, 230; Maqdisī, al-Bad’, III, 14; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 152a; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 43. 78 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 87; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 55; Maqdisī, al-Bad’, III, 16; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 156a; see also Ps-Masʻūdī, Akhbār al-zamān, Cairo 1938, 58.

46

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

looking like a fish riding upon four other fishes and that they also used to prostrate themselves before a talking tree inside which dwelt Iblīs.79 Iblīs also interfered with the offspring of the people of Thamūd: he was able to convince them that their king was not completely dead and that if they fell down prostrate before him, he would speak to them. So Iblīs made a statue resembling him and gave it the power of speech, and when its face was uncovered, all the people, believing it was their king, prostrated themselves and treated it as their god.80 Similar prostrations to idols are ascribed also to the Thamud, including their prophet Ṣāliḥ’s father, and to Shu‘ayb’s people.81 Various other characters who were renowned for their wickedness, such as Abraham’s enemy Nimrod, also feature as protagonists in traditions of this kind. It is said, for instance, that Nimrod had a personal idol, called Daylūn, which he used to interrogate about Abraham, and which he used to prostrate himself to, or, in other reports, it is stated that he was the first to worship fire and to prostrate himself before it.82 Idolatry was so widely diffused among his people that there are even descriptions of Abraham’s father worshipping idols and prostrating himself to them.83 Iblīs is again the central character in traditions connected to prostration in the story of Job: he tempted Job’s wife, promising to return to her everything that had been taken away from her husband, if she performed a single prostration to him.84 Some traditions about the golden calf say that the evildoers

79 Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 149, 152; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV,150f., and cf. XI, 388; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 93–94, and XIII, 87: a sujūd to the idols by the aṣḥāb al-bi’r; Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ ‘alā ra’y al-imāmiyya, Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothek Petermann I 633, 147b. See also a discussion and translation of the other versions of this legend in B. Scarcia Amoretti, “Un’interpretazione iranistica di Cor. XXV,38 e L,12”, RSO, 43 (1968), 38. 80 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 120. 81 See Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 111, 193; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 72; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 72, 171; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 164a; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cambridge, Ms Add. 3258, 3a; and see Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 161a, concerning a prostration by Hūd’s people. 82 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 125: about the idol Daylūn; Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rīkh, Beirut n.d., I, 23: about fire worship. Concerning the prostration to the idols and to Nimrod himself, see Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cambridge, Ms Add. 3258, 33b, 34a, 36a, 38b, 41a f. 83 Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 76; Ḥijrī, Qiṣaṣ, 151a–152a; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 165a; Ṭabarsī, Majma‘, VII, 72; Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 84, 611–612: Abraham’s people had a feast every year where they prostrated themselves to the idols; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 22; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Paris Ms Bibl. Nat. ar. 1924, 62b; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 637; Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns, I, 29 and I, 26: Abraham’s father Terah also prostrated himself to the idols. Another tradition in Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIII, 104, states that Terah also prostrated himself before Nimrod; see also Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Staatsbibliothek or. quart. 1171, 171b, 173b, 175b: Terah prostrated himself to Nimrod and before idols. 84 Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 162; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 32b; Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ, 88b (= Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī, 225); Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī ma‘ānī l-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, IV, 315; Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns, I, 73; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 130; Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 370; Abū l-Fidā’, Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar, Beirut 1956, I, 27; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, III, 253.

47

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

even prostrated themselves to it as if it were their idol.85 The gravity of this act is underlined in a version of the ten commandments which specifically prohibits prostration to false idols.86 Traditions regarding idolatrous prostration can also be found in the biography of Solomon. Some reports state for instance that a prostration of this kind was the reason for his punishment, i.e. the losing of his ring and his power, for forty days. In fact Solomon married a foreign woman, even if it had been prescribed that he should marry a woman from among his own people. Partly as a result of homesickness and without informing her husband, this woman made statues and images of her parents and performed prostrations before them, urging other people to do the same.87 There is other material pointing to a particular individual’s wickedness by evidencing his prostration to idols or to men. Jonah’s people, for instance, were evildoers, and they used to perform sujūd to idols, such as the king of Elijah, ‘Āmil, who used to prostrate himself to his idol asking its favor.88 Prostration was in fact widespread among the Babylonian people: they used to prostrate themselves before a gigantic idol to which the Israelites refused to fall down prostrate.89 The same motif also occurs in the story of the seven sleepers of Ephesus, the aṣḥāb al-kahf of the Muslim tradition: they sought refuge in a cave because of the customary practice of their people of prostrating themselves to an idol at the

85 See, for instance, Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ, 98a; and Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, VII, 135, and Majlisī, Biḥār, XIII, 209: 70.000 prostrated themselves to the calf, and cf. XIII, 186. Concerning the prostration to the bull (thawr) of the damned in Hell, which is described in the story of Jesus and the skull, see Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Nuṭq al-mafhūm min al-ṣamt al-ma‘lūm (as an appendix to Ibn Abī l-Dunyā, Man ‘āsha ba‘da l-mawt), Beirut 1987, 127; and Abū Nu‘aym, Ḥilyat, VI, 12. Prostration to cows is attributed to Hindus and Brahmins, see Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 77, and cf. 81: prostration before water. 86 Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rīkh, I, 37, and see also I, 43, with the prescription to stone whomever prostrates himself to the sun, the moon or others. In connection with this prescription it must be remembered that the Prophet forbade praying at sunrise or sunset; see in fact M.J. Kister, “Do not assimilate yourselves . . . Lā tashabbahū . . . ”, JSAI, 12 (1989), 322 no. 4. 87 This story is in almost all the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ collections; see for instance Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 322; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, I, 497 [= I, 588]; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 293; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 152; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, I, 290; Id., Zād, VII, 133; Ibn Qudāma, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, 18 no. 45; Ps-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ, 61b; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 143a; ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’, 156; Māwardī, al-Nukat, V, 95; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 128; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, VII, 572. Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 645, says that she worshipped this image with no mention of prostrations. See also the discussion in Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’di Ṭarafī, 437; and Diyarbakrī, Ta’rīkh, I, 250, but cf. I, 252 where he reports a statement that this was not Solomon’s sin; and see I, 245: it was also customary to perform prostration before the Queen of Sheba. 88 Concerning all these episodes, see Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 247; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 176, 133; and cf. Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, III, 83. 89 Siyar al-anbiyā’, 159b; Majlisī, Biḥār, XIV, 368; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 132; and see also Ibn al-Ḥarīrī, ‘Umdat, 85b, and 86b: Babylonians used to prostrate themselves to a big snake (thu‘bān ‘aẓīm).

48

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

entrance of their town.90 The role of this idolatrous prostration is even more prominent in some versions of the story of Jirjīs where this act is the cause of all the misfortune that befell him: the King of Mosul prescribed prostration to an idol called Apollo, but Jirjīs, who was a believer, refused, and was tortured and killed. The king had promised to spare his life if he performed but one single prostration to the idol.91 This can be contrasted with the case of an Israelite, called Barṣīṣā: he was captured and about to be put to death when Iblīs appeared before him and promised to rescue him in exchange for a sujūd to him. Barṣīṣā accepted, but Iblīs did not keep his word, and he died an unbeliever.92 In all the traditions discussed here, prostration to an idol, as opposed to prostration to God, is the act that represents un-Muslim behavior. For this reason this motif is also used as a polemical device in reports dealing with questions of rivalry within the Muslim community. It is for instance said, as a way of condemning adversaries, that they used to prostrate themselves to figures other than God and thus were not good Muslims.93 Prostration to an idol thus became a sign of unbelief and, consequently, a very widely diffused image in religious literature to dismiss rivals as evildoers or, in polemics, to discredit adversaries. Some comments can now be made about the origins of all this material. The growth of traditions underlining the Muslim precept regarding secular prostration – though the Qur’ān mentions episodes of secular prostrations94 – and the large number of traditions about idolatrous prostrations – despite the fact that prostration to idols was not widespread in pre-Islamic Arabia – indicate that the question of the 90 ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, V, 423 no. 9752; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 7 [= I, 779]; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 420–422, 427; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zad, V, 110. 91 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, II, 24f. [= I, 796f.]; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 429–430, 433–434; Siyar al-anbiyā’, 164a–164b; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Nuṭq, 80. 92 Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 588. This report is related by Tafsīrs as explaining Qur. 59:16, see Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 283; ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, II, 385; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXVIII, 50; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VIII, 117–118; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 347; Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 35–36; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 532; Id., al-Bidāya, II, 137; Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib, 212; Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, III, 30. Moreover, in relation to other prostrations to idols, see Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 305; and Nuwayrī, Nihāyat, XIV, 220: about a miracle performed by Jesus with the aim of preventing people from prostrating themselves before idols. And see the general statement by al-Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, al-Shifā’, II, 287: the sujūd to idols, the sun, the moon, the cross and fire is a sign of unbelief. 93 It is worth noting that the image of the prostration to an idol is also used in the polemics about the succession of the Prophet. See for instance Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, I, 605: Shi’is maintain that Abū Bakr had no right to be Muḥammad’s successor because he prostrated himself before idols, while ‘Alī did not. Another Shi’i source like Sulaym b. Qays, Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays, Najaf n.d., 65, states that when Abū Bakr was appointed caliph Iblīs gathered the devils and everyone prostrated himself before him. On the other side, see the anti-Shi’i story, where a prostration is mentioned, related by Ibn Taymiyya, al-‘Iṣyān al-musallaḥ aw qitāl ahl al-baghy fī dawlat al-Islām wa-mawqif al-Ḥākim minhu, Beirut 1992, 198. In the Tafsīr of Qurṭubī an accusation is raised against the Sufis, to show their evil behavior: they perform sujūd to their shaykhs, see Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, I, 251. Mention of a prostration to al-Ḥallāj is made by Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 195. See also Ghazālī, al-Iqtiṣād fī l-i‘tiqād, Cairo 1966, 123, about prostration to an idol as a symbol of unbelief. 94 See Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, chapt. 6.

49

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

prostration to idols or men was not a pressing one at the beginning of Islam, but became so later. The need to emphasize the originality of the Muslim faith and to distinguish it from Jewish and Christian customs, where the performance of prostration before religious or civilian authorities and to the cross were established practices, seems to have been the motivating factor that spurred the first generations of Muslims to gather together and propagate material about this issue.95 Evidence on this point emerges from the Arabic poetry of the Umayyad period, various other Muslim traditions, and also from Christian and Jewish literature. In Arabic poetry from the first Muslim century there are some important verses which shed light on sujūd. In fact, the poetry of this period displays all the typical features of traditions dealing with prostration: some verses hint at the Muslim precepts against secular prostration, while others mention the sujūd before men, before fire, or even the devil, in order to mock an adversary or rival.96 More importantly, Christian prostration before the cross is mentioned by some poets in verses intended to ridicule adversaries and which constitute evidence of the Muslim disdain for this custom.97 This same hostility towards any prostration other than that to God and these same polemical tendencies are also reflected in ḥadīth collections. A tradition attributed to the Prophet says that at the end of time, among the things Jesus will correct, such as breaking the cross, will also be the restoration of a ‘proper prostration’, which will be performed to God only.98 Moreover, in some versions of 95 See Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”; and on traditions of the same kind see M.J. Kister, “Do not assimilate yourselves . . . Lā tashabbahū . . . ”, JSAI, 12 (1989), 321–371. 96 See for instance Farazdaq, Dīwān, I, 93, where, praising the caliph Marwān, he wrote: ilā ibni al-imāmayni allādhayni abūhumā / imāmun lahu law lā al-nubuwwatu yusjadū; P. Crone and M. Hinds, God’s caliph: Religious Authority in the First Century of Islam, Cambridge 1986, 31, translate this as: “an imām to whom prostration would have been made were it not for the nubuwwa”, i.e.: were it not for the revelation to Muḥammad, the caliph would have received a prostration. Boucher translated this passage “Sans la défense du Prophète”. Another interesting verse is given by Farazdaq: he mocks the Azd of Bosra saying that they do not fall prostrate to God but to fire: Dīwān, I, 86. The same Farazdaq is mocked by Jarīr using an image connected to prostration: Farazdaq prostrates himself to Muqā‘is, i.e. he yields to the Muqā‘is, a tribal group of the Tamīm who, it was claimed, had humiliated Farazdaq’s sister: hādhā al-Farazdaq sājidan li-Muqāʻis, in Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-l-Farazdaq, 980 (no. 101). See Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, I, 373, for another, similar, anonymous verse where the author states: “if it were permitted I would prostrate myself before you”. And see also a verse in Abū l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, XI, 328, concerning the prostration to the devil; and al-Mu‘āfā b. Zakariyā, al-Jalīs al-ṣāliḥ al-kāfī wa-l-anīs al-nāṣiḥ al-shāfī, Beirut 1987, III, 206, a prostration to an image. 97 Jarīr, for instance, attacks Farazdaq saying that he has joined the Christians and performs sujūd before the cross; see Abū Tammām, Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-l-Akhṭal, ed. by A. Ṣalḥānī, Beirut 1922, 132 no. 43,13. In another verse, Farazdaq distinguishes between Muslims and Christians, stating that the former prostrate themselves to God, while the latter prostrate themselves to an idol (i.e. the cross); see Farazdaq, Dīwān, 108. 98 ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, XI, 401 no. 20844; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ, 403; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, 176a; Ibn Kathīr, al-Nihaya fī l-fitan wa-l-malāḥim, Beirut 1988, 95; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Gotha A1740, 195a; see also the different versions in Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 497 no. 3448; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I,136 no. 155. In a relevant passage in Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 79, it is said that God explained to Jesus that Muslims are the privileged community because no other people attest the unity of God or bend their necks in sujūd like them.

50

M U S L I M AT T I T U D E S T O WA R D S P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D ) I I

the well attested ḥadīth in which the Prophet forbade secular prostration, it is said that a companion asked the Prophet permission to fall down prostrate before him, a practice he had seen performed by Christians and Jews before religious authorities and generals, and in the Christian kingdom of al-Ḥīra.99 A similar request was denied by the Prophet in relation to the prostration of a certain ‘Addās who was, according to the sources, a Christian from Nineveh.100 Finally, the polemical nature of this material about sujūd is confirmed by various Christian and Jewish works which expressly defend secular prostration and prostration to the cross against Muslim opinion.101

4

Conclusion

In the Muslim literature analyzed here, various aspects and images connected to prostration have been distinguished. According to Muslim beliefs, sujūd should be addressed to God only, and many traditions state very clearly that the good Muslim should perform this act regularly, since models for the believers such as the prophets and Muḥammad himself were solicitous in prostrating themselves. At the same time some other reports reveal the concept of supremacy connected to prostration: if to perform a sujūd was deemed humiliating, it was, at the same time, regarded as an acknowledgement of the supremacy and high rank of the one receiving it. Finally, in another group of traditions the symbol of prostration is used as a sign of wickedness and un-Muslim behavior. This is the case for secular prostration, which Muslim traditions forbid and, especially, for the prostration to images, statues or idols which is considered not only as an evil act but as a symbol of lack of faith. These traditions display a polemical attitude aimed at underlining the originality of Muslim customs in contrast to those of Christians and Jews.

99 About this tradition see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, no. 33. And see Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr (= Mafātīḥ al-ghayb), Beirut 1990, II, 195: the Prophet asked Christians and Jews about their prostrations to priests and rabbis and they answered: it is the way of greeting used by the prophets (taḥiyyat al-anbiyā’), in response to which the Prophet answered that this was a lie. 100 See above, no. 61. 101 See for instance Théodore Abū Qurrah, Traité du culte des icônes, ed. by I. Dick, Beirut-Roma 1986, 130–131; see also C.H. Becker, “Christliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung”, in Islamstudien, I, Leipzig 1924, 449. For Christian arguments in response to the Muslim polemics against the prostration to images of Christ and the cross, see also S.H. Griffith, “Islam and the Summa Theologiae Arabica”, JSAI, 13 (1990), 250. Regarding Jews, see the defense of the secular prostration by al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib, ed. by L. Nemoy, New York 1939–43, 675–676 (I am indebted to Prof. B. Chiesa for this reference). The question of the prostration to the cross must be seen in connection with the Muslim opposition to the cult of the images. On this, see Crone, “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine iconoclasm”, JSAI, 2 (1980), 68.

51

3 TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING THE SUJŪD AL-QUR’ĀN IN Ḥ A D Ī T H L I T E R AT U R E *

Sujūd (prostration) is a fundamental part of the ritual prayer (ṣalāt); it is the highest practice of religious devotion, and it is due to God only. Apart from prostration during ritual prayer and the generic prostration of thanksgiving to God,1 Muslim traditions also prescribe sujūd when listening to the recitation of certain Qur’ānic verses (sujūd al-Qur’ān). There are numerous traditions about this sujūd al-Qur’ān, even if there is no agreement in the sources about which of the Qur’ānic verses the believer should prostrate himself to. Scholars have almost completely overlooked the question of the sujūd al-Qur’ān, although recently U. Rubin has dedicated a few pages to it and A. Rippin has written a short introduction to the matter for the Encyclopaedia of Islam.2 The following pages will attempt to discuss the traditions and the controversies concerning this Muslim practice, as shown by the in-depth treatment of it in ḥadīth literature. The thesis of this essay is that the rich material about sujūd al-Qur’ān demonstrates the early Arab attitude towards prostration, and that this attitude influenced debate amongst subsequent generations of Muslims.3 *** This article is a part of a wider study concerning sujūd in Muslim traditions and literature: its origin and its meaning. I started this research while I was in Jerusalem during 1993–94 as part of my doctorate program at the Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi of the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; I would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust that granted me a scholarship to study at the Hebrew University. I am also indebted to Prof. M.J. Kister for his advice about this subject when I was in Jerusalem and for his invaluable suggestions. My thanks are due also to Prof. G. Canova, Prof. M. Lecker and Prof. U. Rubin for their comments on a first draft of this article. 1 What ḥadīth collections usually call sujūd al-shukr, about this practice see R. Tottoli, “The thanksgiving prostration (sujūd al-shukr) in Muslim traditions”, BSOAS, 61 (1998), 309–313 [here no. 4]. 2 See U. Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muḥammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims, Princeton 1995, 163–166; an introduction to the argument is at p. 163, then Rubin deals with the traditions concerning the prostration at the recitation of the sūra of the Star (no. 53); and A. Rippin, in Encyclopaedia of Islam (= EI2), Leiden-London 1960 f., s.v. Sadjda. 3 The question of the early Arab attitude towards sujūd is dealt with at length in R. Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Arabs and prostration at the beginning of Islam and in the *

52

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-4

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

It was through ritual prayer that prostration entered into Muslim devotion. Nevertheless the sujūd did not meet the Arabs’ approval, and there is a large body of evidence in Muslim literature that Arabs disliked prostrating themselves on the ground during the prayer.4 This same reluctance is also evident in connection with the traditions dealing with the sujūd al-Qur’ān, even though it is clearly stated in the Qur’ān that the believer must prostrate himself when he hears the recitation of Qur’ānic verses.5 Some historical reports contain evidence of the Arab attitude towards prostration at the recitation of the Qur’ān during the time of the Prophet. A tradition attributed to the Companion ‘Abdallāh b. Mas‘ūd (d. 32/652)6 clearly shows the opposition of the people of Mecca to prostration at the recitation of Qur’ānic verses: The Prophet prostrated himself while reciting the sūra of the Star at Mecca; the others followed his example except an old man (shaykh) who took a handful of pebbles or earth and raised it to his forehead, saying these words: “This is enough for me”. I saw that he was later killed in a state of unbelief.7 Some other versions of this tradition add that this man prostrated himself on the handful of earth, but the end does not change: he died as a polytheist.8 The

4 5

6 7

8

Qur’an”, Studia Islamica, 88 (1998), 5–34 [here no. 1]. See also, concerning the prostration in later literature, R. Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature”, Le Muséon, 111 (1998), 405–426 [here no. 2]. See Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I.”, and the references quoted there. See the verses quoted at p. 56. The translation of Qur’anic verses throughout the article are taken from A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, Oxford 1964; in some cases the translation has been slightly modified. The technical term used to indicate a Qur’anic verse during the recitation of which Muslims must prostrate themselves is sajda. On him see EI2, s.v. Ibn Masʻūd (J.-C. Vadet). Qara’a l-nabī (ṣ) al-najm bi-Makka fa-sajada fīhā wa-sajada man maʻahu ghayra shaykh akhadha kaffan min ḥaṣan aw turāb wa-rafaʻahu ilā jabhatihi wa-qāla: yakfīnī hādhā fa-ra’aytuhu baʻda dhālika qutila kāfiran: Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, II, 326 no. 1067; see slightly different versions in II, 327 no. 1070, V, 10 no. 3972; and see Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Baqī, Cairo 1991, I, 405 no. 576; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, I, 458 (Ṣalāt, 209); Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.M. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 1992, I, 278 no. 553; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, IV, 188 no. 2753; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, II, 62 no. 3805, II, 137 no. 4164, II, 150 no. 4235, II, 189 no. 4405; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʻalā l-ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, I, 342 nos. 803–804; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, II, 60 no. 1406; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1994, II, 445 no. 3709, II, 457 no. 3766; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, Beirut 1990, 77 no. 426; Dārimī, Sunan, Damascus 1991, I, 364 no. 1437; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, Beirut n.d., II, 207: shaykh kabīr; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1979, VIII, 146 no. 22315; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1988, II, 373, IV, 172; Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī maʻānī l-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, VI, 272; Ibn Shāhīn, al-Nāsikh wa-lmansūkh min al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1992, 149 no. 231; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut 1966, III, 90–91. See also what Rubin says about this tradition: The Eye of the Beholder, 165–166. Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 616 no. 3853, VI, 356 no. 4863; Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manbaʻ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, II, 286: a very different version.

53

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

meaning of this tradition is clear: the refusal to throw oneself down for the sujūd is equal to unbelief. Other versions add that he was a man of the Quraysh,9 the tribe of Muḥammad, or that his name was Umayya b. Khalaf.10 The expedient of raising a handful of earth to the forehead is not mentioned only in this case. In some versions of the famous episode of the revelation of the satanic verses, where the Prophet paid homage to the old pagan goddesses, all those present – Muslim and non-Muslim – threw themselves down for sujūd, with the exception of al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra.11 He raised a handful of earth to his forehead and performed sujūd in this way, because “he was very old and he could not prostrate himself”.12 In this tradition al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra did not prostrate himself because of his age: he was too old and he was not able to throw himself down, so he decided to perform his sujūd by raising a handful of earth.13 This tradition says that this old Meccan chief would have prostrated himself at the recitation of the satanic verses, but he was not able to do that. A different tradition recorded in the Muʻjam al-kabīr of Ṭabaranī (d. 360/971) points out that al-Walīd’s refusal to prostrate himself derived from old pagan rules of honour. According to this tradition all the people of Mecca were converted to

9 Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, ed. by Ḥ.S. Asad, Beirut 19892, IX, 140 no. 5218; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 35 no. 3682. 10 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VI, 356 no. 4863; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 172; Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, VI, 272; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 272; see also Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 207: he died at Badr. Umayya b. Khalaf al-Jumaḥī (d. 2/624) was the father of the companion Ṣafwān b. Umayya b. Khalaf; on both see Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, ed. by A. Sprenger et al., Calcutta 1856f., repr. Beirut n. d., III, 246–247 no. 4068. 11 Al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra was leader of the Makhzūm, one of the most powerful men in Mecca, and an adversary of the Prophet; he died before the hijra of the Prophet. On him see Zubayrī, Kitāb nasab Quraysh, ed. by E. Levi-Provencal, Cairo 19823, 300f. 12 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrahīm, Cairo 1960–69, II, 338 [= Ed. M.J. de Goeje et al. Leiden 1879–1901, I, 1193]: fa-innahu kāna shaykhan kabīran fa-lam yastaṭiʻ al-sujūd; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ʻan ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, XVII, 187: differing versions where it is said that al-Walīd lā yaqdiru ʻalā l-sujūd; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., IX, 22 no. 8316: rajulan kabīran, transl. by Rubin in: The Eye of the Beholder, 160–161; see also Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr, ed. ʻA.M. Shiḥāta, Cairo 1979–1990, IV, 162; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VI, 33; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1985, II, 286; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 303; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut n.d., Ill, 368; Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, IV, 36. About this episode see J. Burton, “Those are the high-flying cranes”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15 (1970), 247; and especially Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 156f., who also discusses the different versions of the traditions, in relation to the prostration at the sūra of the Star which we have mentioned above and which will also be dealt with below. 13 In another version, in Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut n.d., I, 205; and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr. Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, Beirut 1990, XXIII, 44; Id., ʻIṣmat al-anbiyā’, Beirut 1988, 122, with al-Walīd also Abū Uḥayḥa Saʻīd b. al-ʻĀṣ did not throw himself down. Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, VI, 68, does not mention al-Walīd, but only Abū Uḥayḥa, including what he said during this ‘standing’ sujūd. Moreover, see Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 744: the Prophet prostrates himself at the recitation of the Qur’ān, but Meccan unbelievers say that they prostrate themselves to their divinities only.

54

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

the new religion when the Prophet preached Islam. This conversion occurred before ritual prayer became obligatory. So many people used to prostrate themselves at the recitation of Quranic verses that, because of the crowd, there was no more space to make sujūd. This was the situation when al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, Abū Jahl b. Hishām14 and other leaders came back from al-Ṭā’if, where they had been during that time. When they saw what was going on in Mecca, they asked the people if they had abandoned the faith of their fathers. At these words the people of Mecca abandoned Islam.15 Even if the historical accuracy of this report cannot be established, there can be no doubt that the general attitude reflects a real opposition towards prostration. It is not by accident that ritual prayer is mentioned at this point, nor is the mention of the sujūd a mere symbol of the spread of Islam.16 Prostration can be considered the subject of this tradition, and it is the performance of the sujūd that the leaders refused upon their return from al-Ṭā’if. The mention of the ritual prayer in the beginning of the tradition could indicate that Muḥammad had not yet revealed the duty of the prayer, and consequently sujūd was not too exacting but was limited to the recitation of some Quranic verses, and so while the people of Mecca could accept this practice, the old Qurashī leaders could not. Another tradition points to the refusal of the Quraysh to prostrate themselves: the Prophet and the Muslims prostrated themselves at the recitation of the sūra of the Star, with the exception of two men who wanted to achieve notoriety.17 This tradition is one of the numerous ones dealing with the question of the prostration at the recitation of the sūra of the Star which will be discussed below. It indicates that pagan pride – and not old age – is the real reason for the refusal of the prostration prescribed by Muḥammad with his new faith.18 Some other important traditions associated with Arab pagan rules of honour specify that a shaykh should not throw himself down in prostration. Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) relates in his Tafsīr that Abraham said to a shaykh who was prostrating himself to an idol: “And do you, old one, prostrate yourself to this small (idol)? The small one should prostrate himself to the big one!”19 Further such evidence comes from a report in which Muḥammad’s grandfather ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib prostrated himself before Sayf b. Dhī

14 Abū Jahl, strong adversary of Muḥammad, succeeded al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra as chief of the Makhzūm some years before the hijra. He died at Badr in 2/624; see EI2, s.v. (W.M. Watt). 15 Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, XX, 5 no. 2; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 284; transl. by Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 158. 16 This is what Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 158, seems to argue. 17 . . . illā rajulayn min Quraysh arādā bi-dhālika l-shuhra: Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 460; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 447 no. 9718; Ibn al-Ja‘d, Musnad, 406 no. 2768; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 455 no. 3754; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 284: in the title of the bāb. 18 But see what Rubin argues: The Eye of the Beholder, 166. 19 Al-Durr, V, 637: anta shaykh tasjudu li-hādhā l-ṣaghīr innamā yanbaghī li-l-ṣaghīr an yasjuda li-l-kabīr.

55

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

Yazan who invited him to raise his head saying: “Raise your head, O old man (al-shaykh)”.20 *** As has already been said, this unwillingness clashes with some clear Qur’ānic verses that specifically prescribe the duty to perform sujūd during the recitation of the Qur’ān. These verses are Qur. 17:107: “Those who were given the knowledge before it when it is recited to them, fall down upon their faces prostrating”; Qur. 19:58: “When the verses of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping”; Qur. 84:21: “And when the Qur’ān is recited to them they do not prostrate themselves?”; and especially Qur. 32:15: “Only those believe in Our verses who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and proclaim the praise of their Lord, not waxing proud”. The last verse is particularly clear, and Qur’ān commentaries need to add only brief explanations: who believes prostrates himself to the Qur’ān, without proud or haughty refusal.21 These Qur’ānic verses that urge people to prostrate themselves must not be confused with the verses to which the believer should throw himself down in sujūd. These are definite verses that constitute the proper sujūd al-Qur’ān: when the believer listens to them he should prostrate himself. What follows is a discussion of the traditions that in ḥadīth literature deal with this sujūd al-Qur’ān, including the usual profusion of particulars and variant versions. Some of the traditions in ḥadīth literature deal with the total number of ritual prostrations in the Qur’ān; this number ranges between four and fifteen thus reflecting two opposing attitudes: to either restrict the practice of prostration or to follow the religious precept to prostrate at the recitation of the Qur’ān.22 Some traditions say that there are ten passages to which the believer should prostrate himself, when he listens to their recitation,23 or, when a disputed verse is included, that the total number of prostrations is eleven.24 These figures exclude all the sajdas from the final part of the Qur’ān, which is called mufaṣṣal, i.e. the part from

20 Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq. Beirut 1985, 431. For further references see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I”, n. 42. 21 See, for instance, Muqātil, Tafsīr, III, 451, where it is said that Muslims must not follow Meccan unbelievers that takabbarū ʻan al-ṣalāt, see also Samarqandī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1993, III, 30; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXI, 99; Māwardī, al-Nukat, IV, 361. 22 Ḥadīth collections discuss this subject in chapters under the title sujūd al-Qur’ān or sujūd al-tilāwa; the most comprehensive discussion on the number of sajdas in the Qur’ān is given by Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 29; see also Rippin in: EI2, VIII, 740. 23 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. H. al-R. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 19832, III, 335 no. 5859; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 470: in the opinion of scholars in Mecca and Medina there are ten sajdas, Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 639; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1967, VII, 357. 24 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 335–336 nos. 5860–5861; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VIII, 162 no. 21750, X, 418 no. 27564; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 335 no. 1055; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 59 no. 1401; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1975, II, 457–458 nos. 568–569; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan

56

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

the sūra of the Apartments (no. 49) to the end.25 Some other traditions call ʻazā’im al-sujūd four verses as containing an imperative duty for the believer to prostrate himself. These passages are usually 32:15, 41:38, 53:62 and 96:19.26 In a version of these traditions, ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661) adds he is astonished when he is told that there are no prostrations in the mufaṣṣal.27 In fact these traditions dealing with the ʻazā’im al-sujūd also prescribe prostration for verses from the mufaṣṣal. Moreover, other traditions include verses from the mufaṣṣal and say that there are twelve28 or fourteen sajdas.29 When all of the disputed verses and the prostrations in the final part of the Qur’ān are included the number reaches fifteen,30 or even sixteen if the controversial prostration at Qur. 15:98 is included.31 An attempt to harmonize these differing interpretations can be found in the statement that the Prophet used to prostrate himself at the recitation of the verses from the mufaṣṣal when he was in Mecca, but that he stopped when he moved to Medina.32 Some ḥadīths deal with the sujūd al-Qur’ān in general and describe the attitude of the companions and successors of Muḥammad towards this practice. It is interesting to note that these traditions manifest a clear inclination, ascribed

25

26

27 28 29 30

31 32

al-kubrā, II, 444 nos. 3704–3706; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 639; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād fī hady khayr al-ʻibād, Cairo 1987, I, 132. Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 335 no. 1056; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 457–458, 469; Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Beirut 1988, I, 207; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 343 nos. 5900–5903; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 444 no. 3707; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 465, no. 575; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, II, 639; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 143 no. 22297; Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 29. See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf III, 336 no. 5863; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 459, 469– 470; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān) [= Al-Jāmiʻ. Die Koranwissenschaften, ed. by M. Muranyi, Wiesbaden 1992], 20b, 22a–22b; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 446 nos. 3714–3716; ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il al-imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Beirut 1988, 104; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 146 no. 22317; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 425; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XX, 128–129; Ibn Isḥāq al-Baghdādī, Musnad al-imām Zayd, Beirut n.d., 132: there are four ʻazā’im, and the believer can prostrate himself to the other sajdas if he likes; see also Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Tehran 1967, III, 317. But according to a tradition attributed to Saʻīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/714), the ʻazā’im al-sujūd are three verses: see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 470; on Saʻīd b. Jubayr see F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. I., Leiden 1967, 28. Al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, II, 577 no. 3957. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 469; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 145 no. 22309. Baghawī, Maʻālim, V, 28 and Khāzin, Lubāb, V, 29; see also Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1965, V, 455. ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il, 103 no. 367, 104; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 335 no. 1057; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 59 no. 1401; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 445 no. 3708, II, 449 no. 3727; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 345 no. 811; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, Cairo n.d., I, 408; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 368– 369: with a complete list; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, II, 639; Baghawī, Maʻālim, V, 28–29; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, IV, 455. See Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 343–344 no. 5904; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 59 no. 1403; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 443 no. 3701; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 373; Ibn Shāhīn, al-Nāsikh, 149–150 no. 234; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132: this is ḍaʻīf, but cf. Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 281 no. 559.

57

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

to companions and successors, to limit the practice of sujūd al-Qur’ān. Some ḥadīths relate that it is even possible to replace prostration with a gesture of the head in some situations.33 There are other traditions in which a gesture of the head is accepted in the place of prostration when a person hears a sajda while walking or riding an animal.34 Further evidence concerning this attitude can be found in those statements that permit believers to say a taslīm (i.e. al-salām ʻalaykum) with the prostration: some of these traditions seem to permit its substitution for prostration.35 It is for this reason that, in a tradition attributed to al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), it is stated that there is no taslīm in sujūd.36 There is further evidence in various ḥadiths that the same attitude is applicable in some other situations. The companion and caliph ʻUthmān b.ʻAffān (d. 35/655) passed a qāṣṣ who was reciting a sajda without prostrating himself, saying: prostration is a duty only for those sitting to listen to the sajda.37 This tradition suggests the general negative attitude towards quṣṣāṣ. A report preserved by Bukhārī (d. 256/870) states that al-Sā’ib b. Yazīd (d. 96/714) did not prostrate himself at the prostration of the qāṣṣ.38 In fact in his book about innovations (al-bidaʻ), Ibn Waḍḍāḥ (d. 287/900) points out the tendency of quṣṣāṣ to shorten sujūd al-Qur’ān.39 There are also traditions of this kind in connection with the companion and caliph ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) that underline his doubts about this type of religious practice. His behaviour was controversial: he prostrated himself at the recitation of a sajda one Friday, but the following week, while reciting the same verse and while people beside him were throwing themselves down for sujūd, he said: “It is not our duty to do so, unless we want to”; he recited the verse but did not prostrate himself.40 In other versions ʻUmar did not prostrate

33 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 349 nos. 5927–5929. 34 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 453–454, I, 455–456; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 349 no. 5928; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 461 no. 3776. 35 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 350 no. 5932; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 452; see ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 20b. 36 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 350 no. 5933; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 452. 37 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 344 no. 5906: the tradition goes back to Ibn al-Musayyab who relates that he does the same, see also III, 219 no. 5401; and see, with other companions, ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 345 nos. 5908–5910; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22a; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 328. But see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 456–457: some traditions state that prostration is a duty for those hearing a sajda, see also Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 459 no. 3768; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 455; cf. Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 207; and Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 207. 38 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 329. 39 Kitāb al-bidaʻ, ed. by M.I. Fierro, Madrid 1988, 170; see the translation at p. 289 and note 56 at 288–289, where the question is shortly discussed. Against the tendency to shorten the sujūd al-Qur’ān, see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 454–455, 470. 40 Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 206; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 346 no. 5912; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 456 no. 3756; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 467 no. 576; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 370: this is the tradition mentioned by those maintaining that sujūd al-Qur’ān is not obligatory; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 328; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 142 nos. 22293–22294, VIII,

58

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

himself and even prevented others from prostrating themselves.41 ʻUmar’s attitude was a well-known fact: Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 125/743 ca.), dealing with sujūd al-Qur’ān, says that ʻUmar sometimes used to prostrate himself and sometimes not.42 ʻAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826) relates that at the recitation of a sajda, when he and the people beside him prostrated themselves, ʻUmar said: “If you had not prostrated yourselves, I would not have, because this is not in the ritual prayer”.43 This same attitude is present in traditions under the name of ʻAbdallāh b. Masʻūd. Ibn Masʻūd did not prostrate himself when a certain Sulaymān b. Ḥanzala recited a sajda, but he watched him and said: “If you prostrate yourself, I will prostrate myself too”.44 Some traditions attempt to explain this behaviour; Zayd b. Aslam (d. 136/753) relates that a man recited a sajda near Muḥammad and after finishing the recited sūra asked him: “Is there not a sajda in this sūra (and you did not prostrate)?” The Prophet answered: “Yes, but you were the imām: if you had prostrated yourself, we would have prostrated ourselves”.45 In fact many ḥadiths suggest to follow the imām in the prostration.46 Ibn Masʻūd mentions another way to avoid the prostration at the recitation of a sajda: if the verse is at the end of a sura, the believer can replace it with a rukūʻ.47 Another

41

42 43 44 45 46 47

144 no. 22301; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 285 no. 567: he was reciting the sūra of the Bee (no. 16). In other versions the words “It is not our duty to do so, unless we want to” are attributed to Ibn ʻUmar (< Nāfiʻ); no. 5912; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 456 no. 3756; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 467 no. 576; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 370: this is the tradition mentioned by those maintaining that sujūd al-Qur’ān is not obligatory; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 328; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 142 nos. 22293–22294, VIII, 144 no. 22301; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 285 no. 567: he was reciting the sūra of the Bee (no. 16). In other versions the words “It is not our duty to do so, unless we want to” are attributed to Ibn ʻUmar (< Nāfiʻ); see ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 341 no. 5889; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 329 no. 1077; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 455 no. 3755; but cf. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 475. The various versions are discussed by ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī. Sharḥ ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Cairo 1972, VI, 105–106. Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 206: mana‘ahum an yasjudū, al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 144 no. 22301; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 456 no. 3756. About this tradition see also J. Schacht, The Origins of Muḥammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford 1950, 164; M.M. Azmi, Studies in Early Ḥadīth Literature, Beirut 1968, 238–239. ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b. See, on Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, M. Lecker, “Biographical notes on Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 41 (1996), 21–63. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 344 no. 5905: law lā annakum sajadtum ma sajadtu wa-laysa fī l-ṣalāt. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 344–345 no. 5907; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 460 no. 3771: “You are our imām: prostrate yourself and we shall prostrate ourselves with you”. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 346 no. 5914; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 472; Bayhaqī, alSunan al-kubrā, II, 459 no. 3770; and see, concerning sujūd, if the imām does not prostrate himself: Shaybānī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, Beirut 1986, 102; and cf. Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 206. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 476; see also ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il, 104; and ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22a: idhā qara’ta l-sajda wa-anta tatlū ʻalā qawm fa-sjud. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 347–348 nos. 5918–5919, Ṭabarānī, al-Muj’am al-kabīr, IX, 155 no. 8712, IX, 156 nos. 8714–8715, IX, 159–160 nos. 8732–8735; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 457 nos. 3763–3764; Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id, II, 286; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23b; see also Ibn ʻUmar’s behaviour in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 460; and cf.

59

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

tradition suggests that ʻAṭā’ b. Abī Rabāḥ (d. 115/733) said that this was possible for every sajda in the Qur’ān.48 Some traditions oppose the tendency to reduce the practice of sujūd al-Qur’ān and state that the believer must prostrate himself in this religious practice. It is said, for instance, that when the Prophet used to recite a sajda, he would prostrate himself and all his companions would prostrate themselves with him till there was not enough space left to lean a forehead.49 ʻĀ’isha (d. 58/678) said that for every prostration at the recitation of a sajda, the believer is put a degree higher in Paradise and one of his sins is erased.50 A tradition describing the Day of the Resurrection states that the prophets will recite their holy scriptures and they will prostrate themselves together with all the creatures, and finally Muḥammad will recite all the sūras of the Qur’ān and he and every creature, including the bearers of the Throne, will fall prostrate.51 In another ḥadīth the Prophet relates that every time a believer recites a sajda and then prostrates himself, the devil keeps away, weeps and says: “The son of Adam was commanded to prostrate himself and he did so and he obtained Paradise. I was commanded to prostrate myself, but I refused and I am doomed to Hell”.52 Prodigious events are also employed in an effort to persuade the believers to prostrate themselves; a companion heard a man telling the Prophet that he had dreamt that he was praying under a tree and reciting a sajda. This man prostrated himself; the tree followed him in his sujūd and threw itself down in prostration.53

48 49

50 51 52

53

ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 348 nos. 5921–5922; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 472–473; Baghdādī, Musnad al-imām Zayd, 133. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 348 no. 5923. Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 328, nos. 1075–1076, II, 329 no. 1079; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 405 no. 575; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 61 no. 1412; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 279 no. 557; Abū ‘Awāna, Musnad, I, 207; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 442 no. 3699, II, 458 no. 3767; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 369; Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 333; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 639. See also ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 345 no. 5911; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 344 no. 808; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 544 no. 6470; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 61 no. 1413; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 187 no. 2749. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 346–347 nos. 5915–5916; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 456 no. 3757; ‘Abdallah b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ‘ulum al-Qur’ān), 24a; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 640. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Huntingdon 388, 23a. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 87 no. 81; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 334 no. 1052; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 448 no. 9719; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, II, 57 no. 3108; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 276–277 no. 549; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, I, 206; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 442–443 no. 3700; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23a; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 187 no. 2748; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 284; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 369; see also the sources mentioned in the notes; Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1968, I, 383; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 91; Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 333, V, 223; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357–358; Baghawī, Maʻālim, II, 333; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 640; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr fī aḥādīth al-bashīr al-nadhīr, Beirut n.d., I, 122 no. 791; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, III, 315. This episode is usually connected to the sajda in the sūra of the Ṣād, but in some variant versions the sūra is not mentioned; see Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 334 no. 1053; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 282 no. 562; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 341 no. 799; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 189–190 no. 2757; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 134; Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim, Shiʻār aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth, n.p. n.d., 63 no. 84;

60

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

All these traditions show that in the first century a debate arose concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān. This debate later influenced the differing opinions of the juridical schools regarding the obligation of sujūd al-Qur’ān. Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) and Shāfiʻī (d. 204/820) maintained that it was not obligatory, while Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767) held the opposite opinion.54 *** As we have seen ḥadīth literature displays differing attitudes regarding the question of sujūd al-Qur’ān. The same controversy can be found in the large number of traditions dealing with the sujūd at individual Qur’ānic verses. In fact most of the material collected by ḥadīth books relates to individual sajdas. The final part of this article will discuss all the Qur’ānic passages – controversial or not – which Muslim traditions consider sajdas. The first of these verses is at the end of the sūra of the Battlements (Qur. 7:206): “Surely those who are with thy Lord wax not too proud to serve Him; they chant His praise, and to Him they prostrate themselves”. There is no controversy concerning the prostration at the recitation of this verse. Some Qur’ān commentaries, while commenting on this verse, usually relate traditions about sujūd al-Qur’ān, or point out that this is the first sajda in the Holy Book.55 The most interesting remark is in Muqātil’s (d. 150/767) Tafsīr, where the revelation of this verse is connected with the Meccans’ refusal to prostrate.56 There are no controversies concerning the following sajdas either. These sajdas are Qur. 13:15: “To God fall prostrate all who are in the Heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows also in the mornings and in the evenings”; Qur. 16:49–50: “To God falls down prostrate everything in the Heavens, and every creature crawling on the earth, and the angels. They have not waxed proud; they fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded”; Qur. 17:107–9: “Those who were given the knowledge before it when it is recited to them, fall down upon their faces prostrating, and say ‘Glory be to our Lord! Our Lord’s promise is performed’. And they fall down upon their

Ibn al-‘Arabī, Aḥkām, IV, 58; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 51; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 166; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 48; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 184; see also Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 473 no. 579, V, 489 no. 3424. About the prostration of a bedouin impressed by the recitation of Qur. 15:94, see al-Qāḍī ʻIyaḍ: al-Shifā’ bi-taʻrīf ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā. Beirut 1988, I, 262. 54 Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 370; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357–358; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1992, IV, 638: Shīʻites follow Shāfiʻī’s opinion, i.e. that sujūd al-Qur’ān is a sunna mu’akkada, see also Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, III, 318. And see also the discussion in Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 467; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, V, 455; Shaybānī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, 102–103, and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal’s opinion in ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il, 103 no. 368; and see Rippin in EI2, s.v. Sadjda. 55 See especially Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 368–373, with a complete list of the sajdas in the Qur’ān; he also relates some traditions about sujūd al-Qur’ān. See also Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 446; Māwardī, al-Nukat, II, 291; Bayḍāwī, Anwār, I, 383; Baghawī, Maʻālim, II, 333; Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 333; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 639–640; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, IV, 638. 56 Tafsīr, II, 83; see also Samarqandī, Tafsīr, I, 592.

61

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

faces weeping; and it increases them in humility”; Qur. 19:58: “When the verses of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping”;57 Qur. 22:18: “Hast thou not seen how to God fall prostrate all who are in the Heavens and all who are in the earth . . . God does whatsoever He will”.58 The controversies start with the sūra of the Pilgrimage (no. 22); a sajda in this sūra has already been mentioned above. A large number of traditions state that there is a second prostration in this sūra, i.e. Qur. 22:77: “O men, bow you down and prostrate yourselves, and serve your Lord, and do good; haply so you shall prosper”. The Prophet himself said that there were two sajdas, in this sūra.59 According to another ḥadīth, Muḥammad said that this sūra was granted with the privilege of two sajdas.60 The name of ʻUmar, so frequently mentioned in traditions dealing with sujūd al-Qur’ān, can be found in a report where it is said that he prostrated himself twice at the recitation of this sūra.61 On the other hand, some traditions maintain that there is only one prostration in this sūra, and that it is the first.62 One tradition attempts to harmonize the contrasting versions: Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68/687) says that the first sajda in the sūra of the Pilgrimage is obligatory, while the second is only optional (taʻlīm).63 After the two prostrations of the sūra of the Pilgrimage Qur. 25:60 follows: “But when they are told, ‘Prostrate yourselves to the All-Merciful’, they say, ‘And what is the All-merciful? Shall we prostrate ourselves to what thou biddest us?’ And it increases them in aversion”; Qur. 27:25–26: “So that they prostrate not themselves to God, who brings forth what is hidden (. . .) There is no god but He,

57 See, about this sajda, Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 470; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 145 no. 22307. 58 There were also some controversies concerning a sajda in Qur. 15:98: see the refutation by Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 115, and Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VII, 357. 59 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 59 no. 1402; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 408; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 308; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XII, 5. See also the references at n. 30. 60 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23a; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, I, 579 no. 2618; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 343 no. 805; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 378. Cf. Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 470–471 no. 578; and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 132–133 no. 17369, VI, 141 no. 17417; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, II, 423 no. 3470; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XII, 5; Baghawī, Maʻālim, V, 28; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, I, 579 no. 2617; see also the discussion in Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, V, 474. Some sources attribute these words to ʻUmar: Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 206; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 463; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 143 no. 22299; Khāzin, Lubāb, V, 29; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 308; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XII, 5; or to Ibn ʻUmar and Ibn ʻAbbās: see ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 341–342 nos. 5890, 5894. On ʻAbdallāh b. ʻUmar and ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās see EI2, s.vv. (L.Veccia Vaglieri). 61 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 342 no. 5895; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 463; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 409; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 143 no. 22298; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 450 no. 3729; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XII, 5. See also the references quoted above. 62 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 464; see also the discussion in Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, IV, 454; and Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 29. 63 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 342 no. 5892; see also what Ibn al-ʻArabī relates: Aḥkām, II, 371, III, 307; and Samarqandī, Tafsīr, II, 405.

62

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

the Lord of the Mighty Throne!”;64 and Qur. 32:15, i.e. the sūra of the Prostration: “Only those believe in Our verses who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and proclaim the praise of their Lord”.65 There are many controversial traditions and conflicting interpretations in relation to the prostration in the sūra of the Ṣād, i.e. Qur. 38:24: “And David thought that We had only tried him; therefore he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he fell down, bowing (rākiʻan), and he repented”.66 Ibn ʻAbbās relates that the Prophet used to prostrate himself when listening to this verse even though it is not one of the ʻazā’im al-sujūd (imperative duties of the sujūd).67 In another tradition Ibn ‘Abbās prostrated himself at the sajda of this sūra, saying that ʻUmar also used to do the same: he used to come down from the minbar and then to go up again after the prostration; some historical reports add that ʻUmar prostrated himself when he recited this sūra after the conquest of Jerusalem.68 Other companions, including Ibn ʻAbbās, used to prostrate themselves in this sūra, and there are a lot of traditions which maintain that this prostration was obligatory.69 A prodigious event is invoked to persuade the Muslims to prostrate themselves at the recitation of this sajda: the companion Abū Saʻīd al-Khuḍrī (d. 74/693) dreamt of a tree prostrating itself at the recitation of this Qur’ānic

64 In tafsīr books there are controversial traditions concerning this sajda in connection with a different reading of the Qur’ān: a-lā yasjudū instead of allā yasjudū, see Farrā’, Maʻānī al-Qur’ān, n.p. n.d., II, 290; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, II, 494; Māwardī, al-Nukat, IV, 204–205. 65 Abdallah b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b: it is recited with the morning prayer on Friday; see also Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 326 no. 1068. 66 A comprehensive discussion of this sajda is given in Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 50–51. 67 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 326 no. 1069, IV, 487 no. 3422; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 365 no. 1439; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 769 no. 3387; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 337 no. 5865, and cf. III, 337 no. 5866; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, XI, 318 nos. 11864–11865; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 469 no. 577; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b; Bayhaqī, alSunan al-kubrā, II, 451 no. 3739; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 277 no. 550; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 60 no. 1409; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 371–372; IV, 58; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 51; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 165; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 48; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 183; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 13. But cf. Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 406; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, X, 326 no. 5919; and Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285: from Abū Hurayra. See also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 144 no. 22304, VIII, 146 no. 22314; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 460–461; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 599 no. 2521, III, 778 no. 3436. 68 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 336 no. 5862; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 407; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 143 no. 22295, VIII, 144 nos. 22302–22303; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 452 no. 3744; see also the traditions in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 461. And see, about the sujūd of ʻUmar after the conquest of Jerusalem, Wāsiṭī, Faḍā’il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, ed. by I. Hasson, Jerusalem 1979, 48 no. 72; see also A. Elad, Medieval Jerusalem & Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Leiden 1995, 132. 69 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 336–338 nos. 5864, 5867–5868, 5871–5872; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 460–461; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, V, 234 no. 4632; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 453 nos. 3746f.; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 166–167; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 48–49. Regarding ʻUthmān, see Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 407; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 452–453 no. 3745; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 144 no. 22305.

63

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

verse.70 A similar tradition relates another dream by Abū Saʻīd: while he was writing the sūra of the Ṣād, in particular the verse of the sajda, pen, inkpot and everything around him prostrated themselves with him.71 Also the companion Abū Mūsā al-Ashʻarī (d. 42/662 ca.) had a dream of this kind: he was writing this sūra and pen, inkpot and everything in his house fell prostrate, praising God.72 Another way of giving authority to the duty of prostration at the recitation of this Qur’ānic verse was to stress that the prophet David made a sujūd (and not only a rukūʻ) in this Qur’ānic verse, and that this is also the reason why Muḥammad used to prostrate at its recitation. Some versions of this tradition add that David prostrated himself to ask forgiveness, while Muḥammad used to make it to thank God.73 But in Shāfiʻī’s opinion it is not obligatory to prostrate oneself during the recitation of a thanksgiving sajda.74 This statement is founded upon the established practice of Ibn Masʻūd: he did not use to prostrate himself at the recitation of this sūra.75 It seems clear that other companions would also have followed Ibn Masʻūd’s practice.76 Also al-Zuhrī is said not to have prostrated himself in this sajda, until he learnt that ʻUthmān used to do so.77 Abū Saʻīd al-Khuḍrī relates a tradition that seems to confirm Muḥammad’s indecision about this prostration: on one occasion Muḥammad prostrated himself voluntarily, but at another time he only prostrated himself because those listening to him had already prepared

70 Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 284; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1954, 285; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, II, 330 no. 1069; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 167; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 184. See also, without mentioning Abū Saʻīd, ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ‘ulūm al-Qur’ān), 24a–24b; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 453–454 nos. 3751–3752; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, VII, 20–21; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 337 no. 5869; and see p. 382 and n. 53. 71 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 156 no. 11741, IV, 168 no. 11799; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 284; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 453 no. 3750; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, VII, 20; Suyūṭī, alDurr, VII, 167; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 49. 72 al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 145 no. 22310. See also Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 133–134: a man was writing under a tree; the inkpot and the tree fell prostrate. 73 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 338 no. 5870; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 407; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 277–278 nos. 551–552; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, XII, 34 nos. 12386–12387; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 189 no. 2755; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991, I, 331 no. 1029; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, II, 57 no. 3109; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 452 no. 3741; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 134; for David’s sujūd at the recitation of this sūra see especially Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, 488–489, where the question is dealt with; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 51; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 165–166, 167; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 48; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 13; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 183. 74 Māwardī, al-Nukat, V, 90; Baghawī, Maʻālim, V, 28; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 371–372; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 48; see also Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 183. 75 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 20b; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 338 no. 5873; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 461; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, IX, 156–157 nos. 8717–8722; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 452 nos. 3742–3743; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 58; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 167. See also Azmi, Studies in Early Ḥadīth, 256. 76 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 462: Ibn Masʻūd’s followers; cf. also Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VIL 167. 77 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 460.

64

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

to prostrate themselves.78 Another tradition in the Jāmiʻ of ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb (d. 197/812) introduces and underlines the differing opinions of Ibn ʻAbbās and Ibn Masʻūd, adding these words by Ibn ʻAbbās: “If David had heard it, he would have prostrated himself”.79 But there are also ḥadīths that attempt to harmonize the conflicting reports: he who recites the sūra of the Ṣād has no duty to prostrate himself, unless he is reciting the sūra with this particular intention.80 According to a tradition handed down from Saʻīd b. Manṣūr (d. 227/842), Muḥammad prostrated himself at the recitation of this sūra only after the revelation of another Qur’ānic verse, i.e. Qur. 6:90.81 The following sajda is Qur. 41:37–38: Prostrate not yourselves to the sun and moon, but prostrate yourselves to God who created them, if Him you serve. And if they wax proud, yet those who are with thy Lord do glorify Him by night and day, and grow not weary. Ḥadīths state that this is an uncontroversial prostration,82 but some traditions maintain that the sajda is at the end of Qur. 41:37: “If Him you serve”.83 Ibn Masʻūd hints at these differences of opinion when he says he prostrated himself at the first verse of this sūra.84 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) maintains that the Prophet said: “In this sūra the sajda is two sajdas”.85 Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) includes the most comprehensive report concerning this question in his Muṣannaf.86 On the other hand, there is a large body of material discussing prostration during the recitation of a verse of the sūra of the Star, and this has already been referred to at the beginning of this article. The prostration is found in Qur. 53:62: “So prostrate yourselves before God, and serve Him!” A large number of reports

78 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 60–61 no. 1410; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 365 no. 1438; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 408; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 188–189 no. 2754; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 451 no. 3740; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 372, IV, 57–58; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 51; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 166; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 49; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 183. 79 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 24a: “and God ordered us to follow their (sic) example”. 80 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 21b. 81 Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 166. 82 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 338 no. 5874, III, 339 nos. 5876–5877; ‘Abdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 24a. 83 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 338 no. 5875, III, 339 nos. 5878–5879. 84 Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, IX, 160 no. 8737; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285. 85 ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il, 103–104 no. 369. 86 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 462–463; see also the comprehensive discussion in Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 112; and Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XV, 364.

65

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

state that the Prophet prostrated himself at this point of the sūra of the Star.87 Prodigious events are invoked in an effort to persuade Muslims to fall prostrate at the sūra of the Star: at the recitation of this sajda all the Muslims and unbelievers and even jinn prostrated themselves along with Muḥammad.88 Traditions attest that the companions followed Muḥammad’s behaviour: ‘Umar used to prostrate himself at the recitation of the sūra of the Star,89 and Ibn Masʻūd used to do the same.90 Abū Hurayra relates that he was writing this sūra and when he reached the verse of the prostration, pen and inkpot prostrated themselves.91 This clearly follows the similar story of Abū Saʻīd al-Khuḍrī about the sajda in the sūra of the Ṣād (as mentioned above). The companion al-Muṭṭalib b. Abī Wadā‘a relates he saw Muḥammad and the people around him prostrating themselves at the recitation of the sūra of the Star, but that he did not join them in this prostration; at that time he was an unbeliever but later (when he converted) he never omitted to prostrate himself at this sajda.92 The Medinan companion Zayd b. Thābit (d. 50/670 ca.) maintains the opposite opinion concerning this sajda, referring back to Muḥammad’s behaviour: “I recited this Qur’ānic verse near the Prophet, but he did not prostrate himself”.93 As a consequence of this ḥadīth also caliph ‘Umar b.

87 See pp. 53–56, and the discussion in Rubin, The Eye of the Beholder, 164–166; see also ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23a; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 409; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285–286; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 331 no. 1031; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 668. 88 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 327 no. 1071, VI, 356 no. 4862; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 459; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabir, XI, 318–319 no. 11866: the Prophet was in Mecca and Jews and Christians prostrated themselves with unbelievers and jinn; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 464 no. 575; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 188 no. 2752; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 443 no. 3702, II, 445 no. 3710; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 373; Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 159; he adds that also the trees fell prostrate; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 296; Baghawī, Maʻālim, VI, 272; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 272; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 668; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 404; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1978, II, 114. Some versions mention only Muslims and unbelievers; see ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, X, 187–188 no. 10288; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 409. Regarding the prostration of the unbelievers at the recitation of the satanic verses included in the sūra of the Star, see p. 373. 89 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 339 no. 5880, III, 339–340 no. 5882; Mālik, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 206; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 446 no. 3713; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, VII, 668. 90 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 459; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, IX, 159 no. 8731; also ʻUthmān: al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 145 no. 22306; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 475; see also, about Ibn ʻUmar, Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 476. 91 Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 285; ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī, VI, 94. 92 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 339 no. 5881; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 269–270, nos. 15464–15465, VI, 266 nos. 17911–17912, X, 354 nos. 27314–27315; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 331 no. 1030; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 445 no. 3711; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 404. On al-Muṭṭalib b. Abī Wadāʻa, a companion of the Prophet, see Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba, VI, 104–105 no. 8023; and Zubayrī, Kitāb nasab Quraysh, 406. 93 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 457; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23a; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 343 no. 5899; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 327 nos. 1072–1073; Muslim,

66

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz (d. 101/720) did not prostrate himself.94 The typical attitude that attempts to limit the sujūd in this sajda can also be found: e.g. the case of Ibn ʻUmar (73/692) who used to prostrate himself here if he was praying, otherwise he would make rukūʻ instead of sujūd, as a consequence of the traditions that allow such a substitution to be made if the sajda is at the end of the sūra.95 There are also controversies concerning the sajda at Qur. 84:21: “And when the Qur’ān is recited to them they do not fall prostrate?” The companion Abū Hurayra (d. 58–9/677–79) relates that Muḥammad prostrated himself at the recitation of this verse.96 Some versions of this tradition point out that believers opposed prostration at this verse: Muslims saw Abū Hurayra prostrating himself, and they said they did not usually prostrate themselves at this verse. Abū Hurayra answered that he had seen the Prophet prostrating himself at this verse and that he would go on prostrating himself until he met him (in Paradise).97

94 95 96

97

Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 406 no. 577; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VIII, 141 no. 21647; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 466 no. 576; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 366 no. 1444; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, V, 126 no. 4829; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 207–208; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, 405 no. 2761; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 285 no. 568; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 188 no. 2751, IV, 190 no. 2758; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 59–60 nos. 1404–1405; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 332 no. 1032; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 145 no. 22308; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 444 no. 3703, II, 454 no. 3753, II, 459 no. 3769; Baghawī, Maʻālim, VI, 272; Khāzin, Lubāb, VI, 272; and see the version by Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 410; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 284 no. 566; and cf. Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 373. Along with Abū Bakr b. Ḥazm: Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 410; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 284 no. 566. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 342 no. 5893. Abū Hurayra saw Muḥammad prostrating himself or, according to other versions, he prostrated himself along with him; see, in general, ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 340 nos. 5886–5887; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 458; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 328–329 nos. 1074, 1078; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 406–407 no. 578: a lot of versions; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 365–366 nos. 1440–1443; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 336 nos. 1058–1059; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 47 no. 7375, III, 51 no. 7400, III, 120 no. 7782, III, 388 no. 9359, III, 430 no. 9613, III, 461 no. 9810, III, 471 no. 9867, III, 474 no. 9886, III, 485 no. 9945, III, 496 no. 10026, III, 539 no. 10318, III, 625 no. 10847; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 409; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 462–463 nos. 573–574; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 208–209; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 278–279 nos. 554–555, I, 280 no. 559, I, 282 no. 561; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 187 no. 2750, IV, 189 no. 2756; Mālik, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, I, 205; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 60 no. 1407; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 332 nos. 1033–1036, I, 333 no. 1039; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 146 nos. 22311–22312; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 446–447 nos. 3717–3718, 3721, II, 448 nos. 3723–3725; Ibn al-Bāghandī, Musnad amīr al-mu’minīn ʻUmar b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz, Cairo 1986, 77–78 nos. 69–70; Ḥumaydī, al-Musnad, Beirut 1988, II, 436 no. 992; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, X, 358 no. 5950, X, 394 no. 5996, X, 434 no. 6047, XI, 267 no. 6381; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 424; Baghawī, Maʻālim, V, 28, VII, 226; Khāzin, Lubāb, V, 29, VII, 226, 271; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 839; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIX, 185, XX, 128. Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 333 no. 1040; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 407 no. 578; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 480 no. 9922, III, 496 no. 10027; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, 193 no. 1273; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 210; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 447 nos. 3719–3720, II, 456 no. 3758; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, XI, 364 no. 6476; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 282 no. 561; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 60 no. 1408; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 370; Baghawī, Maʻālim, VII, 226; Khāzin, Lubāb, VII, 226. Cf. also ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 23b; and ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 340 no. 5885: Abū Hurayra prostrated himself at this sajda.

67

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

From another source we know that the Prophet prostrated himself ten times at this sajda.98 Further evidence about the prostration in this sūra comes from traditions dealing with the sujūd by Muḥammad’s companions: ʻUmar and other companions used to prostrate themselves at this sajda.99 The behaviour of the companion Abū al-Dardā’ (d. 32/652) was contradictory on this point: on one occasion he prostrated himself, while on another he did not.100 Another tradition tells of two men listening to the recitation of the two prostrations in Qur. 84:21 and Qur. 96:19 and that one of them prostrated himself while the other did not.101 In fact in Mālik’s opinion this Qur’ānic verse is not one of the ʻazā’im al-sujūd.102 The last prostration in the Qur’ān is Qur. 96:19: “And prostrate thyself, and draw nigh”. Muqātil, in his Tafsīr, relates a tradition which once again indicates the opposition of the Quraysh to the practice of sujūd: when the Prophet recited Qur. 96:19 and he and the believers fell prostrate, the Quraysh clapped their hands over their heads and whistled, thus attempting to mock the prostration.103 But there is no doubt about this sajda, it is again Abū Hurayra who tells that the Prophet used to prostrate himself at the recitation of this Qur’ānic verse.104 *** There are many traditions concerning sujūd al-Qur’ān; in relation to this subject, the ḥadīth collections demonstrate the usual meticulous attention to all the 98 From Abū Salāma: Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, II, 162 no. 854; Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, BeirutMedina 1988, III, 250 no. 1040. 99 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 340 nos. 5883–5884, III, 341 no. 5888, III, 342 no. 5896; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 458–460; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, IX, 158 nos. 8728–8730; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 26b; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 286; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 332–333 nos. 1037–1038; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 448 no. 3722; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 142 no. 22292, VIII, 143 nos. 22296, 22300; see also Ibn al-Bāghandī, Musnad, 76 no. 67. 100 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b; and see also a tradition about ʻUmar b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz: Idem, 22b. 101 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22b. 102 Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 369. 103 Tafsīr, IV, 640; this behaviour by Quraysh regarding sujūd is well attested in traditions; see, about this question, Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes toward prostration (sujūd). I”. 104 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf III, 340 no. 5887; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 459–460; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 366 no. 1443; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 409; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 463 nos. 573–574; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 208–209; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 406–407 no. 578; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 278–279 nos. 554–555; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 47 no. 7375, III, 51 no. 7400, III, 120 no. 7782, III, 485 no. 9945; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, IV, 189 no. 2756; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 60 no. 1407; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, I, 332 nos. 1035–1036, I, 333 no. 1039; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 336 no. 1058; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 146 no. 22311; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 448 nos. 3723–3725; Ḥumaydī, al-Musnad, II, 436 no. 992; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, X, 434 no. 6047, XI, 267 no. 6381; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, IV, 424; Khāzin, Lubāb, V, 29, VII, 226, 271; Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 28, VII, 226; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, IV, 839; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XX, 128; see also Ibn al-Bāghandī, Musnad, 76 no. 67; and cf. ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 22a.

68

TRADITIONS AND CONTROVERSIES ERESE CONCERNING

details. They deal with the duty to prostrate if a woman is reciting the sajda105 with the necessity to be in a pure state before making the sujūd al-Qur’ān106 with the question of prostration if someone is praying,107 with the way to perform sujūd al-Qur’ān while riding a camel or a horse,108 with what invocations to say during the prostration,109 as well as other questions not dealt with in this article. It is evident from the various controversies and the number of ḥadīths dealing with this subject that sujūd al-Qur’ān, like the practice of sujūd in general, was a widely debated issue that led to the diffusion of traditions describing the behaviour of Muḥammad and his companions. It is remarkable that the name of ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb appears in so many of the reports. His opposition to sujūd al-Qur’ān is beyond question, but this reputation made his name the strongest guarantee that a Qur’ānic verse was in fact a sajda. The same thing happened with other companions, whose names were circulated to attest or refute the obligation of prostration during the recitation of certain Qur’ānic verses. Whenever these controversies began and whatever is the historicity of particular traditions, it is clear that all these controversies demonstrate the traditional Arab opposition to prostration, an attitude that influenced both opposition to sujūd al-Qur’ān and, later, the differing opinions of the juridical schools.

105 See for instance ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 348 no. 5920; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 471; Baghdādī, Musnad al-imām Zayd, 133. 106 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 350–351 nos. 5935–5936; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 465–467. 107 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 351 nos. 5938f.; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 464–465. 108 In this case the person should make sujūd on his own hand, Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 61 no. 1411; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 279 no. 556; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 461 no. 3776; cf. Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, II, 369–370. 109 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān), 24b; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, I, 473– 474; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 335 no. 1054; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 406; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, II, 474 no. 580; Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 283 no. 563; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, II, 62 no. 1414; al-Ḥākim, alMustadrak, I, 341–342 nos. 800–802.

69

4 THE THANKSGIVING P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D AL-SHUKR) IN MUSLIM TRADITIONS

Prostration (sujūd) is a fundamental part of the ritual prayer (ṣalāt). It is the highest form of religious devotion and is often mentioned in the Qur’ān as well as in many traditions from all genres of Muslim literature.1 Prostration is also mentioned in some traditions in relation to what Muslim sources define as sujūd al-shukr, i.e. literally, “the thanksgiving prostration”. This is a voluntary act of devotion consisting of a prostration performed by the believer when he wants to thank God for some blessing. There is an abundance of evidence concerning this kind of prostration and it will be discussed here.

I Ḥadīth collections include various reports concerning this kind of prostration and give details of the behaviour of the Prophet who, it is asserted, was always ready to perform a thanksgiving prostration. In a tradition attributed to ʻAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʻAwf (d. c. 32/652), when Gabriel told Muḥammad of a particular favour which God had bestowed on him, the Prophet prostrated himself in thanks.2 The Prophet

1 Much of the literature related to prostration has already been covered in a number of my other articles; see “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd), I. Arabs and prostration at the beginning of Islam and in the Qur’ān”, Studia Islamica [here no. 1]; “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature”, Le Muséon [here no. 2]; and “Traditions and controversies concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān in ḥadīth literature”, ZDMG 147 (1997), 371–393 [here no. 3]. I began this research on sujūd while I was in Jerusalem during 1993–94 for my Ph.D. studies programme at the Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi of the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; I would like to thank the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust that granted me a scholarship to study that year at the Hebrew University. I am indebted to Professor M.J. Kister for many discussions on this subject while I was in Jerusalem, and for his most valuable suggestions. I would also like to thank Professor M. Fierro and Professor M. Lecker for their comments on a first draft of this note. 2 See Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, I, 407, no. 1664; Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manbaʻ al-fawā’id, Beirut n.d., II, 287–288; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā,

70

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-5

T H E T H A N K S G I V I N G P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D A L - S H U K R )

performed thanksgiving prostrations on another occasion when, on his way from Mecca to Medina, he fell down prostrate to God three times interceding on behalf of his people.3 During the raid on Tabūk (9/630), Kaʻb b. Mālik (d. 40/661) prostrated himself when, thanks to Muḥammad’s intervention, God accepted his repentance.4 That this was viewed as a thanksgiving prostration is demonstrated by its inclusion in the chapters dealing with this topic in ḥadīth collections.5 A further notable episode from the life of Muḥammad related to sujūd al-shukr is as follows: after encountering a dwarf, Muḥammad fell down prostrate asking God for continued good health. Despite the fact that most of the versions of this incident given in the sources do not contain any mention of thanksgiving, early ḥadīth works have treated this as a sujūd al-shukr, i.e. Muḥammad performed the sujūd to thank God that he, unlike the dwarf, was in good health.6 The same thing happened when the Prophet, and in some versions his companions Abū Bakr and ‘Umar, met a man who was disfigured: they prostrated themselves.7 A thanksgiving prostration is also attested in connection with the embarrassing episode involving Muḥammad and Zaynab. Zayd b. Ḥāritha (d. 8/629) informed Zaynab about the Qur’ānic revelation permitting her to marry the Prophet, and she fell down prostrate to thank God (fa-kharrat sājidatan li-Allāh shukran).8

3

4

5 6

7 8

Beirut 1994, II, 518, no. 3937, and cf. no. 3936; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq al-mughnī ʻalā l-Dāraquṭnī (on margin of Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, Beirut n.d., I, 412); and see Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād fī hady khayr al-ʻibād, Cairo 1987, I, 131–132. See also another similar tradition, attributed to ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa’l-āthār, Beirut 1989, II, 400; VII, 442, and cf. also II, 368; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Ta‘līq, I, 412. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, III, 89–90, no. 2775; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 518, no. 3935; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 412. See, in general, all the traditions collected by Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 287–289. And cf. also a tradition in Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., II, 211. Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, V, 157, no. 4418; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, IV, 2126, no. 2769; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 354, no. 15789; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by Ḥ. al-R. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 19832, V, 404, no. 9744; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻAẓīm, Beirut n.d., II, 618. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 357–358, no. 5961; Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d., I, 446, no. 1393; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 517, no. 3933; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 411. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 357, no. 5960: his name was Zunaym, III, 358, no. 5964; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 366 (quoting his name, wrongly, as Runaym), and see also the tradition at p. 367; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 410; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʻalā l-Ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, I, 411; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kubrā, Cairo 1978, I, 625. See also Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, ed. by A. Sprenger et al., Calcutta 1856 f.; repr. Beirut n.d.), III, 13, no. 2814: marra ʻalā rasūl Allāh (ṣ) rajul qaṣīr qāla fa-sajada sajdat al-shukr. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367; see also al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 411; Al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 411; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 519, no. 3939; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 289, and another report, at p. 289: whenever Muḥammad saw a disfigured man, he used to fall down prostrate. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367. Muḥammad used also to prostrate himself to thank God when Q. 38:24 was recited, see Tottoli, “Traditions and controversies”, n. 73.

71

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

In addition to these traditions the most important reports are those asserting that the Prophet performed a prostration to thank God when informed of a military success. The most frequently quoted tradition about this kind of sujūd, containing explicit mention of thanksgiving, is attributed to Abū Bakra (d. c. 50/670) and tells that the Prophet used to fall down prostrate on earth when he was informed of good news.9 A longer version of this same report, though lacking explicit reference to thanksgiving, specifies that in this tradition the expression ‘good news’ concerned military successes.10 The same happened when Muḥammad received a letter from ʻAlī informing him that Hamdān had been converted in Yemen: he fell down and prostrated himself.11 Similar behaviour on the part of the Prophet is also described in some very important traditions stating that he, when informed of a military success, used to recite a particular prayer, the ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā. This was a pre-Islamic practice, consisting in acts of devotion, sometimes also in prostrations, as is argued in U. Rubin’s comprehensive study dedicated to the topic.12 In another significant tradition it is said that Muḥammad prayed this ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, consisting of two rakʻas (two acts of bending), on the conquest of Mecca and when he was brought the head of his enemy Abū Jahl. This report is usually included by the sources in the paragraphs about the sujūd al-shukr, though, it must be noted that there is no mention of thanksgiving.13 In spite of this, the similarity between the modalities of ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā in this case and the practice of the sujūd al-shukr is evident. Without examining the historicity of these reports, there can be few doubts that all the material describing the sujūd al-shukr of the Prophet was intended to indicate the correct religious behaviour to be followed by the believer. Muslim traditions underline once again that, along with its prominence in ritual prayer, prostration is the highest religious practice for acts of personal devotion.14 9 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 89, no. 2774; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 446, no. 1394, and see also the differing version attributed to Anas b. Mālik: I, 445, no. 1392; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 411, no. 1025, IV, 324, no. 7789; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa’l-afʻāl, Beirut 1989, VII, 139, no. 18393; see also Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, I, 410, with two versions of this tradition; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 517, no. 3934; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 131. 10 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VII, 323, no. 20477: . . . atāhu bashīr yubashshiruhu bi-ẓafar jund lahu ʻalā ʻaduwwihim . . . fa-kharra sājidan. See also al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, I, 411. 11 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1960–67, III, 132 [= ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879f., I, 1732]; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 516, no. 3932; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa-maʻrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʻa, Beirut 1985, V, 396; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 131; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 411. 12 Rubin, “Morning and evening prayers in early Islam”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 10 (1987), 40–53. 13 Dārimī, Sunan, Damascus 1991, I, 364, no. 1434; Ibn Māja, Sunan, I, 445, no. 1391: with no direct mention of the ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id, II, 238; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il alnubuwwa, V, 81, but cf. III, 89, where it is said that Muḥammad fell down prostrate when informed of the death of Abū Jahl. See also the references in Rubin, “Morning and evening prayers”, 44–45. 14 It should be noted that this practice was not accepted by all the authorities, see for instance Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367. Differing opinions are then reflected among later scholars: see the

72

T H E T H A N K S G I V I N G P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D A L - S H U K R )

II Thanksgiving prostrations are also attributed to various other Muslims, as a way of underlining their devotion, and with the explicit indication that these were voluntary acts performed with the intention of thanking God.15 Mentions of the thanksgiving prostration can also be found in the literature about the patriarchs and prophets, where the practice is used to demonstrate the devotion of these characters and the importance of the practice itself, but also to account for otherwise inexplicable prostrations. It is said, for instance, that Abraham, Ishmael, Sarah, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah and others performed thanksgiving prostrations on different occasions during their lives.16 A further instance of sujūd al-shukr is connected to the episode of the prostration by Jacob and his family before Joseph when they visited him in Egypt when he was a powerful minister of the Pharaoh. In fact some reports explain that although Jacob fell down prostrate to Joseph, he intended to perform a thanksgiving prostration to God, and not a prostration to Joseph.17 This exegetical explanation is quoted very often in those tafsīrs which

discussion and the sources quoted by M. Fierro in Ibn Waḍḍāh, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, Madrid 1988, 113. Shāfiʻī (d. 204/820) approved the practice of the thanksgiving prostration, see al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 411, and the reference to his Kitāb al-Umm in Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, 113, n. 319. Mālik b. Anas, however, was against it, see Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, 187. See also the discussion in Ibn Ḥazm, al-Muḥallā, Beirut n.d., V, 105f. 15 Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 253; see also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, III, 68 and IV, 126; and see Bayhaqī, Dalā’il, III, 125, 309: a thanksgiving prostration is performed after a prodigious event. See also a tradition reported by Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 290: at the time of the anti-caliph ʻAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr, it is said that Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr fell down prostrate when she found something the Prophet had given her as a present and which she had lost. See also Ghubrīnī, ‘Unwān al-dirāya, Beirut 1969, 221, no. 56; Sarakhsī, Kitāb al-siyar al-kabīr, Cairo 1958, I, 221–223; I am indebted to Professor M. Fierro for these references. 16 See Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Leiden 1922–23, 152: Sarah (and by Laban, 155); al-Ḥākim, alMustadrak, II, 610, no. 4049: Abraham; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Princeton, MS Yahuda 49, 52a: Abraham and Ishmael; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr ft waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, Beirut n.d., 124: Moses’s mother; Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār al-jāmiʻa li-durar akhbār al-a’imma al-aṭhār, Beirut 1983, XIII, 79, and Māwardī, al-Nukat wa’l-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, II, 246: Moses and Aaron. Wāsiṭī, Faḍā’il al-bayt al-muqaddas, ed. by I. Hasson, Jerusalem 1979, 11: David. Regarding all the episodes about Solomon: Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ, 272; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ, 152; Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, Cairo 1923f., XIV, 72, 93, 103; Ps-Aṣmaʻī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (in the Kitāb al-shāmil), London, MS British Library Or. 1493, 62b; Māwardī, al-Nukat, IV, 200, Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 590. And see Ps-Aṣmaʻī, Qiṣaṣ, 70b: Isaiah. Job’s wife: Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 343; Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ ʻalā ra’y al-imāmiyya, Berlin, MS Staatsbibliothek No. 1025 (Petermann, I, 633), 82a. 17 Majlisī, Biḥār, XII, 288, and cf. XII, 317: Jacob made a sajdat al-shukr when he found out that Joseph was still alive; Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ, 79a; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs fi aḥwāl anfas nafīs, Beirut n.d., I, 140; see also the relevant passage in Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʻ alghurar, I, ed. by B. Radtke, Wiesbaden 1982, 374, where the distinction between sujūd al-shukr and prostration before a man, forbidden by Islam, is made.

73

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

deal with this embarrassing passage from the Qur’ān (Q. 12:100) describing the prostration of Jacob and his family to Joseph.18

III In the historical reports describing the thanksgiving prostrations performed by Muslims of the generations following Muḥammad, this act is almost always performed in connection with military successes. As has been discussed above, prostrations of thanks for military success are already attributed to the Prophet. Thus, also the companions, inspired as usual by Muḥammad’s behaviour, are described as performing thanksgiving prostrations in similar situations. It is said, for instance, that Abū Bakr (d. 13/634) prostrated himself with this intention when he was informed of the conquest of the Yamāma.19 ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) fell down prostrate on similar occasions, and some versions state explicitly that these were sujūds alshukr.20 Various other traditions give further information about this practice: the first caliphs of the Muslim community also used to fall down prostrate when they were informed of the defeat of or of the death of a rebel. Abū Bakr, for instance, prostrated himself when he learnt that the false prophet Musaylima had died (12/633).21 When, after winning the battle, the dead body of the enemy leader, the kharijite Dhū ’1-Thudayya al-Mukhdaj (d. 38/658), was finally found and brought to him, ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661) prostrated himself.22 18 Jacob and his sons performed a thanksgiving prostration before Joseph: Māwardī, al-Nukat, III, 82; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1965, IV, 290; Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf ʻan ḥaqā’iq al-tanzīl wa-ʻuyūn al-aqāwīl, Cairo 1972, II, 344; Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī maʻānī ’l-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, III, 317; ʻAyyāshī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, II, 208; Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1968, I, 508; Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, Beirut-Damascus 1990, 231; Niẓām al-Dīn al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān wa-raghā’ib al-furqān, Cairo 1962, XIII, 48; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, Beirut 1990, XVIII, 169. 19 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf III, 358, no. 5963; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 519, no. 3940; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 147, no. 22318; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367. See the discussion of this tradition by Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, 187. 20 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VIII, 147, nos. 22319–22320; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 411; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 289. These statements are sometimes found together with the above-mentioned particular that Muḥammad used to prostrate himself whenever he saw a disfigured man; see, for instance, the discussion in Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 519, no. 3939. 21 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 412. 22 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, III, 358, no. 5962; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 519, no. 3941; idem, Dalā’il, VI, 433; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 367: with differing versions, and cf. p. 368, where it is stated that it was a prostration of joy (sujūd faraḥan), see also in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 230, no. 848; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād, I, 132; al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq, I, 412. Concerning other thanksgiving prostrations by ʻAlī, see ‘Āmilī, al-Jawāhir alsaniyya fī ’l-aḥādīth al-qudsiyya, Baghdad 1964, 227, 231; and also the long discussion in Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Tehran 1957–61, III, 325–328: in particular 327, about the words pronounced by ʻAlī when prostrate. About Dhū ’1-Thudayya, see Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʻArab, Cairo n.d., ed. Dar al-Ma‘ārif, I, 474c.

74

T H E T H A N K S G I V I N G P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D A L - S H U K R )

The performance of thanksgiving prostrations is also well attested in historical reports about the first Umayyad period. For instance, the famous governor of Iraq, al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95/714), is described as performing a sujūd when he was on the track of a kharijite woman and one of the followers of this woman was captured.23 Al-Ḥajjāj also prostrated himself when he was informed about the death of the rebel ruler of Mecca ʻAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr (d. 72/692).24 Also the caliph ʻAbd al-Mālik (d. 86/705) prostrated himself when Ibn al-Zubayr was killed, since he had been wishing for his death for a long time,25 or when the head of Ibn al-Zubayr’s brother Muṣʻab (d. 72/691) was brought to him.26 Even if there is no express mention of thanksgiving, these were sujūds al-shukr, similar to those described above and attributed to Muḥammad’s companions. Images of the same kind also occur in the historical reports about later caliphs, where the thanksgiving prostration by the monarch or by the powerful is attested as a customary practice. In fact there is a good deal of evidence about this act in historical works, where caliphs or somebody else – usually a minister or a general – are described as falling down prostrate in exceptional situations: when informed of a military success or a victory,27 when informed of the death of an enemy,28 or when the head of a rebel is brought

23 Al-Mu‘āfa b. Zakariyā, al-Jalīs al-ṣāliḥ al-kāfī wa’l-anīs al-nāṣiḥ al-shāfī, Beirut 1993, I, 435; see also, about a prostration by Yazīd b. Mu‘āwiya, II, 137. 24 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VI, 192 [= II, 851]. See also Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VI, 342 [II, 1065]: al-Ḥajjāj fell down prostrate when informed by Ziyād of the defeat of the enemy. 25 Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, V, ed. by S.D. Goitein, Jerusalem 1936, 377. 26 Ibn Ra’s Ghanama, Kitāb manāqil al-durar wa-manābit al-zuhar, MS Chester Beatty 4254, 88b; I am indebted to Professor M.J. Kister for this reference. References about thanksgiving prostrations by the caliph al-Walīd are given by M. Fierro in Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, 308, n. 17. 27 See, for instance, Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VII, 126 [= II, 1615]: Hishām b. ʻAbd al-Mālik (d. 125/743) performed a thanksgiving prostration (sajada sajdat al-shukr) when informed of a victory; cf. also VII, 75 [= II, 1539]: a prostration by al-Junayd; Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʻādin al-jawhar, ed. by B. de Meynard, P. de Courteille and revised by C. Pellat, Beirut 1966–79, IV, 355, no. 2811: when al-Muʻtaṣim (d. 227/842) captured the rebel Bābak, who confessed his identity, he prostrated himself and ordered that the rebel have his hands and feet cut off; see also a tradition about a prostration by al-Mutawakkil (d. 247/861) in V, 36, no. 2954. A similar episode is also reported about Bishr b. al-Ḥārith (d. 227/842) who wished he had performed a thanksgiving prostration to God when he was informed that a Muʻtazilite adversary had died, and said: “I was in the market, but if it had been a place suitable for prostration, I would have prostrated myself for thanksgiving (to God)”; see Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, Beirut 1983, 23. 28 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VII, 247 [= II, 1801]: Yazīd III (d. 126/744) prostrated himself at the announcement that the caliph al-Walīd II (d. 126/744) had died; VII, 493 [= III, 117]: Abū Isḥāq fell down prostrate when caliph al-Manṣūr (d. 158/775) showed him the corpse of the dead Abū Muslim; VII, 605 [= III, 26]: a woman fell down prostrate when told of the death of her brother. It is interesting to note that there is also a contemporary example of thanksgiving prostration: when a prisoner of Nasser heard that he had died, he noted in his diary that he prostrated to God and thanked Him; see E. Sivan, Radical Islam, New Haven-London 1985, 120. I am indebted to Professor Fierro for this reference.

75

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

before them.29 It is to be noted that in these reports, caliphs and authorities are described as performing prostration in a particular situation, i.e. when defeating a rebel. It is therefore clear that the thanksgiving prostration is in this case a way of attesting the correct religious behaviour of the victor and, consequently, the religious legitimacy of his rule.

Conclusion As has been seen above, the material about the thanksgiving prostration indicates that this act shows an apparent continuity with some practices of the ṣalāt al-ḍuḥā, but in Muslim traditions the thanksgiving prostration occurs as an act of individual devotion and, above all, a way of thanking God for some military success. Moreover, caliphs and commanders are described as falling down prostrate when they have proof that their adversaries have been defeated, thus asserting the religious legitimacy of their rule and their rightful claim to power.

29 See Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, VIII, 488 [= III, 925]: the caliph al-Ma’mūn (d. 218/833) performed a prostration when the head of an enemy was brought before him; IX, 660 [= III, 2093]: Abū’l-ʻAbbās and Quwwād performed a thanksgiving prostration when the head of the dead enemy was brought before them. Masʻūdī, Murūj, no. 2319: when the head of an adversary was brought to Marwān II (d. 132/750), he prostrated himself and stayed prostrate for a long time, only raising his eyes to thank God; V, 178, no. 3361: the caliph al-Muktafī (d. 295/908) performed a similar act when the head of the rebel Abū ʻUmar was brought to him: he prostrated himself; L. Seco de Lucena, “De nuevo sobre el ‘Naqṭ al-ʻarūs’ de Ibn Ḥazm de Córdoba”, al-Andalus, 29 (1964), 33: Ibn Abī ‘Āmir performed a thanksgiving prostration when the head of an enemy was brought to him.

76

5 MUSLIM TRADITIONS AGAINST SECULAR P R O S T R AT I O N A N D I N T E R RELIGIOUS POLEMIC*

Prostration (sujūd) is the central act of Muslim ritual prayer (ṣalāt), and the Qur’ān mentions this act of submission to God Almighty many times urging people to perform it. Many verses, either directly or indirectly, stress the importance of prostration for the believer (Qur. 39:9, cf. 3:113), noting that it should be addressed to God only, and not to the sun or the moon (Qur. 41:37).1 This attitude towards prostration is further developed in ḥadīth collections which contain statements to the effect that the nearest a believer comes to God is when he is prostrating himself and that frequent prostrations are a sign of a good Muslim. I have dealt with most of these questions connected to prostration in various other studies.2 The study of extra-canonical traditions has revealed that one prescription in particular, i.e. the prohibition against secular prostration, became the major theme in relation to prostration. This precept is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān, but is strongly stated in some traditions which concurrently point out that secular prostration was in use among Christians and Jews. All the material available to me emphasizing the Muslim prohibition of secular prostration

Throughout this article I use the word prostration as a translation of the Arabic sujūd. When the expression secular prostration is used this always refers to prostration performed before men, including that performed before religious authorities, as is the case with Christian customs in particular. I would like to thank Prof. S.H. Griffith for his comments on the first draft of this paper. 1 A complete list of the Qur’ānic verses mentioning prostration is given in Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, Leiden, s.v. “Bowing and prostration” (R. Tottoli). 2 See R. Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Prostration and Arabs at the beginning of Islam and in the Qur’ān”, Studia Islamica, [here no. 1]; “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning of prostration in Muslim literature”, Le Muséon, 111 (1998) [here no. 2]; “Traditions and controversies concerning the sujūd al-Qur’ān in ḥadīth literature”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 147 (1997), 371–393 [here no. 3]; “The thanksgiving prostration (sujūd al-shukr) in Muslim traditions”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 61 (1998), 309–313 [here no. 4]. *

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-6

77

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

in contrast to Christian and Jewish practice will be here discussed, along with Christian and Jewish reports which defended this practice in response to Muslim polemics.3

I Prostration had been widespread throughout the Middle East since ancient times, both in cults and as an act of devotion or as a way of greeting the powerful and civil and religious authorities. In this respect the Muslim prescription to fall down prostrate during ritual prayer is nothing new, but merely the continuation of a traditional act of devotion, whose importance is often stressed in traditions. Ḥadīth collections and historical reports in fact regard this act as essential to the ritual prayer and often stress the merits of the believer prostrating himself. On the other hand they censure the practice of falling down prostrate before anyone other than God, pointing out that this custom of secular prostration is used by Christians and Jews. A clear assertion of this kind is given in a well-known ḥadīth in which the Prophet forbids prostrations to men saying that if it were permissible, he would have ordered wives to prostrate themselves before their husbands. The premise of one particular version of this ḥadīth is that the utterance of the Prophet was spoken when the companion Qays ibn Saʻd sought the Prophet’s permission to prostrate himself before him. This happened when Qays came back from the Christian Kingdom of al-Ḥīra, where he had seen people doing this before a governor (li-marzubān).4 A polemical anti-Christian stance is also adopted in some other versions of this same ḥadīth which state that the companion Muʻādh b. Jabal sought the Prophet’s permission to prostrate before him stating that he had seen some Christians in Yemen or Syria fall down prostrate before their bishops and generals.5 Further, the same Muʻādh ibn Jabal, in some other reports, recounts that he had seen Jews prostrating themselves to their rabbis and Christians prostrating

3 I dealt briefly with this question in the end of my article “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning”. Most of the material discussed here in the first chapter about Muslim traditions is taken from this article and from “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Arabs and prostration”. 4 Dārimī, Sunan, ed. by M.D. al-Baghā, Damascus 1991, I, 364 no. 1435; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, II, 250 no. 2140; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʻalā l-ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, II, 204 no. 2763; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1994, VII, 475–476 no. 14705. 5 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by H. al-R. al-A‘ẓamī, Beirut 1983, XI, 301 no. 20596: Syria; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, VII, 103 no. 19420: the tradition points to the two possibilities, Yemen or Syria, 8:229 no. 22046: Yemen; Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d., I, 595 no. 1853: Syria; Ibn Saʻīd, al-Juz’fīhi musnad ʻAbdallāh b. Abī Awfā, Riyadh n.d., 96 no. 4: Yemen or Syria, 97 no. 5: Syria; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., V, 208–209 nos. 5116–5117: Syria, and Muʻādh states he saw ahl al-kitāb, i.e. Jews and Christians; Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manbaʻ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, IV, 309–310: in Syria, he saw Jews and Christians.

78

M U S L I M T R A D I T I O N S A G A I N S T S E C U L A R P R O S T R AT I O N

themselves to their bishops, specifying that this was why he sought Muḥammad’s permission to perform a sujūd before him.6 All these traditions were probably intended to highlight the uniqueness of the Muslim precept in contrast to the customs in use among Christians and Jews in the regions surrounding the peninsula. This same attitude, though less pronounced, is displayed in other traditions, such as those reports stating that the custom of the prostration was also common at the court of the Negus in Ethiopia. Some traditions describing the mission sent by Meccans to Ethiopia to claim back the Muslims who had taken refuge there, relate that the two from the Quraysh, ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ and ʻUmāra b. al-Walīd, entered into the presence of the Negus and prostrated themselves before him. In contrast the Muslim refugees did not perform the sujūd to the Negus even when ordered and said that their religion did not permit them to fall down prostrate before a man, even if that man were a king.7 A notable version of this ḥadīth specifies that the Muslim refugees in particular were urged by priests and monks to prostrate themselves before the king, but that they refused, thus demonstrating upright Muslim behavior.8 Some reports also refer to Yemen in connection to episodes of secular prostration. One tradition states that Muḥammad’s grandfather ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib prostrated himself before the Yemenite king Sayf b. Dhī Yazan who requested him to raise his head, while another report recounts that all the people used to perform prostration around the castle of the Yemenite king Dhū 1-Kalāʻ when he appeared, but later, when he became Muslim, he repented and refused to receive prostration.9 According to historical Muslim reports, another similar episode occurred when the Prophet sent a letter to the Christian king Heraclius in an attempt to convince

6 Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, I, 194; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 310; cf. also Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr (Mafātīḥ al-ghayb), Beirut 1990, II, 195. 7 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 187 no. 4400; see also VI, 232 no. 17792; and Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, VII, 494; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VI, 24, 30, 32; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., I, 149, II, 18; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut-Riyadh 1966, III, 69–71, IV, 142; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa-ma‘rifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʻa, Beirut 1985, II, 293, 298, 300; Ibn al-Jawzī, Ṣifat al-ṣafwa, Alexandria n.d., I, 166; Abū Nuʻaym al-Isbahānī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1986, I, 243, 245, Regarding only the prostration performed by ʻAmr ibn al-ʻĀṣ, see also Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. by M. al-Saqqā et al., Cairo 1955, II, 277. 8 Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, I, 252; idem, Ḥilyat al-awliyā’, Cairo 1932, I, 114; see also in Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VI, 31. 9 Regarding ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib, see Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq fī akhbār Quraysh, ed. by Kh.A. Fāriq, Beirut 1985, 431; a slightly different version is given also in Ibn ʻAbd Rabbihi, al-ʻIqd al-farīd, Beirut 1983, I, 292; Abū Nuʻaym, Dalā’il, I, 98 n. 50; Azraqī, Akhbār Makka wa-ma jā’a fīhā min al-āthār, ed. by R. al-Ṣ. Malḥas, Beirut 1983, I, 152. See also Abū 1-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī, Kitāb at-aghānī, Cairo 1929f., XVI, 77. Regarding Dhū al-Kalāʻ, see Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, ed. by G. Maqdisi, Damascus 1961, 131 no. 305, and 132 no. 309, about the king’s repentance in Muslim times; see also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 487.

79

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

him to become a Muslim. After reading the letter, Heraclius gathered his generals and declared his new faith. The generals reacted angrily to this announcement; Heraclius, fearing them, retracted; and following this his generals fell down prostrate before him.10 Poetry confirms that at the beginning of Islam Arabs were acquainted with the fact that secular prostration was a practice which was used by Jews and, especially, Christians. A verse of Ḥumayd b. Thawr (d. c. 680) makes use of the image of the prostration performed by Christians in a comparison hinting at a bow, where it says: “like the sujūd of the Christians before their learned men”, or following a variant given in some sources, “before their masters”.11 Finally, another tradition from the Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk of Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) states that in the year 869 ad a Jew, when confronted by the rebel ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, kissed his hand and fell down prostrate to him.12 It must also be noted that this polemical attitude in Muslim traditions does not relate solely to secular prostration. It is also displayed towards acts of prostration before images, altars and, in particular, the cross. All of these are considered idolatrous practices by the Muslims. With the spread of Islam this hostility even led to restrictive measures being taken when, following the conquests, the first Christian communities fell under Arab rule and there was a concerted offensive to eliminate objects in use in the cults, such as crosses which were removed or destroyed.13

10 See Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1960–69, II, 650, [= ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901, I, 1566]; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, V, 347 no. 9724; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ, II, 4; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, IV, 266. Cf. also a different episode in Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 150, and the prostration performed by a Jew in Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, III, 340. For a prostration performed by a priest before ʻAlī, see Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, II, 409. Regarding the prostration performed before the Prophet by a Christian native of Nineveh called ʻAddās, see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd), II: The prominence and meaning”, nn. 66–67. And see Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr, II, 149: in Syria prostration was a way of greeting (taḥiya) prophets. Regarding traditions describing the prostration in use in Persia and China, see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd), I: Prostration and Arabs”, nn. 36–40. 11 Fuḍūla azimmatihā asjadat / sujūda l-naṣārā li-aḥbārihim: see Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, ed. by C.J. Lyall, Oxford 1918–21, 453. Some sources have li-arbābihim instead of li-aḥbārihim, see, in general, Azharī, Tahdhīb al-lugha, ed. by ʻA.H. Hilalī and M.ʻA. al-Najjār, Cairo n.d., X, 569; Jawharī, Tāj al-lugha, n.p. 1282 A.H., I, 232–233; Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam maqāyīs al-lugha, Cairo 1970, III, 133; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʻArab, Cairo n.d., III, 1941; Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʻarūs, Cairo 1306–7 A.H., II, 371–372; Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila wa-l-dhayl wa-l-ṣila, Cairo 1971, II, 246–247; Ibn Barrī, Kitāb al-tanbīh wa-l-īḍāḥ ʻammā waqaʻa fī l-ṣiḥāḥ, Cairo 1981, II, 26. See F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (= GAS). II: Poesie, Leiden 1975, 247, on Ḥumayd ibn Thawr. 12 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh, IX, 420 [= ed. M.J. de Goeje, III, 1760]. 13 Sec C.H. Becker, “Christliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung”, in Islamstudien, Leipzig 1924–32, I, 446; Patricia Crone, “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine iconoclasm”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 2 (1980), 68–70; Khalid Yahya Blankinship, The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hishām Ibn ʻAbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, Albany 1994, 94–95; but cf. Robert Schick, The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archeological Study, Princeton 1995, 213–218.

80

M U S L I M T R A D I T I O N S A G A I N S T S E C U L A R P R O S T R AT I O N

This attitude is also evident in literary traditions. An utterance attributed to the Prophet indicates that among the things Jesus will correct at the end of time, such as breaking the cross, will be the restoration of a “proper prostration”, which will be performed to God only.14 It is clear that this “proper prostration” is the prostration as Muslims conceive it, that is, one addressed to God only. All this material bears the signs of a peculiar historical situation, i.e. the use of the secular prostration in the Middle Eastern communities, which Muslim reports directly forbid. Finally, a very important factor to be considered in the definition of this Muslim precept is that it is never explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān. While the Qur’ān states that prostration is to be addressed to God, it never forbids prostration to people and, controversially, mentions two cases of secular prostration. These verses recount the prostration performed before Joseph by his parents and brothers when they reached him in Egypt (Qur. 12:100) and the prostration of the angels, ordered by God, before Adam after his creation (Qur. 2:34; 7:11; 15:29–31; 17:61; 18:50; 20:116; 38:72– 74). It is thus clear that the Qur’ān itself exhibits a different conception from that contained in Muslim extra-canonical traditions, and this is the reason why these two contrasting prostrations have caused so much difficulty to exegetes who have sought to explain the Qur’ānic verses in the light of Muslim precept as it later developed. Some of these interpretations, for instance, managed to explain away these Qur’ānic passages by saying that these were not complete prostrations with the forehead on the ground, but only bows, or by emphasizing that the prostration performed before Joseph was a customary act of greeting in use before the rise of Islam.15 The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the Muslim precept against secular prostration was not a pressing question at the beginning of Islam, when the Qur’ān was revealed, despite the fact that it became a major issue in later traditions. This occurred with the aim of marking the distinctiveness of the Muslim faith in relation to what Muslim traditions polemically define as the distinct Christian and Jewish customs. This polemical Muslim attitude towards secular prostration did not go unnoticed as Christian and Jewish adherents both defended their practices and responded to Muslim criticism.

14 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, XI, 401 no. 20844; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā ʻarā’is al-majālis, Cairo 1954, 403; Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Huntingdon 388, 176a; Ibn Kathīr, al-Nihāya fī al-fitan wa-l-malāḥim, Beirut 1988, 95; Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, (Anonymous), Gotha, MS Al740, 195a; see also the different versions in Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, IV, 497 no. 3448; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, I, 136 no. 155. A significant passage in Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, II, 79, says that God explained to Jesus that Muslims are the privileged community because no other people attest the unity of God or bow their heads in sujūd like them. For further traditions and a more detailed discussion, see Tottoli, “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). II. The prominence and meaning”, chap. 3. The accusation to Christians to prostrate themselves before images or priests is also mentioned in the modern Qur’ān commentary of Ben ʻĀshūr; see M. Borrmans, Jésus et les musulmanes d’aujourd’hui, Paris 1996, 97–98. 15 About all these questions see “Muslim attitudes towards prostration (sujūd). I. Prostration and Arabs”, chap. 6.

81

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

II The first point to make is that the diffusion of prostration among Jews and Christians is well attested in their own as well as in Muslim traditions. In fact it is evidenced in the Old Testament (Heb. hishtaḥwāh; Gr. proskynesis) both in the cult of God and as a secular act of greeting or submission before those chosen by God or the powerful.16 In this respect it is relevant to note that the Old Testament contains the first recorded complaint against secular prostration in the episode of Mordechai’s refusal to fall down prostrate to Haman (Esther 3:2,5). This criticism can also be found in later literature, as for instance in Flavius Josephus or Philo, or, most notably, in the Gospel, such as in the episode of the temptation by the devil, where Jesus states that prostration is owed to God alone.17 Notwithstanding this criticism, the use of prostration in all its meanings is well documented. Instances of secular prostration include the practices in use in Christian cults, the Roman cult of the emperor as well as those recorded in rabbinical literature. Prostration was permitted by rabbis as one of the postures of prayer, but also before the rabbis themselves as a sign of reverence and respect.18 The use of prostration as an act of honor to the emperor or his image is particularly relevant in this sense. This kind of proskynesis began with the deifying of Alexander the Great and led to the Roman cult of the emperor, a widespread practice that met some opposition, as is attested by Philo who defined it as a barbaric custom and one which went against ancient Roman tenets.19 Prostrations, in all its senses and literary discussions, including divergent attitudes to this practice, are well attested to in Christian literature, but especially in connection to the question of the veneration of images or of the cross. The differences of opinion indicate that this was a controversial issue regarding a practice which must have been widely diffused.20 But, from the Christian perspective, the

16 See H.D. Preuss, s.v. “ḥwh” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, transl. by D.E. Green, IV, Grand Rapids 1980, 250–256, and the sources quoted here. See H. Greeven, “s.v. προσκυνεω”, in Theologisches Worterbuch Zum Neuen Testament [hereafter TWNT], ed. by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, Stuttgart 1948f., VI, 759–762, concerning prostration among the Greeks. Secular prostrations are well attested in ancient Near Eastern iconography, and in particular in Egypt; see J.B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 1969, 15–17, nos. 45–47, 52, p. 122 no. 355; O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York 1978, 309–311. 17 Matt. 4:9f., Luke 4:7f. About all these questions see TWNT, VI, 762–766. In the Gospel secular prostration is always performed before men connected with God, see for instance the proskynesis to Jesus and the refusal of Peter to receive prostration from Cornelius to whom he said: “Wake up, also I am a man” (Acts 10:25). Cf. also Rev. 19:10, 22:9, where the angel refuses to receive a prostration. 18 TWNT, VI, 764. 19 TWNT, VI, 764. 20 E. Kitzinger, Il culto delle immagini, Italian translation, Scandicci 1992 of The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies, Bloomington 1976, 11, about the emperor Julianus the

82

M U S L I M T R A D I T I O N S A G A I N S T S E C U L A R P R O S T R AT I O N

question was the permissibility of the veneration of the holy images and not the nature of the proskynesis before them.21 It is in fact significant that, in this regard, the Church Fathers considered all the honors addressed to the emperor legitimate, including prostration. Nor, on the other hand, is there evidence that Byzantine emperors thought to forbid the honors attributed to their image.22 It is interesting to note in this respect that Arabic lexicographers attest to the use of prostration to the image of the king at the court of the pre-Islamic Christian kingdom of al-Ḥīra. Al-Aswad b. Yaʻfur (b. c. 535 ad), a pre-Islamic poet of al-Ḥīra, mentions the so-called darāhim al-asjād in one of his verses. These dirhems, as is explained by Muslim lexicographers, were Persian coins, minted with the image of the king, upon which people used to perform a sujūd or bow in reverence.23 The lack of debate about the cult of the emperor evidences the fact that the question of secular prostration was clearly a secondary issue in the minds of the Church Fathers. Their main concern was for the cult of images, and secular prostration, notwithstanding the contrasting data contained in the Bible, was a generally accepted practice. With the advent of Islam the situation changed completely, and this is evident in the Christian literature that originated in Muslim territories, where explicit mention of secular prostration is made. This Christian literature gives a clear polemical response to the Muslim precept forbidding any prostration other than that to God. A clear statement of this type was written by John of Damascus (d. 749 ad) in his treatise in defense of the holy images where he insisted that prostration is not merely an act of cult worship. In his argument John makes references to Biblical passages, showing that Abraham performed proskynesis before Chet’s sons, Jacob before Esau and on other occasions (Gen. 23:7–9, 33:3, cf. 47:31), and that Joshua, the son of Nun, and Daniel prostrated themselves before an angel (Josh.

Apostate who railed vehemently against the veneration of the sepulchers and at the prostration before the wood of the cross. See also Kitzinger, Il culto, 17; in the first half of the sixth century there is the first mention of the prostration before images in the churches. See for instance M. Minucius Felix, Octavius, ed. by C. Halm, Vienna 1867, 33–34: he attacks the custom to prostrate oneself before material, underlining that men would not do so if they knew how these images are made. It is interesting that this procedure is attested also in Muslim literature describing the customs at the court of the kingdom of al-Ḥīra; the bishop (usquf) of Mosul, giving thanks to God for the recovery of the king of al-Ḥīra al-Nuʻmān, prostrated himself before the altar. See Abū l-Baqā’, al-Manāqib al-mazyadiyya fī akhbār al-mulūk al-asadiyya, Amman 1984, I, 269. Regarding the prostration before the cross, see Kitzinger, Il culto, 24, 85; and see J. Bidez, Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig 1913, XXI, 78. 21 Kitzinger, Il culto, 24. 22 About all these questions, see Kitzinger, Il culto, 12, 25, 58–59; cf. also the sources in Kitzinger, Il culto, 59 n. 37. And, finally, see also C. Schönborn, L’icona di Cristo: Fondamenti teologici, Italian translation, Cinisello Balsamo 1988 of Die Christus-Ikone: Eine theologische Hinführung, Schaffhausen 1984, 62, 139. 23 Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, 452–453; see also in E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, London-Edinburgh 1863–93, 1307c; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, IV, 1941; Zabīdī, Tāj, II, 372; Azharī, Tahdhīb, X, 569; Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila, II, 246; Jawharī, Tāj, I, 233; Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam, III, 134; Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Cairo 1952, I, 310.

83

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

5:14; Dan. 8:17), but they did not intend their acts as a sign of cult or adoration. John of Damascus distinguishes between holy prostration which was used in cults, and prostration which was addressed as a sign of veneration to distinguished persons. These are two distinct kinds of prostration: the first is due only to God, while the second can be addressed, in the name of God, to ministers and to the things consecrated to God, to the chiefs that received their power from God, or, finally, also among people as a way of paying homage to someone. The subject, as addressed by John of Damascus, is connected solely with Christian theological questions, but, at the same time, it serves as an indirect response to the Muslims positions, though without directly mentioning Islam.24 Historical reports include significant evidence of this fundamental difference of the conception of prostration before men as perceived by Muslims and Christians. Byzantine historians relate, for instance, that at the court of the caliph Muʻāwiya (d. 681), after the conquest of Damascus in 667/8, a man called Sergius prostrated himself before the chief named Andreas of a Byzantine legation. Muʻāwiya, sources specify, considered the act as due to the fact that Sergius was afraid of Andreas. Muʻāwiya reproached him, but Sergius said that he behaved this way not out of fear, but because it was customary. Some of the sources add that it was an act of respect, evidently before a man of higher rank.25 What is significant in this report is that Muʻāwiya is not surprised by this prostration, which he was surely familiar with, but only that he interprets it differently, as a humiliating act to be censured strongly, while the two Byzantines consider it simply as a way of greeting.26

24 Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. III [Contra Imaginum Calumniatores Orationes Tres], ed. by B. Kotter, Berlin-New York 1975, 75–93; See also, in defense of the prostration before the cross against Muslims, Robert Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Princeton 1997, 486. For the reference to biblical passages against the Jewish arguments, in relation to the question of the prostration before images, see also Leontius (in PG, 93, 1597–1609). Regarding the ideas of John of Damascus, see also Schönborn, L’icona, 175, according to whom Procopius of Gaza had already pointed out this distinction. It is particularly relevant that the distinction is attested also in Western Church, in the Libri carolini, where however it is stated that it is better to worship a man than to worship images: Libri carolini, ed. by H. Bastgen, MGH Leges 2/111, Concilia, Suppl., Hannover-Leipzig 1924, 81–86. The answer to the question “Why do we prostrate before images?” can be seen already in the Canons and Resolutions of Jacob of Edessa (c. 680); R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 608 n. 19: We prostrate before the cross as if we were seeing the Messiah . . . And before the leaders of the world we prostrate, whether they are heretics or pagans, as if in honour according to the world of the apostles, but these prostrations are distinct from each other. 25 Andreas Kaplony, Kostantinopel und Damaskus: Gesandtschaften und Verträge zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen 639–750. Untersuchungen zum Gewohnheits-Völkerrecht und zur interkulturellen Diplomatie, Berlin 1996, 59–60. The same direction is taken by those reports recounting the Muslim legations sent to the Byzantines where attempts are made to make them fall down prostrate; see for instance Kaplony, Kostantinopel und Damaskus, 256–257. 26 Studies of the ceremonies in the caliphal court have highlighted the fact that prostration was not in use; see for instance O. Grabar, “Notes sur les ceremonies umayyades”, in Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, ed. by Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, Jerusalem 1967, 56: “les prosternations sont rares”.

84

M U S L I M T R A D I T I O N S A G A I N S T S E C U L A R P R O S T R AT I O N

This type of evaluation also emerges in the treatise about the veneration of the images of Theodore Abū Qurra (d. c. 830) where John of Damascus’ arguments are linked to an explicit polemical reaction to Muslim conceptions. Abū Qurra defends secular prostration and also mentions the controversial Qur’ānic verses to maintain the inconsistency of the Muslim precept: There are people other than you, O Jew, among those who say that it is not permissible to make an act of prostration except to God. They too mock the Christians for their practice of making prostration to the icons and to people. They maintain that making the act of prostration is worship, all the while having it in mind that “God commanded all the angels to prostrate themselves to Adam, and they prostrated themselves, except Iblis refused, and came to be among the unbelievers” (Qur. 2:34). If prostration is an act of worship, then without a doubt, according to what you say, God in that case commanded the angels to worship Adam! Far be it from God to do that! Should one not then understand that the practice of making prostration is sometimes by way of honor? One should refrain from mocking the Christians when he sees them making prostration to their bishops, and he should bear it in mind that he too says that Jacob and his sons “bowed down as ones making prostration (sujjadan)” to Joseph (Qur. 12:100). So he certainly should not find fault with anyone who does what the prophets did.27 In another passage Abū Qurra deals a second time with the question, quoting the discussion by John of Damascus and his distinction between the two different kinds of prostration.28 It must be underlined that this distinction is central in the Christian speculations, but is completely ignored by Muslim traditions which state that every kind of prostration must be addressed only to God, and that every prostration other than to Him is condemned, notwithstanding the contents of the above-mentioned Qur’ānic verses.29

The use of prostration before the caliph is only attested in later times; see for instance, regarding the Fatimid court, M. Canard, “Le cérémonial fatimide et le cérémonial byzantin. Essai de comparaison”, Byzantion, 21 (1951), 379–380. 27 Theodore Abū Qurrah, A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons, English transl. by Sidney H. Griffith, Louvain 1997, 52; cf. also the Italian translation La difesa delle icone by Paola Pizzo, Milan 1995, 103. 28 Abū Qurrah, A Treatise, 56–57; see also the considerations by S.H. Griffith, “Theodore Abū Qurrah’s Arabic tract on the Christian practice of venerating images”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105 (1985), 65–67. 29 Regarding these questions, see also Becker, “Christliche Polemik”, 449. For Christian arguments in response to the Muslim polemics against the prostration to images of Christ and the cross, see also S.H. Griffith, “Islam and the Summa Theologiae Arabica”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 13 (1990), 250. The distinction made by John of Damascus in the use of the act is reflected also in a distinction in the meaning of the terms proskynesis and sajda. In fact, if prostration can be

85

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

III There can be few doubts that the polemical attitude shown by Muslim traditions against secular prostration is mainly directed at Christians rather than Jews. The custom of prostrating oneself before the cross, images, and consequently also before bishops and civilian authorities among Christians and at the Byzantine court were surely more relevant in the Muslim perspective than analogous behaviors on part of the Jews. Notwithstanding this, Muslim conceptions left their mark upon the Jewish communities living under Muslim rule. This is, for instance, suggested by a Karaite tract which not only rejects the service of the Synagogue but also polemizes against ʻAnan’s suggestion that people should fall down prostrate touching the ground with their faces when the Scroll is taken out from the Ark and during the benedictions.30 The question of secular prostration found a full treatment in another Karaite treatise, the Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib (written in 927) of Qirqisānī who dedicated almost a whole chapter to a refutation of those maintaining that prostration is due to God only. The text is directed at Jewish sects, and in particular those Qirqisānī defines as “some of the ʻAnanites and Karaites”, but the significance of the question itself relates no doubt to the emergence of the Muslim precept and to its influence upon Jewish communities of that time. The title of the chapter is “Confutation of those maintaining that prostration (al-sujūd) is permitted only to God Great and Powerful”: Some of the ʻAnanites and Karaites hold that prostration is not admitted before persons or things other than God the Great and Powerful, and in this they make reference to the words of the Book since you will not prostrate yourself before another god (Exod. 34:14) and rely on the story of Mordechai and of his refusal to prostrate himself before Haman (cf. Esther 3:2), as confirming it, though by refusing the king’s order he exposed himself and all his people to the risk of death. The ignorance of those who argue of this restriction is clear and evident, since the stories of the Book belie them. Among these stories there is what is said about Abraham, peace be upon him, who prostrated himself before the people of the county, before the Hittites (Gen. 23,7), and the passages Achimaas came still closer and said to the king: “Hail!”, then prostrated himself with his head on the ground before the king (2 Sam. 18:28), Batsheba then bowed with her face to the ground and paid homage to the King

either religious or secular, then the gesture called sujūd or proskynesis can indicate either falling down with the forehead on the ground or a simple bow. 30 See Jacob Mann, “A tract by an early Karaite settler in Jerusalem”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 12 (1921–22), 266, where he adds that later Karaites also bowed when entering the synagogue, evidently before the Ark.

86

M U S L I M T R A D I T I O N S A G A I N S T S E C U L A R P R O S T R AT I O N

(1 Kings 1:31), and also when the prophet Nathan prostrated himself to David where it is said that he was presented to the king saying: “Here is Nathan the prophet!” He entered into the presence of the king and paid homage by bowing his head to the ground (1 Kings 1:23). Further we have already mentioned Solomon’s prostration to his mother (cf. 1 Kings 2:19) to which must be added the story of the fifty sons of prophets who prostrated themselves to Elisha, as it is reported that they said: “Elijah’s spirit settled upon Elisha”. They went towards him and bowed to the ground to him (2 Kings 2:15) and the passage where it is said that everybody prostrated themselves before the Lord and before the king (2 Chron. 29:20). In the Book there are many other examples in different passages similar to these, none of which could plausibly be interpreted as a prostration to God, and I have limited my citations only to those cases where there can be absolutely no doubt. Whoever refers to the words of the Book since you will not prostrate yourself before another god (Exod. 34:14) is an ignoramus. This verse clearly indicates that it is prostration to the idols that is forbidden. In fact, there are two kinds of prostration: the first is that of prayer and of cult which is what is expressly forbidden since it is stated do not prostrate yourself to them/before sculptures and images/and do not make service to them (Exod. 20:5), which has the same meaning as in since you will not prostrate yourself before another god (Exod. 34:14). The second type is the prostration of deference and honor which is an established use among people before their king, chief, learned men or father, and in the sense in which it is mentioned in relation to Solomon and other cases already dealt with. This second prostration is neither forbidden nor illicit. In relation to the story of Mordechai, two points need to be made. The first is that Haman was an unbeliever and it is possible that addressing this act to an unbeliever is forbidden, though this is contradicted by the story of Abraham, upon him be peace, and the Hittites. The second thing to say, and this is the correct interpretation, is that it is typical of the unbelievers and of the idolatrous to reproduce the image of their idols upon their jewels and their clothes such as in the case of the Sabians who portray the image of Jupiter with different colors upon the stones of their rings or of similar examples we have seen in India. This is confirmed by the stories in the Book mentioned above, such as the words which Jacob, upon him be peace, addressed to his sons and to the people of his house: Remove the foreign gods which are among you, then purify yourselves and change your clothes (Gen. 35:2); and, consequently, in the words then they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which were in their hands and the pendants they had on their ears (Gen. 35:4). It is thus possible that upon the clothes or jewels of Haman, such as the ring, there were images of the idol and for

87

T H E I S L A M I C A C T O F P R O S T R AT I O N ( S U J Ū D )

this reason Mordechai refused to fall down prostrate before him. It is not possible to deduce from these facts that prostration before persons with the aim of showing deference and paying homage is prohibited.31 There is little more that can be added to this comprehensive account which displays the Bible’s contrasting evaluations of secular prostration. These contrasts had already been pointed out by others prior to Qirqisānī, and his polemical discussion is directed exclusively against other Jews, and he relies solely upon Biblical references without mentioning Muslim arguments. But as has already been said, there can be few doubts that the topic itself and the way of treating it had been established by Muslim polemics, and that along with his confutation of the conceptions of the ʻAnanites and Karaites, Qirqisānī gives scriptural evidence which weighs heavily against the Muslim precept permitting prostration only to God.

31 Al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib, ed. by L. Nemoy, New York, 1939–43, 675–676 (I am indebted to Prof. Bruno Chiesa for this reference). Regarding prostration, in his Kitāb al-anwār, Qirqisānī also rejected the Rabbanite prohibition against touching the ground with the face while bowing in prayer because, he says, it was contrary to the Scriptures; see Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood, Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity, Frankfurt 1984, 106.

88

Part II HADITH, TRADITIONS, AND LITERATURE

6 ḤADĪTH AND MUSLIM D I E TA RY N O R M S Some traditions on the goodness of meat and the permissibility of horse meat

In the rich Muslim casuistry, as we know, every aspect of the believer’s life is carefully analysed in such a way that he always behaves in a religiously correct manner everywhere he goes. Food does not escape this general principle, but rather the dietary rules concerning food make up one of the most interesting chapters and the most debated by the schools of law. Some of these dietary rules are already hinted at in the Qur’ān, but it is in the collections of traditions (ḥadīth) that they are carefully explained in an endless list of variants and even conflicting opinions. The traditions are particularly numerous in the discussion regarding permissible or impermissible meats and, therefore, the animals that may be eaten. This material, although it occupies a large space in encyclopaedic ḥadīth collections, has rarely been the subject of studies. Only a few years ago a first study appeared, which was devoted to the different leanings of the schools of law regarding the permissibility or prohibition of eating certain meats, and in which M. Cook examined the animals, on which the different schools had handed down variations in the traditions and on which they had conflicting opinions, such as the porcupine, the lizard, the hare and the eel.1 Cook also dealt briefly with the horse, but taking only the juridic literature into consideration, and pointed out that the Sunni schools, with important exceptions, have a liberal attitude allowing the consumption of horse meat, while for the Shi‘i schools, eating horse meat is disapproved of or forbidden.2 These pages will deal with the oldest Muslim traditions from the Qur’ān, the Qur’ānic exegesis and ḥadīth collections, which deal primarily with meat in general, where the controversial nature of many pronouncements in favour of eating meat will be highlighted. Finally, the last part of the research will deal with only one single case within the abundant

1 M. Cook, “Early Islamic dietary law”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 7 (1986), 217–277; on this topic, see also E. Francesca, Introduzione alle regole alimentari islamiche, Roma 1995, 9–18. 2 Cook, “Early Islamic dietary law”, 254–255; on this point, see also Francesca, Introduzione, 14.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-8

91

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

literature that debates the meat of controversial animals, namely the permissibility of horse meat.

1

On the goodness of meat

With regard to meat in general, it should be noted that there is no lack of clear pronouncements, especially in the traditions that testify to Muḥammad’s preferences, but that the Qur’ān never mentions a meat-based diet as opposed to a vegetarian one. In the sacred text, in fact, the word meat (laḥm) is only mentioned in a few limited cases, namely to prohibit pork, carrion, victims of sacrifice by idolaters, animals not slaughtered according to the rules,3 or in the invitation to eat the meat of the herds sacrificed during pilgrimages.4 Apart from these precisions regarding rituals, the general attitude of the sacred text, which emerges from several verses, is to encourage man to eat the good things created by God, and therefore also meat, in general, because meat is a delicious gift from God.5 However, there is no comparison between the different foods available to man, and when the Qur’ān lauds the products and fruits of the Earth, it is in no way to urge one to prefer them to meat.6 These tendencies are further evidenced by two other passages in which, among the other benefits that will be enjoyed in Paradise, fruit and meat are mentioned together, and the blessed will have the privilege of enjoying in their preferred varieties and at will.7 We find traces of this entirely positive assessment of meat in the Muslim collections of traditions that record the Prophet’s pronouncements, and thus his tastes. Meat, when mentioned in general terms, is unanimously stated to be the most delicious food, and the collections of ḥadīth attest that it was Muḥammad’s absolute favourite food.8 In fact, a particularly interesting tradition by Abū al-Dardā’ (d. 32/652) attests that Muḥammad in fact said: “The best food (sayyid idām/ṭaʻām)

3 Q. 2:173; 5:3; 6:145; 16:115. 4 Q. 22:37; see also, though not relevant to our research, in Q. 2:259; 23:14; 49:12. 5 See the mentions of “very fresh meat” in Q. 16:14, which alludes to fish meat, and in Q. 35:12. Other verses encourage the eating of the good things (ṭayyibāt) created by God: Q. 2:172, 20:81, 23:51, cfr. 2:168; see also Q. 5:87 that urges not to limit oneself in the enjoyment of the “good things” created: this verse will be discussed later. All the passages that refer to the “good things” in general should naturally be added here, without any clear indication that they refer only to food, as well as the numerous passages that discuss different foods and eating in general. On some of these topics see Francesca, Introduzione, 5–8. 6 See Q. 36:33, and the verses that follow and which continue on this topic: “And We made therein gardens of palms and vines, and therein We caused fountains to gush forth so that they might eat of its fruits . . . Glory be to Him, Who created all the pairs of what the earth produces” (Q: 36:34–36). [This Qur’ānic passage, like the others in this article, was cited in the Italian original according to the translation by A. Bausani (Il Corano, Firenze 1955) and is here given according to the translation by A. Arberry (The Koran Interpreted, London-New York 1955)]. 7 Q. 52:22; Q. 56:21 instead mentions more specifically “the meat of a bird”. 8 Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 292.

92

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

for both the people of this world and the people of the hereafter is meat (al-laḥm)”.9 There is no lack of other evidence of the same views, in which Muḥammad’s predilection for meat emerges. When some companions brought him a terracotta pot, the Prophet looked into it hoping that there would be meat in it.10 The same hope is also expressed at a meal with his wife, ʻĀ’isha (d. 58/678): Muḥammad saw a pot in which meat was boiling, but he was then presented with bread and something else, and, disappointed, he asked for that meat in the pot. ʻĀ’isha replied that the servant Barīra had received it as alms, and since she knew that he did not eat food given as charity, she had not prepared it for him. Muḥammad, evidently eager to eat the meat, replied, “For her it was alms, but for us it is a gift”.11 Moreover, it is again Abū al-Dardā’ who relates that Muḥammad always assented when invited to 9 Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d., I, 1099 no. 3305; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1967, XII, 117; Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 292; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1989, XV, 281 nos. 40999–41001, 41004, 41007, but in part. 41000 and 41007: and the best drink is water; see also Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manba‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, V, 35; and see these other sources which were pointed out to me by Prof. M.J. Kister, whom I thank: Ābī, Nathr al-durr, Cairo 1980f., I, 212; Ibn Ḥibbān, Kitāb al-majrūḥīn, Beirut 1922, I, 332: only mentions Paradise; Kīnānī, Tanzīh al-sharīʻa al-marfūʻa, Beirut 1979, II, 248 no. 55f., but see II, 238 no. 12: la ta’kulū l-laḥm. Apart from these sources, see also Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, II, 17; and on this tradition and Muḥammad’s preference for meat in general, see T. Andrae, Die Person Muhammeds in Lehre und Glauben seiner Gemeinde, Stockholm 1918, 202 n. 3; H. Kindermann, Über die gutten Sitten beim essen und trinken, Leiden 1964, 191–195. See another tradition according to which the broth of the prophets was made of meat and wheat: al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 281 no. 40990. Meat will be given, as well as the other foods and privileges offered, in Paradise; on this point see the tradition in which it is stated that the devout will eat the meat of bulls and whales, which will taste of the rivers of Paradise: ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by H. al-R. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 1983, III, 565–566 no. 6702; Hannād b. al-Sarī, Kitāb al-zuhd, ed. by ʻA. al-R. b. ʻAbd al-Jabbār al-Faryawā’ī, Kuwait 1985, I, 129 no. 168; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, II, 327. On the origin of this legend and its relationship to a cosmogonic myth, see R. Tottoli, “Un mito cosmogonico nelle Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di al-Ṯaʻlabī”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, s.o. 20 (1989), 49–59. 10 Al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ʻalā al-ṣaḥīḥayn, ed. by M. ʻA. al-Q. ʻAṭā, Beirut 1990, IV, 123 no. 7095; on Muḥammad’s wish to eat meat see Al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, IV, 125 no. 7099. 11 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, VI, 506–507 no. 5279; Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Beirut 1988, 562; Muslim, Saḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, II, 1144–1145 no. 1504: numerous versions; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, IX, 539 no. 25507, IX, 543 no. 25523; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991, III, 364. no. 5640; Dārimī, Sunan, Damascus 1991, II, 611 no. 2205; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, ed. by Ḥ.S. Asad, Damascus-Beirut 1982, VII, 414 no. 4436; see Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VI, 554 no. 5430, and a mention in Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, Beirut 1983, 239. This tradition, given its relevance to many issues, is presented in a reduced version, and not only in versions by ʻĀ’isha, but also by others, like Anas b. Mālik; see Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 462, nos. 1493–1495, III, 183–184 nos. 2577–2578, VI, 508 no. 5284; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 755 no. 1074–1075; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, II, 127 no. 1655; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, III, 365–366 no. 5643, 5647–5648, IV, 47 no. 6239; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 262 no. 12326, IV, 360 no. 12858, IV, 549 no. 13924, IX, 439 no. 24973, IX, 424 no. 24893, IX, 488 no. 25225, IX, 528 no. 25448, IX, 534 no. 25481; Dārimī, Sunan, II, 610 no. 2204; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, V, 298 no. 2919, V, 360 no. 3004, VI, 18 no. 3244, and especially V, 404 no. 3078, according to which, the Prophet asked specifically that the

93

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

eat meat and accepted the meat given to him as a gift.12 Finally, the same enthusiasm is attested in other accounts in which Muḥammad states that the heart receives joy when eating meat.13 In spite of this blatant preference, other ḥadīths point out that Muḥammad did not eat meat every day, but occasionally.14 Other accounts, of a different kind, on the other hand, condemn immoderate and excessive meals. This intention is evident in some of the traditions collected in the Muṣannaf by Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849) under the emblematic title “He who detested exaggerating with meat” (Man kariha mudāwamat al-laḥm). This chapter also reports, among other pleas, that of ʻĀ’isha to the Tamīm not to persist in eating meat, because meat inspires a craving (ḍarāwa) similar to that of wine.15 The same words are recorded in the Muwaṭṭa’ by Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) in a tradition attributed to ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 23/644) who exhorts not to exaggerate in the consumption of meat for the same reason.16 These clear injunctions to caution do not in any way affect the extremely positive portrayal of meat in general in the ḥadīth collections, in which, it cannot escape one’s notice, there is a clear and direct incitement not to give up eating lawful meat. To the traditions discussed so far, one can add another in which the Prophet’s particular preferences are presented, and from which one can implicitly infer the high regard he had for all meat. In some accounts, for example, an attempt is made to clarify which part of the animals Muḥammad preferred. Abū Hurayra (d. 59/678) relates on this point that meat was brought to the Prophet and offered to him: he took the front leg (dhirāʻ), because it was the part he liked best, and took a bite.17 The front leg so pleased the Prophet that he continually asked for

12 13

14 15 16

17

meat be cooked so that they both (Muḥammad and ʻĀ’isha) could eat some; Ṭayālisī, Musnad, Beirut n.d., 201 no. 1417. Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1099 no. 3306. Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʻtidāl, Beirut n.d., II, 487; al-Muttaqī Al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 282 nos. 41006, 41008. See also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 282 no. 41005: it makes the face and the entire physique more beautiful. Another tradition mentions Muḥammad’s preference for meat: . . . ka-annaka qad ʻalimta ḥubbanā li-l-laḥm, see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 28 no. 14249, V, 217 no. 15281; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 28 no. 45; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, IV, 136. Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1975, IV, 278 no. 1838: . . . wa lākin kāna lā yajidu l-laḥm illā ghibban. On this point see what is stated by al-Ḥasan [al-Baṣrī], in Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 240: he bought meat every day. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf f ī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, V, 567. Mālik b. Anas, al-Muwaṭṭa’, II, 935; see also Zurqānī, Sharḥ muwaṭṭa’ al-imām Mālik, Cairo 1961, V, 340; a tradition attributed to ʻUmar on the same topic, which commands the sons in this way, also in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 567. See also Barqī, al-Maḥāsin, Najaf 1964, 392. This detail is, for example, at the beginning of some versions of ḥadīth al-shafāʻa from Abū Hurayra: Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, V, 274 no. 4712; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 184 no. 194; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 622 no. 2434; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 432 no. 9629. See also, only on the detail of the front leg, Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1099 no. 3307; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 155 no. 6660; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 277 no. 1837; Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il al-muḥammadiyya, Cairo 1996,

94

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

it, as is attested in another ḥadīth in which it is related that a companion, Abū ʻUbayd, put a pot with meat in it on the fire. Muḥammad first asked for the foreleg, then, when he had finished he asked for another, but when he had finished and he asked for a third, Abū ʻUbayd, annoyed, asked him how many forelegs he thought a sheep had.18 The same detail about the Prophet’s tastes is hinted at in some traditions describing an episode in his life in Medina. It is said that while he was eating roast lamb with his companions, he stopped and said that the meat was poisoned and had been poisoned by a Jewish woman from Khaybar; some accounts specify that Muḥammad was about to eat, specifically, a leg of that lamb, because it was the part he liked or, according to other versions, because it was his favourite.19 There is, however, no unanimity of opinion about this. According to his wife ʻĀ’isha, in fact, the leg was not his favourite part, but he ate it more than other parts, because, as he could not often find meat, he was always in a hurry to eat it and the leg was the part that cooked the fastest.20 Other accounts, in fact, specify that Muḥammad had other preferences; one tradition states that he declared that the best meat was from the back (ẓahr);21 yet another says that Muḥammad preferred

18

19

20 21

100 no. 160; Abū al-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, Cairo 1981, 217–218; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VIII, 311; on the Prophet who eats a leg of lamb, see: Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 205 no. 675; Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1985, V, 476; Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., I, 392. The words of the Prophet follow: he scolds Abū ʻUbayd stating that, if he had remained silent he would have offered him the leg; see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 407 no. 15967. In other sources the episode is also reported in the words of the other companions; in general see Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il, 101 no. 162; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 305 no. 5089, IX, 228 no. 23920, X, 342–343 no. 27265; Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., II, 55; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 159, no. 6659; Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I, 393; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, VIII, 311: numerous versions with variations; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 26 no. 44; Abū Nuʻaym al-Iṣfahānī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut 1986, II, 436 no. 346, and see no. 347, where, in the same tradition, the shoulder blade (katif ) is cited instead of the leg. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 349 no. 3781; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 46 no. 3733, II, 54 no. 3777; Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il, 100 no. 161; Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, Cairo 1955, II, 337. When the Prophet was offered lamb, he chose the leg: Dārimī, Sunan, I, 36 no. 68; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 172 no. 4510; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 103 nos. 18170, 18171: they liked the two front legs and the shoulder; see also Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 239; and see Andrae, Die Person Muhammeds, 202. Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 278 no. 1838: mā kāna l-dhirāʻ aḥabb al-laḥm ilā rasūl Allāh (ṣ) wa-lākin kāna lā yajidu l-laḥm illā ghibban fa-kāna yaʻ jalu ilayhi li-annahu aʻ jaluhā nuḍjan; a nearly identical version can be found in Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il, 102 no. 163. Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1100 no. 3308; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 436 no. 1744, I, 439–440 nos. 1756, 1759; Ḥumaydī, Musnad, ed. by ʻA. al-R. al Aʻẓamī, Beirut 1988, I, 247 no. 539; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 154 no. 6657; Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il, 102 no. 164; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, IV, 124 no. 7097–7098; Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, I, 364 no. 1470; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 36, and see IX, 170; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 281 no. 40997, 41002; Munāwī, Fayḍ al-qadīr, Cairo n.d., I, 548; Abū al-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 207, 216; see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Juz’ f īhi musnad ahl al-bayt, ed. by ʻA. al-L. al-Anṣārī, Beirut 1988, 78 no. 27, 94 no. 39, 99 no. 43; see also H. Lammens, Fāṭima et les filles de Mahomet, Roma 1912, 44 n. 3: he chose the shoulders of the ram.

95

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

the shoulder blade (katif).22 Finally, there is plenty of conflicting information regarding the best way to eat meat; some traditions testify that the Prophet used a knife, while others attest that Muḥammad preferred to eat it in bites because, he claimed, it was tastier that way.23 Certain versions of the traditions mentioned above concerning the poisoning affair, along with other accounts, specify that the tastiest meat was, according to the Prophet, that on the bones, and in particular on the bones of the legs of lamb.24 More general is another account in which, along with the seven parts of the sheep that Muḥammad disliked, it is reported that the Prophet particularly liked the front part.25 There are many other pronouncements emphasising the negative virtues of other meats, such as calls not to eat beef or camel meat. These traditions of course have no juridic relevance, since the legitimacy of sheep, camel and beef is not in question, but more likely reflect other conflicts and rivalries.26

22 Al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 102–103 nos. 18169, 18171; Abū al-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 217: the Prophet preferred only the shoulder blade of lamb (sic). For other traditions on the Prophet’s preferred meat, see Barqī, al-Maḥāsin, 393–397. 23 See Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 349 no. 3778, from ʻĀ’isha < Prophet: “Do not cut meat with a knife, because it is not an Arab custom (ṣanīʻ al-aʻājim)”, reported also by Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 37; Daylamī, al-Firdaws, V, 34 no. 7377; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 236 no. 40731. See also Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 276 no. 1835: Muḥammad orders to eat it in bites; see also Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 349 no. 3779; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 539 no. 1998; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, X, 384 no. 27426; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., XXIV, 336 no. 839; Ḥumaydī, Musnad, I, 257 no. 564; al-Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, IV, 126 no. 7103; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 236 no. 40732, XV, 251 no. 40815; as well as Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VI, 547 no. 5404–5405: the Prophet gnawed the meat from the bones and then prayed without first performing ablutions. See instead Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 73 no. 208, I, 205 no. 675, III, 314 no. 2923, VI, 548 no. 5408, VI, 551 no. 5422, VI, 563 no. 5462: the Prophet cut the shoulder from the sheep (and ate it), but then left the meat and the knife and went to pray, without performing ablutions; see also Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 273–274 no. 355; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 277 no. 1836; Dārimī, Sunan, 196 no. 728; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 108–109 nos. 17249–17250, VIII, 345 no. 22547; see also Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 153 no. 6655. 24 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 349 no. 3780; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 46 no. 3733, II, 54 no. 3777; Shāshī, Musnad, Medina-Cairo 1990f., II, 217 no. 785; Abū al-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 218; Ṭayālisī, Musnad, 51 no. 388; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 153 no. 6654; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 102 no. 18168. 25 Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 36; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, VII, 102 no. 18165; see instead a tradition, according to which the best part of the sheep is the back and which repeats the previous citations in n. 21: aṭyab al-shāt laḥm al-ẓahr; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 437 no. 1749; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Juz’, 86 no. 33; see also Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 36. On this point, see the tradition by Dhubāʻa bint al-Zubayr in which the Prophet lauds the neck of the sheep: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, X, 292 no. 27099; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XXIV, 844 no. 337; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 283 no. 41009; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 154 no. 6658. 26 On beef, see Waṣiyyat al-nabī (ṣ) li-ʻAlī, Ms. Cambridge Dd. 11, f. 74a, and f, 73b, on the prohibition of eating the meat of a yellow cockerel, defined by the Prophet as one of his friends (ṣadīq); these passages were pointed out to me by Prof. M.J. Kister. On the Prophet’s and Muslims’ high consideration of the white cockerel, see R. Tottoli, “At cock-crow: Some Muslim traditions about the rooster” [here no. 10]. On the negative virtues of camel meat see M.J. Kister,

96

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

The overwhelmingly positive appraisal of meat consumption that emerges from the ḥadīth collections that we have analysed so far reveals, first of all, the attitude of the Arabs and the first generations of Muslims towards meat, in general, and the meat of the most common animals. At the same time, such a positive attitude was in complete harmony, from a polemical point of view, with the general tone of the Muslim dietary rules, conceived as a liberal reform of the Jewish rules. The appreciations of meat pronounced by Muḥammad are thus inspired by the same principle: God, with Islam, has granted that men enjoy food more than the Jews, who suffered many limitations for their sins.27 Moreover, along with this basic inspirational motive, another more obvious motive should be acknowledged, which emerges from certain traditions, including one dating back to Anas b. Mālik (d. c. 91/710) who lists what a group of the Prophet’s companions promised to deny themselves: not to marry women, not to eat meat, to fast without interruption and finally, to sleep on the ground. The Prophet’s rejection of such attitudes was clear: “What has happened to these who say so, since I pray, sleep, fast and eat, and marry women? Those who go against my conduct are not of my community!”28 Versions of this tradition, along with other accounts of the same type, are collected by Qur’ānic exegetes in commentaries on the verse “O believers, forbid not such good things as God has permitted

“Land property and jihād: A discussion of some early traditions”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 34 (1991), 299–300. 27 A concept already expressed in the Qur’ān, see Q. 4:160 and cfr. 16:118. 28 . . . fa-man raghiba ʻan sunnatī fa-laysa minnī: Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, II, 1020 no. 1401; Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I, 371–372; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan·al-kubrā, III, 264 no. 5324; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 569 no. 14047; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, ed. by M.ʻA. al-Q. ʻAṭa’, Beirut 1994, VII, 123 no. 13449; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, I, 108 no. 14. See instead where only Muḥammad’s words are mentioned, or the previous section, which however doesn’t mention meat: Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VI, 437 no. 5063; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 550 no. 6487, IV, 481 no. 13534, IX, 124 no. 23533, X, 133 no. 26368; Dārimī, Sunan, II, 571 no. 2092; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, III, 31 no. 5318; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, VII, 123 no. 13448; see also Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs, 328–329. Only in the version of this tradition in the tafsīr commenting Q. 5:87 are some names mentioned; two in particular are identified more often: ʻUthmān b. Maẓʻūm and ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. A complete list of the names of the companions already appears in the Tafsīr (ed. ʻA.M. Shiḥāta, Cairo 1979–90) by Muqātil: I, 498–499. Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by M.ʻA. al-Q. ʻAṭā’, Beirut 1988, Il, 143, cites six; Suyūṭī, al-Durr al manthūr f ī l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, III, 141–143, includes different versions in which they are given various names. See a list of these Companions in Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī, Cairo 1959, XI, 4, who, however, considers it unreliable; see, with traditions in which the names are given, Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1992, III, 294; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ʻan ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, VII, 9; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VI, 260: They met ʻUthmān b. Maẓʻūm; Māwardī, al-Nukat wa-l-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, II, 59; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 141; Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl f ī maʻānī l-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, II, 84; Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, Cairo 1955 (in margin of Khāzin, Lubāb), II, 84; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān wa-raghā’ib al-furqān, Cairo 1962, VII, 16; Shi‘i commentators naturally underline that among these companions there was ʻAlī: Ibn Furāt al-Kūf ī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1992, I, 132; Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, I, 207.

97

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

you; and transgress not; God loves not transgressors”, a passage that implicitly condemns those who consider denying themselves, and therefore also the renunciation of eating meat, an act of devotion.29 This condemnation in the Qur’ānic passage was not generic, but was considered by the exegetes to be a direct attack on the practices of Christian priests and monks who preached renunciation and constraints, such as a vegetarian diet, the rejection of all comforts and especially celibacy, which are harshly condemned by Islam.30 In response, the same polemical vigour was directed towards those who were accused by the orthodox circles of similar attitudes, namely the Sufis. In the Talbīs Iblīs by Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 596/1200) there is a long chapter dedicated to the description and refusal of the dietary renunciations of certain mystics, in which meat is naturally mentioned.31 Some Sufis did not eat meat, stating that, “eating a penny 29 Q. 5:87; according to the exegetes, unanimously, this verse was revealed specifically to refute these companions and the defence of their ascetic behaviour; according to some versions these ten companions decided to behave in this way after having listened to a description of the prodigies of the day of the Resurrection by the Prophet himself. Among the Qur’ānic commentaries that recount traditions of this type, where meat is also mentioned, see, in particular, Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, VII, 8–11, who reports interesting traditions, and, on p. 9, the words of the Prophet laysa f ī dīnī tark al-nisā’ wa-l-laḥm; as well as Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 143–144; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, Beirut n.d., II, 139–140, in part. p. 140, in which the issue is thoroughly discussed citing other traditions against refusing food or clothes; the most complete treatment, with numerous traditions, is that of Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 139–149; see also Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, Beirut 1990, XII, 59; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, III, 294–295; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VI, 261–262; Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1968, I, 289; Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 84; Baghawī, Maʻālim, II, 84; Zamakhsarī, al-Kashshāf ʻan ḥaqā’iq al-tanzīl wa-ʻuyūn al-aqāwīl f ī wujūh al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1972, I, 639; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, VII, 16–17. Other commentaries, even if they don’t directly mention meat, mention food in general or just women; see Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, 499; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Riyadh 1989, I, 191–192. 30 See Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī, XI, 5; ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī, Cairo 1972, XVI, 252–253: Muḥammad, with the words of the tradition by Anas, referred to monasticism; see also the tradition in Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 144, Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 143, and Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 248, in which the Prophet, faced with some companions who renounce women and meat, replies: “If I had wanted to teach this, I would have, but I actually was not sent to preach monasticism (rahbāniyya), and the best religion is ḥanīfiyya”. Furthermore, according to a large number of the exegetes, Q. 5:87 was revealed to contest the behaviour of the priests and monks, in words attributed to Muḥammad himself: “I did not order you to become priests or monks, who are not part of our religion”; on this point see Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 141; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ, XII, 59; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VI, 261–262; Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, VII, 16–17; Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 84; Baghawī, Maʻālim, II, 84; Ṭabarī, Majmaʻ, III, 295; as well as Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, VII, 8. According to another interesting account, this verse was revealed when a man went to the Prophet and confessed that he no longer ate meat because otherwise he would be overcome by the desire to have intercourse with a woman; see Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, V, 255 no. 3054; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, VII, 11; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, II, 144; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 139; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, III, 139; Baghawī, Maʻālim, II, 84; Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, VI, 260. 31 Talbīs Iblīs, 232–250; the title of the chapter is Dhikr talbīs Iblīs ʻalā al-ṣūfiyya f ī maṭāʻimihim wa-mashāribihim; on meat, in particular, see 236, 239–240. On this issue, see also I. Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Princeton 1981, 131. In this regard, it should be underlined that among the attitudes considered to be typical of those who practise zuhd, such as

98

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

of meat hardens the heart for forty days”. Ibn al-Jawzī dismisses the significance of such statements with these words: The custom of not eating meat is taken from the creed of the Brahmins, who do not allow the killing of animals, but the Great and Powerful God has made known the characteristics meat should have to make it permissible for its strengthening capacity. Eating meat indeed makes one stronger, and abstaining from it weakens and debilitates the body.32 The traditions that praise and appreciate meat, in the light of what has been discussed so far, therefore had the function of preventing and harshly criticising religious attitudes of this kind that attributed religious significance to renunciation. A specific tradition, which is cited among the many commentaries on Q. 5:87, explicitly confirms this; the Prophet responds to the inclinations of ʻUthmān b. Maʻẓūm (d. 2/624), who in his soul would like to renounce meat, with unequivocal praise of meat: “Calm down, ʻUthmān!” says Muḥammad, “I like meat and eat it when I find it. If I asked my Lord to give it to me to eat every day, He would certainly give it to me”.33 According to Islamic conceptions, therefore, abstaining from the meat that God created and made permissible was not only of no value but was, indeed, a reprehensible act, and the numerous traditions emphasising its goodness were meant to combat such tendencies.

2

On the lawfulness of horse meat

Most of the traditions regarding meat, as mentioned above, are dedicated to the discussion of the controversial permissibility of the meat of certain animals. One of the most interesting cases is that of horse meat which, as previously mentioned, is a particularly debated issue, so much so that the collections of traditions devote entire chapters to dealing with it, in which conflicting opinions and injunctions are reported, as usual. The horse may, moreover, be accorded a very special importance, especially in view of the space it is given in ḥadīth literature. In detachment from the vanity of life, moderation, asceticism, etc., alimentary restrictions, such as renouncing meat, do not come up at all; see L. Kinberg, “What is meant by zuhd”, Studia Islamica, 61 (1985), 27–44; and the chapter on food in Hannād b. al-Sarī, Kitāb al-zuhd, 360– 366 nos. 684–700. 32 Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 236 and 239; on 239–240; Ibn al-Jawzī reports some traditions previously discussed by us on the Prophet’s attitude to meat to support his refutation of the behaviour of the Sufis; of particular interest among these is the statement that al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī used to buy meat every day (p. 240). On the fact that eating meat strengthens the body, see Ghazālī, Iḥyā’, II, 21. 33 Samarqandī, Tafsīr (Baḥr al-ʻulūm), Beirut 1993, I, 455; al-Muʻafā b. Zakariyā, al-Jalīs al-ṣāliḥ, Beirut 1983, IV, 19; Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, 247; this tradition is a variation of those described above, commenting on Q. 5:87, in which about ten companions, among whom ʻUthmān b. Maẓʻūm himself is often cited, question the Prophet on restrictive behaviour (see no. 28).

99

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

fact, the most explicit attestations of appreciation of the horse date back to the Prophet’s collections of sayings, among which we also find the tradition in which it is stated that horses, after women, were Muḥammad’s favourite thing.34 One of the most prestigious collections of the Prophet’s sayings, the Sunan by al Nasā’ī (d. 303/915), contains a chapter titled, “The book of the horse”, in which numerous traditions on the animal are collected, with many testimonies of Muḥammad’s favouring it.35 There are, however, already appreciations of the same tone in the sacred text. One passage, for example, openly praises horses of excellent quality (al-khayl almusawwama),36 along with the other goods and pleasures of life, namely women, children and abundant wealth. The Qur’ān mentions horses again, in different contexts, especially in relation to their military use,37 but the most interesting verse, for the purposes of our research, is from the Surah of the Bee, “And horses, and mules, and asses, for you to ride, and as an adornment; and He creates what you know not”.38 The passage, of course, refers in general terms to God’s creation, but, as we shall see, it is considered significant in connection with the issue of the permissibility of eating horse meat. Indeed, according to some experts in the religious sciences (ahl al-ʻilm),39 in this verse God had clearly specified the functions of equines as mounts and as ornaments, and the absence of any mention of the possibility of eating them was proof that this is forbidden. In the interpretation of Ibn ʻAbbās (d. c. 68/687) this argumentum ex silentio is reinforced by the Qur’ān itself, which in an earlier verse had stated that cattle were created for man to eat, among other things.40 Ibn ʻAbbās

34 See Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VII, 288 no. 20334; Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt, I, 398; Nasā’ī, Sunan, Cairo 1964, VI, 181, VII, 60; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1978, I, 442, and see II, 153: the horse is the animal most similar to man. 35 Nasā’ī, Sunan, VI, 179–190; Id., Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, III, 35–43 nos. 4401–4434; the greatest number of traditions or legends are collected by Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 438–447 [entry al-khayl] II, 152–169 [entry al-faras]. 36 Q. 3:14. The meaning of the adjective musawwama which describes horses is, in this case, quite controversial. A. Bausani (Il Corano, 37) translates the term as “di razza purissima”, J. Berque (Le Coran, Paris 19952, 71) with “blasoneés”, A.J. Arberry (The Koran Interpreted, Oxford 19833, 46) with “horses of mark”, R. Paret (Der Koran, Stuttgart 19792, 44) with “markierte Pferde”. All the different translations can be considered correct as the meaning of musawwama is not completely clear. On this point see the complete treatment in E.W. Lane, An ArabicEnglish Lexicon, London-Edinburgh 1863–93, 1476b, with all the different meanings which we don’t list here; see also the different interpretations offered by the Qur’ānic exegesis: Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, III, 202–204; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, II, 163; Māwardī, al-Nukat, I, 377; and already in Abū ʻUbayda, Majāz al-Qur’ān, ed. by M.F. Sezgin, Cairo n.d., I, 89. 37 See Q. 8:60; 17:64; 59:6. 38 Q. 16:8: wa-l-khaylu wa-l-bighālu wa-l-ḥamīru li-tarkabūhā wazīnatan. 39 This way, literally, premised by Ṭabarī to the exegesis of the passage: Jāmiʻ, XIV, 82. 40 Q. 16:5: “And the cattle – He created them for you; in them is warmth, and uses various, and of them you eat”. See Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 540. Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIV, 82: a tradition states that Ibn ʻAbbās detested horse meat: kāna yakrahu laḥm al-khayl . . .; see also Samarqandī,

100

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

is undoubtedly the most prestigious name quoted with regard to this interpretation, but there are plenty of opinions in line with his, even attributed to people of later generations.41 Among these, the most authoritative, partly because it is included in some of the major collections of ḥadīth, is that of Khālid b. al-Walīd (d. 21/642), according to whom, “the Prophet forbade the consumption of all predators with canines (kull dhī nāb min al-sibāʻ) as well as the meat of horses, mules and donkeys”.42 The first part of this tradition is widespread in numerous versions and in the words of different transmitters; the prohibition of eating predatory animals is mentioned in isolation or with the addition of other animals, such as birds of prey and the domestic donkey.43 The prohibition of horse meat, on the other hand, returns in other traditions that add a detail of great interest, namely that the prohibition was pronounced by the Prophet during the Khaybar expedition (7/628). In fact, according to Khālid b. al-Walīd, during the expedition to the oasis of Khaybar, when the companions rushed into the enclosures of the Jews for loot, Muḥammad said that the meat of the domestic donkey, mules and horses was forbidden (ḥarām ʻalaykum luḥūm al-ḥumur al-ahliyya wa-khaylihā wa-bighālihā).44 The most interesting detail of this tradition is that, as will be seen

41

42

43

44

Tafsīr, II, 229: according to these traditions by Ibn ʻAbbās, Abū Ḥanīfa defined horse meat as makrūh; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 112; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872. Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 47 instead includes a tradition by Ibn ʻAbbās in which it is said that the horse is permitted. See Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIV, 82: by al-Ḥakam: horse meats (and that of donkeys and mules) are forbidden in the Qur’ān; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 112: Mujāhid (from Ibn Abī Shayba), al-Ḥakam; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872; see also Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81: with al-Ḥakam, Mālik and Abū Ḥanīfa; Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 80. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 351 no. 3790; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, Beirut n.d., IV, 287 no. 61; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 550 no. 19446; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr f ī ḥadīth al-bashīr al-nadhīr, Beirut 1981, II, 684 no. 9342; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1066 no. 3198; Ṭabarānī, Musnad al-shāmiyyīn, Beirut 1989, I, 277 no. 483; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, IV, 110–111 nos. 3826– 3827; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 265 nos. 40898–40899; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, III, 159 nos. 4843–4844, IV, 151 no. 6640; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 112; see also Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872; Damīrī, Ḥayāt, II, 164; according to Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 81, the statement by Khālid that the meat of the three animals is forbidden has a weak isnād. Other shorter versions omit the premise on animals with canines, see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 7 no. 16817. See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 519–521; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 222 no. 17753; Abū Ḥanīfa, Musnad, Beirut n.d., 270; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XXII, 208–213; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 264–265; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, I, 295 no. 357, IV, 304 no. 2414, IV, 373 no. 2491, V, 87 no. 2690, and see other sources in the footnotes regarding the respective traditions; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 354 nos. 3802–3803, III, 355 no. 3805: this prohibition was pronounced the day of Khaybar; see also Saʻīd b. Manṣūr, Musnad, Beirut n.d., II, 292 no. 2815; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 343–344, nos. 5254–5256; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 528–530; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, I, 213 no. 1435; II, 683 no. 9340. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 7 no. 16816; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 355 no. 3806; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 287–288 nos. 60, 63–64; Bayhaqī, al Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 550 no. 19447; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872. See other versions in Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 47, by Jābir: the Muslims took their domestic donkeys, but Muḥammad stopped them and forbade them the equine meat, etc.; see an almost identical version by Jābir in which the horse is specifically omitted: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 69 no. 14470.

101

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

below, other ḥadīths specify that, on the contrary, it was precisely in Khaybar that the Prophet and his companions ate horse meat, thus offering irrefutable proof of the inconsistency of the prohibition. It should be added that this exegetical reading prohibiting the consumption of horse meat is in some cases accompanied by other traditions that emphasise the high rank of the horse and its prodigious origin. According to one of these, for example, the horse was created by the wind, and the horses praise God along with the men who invoke the Creator from their saddles, and furthermore Adam, when presented with creation and asked to choose the creature he preferred, chose the horse.45 This material had, of course, the function of inspiring feelings of repulsion towards horse meat. In fact, the Shi‘i exegete al-ʻAyyāshī (d. 4th/10th cen.) supports this sentiment by following this commentary on the verse in question: “ . . . (God) made horses, mules and donkeys to be ridden; their meat is not forbidden, but people are disgusted by it”.46 The restrictive interpretation of the Qur’ānic passage clashed, however, not only with opposing interpretations, but also with reports that horse meat was eaten in the Prophet’s time. In this regard, Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr (d. 73/692), in a tradition quoted in all the major collections, says: “We slaughtered a horse in the time of the Prophet, God bless him and grant him salvation, and ate its meat”.47 One version of this tradition adds a particularly interesting detail, namely that this happened in Medina: “We killed a horse in the time of the Prophet, God bless him and grant him salvation, when we were in Medina and ate it”.48 Yet another version 45 Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 111–112; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 873; see also Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 441–447, including an unusual tradition on p. 443, in which the Prophet answers a question from a Bedouin who loved horses, regarding whether there would be horses in Paradise, and 444–445, the discussion on whether the horse was created before Adam; on these points see also Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, ed. by ʻA. al-S.M. Hārūn, Cairo 1965–69, III, 395; as well as Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahāb wa-maʻādīn al-jawhar, ed. by C. Pellat, Beirut 1966–79, II, 370–371 no. 1352. See also Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, VII, 204: al-Khiḍr answers a question from Moses, in a tradition by Muqātil b. Sulaymān, that the animals he prefers are the horse, the donkey and the mule, because they are the means of transport of the prophets (marākib al-anbiyā’). 46 ʻAyyāshī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, II, 276. 47 Ibn al-Mubārak, Musnad, ed. by S. al-B. al-Samarrā’ī, Riyadh 1987, 110 no. 184; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 526 no. 8731; Ibn Abī Shayba, al Muṣannaf, V, 539; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, X, 266 no. 26985, X, 268 no. 26996, X, 269 no. 26999, X, 280 no. 27046, X, 281 no. 27051; ‘Abdallah b. Aḥmad, Masā’il al-imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, ed. by Z. al-Shawīsh, Beirut 1988, 269 no. 998; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XXIV, 80–81 nos. 211–212, XXIV, 112–113 nos. 298–305; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1541 no. 1942; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 290 nos. 74–76; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, IV, 152 no. 6644; Ḥumaydī, Musnad, I, 153 no. 322; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 549 nos. 19439, 19441–19442; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1064 no. 3190; Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, Beirut-Medina 1988, III, 198 no. 985; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 342 no. 5247; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 439 no. 41743; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 113; Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, VI, 456; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872–873; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 46, also includes another version by al-Zubayr; Damīrī, Ḥayāt, II, 164. 48 Dārimī, Sunan, I, 517 no. 1924; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XXIV, 112 no. 301; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 468 no. 19130, IX, 549 no. 19440; Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81; see also Damīrī, Ḥayāt, II, 164.

102

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

to emphasise the permissibility of eating horse meat, specifies, in the words of Asmā’, that a horse was slaughtered and even people from the Prophet’s family ate it (ahl bayt al-rasūl [ṣ]).49 A number of other traditions on this episode, with some significant variations, are reported under the name of Jābir b. ʻAbdallāh (d. c. 77/696). Jābir recounts that horse meat was eaten at the time of the Prophet, and that Muḥammad himself gave it to his companions to eat, while mule or donkey meat was forbidden by him, or, according to another version, that the meat of donkeys and mules in general was forbidden, but not that of horses.50 It should be noted that certain other traditions specify that it was only the domestic donkey that was forbidden by Muḥammad along with permission to feed on horse.51 In some further variants of these latter traditions, a detail of great interest is added, namely that the Prophet allowed the eating of horse meat and forbade that of domestic donkey during the Khaybar expedition.52 Finally, it is Jābir again, in a final version, who recounts in greater detail that horse meat was eaten on that very occasion. On the day of Khaybar, horses, mules and donkeys were killed, and the Prophet, God bless him and grant

49 Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XXIV, 87 no. 232; Ṭabarānī, Musnad al-shāmiyyīn, I, 142 no. 226; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 439 no. 41744; see also Damīrī, Ḥayāt, II, 164; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 290 no. 77. 50 Ibn al-Mubārak, Musnad, 109 no. 182–183; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 526–527 no. 8733–8734; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 539; Abū Ya‘lā, Musnad, III, 466 no. 1975; Ḥumaydī, Musnad, II, 529 no. 1254; Ṭayālisī, Musnad, 236 no. 1700; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ, IV, 253 no. 1793; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 288–290 nos. 66–67 and 68: and he also drank milk, nos. 70, 72–73; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1066 no. 3197; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, III, 159 nos. 4840, 4842, IV, 151 no. 6642; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 356 no. 3808; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 439 no. 41740; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 341 no. 5244; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 548– 549 nos. 19436–19438, and in particular see no. 19437, where it is said that he drank the milk as well as eating the meat; Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XIV, 83; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 113: different versions, among which one is more nuanced: “The Prophet forbade donkey and mule, but not horse”; Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām, III, 122; Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 81. Instead, according to a tradition by Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 47, a tradition that can be traced back to Jābir describes how the Prophet forbade horse meat at Khaybar. 51 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 66 no. 14457; Abū Ya‘lā, Musnad, III, 364 no. 1832; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 341–342 nos. 5245–5246, 5250; Suyūṭī, al-Durr, V, 113; Damīrī, Ḥayāt, II, 164; Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81; see also the considerations in Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XIV, 49. 52 Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, V, 93 no. 4219, VI, 583 nos. 5520, 5524; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 192 no. 15137: according to Jābir there is only the prohibition of donkey meat, while according to Surayj there is the explanation that it refers to a domestic donkey, with the authorisation to eat horse meat; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 539; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 527 no. 8737; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1064 no. 3191; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1541 no. 1941; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 351 no. 3788; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 342 no. 5249; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 289 no. 71; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 548 no. 19434, IX, 552 no. 19452; Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81; and see Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XII, 180 no. 12820, which includes a version that can be traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās (sic); see also in Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 47 e Qārī, Sharḥ musnad Abī Ḥanīfa, Beirut n.d., 270.

103

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

him salvation, forbade (eating) mules and donkeys, but did not forbid horses.53 The reference to the Khaybar expedition is of great value, although the traditions describing the episode tend to emphasise the prohibition of donkey meat, rather than the permissibility of horse meat.54 In addition to describing an event in the Prophet’s life, the account of what happened in Khaybar attests that the Prophet’s companions did not understand Q. 16:8 as a prohibition against eating horse meat. In fact, according to the opinion of most exegetes, the Qur’ānic verse was revealed in Mecca and therefore certainly predates the Khaybar expedition.55 This version, it is necessary to repeat, is in open contrast with what was passed down by Khālid b. al-Walīd, as analysed above, who states that it was at Khaybar that horse meat, along with other equines, was forbidden. The contrast cannot, of course, be overcome, but the various compilers of collections of traditions necessarily lean towards one of the two versions to the detriment of the other, according to the orientation of their own school of law, using the usual formal criticism tools of ḥadīth. On the other hand, the unusual argument, dating back to the historian al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823), which rejects the restrictive version, is of an entirely different kind, stating that at the time of the Khaybar expedition Khālid had not yet converted and therefore could not provide true and reliable testimony on the subject.56 However, the cases of Asmā’ and Jābir are not isolated. A list of numerous companions who ate horse meat is given by Abū Dāwūd (d. 275/888) as a commentary on the tradition of the opposite view, dating back to Khālid b. al-Walīd.57 This behaviour is also attested by other traditions that show that some of Muḥammad’s companions, including Muslims of the first generations, ate horse meat, without this being reprehensible from a religious point of view. Various testimonies generally state that the Prophet’s companions ate horse meat during their military campaigns (maghāzī).58 The same report is also attributed in the Muṣannaf by 53 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 351 no. 3789; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, V, 69 no. 14470, V, 135 no. 14846, V, 145 no. 14896, V, 147 no. 14908; Abū Ya‘lā, Musnad, III, 322 no. 1787; Dārimī, Sunan, I, 517 no. 1925; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, III, 158–159 nos. 4839, 4841, IV, 151 nos. 6641, 6643; Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 289 no. 69; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 548 no. 19435; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, II, 872; Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81; see also Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 81. 54 See the numerous traditions on the prohibition of eating the domestic donkeys captured from the Jews at Khaybar recounted by Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, V, 86–95; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1537–1540; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 47–49; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 551–557; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al kubrā, III, 160–162; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1064–1066; see also the long tradition, with numerous references, in Ibn al-Mubārak, Musnad, 111 no. 186. 55 On this point see also Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XIV, 49. 56 Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, IV, 287–288; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 551 no. 19449; and see Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra, II, 331; Jābir was not present at Khaybar. 57 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, III, 351 no. 3790: Ibn al-Zubayr, Faḍāla b. ʻUbayd, Anas b. Mālik, Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr, Suwayd b. Ghafla, ʻAlqama, and in addition: the Quraysh, at the time of the Prophet, killed the horse (to eat from it). 58 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 539; together with al-Ḥasan were also of this opinion: ʻAṭā’, Shurayḥ, Saʻīd b. Jubayr, see Khāzin, Lubāb, IV, 81, and Baghawī, Maʻālim, IV, 80; Bayhaqī,

104

Ḥ A D Ī T H A N D M U S L I M D I E TA RY N O R M S

ʻAbd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826) to ʻAtā’ (b. Abī Rabāḥ, d. c. 115/733), in an opinion handed down by Ibn Jurayj (d. 150/767).59 In an account handed down by Ibrāhīm (al-Nasā’ī, d. 96/714), al-Aswad (d. 70/689) is said to have eaten horse meat, while in another the same Ibrāhīm states that some of his companions (aṣḥāb) slaughtered a horse and ate it.60 A certain ʻAbd al-Karīm claims to have eaten a horse at the time of the rebel Ibn al-Zubayr (d. 73/692) and to have found it good.61 Other traditions attest further opinions of relatively known people who agree that there is nothing wrong with eating horse meat.62 As we have seen from the material we have discussed so far, the question of the permissibility of horse meat was a controversial one, firstly for the Qur’ānic exegesis, in the collections of the Prophet’s sayings, and finally for the schools of law. Two issues were undoubtedly at the heart of the controversy: the correct interpretation of Q. 16:8 and the truthful account of what happened in Khaybar. Both the Qur’ānic passage, with its exegetical interpretations, and the conflicting traditions of the account of Khaybar could not, however, resolve the issue definitively, and so the schools of law gave conflicting judgments, although there is undoubtedly a slight predominance, at least on the Sunni side, of arguments and material in favour of the permissibility of horse meat.

59 60 61 62

al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 550 no. 19444: by al-Ḥasan: “There is nothing wrong with eating horse meat” and see also no. 19445 on another testimony from al-Ḥasan. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 527 no. 8733. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, IV, 526 no. 8732; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 540: numerous versions, among which that of al-Ḥakam, according to which Shurayḥ ate horse meat; Ṭabari, Jāmiʻ, XIV, 83. Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, IX, 550 no. 19443. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, V, 540.

105

7 “TWO RIVERS ARE BELIEVERS AND TWO ARE D I S B E L I E V E R S . . .” A sacred river geography in a saying attributed to Muḥammad?

Concepts of sacredness linked to water are a constant in many religious cultures. Rivers, in particular, are no exception and there are numerous examples; we need only think of the richness of the traditions related to the rivers of India, or the divine personification of rivers in Greek and Roman mythology, or their mythicisation in the Iranian sphere.1 The specific case of Iran, besides being in perfect continuity with what has been said above, is particularly interesting for its contiguity with the history of Islam.2 Here, in addition to the processes of mythologising river geography, we find the characterisation of water with a double meaning, as Giovanni D’Erme himself pointed out in an article a few years ago:3 namely, good, holy water and bad, demonic water. In Islamic tradition, we do not find this a priori division between holy waters and evil waters, good and bad. Waters, like every product of divine creation, are the work of the Creator’s munificence and are therefore, in a certain sense, all ‘holy’. As such, they cannot have anything evil or even demonic about them.

1 On these topics, the bibliography is endless. We suggest referring to A. di Nola et al., s.v. “acqua”, in Enciclopedia delle religioni, Firenze 1970, I, coll. 22–33; M. Eliade, Traité d’histoire des religions, Paris 19702, 165–187 (Cap. V: “Les eaux et le symbolisme aquatique”) and K.A. Sindawi, “The cult of the Euphrates and its Significance among the Imāmī Shī‘a”, Der Islam, 81 (2004), 249–269: 250–253. 2 See in particular J. Markwart, Wehrot und Arang, Leiden 1938; G. Gnoli, “Arang e Wehrōd, Rāy e Xwarrah”, in Mémorial Jean de Menasce, Louvain 1974, 77–80 (in which he discusses the spiritualisation of river geography); G. Gnoli, “Dāityā”, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. by E. Yarshater, VI, Costa Mesa 1993, 598–599. 3 G. D’Erme, “Kang iranici e ischie italiche (tracce di uno scomparso epos in Calabria)”, AIUON, 37 (1977), 153–186, in part. 168, speaks of a “water ideology”. We are, however, in well-known imagery which establishes this contrast on the basis of the different nature of the waters, that is, waters which spring forth and waters which flow, or vice versa. In the Islamic tradition that we examine in this contribution, no distinction is made in these terms.

106

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-9

A S A C R E D R I V E R G E O G R A P H Y I N A S AY I N G AT T R I B U T E D

Water from the well of Zamzam, for example, owes its prestige to the sacredness of the land of Mecca. Its water is not different in nature from any other water, but is, if anything, simply better than other water. A tradition which can be traced back to Ibn Jurayj (d. 767) thus states that Zamzam is the best water on earth while the worst is that of Barahūt.4 The same is true of the traditional cycles describing the ocean which surrounds the earth. It can be a place of positive or negative power, but never in terms of the sacredness or otherwise of its waters.5 Bearing all of this in mind, a saying attributed to Muḥammad (ḥadīth), according to which he is said to have pronounced these words, sounds decidedly curious: “Two rivers are believers and two rivers are disbelievers. The believers are the Nile and the Euphrates, and the disbelievers are the Tigris and the Balkh River”.6 The text of this ḥadīth certainly does not speak explicitly of sacred rivers and evil or demonic rivers, or of the waters of those rivers being categorised in such a way. However, the aforementioned limits that the divine omnipotence of the Muslim God places on the qualities that the creatures of this world can have should not be overlooked. In this context, to label them as disbelievers is, in Islamic terms, equivalent to the worst characteristic that can be attributed to an object of divine creation, while to define the Nile and the Euphrates as believing rivers is to emphasise their excellence and goodness to the highest possible degree in religious terms.

4 This tradition is mentioned by al-Azraqī, Akhbār Makka, ed. by R.Ṣ. Malḥas, Beirut 1983, II, 50, and also in the Shi‘i tradition: al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār al-jāmi‘a li-durar akhbār al-a’imma al-aṭhār, Beirut 1983, LVII, 45 (where it is referred to as mā’ barahūt). On Zamzam in general, see al-Azraqī, Akhbār, II, 39–62. 5 On this subject we suggest A.J. Wensinck, The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites, Amsterdam 1918, in part. 40 ff. (ch. III: “The character of the Ocean”). Regarding the waters of the earth in the Qur’ān, see H. Toelle, Le Coran revisité. Le feu, l’eau, l’air et la terre, Damascus 1999, 120–131. The primordial ocean is generally described in neutral terms. A negative characterisation of the sea waters surrounding the earth occurs, for example, in al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1989, XII, no. 35341, which cites a tradition stating that the sea comes from Gehenna (al-baḥr min Jahannam). Different is the case of the tradition (Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-l-umam, Beirut 1992, I, 159; but also earlier in Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms Huntingdon 388, f. 13a, and cf. Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-a‘yān, Beirut 1985, I, 107–108, which states that all fresh water on earth comes from beneath the rock of Jerusalem: here, too, the sacredness of the place, of which the water is merely a product, is paramount. Indeed, as with other elements, there is no shortage of traditions attributing similar peculiarities to the Kaʻba or the Black Stone; see al-Majlisī, Biḥār, X, 104: the four rivers of Paradise flow from beneath the Black Stone; or al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Beirut 1980, VI, 390: the springs flow from beneath the Kaʻba. The literature on Mecca or on the faḍā’il of Jerusalem is filled with such material. 6 Nahrān mu’minān wa-nahrān kāfirān ammā al-mu’minān fa-al-nīl wa-al-furāt wa-ammā al-kāfirān fa-dijla wa-nahr Balkh. The name Nahr Balkh usually designates the Amū Daryā (lat. Oxus), although its name in Arabic is usually Sayḥūn. Nahr Balkh also indicates, according to certain sources, another river, the Dahās, see A. Miquel, La géographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle. III. Le milieu naturel, Paris 1980, 134, 218–219.

107

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

1 The fear that the contents of this ḥadīth might in any case foreshadow a conception of objectionable sacredness seems to emerge in an implicit form in some testimonies. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1201) and al-Maqrīzī (d. 1442) attribute to Ibn Qutayba (d. 889)7 the explanation that Muḥammad gave these qualities in a metaphorical sense (ʻalā al-tashbīh), since the two ‘believing’ rivers in flood irrigate plants and crops without creating problems or difficulties, while the other two ‘disbelieving’ rivers do not flood the land and irrigate only a little, and what little they do irrigate is not without difficulties. The Nile and the Euphrates are useful and good (fī alkhayr wa-al-nafʻ) like believers, while the Tigris and the river of Balkh (the Amū Daryā) are of little use or goodness like the disbelievers.8 Interpreted in this way, Muḥammad’s saying is brought back to a well-defined meaning. The same meaning seems to be read in the discussion in the work of al-Sharīf al-Raḍī (d. 1015) in which he lists and analyses those sayings in which the Prophet Muḥammad showed his excellent rhetorical skills (al-majāzāt al-nabawiyya).9 Al-Sharīf al-Raḍī has no doubt that the ḥadīth is sound and that the Prophet meant this: the people of the first two rivers are believers and those of the other two are disbelievers, in reference to a precise time, evidently in the past. Moreover, al-Sharīf al-Raḍī writes, the Islamisation of the people living around all these four rivers is now substantial and very different from the time of the Prophet and, for this reason, the statement can only be explained if limited to a certain time period. He then reports another interpretation, of which he is not convinced, which refers to that of Ibn Qutayba, according to whom this saying refers to the fact that the

7 Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 159; al-Maqrīzī, al-Mawā’iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-l-āthār, vol. I, ed. by A. Fu’ād Sayyid, London 2002, 133; the tradition is referred to by Miquel, La géographie humaine, 120, and limited to the believing rivers by J.H. Kramers, “al-Nīl”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam2, VIII, Leiden 1995, 37–43. Further references and an initial discussion of the tradition are given as early as G. Wiet’s edition of al-Maqrīzī (Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 30, 1911, 218). The explanation of the ḥadīth in these same terms already appears in a work by al-Jazarī (al-Jazārī, al-Nihāya fī gharīb al-āthār, Beirut 1979, I, 69), but is not attributed to Ibn Qutayba. 8 Al-Maqrīzī, Mawāʻiẓ, 133, claims to be quoting from the Kitāb gharīb al-ḥadīth by Ibn Qutayba. However, the edition in my possession of the Gharīb al-ḥadīth (2 voll., Dār al-kutub al-ʻilmiyya, Beirut 1988) does not quote the passage. This fact is also pointed out by the editor of the most recent edition of al-Maqrīzī’s work, A. Fu’ād Sayyid (Mawāʻiẓ, 133 no. 3). Ibn Iyās, Nuzhat al-umam fī al-ʻajā’ib wa-l-ḥikam, Cairo 1995, 67, quotes Ibn Qutayba’s explanation, adding an additional detail: wa-qāla Ibn Qutayba fī kitāb gharīb al-ḥadīth wa-fī ḥadīthihi . . . 9 Al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, al-Majāzāt al-nabawiyya, Beirut 1986, 12. On al-Sharīf al-Raḍī and his work, see K. Abu-Deeb, “Studies in the majāz and metaphorical language of the Qur’ān: Abū ‘Ubayda and al-Sharīf al-Raḍī”, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. by I.J. Boullata, Richmond 2000, 310–353; and M.M., Ayoub, “Literary exegesis of the Qur’an: The case of al-Sharīf al-Raḍī”, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. by I.J. Boullata, Richmond 2000, 292–309.

108

A S A C R E D R I V E R G E O G R A P H Y I N A S AY I N G AT T R I B U T E D

first two rivers are extremely beneficial for the people living around them, while the others are not. In both of these interpretations, a common element emerges: a rejection of the literal meaning of the Prophet’s saying about believing rivers and disbelieving rivers. The Arabic text could not be more explicit and unmediated, but both Ibn Qutayba and al-Sharīf al-Raḍī evidently consider it impossible to interpret the text literally.

2 Versions of this ḥadīth are not documented in the most important collections of Sunni traditions, both canonical and non-canonical. A search in the most significant encyclopedic dictionary of this kind of literature, the Kanz al-ʻummāl by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (d. 1567), confirms this: in the chapter devoted specifically to rivers, our ḥadīth is not there.10 A survey conducted using more up-to-date instruments, such as the hundreds of works included in the most important CD-Rom collections, gives the same negative result.11 The testimonies analysed above do not give any information in this regard: al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, Ibn al-Jawzī and al-Maqrīzī quote the ḥadīth directly from Ibn Qutayba, without isnād and therefore without any information about the source of Ibn Qutayba himself. This is even more evident in Ibn al-Jawzī, who mentions Muḥammad’s saying alongside other traditions that speak of rivers, especially rivers of Paradise, all of which are accompanied by long chains of transmitters. Evidence of a variant of our tradition which is sufficiently old is the one included in the Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān of Ibn al-Faqīh (fl. 903), which mentions the Wādī Barahūt rather than the river of Balkh (Amū Daryā).12 Evidently, this version wants to bring the tradition, even with its negative aspect, back into an exclusively Arab sphere. The Wādī Barahūt or Balahūt in southern Arabia, already mentioned above, is in fact a negative location par excellence, cited in traditions that often describe it as the worst place on earth. The tradition, in its version with the river of Balkh, is also verified in a few later works, such as the compendium on gharīb traditions by al-Jazarī (d. 1149) and in the Lisān al-ʻarab dictionary by Ibn Manẓūr (d. 1312).13

10 al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, 344–346, nos. 35334–35344. 11 We consulted the CD-Roms published by al-Turāth (Amman), in particular “al-Maktaba al-alfiyya li-al-sunna al-nabawiyya” (1999). 12 Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, “Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum” no. 5, Leiden 1885, 174: . . . f ī al-khabar al-furāt wa-al-nīl mu’minān wa-dijla wa-barahūt kāfirān. This version is mentioned and discussed briefly by Miquel, La géographie humaine, 120 and no. 4. 13 Al-Jazarī, Nihāya, I, 69 (in which he mentions the explanation of Ibn Qutayba without quoting him directly), V, 134; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisan al-‘arab, Cairo n.d, V, 237: wa-f ī al-ḥadīth nahrān . . .; al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 42, taken from al-Jazarī.

109

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

Extremely different is the case of Imami Shi‘i literature, where we find the mention of believing and disbelieving rivers already in the most prestigious collection, that of al-Kulaynī (d. c. 940). An important detail, however, is that here the statement is not attributed to the Prophet, but, in al-Kulaynī’s first version, to one of the Imāms, Abū al-Ḥasan (> ʻAbd Allāh b. Ibrāhīm al-Madā’inī > Aḥmad b. Muḥammad).14 The tradition states that two rivers are believers and two disbelievers, the first pair being, in the order that they are given, the Euphrates and the Nile, while the disbelievers are the Tigris and the Amū Daryā. The text is almost identical to the Sunni attestations with the exception of the inversion of the names of the Euphrates and the Nile – an inversion that apparently changes nothing, but, as we will see later, is actually highly significant. In another version, attributed to Abū ʻAbd Allāh (> Abū Baṣīr > his father > al-Ḥasan b. ʻAlī b. Abī Ḥamza > al-Jāmūrānī . . .), in which the disbelievers are actually mentioned first and then the believers, the Nile and the Euphrates, an injunction is added: “Rub the gums of your children with the water of the Euphrates”.15 This exhortation unequivocally reaffirms the positive role of the Euphrates.

3 Islamic imagery includes other rivers that have been mythologised to a certain extent. These are the rivers of Paradise, which are mentioned in the Qur’ān and are also found in the sayings of the Prophet. The Qur’ān affirms in dozens of passages that Paradise will be a garden or “gardens underneath which rivers flow” (Q. 2:25, 3:15, 3:136, 3:195 etc.), and in only one passage does it further specify that these rivers will be of pure water, milk, wine and honey (Q. 47:15). The sacred text then mentions in three passages the term furāt, which means sweet (water) (Q. 25:53, 35:12, 77:27), but is also the Arabic word for the Euphrates (al-Furāt); finally, it mentions the term al-Kawthar (Q. 108:1), generally considered by exegetical literature to be the name of a river of Paradise.16 In the words attributed to Muḥammad, and in the tradition as a whole, we find a broader and more articulate overview which contains some undoubtedly relevant details for our subject. Muḥammad himself is said to have stated that there are 14 Al-Kulaynī, Kāfī, VI, 391; also taken from here by Ḥurr ʻĀmilī, Wasā’il al-shīʻa, Qom 1409 ah (ed. cited in the CD-Rom “Noor 2”, Noorsoft, Qom 2000, which we used for the survey on Shi‘i literature in Arabic). As for the names mentioned in the isnād, Abū al-Ḥasan could be either the seventh Imām, Mūsā al-Kāẓim, or the eighth, his son, ʻAlī al-Riḍā. 15 Fa-ḥannikū awlādakum bi-mā’ al-furāt, in Ibn Qūlawayh (d. 977), Kāmil al-ziyārāt, Qom 1978, 49–50; and quoted from here in later works (e.g. al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 42, XCVII, 230, CI, 114), about which see CD-Rom “Noor 2”. As for the other names in the isnād, ʻAlī b. Abī Ḥamza, known as al-Baṭā’inī, died in c. 816 and transmitted by Abū Baṣīr, i.e. Yaḥyā b. al-Qāsim al-Asadī (d. 767). Thanks to Etan Kohlberg for the information on the names mentioned in the isnād. 16 The Nile is evidently the waterway to which Moses is entrusted in Q. 20:39, but the term used is al-yamm (‘the sea’).

110

A S A C R E D R I V E R G E O G R A P H Y I N A S AY I N G AT T R I B U T E D

four rivers that flow from Paradise: the Euphrates, the Nile, the Sayḥān and the Jayḥān.17 Some questions have arisen both regarding the last two names, generally identified as the Jayḥūn (Amū Daryā) and the Sayḥūn (generally the Indus or Syr Daryā), as well as the content of the tradition itself. Al-Majlisī (d. 1698), for example, attempts to circumscribe their meaning when he states that the four were chosen because of the sweetness of their waters and their benefits and that the Prophet meant that they are like the rivers of Paradise.18 Although Q. 47:15 speaks of rivers in the plural without further specification, we find the necessary clarification in a tradition of the Prophet: during his ascension into Heaven the angel told him that the river of wine is the Tigris – which then becomes water on earth – the Jayḥūn is the river of water, the river of milk is the Euphrates and the river of honey is the Nile.19 There are, of course, many different versions. In a more widespread version, traced back to Kaʻb al-Aḥbār (d. 652), the Nile is the river of honey in Paradise, the Tigris is the river of milk, the Euphrates the river of wine, and the Sayḥān is the river of water.20 Here, one fact stands out above all others and distinguishes the tradition: the mention of the Tigris river.

17 We do not list here the numerous references to traditions on the subject given in the most important ḥadīth collections, see for ex. A.J. Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition, Leiden 1927, 183, where references to al-Bukhārī, Muslim, Ibn Ḥanbal, etc. are given. See also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, nos. 35334–35335, 35340; al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 41; Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 158. The same tradition also appears in Shi‘i literature, with, however, the additional detail that the four rivers of Paradise flow from beneath the Black Stone: al-Majlisī, Biḥār, X, 104, LVII, 35, and previously in Ibn Bābawayh, al-Khiṣāl, Qom 1403, VI, 624 (according to CD-Rom “Noor 2”). See also the sources cited and discussed in Sindawi, “The cult of the Euphrates”, 264–269. 18 Al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 37. 19 Al-Suyuṭī, Durr, VII, 464–465 by al-Kalbī. 20 Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 158; al-Tha’labī, al-Kashf wa-l-bayān, Beirut 2002, comm. to Q. 47:15; al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr bi-l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, VII, 464; the different versions mix the attributes, see e.g. Ibn Iyās, Nuzha, 67, where, again by Kaʻb, the Tigris is not mentioned, but replaced by the Jayḥān. V. Aptowitzer, “Die Paradiesesflüsse des Kurans”, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 72 (1928), 151–155; and E.J. Jenkinson, “The Rivers of Paradise”, The Muslim World, 19 (1929), 151–155, 151, point out that this tradition reflects a similar Jewish and even Christian eschatological conception (see, in fact, Gen. 2:10–14). Jenkinson, in particular, also mentions other parallels. More generally, according to Miquel, La géographie humaine, 117, the paradisiacal origin of certain rivers is but a variant “de l’antique croyance orientale”. The origin, attributed to the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb), of the conception of four paradisiacal rivers is also reported in Muslim literature itself, see, e.g. in the Kitāb al-bad’ wa-al-ta’rīkh (ed. Cl. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, IV, 60) of al-Maqdisī (tenth century). On Qur’ānic data concerning the heavenly rivers, see also Toelle, Le Coran rivisité, 43–44. Hell’s rivers are given very limited space in Islamic literature, starting from the Qur’ān which tells of a spring, but does not mention rivers of Hell (on this subject, see instead Miquel, La géographie humaine, 119–120 and particularly al-Muqaddasī, Kitāb aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī ma’rifat al-aqālīm, Fr. transl. A. Miquel, Damascus 1963, 65–66, on the rivers of Hell mentioned by al-Muqaddasī).

111

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

There are also four rivers in one of the ḥadīth describing the Prophet’s ascension into Heaven. Raised up to the Lote-tree of the Limit (sidrat al-muntahā), Muḥammad sees four rivers, two inner and two outer rivers. The two inner ones remain in Paradise, the two outer ones are the Nile and the Euphrates.21 Another tradition, traced back to the Prophet, however, reports something different and adds the Tigris: the rivers of Paradise are five and not four, namely the Nile, the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Jayḥūn and the Sayḥūn – which the tradition itself generally identifies as the Balkh and the Indus rivers, respectively.22 The circulation of conflicting traditions on the subject is already evident from the Mubtada’ by Isḥāq b. Bishr (d. 821), where it is stated that, according to a tradition which can be traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās (d. 687), the Tigris, Euphrates, Jayḥūn, Nile and Mihrān (Indus) come from Paradise, to which Isḥāq himself adds the Sayḥūn.23 Finally, it should not be forgotten that religious literature, and especially eschatological literature, preserves, alongside al-Kawthar, evidence of various paradisiacal rivers with other names.24 In addition to these, there are other traditions that do not mention all four or five rivers, but limit themselves to the Nile and the Euphrates, or to only one of them. These are usually excerpts from the broader traditions which further testify to the great prestige enjoyed by the two rivers.25 At the same time, when only one is mentioned, there is an implication of a rivalry between the two rivers – a rivalry

21 Tradition in al-Bukhārī, Muslim and Ibn Ḥanbal (Wensinck, Handbook, 183) and in later literature (e.g. Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 157). On the variants and controversial significance of this tradition, see Ḥalabī, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, Beyrut n.d., I, 400–401. 22 This tradition is usually attributed to the exegete Muqātil b. Ḥayyān (< ʻIkrima < Ibn ʻAbbās), see al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, no. 35342; cf. also Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 159; al-Dānī, al-Sunan al-wārida fī al-fitan, Riyadh 1995, VI, 1218; Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Kitāb al-majrūḥīn, Beirut 1992, III, 34; and other works on the same subject, including Shiʻi, see e.g. al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 38, 46. Generally the tradition goes on to say that the five rivers will be raised into the sky along with other things when Gog and Magog make their appearance. According to another version, it was Gabriel, by divine order, who dug the bed of the five rivers with his foot in which water then flowed, see al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 43. There is a variant on this: Gabriel outlined the bed of eight rivers, see al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 46. For other Shi‘i traditions with the same theme, see Sindawi, “The cult of the Euphrates”, 265. 23 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, f. 13a. On the question of the rivers of Paradise, see Miquel, La géographie humaine, 118–119, who discusses it in great depth and also gives textual references, pointing out in particular how there are variants or rather conflicting opinions. E.g. al-Masʻūdī adds other rivers of paradisiacal origin, while Ibrāhīm Wāṣif Shāh adds the Indus and the Ganges. 24 See, for example, the river al-Ḥayawān in Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī, Tanbīh al-ghāfilīn bi-aḥādīth sayyid al-anbiyā’ wa-l-mursalīn, Beirut 1999, 36; or al-Raḥma (as well as al-Kawthar) in al-Majlisī, Biḥār, VIII, 123 from al-Qummī’s Tafsīr; al-Harwal in Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’, f. 20a; examples are numerous, such as the six rivers that are mentioned in the tradition that is analysed by S. Tamari, Iconotextual Studies in the Muslim Vision of Paradise, WiesbadenRamat Gan 1999, 55. 25 See al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, no. 35336 from Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-‘aẓama, Beirut 1994, nos. 35337 and 35339 (= Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 158), no. 35338 by Abū Hurayra.

112

A S A C R E D R I V E R G E O G R A P H Y I N A S AY I N G AT T R I B U T E D

that already seems to be foreshadowed in the versions of our tradition that place one or the other river as the foremost of the pair of believing rivers, and this will become more evident in the discussion in the following section. According to the material we have analysed thus far, two aspects seem to be the most significant. The first is the elevated status of the Nile and the Euphrates. There is no doubt that these two rivers stand out above all the others, without exception. The second aspect is evident from the contrasting traditions about the other rivers of Paradise. Even a cursory glance at the rivers mentioned in the various traditions about the four rivers of Paradise and the very existence of four or five of these rivers seems to suggest that one river in particular has been the subject of conflicting evaluations. This river is the Tigris, not surprisingly one of the two disbelieving rivers in our tradition. On this point, we will see whether or not Muslim literature as a whole can help us corroborate this peculiarity and possibly provide useful evidence to explain it.

4 A more comprehensive picture is obtained if, in addition to the ḥadīth, we also look at geographical literature. The preference given to the Nile and the Euphrates is confirmed and should be considered the legacy of the role that these two rivers played in the history of the Near East and their renown in all the religious traditions of the region. Islam has only revived their name and role by reworking old materials, such as those of their paradisiacal origin, and by introducing new ones. The Nile is the most evident case and A. Miquel26 is right when he argues that the Nile is beyond compare for its exalted and praised qualities. The river of Egypt has in fact earned the epithet of sayyid of rivers, and every river between East and West has been made to submit to it by God.27 Prodigies abound about the Nile and every aspect of it, such as its origin, its length, the animals that inhabit it, the beneficial effects of its floods, and every book on Egypt inevitably includes long chapters on the subject.28 It is, after all, a river of indisputable positive significance, a place of prodigious merits and, as such, unassailable. For these reasons, it is hardly surprising that it is a ‘believing’ river. The role of the Euphrates is no less significant. Yāqūt (d. 1229) for example points out that there are numerous mirabilia (ʻajā’ib) relating to the Euphrates, although he devotes more space to those of the Nile.29 The powers of its waters

26 Miquel, La géographie humaine, 118. 27 Yāqūt, Muʻ jam al-buldān, Beirut 1990, V, 386: from ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ; Ibn Iyās, Nuzha, 66. 28 See Abū al-Shaykh, ʻAẓama, 315–319; and Yāqūt, Mu‘ jam, V, 387 who mentions, in fact, the numerous prodigies concerning the Nile. See on this subject also Miquel, La géographie humaine, 179–190, in which it is noted that the Nile is the only river that has the epithet baḥr (‘sea’); see also Bosworth 1993: baḥr or yamm are epithets given only to the Nile. 29 Yāqūt, Muʻ jam, IV, 274; cf. al-Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-l-ḥayawānāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Beirut 2000, 158.

113

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

are extolled, after obviously stipulating that it is nahr min anhār al-janna (‘one of the rivers of paradise’).30 A singular detail is added to these generic elements, which is the Shiʻi preference for the Euphrates, prompting, for example, al-Majlisī (d. 1698) to assert that traditions (al-akhbār) confirm that the Euphrates is the best of rivers and that there are many faḍāʾil about it, so many that he has found no particular merit regarding ‘the other three rivers’.31 The reason for this preference is not difficult to identify: the Euphrates is the river of Kufa, the Shiʻi stronghold of early Islam, and it is, above all, the river of Karbalā’, the place of Ḥusayn’s martyrdom. Rubbing one’s gums with its waters is a sign of devotion to ʻAlī’s family, and if, indeed, the people of Kufa had done so with their children, according to ʻAlī, his faction would have been stronger.32 These traditions therefore give special significance to the Shiʻi accounts of our ḥadīth, in which the reference to the Euphrates precedes that of the Nile in the pair of believing rivers. The fortunes of the Nile and Euphrates are not shared by two other rivers mentioned in the traditions, the Jayḥān/Jayḥūn (= river of Balkh/Amū Daryā) and the Sayḥān/Sayḥūn,33 whose identification is more problematic, since it is often believed to be the Indus (whose Arabic name is usually Mihrān), but sometimes also the Syr Daryā or some other river.34 Muslim Arabic literature as a whole does not generally devote much space to these two rivers. The inclusion of the Amū Daryā among the disbelieving rivers does not therefore seem to be supported by any reason pertaining to its nature – e.g. by pre-Islamic conceptions absorbed by Islam – or because its status in Islamic traditions has been the subject of particular attention, either in negative or positive terms. It therefore appears to be used solely to recreate two opposing pairs of rivers according to a pattern found in other Islamic traditions. A typical example of this is the one that enumerates the rulers who dominated the whole earth, two believers, Solomon and Alexander, and two disbelievers, Nimrod and Nebuchadnezzar.35 30 Ibn al-Faqīh, Buldān, 174. 31 Al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 35, 41; and cf. LVII, 38, from al-Kulaynī < ʻAlī: the waters of the Nile dry up the heart. 32 Al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 37–38, 41, 45. On the cult of the Euphrates in Imami Shi‘i traditions, see Sindawi, “The cult of the Euphrates”, where the subject is covered thoroughly. 33 On the fact that Jayḥūn and Jayḥān are two different rivers, as well as Sayḥūn and Sayḥān, see al-Majlisī, Biḥār, LVII, 35, 37. The Central Asian pair Jayḥūn/Sayḥūn – speculates Miquel, La géographie humaine, 118 – were inspired by the Gihon/Phison pair from Gen. 2:10–14. In fact, the declension of similar pairs of names of this type is quite common in Islamic traditions. On the question of the possible biblical Jayḥūn/Gihon relationship, see ‘Abd al-Malik b. Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-firdaws (La descripción del paraíso), transl. and notes by di J.P. Monferrer Sala, Granada 1997, 71 n. 211, where an extensive bibliographical overview is given and the subject is discussed in depth. 34 According to a tradition in the Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān by Ibn al-Faqīh (Buldān, 95) traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās, the Sayḥūn is, for example, the Tigris. 35 See the sources cited in The Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Muṭarrif al-Ṭaraf ī, ed. with intro. and notes by Roberto Tottoli, Berlin 2003, 39 nn. 89–90. Wiet (Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 30, 1911, 218) already singled out this tradition in relation to the one

114

A S A C R E D R I V E R G E O G R A P H Y I N A S AY I N G AT T R I B U T E D

Regarding the pair of disbelieving rivers, the case of the Tigris River seems to be different. We have already seen how the question of its role is controversial in the traditions about the rivers of Paradise. Only a few of those on the four rivers, and all of those that speak of five heavenly rivers, mention the Tigris. The ḥadīth studied here adds yet another element to this picture, since the Tigris is referred to as a ‘disbelieving’ river, and al-Muqaddasī (d. c. 990) even states that the Euphrates is blessed while the Tigris is cursed.36 The same seems to transpire from other traditions, rooted in pre-Islamic conceptions, which, however, attest to the problematic and controversial nature of the Tigris.37 On the other hand, there are plenty of opposing views, such as that of al-Qazwīnī (d. 1283), according to whom the waters of the Tigris are sweet and beneficial, since the Tigris is a blessed river.38 Ibn Qutayba also seems to be of this opinion, according to whom the water of the Tigris is more salubrious than that of the Euphrates (while that of the Indus is more salubrious than that of the Amū Daryā).39 The reference to the Tigris and the Euphrates together appears in certain accounts in an attempt to allow the Tigris to share the indisputable rank of the Euphrates. Such is the case, for example, with al-Masʻūdī (d. 956), when he says that the best rivers in the world are the Tigris and the Euphrates.40

5 The traditions analysed thus far, taken as a whole and in the terms in which we have discussed them, make it clear that the judgements and opinions expressed even through the sayings of the Prophet about some of these rivers fall within the

36 37 38

39

40

about rivers, rightly pointing out that contrasting people or things using parallels of this kind is a recurring schematic pattern in the ḥadīth. al-Muqaddasī, Kitāb aḥsan al-taqāsīm, 145: wa-yuqāl al-furāt mubārak wa-dijla malʻūna. On this subject, see the extensive discussion in S. Cristoforetti, Il Natale della luce. Il sada tra Baghdad e Bukhara tra il IX e il XII secolo, Milano 2002, 267–269. Al-Qazwīnī, ʻAjā’ib, 156. Ibn Waḥshiyya is also of this opinion (T. Fahd, “Un traité des eaux dans al-Filāḥa an-nabaṭiyya (Hydrogeologie, hydraulique agricole, hydrologie)”, in La Persia nel Medioevo, Roma 1971, 277–326: 316). He describes the digestive and curative virtues of the water of the Tigris while acknowledging that it is less sweet than that of the Euphrates. In the margin of this communication by Fahd, the volume contains some remarks by Corbin, summarised from the discussion at the Conference where the communication by Fahd was read, in which he mentions the importance of water for the Ismailis as documented in the Risālat al-ʻālim wa-al-ghulām, where the ẓāhir is the bitter water, the Tigris, while the bāṭin is the sweet water, the Euphrates. Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn al-akhbār, Beirut 1998, II, 279; on this matter, see also Muqaddasī, Kitāb aḥsan al-taqāsīm, 124, according to whom the water of the Tigris is light, unlike that of the Euphrates. On the Tigris and its problematic and controversial inclusion among the rivers of Paradise, see also Tamari, Iconotextual studies, 52–53, 145, which, however, does not resolve the issue. Al-Mas’ūdī, al-Tanbīh wa-l-ishrāf, “Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum” no. 8, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1894, 42, although in the Murūj al-dhahab he states that the waters of the Tigris take away the vivacity and strength of the horses (see Cristoforetti, Il Natale della luce, 268).

115

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

ambit of traditions about faḍāʾil (‘merits’) relating to places. The issue, therefore, is not only that of the merits of particular rivers and the qualities of their waters compared to other rivers. Praising a river is tantamount to praising, above all, the places and regions it flows through and their people. For this reason, enhancing the merits of a particular river by pointing out the traditions that celebrate it enhances the qualities of specific places and regions or specific people. In the same way, denigrating a river is tantamount to denigrating the regions it touches and the people who live near it. The tradition we began our analysis with seems to correspond to this logic. It remains to be established, of course, what could have prompted the circulation of such a tradition, which is sometimes attributed to the Prophet in Sunni versions and sometimes to others in Shiʻi literature. One reason could be the result of the ancient and unabated rivalry of the Arab world with the Persian world. The Nile and the Euphrates embrace the lands of the Arab ethnic group, while the Tigris and the Amū Darya are the boundaries that delimit the Iranian world. This is, it must be admitted, a rather general hypothesis, not least because the collected materials make it clear that the Amū Daryā is probably marginal and that the sensitive point in our tradition is rather the Tigris. Its definition as a disbelieving river, as opposed to the Nile and the Euphrates, leaves no room for doubt: there is a desire to shatter any possible reference to Euphrates–Tigris as a pair, and indeed they are contrasted from a religious point of view. Perhaps pre-Islamic conceptions may have played a role in defining the controversial and sometimes negative character of the Tigris, but there is no doubt that the dialectic between Shiʻi and Sunni traditions, as outlined in the preceding pages, is the most substantiated explanation according to the sources we have analysed. The Shiʻi tradition, moreover, retrieved particularly welcome themes, such as the primacy of the Euphrates (even before the Nile) as the river of Kufa and Karbalā’ and the treacherous nature of the Tigris – implicitly the river of the Abbasid capital, Baghdad. This perhaps explains the lack of success of our tradition in Sunni literature and the fact that it is mentioned only incidentally without reference to precise early sources. To answer the question in the title of this paper, it is clear that the ḥadīth discussed here does not express any sacred river geography. Even though the ḥadīth seemed, at the very least, embarrassing to some medieval authors, it is evident that this is not due to conceptions of sacredness that were widespread before Islam, in regions later affected by the Arab and Muslim conquest, but rather to the role that this ḥadīth played in the polemical framework of early Islam, marked by sectarian or geographical rivalries of various kinds, which find its most typical expression in the literature of faḍāʾil.

116

8 ISLAMIC TRADITIONS REGARDING THE USE OF FA B R I C S A N D C L O T H I N G

In a short article of ours that appeared recently, we discussed some Muslim traditions that are particularly favourable to the use of woollen clothing, underlining how the wearing of woollen clothes is considered – in this specific case in ḥadīth literature and in the collections of traditions on the prophets and on the life of Muḥammad himself – a choice that not only conforms to Islam, but is also laudable from a religious point of view.1 The use of wool, as we have seen, is appreciated as a fabric of little value, not luxurious, and therefore perfectly in keeping with the tendency in favour of austere attitudes and moral conduct that finds expression in many other traditions. The call for general austerity regarding morals is, moreover, one of the central themes of all ḥadīth literature, and is directly followed by marked hostility towards luxury and its ostentation, in obvious contention with those who behaved in such a way or advocated such behaviour. In this case, as in many others, the ḥadīth literature reflects, if not the conflict between different conceptions, the controversy over what is correct religious behaviour. The comparison, and in some cases, the sharp divergence between religious precepts advocated by circles of experts in traditions (ʻulamā’) and the customs and practices of the population or of restricted groups (e.g. mystics, rulers, etc.) has naturally experienced ups and downs in the course of the history of the Islamic world.2 The ḥadīth literature on the use of clothing, therefore, rather than reflecting the customs followed by all Muslims, highlights the behaviour that should be kept according to the ʻulamā’ and religious experts. For this reason, we will examine those religious traditions, starting from Qur’ānic data, that mention the use of clothing and fabrics in connection, if not to articles of faith, to customs considered of religious relevance. In our analysis, those traditions that mention clothing and fabrics in a generic way are consequently privileged, as well as those that

1 See R. Tottoli, “Sul vestire abiti di lana nelle tradizioni islamiche”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 15 (1997), 201–204. 2 On a specific topic, see al-Suyūṭī, al-Aḥādīth al-ḥisān fī faḍl al-ṭaylasān, ed. by A. Arazi, Jerusalem 1983, in part. the introduction by Arazi, 734.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-10

117

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

praise, disapprove of or otherwise pass judgement on their use. Those accounts that mention and describe specific items of clothing are therefore not taken into consideration.3 Precise pronouncements on the use of clothing or fabrics, which occupy a lot of space in the traditions, are not found in the Qur’ān. The sacred text does not contain an explicit precept or binding reference to clothing and fabrics, although it does mention the function and significance of clothing for men. Addressing men with the very common expression, “O children of Adam”, a Qur’ānic passage states, “We have sent down on you garments to cover your shameful parts, and feathers, and the garment of godfearing – that is better; that is one of God’s signs; haply they will remember”.4 If men must dress, it is said, it is so as not to show the shame of nudity, but the rest of the Qur’ānic verse remains open to various and contrasting interpretations. One of these, from the exegetical reading of rīshan (feathers – Q. 7:26), emphasises that, in addition to covering nudity, clothing also serves as decoration.5 Valuable normative indications, even if not formulated systematically, are those in another Qur’ānic passage that underlines that in certain cases it is not necessary to cover oneself in the presence of children or servants, just as women of a certain age may have a more liberal attitude in

3 This is provided by the entry “Libās” of the Encyclopaedia of Islam2, Leiden – London 1960f., in which the history of clothing in the Islamic world is traced. From the collections of ḥadīths only the most ancient works are cited in their complete form, e.g. those that are known as the six canonical ones, the two Muṣannafs by ʻAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn Abī Shayba and a few others like the Muwaṭṭa’ by Mālik; later works are only referred to if there are traditions or versions which are of particular interest; this is done in order to avoid overly long footnotes on the more widespread traditions. 4 Q. 7:26. [These Qur’ānic passages were cited in the Italian original according to the translation by A. Bausani (Il Corano, Firenze 1955) and are here given according to the translation by A. Arberry (The Koran Interpreted, London-New York 1955)]. The following verse further clarifies the meaning of these “shameful parts” (saw’āt): “Let not Satan tempt you as he brought your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their garments to show them their shameful parts” (Q. 7:27). According to most exegetes these verses relate to the fact that the Quraysh, before Islam, used to perform the ṭawāf around the Kaʻba naked; see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ʻan ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, VIIl, 146–147. The clothes removed from Adam and Eve were of nail or light, see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, VIII, 152. 5 See Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Tafsīr (= Mafātīḥ al-ghayb), Beirut 1990, XIV, 43: there are two types of libās, one to cover nudity and the other decorative; see also Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī maʻānī al-tanzīl, Cairo 1955, II, 219, citing a Qur’ānic verse followed by a saying by the Prophet that states: “God is beautiful and loves beauty”. In this case a different tendency is indirectly expressed from that which inspires almost all the traditions considered here, which is against luxurious clothing and fabrics, or too much care taken over dressing; on this point see the discussion in Bayhaqī, Shuʻab al-īmān, Beirut 1990, V, 162–163; and the traditions in Shāshī, al-Musnad, Medina, 1989f., II, 309–310 nos. 889, 890: the Prophet answers with words cited by Khāzin to someone who tells him that he appreciates having clean garments, as well as having his hair neatly arranged and new sandals; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, Mustadrak ʻalā l-ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, IV, 201 no. 7365; see also all the traditions in Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manba‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967, V, 132–135; Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Beirut n.d., VI, 442.

118

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

terms of clothing.6 The Qur’ān does not report any other interesting indications in the other passages in which the Arabic terms meaning “dress”/“garments”, such as libās or thiyāb appear.7 Equally scarce, though still relevant, are the references to fabrics. If, in fact, wool is never mentioned in the Qur’ān, several passages widely echoed in later traditions mention silk and brocade. Describing the bliss and reward that the blessed will encounter in Paradise, the Qur’ān states that they will wear gold bracelets and be clothed in “green garments of silk and brocade”.8 In another passage, although in different words, the same concept is repeated: those who have earned Paradise “their apparel there shall be of silk”.9 Next to brocade (istabraq), therefore, silk is mentioned directly, using two other terms, sundus and ḥarīr. The meaning of the two terms sundus and istabraq seems very close; the former is finer silk.10 In the case of istabraq, some exegetes indicate that it is a Persian word meaning silk or brocade (dībāj).11 The nature of this silk is rendered prodigious by

6 There is nothing strange about servants and children coming before an uncovered man, but when young men reach puberty, they should announce themselves before entry (Q. 24:58). Another verse below this states that for women who have reached their menopause and no longer hope to marry, “there is no fault in them that they put off their clothes, so be it that they flaunt no ornament” (Q. 24:60). 7 Q. 2:187: Women are garments (libās) for men and men are garments for women; Q. 16:112: the clothes of hunger (libās al-jawʻ); Q. 25:47 and 78:10: God made the night a garment (libās) for men; Q. 22:19: for those who disbelieve, garments (thiyāb) of fire will be cut; Q. 74:4: “Thy robes purify!”; Q. 71:7: the people of Noah refuse his sermon: “they put their fingers in their ears, and wrapped them in their garments (thiyābahum)”; see, again with thiyāb, Q. 11:5. Among the terms and verbs derived from the root l.b.s. see Q. 2:42, 3:71, 6:9,65,82,137, 16:14, 21:80, 35:12, and for the meaning of some of these expressions, cf. M. Mir, Verbal Idioms of the Qur’ān, Ann Arbor 1989, 312. 8 Q. 18:31: wa-yalbasūna thiyāban khuḍran min sundus wa-istabraq; and cf. Q. 44:53 where the adjective “green” is missing. 9 Q. 22:23: libāsuhum f īhā ḥarīr; and Q. 35:33. Cf. also Q. 76:12: “and recompensed them for their patience with a Garden, and silk”. 10 see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XV, 243; Samarqandī, Tafsīr (= Baḥr al-ʻulūm), Beirut 1993, III, 221. 11 Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr, Cairo 1979–1990, II, 585; Samarqandī, Tafsīr, II, 298; Mawardī, al-Nukat wa l-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, III, 304–305; Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-majīd, Beirut 1994, III, 147; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1992, VI, 603; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr f ī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Damascus 1964–68, V, 138; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, XXI, 104; cf. Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XXIX, 222; Hūd b. Muḥakkam, Tafsīr Kitāb Allah al-ʻazīz, Beirut 1990, II, 461; Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fi l-tafsīr al-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, V, 387–388. See also Sijistānī, Gharīb al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1982, 35; ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbas, Kitāb gharīb al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1993, 54–55; Ibn Qutayba, Tafsīr gharīb al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1978, 267. On the meaning of these three terms see the tradition in Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf f ī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 430: the clothes of the avaricious are made of istabraq because of how long it lasts, while for those who live in luxury they are made of sundus because of how little it lasts, and finally, for those who are in the middle the clothes are made of dībāj. On istabraq see also Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, Baroda 1938, 58–59.

119

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

a minority interpretation that hastens to explain that the silk of Paradise is unlike that on Earth.12 These lexical explanations, as well as by the indication of some textual variants for the passages in question, are also accompanied by a few other traditions of an exegetical nature. The most interesting are those concerning the meaning of the expression “garment of godfearing” quoted in Q. 7:26. According to some interpretations, God has given men clothes to cover their nakedness, but good conduct (in Q.: garment of godfearing) is better than both these clothes and riches – an interpretation that implies a call not to indulge in excessive luxuries, even in clothing.13 This explanation, followed by a valuable indication, is further defined in certain tafsīrs, where it is precisely said that the garments of piety are wool and rough cloth that ascetics and devotees wear.14 The Qur’ānic commentaries do not go beyond this and other interpretations of the meaning of the “garment of godfearing” and the Qur’ānic descriptions of silk, nor do they include the numerous ḥadīths and traditions about clothing and fabrics collected from religious literature that will be examined later. It is particularly curious that only a few sources, in relation to some of the passages mentioning silk as the garment of Paradise, add Muḥammad’s saying as commentary, that those who wear silk in this world will not wear it in the next.15 A quite articulated treatment of the religious relevance of the use of clothing and certain fabrics, with definitions, which are of more interest to us, can be found in medieval Muslim literature. The Qur’ānic commentaries are naturally included in this category and, in fact, in addition to the explanations mentioned above, material from this religious literary genre will be considered when discussing passages that refer indirectly to clothing and fabrics. Apart from this, however, the most relevant literary genre for our research purposes, is that of the ḥadīth and āthār collections. Almost every collection which is organised according to topic (muṣannaf) contains a chapter devoted to what one wears (libās), which includes, along with information regarding jewellery and other such things, references to clothing and fabrics. Moreover, ḥadīths on the same topic are found throughout Islamic religious literature, which, with greater or lesser frequency, does not fail to mention the use of clothing and fabrics. These Muslim traditions devoted to fabrics and clothing almost all highlight a very precise tendency: the good Muslim should not indulge

12 Samarqandī, Tafsīr, III, 88. 13 Muqātil, Tafsīr, II, 33. Among the different interpretations in a figurative sense, see Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl mushkil al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1981, 165. 14 Ahl al-zuhd wa-l-warāʻ: Khāzin, Lubāb, II, 220; cf. Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ, IV, 508; see also D. Gimaret, Une lecture muʻtazilite du Coran, Louvain-Paris 1994, 341. We have translated ahl al-zuhd with “ascetics” despite being aware that the concept of zuhd is much more articulated; on this issue see L. Kinberg, “What is meant by zuhd”, Studia Islamica, 61 (1985), 27–44. 15 Khāzin, Lubāb, V, 11; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut 1988, III, 886; Suyūṭī, Durr, V, 387–388, VI, 23; we will deal with this ḥadīth and others with a similar content further on.

120

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

in luxury, but be modest even in his choice of clothes and fabrics, in accordance with a general attitude – already hinted at in the Qur’ān, but repeatedly stated in later traditions – that considers austere conduct as laudable from a religious point of view.16 This tendency mainly finds expression in the references to the types of fabric. Wool is considered the modest fabric par excellence and, therefore, the wearing of woollen clothes is praised as being perfectly in line with the aforementioned dictates. Wearing woollen clothes – along with other behaviours – frees you from arrogance, which is, implicitly, what drives you to luxury.17 The theme is particularly frequent in Muslim religious texts and many examples can be found, particularly of the biblical prophets’ use of wool.18 The wearing of woollen clothes is not only noted in connection with these figures, but also in relation to episodes of the Prophet Muḥammad’s life and his pronouncements on the subject. For example, his felted mantle (mulabbad) was made of wool, as was the garment worn by the Prophet at the time of his death, which his wife ʻĀ’isha showed to his companions – a garment emphasised in certain traditions to be of an extremely modest nature.19 Elsewhere the testimonies are even more explicit: Muḥammad

16 On the predominance in early Islam of religious themes and themes of eschatology, see F.M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton 1998, 64–122, in particular on this theme in ḥadīth literature, 90. 17 Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 153 nos. 6161, 6163–6164; Suyūṭī, al-La’ālī al-manṣnūʻa f ī l-aḥādīth al-mawḍūʻa, Beirut 1996, II, 225. 18 See the translations cited in Tottoli, “Sul vestire”, 201–204. Add to the sources cited here Hannād b. al-Sarī, Kitāb al-zuhd, al-Kuwayt 1985, I, 311 no. 553: for example, among the things Jesus left behind when he rose to Heaven was his woollen shirt (midrāʻa); further on Jesus: Dīnawarī, Kitāb al-akhbār al-ṭiwāl, ed. V. Guirgass, Leiden 1888, I, 22; Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 313 no. 559. Regarding the other prophets, on Solomon, see Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Damascus, Ms Maktabat al-Asad 3473, 232: wearing white wool; on Zulaikha: Anonymous, Tawārīkh wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Damascus, Ms Maktabat al-Asad 8228, f. 14b; in some of these traditions it is stated that the prophets wore leather garments as well as wool. On Adam’s leaving Paradise, see Ibn al-Dawadārī, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʻ al-ghurar, II, Wiesbaden 1994, 50. A most recurrent tradition in the Qur’ānic commentaries is one that is also mentioned by Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1975, IV, 224 no. 1734, that says that all the garments worn by Moses when God spoke to him of the burning bush were made of wool: kisā’, tunic, kumma and trousers; just the sandals were leather. Furthermore, to the sources mentioned in Tottoli, “Sul vestire”, 203 no. 9, regarding the tradition that states that the prophets had a preference for wearing woollen garments, milking the sheep and riding donkeys, we can add Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 152 no. 6156 and cf. 6157; see also another tradition in Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1994, II, 589 no. 4189. 19 Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 224 no. 1733; Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il al-muḥammadiyya, Cairo 1996, 75; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, IV, 44 no. 4036; Baghawī, Maṣābiʻ al-sunna, Beirut 1998, Il, 208 no. 1264; on a woollen tunic worn by him, see Ibn Māja, Sunan, Cairo n.d., II, 1180 no. 3564; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf f ī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989, VI, 39; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, Beirut 1992, VI, 161–162 no. 2989; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1991: III, 1649 no. 2080; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1176 no. 3551. On generic references to the woollen garments worn by Muḥammad, see also the traditions in Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 411 no. 799, 427 no. 836.

121

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

wore clothes of coarse wool.20 Another testimony by those companions who were caught by surprise in the rain with Muḥammad, refers to the wool he wore at the time which, when wet, exuded the smell of sheep.21 Certain traditions attesting to Muḥammad’s use of a Byzantine tunic specify that it was made of wool.22 In a quite different tradition, it is reported that his wife, ʻĀ’isha, gave a woollen mantle (burda) to the Prophet, but when he, sweating, smelled the smell of wool he threw it away, since he loved a pleasant smell.23 The traditions of the wearing of wool by the companions and the following generation of Muslims are of course innumerable.24 Such unconditional praise over the centuries also turned, in certain circles, into an exaggeration of the religious virtue attached to wearing wool. A tradition, that was not unreasonably judged as corrupt by Ibn al-Jawzī, a tireless censor of certain traditions circulating among mystics, contains rapturous praise of wool. In this tradition, Muḥammad tells believers that by wearing wool they will find sincere faith in their hearts and will know the gift of eternal life, etc.25 For another tradition of the same tenor, however, wearing woollen clothes, drinking sheep’s milk and eating what is procured with one’s right hand frees the believer’s heart from pretension.26 However, the fabric dealt with most frequently by the traditions is not wool, but silk. The Qur’ān, as we have seen, only states that silk will be worn by the blessed in Paradise, but says no more. Muḥammad’s sayings and the pronouncements of his companions have not failed to better define this affirmation and, in a certain 20 Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1178 no. 3556; see also Abū 1-Shaykh, Kitāb akhlāq al-nabī, Cairo 1981, 109. See also Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 152 no. 6152: Muḥammad wore wool as well as he used to ride a donkey etc. On the various woollen garments worn by the Prophet, see Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 127–129. 21 Along with the sources cited in Tottoli, “Sul vestire”, 201 n. 2, see Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 163 no. 2992. 22 Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1180 no. 3563. 23 Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991, V, 460 no. 9561, 480 no. 9661; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 129; cf. Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 588 no. 4184: a woollen mantle that he likes, but discards due to the smell of namīra. Instead see in Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 449–450: do not wear clothes of wool or leather unless you are ill. A statement not in favour of wool is also attributed to Mālik, see Qayrawānī, Kitāb al-Jāmiʻ f ī l-sunan wa·l-adab wa-l-maghāzī wa-lta’rīkh, Tunis 1985, 226. Cf. also al-Shaʻʻār, Sunan al-Awzāʻī, Beirut 1993, 452 no. 1475: to wear wool is sunna when travelling but an innovation in a sedentary life. 24 Cf. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 3–40. Some companions in Badr wore white wool: Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 152 no. 6158. Also on Salmān: Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, II, 34. 25 Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-Mawḍūʻāt, Beirut 1995, II, 245 and cf. 245–246, on another tradition from Abū Hurayra in which the Prophet said: those who have it in their soul to pursue the sweetness of faith should dress in wool; on all the traditions, see also Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 151 nos. 6150–1651; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl f ī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1979, XV, 301–302 nos. 41113, 41119, and XV, 302 no. 41120: dress in wool etc. and enter Paradise. 26 Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, Cairo 1984, VI, 594 no. 23018; a version, as well as instruction on wearing wool, contains other details, such as riding donkeys: Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, no. 23023 (cf. above, regarding the preferences of the prophets); cf. also Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, Beirut 1986, 30 no. 73; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 129.

122

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

sense, to draw all the consequences from what is established by the sacred text. On the one hand, therefore, we find some descriptions, not very detailed to tell the truth, of this paradisiacal silk; for example, it is said that this silk that will be worn in Paradise is white in colour.27 From some traditions it can be deduced that these silk garments in Paradise are very thin, since the Houris and certain blessed ones will wear as many as seventy, one on top of the other, in order to cover themselves.28 The clothes will have miraculous properties, no less, fit to clothe men in Paradise forever; in fact, these silk garments will never wear out.29 The blessed will find these garments on their entry into Paradise, it is recounted elsewhere, and there will be a tree from which brocade will grow and from which the garments can be picked.30 An episode from Muḥammad’s life serves to further underline the sublime quality of those garments. The Prophet received some silk cloth or a garment as a gift, evidently of some value, since people took to touching it and showed admiration for it; Muḥammad was astonished at their reaction and said that the handkerchiefs of the companion Saʻd b. Muʻādh in Paradise would be better than this silk garment.31 Because of its prodigious nature as well as its beauty, if a garment of Paradise were to be worn on Earth, says Kaʻb al-Aḥbār, the men who set their eyes upon it would be awestruck.32 What is most often mentioned in relation to silk in extra-canonical traditions, however, is not the description of this garment from Paradise, but the prohibition of wearing silk clothes in this world. This prohibition, as we have seen, is not mentioned in the Qur’ān, but is the result of an exegetical reading: if silk will be the garment of the blessed in Paradise, where there will also be wine and gold jewellery, which are forbidden in this world, then silk, too, is consequently forbidden in this world. On this issue there are clear pronouncements by Muḥammad, who addressed this invitation to men: if you like the precious things of Paradise and you like silk, do not wear them in this world.33 The central ḥadīth on this point,

27 Cf. Muqātil, Tafsīr, IV, 531. On the silk of Paradise and the shirt sent to Abraham by God, and then passed down to his descendants, worn by Joseph in the well and thrown before Jacob so that he can recover his sight with the knowledge that Joseph is still alive, see al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Ms Princeton Yahuda 49, f. 80b. 28 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 54 nos. 11, 12; cf. Hūd b. Muḥakkam, Tafsīr, III, 421. On the seventy garments or pieces of cloth, see also Suyūṭī, Durr, V, 388; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut 1999, VII, 2360, and – regarding martyrs – Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 127. But there will be both silk garments and rough garments: Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb waṣf al-firdaws, transl. J.P. Monferrer Sala, Granada 1997, 105–111 and cf. 124: wool and silk. 29 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 106 no. 130; Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al-sāfira f ī umūr al-ākhira, Cairo 1990, 431; Bayhaqī, al-Kitāb al-baʻth wa-l-nushūr, Beirut 1986, 195. 30 Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al-sāfira, 429–430; Bayhaqī, al-Baʻth, 195. 31 Bukhārī, al-Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, VII, 58 no. 5836; Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 114–115 nos. 143– 145; Bayhaqī, al-Baʻth, 196. 32 Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al-sāfira, 431; the blessed will wear garments that only God knows, see Ibn Ḥabīb, Waṣf, transl. J.P. Monferrer Sala, 89. 33 Suyūṭī, Durr, V, 387.

123

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

however, is the one in which the Prophet textually states that those who wear silk in this world will not wear it in their future life.34 The peremptory affirmation of this tradition is, in some cases, followed by a consideration usually attributed to Ibn al-Zubayr: those who wear silk in this world will not wear it in Paradise and therefore will not even enter Paradise – an affirmation, which in some other traditions is mitigated by the Prophet establishing that if he enters Paradise, he will anyway not wear the silk of the blessed.35 Other words of the Prophet establish that those who have nothing of good wear silk, or, according to some versions, those who will have nothing of good in eternal life.36 A tradition listing the seven

34 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 5, 7, 9; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1645–1646 nos. 2073–2074; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 57 nos. 5830, 5832–5833; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1187 no. 3588; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Beirut 1991, I, 53f. nos. 123, 251, IV, 47 no. 11179, V, 452 no. 16118; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 465f. nos. 9582–9583, 9586–9589, 9594–9595, 9621–9623; Abu ʻAwāna, Musnad, Beirut, n.d., II, 66; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, Beirut 1990, 215 no. 1423; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, Beirut 1990, III, 290 no. 1751, VII, 29 no. 3930, XII, 192f. nos. 6815, 6817; Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, Beirut 1994, VI, 592–594; Rūyānī, Musnad, n.p., n.d. 1995, I, 184f. nos. 242, 266. Many versions mention the prohibition of silk as well as the use of gold (or silver) plates, adding that these are meant for others (the disbelievers) in this world, cf. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 6; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1637–1638 no. 2067; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ., VII, 57 no. 5831; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ fī l-ḥadīth, Beirut 1995, II, 711 no. 619; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-awsaṭ, Cairo 1995, V, 115 no. 4837; Ibn Māja, Sunan, Il, 1187 no. 3590; Ḥumaydī, Sunan, Beirut 1988, I, 209 no. 440; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 472 no. 9615; cf. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, Beirut 1983, XI, 67–68 no. 19928. In other cases the prohibition of silk is combined with that of wine: those who drink wine in this life will not drink it in their future lives, see Ṭabarānī, Musnad al-shāmiyyīn, Beirut 1989, II, 219 no. 1220. For other versions that repeat the same concept, see Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 58 no. 5835. It should be noted that in the Mazdaic texts we also find depreciation of silk in favour of the purest cotton: see A. Bausani, Persia religiosa, Cosenza 1998, 160. On silk see also D. Serrano Niza, “Los vestidos según la Ley Islámica: la seda”, BAEO, 29 (1993), 155–165. 35 Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 465 no. 9585; Suyūṭī, Durr, VI, 23; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Il, 592 no. 4203; Ibn Balābān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, VII, 397 no. 5413; al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, 212 no. 7404; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, 153 no. 975; Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, VI, 594 no. 23019; it is a difficult issue, given that there should not be punishments in Paradise, see the discussion in Qurṭubī, al-Tadhkira f ī aḥwāl al-mawtā wa-umūr al-ākhira, Cairo n.d., 526 and Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al sāfira, 431. Different interpretations and hypotheses based on the Prophet’s testimony are rare, see Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ maʻānī al-āthār, Beirut 1996, IV, 243–244. A version attributed to Ibn al-Zubayr also traces this mandatory affirmation back to the Prophet himself, see Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 465 no. 9584. For the traditions that state that even if such people enter Paradise (wa-in dakhala al-janna), silk will be worn by the blessed, not by them, see Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 470–471 nos. 9607, 9611; Suyūṭī, Durr, VI, 23; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 165 no. 2995. On this point see a tradition quoted by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, X, 231 no. 26819: he who wears silk in this world will be dressed in fire by God on the day of the resurrection; cf. also Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, 343 no. 2360; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 141; ʻAbd b. Ḥumayd, al Muntakhab min musnad ʻAbd b. Ḥumayd, Cairo 1988, 450 no. 1558; Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, VI, 593 no. 23016. 36 See the different versions in Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 466–467 nos. 9590–9592, 474 no. 9624; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1985, I, 483 no. 1445; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, Beirut-Medina 1988, I, 244f. nos. 130, 136, 144, 180, 181; Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, 153 no. 974; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 104 no. 321. See the punishment that awaits those

124

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

things commanded by Muḥammad and the seven things forbidden, mentions silk and brocade (al-ḥarīr wa-l-istabraq wa-l-dībāj) among the latter.37 The reasons for the prohibition are explicitly stated in certain traditions in which Muslims are ordered to beware of the pleasures of life, of what polytheists wear, and thus of silk garments, which the Prophet forbade, as ʻUmar wrote to ʻUtba b. Farqad in Azerbaijan.38 The prohibition of silk, however, is not related to some impurity attributed to the fabric, but to the luxury it represents. For this reason, probably, there is testimony that Muḥammad wore garments of this type in certain situations, and only later expressed his firm rejection. A version of the story quoted above, in which Muḥammad states that the silk garments of Saʻd b. Muʻādh in Paradise will be of immeasurable beauty, states, for example, that the Prophet was given a gift of a brocade jubba and that he put it on, climbed up on the minbar and people took to touching it in wonder.39 Perhaps another tradition refers to this story, when we are reminded that the Prophet was given a silk garment (dībāj) as a gift and wore it during prayer, but then returned and violently removed it, as if he despised it, adding that it was of no use to the believers.40 A tradition, often repeated in numerous variations, reiterates the Prophet’s desire to prohibit silk clothing and, at the same time, points out that there is nothing wrong with silk itself. It is said that ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb saw ʻUṭārid with a brocade (dībāj) garment (ḥulla) and proposed to Muḥammad that he buy it, so that he could then wear it before the people on feast days and on Fridays, but Muḥammad replied with the usual expression that those who wear it will have nothing good in their future lives. When, therefore, Muḥammad received garments with strips of silk (siyarā’) and distributed them to some companions, including ʻAlī and ʻUmar, the latter asked the Prophet for an explanation, but he answered that it had not been sent him to wear, but to sell it or make a profit. Muḥammad told Usāma, who instead had put it on when he received it from the Prophet, to cut it into pieces and give it to the women so they could use it as a veil.41 This invitation to give the silk cloth to the women confirms

37 38 39 40 41

who dress in silk, drink wine and play music, a tradition in Nuʻaym b. Hammād, Kitāb al-fitan, Mecca n.d., 371–372. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 6; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1636 no. 2066; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ fī l-ḥadīth, II, 713 no. 620; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 70; cf. Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 63 no. 5849; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1187 no. 3589; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 471 nos. 9612–9613. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1642; cf. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 46 no. 4042. See other versions in Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1642–1643: in Azerbaijan or in Syria; cf. Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 166 no. 2997. Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 218 no. 1723; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 471–472 nos. 9614: jubba of brocade (sundus), 9617: a jubba of brocade (dībāj) woven with gold. Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 247, explains that this occurred prior to silk being forbidden. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 7; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1646 no. 2075; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 4849 no. 5801. See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 68 no. 19929; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1639 no. 2068. The main collections contain versions that omit some of the details, see Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-Muwaṭṭa’, Beirut 1988, 917–918; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 8; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1638–1640 no. 2068,

125

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

what is emphasised by other ḥadīths, where it is succinctly and unequivocally stated that silk – as well as the wearing of gold jewellery – is forbidden to Muslim men, but is lawful for women.42 Besides the luxury that silk represents, some traditions allude to the fact that wearing such clothing is a foreign custom and therefore foreign to Islam. For example, Muḥammad received a kind of fur (mustaqa) with long sleeves made of brocade (sundus) from a Byzantine sovereign; he tried it on and then gave it to Jaʻfar to be sent on again to the Negus.43 ʻUmar repeated the Prophet’s negative pronouncement upon the arrival of the conquerors of Syria who – according to the testimony of Suwayd b. Ghafla – wore clothes of silk, brocade and, above all, in a foreign style (thiyāb al-ʻajam).44 Even in Egypt, Joseph’s Pharaoh wore silk clothes amidst the splendour of the Egyptian court, and even Joseph himself did not escape this custom: he wore clothes of brocade woven with gold, when he was an intimate member of the Pharaoh’s court.45 And to complete the testimonies regarding foreign customs, Muḥammad is said to have rejected ʻUmar’s offer to buy him a brocade garment, owned by ʻUṭārid and already worn by the King of Persia.46 In these cases, the tendency expressed by the traditions is to emphasise the uniqueness of the Islamic creed with respect to the surrounding cultures and thus dismiss that which one wishes to condemn and reject as foreign and alien.

42

43 44 45

46

1644 no. 2070, 1645 no. 2072; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 60 no. 5841; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 461–464 nos. 9569–9575, and an interesting version in 472–473 no. 9618; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1187–1188 no. 3591; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 427 nos. 5801, 522–523 no. 6347; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 45–46 nos. 4040–4041; Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 244–245: ʻUṭārid or Labīd; see also Abu ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 68–69, in part. a version on 68: ʻUmar sold it for two thousand dirhems. On the doubt that in this pronouncement there is a prohibition of this kind of garment with stripes of silk (siyarā’), see Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 461–464. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 68–69 nos. 19930–19932; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 6, 8, cf. 13; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 217 no. 1720; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1189–1190 nos. 3595, 3597; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VII, 129 no. 19532; ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ f ī l-ḥadīth, II, 703– 704 nos. 607–608; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 49–50; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 436–437 nos. 9445–9451; Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 250–251; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, I, 467 no. 333, III, 102 no. 886; many of these versions relate that the Prophet took gold in one hand and silk in the other and pronounced the phrase. There are indications to the contrary, albeit rare, that consider silk inappropriate even for women or that speculate that the peremptory prohibitions on wearing it may also apply to women, see Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 10; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1641–1642 no. 2069; and especially Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 251–252. Silk and gold, which the blessed will enjoy, are also known as “the two reds” (al-aḥmarān), see Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 330 no. 603. According to Abū Hurayra, the ruin of women will be “the two red men”, but identified in gold and saffron, see ʻAbd al Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 72 no. 19947. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 47 no. 4047. Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 137 no. 6096. On the Pharaoh, see Anonymous, Tawārīkh wa-Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Damascus, Ms Maktabat al-Asad 8228, f. 7b; on Joseph, Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 454. A tradition reports that Adam, when he gave a speech in Paradise, also wore luxurious garments of green brocade embellished with pearls etc., see Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Damascus M. al-Asad 3473, 7. Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 472 no. 9616.

126

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

Episodes mentioning silk clothes are also cited in relation to the Prophet’s most illustrious companions. A silk mantle (ḥulla), given to him by Muḥammad, is worn by ʻAlī, but Muḥammad encounters him and orders him to share it out among the women; according to another version, however, ʻAlī is said to have worn the mantle with strips of silk (ḥulla siyarā’) and to have taken it off after meeting Muḥammad’s angry gaze.47 Another tradition reports that, after having met a man in shimmering clothing and having asked if it contained silk, upon receiving an affirmative answer ʻAlī had stated that he did not envy him because Muḥammad had forbidden silk.48 This same conduct is also recorded regarding other companions: Ibn Masʻūd, having seen one of his sons wearing a silk shirt (qamīṣ), tore it off him and sent him to his mother ordering that she put another shirt (of a different fabric) on him.49 A similar account is given by Ubayy b. Kaʻb, who recalls an episode that occurred with Ibn Masʻūd himself: two children wearing silk shirts passed by him and he tore them off, ordering them to return to their mother and have something else put on.50 Other traditions report companions who did not like wearing silk clothes or even those containing a little silk.51 The general attitude of condemning the wearing of clothes containing silk is, however, mitigated in certain circumstances by a principle of flexibility contemplated in many other cases in the Islamic tradition. Anas (b. Mālik) recounts, for example, that he saw ʻUmar rebuking ʻAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʻAwf, and with him al-Zubayr b. al-ʻAwwām, for a silk shirt worn under his clothes.52 The silk shirts worn by the two are, however, justified by other pronouncements by the Prophet, who explains how they asked him for exemption from the prohibition, since they were troubled enormously by lice and silk could bring them relief: Muḥammad granted them permission to wear a silk shirt under their clothes.53 According to

47 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 70 no. 19939; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 6, 9; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1644–1645 no. 2071; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 461 nos. 9566–9568; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 59–60 no. 5840; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 46 no. 4043; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, II, 194f. nos. 578, 618, 726, 731; cf. Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1189 no. 3596. See also ʻAlī’s refusal of silk in other traditions: ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 71 no. 19940. 48 Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 244. 49 Abd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 70 no. 19937; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, Vl, 7: he rips it off him and says: “this is a woman’s [dress]”. 50 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, I, 308 no. 546; for other traditions of the same tenor, but with other protagonists, see Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 7. 51 See the traditions collected by Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 8. 52 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 69 no. 19934. On Anas, see ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 71 no. 19942. For a version with ‘Umar tearing his shirt, Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 7; Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 248. The words added by Anas in the tradition and reported by ʻAbd al-Razzāq (no. 19934) are interesting, because they again highlight how silk is forbidden as an expression of luxury, and therefore related to immodest behaviour: Anas states that he saw ‘Umar’s shirt with at least four patches on it as a sign of modesty and commendable austerity; on this see below. 53 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 71 no. 19941; cf. Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 218 no. 1722; cf. the version in al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, III, 258 no. 1049.

127

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

other accounts, in fact, the Prophet granted Ibn ʻAwf, and along with him also alZubayr, permission to wear silk shirts because of the itching they both suffered – itching, as explained by other traditions, resulting precisely from lice.54 In this case, the exemption further emphasises that once the connection between luxury and silk clothes is neutralised, there is nothing wrong with the fabric itself. This is also exemplified in the question of the silk hems and piping. It is said, for example, that Muḥammad himself, on receiving a delegation of Kinda Muslims who were wearing Yemenite garments (jubba) with hemlines of this type and silk contained in their clothing, reprimanded them and they removed them.55 In this specific case, Muḥammad emphasises the precept that Muslims must not wear clothes even partially made of silk, but other pronouncements express, albeit with explicit limitations, a different approach. In fact, another ḥadīth reports that Muḥammad, while prohibiting silk, would have permitted its use in two fingers’ length, clearly intending it for hems and piping at the ends of garments, such as sleeves, pockets, etc.; this tolerance is also repeated in another ḥadīth: it is permitted to have borders of silk of two, three or four fingers’ length.56 ʻUmar expressed himself in the same way, in a specific case, on the arrival of the conquerors of Syria, who wore brocade clothes in foreign styles.57 It is explicitly reaffirmed in other traditions that silk, if worked into certain garments together with other fabrics, and thus if in a reduced measure, is not forbidden.58 This is despite the fact that elsewhere Muḥammad himself, listing a number of things that he does not do, also adds that he does not wear shirts trimmed with silk.59 Another ḥadīth 54 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 9; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1646–1647 no. 2067; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 59 no. 5839; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1188 no. 3592; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 49 no. 4056; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 476 nos. 9636–9637; see also the numerous traditions in Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, III, 380–381. Some of these traditions add that permission was granted while both were on a military expedition (Ibn ʻAwf and al-Zubayr); on permission to wear silk in battle, see below. 55 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 75 no. 19952. 56 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 7, and above all 10–12; ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 74 nos. 19950–19951; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 56–57 nos. 5828–5829; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1643; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV; 217 no. 1721; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 474–475 nos. 9626–9634; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 46 no. 4042; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1188 no. 3593; Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 244– 245; on Ibn ʻUmar’s attitude, who didn’t like silk hems, see instead ʻAbd al Razzāq, Muṣannaf, Xl, 75 no. 19953; on the Prophet’s jubba with brocade hems: Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1188–1189 no. 3594; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 49 no. 4054. See also Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 12: silk is permitted for hemmings and buttons (taẓrīr). The issue is thoroughly debated, with numerous contradictory traditions, see Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 255–257. 57 Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 137 no. 6096. This tradition was also cited above. 58 Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 138–140 nos. 6101–6103; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 145; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 594 no. 4211. It is clearly stated in this tradition that the Prophet prohibited clothing made entirely from silk, but not silk hems. 59 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 47 no. 4048; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Zuhd, 18 no. 26; see instead what is reported on the topic of the Prophet’s jubba with brocade hems by Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 11. Contrasting opinions on silk hems and buttons are collected again by Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 12–13.

128

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

specifies the scope of this contrasting pronouncement, by stating that among the things he forbade was also putting silk at the bottom of the clothes as foreigners did (al-aʻājim).60 Another unusual situation, introducing another exception to the precept, is evoked in the traditions: the wearing of silk clothes in war. Companions of the Prophet and people of the following generation state that, in this case, there is nothing wrong and it is possible to wear clothes of silk and brocade; most of these pronouncements refer to the behaviour of Muḥammad who, it is said, wore a brocade garment or jubba in a situation of war.61 If silk is forbidden only because it is a symbol of luxury, it is quite logical that, on the other hand, khazz (“raw silk” or “silk mixed with wool”), from which fabrics and clothing of coarser fabric are obtained, is not at all improper and can therefore be worn without any particular prohibition; there are, in fact, both traditions that sanction this permission and accounts that testify to its use by companions.62 However, there is no lack of testimonies of a different view, even in this case. One tradition, in which Muḥammad fears what will become of his community and states that some people will be turned into monkeys and pigs until the day of the resurrection, is preceded by the statement that there will also be those who consider it permissible to wear raw silk and silk (al khazz wa-l-ḥarīr). In this case wearing raw silk is negatively considered an innovation.63 Of other materials and fabrics there are only fleeting mentions. There is, for example, nothing against clothes made of skins and furs in the collections of traditions.64 In fact, the first clothes of Adam and mankind were made of skins, since, according to a particularly widespread tradition, the first person to weave cloth and cut out clothes to wear was the prophet Idris.65 Traditions do not fail to

60 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 47–48 no. 4049; Baghawī, Mafātīḥ al-sunna, II, 214 no. 1310, in which the detail is added that silk worn on the shoulders, as it is worn by foreigners, is also prohibited. 61 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 9–10; Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 141 no. 6110: Muḥammad wore a brocade garment in war, see also V, 142 no. 6113. On silk shirts used in war, see Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, III, 379–380; ʻAbd al Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 71 no. 19943; Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 453. On Muḥammad’s jubba kept by ʻĀ’isha which was partly made of brocade, see Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 473 nos. 9619–9620; according to Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 110, this was the jubba he wore when meeting the enemy. 62 See especially Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 3–5, and cf. 13; ʻAbd al Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 76–77 nos. 19958–19963, in part. no. 19963 which lists six companions that wore khazz. Cf. also Mālik, Muwaṭṭā’, 912; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 45 no. 4038; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, III, 384–338. See also Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 450–452; Ṭaḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 255–256. 63 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 45 no. 4039: Abū Dāwūd adds to the ḥadīth that twenty of the Prophet’s companions or more still wore khazz. It is anyway confirmed that Muḥammad prayed in khamīṣa (a type of kisā’ usually with raw silk borders), see, among the numerous testimonies, Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 48 no. 4052. 64 See Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 220 no. 1726; on furs, see Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 20–21. 65 Maqdisī, al-Bad’ wa-l-ta’rīkh, ed. C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, III, 11–12; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, I, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, 226; Ibn Qutayba, al-Maʻārif, Cairo 1960, 21; Shiblī, Maḥāsin al-wasā’il f ī maʻrifat al-awā’il, Beirut 1992, 129; cf. also Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–1923, 81; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cairo

129

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

provide information about animal skins, the furs that can be obtained from them, and the associated processing and standards of purity, almost always stressing the need for tanning.66 There is, however, some more information on cotton and linen, for which no contrary indications or pronouncements by Muḥammad or the companions are reported. Some traditions state that the Prophet himself owned a cotton shirt with short sleeves, or that certain companions wore cotton clothes in various situations.67 In the Kāfī of Kulaynī, the Imām orders Muslims to wear cotton clothes because that is what the Prophet’s garments were made of and what the clothes of the believers should be like, adding in another tradition that those garments of Muslims must definitely be made of cotton and not wool or skins.68 In other cases, cotton is mentioned with linen. Masrūq, for example, wore cotton, under which he wore a linen garment, for which – it is explicitly stated – there is no indication to the contrary.69 In fact, according to a Shiʻi tradition, even the Prophets were dressed in linen.70 Finally, one tradition mentions cotton and linen, once again in controversial terms, in relation to wool: al-Ṣalt b. Rāshid goes to Muḥammad b. Sirīn wearing a jubba, mantle and turban made of wool; Muḥammad states that he knows that many people wear wool, recalling that Jesus also did so, but the Prophet wore linen, cotton and Yemenite fabrics and it is best to follow what he did.71 After this review of fabrics, in which there is also mention of some particular types of clothing, it is evident that the traditions about Muḥammad’s habits and preferences contain conflicting indications and are, therefore, a reflection of the use of various types of fabrics and clothing during his lifetime or, more often, the

66

67

68 69 70 71

1955, 49; Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh·al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901, I, 170. See al-Rāwandī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Beirut 1989, 48: Adam wore camel and cow leather. Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 220–222; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1193–1194. See also Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 64–67; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 21–22, and cf. 38 on the wool from dead animals or goat skin, which there is nothing wrong with, as long as it is carefully washed. In the above sources, the only skins that seem to be unanimously forbidden are those of leopards (namīra) or of wild beasts in general, see in part. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 66–67; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 241 no. 1770. A tradition states that Jesus wore leather: Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 40. On the Prophet: Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 154 no. 6168; Suyūṭī, Zuhr al-khamā’il ʻalā l-shamā’il awṣāf al-nabī, Cairo 1988, 63; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 108, and see 115: he also wore a coarse cotton izār. On the companions: Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 369 no. 707: ʻAlī, no. 708: ʻUmar. On cotton and linen worn by Muslims, see Taḥāwī, Maʻānī al-āthār, IV, 247. Gabriel took cotton to Adam after his fall to earth and taught him to spin and weave it, see Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut 1990, I, 80; this contrasts with the more widespread version which states that Gabriel taught Adam to weave wool, see Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs f ī aḥwāl anfas naf īs, Beirut n.d., I, 55; cf. also Ṭaraf ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, tr. it. Storie dei profeti, by R. Tottoli, Genova 1997, 47. Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 446 and 450. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 40. Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 449. Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 130. See also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 430: summer linen compared to winter linen.

130

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

subsequent attribution to him of the most diverse attitudes and preferences. We have seen that, with regard to wool and silk, predilection and aversion are repeatedly and generally emphasised, but, at the same time, Muḥammad refused to wear woollen clothes or only wore silk or brocade clothes in particular situations. Similar data, which can be described as contradictory, to a certain extent, can also be found in the various traditions that give indications of Muḥammad’s various preferred garments, traditions that in addition to being scattered through the ḥadīth collections, are also included in works devoted to the qualities (shamā’il) of the Prophet.72 For example, there are various indications regarding the Prophet’s favourite garment. In some accounts, this is identified as the Yemenite-style mantle of striped cotton or linen (ḥibara),73 while equally authoritative traditions, mentioned almost always alongside the previous ones, expressly state that his favourite garment was the shirt (qamīṣ).74 Even without underlining his predilections, testimonies to different garments used by the Prophet are, in any case, numerous, and to these the various testimonies connected with the fabrics mentioned in abundance above should naturally be added. There is, therefore, evidence that Muḥammad also wore a Byzantine (rūmiyya) jubba with narrow sleeves.75 There is further evidence of clothing of a foreign style, so to speak, for example, when it is recounted that Muḥammad also wore a ridā’ from Najrān.76 As can well be imagined, the traditions make frequent mention of mantles, shirts and izārs, the most common clothes among the Arabs of his time and worn by Muḥammad, so there is no need to discuss them in more depth here, in part because they are often accounts and testimonies that serve exclusively to define the dimensions that these clothes should have.

72 The appearance of these clothes is described in great detail in these traditions, which is not particularly relevant to this discussion, with the exception of the issue of long garments that trail along the ground, which will be discussed later. See Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 105–130; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 42–47; Suyūṭī, Zuhr al-khamā’il, 63–67; and among the collections of the Prophet’s sayings, see Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 51f. We will only refer to the testimony offered in the collections of the ḥadīths, neglecting historiographical works on the life of the Prophet, where there are similar testimonies and more information. 73 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1648 no. 2079; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 52 nos. 5812–5813; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 249 no. 1787; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 50 no. 4060; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 478 no. 9646; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 145–1146 nos. 2960–2961; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 106; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 45. 74 Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 237–239 nos. 1762–1764; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1183 no. 3575; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 42 nos. 4025–4026; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 482 no. 9668; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 146–147 nos. 2962–2963; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 106; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 42. 75 Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 240 no. 1768; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 147 no. 2964; Baghawī, Mafātīḥ al-sunna, II, 208 no. 1263; Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, II, 588 nos. 4182, 4187; see also Ḥumaydī, Sunan, II, 334 no. 757. 76 Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1177 no. 3553.

131

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

In addition to the type of fabrics and clothing that are most appropriate for a religiously correct attitude, Islamic traditions also deal with general rules of behaviour when wearing different types of clothing. Here too, as will be seen from the various issues that will be discussed, the prevailing general approach condemns arrogant and presumptuous attitudes in favour of modest and simple conduct. In this perspective, one must first of all consider the constant exhortations, irrespective of the fabric and type of garment, not to use clothing that is excessively embroidered and, therefore, too luxurious. This is first of all underlined in most of the traditions about the Prophet’s habits that we have mentioned several times in the previous pages: prevalence is given to simple clothes, preferably of rough and not too elaborate material. An indication of the same tendency is also that the material – no less consistent – should seem worn and even be patched up. Muḥammad, for example, exhorted ʻĀ’isha not to take off a garment until it had been patched up, therefore not until it was completely worn out.77 The same behaviour, it is said, was observed by the companions, who were better known for their devotion. One tradition even reports that the Prophet’s clothes had eleven patches on them at his death, whereas Abū Bakr’s had twelve and ʻUmar’s thirteen.78 Anas b. Mālik states that he saw four patches between the shoulders of ʻUmar’s shirt, while other accounts specify that he wore a mantle (izār) with patches, some made of skins, even when he became caliph.79 ʻAlī, seen wearing a patched mantle, is said to have responded naturally that such behaviour softens the heart of the believer.80 The conclusion and warning to be drawn from these accounts are expressed by Ibn ʻUmar, who commanded his son to turn over his mantle, instead of buying a new one, and not to be like those who pour their Godgiven earnings into food and clothing.81 Evidently, according to the content of these traditions, indulging in the overly frequent purchases of new clothes was an attitude alien to the Prophet and his intimates, in short, not attitudes of sober and

77 Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 175 no. 3009. Other traditions suggest indirectly that changing your dress and having new clothes should not be a frequent act in the life of a Muslim. Furthermore, certain traditions also speak of new clothes in relation to giving thanks to God for that. 78 Ibn al-Jawzī, Mawḍūʻāt, Il, 246; Suyūṭī, al-La’ālī al-maṣnūʻa, Il, 224, but with the omission of Abū Bakr. The Prophet used patched up clothes: Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Zuhd, 15 no. 7, cf. also 48 no. 139. 79 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 367 nos. 701–703; Mālik, Muwaṭṭa’, 918: three patches, one on top of the other when he was the amīr of Medina. On the other companions with patched up clothes or robes: Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 389 no. 758. 80 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 368 no. 705, and cf. no. 707: ʻAlī was seen wearing a muslin shirt (qamīṣ karābīs) unwashed. According to another testimony, ‘Alī was seen buying two coarse fabric shirts: Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 370 no. 710. 81 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 368 no. 704. This does not change the fact that the wearing of dirty clothes is deplorable behaviour, see Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 168; Tabrīzī, Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ, Beirut 1985, Il, 1246 no. 4351.

132

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

modest believers. Perhaps, the statements regarding the use of large and hanging garments, which were probably made for continuous use, should be judged in this same vein. Such an appreciation of patched and worn clothing, attributed to the Prophet’s most illustrious companions as well as to Muḥammad himself, is certainly a direct consequence of the general attitude, which is stated repeatedly, towards fabrics and clothing, but, it must be stressed, found no place in the most authoritative collections of traditions. As can be seen from the sources cited, this kind of evaluation is recorded almost exclusively in the texts dedicated to zuhd or in ḥadīths which are not considered sound. The modesty required, moreover, must ensure that the Muslim does not aspire to stand out because of an outfit that is too conspicuous, but that in this outfit he consequently keeps an austere attitude. It is in fact explicitly stated that wearing a garment that is noticeable (mashhūran min al-thiyāb/shuhra min al-thiyāb) costs the Muslim all the good he has done before and, above all, will cause God to make him wear humble and insignificant garments in his future life that will then be devoured by fire.82 Another tradition states that those who pay little attention to dress in life out of humility, even though they may do so, will be called by God on the day of Resurrection, chosen among everybody and given the garment they want.83 The same concept is repeated in other words: those who wear clothes to be admired, to show off so that people will look at them, will not be looked on by God on the day of Resurrection.84 The prodigious and recurring image of the punished man sinking into the earth until the day of Resurrection is mentioned both for those who strut (yatabakhtarū) contentedly wrapped in two mantles, and for those who walk around haughtily because of the beautiful clothes they are wearing and who are pleased with themselves for this reason.85 There are indications to the contrary, but they are very few, such as those stating that there is nothing wrong with spending a lot of money on a garment.86 What prevails, however, is 82 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 80–81 nos. 19976–19979; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 81; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 460 no. 9560; Ibn Māja, Sunan, Il, 1192–1193 nos. 3606–3608; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Il, 403 no. 5668; Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, Il, 428 nos. 839–840; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 43 no. 4030; but see Idem, IV, 43 no. 4029: . . . God will dress them in simple garments that will then be burnt by the fire. Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 445: God will dress them in garments of fire. 83 Al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, 204 no. 7372; Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 150–151 nos. 6148–6149; Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al-sāfira, 432. Another saying states that God loves those who pay no attention to their own respectability by not taking care of what they wear: Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 156 nos. 6175–6176. 84 Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 135; see also Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-ḥadīth, VI, 595 no. 23025. 85 Hammām b. Munabbih, Ṣaḥīfa, ed. by R.F. ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib, Cairo 1985, 251 no. 65; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 194 no. 8183; see also Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 125–126; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1653–1654 no. 2088; Bukhārī, Saḥīḥ, VII, 44 no. 5789: a man who was pleased with his own clothes and was combing his hair. Cf. also Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 144–145; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 311f. nos. 41168, 41203. 86 Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 40: some of these traditions include the example of the companions who did not spend a large amount for a ṭaylasān. One tradition reports that the

133

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

the general principle, which concerns clothing, but also every other aspect of life, enunciated in other words by Muḥammad: “Eat, drink, give alms and wear that which is not related to waste and haughtiness”.87 In fact, it is said elsewhere, the most odious thing for God is for a believer to have a garment that is better than his actions, wearing the garment of the rich, but acting as a tyrant; in this particular case, however, the contentious tone towards the powerful and the rulers is evident, and it is stated that the greatness of luxury does not correspond to the greatness of actions.88 Finally, perhaps also to be linked to reasons of modesty, there is the question of the various opinions concerning thin clothes of excellent quality (althawb al-sābirī al-raqīq): among traditions attesting to the widespread use of such clothes, others are reported – more numerous – that deprecate their use.89 The traditions also contain a strong condemnation of another attitude considered contrary to the modesty and humility required of a good Muslim: the habit of trailing one’s clothes. It must be said at once that this issue is by no means secondary, since there are numerous statements in religious literature on the subject. The Prophet himself made the peremptory statement that those who let their garment fall arrogantly to the ground and trail it, will not be looked on by God on the day of Resurrection, a statement repeated by his companions in numerous testimonies.90 The concept is clearly repeated elsewhere, where the Prophet states that

87 88 89 90

Prophet spent more than twenty dinars on a Yemenite garment (ḥulla): Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, I, 482 no. 1442. See also the traditions and discussions in Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 163– 167, in connection with the tradition that states that God loves beauty (see above, n. 4), and Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, VI, 441 and cf. also 442–443 in which there are some traditions that say that there is nothing wrong with possessing ten or twenty shirts. And see Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 118: the Prophet bought a ḥulla for 27 she-camels. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 36 and see the whole chapter: 35–37; on this point also see Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, I, 488 no. 1461. Ibn al-Jawzī, Mawḍūʻāt, II, 247; see also Suyūṭī, al-La’ālī al-maṣnūʻa, II, 225. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 14, including the more extreme view of ʻAṭā’, who preferred silk garments to those of thin fabrics. Hammām b. Munabbih, Ṣaḥīfa, 564 no. 115; ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 81–84; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 26–27 with many versions; Mālik, Muwaṭṭa’, 914; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 43–45 nos. 5783–84, 5788–5791; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1651–1652 no. 2085; Tirmidhī, Jāmi‘, IV, 223 nos. 1730–1731; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, II, 206f. nos. 4489, 4567, 5377, III, 333 no. 9014; Ibn Māja, Sunan, Il, 1181–1182 nos. 3569–3571, 1184 no. 3576; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 483f. nos. 9677–9678, 9697–9700, 9719–9720, 9723–9732; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, X, 16 no. 5644; Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 67; Hannad b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 430 no. 844; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-awsaṭ, I, 295 no. 979, III, 159 no. 2791; Ḥumaydī, Sunan, II, 284 nos. 636–637; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 56f. nos. 4085, 4087, 4094, cf. 4084; see also Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, Cairo, n.d., X, 12 no. 9778: God does not look at him wa-in kāna ʻalā Allāh karīman. Other traditions that go back to companions who repeat the same concept and call for the lifting of mantles and garments are in Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 431–432 nos. 845, 847: what the Prophet said about the mantle and the shirt; see also Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 57 no. 4089. But cf. also a different statement in Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 432 no. 846. Against those who wear clothes and shirts that are too long, see also Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 31. Instead, according to Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, I, 486, this ḥadīth – if with isnād Nāfiʻ-Salīm – is to be rejected.

134

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

trailing one’s clothes is the fruit of arrogance, and God does not like arrogance.91 On the day of Resurrection, God will not speak to those who drag their clothes, among others; such an act is, moreover, directly considered to be a custom in use in ostentatious courts of disbelievers, and therefore not in keeping with Islamic principles of proper religious conduct.92 The latter tradition clearly indicates the concern expressed and thus the inspirational motive, namely that Muslim rulers and powerful people would follow the customs attributed to foreigners of wearing luxurious clothes with trains and long tails touching the ground. Another tradition establishes what, in this case, is considered to be the reform brought about by Islam: in the past, importance and magnificence were expressed with trains and, therefore, sumptuous clothes, whereas now (after the advent of Islam) with shorter clothes.93 It is not by chance that an enemy of the faith like Korah, who attacked Moses, is attributed with the deplorable initiative of having lengthened his garment; this is, in fact, the explanation of the Qur’ānic expression fa-baghā ʻalayhim (“And he became insolent to them”, Q. 28:76): Korah was insolent towards them because he lengthened his garment by a hand’s width.94 The case of those who drag their garments for reasons other than arrogance is evidently different, or those who have performed this act inadvertently.95 In any case, if one prays with one’s garment trailing on the ground, the prayer is not valid.96 In accordance with this attitude towards clothes that touch the ground, having shorter clothes is considered appropriate and worthy behaviour.97 ʻAlī, for example, had one of his newly bought shirts cut shorter by the length of four fingers.98 It is not, however, regarding shirts and sleeves that we find the most frequent pronouncements, but for clothes and mantles. Abū Hurayra makes the terse

91 Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 486f. nos. 9691–9693. 92 God does not speak to those whose dresses trail on the ground: Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 488 no. 9702; cf. no. 9703: the prayer of those whose dresses trail on the ground are not accepted by God. On that act in use in courts, see Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1653 no. 2087: the amīr of Bahrein arrives with his robe trailing and his feet beating the ground; Muḥammad “invites him not to trail his garments”. 93 Cf. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 84 no. 19992; Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 172 no. 6243. 94 Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XX, 106; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zuhd, VI, 239; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb, XXV, 13; Suyūṭī, Durr, VI, 437; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al anbiyā’, 213: it was extended to the Israelites; Māwardī, al-Nukat, IV, 264; Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991, II, 144: Korah dyed garments which trailed on the ground; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tadhkira, Beirut 1993, I, 252. 95 Bukhārī, Saḥīḥ, VII, 43–44; see also Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 489f. nos. 9708, 9721; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 150 no. 2971; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XII, 300 no. 13174. Curious about the issue and the justification adopted by Ibn Masʻūd, when he was seen trailing his dress, he used the excuse that he was a man of feeble shins (and therefore preferred to cover them): Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 27. 96 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 56 no. 4086; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 27; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 488 no. 9703. 97 Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1184 no. 3577, on the Prophet’s shirt. On the length of the sleeves, see the collected traditions in Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 31–32. 98 Hannād b. al-Sarī, Zuhd, II, 370 no. 711.

135

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

statement that what goes beyond the length of the ankles will be for Hell. Another tradition explains the issue of recommended, permitted and forbidden sizes even more clearly: the believer’s garment must not go beyond halfway down the shin; if it reaches from there to the ankles there is nothing wrong with it, but what goes below the ankles is for Hell.99 The Prophet ordered Ibn ʻUmar, according to his own account, to raise his izār to at least halfway up his shin, adding again that on the day of resurrection, God will not look on those who drag their garments.100 A miraculous event recalls a frequent punishment that befalls the culprit of reprehensible behaviour: a man who drags his garment is swallowed up by the earth and will remain there until the day of Resurrection.101 However, all these considerations apply only to men, since for women the issue is governed by their need to cover themselves. The Prophet’s words, also in this case, preach moderation, allowing only a small amount of trailing, usually a hand’s width in length or at most, if the woman is uncovered, an arm’s length.102 Finally, in the collections of traditions, there is no lack of pronouncements on clothing in relation to their colour. The question is, of course, more relevant to a discussion of colours in Islam, a subject that has been discussed from various points of view. Nonetheless, it can be assumed that a basic attitude must be combined with the same religious principle of advocating modesty and simplicity. In this sense, therefore, traditions condemn the use of clothes of a colour that is too conspicuous, in the name of a certain sobriety. There are two colours that are the most controversial, yellow and red. The case of red is particularly debated: along with traditions stating that the Prophet hated this colour of clothing, there are others that say he was seen wearing a beautiful red garment without any problem.103

99 On all the different versions, see ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, Xl, 83–84 nos. 19987–19990; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 44 no. 5787; Mālik, Muwaṭṭa’, 914–915; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1183 no. 3573 cf. no. 3572; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 58 no. 4093; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 28–30 with various versions; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 484f. nos. 9682–9690, 9705–9706, 9709, 9711–9718; Haythamī, Majmaʻ, V, 122–126; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, I, 164 no. 85. See also ʻAbd al Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 84 no. 19990: this is what the mantles of angels are like; and cf. Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 30: all ʻAlī’s garments reach half way down his shin. 100 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, Xl, 81 no. 19980; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1653 no. 2086; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 489 no. 9707; Ḥumaydī, ·Sunan, II, 284 nos. 636–637: Ibn ʻUmar wore new clothes; on ʻUthmān, see al-Bazzār, al Baḥr al-zakhkhār, II, 15 no. 353. 101 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, Xl, 82 no. 19983; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 550 no. 10387; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 45 no. 5790; Suyūṭī, Jāmiʻ al-aḥādīth, VI, 352 no. 21777; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 483 nos. 9676, 9679 and cf. 9680: those who trail their garments out of haughtiness do not follow God in what is permitted and what is forbidden. 102 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 82–83 nos. 19984–19985; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 37–38; Mālik, Muwaṭṭa’, 915; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 223–224 nos. 1731–1732; Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1185–1186 nos. 3580–3583; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 64 nos. 417–419; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 493–495 nos. 9733–9743. 103 See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 80 no. 19975: red is the colour loved by the devil; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz, XV, 310 no. 41161 and Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 193 no. 6327: the devil loves red and the clothes that are noticeable; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 16: the Prophet

136

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

With regard to the garments of this colour, the traditions show particular aversion to those dyed with safflower (‘uṣfur), which are dismissed by Muḥammad as typical garments of disbelievers.104 The first appearance on earth of garments of this kind is traced back to Korah, the wicked enemy of Moses: among the exegetical readings of the passage in which Korah is said to have gone out among the people in “his adornment” (Q. 28:79), it is stated that Korah was wearing red and yellow garments and also dyed with safflower, thus giving a full description of him as an enemy, who is arrogant because of the wickedness and wealth displayed.105 There are also controversial statements about yellow and ochre clothes or, even more often, clothes dyed with saffron (zaʻfarān) or turmeric (wars), but always only with regard to men. Some of the companions are said to have worn such clothes, or clothes which have been described as explicitly yellow, but the no less frequent prohibitions and condemnations of clothes of this type again indicate an aversion

ordered that red garments should not be worn; see also al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, III, 83 no. 853; Muḥammad, according to another tradition, greets a man who is wearing two red garments: Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 52 no. 4069. As has been said, there is no shortage of pronouncements to the contrary, traditions that permit the use of red clothes. For example, Muḥammad also wore a beautiful red garment (ḥulla) for men: Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 53; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 14; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 476–477 nos. 9639–9641; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 158 no. 2983; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 46; a good number of traditions on the red clothes worn by Muḥammad is found in Abū l-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 119–121. There is nothing, however, against women wearing red: Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 17–18. On the use of red clothes by Ḥasan and Ḥusayn: Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1190; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 6. 104 See ʻAbd al-Razzāq, Muṣannaf, XI, 75f., that includes various traditions about companions and Muslims who wore clothes dyed with safflower, but see also in part. no. 19964: from ʻAlī, the Prophet forbade those clothes, and no. 19974: with the mandatory order to take off all clothes dyed with safflower, because they are the clothes of the disbelievers; on this point see also Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 16–17; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1647 no. 2077; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 478 no. 9647; for other traditions on the prohibition of clothes dyed with safflower, see Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1191 no. 3601; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 478–479; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 16–17; and cf. Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 446–448, with different views. Some traditions hint at the prohibition of wearing some Egyptian silk garments (al-qassī) as well as clothes dyed with safflower, even if, also in this case, there are contrasting judgements: see Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1648 no. 2078; Tirmidhī, Jāmiʻ, IV, 219 no. 1725; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 46 no. 4044. As previously stated, the prohibition is not unanimous, given that there are many testimonies of the use of safflower-dyed clothes by companions and first-generation Muslims, see Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 15–16. 105 Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ, XX, 115, with various traditions: he had purple clothes, or red clothes, or red and yellow clothes; see also Id., Ta’rīkh, I, 521; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, VI, 243; Id., Tabṣira, I, 253; see Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 214, where it is added: it was the first time that safflowerdyed clothes “appeared on the face of the earth”; see also Suyūṭī, Durr, VI, 440 with various traditions, and Māwardī, al-Nukat, IV, 269. Cf. Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr f ī waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, Beirut n.d., 129: Korah had humble origins, but then (by becoming rich) through alchemy, he began surrounding himself with palaces, horses and luxurious clothes.

137

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

to garish and bright colours.106 In these evaluations of coloured clothing, and in the different provisions concerning the use of garish colours for men and women, the concept that men must not resemble women and vice versa is evidently reaffirmed, a concept also clearly expressed in Muḥammad’s words.107 Of the other colours, there is very little to say. White, when it is mentioned, is exclusively praised, as is green, which in the collections of traditions, in the chapters dedicated to clothing, is most often mentioned in the testimony that the Prophet had two mantles of this colour. Green is, moreover, already mentioned in the Qur’ān as the colour of the silk garments that the blessed will wear in Paradise.108 There are of course other injunctions, prohibitions or other pronouncements concerning clothing, but nothing else of particular interest for the purposes of our research to be indicated.109 In conclusion, it is not the case to summarise the final considerations in an extended form, since an assessment of the significance of these traditions on clothing and fabrics has been made several times in the course of the article. Almost all the material seems to be inspired by a desire to condemn luxury and inspire the believer to modest conduct. This is, moreover, a frequent attitude in the traditions and sayings of Muḥammad. Having said this, there remains a final question that can be asked, namely when these traditions became, if not at their origin, most widespread. The considerations quoted at the beginning of this article, according

106 Contrasting views are collected in Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, III, 1662–1663 (saffron); Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, VII, 49 nos. 5803, 5805 (saffron and turmeric), 62 nos. 5846–5847 (saffron); Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, II, 66–67 (saffron). There are, however, different pronouncements, for example, in Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 117: The Prophet was seen wearing clothes dyed with saffron and yellow; see also Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 47. Also Ibn ʻUmar dyed his clothes with saffron, offering the example of the Prophet: Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 427 no. 9406. On saffron and its – legitimate – use and yellow clothes, see also Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 18–20, and in part. 19 on ʻAlī; on saffron and turmeric used by companions, see idem, 15; and see Mālik, Muwaṭṭa’, 911: ʻUmar loved clothes dyed with saffron. 107 Tabrīzī, Mishkat, II, 1262 no. 4429 from Bukhārī; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, I, 484 no. 1450; and especially al-Ḥākim, Mustadrak, IV, 216 no. 7415. 108 On the reference to the green silk garments in Paradise, see the discussion at the beginning of this paper. On the colour white, see Ibn Māja, Sunan, II, 1181; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 50 no. 4061; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 477; Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, VI, 156–157; Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, VI, 445–446; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 47–48. On the green mantles of the Prophet, see Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 51 no. 4065; Abū 1-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, 122; Tirmidhī, Shamā’il, 46; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 480 no. 9650. On the green garments of the Prophet, see also Bayhaqī, Shuʻab, V, 193 no. 6328: the Prophet’s favourite colour was green. On most of the traditions on the white/green issue, see Ibn Shāhīn, al-Nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh min al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1995, 435–438. 109 For example, a type of dress that is forbidden is the ṣammā’, a long garment that trails behind, see Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 54 no. 4081; Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 74–75; Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 496–497. On dressing without buttons, see Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf, VI, 25. The prohibition of the al-qassī dress, which was also hinted at previously, is repeated often in all the sources, but it should be linked to the fact that that dress contained silk. On that prohibition see Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, V, 460–461.

138

I S L A M I C T R A D I T I O N S R E G A R D I N G T H E U S E O F FA B R I C S

to which the themes of religious piety and modesty were widespread among the very first Muslim generations, would suggest the dating of these discussions back to at least the 1st century. At the same time, however, one cannot ignore the fact that traditions of this kind were well suited to contrasting certain attitudes of different persuasion in use among Muslims of the first centuries, and one can therefore hypothesise that ʻulamā’ and religious people not only of the 1st century, but especially of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, used these clothing customs to counteract the increasing luxury, especially in the courts, and the preferences of certain classes of the population for elegant clothes. This also explains why the religious precepts set out here often clash with the literary and archaeological testimony of the customs in different Muslim contexts over the centuries.

139

9 INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS A study of an early ḥadīth

1 Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) was a renowned polygraph and a founder of Arabic classical prose; he is first and foremost known for his works in the fields of adab, Arabic philology and rhetoric. The works attributed to him attest a wide range of interests. Amongst these works, Ibn Qutayba, who served as qāḍī in Dīnawar, has also produced a number of works relating to Sunni religious sciences, and in particular to Qur’ānic exegesis (among other works now lost, there are the extant Ta’wīl mushkil al-Qur’ān and Gharīb al-Qur’ān) and a work on the science of Prophetic ḥadīth (Ta’wīl mushkil al-ḥadīth). There is nothing strange in this, given the comprehensive vision of the Islamic culture and the interests by Ibn Qutayba himself.1 His Ta’wīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth is no doubt his most important work on religious traditions and matters and the work in which he explains his religious and political conceptions.2 In this contribution I am going to deal with one interesting passage in this work which discusses a saying attributed to the Prophet. This particular saying touches on a sensitive point for a man of letters like Ibn Qutayba, but also for Lidia Bettini and all those who used to attend as students to her lessons in the ’80s in Venice on the history of Arabic rhetoric and eloquence. Most interestingly, in this saying the Prophet Muḥammad states that the man God hates most is the eloquent man (al-balīgh).3 Ibn Qutayba dedicates some space to try to elucidate the meaning of this ḥadīth and somehow to circumscribe

1 The most significant studies on Ibn Qutayba are still the works by G. Lecomte, first of all his essay Ibn Qutayba, l’homme, son oeuvre, ses idées, Damascus 1965; see also his translation of the work on ḥadīth: G. Lecomte, Le traité des divergences du ḥadīṯ d’Ibn Qutayba, Damas 1962. Further, Lecomte has written a number of articles on Ibn Qutayba’s works. On Ibn Qutayba see also I.M. Huseini, The Life and Works of Ibn Qutayba, Publications of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, American University, Oriental Series, no. 21, Beirut 1950. 2 There is also another work on the topic, a Gharīb al-ḥadīth. 3 Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1985, 276–278 (Fr. transl. Lecomte, Le traité des divergences du ḥadīṯ, 328–331 nos. 307–308).

140

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-11

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

it so as to argue that it is not against balāgha as such. Thus, on the specific point, Ibn Qutayba adds that the Prophet stated elsewhere that God loves the shy and modest, those almost unable to speak (‘ayy) and hates the eloquent, but that all this must be read in connection to the Qur’ān praising the bayān (eloquence) as one of the gifts conceded by God to man (Qur. 43:18). A balance between the two positions is the proper attitude, since if bayān is a gift from God, at the same time the Prophet also stated that there is something of magic in the bayān. The problem here thus appears clearly in terms of measure rather than of the concept itself. Ibn Qutayba suggests that al-balīgh, connected to the other terms, denotes here the verbose (al-mutafayhiqūn) and the bigmouth (al-mutashaddiqūn),4 and thus cannot have any positive meaning. But the utterance of the Prophet Muḥammad – seems to suggest Ibn Qutayba in his exegetical effort – must be restricted to this meaning only: balāgha is no doubt a quality which cannot be dismissed as negative in itself, and above all for a literate. Consequently, the meaning of the expression in that ḥadīth must be circumscribed. Ibn Qutayba is usually moved in his Ta’wīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth by the intention to defend Prophetic ḥadīth as a whole, at the same time bringing to the attention the real meaning of some supposed contradictory statements and other questions related to this literature. In this specific case, Ibn Qutayba suggests that it is not rhetoric and the arts of speech in general that are condemned by the Prophet.5 The testimony of Ibn Qutayba is relevant for a number of reasons. It first of all attests the use and discussion around a prophetic saying and thus how it was possible at the time of the first canonization of this body to delve into the contents of a report going back to the Prophet so as to explain its supposed “proper” meaning. His double literary curriculum ranging from adab to religious works made Ibn Qutayba a relevant testimony on a point such as this, since he wrote towards the end of III/IX century. These were in fact the years when the two Ṣaḥīḥs by al-Bukhārī (m. 870) and Muslim (m. 875) were written, after at least two generations of literary activity in the field of preservation, collection, discussion and writing down of the Prophetic ḥadīth. Further, the discussion of Ibn Qutayba is a relevant page in the story of the emergence, circulation, discussion and interpretation of this ḥadīth. As we shall see, this saying of the Prophet Muḥammad appears in early literary attestations and is subject to differing evaluations and interpretations not only in regard to its soundness but even to its proper meaning. The story of all this, in which the testimony of Ibn Qutayba is a relevant point, attests how some single ḥadīths

4 Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl mukhtalif al-ḥadīth, 278. 5 He also refers probably indirectly to al-Jāḥiẓ and his al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, where the ḥadīth is quoted and discussed in relation to the value of silence and the disregard for chatters and affected speaking, see al-Jāhiẓ, al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, Beirut 1983, I, 226.

141

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

were subject to constant discussion and interpretation throughout the centuries up until contemporary Islam.6

2 Wakīʻ b. al-Jarrāḥ (d. 197/813) and Ibn Abī Shayba (d. 235/849), the latter one being the well-known author of al-Muṣannaf, are the first sources to mention our ḥadīth. Wakīʻ mentions it simply introduced by the short isnād Nāfi‘ b. ‘Amr, from Bishr b. ‘Āṣim, from his father, from the Prophet: “God detests amongst men the eloquent who turns around [his teeth] (takhallala) with his tongue such as the cows turn around [their teeth] with their tongues”.7 No further word is added in relation to the contents of, or the words used in the saying. The attestations in Ibn Abī Shayba’s al-Muṣannaf and al-Adab have a relevant variance in the isnād: it is from Yazīd b. Hārūn, from Nāfi‘ b. ‘Umar al-Jumāḥī, from Bishr b. ‘Āṣim al-Thaqafī, from his father, and then from ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr b. al- ‘Āṣ (d. 65/684), while the text is the same.8 The name of ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr is inserted instead of the Prophet in the isnād given above from Wakī‘, but this is nothing strange in early ḥadīth attestations. What is also relevant, in the attestation in the Muṣannaf, is that it is inserted in a paragraph about what is recommendable regarding talking (al-kalām).9 Further, in the version in al-Adab, there is a detail which is added: before the exact wording it is stated that Nāfi‘ “thought” that

6 There are different approaches that can be given when dealing with ḥadīth literature. A list and discussion of the occurrences and variance both in the isnād and in the contents of a single report is a way to understand the emergence and spread of ḥadīth units. Along with this, no less relevant for a better understanding of these questions is to discuss which literature and when and how included such a report, and, at the case, what the authors added. This is the line of inquiry followed by many studies on Islamic traditions. Two major examples in this regard are the two huge monographs dedicated to two specific relevant traditions or concepts in Islamic history and literature by M. Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, Cambridge 2000 and J. van Ess, Der Eine und das Andere. Beobachtungen an islamischen häresiographischen Texten, 2 vols., Berlin-New York 2011. Ḥadīth literature as a whole is not a mere reproposition of the same contents, and a lot of studies and research have repeatedly demonstrated how following single reports on single topics permit to draw broad pictures on the circulation of traditions, beliefs and literary works and their interrelationship. The paradigmatic approach by Ignaz Goldziher is still useful and fundamental in this regard, see his Muslim Studies, vol. 2, ed. by M.S. Stern, Chicago 1971, 1–251 (or. ed. Muhammedanische Studien, II, Halle 1890, 1–274). See also on this line the studies by M.J. Kister and others mentioned in H. Motzki (ed.), Ḥadīth, Aldershot 2004, xliii. 7 Wakīʻ, al-Zuhd, Medina 1984, I, 575 no. 302 (from MS = al-Maktaba al-Shāmila 2.0, downloadable at http://shamela.ws/index.php/main); I have also used, amongst electronic supports, the HD al-Jāmi‘ al-kabīr by al-Turāth [= JK] and the software Ahlulbayt Library 1.0 [= AB]): inna Allāh yubghiḍu al-balīgh min al-rijāl alladhī yatakhallala bi-lisānihi takhallul al-bāqira bi-lisānihā; but cf. Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fi asmā’al-rijāl, Beirut 1980, XV, 44: mentions Wakīʻ as quoted by Abū Dāwūd and Tirmidhī but giving a full isnād, and thus including also ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr b. ʻĀṣ. 8 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, Beirut 1989, VI, 211; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Adab, Beirut 1999, I, 161. 9 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VI, 210–211.

142

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr traced this back to the Prophet (qala Nāfi‘ arāhu rafa‘ahu).10 This constitutes a clear insertion of a doubt about the soundness of the transmission from ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr from the Prophet Muḥammad as the originator of the words and, consequently, a possible reason why this saying was not included in the Ṣaḥīḥs by Bukhārī and Muslim. The other attestation in the Muṣannaf confirms that the point being contested here is if the report goes back to the Prophet or not.11 Such a strong doubt is attributed to a later figure in the isnād, Nāfi‘, and appears in this early occurrence of the ḥadīth. Another later source clears that – according to Muḥammad al-Bukhārī, Tirmidhī’s (d. 279/892) source – Nāfiʻ was not sure in his ascription since on one side he is attested as saying that it was from (‘an) ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr, while in another occasion he said that he thought or considered it (arāhu) from (an unspecified figure named) ‘Abd Allāh.12 Doubts about the ascription to the Prophet – a question that compromises the claim to perfect soundness (ṣaḥīḥ) – emerge for instance in the Musnad by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), where the same ḥadīth with the same isnād is included. Also here, after the name of the Prophet, Aḥmad feels necessary to add the phrase “according to what Nāfi‘ knows” (fīmā ya‘lamu Nāfi‘), thus signaling again the doubts about the soundness of the ascription of this saying to the Prophet Muḥammad.13 Later on, according to another version including only the first part of the report, the doubts on the ḥadīth are expressed but rejected by other explicit words: “Nāfi‘ said: I do not know this ḥadīth if not from the Prophet”, followed by some further considerations and that the later transmitter Yūnus stated that he had no doubt that it was indeed from the Prophet.14 The coming of the second part of the III/IX century brought the emergence of the works that later on came to be canonized and considered the most important in the preservation of sound ḥadīths. The two major occurrences of this ḥadīth and, consequently, the ones which came to be the most quoted by later sources are those in the works by Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī (d. 275/889) and al-Tirmidhī, two of the so-called six canonical books. Abū Dāwūd includes the ḥadīth at the beginning of a chapter on the mutashaddiq (i.e. the bigmouth), from Muḥammad b. Sinān al-Bāhilī. It is Abū Dāwūd, after the name ‘Abd Allāh, to add that this ‘Abd Allāh is indeed Ibn ‘Amr, with the aim to avoid possible confusions with other ‘Abd Allāhs.15 Al-Tirmidhī, on his side, quotes the ḥadīth from Muḥammad b. ‘Abd

10 See also al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, Beirut 1990, IV, 251 no. 4972: from Yazīd and Shurayḥ. 11 It is to be added that on evidence such as this Joseph Schacht argued his theories on the later emerging of Prophetic ḥadīth: the early traditions are those ascribed to companions and also with defective isnāds, and only later on the name of the Prophet was added to the reports to comply with the new formal devices emerged among critics of this literature. 12 Al-Tirmidhī, al-‘Ilal al-kabīr, Beirut 1409 ah, I, 346 no. 643. 13 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Beirut 2005, XI, 101 no. 6543; cf. Al-Kharā’iṭī, Masāwi‘ al-akhlaq wa-madhmūmiha, Jiddah 1993 (from MS), I, 42: f īmā aʻlamu. 14 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, XI, 370 no. 6758. 15 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Beirut 1988, IV, 303 no. 5005.

143

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

al-A‘lā al-Ṣan‘ānī from ‘Umar b. ‘Alī al-Muqaddamī (or al-Maqdamī) and then the usual isnād, though it is added that Nāfi‘ heard Bishr attributing it to his father etc., thus taking some distance on this point from the line of transmission. Then another relevant detail is mentioned at the end: after the ḥadīth, Tirmidhī adds that this is indeed a good (ḥasan) and peculiar (gharīb) ḥadīth from this way (min hādhā al-wajh).16 These are words that will be often quoted in later source with various slants, since they attest to the problems of the saying – that it is judged ḥasan and not ṣaḥīḥ because of the doubts upon the ascription to the Prophet – and to the peculiarity of its contents (gharīb). Among the other later ḥadīth works where the tradition is quoted, in some cases we find further evidence regarding doubts, but always connected to the transmission of it. However, most importantly, it must be noted that after the relevant attestations of Abū Dāwūd and Tirmidhī, it appears that the problems are now connected to the later transmitters. One problem is no doubt that signaled by al-Bazzār (d. 292/904) who adds for instance that the ḥadīth is transmitted only by ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Amr – a way to bring it to attention and express some doubts.17 This recalls the question of the relevance and use of what al-Shāfi‘ī called the akhbār al-āḥād, that is the traditions going back to only one transmitter.18 Notwithstanding this, according to other later authors the question is elsewhere and shifts to later layers of transmission. Ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327/938) discussed the ḥadīth for instance in his al-‘Ilal. He mentions he had asked his father – who transmitted it from Wakīʻ from Nāfi‘ etc. – if he hadn’t previously related the same ḥadīth from Abū al-Walīd (Hāshim b. ‘Abd al-Mālik al-Ṭayālisī) and Sa‘īd b. Sulaymān from Nāfi‘ etc. His father answered yes and that both were together sound (ṣaḥīḥayn) while Wakīʻ cut [the isnād] (qaṣara).19 The critical point in this case is thus identified in the transmission after Nāfi‘ and the channels leading to the later compilers and writers of ḥadīth works. This point at issue is for example also signaled by al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī (d. 411/1012) who noticed that, in the isnād used, the transmitter from Nāfi‘, Khālid b. Nizār, is counted among the Egyptians (fī al-miṣriyyīn) while Nāfi‘ is one counted among the Meccans (makkī).20 This may have created some doubts of the effectiveness of the transmission.21 The bundle of the transmissions 16 Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1975, IV, 141 no. 2853; as such quoted from Tirmidhī also in al-Suyūṭī, Qūt al-mughtadī ‘alā jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Mecca 1424 ah (from MS), II, 706. 17 Al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, Medina 1988, VI, 422; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-awsaṭ, Cairo n.d., V, 205 no. 5091, IX, 27 no. 9030: with a different wording. 18 See on the point the discussion by J.E. Lowry, Early Islamic Legal Theory: The Risāla of Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi‘ī, Leiden-Boston 2007. On the problem of khabar al-aḥad see also W. Hallaq, “The authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadīth: A Pseudo-problem”, Studia Islamica, 99 (1999), 75–90. 19 Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-‘Ilal, Cairo 2006, VI, 305–307 no. 2547. 20 Al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, Ma‘rifat ‘ulūm al-hadīth, Beirut 1977, I, 102. 21 It is Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī (d. 1031 ah) who adds that he did not consider it sound because he had it through a isnād including ‘Umar b. ʻAlī al-Muqaddamī, see his Fayḍ al-qadīr sharḥ al-jāmi‘ al-ṣaghīr, Cairo 1356 ah (from MS), II, 283 no. 1849.

144

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

attests indeed that while the line from the Prophet to Nāfi‘ – with doubts by some about one of the links in the chain – is the same in all the sources, after Nāfi‘ different figures from source to source are mentioned in the transmission: Zakariyā b. Nāfi‘ al-Ramlī;22 Yazīd b. Hārūn;23 Abū Kāmil and Yūnus together;24 al-‘Abbās b. Muḥammad, from Yūnus b. Muḥammad al-Mu’addib;25 Aḥmad b. ‘Abduh, from ‘Umar b. ‘Alī;26 ‘Alī b. al-Ḥasan al-Barā’, from Yūsuf b. Māmil;27 Muḥammad b. al-‘Abbās al-Mu’addib, from Surayj b. al-Nu‘mān al-Jawharī;28 Muḥammad b. al-‘Abbās, from ‘Amr b. ‘Alī Muqawwim;29 Miqdām, from Khālid b. Nizār;30 Khālid b. Nizār al-Aylī, from Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, from Abū al-ʻAbbās Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb;31 Muḥammad b. Jubayr, from Sufyān;32 Muḥammad b. Sinān al-Bāhilī;33 Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-A‘lā al-Ṣan‘ānī, from ‘Umar b. ‘Alī al-Muqaddamī;34 and last but not least Ibn Qutayba himself.35 It is thus interesting to note that the focus in the critical analysis of the ḥadīth – after Abū Dāwūd and Tirmidhī’s attestations – shifted towards later layers of transmission. Some later authors mention doubts around the trustworthiness of transmitters from Nāfi‘, consequently bringing the criticism to the III/IX century. This is no doubt enhanced by the fact that it is a khabar al-aḥad.

3 Another question of relevance in relation to the ḥadīth and so far mostly neglected in the specialist studies is connected to the textual variance and to the interplay between versions, and not only in relation to the problems of isnād and transmission but to the contents of the words of the Prophet. Many are the problems for a

22 Al-Dārimī, Naqḍ al-imām Abī Sa‘īd ‘Uthmān b. Saʻīd, Beirut 1998, II, 874. From Abū Dāwūd: al-Harawī, Dhamm al-kalām wa-ahlihi, Medina 1998, I, 117 no. 102 (Abū Ya‘qūb < Abū Bakr b. Abī al-Faḍl < Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Sarram < ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd < Zakariyā etc.). 23 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Adab, I, 161; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, XI, 101 no. 6543. 24 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, XI, 370 no. 6758; cf. Ibn Ḥajar, Itḥāf al-mahra bi-l-fawā’id al-mubtakira min aṭrāf ʻashara, Medina 1994, IX, 541 no. 11882. 25 Al-Bayhaqī, al-Adab, Beirut 1988, I, 310–311 no. 316; al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, IV, 251 no. 4972. 26 Al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, VI, 422. 27 Al-Kharā’iṭī, Masāwi’ al-akhlāq wa-madhmūmihā, I, 42. 28 Al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-awsaṭ, V, 205 no. 5091; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, CairoBeirut n.d., XIII, 488 no. 14359. 29 Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-amthāl f ī al-ḥadīth al-nabawī, Bombay 1987 (from MS), I, 354 no. 302. 30 Al-Ṭabarānī, al-Mu‘ jam al-awsaṭ, IX, 27 no. 9030; according to al-Haythamī, Majma‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1988, VIII, 116, Miqdam is weak (ḍaʻīf ). 31 Al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, Ma‘rifat ‘ulūm al-ḥadīth, I, 102. 32 Abū al-Shaykh, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥaddithīn bi-Aṣbahān wa-l-wāridīn ‘alayhi, Beirut 1992, III, 442. 33 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 303 no. 5005. 34 Al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 141 no. 2853; al-Tirmidhī, ‘Ilal, I, 346 no. 643. 35 Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṣamt wa-ādāb al-lisān, Beirut 1410 ah, I, 305 no. 723.

145

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

proper evaluation of the questions connected to this. A scarce interest in textual criticism, but also a general difficulty in identifying the variance at the level of author, the copyist or the modern editor of printed editions make this question highly conjectural. In general the ḥadīth so far discussed denotes a strong stability, however a few significant variants can be brought to attention. The first indicator of stability is given by the isnād from the Prophet to Nāfi‘ which is a constant in all the versions. Among the sources I could check, only one source included a major difference here, and it is Ibn al-Athīr (d. 606/1310) who in only one of his works mentioning the ḥadīth ascribes it to ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas‘ūd, another well-known companion, adding at the end after “such as the cows turn around their teeth their tongues” the word “grass”.36 Ibn al-Athīr maintains he quotes from Abū Dāwūd, and it is not difficult to suggest what took place: where Abū Dāwūd has a simple ‘Abd Allāh to which he specified that he is Ibn ‘Amr, this further specification got lost at a certain point in the transmission of the work of Abū Dāwūd and someone added to the simple name ‘Abd Allāh a probable Ibn Mas‘ūd. This happened at a certain point in one or one group of the manuscripts transmitting the work of Abū Dāwūd, and this is further attested by the fact that Ibn al-Athīr quoted in the same work a version of our ḥadīth with the usual isnād.37 One interesting aspect in the textual variance of the text is that the only point showing instability and thus differing interpretations by the sources is in the term used to mention the cows. Sources attest as many differing forms of the word as al-bāqir;38al-bāqira;39al-baqara;40al-baqar;41al-abāqir/al-abqār;42 and even al-bāqūra.43 Further, some other attestations show a less frequent variation in the

36 Ibn al-Athīr, Jāmiʻ al-uṣūl f ī aḥādīth al-rasūl, Beirut 1969f., XI, 732 no. 9415; cf. also Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1979, IV, 259. 37 Ibn al-Athīr, Jāmiʻ al-uṣūl f ī aḥādīth al-rasūl, XI, 731 no. 9414. 38 Al-Dārimī, Naqḍ al-imām Abī Sa‘īd ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd, Beirut 1998, (from MS), II, 874. 39 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VI, 211; Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Adab, I, 161; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, XI, 101 no. 6543; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 303 no. 5005; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa-ltabyīn, I, 226; al-Harawī, Dhamm al-kalām wa-ahlihi, Medina 1998, I, 117 no. 102; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-awsaṭ, V, 205 no. 5091; al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, XIII, 488 no. 14359; Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṣamt wa-ādāb al-lisān, I, 305 no. 723; Ibn al-Athīr, Jāmi‘ al-uṣūl f ī aḥādīth al-rasūl, XI, 732 no. 9415; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, Ma‘rifat ‘ulūm al-ḥadīth, I, 102; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya fī gharīb al-ḥadīth, II, 73. 40 Wakīʻ, al-Zuhd, I, 575 no. 302; Ibn Sallām, Gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1384 ah, 124; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, IV, 141 no. 2853; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, VI, 422; al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, IV, 251 no. 4972; al-Tirmidhī, ‘Ilal, I, 346 no. 643; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, IV, 259. 41 Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-‘Ilal, VI, 306 no. 2547; al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, I, 153 no. 559; Abū al-‘Abbās, al-Fatāwā al-ḥadīthiyya, Beirut n.d. (from MS), I, 105; Shams al-Dīn al-Maqdisī, al-Ādāb al-shar‘iyya wa-l-manḥ al-mar‘iyya, Beirut n.d., II, 90. 42 Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-amthāl f ī al-ḥadīth al-nabawī, Bombay 1987, I, 354 no. 302; Abū al-Shaykh, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥaddithīn bi-Aṣbahān, III, 442 (from SB, but in the AB version the word is abqār). 43 Al-Haythamī, Majma‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1988, VIII, 116.

146

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

verb used in the ḥadīth, though not altering the meaning: for instance the expression yalfitu al-kalām is used instead of yatakhallalu bi-lisānihi, such as the cows do with their tongues.44 The addition of grass or herbage with a variety of words is attested in various later versions since the more ancient attestations discussed so far do not specify what cows turn with their tongues. Further, a variance due to a possible different reading of the ductus appears in what is attested elsewhere, such as in al-‘Askarī as quoted in later sources, whose version states that the balīgh is the man “who plays (yal‘abu) with his tongue . . . ”.45 If compared to other ḥadīths this is indeed a rather stable situation. As far as some consideration can be drawn, the variance reflects later transmission with regards to the use of different verbs, while the early alternation of different wordings in relation to the word “cows” attests to some of the problems in the transmission of the ḥadīth which gave origin to the range of attestations.

4 Relevant questions relating to the story of ḥadīth literature emerge also in relation to the literary works which included versions of this tradition, apart from proper ḥadīth works. What is more relevant in this regard, however, is how the literature quoting it started to interpret the proper meaning of the saying of the Prophet Muḥammad thus attesting to an ongoing debate around it. A clear tendency which emerges quite early is the use of the ḥadīth in relation to etiquette and the proper behavior by the believer. This saying is thus clearly collocated in terms to condemn a way of speaking not apt to define a correct behavior, and the insertion by Ibn Abī Shayba of the ḥadīth in his works, and above all in a work titled al-Adab, is an indication in this direction.46 This is also confirmed by his Muṣannaf, where Ibn Abī Shayba includes the ḥadīth in the book of adab, inside a short paragraph dedicated to what is recommendable in speaking (kalām) along with other reports condemning above all shaqāshiq, i.e. silly or rambling talks.47 Abū Dāwūd puts the ḥadīth at the beginning of a chapter dedicated to the one who speaks affectedly or the bigmouth (al-mutashaddiq).48 It is important to note and no less relevant is 44 See al-Biqā‘ī, Maṣā‘id al-naẓar li-l-ishrāf ‘alā maqāṣid al-sūr, Riyadh 1987, I, 345; Ibn Sallām, Gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1384 ah (from MS), 124; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Fā’iq f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1996, III, 207; Abū al-Shaykh, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥaddithīn bi-Aṣbahān, III, 442; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, IV, 259; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘arab, Beirut 1983, I, 85. And see Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī, Fayḍ al-qadīr, II, 283 no. 1849, with a different version from ʻAskarī. 45 Al-Suyūṭī, Jāmi‘ al-ḥadīth, Cairo n.d., VIII, 168. The various versions, a total of three, are listed by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-‘ummāl, Beirut 1989, III, 562–563 nos. 7917–7919. 46 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Adab, I, 161. 47 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VI, 211. 48 Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 303–304. The more comprehensive discussion in ḥadīth works on the correct way of speaking, and thus a listing of the ḥadīths on this topic including our tradition is in the collection by al-Haythamī, Majma‘ al-fawā’id, VIII, 116–117.

147

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

the fact that a version is found as early as in the book dedicated to zuhd by Wakīʻ, attesting thus its circulation with a clear tendency to prompt a reserved behavior regarding speech and talking.49 The relation to the silence, to its correct appreciation and consequently the tendency to praise those who do not spend too much time in speaking, emerges in the quotation of the saying in a specific work on the topic by Ibn Abī al-Dunyā (d. 281/894).50 In a certain way the meaning is shifted and the balīgh is the one speaking too much. A clear case in point that the ḥadīth was quoted to prompt the value and relevance of silence is also attested by al-Jāḥiẓ in his al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn: he quotes the ḥadīth followed by the saying that “speech (kalām) is of silver while silence is golden”.51 Al-Jāḥiẓ later on comments that the meaning of this praise of silence here is to counter chatters and those speaking affectedly or the bigmouth. The relevance of it in relation to similar themes which were of interest in early ascetic literature is further underlined by the quotation of a version of this saying in the Qūt al-qulūb by al-Makkī (d. 386/996).52 As such the saying appears also in some theological works.53 Along with being relevant to etiquette and the correct way of speaking by a virtuous religious man, this ḥadīth appears according to some authors as a significant saying for its wording and contents. So it was also quoted in books on gharīb al-ḥadīth, that are the works containing sayings including peculiar wording and contents. The mention of this ḥadīth in works dedicated to gharīb al-ḥadīth is attested in the later works such as that by Ibn al-Athīr,54 and even in al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144) who quoted a version including lafata instead of takhallala; his discussion is on the peculiar (gharīb) language of this ḥadīth.55 Later on, according to al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), the ḥadīth is considered peculiar (min gharīb al-ḥadīth), and its meaning is that God hates the man who becomes absorbed in his speech and utters emphatically with his tongue turning it such as a cow turns the herbage with its tongue.56 Some later literature commenting on the contents of the ḥadīth adds to the previous criticism stating that the point here is against affected eloquence, and the similitude is that in this cases man turns the two sides of his mouth in order to affect clearness like a cow passes its tongue between his teeth and consequently

49 Wakīʻ, al-Zuhd, Medina 1984, I, 575 no. 302. However it must be added that the other works on zuhd do not mention this ḥadīth. Hannād b. al-Sarī, for instance, does not quote it in his chapters on proper talking and silence, see Kitāb al-zuhd, al-Kuwayt 1985, 529–546. 50 Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṣamt wa-adab al-lisān, I, 305 no. 723. 51 Al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, I, 226. 52 Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb, Beirut 2005, I, 239, 285. 53 See for ex. al-Dārimī, Naqḍ al-imām Abī Sa‘īd ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd, Beirut 1998, II, 874; Ibn Qaymāz al-Dhahabī, al-Kabā’ir, Beirut n.d. (from JK), I, 223. 54 Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, II, 73, IV, 259. 55 Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Fā’iq f ī gharīb al-ḥadīth, III, 207. 56 Al-Suyūṭī, Jāmi‘ al-ḥadīth, I, 116 no. 174.

148

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

his speaking is such as cows ruminate eating.57 The positive opposite is, as already suggested by Ibn Qutayba and attested by another ḥadīth, the shyness and modesty of those who are almost unable to talk.58 Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) follows this line and indicates this argument briefly when quoting the ḥadīth in one of his fatwās.59 An interesting further explanation is given by al-Nawawī (d. 676/1278) when he quotes the ḥadīth while discussing of speaking gutturally and affectedly.60 This is connected by al-Nawawī to the function of speaking and the need that the one listening understands perfectly. In this case the point is, such as it is directly evocated, a problem of pronunciation and understanding of what is uttered.61 The discussion of this ḥadīth is in some cases combined with other statements tempering the strong words of the Prophet on the balīgh, for instance praising eloquence, such as in one saying stating that the beauty of men is eloquence in language (jamāl al-rajul faṣāḥat lisānihi). To combine the opposite reports, to the last one is usually added that the limit imposed by the saying we are discussing is that the language must not be affected and displaying haughtiness.62 Another line is followed by authors quoting this ḥadīth in connection with another saying stating that God hates – or the most hateful before God on the day of Doom will be – the chatters and braggarts.63 But that this criticism must be circumscribed appears clearly when some other authors deem useful to point out and clear that this statement excludes embellishment of speech during khuṭab or religious exhortations (mawāʻiẓ) which are praised and recommended.64

5 One factor already emerging in the sources discussed above is that there is a clear predominance of Ḥanbalī authors in the Medieval sources briefly discussed above. This is not surprising, but attests to their strong emphasis on themes and statements against rhetoric and that way of speaking bringing to a distinction of the

57 Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī, Fayḍ al-qadīr sharḥ al-jāmi‘ al-ṣaghīr, II, 283 no. 1849. Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī, al-Taysīr bi-sharḥ al-jāmi‘ al-ṣaghīr, Riyadh 1988, I, 267. 58 Shams al-Dīn al-Maqdisī, al-Ādāb al-shar‘iyya wa-l-manḥ al-mar‘iyya, II, 90. A similar argument is found in one rare occurrence of this saying in Shi’i sources: Ibn Abī Jumhūr al-Aḥsā’ī, ʻAwālī al-La’ālī, Qom 1983 (from AB), I, 70. 59 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmū‘ al-fatāwā, Medina 1995, IX, 65. 60 Al-Nawawī, al-Adhkār, Beirut 1994, I, 372 no. 1120. 61 See on this point also Ibn Qaymāz al-Dhahabī, al-Kabā’ir, I, 223. 62 Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī, Fayḍ al-qadīr sharḥ al-jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, III, 350, 3599. Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn al-Ḥaddādī, al-Taysīr bi-sharḥ al-jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, I, 487. 63 See for ex. Abū al-Faḍl al-‘Irāqī, al-Mughnī ‘an ḥaml al-asfār f ī al-asfār, Beirut 2005, I, 475 no. 4. 64 Abū al-‘Abbās, al-Fatāwā al-ḥadīthiyya, Beirut n.d., I, 105.

149

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

man through displaying this virtue.65 This predominance announces a first shift in interpretation of the meaning of the ḥadīth. That is, the words are taken in a clear anti-rhetoric line and not as they were interpreted by many as a way to prompt a correct and moderate behavior. Given this, it is not surprising, when coming to modern and contemporary times, to find that the ḥadīth emerges again in recent Ḥanbalī literature. This took place as early as Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, the founder of Wahhabism. He mentions several times this ḥadīth in his works. Given the relative reduced corpus of his literary legacy, this is highly interesting. He simply quotes it, such as in his Uṣūl al-īmān,66 but what is more relevant is that the occurrence happens in the chapter dealing with how not to exceed in speech and how to avoid being affected and obstinate,67 or along with the well-known saying stating that in bayān (i.e. eloquence) there is something of sorcery.68 It clearly appears that the question is the one posed by zuhd and adab works and concerns, and the aim is the same: to prompt and praise modesty in speech. This line is followed by subsequent Ḥanbalī, Wahhābī and Salafī thought. More recent works, following the steps of the founder, use and quote this saying usually in connection to commentaries on his Kitāb al-tawḥīd, where the ḥadīth is quoted, as mentioned above, along with the saying connecting bayān and sorcery.69 This criticism, when more articulated, comes to discuss also literature and poetry and to posit the criticism on the affected speaking in relation to literary devices connected to this, also quoting similar criticism attested in ḥadīths of the Prophet in regard to this.70 A major contribution to the revival of this ḥadīth was offered by the well-known contemporary ḥadīth expert Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī (d. 1420/1999). He maintained, commenting on classical works or stating it in his works, the soundness of this ḥadīth, i.e. maintained that this ḥadīth is ṣaḥīḥ. Al-Albānī is in fact known for his re-discussion of the soundness of traditions and ḥadīth, and in this specific case he came to this conclusion basing himself on combining reports and testimonies and mainly on what Ibn Abī Ḥātim maintained in his al-‘Ilal. After his cross-analysis of Medieval sources he concluded that it is sound

65 See for instance Shams al-Dīn al-Maqdisī, quoted above; Ibn Rajab, Faḍl ‘ilm al-khalaf ‘alā al-khalaf (from MS), I, 5. 66 Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Uṣūl al-īmān, Riyadh 1420 ah, I, 168. 67 Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Uṣūl al-īmān, I, 275; Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Masā’il, Riyadh n.d., I, 185. 68 Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, al-Kabā’ir, Riyadh n.d., I, 13, adding that Tirmidhī considered it ḥasan. 69 Sulaymān b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Taysīr al-‘azīz al-ḥamīd f ī sharḥ kitāb al-tawḥīd, Beirut-Damascus 2002, I, 346, quoting in connection to the saying that in the Bayān there is something of sorcery; see also ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Fatḥ al-majīd sharḥ kitāb al-tawḥīd, Cairo 1957 (from MS), I, 294. ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Qaḥṭānī, Ḥāshiyat kitāb al-tawḥīd, n.1408 ah, I, 201; ‘Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Ghunaymān, Sharḥ kitāb al-tawhīd, (from MS), nos. 142, 76, 12–13. 70 Muḥammad ‘Ārif Maḥmūd Ḥusayn, al-Naqḍ al-adabī wa-maqāyīsuhu khilāl ‘ahd al-rasūl ṣallā Allāh ‘alayhi wa-sallam wa-‘aṣr al-khilāfa al-rāshida, Medina 1403 ah (from MS), I, 279–280.

150

INNA ALLĀH YUBGHIḌU AL-BALĪGH MIN AL-NĀS

(ṣaḥīḥ).71 This statement no doubt had a great impact on more recent literature and gave further relevance to a ḥadīth so much quoted by Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. This is the reason why, following al-Albānī’s statement and often quoting it directly, some contemporary fatwās and works quote the ḥadīth saying that it is no doubt ṣaḥīḥ and old doubts and discussions are superseded and forgotten.72

6 A few conclusions can be drawn at the end of this brief review. Following the story of the quotations of this ḥadīth in Muslim literature it appears that it went through different evaluations and uses. A first discussion on transmitters and its faults in relation to its soundness did not prevent its extensive use in later literature, which focused on the correct interpretation of its meaning. Ibn Qutayba’s appears as one of the trends at work in giving an interpretation to it, between those who considered it as prompting a correct behavior in speaking but not infringing the usual positive meaning of the term al-balīgh, and those who used it in connection to other sayings diminishing the arts of talking as bad and leading to a non-religious conduct. This last meaning was the one underlined by Ḥanbalī writers and scholars and as such it emerged strongly with the works by Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and more recently by those of al-Albānī. This portrait bears testimony of the relevance of ḥadīth not only in the history of early Islam and in relation to discussions on its soundness, but also in the later evolution as attested by the different ways to comment, interpret and discuss transmitters and contents of a ḥadīth such as this in Islamic literature as a whole.

71 Al-Albānī, Silsilat al-aḥādīth al-ṣaḥīḥa, Riyadh 1995–2002, II, 540 no. 880; al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr wa-ziyādatihi, Riyadh n.d., I, 382 no. 1875. 72 See for ex. Ḥussām al-Dīn b. Mūsā ‘Afāna, Fatāwā yas’alūnaka, Jerusalem 2006–9, III, 41, Idem, Fatāwā (from http://yasaloonak.net), 2010, VI, 67 (from MS); Dār al-iftā’ al-miṣriyya, X, 346 (from MS). And along with these, some other authors insist in the same line, see al-Sharīf al-‘Awnī, al-Manhaj al-muqtariḥ li-fahm al-muṣṭalaḥ, Riyadh 1996, I, 163; ‘Abd al-Ghanī Aḥmad Jibr Mazhar, Khuṭbat al-jum‘a, Riyadh 1422, I, 131.

151

10 METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS I N C L A S S I C A L TA F S Ī R L I T E R AT U R E The exegesis of Q. 21:85 and Q. 17:1

Introduction Hadith literature and Qur’ān exegesis are two major literary genres, each comprising a large number of works dealing, respectively, with the words of the Prophet Muhammad and the meaning of the Qur’ān. This chapter explores a number of aspects of the relationship between these two genres which have commonalities. Traditional literary works, namely, those relying mostly upon quotation and the use of ḥadīths and ḥadīth-oriented reports,1 mark their specific outlook by choosing between the available materials and different versions of the stories, including or excluding and when needed adding some commentary to explain these choices. Such choices seem to provide a narrow avenue within which to create new ‘original’ works. But since the originality and particular stance of a work or an author are indicated in this case by inclusion or exclusion of the material quoted, the analysis can only be based on inclusion or ex silentio evidence, which must be tentative and conjectural at best. This study can certainly contribute to an understanding of which traditional and literary material was in circulation and deemed authoritative in a particular time and place. The step further, that is, to understand why a ḥadīth was in circulation and was chosen, or in other words, why a commentary used or did not use it, is very difficult, although an analysis of authors’ methods, styles, contexts and even personalities may shed light on this complex question.

1 Stefan Sperl characterised recently the structural units of ḥadīth as ‘little narratives’ and examples of condensed ‘narrativities’ not directed towards narrative expansion: See Stefan Sperl, “Man’s ‘hollow core’: Ethics and aesthetics in ḥadīth literature and classical Arabic Adab”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 70 (2007), 459–486. This is no doubt true as regards early literature and the works belonging to ‘high’ literary genres such as Qur’anic exegesis and ḥadīth literature which collect (and discuss) these ‘little narratives’.

152

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-12

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

Although our knowledge of many aspects of authors’ contexts remains limited, the different traditional genres clearly have different concerns, and to study their relationship cannot be only a question of the evidence of material included or not, but also of the relevance and prominence accorded to some topics in a religious literary discourse. The genres of Hadith and Qur’an exegesis, for instance, display certain tendencies. On the one hand, the exegetical model of a verse-by-verse Qur’anic commentary, when based on the use of traditional reports and interpretations, was a matter of selection from among other sources which served the purpose of explaining the words and meaning of the holy text. No doubt the word of the Prophet was fundamental, but what interested exegetes more was the Qur’anic word. Reports, traditions and opinions of the early generations were considered significant or noteworthy according to the choices of each exegete explaining a passage, a verse or a word of the Qur’an. On the other hand, the compilers of ḥadīth literature outline specific methods of selection of the materials handed down by previous generations from the companions and the authors’ discussions of the materials in a process of canonisation. There are a variety of ways to approach the question of the relationship between ḥadīth literature and Qur’an exegesis. To discuss this question I have chosen two specific topics related to the exegesis of two Qur’anic verses. My aim is to investigate which ḥadīths exegetes used, included, excluded or discussed when examining the commentaries on specific verses generally considered relevant for the issues at hand. The analysis of case-studies is the most practical way to discuss the question of the use of ḥadīths in tafsīr, since a comprehensive study of entire works would be a painstaking task and impossible for one person, even with the assistance of the best information technology. The first topic discussed is the personality of the rather problematic prophetic figure of Dhū’l-Kifl, mentioned first in Q. 21:85.2 The question arising in Qur’an commentaries is in regard to the citation of a ḥadīth in which different versions give different names to a character called Dhū’l-Kifl or simply al-Kifl. The inclusion or exclusion of the ḥadīth in a work of tafsīr, and in which version, is significant for the standing of the author in relation to the prophethood of the Qur’anic figure. Furthermore, it touches on the problem of the sources of this ḥadīth. Along with this, the exegetical discussion which emerges from the use of this ḥadīth is evidence of the inner dynamics of the genre of tafsīr. Questions and doubts are not raised over ḥadīth collections (or concerning ḥadīth authors) for the inclusion of one or the other version, but they are raised over commentaries such as that of Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Tha‘labī (d. 427/1035) for introducing the ḥadīth into the genre. Furthermore, as we shall see, this topic is also significant for the larger

2 On the question of his prophethood, also in relation to the ḥadīth on him, see Roberto Tottoli, “L’esegeta coranico e la pluralità di significati: Abū Isḥāq al-Tha‘labī e Dhū al-Kifl”, in Scritti in onore di Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, ed. by Daniela Bredi, et al., Rome 2008, vol. III, 1183– 1190.

153

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

question of the reliability of the editions, both in exegesis and in ḥadīth literature we work with. The second topic is completely different and recalls other questions concerning the relationship between Hadith and Qur’ān exegesis. It relates to the exegesis of Q. 17:1, which is connected to the story of the night journey and the ascension to Heaven of the Prophet Muhammad.3 There are many ḥadīths on this story and indeed the story is told in ḥadīths rather than in the Qur’ānic verses. Qur’ānic exegesis involves only the problem of the choice and selection between many versions. In contrast to the topic of the identity of Dhū’l-Kifl, it is not easy to delineate tendencies between versions of the night journey and sources at their origins, and which works, and in which versions, exegetes had at their disposal when quoting ḥadīths in their commentaries. There are indeed ḥadīths quoted in almost all the ḥadīth works and which became a type of common knowledge with a fixed wording, but there are also others which are attested in only a few works; these were excluded by the major ḥadīth collections, and only emerge in minor Qur’ān commentaries. In this case-study we shall see how the canonisation and thus prominence accorded to some versions influenced the construction of exegetical discourse from the fourth/tenth century onwards, but also how some Qur’ān commentaries quoted material excluded by major ḥadīth collections, showing more liberality in the use of early traditions.

Ḥadīths on the identity of Dhū’l-Kifl The question of the identity relating to the name Dhū’l-Kifl arises twice in the Qur’ān: at Q. 21:85 and Q. 38:48. Classical Muslim exegetes discussed the issue of his prophetical character, particularly because his name is mentioned in both verses just after the names of Ishmael and Idrīs (Q. 21:85) and Ishmael and Elisha (Q. 38:48). This discussion will focus on the use of one controversial ḥadīth which is often quoted and which is, most interestingly, quoted in different variants, at the heart of which is the question of the prophethood of Dhū’l-Kifl. Exegetes display contrasting attitudes on the question of whether Dhū’l-Kifl was a prophet. For some of them, Dhū’l-Kifl was a prophet, namely, a specific prophet of the Israelites, or a different name for another prophet, such as Zechariah, Elijah or Joshua. For others, Dhū’l-Kifl was not a prophet but, for instance,

3 I have discussed ḥadīths and other traditions on this major topic in Muslim literature in relation to the inclusion of eschatological description of sinners in Hell and of Paradise in some versions of the mi‘rāj in two contributions: “Tours of hell and punishments of sinners in mi’rāj narratives: Use and meaning of eschatology in Muḥammad’s ascension”, in The Prophet’s Ascension: Cross-Cultural Encounters with the Islamic Mi’raj Tales, ed. by Christiane J. Gruber and Frederick S. Colby, Bloomington 2010, 11–26, and “Muslim eschatology and the ascension of the Prophet Muḥammad: Describing Paradise in mi’rāj traditions and literature”, in Roads to Paradise: Eschatology and Concepts of the Hereafter in Islam, ed. by Sebastian Günther and Todd Lawson, Leiden [2017, vol. 2, 858–890].

154

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

simply a young or virtuous man, maybe the pupil of another prophet but not a prophet himself.4 The divergence of meaning and interpretation is commonplace in the exegesis of this verse and the variety of interpretations cross Sunni and Shi‘i exegesis. As a general rule we can say that a more negative attitude is attested in the Sunni field, while Imāmī Shi‘i exegetes are more positive, and the majority of them prefer to see Dhū’l-Kifl as a prophet.5 In their discussion of Dhū’l-Kifl, some exegetes make reference to a ḥadīth which is not directly connected to the question of the prophecy of Dhū’l-Kifl but which is nevertheless relevant to understanding his personality and the question of the impeccability of prophets. Tha‘labī is the most relevant exegete in relation to this question, and thus our discussion of the relationship between Hadith and the exegesis of Q. 21:85 starts with him. Tha‘labī quotes this ḥadīth from one of his favourite sources, al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad Ibn Fanjawayh (d. 414/1023),6 introduced by a relevant statement in which ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Umar (d. 74/693) says he heard this ḥadīth several times because, had he heard it only once or twice, he would not have related and transmitted it. This statement is intended to erase doubts about the ḥadīth’s authenticity and thus, indirectly, to tell us that it was controversial. In this ḥadīth, Muhammad states that Dhū’l-Kifl was a man (rajul) of the Israelites behaving sinfully, to the extent that he even bought the services of a woman for sixty dinars. Only her tears convinced him to stop the deal and promise not to sin any more until his death, and God forgave him.7 A ḥadīth such as this was a good way to cast doubts over, or even dismiss, the prophethood of Dhū’l-Kifl: a man behaving in such a way, even though he had repented, was not a good candidate for prophecy. Even more importantly, Tha‘labī appears to be the first to introduce this ḥadīth into this discussion. Tha‘labī’s inclusion of this ḥadīth proved to be highly controversial and gave rise to further discussions connected to it. What is more relevant is that subsequent exegetes’ discussions of this ḥadīth focus upon its wording rather than the theological implication of its contents. It was dismissed using the counter-argument that the version of the hadith quoted by Tha‘labī was simply wrong, since the

4 Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr Muqātil b. Sulaymān, ed. by ‘Abd Allāh Maḥmūd Shiḥāṭa, Cairo 1979– 89, vol. I, 128; Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Tha‘labī, al-Kashf wa’l-bayān, ed. by Abū Muḥammad b. ‘Āshūr, Beirut 2002, vol. II, 203; taken from here by al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd al-Baghawī, Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-musammā Ma‘ālim al-tanzīl, ed. by ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī, Beirut 2002, vol. I, 224; see also al-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan al-Tabrisī, Majma‘ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1995, vol. II, 133; Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Kabīr, Beirut 2004, vol. VI, 175; ‘Abd al-Razzāq b. Hammām al-Ṣan‘ānī, Tafsīr ‘Abd al-Razzāq, ed. by Muṣṭafā Muslim Muḥammad, Riyadh 1989, vol. III, 27; see also Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, ed. by Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir and Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Cairo 1968, vol. XVII, 75 and Muḥammad Bākir al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, Beirut 1983, vol. XIII, 383–384. 5 On this question as a whole, see Tottoli, “L’esegeta coranico e la pluralità di significati”. 6 On Ibn Fanjawayh see Walid A. Saleh, The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qur’ān Commentary of al-Tha‘labī (d. 427/1035), Leiden 2004, 75. 7 Tha‘labī, al-Kashf, vol. VI, 299.

155

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

man mentioned in it was not named Dhū’l-Kifl but simply al-Kifl. This seems to be a small difference, but it completely changes the picture: Dhū’l-Kifl is a name mentioned in the Qur’an, whereas al-Kifl is another name of no relevance for an exegete. Abū’l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1201) states this, adding that it cannot be Dhū’l-Kifl, since prophets are not so sinful.8 Ismā’īl b. ‘Umar Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), for his part, follows the same line, although he appears not to adopt a decisively negative stance since he mentions this as a rare ḥadīth (ḥadīth gharīb), despite it being quoted by Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). He then mentions the name as al-Kifl, but, as usual when exegetes express an opinion that they are not sure is correct, admits that God knows best (Allāh a‘lam) whether he was al-Kifl or Dhū’l- Kifl.9 Some of the later exegetes could not help but touch upon the question as it was now connected to the evaluation of this saying attributed to Muhammad. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), for instance, includes two versions of it and states that it is a good ḥadīth (ḥadīth ḥasan),10 while Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) in his al-Durr al-manthūr names the various sources quoting this ḥadīth but stresses that in the version of Aḥmad b. Mūsā Ibn Mardawayh (d. 410/1019), it is quoted as Dhū’l-Kifl and not al-Kifl.11 However, the majority of later exegetes select to remain silent on the question and do not quote this ḥadīth in relation to it. This is probably because in their opinion the issue was solved with the answer of Ibn al-Jawzī or simply because they were not using Tha‘labī. Thus they rejected the use of this problematic saying in their exegesis of the verses dealing with the identity of Dhū’l-Kifl. The foregoing discussion has considered the use of ḥadīth in exegesis, but further questions arise if we take into consideration the other side, that is, ḥadīth literature as a whole, and try to improve our understanding of how exegetes use the ḥadīths and other materials known and diffused in the classical period. The ḥadīth on the sinfulness of Dhū’l-Kifl (or al-Kifl) is attested in Aḥmad’s Musnad, as indicated by Ibn Kathīr and Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā al-Tirmidhī (d. 279/892), in the version with al-Kifl which also includes the hesitant prelude by Ibn ‘Umar.12 The only major ḥadīth collection containing a version with Dhū’l-Kifl

8 Abū’l-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr f ī ‘ilm al-tafsīr, ed. by ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad al-Raḥmān and Abū Hājar Muḥammad al-Sa‘īd b. Basyūnī Zaghlūl, Beirut 1987, vol. V, 263. 9 Ismā’īl b. ‘Umar Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm, Beirut 1992, vol. III, 200. 10 Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmi‘ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī, Beirut 1985, vol. XI, 327–328. 11 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr f ī’l-tafsīr bi’l-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983, vol. IV, 332; from here, see also al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-qadīr, Cairo 1968, vol. III, 424. 12 A differing version, with no prelude, is already attested in Ibn Abī Shayba, Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shayba fī’l-aḥādīth wa’l-āthār, ed. by Sa‘īd al-Laḥḥām, Beirut 1989, vol. VIII, 106; see the complete version in Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad li’l-imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, ed. by ‘Abd Allāh al-Darwīsh and Abu’l-Fidā’ al-Nāqid, Beirut 1991, vol. II, 248, no. 4747; Muḥammad b. ‘Īsā al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmi‘ al-ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī and Ibrāhīm ‘Atwa ‘Iwad, Cairo 1962–1978, vol. IV, 657–658, no. 2496, where he states that it is a ḥadīth ḥasan; Abū Ya‘lā al-Mawṣilī, Musnad, ed. by Aḥmad Ḥusayn Abū’l-Hawā

156

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

is the one by Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī (d. 354/966).13 Other literature, apart from exegesis and that connected to ḥadīth criticism, includes some relevant discussions on the topic, in general attesting that there are two differing versions.14 This is only of secondary relevance to our discussion, and although it is important to attest that the proper version of this ḥadīth was a controversial question, what is of principal interest for us is that exegetical literature as a whole preferred not to include this saying in the discussion on the prophethood of Dhū’l-Kifl. The addition of this argument by Tha‘labī did not gain a wide following and was mostly rejected through silence or by omission of both versions.15 Therefore, this story is useful for a number of reasons. The general distrust by exegetes of the version quoted by Tha‘labī and previously attested by Ibn Ḥibbān points to the fact that these exegetes were very careful in dealing with ḥadīth material on this point. Even though Sunni exegetes as a whole denied the prophethood of Dhū’l-Kifl, they preferred not to consider a saying of Muhammad in which the various versions preserved a variation so relevant to the issue. As regards the ḥadīth material as a whole, this story can be useful to better understand the attitude towards these traditions and ḥadīth collections by a specific exegete such as Tha‘labī. As discussed recently by Jonathan Brown, the canonisation of the works of Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj (d. 261/875), and the canonisation of the five or six books of ḥadīth, were not concluded at the beginning of the fifth/eleventh century but were well-advanced and Muḥammad Ismā’īl Ṣandīḥa, Beirut 1987, vol. X, 90–91, no. 5726; al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, al-Mustadrak ‘alā’l-ṣaḥīḥayn f ī’l-ḥadīth, ed. by Muṣṭafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā, Beirut 1991, vol. IV, 283, no. 7601; Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, ed. by Muḥammad al-Sa‘īd b. Basyūnī Zaghlūl, Beirut 2000, vol. V, 413, nos. 7108–7109; Abū’l-Ḥajjāj Yūsuf al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmā’ al-rijāl, ed. by Bashshār ‘Awwād Ma‘rūf, Beirut 2002, vol. X, 319: Mizzī states that the version with al-Kifl should be from the Kitāb al-Thiqāt by Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī via Tirmidhī, al-Jāmi‘ al-ṣaḥīḥ; cf. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. by ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Bāz and Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Beirut 1991, vol. XI, 268, where he discusses this only briefly but says he is transmitting from Tirmidhī and others, from Abū Hurayra and not from Ibn ‘Umar. 13 ‘Alā’ al-Dīn ‘Alī Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, ed. by Kamāl Yūsuf al-Ḥūt, Beirut 1987, vol. I, 302–303, no. 388; and from here quoted by al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād aw Madīnat al-salām, ed. by Muṣṭafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā, Beirut 1997, vol. V, 255 and ‘Ali b. Abī Bakr Haythamī, Mawārid al-ẓam’ān ilā zawā’id Ibn Ḥibbān, ed. by Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ūṭ, Beirut 1993, vol. VIII, 103; cf. instead al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, who mentions the name of Ibn Ḥibbān under the version with al-Kifl instead of Dhū’l-Kifl in his Kanz al-‘ummāl f ī sunan al-aqwāl wa’l-af‘āl, revised by Bakrī Ḥayyān and Ṣafwat al-Saqqā, Beirut 1989, vol. IV, 242, no. 10348. 14 See on this Tottoli, “L’esegeta coranico e la pluralità di significati”. 15 In his work Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Tha‘labī quotes the same ḥadīth as in his tafsīr. See Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā bi’l-‘Arā’is [al-majālis], Cairo 1958, 261–262; note that this edition gives the name Ibn Fanjawayh in one of his attested alternative versions, as Ibn Fatḥawayh. Even Tha‘labī’s students and those most influenced by him, such as Abū’l-Ḥasan ‘Alī al-Wāḥidī (d. 486/1076) and Baghawī (d. 516/1122), prefer silence and omission on this question.

157

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

a century later.16 To rely on Ibn Ḥibbān was for Tha‘labī still to rely upon a prestigious work and, probably, also meant to take a position on this process of canonisation of Bukhārī and Muslim. Jonathan Brown has demonstrated how the transmission and elaboration of the role of the major ṣaḥīḥs was carried out in Nishapur, the town of Tha‘labī and also of al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī (d. 405/1014), who had a major role in this process and thus also in the exclusion of Ibn Ḥibbān from this canon. Since al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī was one of the main authorities quoted by Tha ‘labī in his work, as has been established by Walid Saleh,17 it is not easy to understand fully the reasons and aims of exegetes as a whole, or of Tha‘labī in particular, on this point without any explicit statements from the authors themselves. What can be ascertained is that the use of this ḥadīth and the reaction of some post-Tha‘labī exegetes show how the discussion reflects the inner dynamics of the literary genre of tafsῑr. By this I mean that the question is not the reliability and soundness of the ḥadīth, or which is the best version, but whether or not to include this specific report in the exegetical discourse. Consequently, most exegetes attack Tha‘labī directly or are silent on this point, simply rejecting the use of this ḥadīth in the exegesis of the verses connected to the name of Dhū’l-Kifl. What is also clear is that this kind of choice is not at all casual, even if it can be given as a hypothesis that the variant Dhū’l-Kifl/al-Kifl originated early as a textual variant. This is another, fascinating, question, relating to textual transmission of ḥadīths. Since the significant difference between versions is given by inclusion or exclusion of a simple ‘dhū’ from the name, it must be stressed that the poor condition of the edited texts and the discussion on critical approaches in Arabic philology prevents clear-cut considerations on this point. When discussing the use of versions of a single hadith in Qur’an exegesis, it can sometimes be unclear if a specific variant version originated in the commentary, in the source relied upon for this, namely the ḥadīth collections, or from something that went wrong at one point in the sequence of transmission, in other words from an oral to a written version, during ḥadīth collection or in the transmission of the exegetical work up to contemporary editing.18 The versions of the ḥadīth used for the exegesis of Q. 21:85 are an interesting case in point, although later authors were aware of the existence of variant readings connected to the name Dhū’l-Kifl/al-Kifl, thus attesting that the use of one or the other version was in any case significant.

16 Jonathan Brown, The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, Leiden 2007, 103, 124–128, 361–362. 17 Saleh, Formation, 73. 18 On this point see for example Robert Marston Speight, “A look at variant readings in the ḥadīth”, Der Islam, 77 (2000), 169–179, who mentions, starting from the Ṣaḥīfa by Hammām Ibn Munabbih (d. 130/747), the existence of textual variants in ḥadīths pointing to rhetorical questions rather than religious polemics as being at the origin of this.

158

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

The exegesis of Q. 17:1 The story of the exegesis of Q. 17:1 is completely different. Here we have an elusive and brief Qur’ānic verse19 which came to be considered a reference to a major event in the life of Muhammad, namely his night journey and ascension to Heaven – an episode which is fully described and discussed with plenty of particulars, mainly in ḥadīth literature. In this regard, then, exegetes had a problem of choosing from a huge amount of material and not that of including or excluding a single saying. In the development of this choice, as we shall see, the impact of canonisation and ḥadīth criticism left its mark upon the history of the exegesis of this verse. I have discussed elsewhere some questions related to ḥadīths in mi‘rāj literature in connection to the punishments of sinners in Hell which were reportedly shown to the Prophet during his night journey and ascension, and in connection to the description of paradise therein.20 In that article I described how eschatological details and in particular the tour of Hell are quoted in those ḥadīths ascribed primarily to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī and to a lesser extent to Abū Hurayra which were not included in the canonical collections.21 The relevance of this situation to the exegesis of Q. 17:1 as a whole is enhanced by the fact that early tafsīrs and early literature give great significance in this story to traditions ascribed to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī; this significance goes back to as early as ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hishām (d. 218/823), who included a version of them in his biography of the Prophet.22 A preference for Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s version of the story is also wellattested in early commentaries, where it appears as the favourite narrative. While Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767) did not quote any transmitter for his narrative,23 this tradition is mentioned for instance by ‘Abd al-Razzāq (d. 211/826), Yaḥyā b. Sallām (d. 200/815) and Hūd b. al-Muḥakkam (d. 280/893). In ‘Abd al-Razzāq’s commentary, Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s report is the main narrative.24 Only at the end, between shorter traditions including some particulars, does he mention two brief reports going back to Anas b. Mālik

19 Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque (Q. 17:1). 20 See above, note 3. 21 Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī (d. 73/692 or 74/693) and Abū Hurayra (d. ca. 59/678) were companions of Muḥammad and transmitters of many of his sayings. See in this regard Tottoli, “Tours of Hell and Punishments of Sinners”. On this point see also Frederick S. Colby, Constructing an Islamic Ascension Narrative: The Interplay of Official and Popular Culture in Pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Duke University, NC 2002, 191–203. Another report of this kind not included in major collections is that of Abū Hurayra, attested in Ṭabarī (see pp. 208–209). It is a long report full of particulars also scattered in other shorter traditions, but less attested in early literature than that of Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī. 22 ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. by Suhayl Zakkār, Beirut 1992, 270–273. 23 Muqātil, Tafsīr, vol. II, 513–520. 24 ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Tafsīr, vol. I, 365–370.

159

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

(d. 93/712 ca.) and a few even shorter ones going back to Abū Hurayra.25 Yaḥyā b. Sallām quotes first the version by Anas b. Mālik, which we shall discuss later on, underlines where it stops, and then gives Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s version.26 As usual in his commentary, Hūd b. al-Muḥakkam follows Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s steps: he gives Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s version after quoting the one going back to the companion Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a, although he gives neither the names of transmitters nor the isnād.27 Something changed when the major collections of ḥadīth were written down, and in the following ages the process of their canonisation led to differing evaluation of the traditional material. In the canonical collections of ḥadīths, there are in fact various versions of long and short reports upon the night journey and the ascent to Heaven by Muḥammad. As regards the long narratives, Anas b. Mālik appears by and large as the favourite transmitter in Bukhārī, Muslim and in all the other collections. The tradition ascribed to Qatāda ← Anas b. Mālik ← Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a appears to be the favourite,28 but other versions are also included, connecting the story to the name of Anas only,29 or to Anas b. Mālik ← Abū Dharr.30 For the sake of our discussion we are more interested in the longer narratives, which in these collections are usually those attributed to Anas, though it must be stressed

25 Ibid., vol. I, 370–373. 26 Yaḥyā b. Sallām, Tafsīr, ed. by Hind Shalabī, Beirut 2004, vol. I, 101–105 (Anas b. Mālik ← Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a), 105–110 (transmitted from Ḥammād b. Hārūn). 27 Hūd b. Muḥakkam al-Hawwārī, Tafsīr Kitāb Allāh al-‘Azīz, ed. by Bālḥājj b. Sa‘īd al-Sharīf ī, Beirut 1990, vol. II, 397–407: he introduces the narration with dhakarū (they reported), and only one manuscript used for the edition, according to what was stated in a note, has the riwāya (transmission): Sa‘īd ← Qatāda ← Anas b. Mālik ← Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a; cf. also p. 400, introducing the tradition from Abū Sa‘īd. As suggested by Frederick S. Colby, one may state that Hūd “supports this official version [i.e. that of Anas b. Mālik] of the Ascension narrative as being the most sound”, though he adds (stating so explicitly) the one going back to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī because it is longer and full of other details, in other words, more popular and thus useful from the narrative point of view; see Colby, “Constructing an Islamic ascension narrative”, 192. The same stance is possibly maintained by Qushayrī in his monograph collecting and discussing reports on the mi‘rāj (Kitāb al-mi‘rāj, ed. by ‘Alī Ḥasan ‘Abd al-Qādir, Cairo 1964, 27), where he mentions the major role of Anas in ḥadīths on the topic but then includes other, longer reports. 28 Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by Maḥmūd Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, vol. I, 149–150, no. 164; Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, vol. IV, 628–630, no. 3887; According to al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-‘ummāl, vol. XI, 387–390, no. 31840, this tradition was also transmitted by Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal in his Musnad, but cf. al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-‘ummāl, vol. XI, 391–394, no. 31842, from Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a, as attested in various sources listed. 29 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. I, 145–147, no. 162 with isnād Anas ← Thābit al-Bunānī ← Ḥammād b. Salama; translated by Colby, “Constructing an Islamic Ascension Narrative”, 117–118; see another version in Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. VIII, 567–569, no. 7517. 30 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, vol. I, 148–149, no. 163; transl. by Colby, “Constructing an Islamic Ascension Narrative”, 120–122.

160

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

that ḥadīth collections include shorter reports relating to the mi‘rāj of the Prophet, which are also ascribed to others, such as Abū Hurayra and Ibn ‘Abbās.31 The impact of the canonisation of Hadith is clearly evident if we look at later commentaries and consider how Q. 17:1 was discussed. When coming to tafsīr works written after the composition of the canonical ḥadīth collections, we can notice that one major point in this discussion is which traditions to include or to exclude and, consequently, why. Some commentators still reflect the relevance given to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s version in early exegetical literature. Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī is, for instance, the unique authority of a ḥadīth on the ascension, though not one of the longer versions, found in the commentary of Abū’l-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 375/985), who mentions it before a shorter report from al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742).32 Ibn Abī Zamanīn (d. 399/1009), who like other Andalusian commentators before and after him relies on Yaḥyā b. Sallām’s commentary, quotes this as his source of the traditions going back to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī, which he then quotes without further comment.33 But in general this was not the prevalent position. The general bias towards first of all the tradition(s) going back to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī and secondly those going back to Abū Hurayra seems to be a relevant point. Most commentators were silent, thus implicitly rejecting their use in their exegesis of Q. 17:1. Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad al-Māturīdī (d. 333/944), for instance, does not mention a tradition on the point; he ends his exegesis of Q. 17:1 by stating that these are all reports from one single authority and thus not perfectly attested.34 Abū’l-Faḍl al-Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1154), a Shi‘i who often quoted Sunni material, states that there are many ḥadīths on this story which are transmitted by various companions, from ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68/687) to Umm Hāni’, but without quoting Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī, Abū Hurayra or Anas.35 Tha‘labī, although dedicating a large space to the question, decided to sum up and quote in one abridged narration from various akhbār and ḥadīths, stating that he avoids those considered spurious. He includes particulars from Abū Hurayra but not from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī.36 Some further commentators underline explicitly that there are some problems connected to the number of reports diffused on the topic, thus reflecting the 31 See a complete list of these ḥadīths in Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. V, 213f.; Tirmidhī for instance gives preference to shorter narratives on the topic, see Colby, “Constructing an Islamic ascension narrative”, 129–139. 32 Abū’l-Layth al-Samarqandī, Tafsīr al-Samarqandī al-musammā Baḥr al-‘ulūm, ed. by ‘Alī Muḥammad Mu‘awwaḍ; and ‘Ādil Aḥmad ‘Abd al-Mawjūd, Beirut 1993, vol. II, 258–259. 33 Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Azīz, ed. by Abū ‘Abd Allāh Ḥusayn b. ‘Ukāsha and Muḥammad b. Muṣṭafā al-Kanz, Cairo 2002, vol. III, 5–11. 34 Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad al-Māturīdī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm, al-musammā Ta’wīlāt ahl al-sunna, ed. by Fāṭima Yūsuf al-Khaymī, Beirut 2004, vol. III, 133. 35 Ṭabrisī, Majma‘ al-bayān, vol. V, 510–511; he quotes Abū Hurayra later on when mentioning “the prophets in the skies” (see p. 511). 36 Tha‘labī, al-Kashf, vol. VI, 55–68. One of the first transmitters quoted is Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a in the identification of Mecca as the Masjid al-ḥarām quoted in the verse.

161

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

questions posed by the ḥadīth deemed sound and those spread in early tafsīr literature. Manṣūr b. Muḥammad Sam‘ānī (d. 489/1096), for instance, states that on the question of whether Muhammad ascended bodily or only in spirit, the answer is in the sound reports (al-akhbār al-ṣaḥīḥa), which all agree. The best, he states, is the version going back to Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a, then other transmitters are quoted, including Abū Hurayra but not Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī.37 Some other commentators also emphasise that many companions transmitted ḥadīths on the Prophet’s ascension, about twenty, and then lists ḥadīth collectors such as Muslim and Bukhārī, and transmitters such as Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a but not Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī.38 However, in general, as stated above, the most common behaviour on the point is that of simply omitting the material and even allusions to the problem using a primary reference to the reports of Anas and Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a.39 A few commentators tried a comprehensive approach, including most of the material at their disposition. Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) is relevant for his decision to include and list many reports. He discusses the various questions relating to the episode, such as the identification of al-masjid al-aqṣā (the Furthest Mosque) or whether the journey and ascension was in body and spirit or only in spirit, quoting some reports to substantiate his positions. He includes most of the reports attested in early literature, starting from Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a’s ḥadīth, the other version of Anas and then the two long versions of Abū Hurayra and Abū Sa‘īd al-Khudrī, which occupy half the space dedicated by Ṭabarī to the exegesis of Q. 17:1.40 Qurṭubī also first signals that there are different reports attributed to many (about twenty) companions and then starts with Anas b. Mālik. He introduces a version of the report from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī, stating that it is not in the two ṣaḥīḥs but he took it from other sources, such as Samarqandī.41 Suyūṭī follows a similar path: he lists most of the materials he found, starting from all the numerous variants of Anas’ prestigious ḥadīths and then mentioning many other reports from various sources.42 When he introduces Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s report and then Abū Hurayra’s, he does so without comment, just quoting the traditions attributed to them and his sources.43 Other versions, such as a few going back to ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas‘ūd (d. 32/650) and others are then quoted. Just as in the first case-study discussed, Qurṭubī and Suyūṭī are the exegetes who include and directly quote the 37 Manṣūr b. Muḥammad al-Sam‘ānī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, ed. by Abū Tamīm Yāsir b. Ibrāhim and Abū Bilāl Ghunaym, Riyadh 1997, vol. III, 214–215. 38 See, for example, Ibn ‘Aṭiyya al-Andalusī, Muḥarrar al-wajīz f ī tafsīr al-Kitāb al-‘Azīz, ed. by ‘Abd al-Salām ‘Abd al-Shāf ī Muḥammad, Beirut 2007, vol. III, 434–435; Qurṭubī, Tafsīr, vol. X, 205. 39 See, for example, Baghawī, Tafsīr, vol. III, 92–94; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr, vol. V, 4; Khāzin al-Baghdādī, Lubāb al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1955, vol. IV, 233; Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ fī’l-tafsīr, Beirut 2001, vol. VI, 6. 40 Tabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān, vol. XV, 3–20. 41 Qurṭubī, Tafsīr, vol. X, 205–208; the tradition ascribed to Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī is at 206–207. 42 Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. V, 182–229. 43 Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. V, 195, 198.

162

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

controversial reports, most probably because of the encyclopaedic nature of their commentaries. Not surprising at all in this discussion is the position of Ibn Kathīr, who takes a similar attitude to that displayed in the commentary of the other Qur’anic verse on Dhū’l-Kifl quoted above (Q. 21:85). In his long treatment of the question he makes reference to various reports introduced by the indication of the sound ḥadīths from the major collections. But, then, later on, he introduces the report from Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī, quoting as his source Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066, on whom, see below) and stating that God knows better which is right (al-ṣawāb).44 Some further information can be collected if we have a look at literature outside Qur’anic commentaries. It is interesting to note how many authors faced the spread of many reports on the topic, collecting and listing the various details and versions just to offer all possible particulars. This procedure is understandable in a work of history but rarer in a tafsīr and absolutely not possible in a ḥadīth collection.45 In works such as those of dalā’il al-nubuwwa, there is less of a problem in quoting all the materials spread about the story. This is what Bayhaqī decided to do: list all the ḥadīths and reports on the mi‘rāj story starting from Muslim and Bukhārī’s attestations going back to Anas and Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a as the most prestigious, but not excluding also the more problematic reports.46 What is more significant in this regard is that Bayhaqī provides an overview of the principal reports and then introduces the two going back to Abū Hurayra and Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī by stating that, along with the reports he has already given, there are other ḥadīths with weak isnāds, and it is for this reason that they were not included in the most important ḥadīth collections; but he quotes them nevertheless.47 The reason for this evaluation is further given by Suyūṭī, although he states this in another of his works and not in his commentary: he concludes that Abū Hurayra’s report interpolates elements from a long ḥadīth concerning a dream by Muhammad quoted by Bukhārī and going back to Samura (d. 59/679), and, consequently, that the Abū Hurayra report most probably represents a questionable compilation from various ḥadīths.48

44 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, vol. III, 3–26; the tradition from Abū Sa‘īd is on 13–15. At the end, 26, among the names of the various transmitters Ibn Kathīr quotes both Abū Hurayra and Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī. 45 See for instance Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad Ibn Sa‘d, Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. by Iḥsān ‘Abbās, Beirut n.d., vol. I, 214: dakhala ḥadīth ba‘ḍihim f ī ḥadīth ba‘ḍin (the ḥadīth of the ones mixed with that of the others); Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, 266. 46 Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa ma‘rifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharī‘a, ed. by ‘Abd al-Mu‘ṭī Qal‘ajī, Beirut 1985, vol. II, 366–405. 47 Abū Bakr al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa ma‘rifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharī‘a, vol. II, 389–390, and 390f. 48 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Āyāt al-kubrā f ī sharḥ qiṣṣat al-isrā’, in Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī and Suyūṭī, al-Isrā’ wa’l-mi‘rāj, ed. by Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥakīm al-Qādī, Cairo 1989, 38. The relevance of this dream tradition to the mi‘rāj narratives was noted nearly a century ago by Miguel Asín Palacios in his seminal work La escatología musulmana en la Divina comedia, Madrid 1919, 8–14.

163

H A D I T H , T R A D I T I O N S , A N D   L I T E R AT U R E

As a final consideration, it appears clear that in the exegesis of Q. 17:1 the canonisation of Hadith had a strong impact on Qur’anic commentators. It led to the dismissal of the tradition most disseminated throughout early commentaries. But Abū Sa‘īd al-Khuḍrī’s ḥadīth was not completely forgotten, since it was still included in some major tafsīrs, mainly those including many reports on the topic and thus aiming at a comprehensive collection in the discussion of the main issues connected to the story. It therefore seems evident that post-canonisation of Hadith, the authors of tafsīrs could not avoid considering the relevance of what had become generally considered sound, but at the same time they could in any case also include and discuss questionable reports with no particular discussion of their soundness.

Final remarks The relationship between tafsīr and Hadith bears the signs of the specific concerns of each genre in relation to the other. Tafsīr works recognise and reflect in general the results of ḥadīth criticism and are no doubt influenced by the canonisation of Hadith, but it appears that using questionable material with regards to a theological question or in the discussion of issues connected to the text was still possible for some exegetes. Tradition material as a whole and as single specific ḥadīths can constitute a reference for this purpose, but it is never discussed in terms of ḥadīth criticism or in relation to the ḥadīth collections used as sources. This is probably a sign of the supposed primacy of exegetical activity, but also the result of an independent approach used by the exegete towards this material. Given that many classical exegetes were also experts and compilers of ḥadīth works, we can consider that we have here confirmation that the aims and concerns displayed by the authors of the two literary genres were different and that tafsīr authors accepted the inclusion of material rejected by ḥadīth authors, or at least considered problematic by them, though this did not go unnoticed by those exegetes with differing attitudes. Our two case-studies underline how the appearance and canonisation of major ḥadīth collections influenced this attitude, leading to a rejection by some exegetes of the ḥadīths dismissed by ḥadīth criticism but not erasing more liberal approaches by those who held a less strict attitude towards traditions as a whole. By far the most probable hypothesis is that each different approach to reports and traditions indicates a polemical attitude regarding particular issues and other works in the literary genre, though stylistic considerations, such as whether or not the commentary was encyclopaedic, must also have been relevant. In any case, it is difficult to believe that quotation or exclusion of this material was innocent of these concerns. In the two cases here discussed, the main questions were probably the prophethood of Dhū’l-Kifl and the inclusion of eschatological details in mi‘rāj narratives. As far as the attitude of Qur’an commentators is concerned, it appears that the quotation of ḥadīths or different versions of ḥadīths reflects first of all polemical stances, which are determined by the 164

METHODS AND CONTEXTS IN THE USE OF ḤADĪTHS

different attitudes of each of the exegetes about the questions dealt with, and the relevance accorded to specific ḥadīths on the topics. Furthermore, in works such as those by Qurṭubī and Suyūṭī, their comprehensive and encyclopaedic nature must have influenced the decision to include and discuss the controversial reports, while noting the doubts on the reliability of the materials quoted and the polemical questions connected to them.

165

Part III THE STAFF OF MOSES, THE PROPHETS

11 T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S TRANSFORMING INTO A SNAKE IN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND TRADITIONS*

The stories of Moses and his staff occupy a significant place in the various aspects of Islamic religiosity. Traditions related to the staff of Moses have often aroused wonder,1 from the Qur’ānic sacred text to the popular beliefs absorbed by Islam, beliefs which are very sensitive to the miraculous. These pages are devoted to one particular episode: the transformation of the staff into a snake. The miracle has a far-reaching impact, not only in the relevant passages of the Book of Exodus and the Qur’ān, but also in popular legends and in beliefs related to magic.2 The theme of the transformation of an object into an animal is very common, and the snake has a special role in many cultures.3 The subject of our study is not, however, the magical aspect of this miracle, but rather the Qur’ānic passages which mention the episode, the amplifications and testimonies reported in the texts of medieval exegetes, and the prophetic legends taken from specific collections and historiographical works.4 The passages *

1

2 3

4

After a brief introduction, the article is subdivided as follows: 1. The biblical text; 2. The Qur’ānic text; 4. Jewish and Christian exegesis; 5. Islamic exegesis and traditions. For the parts concerning the Jewish and Patristic sources, sincere thanks are due to Prof. Bruno Chiesa and Prof. Antonio Zani for their help and advice. The miracles of the staff of Moses are so well known that they are overlooked in an Islamic work on the miracles of the prophets; this is the case in Ibn Ḥamdān, Muʻjizāt al-anbiyā’, MS Ambrosiana CCIX, ff. 13a–13b. On the staff, see A. Fodor, “The rod of Moses in Arabic magic”, Acta Orientalia Hung., 32 (1978), 1–21; B. Heller, “Mūsā”, in Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers, Leiden 1974, 415; S. Rosenblatt, “Rabbinic Legends in Hadīth”, MW (= Muslim World), 35 (1945), 247. See Fodor, “The rod”, 1–2. G. Sale, in his eighteenth-century translation of the Qur’ān, mentions notable legends amongst Arabs concerning this miracle (The Korān, transl. by G. Sale, London n.d., 153 n. 3). See in this regard S. Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, II, Copenhagen 1956, 43–45 dedicated to the transformation from object to animal. On the snake in relation to magic, see also J. R. Porter, “Witchcraft and Magic in the Old Testament, and Their Relations to Animals”, in Animals in Folklore, edited by J.R. Porter W.M.S. Russell, Cambridge 1978, 78–79. Modern works and tafsīr are excluded from this analysis. Our previous article “La moderna esegesi islamica ed il rifiuto delle isrā’liyyāt: Le leggende sul bastone di Mosè mutato in serpente”, Annali

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-14

169

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

dealing with the miracle that took place in the presence of the sorcerers called by Pharaoh and the challenge between them are not the focus of our attention.

1 Exodus mentions the episode in two separate passages: the miracle occurs first when Moses is alone (IV:3) and, later, in front of Pharaoh (VII:9–10).5 The Qur’ānic scriptural data share significant similarities with the biblical data: Moses performs the miracle in solitude (Q. 20:20; 27:10; 28:31) and then in front of Pharaoh and his court (Q. 7:107; 26:32). But the similarities do not end there; the terminology used in the two sacred texts coincides significantly. As will be seen in the following chapters, both in the biblical text and in the Qur’ān, the generic word in the respective languages is used to refer to the snake during the first episode (Ex. IV:3; Q. 20:20); as regards the miracle that takes place in front of Pharaoh and his court, both in Ex. VII:9–10 and in Q. 7:107 and 26:32, the reptile is referred to in a different way, using terms that often indicate a serpent of fantastical dimensions or even a dragon.6 The purpose of these pages is precisely to highlight the specific responses of Islamic exegetical literature. Despite the surprising similarity of the sacred texts, the readings of the episode, which have been passed down to us from Jews, Christians and Muslims, are diametrically opposed,7 except for rare examples of discussion on the meaning of the miracle and the transformation of the material of the staff into an animal. The Haggadic exegesis of the Qur’ānic passages relating to the episode, in addition to the rhetorical discussion that accompanies the explanation of the verses, certainly represents the predominant aspect of the interpretation of the narrative parts of the Qur’ān.8 For this reason, in the brief references to Jewish and Christian exegetical literature, we have considered texts that offer a similar interpretation.

2.1 The biblical text mentions the episode of the transformation of the staff into a snake in two different situations. The first is when Moses, while conversing with God, is ordered by him to throw the staff to the ground. The staff becomes a snake

5 6 7 8

di Ca’ Foscari, 29, 3 (1990), serie orientale 21, 25–35 [here no. 12] addresses twentieth-century religious literature regarding this miracle. As a matter of fact, Ex. VII:9f. speaks of “Aaron’s staff”. The Qur’ān itself and later Islamic traditions do not make this distinction. As will be seen in chapter 3, in the Qur’ān the snake is also mentioned with a third term, jānn, in Q. 27:10 and 28:31. The hypothesis that Islamic traditions on this subject can be traced back to Jewish sources that are now lost cannot be proved. G.D. Newby, “Tafsir Isra’iliyyat: The Development of Qur’an Commentary in Early Islam”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 47 (1979), 685–697.

170

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

(wa-yehî lenāḥāsh) that frightens Moses. God orders him to grab it by the tail and, when Moses grabs it, it becomes a staff again.9 The miracle occurs a second time when Moses and Aaron are at Pharaoh’s court. God advises Moses, following Pharaoh’s request for a miracle, to tell Aaron to throw the staff to the ground and it will become a serpent (yehî letannîn).10 The two, once in front of Pharaoh, do as God has ordered them; Aaron throws the staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it becomes a serpent (wa-yehî letannîn).11 A reference to the miracle is also found a few verses later when God advises Moses to go to the bank of the Nile with the staff he had changed into a snake (lenāḥāsh).12 The best known translations of the Masoretic text do not offer any differences that do not reflect the differentiated use of the two terms nāḥāsh and tannîn. In the LXX nāḥāsh is translated, as in most cases,13 with ὄφις in Ex. IV:3 and VII:15, while tannîn is translated as δράκον.14 The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan translate nāḥāsh as ḥiwyā’,15 while in the passages of chapter VII of Exodus, tannîn is translated as tannîne’ and hûrmene’ respectively.16 Fundamentally, the biblical text is faithfully reproduced, leaving the reappearance of the term nāḥāsh unaltered in Ex.VII:15 following the numerous mentions of tannîn in the previous verses. The Vulgate, which we have left for last, instead mixes the terms used in the translation. Coluber is used in Ex. IV:3, but draco is used in Ex. VII:15; coluber is always the translation of tannîn in Ex. VII:9–10, and then dracones is the verbatim translation, a little later of Ex. VII:12, in which the Masoretic text uses tannînîm to describe what the sorcerers’ staffs were transformed into.17 Apart from the latter, however, where confusion arises because of the use of draco or coluber, the Targum and LXX do not show any particular divergence from the Masoretic text. The Hebrew nāḥāsh is understood, both in Ex. IV:3 and in Ex. VII:15, to mean a generic snake. Tannîn, on the other hand, in the miracle that took place in the presence of Pharaoh and his court, is regarded as more than a snake, both in terms of size and potential danger.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17

Ex. IV:3–4. Ex. VII:9. Ex. VII:10. Ex. VII:10. See K.R. Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, Haddonfield 1974, 2; TWNT (= Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 5, Stuttgart 1954), 572, 575. See TWNT, 575. See TWAT (= Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, 5, Stuttgart Berlin 1985), 383; and also A. Díez Macho, M.S. Neophyti I. II.Exodo, Madrid-Barcelona 1970, 39. The term tannîne’ refers to a large snake or crocodile (The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, ed. by J.W. Etheridge, London 1862, I, 358); ḥûrmene’ (or ḥûrmewe’) is a poisonous snake (G.R. Driver, “Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament”, in Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida, Roma 1956, I, 243). The LXX in this case gives δράκοντεσ. When translating nāḥāsh, the Vulgate alternates indifferently between the synonyms serpens, draco, and coluber (see TWAT, 387).

171

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

2.2 Nāḥāsh is the generic term for a snake. In fact, while the Bible mentions some snakes with specific names that are difficult to identify, nāḥāsh seems to cover several meanings. The term appears in the Old Testament thirty-one times. The evidence of the passages in which nāhāsh occurs and the LXX translation itself offer the best examples of the term’s vast meaning. Nāḥāsh is, in fact, translated twenty-nine times with ὄφις in the LXX when it is unequivocally referred to as a land snake.19 In Job XXVI:13 and Amos IX:3 nāḥāsh seems to indicate more of a mythological serpent or a sea dragon.20 In numerous other passages we find the term nāḥāsh in close analogy with other terms.21 A detail worthy of mention, but not directly related to the episode under consideration, is the other meaning of the same term. Nāḥāsh means, in fact, divination, magical practice.22 The whole verbal root is, however, characterised by a wide range of words and meanings, but none of these are of any interest for the subject of our research. 18

2.3 The precise meaning of tannîn in the verses concerning the miracle of Moses and Aaron is rather problematic. First of all, the term tannîn occurs frequently in the Old Testament, but the exact animal it refers to remains unclear. Not even the translations of the Masoretic text suggest a precise identification.23 Murison defines tannîn as a term used when the writer speaks of some creature of the reptilian class of which he has an unclear knowledge.24 In reality, doubts arise almost exclusively from the precise but extremely varied meanings the term has in the various Old Testament passages. Two passages in the Pentateuch, Deut. XXXII:33 as well as the verses on the miracle of the staff in Ex. VII:9–12, seem to use tannîn to unequivocally refer to an earth serpent.25 The verse in Deuteronomy is even more explicit: the poison of the tannînîm is compared with and closely related to that of cobras or vipers.26 Many other passages seem to indicate that tannîn means dragon, a sea dragon. In the latter case, a precise indication that it is a kind of sea monster is suggested by the parallelism with the Leviathan.27 18 R.G. Murison, “The serpent in the Old Testament”, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 21 (1904–05), 117; Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 2; TWNT, 572; TWAT, 386–387. 19 TWNT, 572. 20 Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 2 21 See again Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 2. 22 Murison, “The serpent”, 117–118; TWAT, 385; see also, regarding other meanings, Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 3. 23 Tannîn appears in sixteen passages; see M. Delcor, Studi sull’apocalittica, Brescia 1987, 163; TWNT, col. 575. 24 Murison, “The serpent”, 121; see also G.A. Chadwick, The Book of Exodus, New York 1900, 119, according to whom the term tannîn means any species of large reptile. 25 See Driver, “Mythical Monsters”, 243; Joines, Serpent Symbolism, 9; Delcor, Studi, 163. 26 Delcor, Studi, 163–164; see, however, the contrasting remarks of Murison, “The serpent”, 121. 27 For further information, we suggest Driver, “Mythical monsters”, 243–247.

172

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

The variety of meanings and the resulting uncertainty in identification have undoubtedly made the tannîn something of a mythical monster that is difficult to define. The close connection with water, although in this case the passages we are interested in are an exception, does indeed recur in two other verses: Gen. I:21 and Psalms 148:7. The tannînîm mentioned there are either sea monsters or have similar meanings in relation to the sea.28 However, an in-depth analysis of these different meanings of the term and its origin is beyond the scope of our objectives. What interests us most, after this brief exposition, is to underline the wide range of meanings of the term tannîn. If, in the passages of Exodus that interest us, the reptile that is referred to can only be a snake, the use of tannîn seems to allude to the considerable size of this snake; it is certainly not a synonym of nāḥāsh, although in the biblical account of the staff, the two terms appear as such.29

2.4 The presence of two different terms for the snake does not seem to have given the Jewish exegetes much cause for concern. The decisive judgement of Rashi (d. 1105 ad) exhaustively sums up the position held in this regard: tannîn means nāḥāsh.30 As we will explain in the following pages, such an approach is completely different from the analysis of Muslim exegetes: when faced with a term that may disturb the idea of formal perfection, the first aim, for them, is to restore harmony and find a satisfactory reason which explains the difference.31 Brief mentions of a similar issue from the Jewish perspective are of a different sort altogether. Tannîn is a land animal and, in this case, a serpent.32 With regard to the miracle of the staff turning into a snake, it is extremely clear that tannîn and nāḥāsh are, to all intents and purposes, synonyms.33

28 H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, Göttingen 1895, 69–70; Murison, “The serpent” 121; Delcor, Studi, 166: Driver, “Mythical Monsters”, 247; for influences on Islamic tradition, see A.J. Wensinck, The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites, “Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Weteschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks”, Deel XIX n° 2, Amsterdam 1918, 4. 29 An interesting explanation is given in a Christian commentary: the term tannîn used here does not mean the great dragon of Gen. I:21, but an animal somewhat larger than a normal snake: Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32 du manuscrit (Olim) Diyarbakir 22, ed. by L. Van Rompay, CSCO (= Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium) 484, Leuven 1986, 187. 30 Rashi, Commentary, II:Exodus, Jerusalem 1930, 30, commenting on Ex. VII:9. 31 This is all the more true in relation to the Qur’anic verses under consideration here. We would also like to point out that this approach is maintained by modern exegetes themselves; see Tottoli, “La moderna esegesi islamica” on this episode of the staff of Moses. 32 See the sources cited by M.M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9, New York 1954, 34; cf. Elieser ben Yehuda, Thesaurus totius Hebraitatis, New York-London n.d., 7823–7825; see also what other discussions the verses of Ex. VII suggest to al-Qirqisānī: L. Nemoy, “Al-Qirqisānī on the Occult Sciences”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 70 (1986), 345–348. 33 See, among others, Leqaḥ Ṭob in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9, 34; Midrash ha-gadôl, Shemôt, 4:24.

173

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

The two accounts of the miracle mentioned in Exodus are undeniably related. The differences, apart from the terminology, are at the same time clearly evident. While these aspects of the biblical text have not prompted considerations of any interest among Jewish exegetes, the two different narratives are attributed to different sources according to the documentary hypothesis on the origin and formation of the Pentateuch.34 According to this hypothesis, ever since the first comprehensive formulation of Wellhausen,35 the narrative of Ex. IV:3 belongs to the oldest document (J or JE) while Ex.VII:9–12 belongs to the more recent Priestly source. This would explain the differences between the first narrative, which is more formal and integrated in the story, and the second, which is similar to folkloric stories of challenges between sorcerers.36 Regarding the aspect that interests us most, the use of the terms tannîn or nāḥāsh is attributed to the fact that the two narratives belong to different documents. For Wellhausen, tannîn in Ex. VII:9 was one of the clear pieces of evidence of the diversity of the sources in question; Murison simply pointed out that the documentary hypothesis can explain the use of different names, even though tannîn is most often used for a kind of monster or dragon.37 However, there was no lack of discordant opinions focusing precisely on the fact that the use of tannîn and nāḥāsh does not indicate different authors.38

3.1 The episode of the transformation of Moses’ staff into a snake is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān five times. Three verses describe the miracle that took place in the presence of Moses alone, as presented in Ex. IV:3: fa-alqāhā fa-idhā hiyya ḥayyatun tasʻā.

(20:20)39

34 TWAT, 394; for a review of the studies on the documentary hypothesis, see J.A. Soggin, Introduzione all’Antico Testamento, Brescia 1987, 123–145; and A. Fanuli, “A proposito di un libro sulla composizione del Pentateuco”, Rivista Biblica, 37 (1989), 469–485. 35 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des alten Testaments, Berlin 1899, 62–63; see also TWAT, 394. 36 Murison, “The serpent”, 122; TWAT, 394. 37 Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 63; see also TWAT, 394; Murison, “The serpent”, 122; other more recent commentaries and analyses of these Exodus passages have offered no interesting details for our study. 38 See W. H. Green (“The Pentateuchal Question. III”, Hebraica, 7, 1890–1, 132) in response to W.R. Harper (“The Pentateuchal Question. III”, Hebraica, 6, 1889–90, 38–39). According to D.J. McCarthy, moreover, (“Moses’ Dealings with Pharaoh: Ex. 7.8–10.27”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 27, 1965, 336–347) the sole author changes the terms to be more expressive. Of these now not relevant contributions any more, we found it interesting to look exclusively at the explanation given for the use of tannîn or nāḥāsh. 39 “O and he cast it (the staff) down, and behold it was a serpent sliding”.

174

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

alqi ʻaṣāka fa-lammā ra’āhā tahtazzu ka-annahā jānnun. (Q. 27:10; 28:31)40 Two other verses concern the episode of Moses in front of Pharaoh’s court when, prompted by Pharaoh, Moses throws his staff to the ground and it turns into a large serpent. The biblical episode in Ex. VII: 9–12, we repeat, varies only in the attribution of the staff to Aaron: fa-alqā ʻaṣāhu fa-idhā hiyya thuʻbānun mubīnun.

(Q. 7:107; 26:32)41

Some initial considerations will serve to introduce the more accurate explanation of the meaning of the Qur’ānic terminology. The snake is referred to using three different terms: ḥayya, thuʻbān and jānn. For the first two, as will be seen, the same considerations apply as for nāḥāsh and tannîn in Exodus: the first, ḥayya, is the general term for any kind of snake, while thuʻbān indicates a serpent of considerable size in its first meaning.42 Leaving aside traditions with fantastic details, Qur’ānic commentators have devoted considerable attention to the two episodes of the miracle and the continuous discussions regarding the presence of the different terms.43

3.2 If we exclude the term jānn, the similarity between the biblical text and the Qur’ān is truly remarkable. The staff turns into a ḥayya when God offers Moses the final proof of his prophetic calling, and becomes a thuʻbān in the presence of Pharaoh and his court. Like the Hebrew nāḥāsh, ḥayya is the generic term for a snake in Arabic. In the commentary on the only Qur’ānic verse where this word appears, the meagre definitions given to the term are in agreement.44 Ḥayya is the general term for all the words defining the various species of snakes; it is the name given to both large and small snakes, and to males and females.45 In fact, the ending of 40 The two verses are identical: “Cast down thy staff! And when he saw it quivering like a jānn (kind of snake) . . . ”. 41 “So he cast his staff; and behold, it was a serpent manifest”. 42 By Western translators of the Qur’ān, thuʻbān is almost always translated as “serpent”. 43 It was precisely the non-uniformity of the many passages about this miracle, as well as other details, that were used for an anti-Islamic polemic by E.E. Elder (“Parallel passages in the Koran: The story of Moses”, MW, 15 (1925), 254–259). 44 See B. Mundkur, “Ḥayya in Islamic thought”, MW, 70 (1980), 213; EI2 (= Encyclopédie de l’Islam, Paris-Leiden 1960f.), III, 344–345 “ḥayya”. Given the almost universal agreement with regard to ḥayya, we will cite only the most significant sources. 45 Al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf wa-al-bayān ʻan tafsīr al-Qur’ān, MS al-Azhar 2056 tafsīr, IV, f. 157a; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf ʻan ḥaqā’iq al-tanzīl, Cairo 1972, II, 534; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, Cairo 1934–62, XXII, 28; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo

175

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

the word does not indicate that it is feminine, but is the indication of the number added to the name of the species.46 Unlike the other terms used, ḥayya is rarely directly connected to the episode of the miracle of the staff of Moses; it is no coincidence that al-Damīrī (d. 682 ah/1283 ad), in the extensive entry dedicated to ḥayya in his encyclopedic work Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, includes the narratives on the fall of Adam and the serpent coiled around the Throne of God, but does not cite the only Qur’ānic verse in which the term is used in relation to the episode in question.47 A similar consideration in this regard can be found in the Kitāb al-ḥayawān of al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869). The infinite number of episodes which focus on the snake (ḥayya) are exclusively concerned with descriptions that are insignificant for the purposes of our research.48

3.3 With reference to the meaning of the term thuʻbān, which appears twice in the Qur’ān, there is substantial agreement. In the presence of Pharaoh, Moses throws his staff to the ground and, just as Aaron’s staff became a tannîn in the Bible, it becomes a great serpent (thuʻbān). The thuʻbān is the big long serpent, according to a definition we find in numerous tafsīrs.49 The most complete definition is given by Ibn Manẓūr (d. 710/1311) in the Lisān al-ʻArab: “The thuʻbān is a large and long serpent, especially of the male gender”.50 The quotation of Qur’ānic verses then follows, and a discussion with another set of conflicting statements: “Every ḥayya is also thuʻbān, male or female, large or small”.51 For the majority of the commentators, a thuʻbān is nevertheless simply referred to as “the largest of the ḥayya species”.52

46 47 48 49

50

51 52

1966f., VII, 17; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr f ī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Cairo 1954, V, 280; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, Cairo 1910, VI, 235; see al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʻānī, Cairo 1934, XVI, 161; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1887, II, 17. See also G. Canova, “Serpenti e scorpioni nelle tradizioni arabo-islamiche”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 8 (1990), 192–193. LA (= Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʻArab, Beirut 1955–56), XIV, 220; TA (= al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʻArūs, Beirut 1966), X, 107; al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1978, I, 391. Al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 391–405. Al-Jāhiz, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1966, VIII, see index “ḥayya”. Al-Farrā’, Maʻānī al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1955–72, I, 387; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ‘an tafsīr āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, IX, 14; see also al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn ʻAbbās, Cairo 1951, 106; al-Ṭabarsī, Majma‘ al-bayān, IV, 346; al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, Najaf 1957–63, IV, 523; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr, III, 237; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʻānī, IX. 18; the latter repeat the definition of al-Farrā’. LA, I, 236; definition given by Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Cairo 1971f., III, 451; see also al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Bad’ al-khalq, 14; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 194; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1962f., IX, 22; al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, Cairo 1955, II, 268; al-Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-durr al-manthūr f ī tafsīr bi-al-ma’thūr, Cairo n.d., V, 84; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1967, VII, 256; see also the sources mentioned previously. LA, I, 236; see also TA, I, 164 and al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 243. Ḥayya ʻaẓīma or ḥayya ḍakhma. See al-Tha‘labī, al-Kashf wa-al-bayān, III, f. 194; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 357, VI, 523; al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, IV, 523; al-Ṭabarsī, Majma‘ al-bayān,

176

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

A number of definitions thus seem to move towards the description of an almost prodigious animal of terrifying size and shape. Some references highlighting the existence of marine thuʻbāns range from descriptions of eel-like animals to those of actual dragons.53 However, in addition to the other fantastic descriptions included in the narrative-type traditions that will be discussed below, there are other noteworthy details. Thuʻbān, besides being of male gender, is the name of a serpent which is mostly yellow and has a crest.54 The following definition can be traced back to al-Jāḥiẓ, and was later picked up by al-Damīrī, but was definitely ignored in Qur’ānic commentaries: thuʻbān is the name of a species of snake found only in Egypt.55 Ibn Manẓūr does not say a word about this detail, which is never connected to the episode of the staff of Moses, although he gives a definition of thuʻbān that is devoid of any fantastic colouring. In fact he states that, according to a certain Samar, “thuʻbān is part of the ḥayya species and is the large, red, mouse-hunting snake; in some places it is used precisely for catching mice. That is why it is more useful than even cats”.56 This is followed by the quotation of two lines from a poem in which a thuʻbān is mentioned. As can be seen, along with the substantial agreement of the sources that claim the animal called thuʻbān belongs to the broader species of snakes (ḥayyāt), it is described differently each time, with a definition ranging from that of an almost domestic animal to a terrifying marine creature. In any case, at no point in the Qur’ānic commentaries do we find descriptions of the kind contained in Ibn Manẓūr’s Lisān al-ʻArab or cited by al-Jāḥiẓ. From the gloss of the Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, in which thuʻbān is simply explained as ḥayya ʻaẓīma, to the extensive accounts of al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209),57 nothing leads one to believe that thuʻbān is the name of a common snake. When the commentary is enriched by traditions from other sources, as will be discussed at greater length below, it is precisely the fantastic details about this thuʻbān serpent

53 54 55 56 57

IV, 346; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, I, 292; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl f ī al-tafsīr wa al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1985f., II, 517; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1911, IV, 20; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 195; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1948, II, 52; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, IX, 22; al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, II, 268; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, V, 273; al-Suyūṭī, Durr, IV, 291; Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, Cairo 1876, I, 107; Abū al-Suʻūd, Tafsīr, Cairo 1928, II, 187; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, Cairo n.d., I, 411; Shubbār, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1966, 180; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qādir, Beirut n.d., IV, 95; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʻānī, IX, 18. This is the case as stated by al-Qazwīnī, ʻAjā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Cairo 1980, 290–291. See also what is stated by E.W. Lane (An Arabic English Lexicon, London 1863– 93, 1, 337) and R. Dozy (Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes, Leiden-Paris 1967, I, 159). LA, I, 236; TA, I, 164; al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, III, f. 19a; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 357; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, I, 292; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 101. Al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, IV, 120–121; al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 243. LA, I, 236: TA, I. 164. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, cit., I, 107; al-Ṭabarī, Jāmi‘ al-bayān, IX, 14–15; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 192–195.

177

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

that represent the characteristic aspect of the exegesis to the relevant Qur’ānic verses.58

3.4 The correspondence of biblical terminology with Qur’ānic terminology is reflected in some Arabic translations of the Bible. Nāḥāsh is simply translated as ḥayya; the specific term for the serpent (tannîn) into which Aaron’s staff was changed in the presence of Pharaoh’s court is, however, thuʻbān, given the more generic meaning of ḥayya.59 Remarkably similar to the Hebrew tannîn, however, we find another Arabic term referring to another species of snake and used in some Arabic translations of the Bible:60 tinnīn. According to A.J. Wensinck, the Arabic term is directly based on the Hebrew word, probably with an Aramaic intermediary.61 The tinnīn described by al-Masʻūdī is a sea monster,62 some of whose aquatic characteristics do indeed correspond to the Hebrew equivalent and which, therefore, represents a continuation in the Muslim tradition. Alongside these representations, which represent the most conspicuous and widespread part of the legendary traditions about the animal tinnīn, we find fewer widespread indications that it is a land animal belonging to the ḥayya species; in this case, it would, in fact, be the largest snake of all.63 Another episode concerning the tinnīn is worthy of mention; a rather widespread prophetic tradition puts Moses, who has just received the staff, up against a tinnīn that is killed by the staff itself.64

58 Among the major Western translators of the Qur’ān, only R. Blachère translates thuʻbān as ‘dragon’ (Le Coran, Paris 1949–50, I, 200, II, 632). F. Peirone follows him, among modern Italian translators (Il Corano, Milan 1979, I, 243, II, 518); see also D. Masson, Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne. Études comparées, Paris 1958, 1, 400. L. Marracci (Alcorani. Textus Universus, Padua 1698, pars quarta, 93) also translated thuʻbān as draco. 59 See L. Barsūm, al-Ta’rīkh al-muqaddas, Cairo 1954, 81–82: Kitāb al-Muqaddas, Oxford 1849, 85, 89 (nāhāsh is also translated as ḥayya in Ex. VII:15). See also B. Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo nell’esegesi giudeo-araba medievale, Brescia 1989, 144–145, in which the term used to refer to the serpent is thuʻbān. 60 Other Arabic translations of the Bible refer to thuʻbān in Ex. IV:3, ḥayya in Ex. VII:15 and tinnīn in Ex. VII:9f.; this is the case in the well-known translation of Saʻadya Gaon (Oeuvres complètes de R. Saadia Ben Josef al-Fayyoûmî, edited by J. Derenbourg, I, Paris 1893. 85, 89–90, later reprised by B. Walton, Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, 1, London 1653, 239, 253. 61 Wensinck, The Ocean, 4; see also Driver, “Mythical monsters”, 247. 62 Al-Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, French trans., Paris 1861, I, 366f. 63 LA, XIII, 74–75; TA, IX, 154; al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, IV, 154–155, al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 233–235; al-Qazwinī, ‘Ajā’ib, 292; al-Fīrūzābādī, Al-Qamūs al-muḥīṭ, Cairo n.d., IV, 205; see also EI2, III, 344–345, “ḥayya”; Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon, II, 318; al-Ṭabarī, Annales (Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa al-mulūk), Leiden 1964, I, 920. 64 Al-Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1954, 177; al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 234; see, for example, what is stated by al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXIV, 246–247; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, III, 174.

178

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

Compared with a thuʻbān, which, despite some prodigious features remains, according to its primary meaning, a serpent, tinnīn is, instead, a prodigious, marine reptile. In any case, we never find tinnīn used in the description of the miracle of Moses, not even in the legends that are enriched with fantastic details about the snake.

3.5 The use of the term jānn in two verses, to indicate the thing that Moses’ staff became,65 is surely the most interesting aspect of the lexicographic investigation typical of Islamic exegesis. It will be useful to note that controversial interpretations are all of Western scholars and, in particular, the translators of the Qur’ān. According to Arabic sources, numerous volumes of Qur’ānic commentaries, prophetic legends and lexicographical dictionaries, jānn is always and exclusively, in our case, considered to be the name of a species of snake that is particularly rapid in its movements. In the main Western translations of the Qur’ān, we find two interpretations. The first, the most widespread, translates jānn as snake according to the explanations given by Muslim exegetes.66 Bell alone, of the works taken into consideration, refers simply to jānn adding a footnote to explain that it is a snake.67 The second interpretation sees jānn, as it appears four other times in sūra 55,68 as being synonymous with jinn. The translation of the verse therefore says: “And when he saw it quivering like a jinn (like the jinn)”. This is the translation given in the prestigious works of Blachère, Paret and Bausani.69 The problem of the interpretation of these two verses (Q 27:10, 28:31) by Western scholars had already been pointed out by Nöldeke in a short but comprehensive article.70 Examining the very close relationship between the snake and magic, he highlighted the presence of the word jānn, so close to jinn, to indicate the snake in the Qur’ān. Nöldeke added the point that the snake is mentioned

65 The scriptural account is far more nuanced: “as if it were a jānn”. 66 We have considered The Korān, transl. by G. Sale, London n.d., 369; The Koran Interpreted, transl. by A.J. Arberry, London 1955, II, 77, 89; The Holy Kur’ān, transl. by A. Yusuf Ali, New York 1946, II, 979, 1011; Le Koran, transl. by M. Kazimirski, Paris 1970, 294, 303; Le Koran, transl. by E. Montet, Paris 1954, 513, 526; The Koran, transl. by J. M. Rodwell, London 1909, 174, 249; Il Corano, transl. by L. Bonelli, Milan 1987, 348, 360. 67 The Qur’ān, transl. by R. Bell, Edinburgh 1937–39, II, 364, 377. 68 Q. 55:15, 39, 56, 74. 69 Le Coran, translated by R. Blachère, Paris 1949–50, I, 316, 500; Der Koran, transl. by R. Paret, Stuttgart-Berlin 1966, 309, 319; Il Corano, transl. by A. Bausani, Florence 1978, 274, 284; F. Peirone is halfway there, translating jānn in Q. 28:31 with ‘restless serpent’ after translating 27:10 with ‘like a little spirit’ (Il Corano, II, 544, 528). All these interpretations owe a great deal to Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon, II, 492. 70 T. Nöldeke, “Die Schlange nach arabischen Volksglaube”, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 1 (1866), 412–416.

179

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

elsewhere in another way and that jānn occurs several times in sūra 55, precisely with the meaning of jinn.71 To emphasise the close relationship between jānn and jinn, Nöldeke quoted a passage from al-Azraqī (d. 250/865). Al-Azraqī reports a tradition in which the son of a female jinn, due to his mother’s concerns about his desire to do ṭawāf around the Kaʻba, takes on the form of a jānn snake.72 The episode continues but, also in this case, regarding the matter which interests us, the presence of the two terms with distinct and unambiguous meanings is of considerable importance. These different interpretations of the Qur’ān by Western translators, as has already been mentioned, do not reflect contrasts in Islamic exegesis of the relevant passages. Jānn is always thought to be simply a snake. “It is a species of ḥayya genus, with black eyes”.73 While the thuʻbān’s main characteristic is its considerable size, jānn refers to a small reptile. It is the smallest of snakes, according to Thaʻlabī (d. 427/1035),74 or simply a small snake.75 Another definition that we have, from al-Farrā’ (d. 207/822), states that jānn is a snake that is neither large nor small.76 What al-Ṭabarī reports is definitely unique and very surprising: “Jānn is the large snake belonging to the ḥayya genus”.77 However, unlike a thuʻbān, size is not the characteristic of the jānn snake that the Qur’ānic commentators wish to emphasise. The staff becomes (a snake)-like jānn because of its frantic agile movement. It is indeed the snake that is swift in movement.78 Almost all commentaries offer the same solution to the problem of 71 Nöldeke, “Die Schlange”, 413. On the snake and magic, see Canova, “Serpenti e scorpioni”, 199–201, where he also mentions the issue of the meaning of jānn. 72 Al-Azraqī, Akhbār Makka, Beirut 1983, II, 15–16; see Nöldeke, “Die Schlange”, 414 and H. Wohlstein, “Zu einigen Zaubermotiven in der biblischen Umwelt”, ZDMG (= Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft), 117 (1967), 229; see also al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, VI, 47, in which jānn and jinn are mentioned together. 73 LA, XIII, 96–97; TA, IX, 165; jānn is mentioned among the serpents by al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Bad’ al-khalq, 14; see Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon, II, 492. 74 Al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, Ms al-Azhar IV, f. 157a. 75 Al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, MS Dār al-Kutub, tafsīr 797, f. 12b; al-Ṭabarsī, Majma‘ al-bayān, IV, 350; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, VI, 235; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, II, 121; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, IV, 288, 342; Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-tashīl, Cairo 1936, III, 93; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, III, 155; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XVI, 104; al-Khāzin Tafsīr, V, 164; Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, cit., II, 55, 64; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, Cairo n.d., III, 36; Shubbār, Tafsīr, 363, 373; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, XIX, 147; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIII, 160; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXIV, 131. 76 Al-Farrā’, Maʻānī al-Qur’ān, II, 287; see also Ibn Qutayba, Tafsīr gharīb al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1958, 322; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr, VI, 156; al-Fīrūzābādī, Al-Tanwīr, cit., 235, 241; in al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, MS Dār al-Kutub, f. 120a; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIII, 160, the detail can be traced back to al-Kalbī. 77 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, XIX, 135. 78 Al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, IV, f. 157a, MS Dār al-kutub, ff. 12b–34a; al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, V, 523; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV, 350; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, IV, 288, 342; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXIV, 131; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl, IV, 127; Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-tashīl, III, 93; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XVI, 104: al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, V, 164; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, VI, 161; Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, II, 64; Abū al-Suʻūd, Tafsīr, IV, 124, 153; al-Shirbīnī,

180

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

the presence of three different terms used to refer to the snake in the Qur’ān: ḥayya is the general term, thuʻbān indicates its considerable size and jānn highlights the agility and speed of its movements.79 “The meaning (of verses 27:10 and 28:31) is that the staff began to twitch as the jānn twitches”.80 No fantastic attributes are added to the definitions: the jānn snake is a quasi-domestic animal, numerous in homes.81 It is precisely this general agreement, without a single contrasting voice or testimony that considers it plausible to read jānn, in the two verses on the staff of Moses, as a synonym for jinn, which does not eliminate all doubts. The very fact that exegesis and lexicographical discussions have been following the revelation and determination of the Qur’ānic text for centuries may generate evaluations that create doubts and a discrepancy between the presumed actual original meaning and the subsequent line of interpretation. The pre-Islamic beliefs in the jinn, their connection with magic and the snake,82 and the subsequent interpretation given by Blachère, Paret and Bausani,83 may indeed suggest a different, as well as justified, reading from that of the Muslim exegetes. According to this assumption, the only way to render the affinity of jānn and jinn is to translate the word with jinn rather than with a simple ‘snake’. It is undeniable that the relationship between the two words is deeper than a simple phonetic assonance, due to its origin and the presence, in the Qur’ān itself, of a term jānn which has the same meaning as jinn. However, at the same time, nothing seems more justified than considering

79 80 81 82

83

al-Sirāj al-munīr, II, 373; Shubbār, Tafsīr, 373; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, II, 17; al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-qādir, IV, 123; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIII, 160; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, XX, 65; see also what is stated in LA, XIII, 97; TA, IX, 165. This is not the only explanation given for the presence of the three names; we will discuss another one, with fantastic details, further on. LA, XIII, 97; of no importance for the purposes of our research is the alternative reading ja’n/ ja’ann proposed by al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, III, 138; later resumed by al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl, IV, 113; Abū al-Suʻūd, Tafsīr, IV, 124. LA, XIII, 97; see also TA, IX, 165; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, VI, 161; Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon, II, 494; and what is reported by al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, VI, 47, on an episode regarding the jānn. Nöldeke, “Die Schlange”, 414; the jānn snake is, however, also said to be king of the jinn, Lane, An Arabic English Lexicon, II, 492; in this case jānn would be a jinn in the form of a snake; this is, in fact, the solution proposed by H.T. Norris (“Qiṣaṣ Elements in the Qur’ān”, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, ed. by A.F.L. Beeston, T.M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant, and G.R. Smith, Cambridge 1983, 251) according to whom the staff “turned into a jinnī in the shape of a serpent”. In addition to the comments cited above, Elder, (“Parallel Passages in the Koran”, 256–257), also translated jānn as “thing possessed”. Among others, the position of J. Knappert is of significance; in his Histories of the Heroes, Saints and Prophets of Islam, Leiden 1985, 1, 109, he translates “like a jinn” and see also Norris, “Qiṣaṣ Elements”, 251. For a more thorough analysis, we refer to our short note “Alcune considerazioni su ǧānn in Cor. 27:10 a 28:37”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 30/3, Serie Orientale 22 (1991), 303–307.

181

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

jānn exclusively as a snake, without forgetting its proximity to jinn in both name and characteristics.

4.1 If the problem of the relationship between Islamic traditions and biblical legends has often attracted the attention of scholars from various fields, this is due to the extraordinary closeness and dependence of certain respective sources. Especially with regard to non-Qur’ānic traditions collected in tafsīr or elsewhere, the literature devoted to the study of parallels and derivations from Jewish and Christian legends in Islamic traditions is endless. The episode of the miracle of the staff being turned into a snake by Moses, on the other hand, has a very special position. The Bible and the Qur’ān can be said to coincide in their respective scriptural data in this regard. The differences are minimal, especially in light of the description of other prophetic episodes in the different sacred texts. We find a completely different situation in the exegetical texts of the respective religions. The wealth of Haggadic details and a penchant for the fantastic in Islamic traditions finds nothing similar, not even in the slightest, in the Jewish midrashîm or in the mentions of the episode by the Church Fathers. The interpretative paths are completely distinct and strongly characterised according to their respective directions. The question of the origin of Islamic legends is difficult to trace. When mutual influences are evident, it is possible to try to distinguish the original source and find a close relationship between the different religious traditions.84 In this case the situation is more complex, because of the identical testimonies in the sacred texts and the surprising absence of common elements in the respective extra-canonical traditions. It is not our intention to discuss this problem: from the presumed origin of lost Yemenite midrashîm introduced into Islamic legends by converted Jews, to amplifications attributed simply to Arab imagination,85 it is only possible to hypothesise. Before an in-depth analysis of the material collected by Muslim exegetes, a brief mention of what is reported in some midrashîm and by some Church Fathers will serve to highlight the specifics of the Islamic interpretation of the narrative parts of the Qur’ān.86

84 See B. Heller, “La légende biblique dans l’Islam”, Revue des Études Juives, 98 (1934), 11f. 85 In the case of a lack of Jewish parallels with which to trace the origin, these are the two most credible hypotheses. 86 The following pages contain only a sample of Jewish and Christian exegesis in order to offer the reader a simple element of comparison with the abundant Islamic material presented below. A meticulous and exhaustive presentation of the Jewish and Christian sources, consulted in search of possible cases of contact, is not within the scope of this study.

182

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

4.2 Moses had followed the example of the serpent who had spoken slanderously of his Creator, and since it is said: “God knows”,87 just as the serpent was punished then, so shall he be punished. Here is what is written: “And he said, ‘Throw it to the ground’. He threw it to the ground, and the staff became a serpent”.88 Because he had followed the serpent’s example, God showed him the serpent as if to say: “You have done what this serpent has done”. (. . .) We have already explained what the serpent meant to Moses, but what did this sign mean to Israel? Rabbi Eleazar says that the staff was turned into a serpent symbolically because Pharaoh was called a serpent as it is said: “Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon”.89 He is also referred to as “Leviathan, the twisted serpent”90 because he struck Israel. God said to Moses: “Have you seen Pharaoh who is like a serpent? Well, thou shalt smite him with the staff, and in the end he shall become like wood; and just as the staff cannot bite, so he cannot bite any more”.91 As can be seen immediately, what is emphasised above all in the narrative is the duel between Moses and Pharaoh. Although this is the miracle, described in Ex. IV:3, which occurred in the presence of Moses alone, the miracle is relevant because of the different significance it has for Moses and Pharaoh. God shows the prodigy to Moses when he throws the staff that becomes a snake: it is the staff that will destroy the dragon of the Nile, Pharaoh.92 The transformation of the staff into a snake takes on a particular value only because of the biblical meaning and implications of this animal, the snake. The reference to the serpent of Genesis and the passage from Ezekiel in which Pharaoh is called the great tannîn do not only recur in the passage translated by the Midrash Rabbah.93 The verse from Ezekiel is also repeated in the commentary on Ex. VI1:9: Another reason why God told Moses to perform the miracle of the serpent was because Pharaoh was like a serpent. And it is said indeed he is known as: “The great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers”.94 When Moses left Pharaoh, Pharaoh said: “If Moses the son of Amran should return to me again, I will kill him, crucify him, and burn him”. But when Moses returned, Pharaoh immediately became a stick.95 87 88 89 90 91 92

Gen. III:5. Ex. IV:3. Ez. XXIX:3; the term translated as ‘dragon’ is tannîn. Is. XXVII:1. Shemột Rabbah, III:12; see also, Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 8, 166–167. See L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia 1909–46, II, 321–322. V, 421 n. 132; Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 8, 166–167 and cited sources. 93 See Midrash ha-gadôl, at Ex. IV:3; and cited sources in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 8, 166–167. 94 Ex. XXIX:3. 95 Shemôt Rabbah, IX:4; see Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9. 33–34. The translations from the Bible are from the King James version.

183

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

In this second episode, too, the account in the Midrash Rabbah may well be considered exemplary. The aforementioned explanation of the transformation of the staff into a snake through the quotation of the verse from Ezekiel, in which Pharaoh is compared to a tannîn, is widely attested.96 The description of the episode quoted from Ex. VII:9f. assumes no other significance of any value. Any significance attributed to the miracle is already anticipated in the commentary on Ex. IV:3 because the episodes are considered identical for all intents and purposes.97 It has already been mentioned, in reporting Rashi’s blunt explanation above, that the use of two different terms does not seem to have caused concern for the Jewish exegetes. If a few brief lexical explanations are given, the tannîn is consistently regarded as a land animal and is never contrasted with the nāḥāsh.98

4.3 While the collections of midrashîm we discussed above are contemporary with the spread of Islam and sometimes later than the first works of Qur’ānic exegesis, the Christian sources we briefly mention are all earlier. In addition to not having any point of contact with Islamic speculations, the mentions of the snake miracle in the Patristic sources offer a completely different reading. It is stated, for example, that the rod thrown to the ground becomes a snake; it is one of the greatest divine signs and the sorcerers are such because they do not believe in its sacred origin;99 the staff is in fact one of the signs that testifies to the relationship between God and the people, like Noah’s ark.100 With these considerations in mind, the Christological reading of this miracle of Moses is not surprising. Thus, if this miracle is a sign, it can only be a premise of the great event that binds God and the human race: Christ, his incarnation, the cross. Moses, says Irenaeus (d. 190 ad), throws the staff to the ground and it is transformed as Christ became incarnate; like Christ, the staff calls the Egyptians back to God.101 The serpent is a figure of the incarnation,102 and is equivalent to the cross because, like the cross, it bit the Jews.103

96 Leqaḥ Tob, cited in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9, 34; see also Sepher ha-Zohar, II:28a (III, Paris 1975, 134); Midrash ha-gadôl, at Ex. VII:9. 97 See Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, II, 334–335; see, also, the scant emphasis given by A. Rosmarin, Moses in Lichte der Agada, New York 1932, 89–90. 98 See sources cited by Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 9, 34. 99 Clement of Rome, Recognitiones, III:55, PG (= J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, Paris 1857–66) 1, 1306; for this reason the staffs of the sorcerers will be devoured, Tertullian, De Anima, 57:7, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina II, Tournhout 1954, 866. 100 Pseudo-Philo, Les Antiquités bibliques, XIX:11, SC (= «Sources Chrétiennes», Paris 1968 ff.) 229, 163. 101 Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III:21, 8, SC 211, 423. 102 Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, II:31–33, SC 1, 125. 103 Soverianus, Homilia de serpente quem Moyses in cruce suspendit, PG 56, 499f.

184

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

All these themes find a complete definition in the extensive work of Origen (d. 254). His Homilies on Exodus are an excellent example of a Christological reading of the Old Testament passages without mythological intrusions. The staff of Moses is equivalent to the cross of Christ, and when it is thrown to the ground it becomes a dragon or a snake.104 Origen also explains the difference between the prodigy of Moses and that of the sorcerers: their difference is like that between Christ and the anti-Christ;105 in fact, the miracle of Moses is true, whereas that of the sorcerers is false.106 In addition to this reading, which should be considered the most widespread and significant, one should not forget testimonies of another kind. The question of the relationship between the miracle of Moses and the magic of the sorcerers has not always been resolved as in the sources cited above. According to some, perhaps the staff did not really turn into a snake, but this cannot be established precisely.107 On the other hand, Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 387) has no doubts in what, for our purposes, is the most interesting description: it was really a dragon that brought terror; that staff, according to Cyril, had dragon’s teeth and eyes.108 No other details seem significant to us. We can already see, even in this case, how the entirely symbolic importance given to the miracle does not justify any mention of the biblical terminology used in the two different circumstances in which the miracle took place. There is a marked difference between this Christian material and the reading given by the midrashîm, but they are not radically different. Basically, it is the physiological contrast between the two different religions: a Christological reading on the one hand, and a Jewish reference to the hostility between Pharaoh and the Jewish people on the other.109 Their respective differences from the Haggadic interpretation given in the Muslim commentaries, as we shall see, are much more evident.

5.1 Among the elements of the exegesis of the Qur’ānic verses related to the episode of the staff of Moses, we will examine the traditions that often dwell on the description of the snake and its fantastic details.110 As we shall see, a distinction

104 Origen, Homiliae in Exodum, IV, SC 321, 116–147; especially 130: it became a dragon or a serpent; it does not matter, therefore, to establish it precisely. 105 Origen, Contra Celsum, II:50, SC 132, 400; see also III:5, SC 136, 24, III:46, SC 136, 110. 106 Origen, Homiliae in Ieremiam, V:3, SC 232, 288. 107 See Clement of Rome, Homiliae, 20,6,7, PG 2, 454; Epiphanius, Ancoratus 62,4, PG 43, 127. 108 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad Illuminandos, 12:28, PG 33, 759–762. 109 See also the different viewpoint of Theodoret (Questiones in Exodum, IX, PG 80, 231). The more recent interpretations of Ibn Sabā’ are also of a different view, La perle précieuse (Al-jawhara al-naf īsa), ed. by J. Périer, Patrologia Orientalis 16, Paris 1922, 624; and Commentaire d’Ishoʻdad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament. II. Exode. Deutèronome, edited by C. van den Eynde, CSCO 179, Leuven 1958, 14–15, in which the staff turns into a snake to show Pharaoh’s weakness. 110 This is an aspect that was already brought to our attention by Sale (The Korān, 153 n. 3), who mentions notable legends, among the Arabs, in this regard; see also Norris, “Qiṣaṣ Elements”, 251.

185

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

between the work of commentators and collections of prophetic legends (Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’) is difficult to make. The tales are almost the same and a slight difference in tone, perhaps with the omission of the more exaggerated details in the tafsīr, in this particular case, is not always achieved. All the Haggadic material on this prophetic episode, we must add, did not fail to raise doubts in ancient times even amongst the careful Muslim editors and authors themselves.111 Nevertheless, some of the most surprising legends, rich in fantastic details, are still included in the commentaries, in some cases with an afterword that casts doubt on their soundness. In commentaries such as that of al-Rāzī, for example, the emphasis on these verses lies entirely in the significance of the prodigy of the transformation of the staff into a snake. Only after distinguishing between man’s inability to perform such an act, discussion of the times of the prophets and the evidence of Moses’ prophetic mission, does al-Rāzī mention the traditions regarding the size of the snake.112 Abū Ḥayyān (d. 745/1344) concludes, after referring to the traditions, by pointing out that no verse or ḥadīth endorses such legends while Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1372) merely defers the knowledge of the authenticity of one of the most widespread legends to God.113 Such an attitude of cautious detachment from the material that has been passed down, or the importance given to theological discussion of this miracle,114 represents a clear and unequivocal stance against the traditional data. In any case, the diffusion of the legends related to the episode is never questioned and, due to the antiquity of their testimony, these legends represent, without any doubt, the dominant aspect of Islamic exegesis of the Qur’ānic verses that interest us. The predominance of the Haggadic reading, as we shall see, with almost identical scriptural data, has led to exegetical results that are completely different from the Jewish and Christian analyses. The traditions collected by Islamic commentators are aimed at emphasising the terrifying aspects of the miracle performed by Moses both in solitude and in the presence of Pharaoh. The question that seems to have troubled the interpreters of the Qur’ān so much, that of the presence of the three different names for the snake, is sometimes explained in the same tones as the legends that are full of fantastic details.

5.2 The issue of the presence of three different names for the snake into which Moses’ staff was transformed in the Qur’ān seems to have been the major cause for concern for Muslim exegetes. For some, the use of the different names, whose

111 Doubts have intensified in modern times; see in this regard Tottoli, “La moderna esegesi”. 112 Al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 192–195, XXII, 28; see also al-Qushayrī, Laṭā’if al-ishārāt, Cairo 1968, II, 250–251. 113 Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 357; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451. 114 See al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, VIII, 17; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV, 346–351.

186

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

particular meanings embellish the sacred text, is one of the most striking examples of the inimitability of the Qur’ān.115 Indeed, there is no contradiction between the unique and certain meaning of each term and the simultaneous use of three different expressions.116 The particular choice of the three names, especially the simultaneous presence of thuʻbān and jānn, which have such different characteristics, has been explained in various ways. The commentaries point out, however, that these are not opposing interpretations, but rather possible readings that are not in evident contrast, and that it is possible to give one alongside the other. The simplest explanation, which has already been mentioned, indirectly alludes to the transformation of the staff of Moses into a snake of great dimensions with very fast movements. In fact, the Qur’ān calls it a thuʻbān because of its size and a jānn because it is as fast as this type of snake.117 Alongside this first simple explanation derived, as we have already seen, from the meaning of Qur’ānic terminology, there are many other explanations with details that are quite different in tone. Al-Damīrī reports, for example, for the term jānn: Ibn ʻAbbās stated about the two terms (ḥayya and thuʻbān): it became a yellow snake (ḥayya) with a mane like a horse or it began to swell until it became a thuʻbān, the largest of serpents (ḥayyāt). For when Moses threw down his staff, at the beginning it became a jānn and in the end it became a thuʻbān. It is further said: God used three definitions, ḥayya, jānn and thuʻbān, because it was like a ḥayya snake for its speed, like a thuʻbān for its swallowing (stones and trees) and like a jānn for its movement. (. . .) Furthermore, it is said that the staff was ḥayya for Moses, thuʻbān for Pharaoh and jānn for the sorcerers.118 The interpretations that are reported by al-Damīrī are the same as those given by the exegetes. In particular, the first one is certainly the most widespread. It is not usually attributed to anyone, although al-Damīrī assigns it to the name of Ibn ‘Abbās (d. 68/687): jānn is the beginning of the state but then this snake swelled and got bigger until it reached the size of a thuʻbān.119

115 See al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, VIII, 17; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV, 351. 116 Al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XVI, 104–105; however, such approaches to the issue are rare and isolated examples. 117 This is a widespread explanation; see al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, cit., III, f. 157a; al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, IV, 226–227; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 534; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIII, 160; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr, V, 280; al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, VIII, 17; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, VII, 17; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, IV, 9; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXII, 28; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl, IV, 20; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, III, 40; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XVI, 104; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, II, 17; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, II, 373. 118 Al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt, I, 260–261. 119 See sources cited in footnote 117.

187

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

Little importance is given in other sources to the last interpretation given by al-Damīrī, who distinguishes between the state of the snake before Moses when he is alone and then before the court of Pharaoh. Al-Rāzī, in his commentary on Q. 20:20, mentions the transformation of the staff to prove Moses’ prophetic mission, and so that he would not be afraid of the prodigy when he does it before Pharaoh.120 However, this consideration does not lead to the logical conclusion that the use of jānn and thuʻbān might (386) be brought about by the different states of the snake: smaller the first time, so as not to frighten Moses, and then larger in size to terrify and convince Pharaoh.121 It will be seen in the following pages how this snake is sometimes described as becoming a thuʻbān, swelling and becoming larger. This kind of interpretation is always mentioned in the commentary on the verses on the transformation of the staff in the presence of Moses alone (Q. 20:20, 27:10, 28:31). In fact, there is a clear distinction between the traditions commenting on this episode in the aforementioned verses and those concerning the prodigious thuʻbān in the presence of Pharaoh which comment on Q. 7:107 and Q. 26:32.

5.3 Al-Khāzin (d. 725/1325), in his commentary on Q. 20:20, quotes the following tradition: Muḥammad b. Isḥāq says that Moses looked and behold the staff had become a serpent (ḥayya), the greatest of serpents (ḥayyāt). The two tips of the staff had become the two horns of the serpent, the hooked part of the nose, and the mane that waved as if it were made of spears. Moreover, its eyes burned like fire, and it passed through gigantic rocks in the same way that camels are brought to water and it swallowed them. The serpent split tall trees with its teeth and it was because of its teeth that a deafening screech was heard.122 In addition to this tradition that can be traced back to Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 150/766), there are numerous Qur’ānic commentators who report a similar account, but under the name of Ibn ʻAbbās. The serpent, in this case, strikes fear into Moses by swallowing stones and trees and becoming larger and larger.123 Moses is said to

120 Al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXII, 28. 121 This reasoning is mentioned by al-Ṭūsī, Tafsīr al-tibyān, VIII, 17; and al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV, 350. 122 Al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, IV, 267; see al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, IV, ff. 157a–157b; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, IV, 9; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, V, 273, in which, however, it is traced back to Wahb. 123 See al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, cit., XVI, 156; al-Thaʻlabī, Al-Kashf, cit., MS al-Azhar, IV, 157a; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 534; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr, V, 280; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, XIII, 160; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, VI, 235; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, II, 142; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr

188

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

have been frightened by the rumbling sound of the stones and trees swallowed by the serpent.124 A tradition from Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 102/720) also mentions all the fantastic details of the passage translated by al-Khāzin: the two points of the staff becoming the serpent’s horns, trees and stones that are swallowed, eyes of fire and spear-like manes; Moses, overcoming his fear, then puts his hand into the serpent’s mouth until he can feel its teeth and the staff returns to its initial state.125 Often, this kind of legend linked to the miracle that took place in the presence of Moses, is accompanied by the fact that the serpent’s mouth is forty arms wide.126 A different version reports that the width is eighty arms but usually this is included in the legends about the thuʻbān serpent in front of Pharaoh. It is not uncommon for commentators to report both versions simultaneously in their commentary on the respective Qur’ānic passages. This kind of tradition always follows the aforementioned attempts to explain the presence of the three different names used in reference to the snake. The staff becomes a jānn snake and then, by swallowing stones and trees, it reaches the size of a terrifying thuʻbān. The accounts reported by the Qur’ānic commentators up to al-Ālūsī (d. 1270/1853) systematically insist on recounting these fantastic details. We must also add that these legends are never followed by any words that cast doubt on their substance. Unlike the traditions about the thuʻbān in front of Pharaoh, the Haggadic interpretation, mostly traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās, does not contain any dubious or censurable elements for exegetes.

5.4 It has already been said that it is not uncommon to find, even in short passages, allusions by Western scholars to the existence of prodigious legends full of fantastic details about the thuʻbān serpent and Pharaoh. In the commentary passages on the relevant Qur’ānic verses (7:107; 26:32), the wealth of the Haggadic material on this event reaches such a level that it is often met with censure by medieval Muslim exegetes. In the description of this prophetic episode we find numerous versions but with minor variations. It is reported, for example, by al-Khāzin in his tafsīr, by Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Suddī (d. 128/745): When Moses threw down his staff it became a gigantic yellow serpent, with a mane and a gaping mouth. Its two jaws had an opening of eighty al-kabīr, XXII, 28; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, VII, 17; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl, IV, 20; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, V, 273. 124 Al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XXII, 28. 125 Ibn Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, Beirut 1970, 63; see also, from Wahb, Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, V, 274; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, II, 373; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, XVI, 161. 126 See al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, IX, 15; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 534; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, VI, 235; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 195, XXII, 28; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, III, 40; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, XVI, 105; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, II, 373; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, IX, 19: twelve arms; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, VI, 149 also mentions paws.

189

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

arms. It lifted itself a mile into the sky from the ground; it held its tail upwards, placing one jaw on the ground and the other on the wall of the palace. Then it turned towards Pharaoh to seize him and he jumped from his throne in fear. He had an attack of dysentery and it is said, indeed, that he had four hundred attacks that day. It is also said that the serpent grabbed Pharaoh’s pavilion with its teeth and threw itself at the people. Twenty-five thousand people, it is said, were put to flight, screaming and being killed one after another that day. Pharaoh entered the house and cried out: “I implore you in the name of him who sent you that you take it back. I believe you and I will send the Israelites with you”. And the serpent became a staff once more in the hand of Moses as it had been.127 In essence, we have said, this is the tradition that is most frequently reported by all exegetes, albeit sometimes with some fantastic attributes left out.128 For example, some sources count forty afflictions of Pharaoh and not four hundred.129 Al-Ṭabarsī (d. 538/1143), however, reports only the latter detail, with some doubt, from Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Suddī.130 Others add that before then Pharaoh had never needed to use the latrine.131 What is reported by al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr in their commentaries does not deviate at all from the substance of the tradition translated above from al-Khāzin. Al-Ṭabarī, in particular, reports most of the tradition from al-Suddī. Then he quotes another report, but under the names of ʻIkrima (d. 105/723) and Ibn ʻAbbās.132 Ibn Kathīr does the same.133 The episode of the serpent throwing itself on the people and killing as many as twenty-five thousand people is, on the other hand, separated in their commentaries and cited as traced back to Wahb b. Munabbih.134 Ibn Kathīr adds, after reporting the tradition, that he found this in al-Ṭabarī and in the Kitāb al-zuhd of Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855) and included it in his commentary, despite the obvious exaggeration and the fact that it is almost certainly spurious material.135

127 Al-Khāzin, Tafsīr, IV, 267. 128 See al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, IX, 14; al-Thaʻlabī, Al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, III, f.19a; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 101; al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV, 350; Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 357; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, I, 292; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl, II, 517–518; al Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, 195; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl, III, 21; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, II, 52; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, IX, 22; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451; al-Suyūṭī, Durr, V, 84; Abū al-Suʻūd, Tafsīr, II, 187–188; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, I, 411; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, IX, 18–19. 129 See al-Tha‘labī, Al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, II, f. 19a; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-ma‘ānī, IX, 18. 130 Al-Ṭabarsī, Majmaʻ al-bayān, IV. 350. 131 See al-Thaʻlabī, Al Kashf, MS al-Azhar, III, f.19a; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib, IX, 22; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451; Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, II, 101. 132 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, IX, 14. 133 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451. 134 Al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān, IX, 14; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451. 135 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, III, 451.

190

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

Indeed, Ibn Ḥanbal reports from Wahb b. Munabbih that “Moses threw the staff to the ground and it became a serpent (thuʻbān) which threw itself at the people”. It killed twenty-five thousand people. Pharaoh, in fear, fled home and begged Moses to make it stop. “Pharaoh had previously gone to the latrine only once in forty days, but on that day he went forty times”.136 The same doubts had been raised by Abū Ḥayyān: after reporting the detail that many died, he adds that this is not contained in any Qur’ānic verse nor confirmed by any sound ḥadīth.137 We limit ourselves to pointing out that only this description of those killed by the serpent seems to have been the object of more or less veiled criticism by exegetes. Moreover, while in modern works of tafsīr this tradition is rejected because it is recognised as being traced back to Wahb b. Munabbih,138 in most medieval commentaries his name is not mentioned. While the quotation in Ibn Ḥanbal’s Kitāb al-zuhd leaves no room for doubt about the attribution, later commentators often add the detail of the twenty-five thousand dead to the tradition of Ibn ‘Abbās and al-Suddī, as is the case in the text translated by al-Khāzin. Thus, sometimes, this description, which is attributed elsewhere to Wahb b. Munabbih, is separated from the previous account by a simple “it is said” omitting any name of a transmitter. What is reported by al-Zamakhsharī in the commentary on Q. 20:20 is significant for another reason: It is said that the staff turned into a serpent which rose up into the sky for the length of a mile, then it turned to Pharaoh and began to say, “O Moses, command me what you will”. And Pharaoh said, “I ask you in the name of him who sent you to take it”. Moses took it and it became a staff once more.139 This tradition is reported almost in its entirety in other sources, but the particularly interesting detail of the serpent’s words is not included;140 on the contrary, as we shall see, it has particular relevance in the collections of prophetic legends and in the testimonies of popular oral traditions.

5.5 While collections of prophetic legends, by their very nature, often include traditions that are not accepted in Qur’ānic commentaries, this is not the case here. There is no lack of details of some relevance, but essentially the reported legends are the same.

136 137 138 139 140

Ibn Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, 66. Abū Ḥayyān, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, IV, 357. See Tottoli, “La moderna esegesi”, 27f. Al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf, III, 111; the tradition is highly doubtful. See al-Suyūṭī, Durr, III, 105, V, 84; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, I, 242.

191

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

This is, for example, the case of al-Thaʻlabī, author of both a tafsīr and a collection of qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (stories of the prophets), thus offering the possibility of a satisfactory comparison between the accepted traditions in the two different works. As for the miracle that took place in the presence of Moses alone, the account in the qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ collection is enriched by some fantastic details: the serpent crawls on four legs,141 its eyes shine like lightning, it burns and swallows everything it encounters; Moses sees something repugnant so that he has no fear in the presence of Pharaoh when the miracle is repeated.142 The same applies to the prodigious thuʻbān into which Moses’ staff is transformed before Pharaoh; it rises into the sky to such a height that the inhabitants of the city see it.143 Al-Thaʻlabī then adds a brief description of the terrified Pharaoh which he does not include in his own tafsīr: (Pharaoh) reportedly did not cough, blow his nose, or move his head, nor did the calamity that befell other people touch him. He went to the bathroom only once in forty days, and what he ate most was bananas, because they had no sediment that made it necessary to evacuate his bowels.144 Al-Thaʻlabī concludes by saying that these are embellishments that enrich the exceptional nature of the event.145 We must add that al-Thaʻlabī does not include, in his collection of prophetic legends, the widespread tradition, which can be traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās and al-Suddī, translated earlier from al-Khāzin’s Tafsīr; nor does he report the detail, traced back to Wahb b. Munabbih, of the twenty-five thousand deaths caused by the serpent. However, this tradition is reported almost in its entirety and with the name of Wahb b. Munabbih in the Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ of al-Ṭarafī (d. 454/1062).146 After the detail of the twenty-five thousand dead, there follow the usual descriptions of the gigantic thuʻbān serpent with jaws that encompass the palace, and Pharaoh fleeing, fearing for his fate.147 As for the description of the miracle that took place in the presence of Moses alone, al-Ṭarafī quotes Q. 20:20 and then proceeds with the usual accounts: the serpent passes among stones and trees, swallowing them up, 141 142 143 144 145 146

This detail is also given in some tafsīrs, see Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, VI, 149. Al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 177, 179. Al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 183. Al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 184. Tradition given however in the tafsīr: al-Tha‘labī, al-Kashf, MS al-Azhar, III, f. 19a. The work Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ by Ibn Muṭarrif al-Ṭaraf ī, preserved in two manuscripts in the Vatican Library and the Escorial, is still unpublished. On this work from the fifth century ah, see T. Nagel, Die Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā’. Ein Beitrag zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte, Bonn 1967, 103–113; and G. Levi Della Vida, “Manoscritti arabi di origine spagnola nella Biblioteca Vaticana”, in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda, Città del Vaticano 1962, 153–155. 147 Al-Ṭaraf ī, Qisas al-anbiyā’, MS Vat. Borg. 125, f. 112b; see R.G. Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, Wiesbaden 1972, 235.

192

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

and Moses clearly hears the sound of the swallowed stones. Al-Ṭarafī concludes by reporting that he was called: “O Moses, take it” but he did not take it. He was then called a second time: “Take it and do not be afraid”.148 Finally he was told a third time: “You are safe149 and we will make it a staff again as it was before”.150 In the collection of prophetic legends of al-Kisā’ī (fl. 5th-7th/11th-13th cen.), as well as in some modern oral legends collected by Knappert,151 during the episode of the thuʻbān serpent in the presence of Pharaoh, the detail of the serpent which starts talking is emphasised. Al-Kisā’ī reports that: The staff stirred in Moses’ hand; he dropped it, and behold, it became a serpent moving rapidly. It was the size of the largest camel and it began to destroy the stone blocks of Pharaoh’s palace, swallowing everything that came near it. Then it approached Pharaoh and said in a very loud voice: “Declare ‘There is no god but God and Moses is His Prophet’ ”. Pharaoh ran away, zigzagging. The serpent grabbed the end of his robe and hurled itself against the throne. Pharaoh began to say: “O Moses, in the name of Asiya,152 deliver me from this serpent”. When Moses heard the name of Asiya mentioned, he called the serpent, which came to him like a dog to its master, tamed.153 Knappert’s version differs only slightly. The serpent becomes as big as a whale, opens its mouth, grabs the throne and shouts to Pharaoh: “If God wills it, I will devour you and your palace”; finally Moses calls it back and it returns to him like a pet dog.154 The miracle that took place in the presence of Moses alone is given little prominence in al-Kisā’ī’s Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ and in the modern testimonies collected by Knappert. This is easily explained by the very nature of the literature of prophetic legends. Themes of the prodigious, and of the wonder and fear aroused in Pharaoh,

148 149 150 151 152 153

Q. 20:21. Q. 28:32. Al-Ṭaraf ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, f. 110b. Knappert, Islamic Legends, I, 111. The wife of Pharaoh who had found Moses in the Nile. AI-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Leiden 1922–23, I, 213; the passage is summarised by D. Sidersky, Les origines des légendes musulmanes dans le Coran et dans les vies des Prophètes, Paris 1933, 81; see also G. Weil, Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner, Frankfurt 1845, 152 (116–117 of the English edition: Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, London 1846). 154 Knappert, Islamic Legends, I, 111.

193

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

are certainly more interesting for a fantastical characterisation of the episode of the miracle that took place in the presence of the Egyptian court. Finally, we would like to point out that there are no fewer embellishments describing the thuʻbān serpent defeating the serpents of the sorcerers. Very often, in collections of prophetic legends, we find an exchange of attributes in the two different descriptions.155

5.6 Traditions which are included in historiographical works covering from the Creation to Islamic period do not mention any particulars of notable interest. There is a clear division between the miracle in the presence of Moses alone and the one in front of Pharaoh. In the first case, the staff becomes a ḥayya snake that, once taken up by Moses, turns back into a staff.156 In the second, the staff becomes a giant thuʻbān that opens its mouth, advancing towards Pharaoh, who asks Moses to take it back.157 Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630/1233) dwells slightly on the second episode, after pointing out that the first serves merely to allow Moses to become accustomed to the miracle, so that he will not feel fear before Pharaoh.158 Moses leaves the staff which becomes a huge thuʻbān, which tries to grab Pharaoh. Pharaoh has an attack of dysentery from fear that lasts more than twenty days until it almost leads to his death.159 Apart from these few cases, what is most interesting about what is related by historiographers is the relationship between the material included here and that in the works of tafsīr. As is the case with al-Thaʻlabī, to whom a commentary and a collection of prophetic legends can be traced back, the works of al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr are particularly relevant. Authors of both a tafsīr and an encyclopedic collection on the subject of universal history, al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Kathīr provide us with another useful comparison of the different modes of treatment. With regard to the first episode, the miracle that took place in front of Moses alone, al-Ṭabarī quotes Qur’ānic verses; he then describes the staff and finally briefly mentions the transformation of the two points into a mouth and the curved part into a mane.160 Ibn Kathīr accompanies the quotation of the three related Qur’ānic verses with the usual explanations for combining the use of the three

155 See Abregé des merveilles, ed. by B. Carra de Vaux, Paris 1984, 335–336; al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, I, 214; al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 185–130; see in particular al-Ṭaraf ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ff. 112a–112b. 156 Al-Yaʻqūbī, Ta’rīkh, Beirut 1960, I, 34. 157 Al-Yaʻqūbī, Ta’rīkh, 35; see also the very brief mention in Abū al-Fidā’, al-Muhtaṣar fi akhbār al-bashar, Cairo 1907, 18–19. 158 Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil f ī al-ta’rīkh, Beirut 1965–67, I, 179. 159 Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil, I, 181. 160 Ṭabarī, Annales, I, 463–464, 464–466, 466, respectively.

194

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S T R A N S F O R M I N G I N T O A S N A K E

different terms for the snake.161 For the second episode, al-Ṭabarī, as in his tafsīr, reports al-Suddī’s account with no further details.162 No interesting element is added to the account contained in the commentary, not even in a long tradition attributed to Muḥammad b. Isḥāq.163 Ibn Kathīr also gives a brief account that dwells on the shape of the thuʻbān snake and Pharaoh’s violent attacks of dysentery.164 As we have seen, unlike other very frequent cases,165 apart from some details mentioned in the collections of prophetic legends, it is precisely the most rigorous works of tafsīr which contain the greatest variety of traditions. The Qur’ānic data, moreover, by the very fact of mentioning the episode in five different verses and mentioning the snake with three different terms, have been an intense talking point for commentators’ studies. While, as has become evident, collections of prophetic legends and books of universal history, with their different concerns, depict the two episodes with differing emphasis and characterisation, the needs of Islamic exegesis are much more complex. The problem, so keenly felt, of the three names, ḥayya, jānn, thuʻbān, was the reason for the careful lexicographic research which is the first aspect of the exegesis of the relevant verses. The consequent definitions of thuʻbān as a huge serpent and of jānn as a snake with very rapid movements, and the various attempts to explain the meaning of their use, have then made the inclusion of all other legends possible. All these traditions, despite the doubts of some commentators inclined more towards the theological discussion of miracles and to the significance of the transformation of the staff into a snake, represent the predominant aspect, alongside the rhetorical discussion, of the exegesis of the relevant verses, but not only of these. This statement should be extended, more generally, to the exegesis of the narrative parts of the Qur’ān. At least up to the twentieth century, traditions with fantastic details and legends about prophets from the biblical tradition are not only present on a vast scale, but constitute the most important form of approach to the narrative parts of the Qur’ān.

161 Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāya wa al-nihāya, Beirut n.d., I, 248; see also the collection Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ by Ibn Kathīr, ed. by M.A. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz, Beirut 1988, 279 (This is a collection taken directly from the Bidāya . . .; it is certainly the most widely used collection of qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ today.) 162 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I, 468. 163 Al-Ṭabarī, Annales, I, 470–471. 164 Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya, I, 251; Ibn Kathīr, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 284. 165 See D.J. Halperin, and G.D. Newby, “Two castrated bulls: A study in the Haggadah of Kaʻb al-Aḥbār”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102 (1982), 631–638.

195

12 MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION OF THE ISRĀ’ĪLIYYĀT The legends about the staff of Moses transforming into a snake

1 In the following pages we have tried to analyse traditions and interpretations of a prophetic episode in modern Islamic exegesis and in modern collections of stories of the prophets: the staff of Moses transforming into a snake. The analysis is confined to the miracle alone and the questions posed solely by the relevant Qur’ānic verses.1 The period taken into consideration is the twentieth century, starting with the work and thoughts of Muḥammad ʻAbduh (d. 1905), and going up to the more recent works of tafsīr and collections of qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’. The aspect of modern exegesis discussed here, with regard to the narrative parts of the Qur’ān, is the clear rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt,2 the traditions introduced by Jewish and Christian

1 The miracle is mentioned explicitly in reference to two different occasions and in five verses; in the presence of Moses alone: fa-alqāhā fa-idhā hiyya ḥayyatun tasʻā (20: 20); wa-alqi ʻaṣāka fa-lammā ra’āhā tahtazzu ka-annahā jānnun (27:10; 28:31); and in the presence of Pharaoh and his court: fa-alqā ʻaṣāhu fa-idhā hiyya thuʻbānun mubīnun (7:107; 26:32). It is our intention to devote a forthcoming study to the staff becoming a snake in classical exegesis and in the stories of the prophets in relation to Jewish and Christian exegesis [here no. 11]. However, it will be useful to briefly summarise some elements. The use of different names for the snake is explained in two ways: either God calls the serpent thuʻbān for its size, jānn for its swiftness, and ḥayya is the term used to refer to the snake in general; or, it was actually a ḥayya from the beginning, then it gradually changed into a jānn and finally became a gigantic thuʻbān. 2 On the various meanings of the term Isrā’īliyyāt in the classical period, see G. Vajda in the relevant entry in EI2 (= Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden-London 1960f.), IV, 221–222. In this article, the term will be used exclusively with the meaning of traditions introduced by Jewish and Christian converts (cf. Dāʻirat al-maʻārif, XII, Beirut 1977, 337–338). In modern times, the term is also used for political issues concerning the state of Israel, as, for example, in Aḥmad Bahā’ al-Dīn, Isrā’īliyyāt, Cairo 1965 and Idem, Isrā’īliyyāt wa mā baʻd al-ʻudwān, Cairo 1967. On these different meanings, see the careful analysis of ʻĀʻisha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Isrā’iliyyāt fī al-ghazw wa al-fikrā, Cairo 1975.

196

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-15

MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION

converts. The consequences of the rejection of the traditions which can be traced back to Kaʻb al-Aḥbār (d. 687) and Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 728), regarding this miracle, are therefore the central theme of this study.3 Equal space is devoted to other issues discussed by exegetes regarding the Qur’ānic verses related to the episode. The issue of the use of different terms to refer to the snake4 and the more general question of repetitions in the Qur’ān, especially following the publication of the book of Khalafallāh,5 have, in fact, been the subject of heated debate and a considerable number of contributions.

2 A dominant aspect of Muḥammad ʻAbduh’s thinking6 is the clear rejection of the traditions of Jewish and Christian converts mentioned in the tafsīr collections. Through the work of his student, Rashīd Riḍā, through the pages of the journal al-Manār and the volumes of the Qur’ānic commentary of the same name, the radical position of the mentor Muḥammad ʻAbduh unquestionably marked the exegesis of the twentieth century.7 This position is certainly not a new one. The literalism and the profusion of miraculous and fantastic elements in the medieval works of tafsīr and collections of prophetic legends had already met with the distrust of Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Taymiyya.8 The modern opposition, as rightly noted by H.A.R. Gibb,9 is, however, something different, which manages to combine liberal impulses of a different approach to the sacred text with the orthodox demand 3 On Kaʻb and Wahb, see their respective entries in EI and EI 2; Ramzī Na‘nā‘a, al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa atharuhā fī kutub al-tafsīr, Beirut-Damascus 1970, 167–192 and Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Isrā’īliyyāt f ī al-tafsīr wa-al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1986, 76–87. On Wahb, see also R.G. Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, Wiesbaden 1972; and the articles on this book by M.J. Kister, “On the Papyrus of Wahb b. Munabbih”, BSOAS, 37 (1974), 547–571; and N. Abbott, “Wahb b. Munabbih: A review article”, JNES, 36 (1977), 103–112. 4 The serpent is mentioned as thuʻbān (Q. 7:107, 26:32), ḥayya (Q. 20:20), and jānn (Q. 27:10; 28:31), respectively; see note 1. 5 Al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī f ī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1974, first edition 1951. 6 On Muḥammad ʻAbduh, see in particular C.C. Adams, Islam and Modernism in Egypt, New York 1933; R. Wielandt, Offenbarung und Geschichte in Denken moderner Muslime, Wiesbaden 1971, 49–72; J.J.G. Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1974, 18–34. 7 On his outright rejection, see J. Jomier, Le commentaire coranique du Manar, Paris 1974, 28, 61, 99, 112; and G.H.A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, Leiden 1969, 122ff. 8 See Jomier, Le commentaire coranique, 99. On Ibn Kathīr, see H. Laoust, “Ibn Kathīr historien”, Arabica, 2 (1955), 75. Ibn Khaldūn, al-Suyūṭī, and al-Ghazālī have also repeatedly expressed doubts in this regard (see Dāʻirat al-maʻārif, 337–338; Juynboll, Authenticity, 131; and for an Islamic point of view, see al-Dhahabī, al-Isrā’īliyyāt, 96f.; Ramzī Naʻnāʻa, al-Isrā’īliyyāt, 98f.; Maḥmūd Abū Rayya, Aḍwā’ ʻalā al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya, Cairo 1958, 108–139). 9 H.A.R. Gibb, Modern Trends in Islam, Chicago 1947, 73; cf. J.M.S. Baljon, Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation (1880–1960), Leiden 1961, 16; J.J.G. Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1974, 27 n. 34; Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, Ittijāhāt al-tafsīr fi Miṣr fī al-ʻaṣr al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1972, 64.

197

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

for a return to a literal reading of the Qur’ān. Nor should we underestimate the instinct to defend oneself in the face of the Orientalists’ harsh analyses and summary judgments on the Jewish origins of this wealth of traditions, or the clash that pitted Muslim Arabs first against the onslaught of Zionism and then against the state of Israel. The bitter opposition to the Isrā’īliyyāt led Muḥammad ʻAbduh to reject, in particular, all the traditions attributed to Kaʻb al-Aḥbār and Wahb b. Munabbih. These, it is claimed, “converted to Islam in order to undermine it by acting in the same way as those who did not convert”.10 They were veritable infiltrators dedicated to forgery.11 The stories that can be traced back to them are taken directly from the sacred Jewish texts but have nothing to do with the Islamic religion.12 It is precisely in the commentary of a verse on the miracle of Moses13 that we find the strongest condemnation on this regard. After calling the thuʻbān the greatest of serpents, Rashīd Riḍā quotes his mentor directly: The various traditions about the form of this snake and the effect that the snake had on Pharaoh, are but Isrā’īliyyāt with no sound isnād and nothing to confirm them. Among them are the words of Wahb b. Munabbih that the staff, when it became a snake, threw itself at the fleeing people. Twenty-five thousands of them died, killed one by one, and Pharaoh also fled.14 This is an unprecedented condemnation; as well as the widespread tradition of Wahb,15 every description of the snake is rejected. The result is thus not reduced to a sterile denunciation of every word to which the name of Wahb b. Munabbih or Kaʻb al-Aḥbār is affixed, but of all extraneous narrative material used to explain Qur’ānic passages. The beginning of a return to the text of the Qur’ān thus

10 Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, Cairo 1904–32, VIII, 356; cited by Adams, Islam and Modernism, 200–201. 11 See al-Manār, 28 (1924), 649. 12 Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, I, 313 and VI, 332–333. Cf. Rashīd Riḍā, al-Waḥy al muḥammadī, Cairo 1956, 61; Jomier, Le commentaire coranique, 112; Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran, 27. 13 Fa-alqā ʻaṣāhu fa-idhā hiyya thuʻbānun mubīnun (Q. 7:107). 14 Rashīd Riḍā, Tafsīr al-Manār, IX, 44; passage also quoted by Juynboll, Authenticity, 122. 15 Wahb’s tradition is mentioned in the tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān f ī ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, XIII, Cairo 1958, 16–17; al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf wa-al-bayān ʻan tafsīr al-Qur’ān, al-Azhar MS (136) 2056 tafsīr, III, f. 19a; al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, I, Cairo 1887, 292; al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl fī al-tafsīr wa-al-taʻwīl, II, Cairo 1985, 518; al-Rāzī, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr, XIV, Cairo 1938, 195; al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa-asrār al-ta’wīl, II, Cairo 1911, 21; al-Nasaf ī, Tafsīr, II, Cairo 1948, 52; al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān, IX, Cairo 1962, 22; al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl f ī maʻānī al-tanzīl, II, Cairo 1912, 220; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, III, Cairo 1954, 451; al-ʻImādī, Tafsīr Abī al-Suʻūd, II, Cairo 1928, 188; al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, Cairo n.d., I, 411; al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʻānī, IX, Cairo 1934, 19.

198

MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION

goes through a process of cleansing and demythologising that does not stop at the names of the transmitters. The significance of this position is all the more evident when compared to that of the classical authors, at least up to al-Ālūsī. Although indicated as dubious, the disputed traditions are included, along with tales which can be traced back to Ibn ʻAbbās (d. 687)16 and describe the serpent with the same hyperbole and fantastic attributes of the same kind.17

3 If we consider the exegetical literature and the collections of stories of the prophets related to the episode, published up to the 1950s, we find rather diverse approaches. The outright rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt, apart from a few cases,18 is not questioned but is very often reduced to the banning of the names of Wahb and Kaʻb, but not of all fantastic traditions. Two significant examples are the works of Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān and al-Marāghī.19 The subtitle of the twentieth-century editions of the commentary of the former also includes the statement “tafsīr devoid of Isrā’īliyyāt”. As a commentary on Q. 7:107,20 after the usual explanations, Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān quotes the classic ḥadīth by Ibn ʻAbbās: the serpent (thuʻbān) opens its huge mouth and the terrified Pharaoh is seized by attacks of dysentery. Further on,21 the serpent (ḥayya) returns and passes among trees and boulders, devouring and destroying. Al-Marāghī, in his most recent commentary, does not behave very differently: after having completely reproduced the passage relating to Q. 7:107 from the Tafsīr al Manār,22 he does not refrain from quoting, elsewhere, fantastic details without any indication of transmitters: the serpent (ḥayya) launches itself into the sky and then throws itself towards Pharaoh instilling him with terror.23 The tradition of the twenty-five thousand dead, explicitly condemned by Muḥammad ʻAbduh, never recurs except in Ṭanṭāwi Jawharī, but

16 Ibn ʻAbbās is considered the father of Islamic exegesis; his work is known through quotations from later authors. See the contrasting views of I. Goldfeld, “The Tafsīr of ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās”, Der Islam, 58 (1981), 125–135; and C. Gilliot, “Portrait mythique d’Ibn ʻAbbās”, Arabica, 32 (1985), 128–184. 17 The main legends, besides that of Wahb, are those that describe the serpent, as it devours trees and boulders, becoming larger and larger (usually by Ibn ʻAbbās) before Moses. In the presence of the court of Egypt, the serpent has jaws that are eighty arms wide. It hurls itself towards Pharaoh who, out of fear, is struck by forty or four hundred attacks of dysentery in a single day. Numerous other descriptions depict the serpent with a mane, paws and eyes of fire. 18 See Juynboll, Authenticity, 121–130. 19 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-bayān, Cairo 1965–67 (1st ed. 1874); Aḥmad Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1953–66. 20 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-bayān, III, 381–382. 21 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-bayān, VI, 74–75. 22 Al-Marāghī, Tafsīr, IX, 24. Jansen calls him the true heir of Muḥammad ʻAbduh (The Interpretation of the Koran, 76). 23 Al-Marāghī, Tafsīr, XIX, 56; commentary on 26:32.

199

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

with a cautionary note stating: “This is not mentioned in the Qur’ān and does not appear in traditions whose authenticity is recognised”.24 Instead, in the commentary on the other verses relating to the episode, he freely quotes the traditions of the serpent who, with eyes of fire, destroys all and comes up against and terrifies Pharaoh.25 As for the explanation of the presence of three different terms to indicate the serpent in the Qur’ān, exegetes of the first half of the twentieth century either report the classical interpretations26 or completely disregard the issue.27 In the major collections of prophetic stories of the period, such as those of al-Najjār and Jād al-Mawlā, we find significant new developments. The lack of fantastic traditions compared to the Medieval qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ works is immediately apparent. However, the most significant aspect is a certain prominence given to the miracle that occurred in the presence of Moses alone, focusing on the confirmation of his prophetic vocation and his fear in the face of the prodigy.28 Regarding the repetition of the miracle in front of Pharaoh’s court, little is said beyond the quotation of the relevant verse.29 However, there is no shortage of rare examples of another type, the most significant of which is certainly that of the book Mūsā by ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Muṭāwiʻ,30 a lecturer at al-Azhar. Despite the subtitle min qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, the text includes all the recurrent legends about the episode of the staff transforming into a snake. In front of Moses alone, it moves at great speed, destroying stones and trees, with a mouth that is eighty arms wide.31 In front of the court of Egypt we find the typical description of the gigantic, terrifying figure of the serpent (thuʻbān) that caused Pharaoh’s stomach to be disturbed, making him go to the latrine forty times in a single day. After frightening Pharaoh, the serpent threw itself on the people and “many died”.32

24 Ṭanṭāwī Jawharī, al-Jawāhir fi tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1922–35, V, 251. On Ṭanṭāwī Jawharī see J. Jomier, “Le Cheikh Ṭanṭāwi Jawharī (1862–1940) et son commentaire du Coran”, MIDEO, 5 (1958), 115–174; F. De Jong, “The works of Tanṭāwī Jawharī (1862–1940)”, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 34 (1977), 153–161. 25 Tanṭāwī Jawharī, al-Jawāhir, X, 74; XIII, 16. 26 Şiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-bayān, III, 381, VI, 74–75; al-Marāghī, Tafsīr, IX, 24, XVI, 101, XX, 55; Tanṭāwī Jawharī, al-Jawāhir, X, 74; Jalāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-ta’wīl, XIII, Cairo 1958, 4660. 27 Muḥammad Farīd Wajdī, Ṣafwat al-ʻIrfān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1905. 28 Muḥammad Aḥmad Jād al-Mawlā et al., Qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1946 (1st ed. 1934), 117; ʻAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najjār, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʻ, Cairo n.d., 174. 29 Muḥammad Aḥmad Jād al-Mawlā et al., Qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 122; ʻAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najjār, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʻ, 187. 30 Cairo 1947. See also Muḥammad al-Faqī, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʻ, Cairo 1979, 225–230, 238 and 240 where Wahb is quoted. 31 ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Muṭāwiʻ, Mūsā, 44. 32 ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Muṭāwiʻ, Mūsā, 51. It is worth noting, without drawing any hasty conclusions from this, that after such a precise description (eighty arms, the width of the serpent’s jaws and forty, the daily attacks of Pharaoh), the author then becomes vague regarding the precise detail which can be traced back to Wahb (the twenty-five thousand dead).

200

MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION

4 With the beginning of the 1950s, the condemnation of the Isrā’īliyyāt related to this episode was reiterated, again with reference to Kaʻb and Wahb.33 The Qur’ānic commentaries of the period do not contain any particular new elements.34 The explanation given for the use of different terms in reference to the snake is always the traditional one. However, a single book of just over three hundred pages has conditioned the last forty years of studies on the narrative parts of the Qur’ān more than the numerous volumes of new tafsīrs printed non-stop throughout the century with interpretations that are in keeping with tradition. The clamour caused by Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalafallāh’s theories, which later resulted in the book al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī fī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, still conditions any intervention on this subject.35 The controversies surrounding the circulation of his doctoral thesis, which pitted the author and his mentor Amīn al-Khūlī36 on one side and al-Azhar on the other, have already been described in great detail by Jacques Jomier.37 Although it explicitly refers to the principles of exegesis of al-Rāzī and the Tafsīr al-Manār, the approach to the sacred text suggested by Khalafallāh is indeed something new. The marked distinction between the work of Muḥammad ʻAbduh and the traditions collected in the classical commentaries is reiterated and elaborated on. History, it is argued, is not the purpose of the Qur’ānic narratives,38 and those who in the past have tried to explain the text have dwelt too much on a rhetorical and non-artistic understanding of it.39 The consequences of such an assumption are immediately apparent if we consider the few pages dealing with the question of the use of three different names for the snake in the Qur’ān.40 Starting from the general principle that in the reporting of a single fact, the description varies as the purpose and the environment vary, Khalafallāh quotes al-Zamakhsharī. The explanations of the latter are the traditional ones: ḥayya is the general term, jānn indicates the rapidity of movement and 33 Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-Wāḍiḥ, Cairo 1964f., IX, 10. The condemnation is also reiterated in ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd ʻAntar, “Kaʻb al-Aḥbār”, Majallat al-Azhar, 19 (1948), 736. 34 See comments on the relevant verses by Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr; Maḥmūd Muḥammad Hamza, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo n.d.; Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Munʻim al-Jamāl, al-Tafsīr al-farīd li-al-Qur’ān al-majīd, Beirut 1952. 35 On Khalafallāh see J. Jomier, “Quelques positions actuelles de l’exégèse coranique en Egypte”, MIDEO, 1 (1954), 39–72; M. Chartier, “Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalaf Allah et l’exégèse coranique”, IBLA, 29 (1976), 1–31; R. Wielandt, Offenbarung, 134–152. 36 On Amīn al-Khūlī see J. Jomier and P. Caspar, “L’exégèse scientifique du Coran d’après le cheikh Amin al-Khouli”, MIDEO, 4 (1957), 269–280; Jansen, The Interpretation, 65f. 37 J. Jomier, “Quelques position”, 39–44. 38 Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalafallāh, al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī f ī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1965, 1st ed. 1951, 127. 39 Khalafallāh, al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī, 135. Cf. Wielandt, Offenbarung, 139. 40 Also quoted by Jomier, “Quelques positions”, 66; and Chartier, “Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalaf Allah”, 6–7.

201

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

thuʻbān the size. Or, the order of the names indicates the gradual transformation of the snake until it becomes a gigantic thuʻbān with jaws that are forty arms wide.41 Al-Zamakhsharī goes further, argues Khalafallāh, when he points out how it is a thuʻbān in front of Pharaoh and a ḥayya or “like a jānn” with Moses alone, but at this point he stops. He does not go beyond a simple rhetorical consideration (iʻtibār balāghī) which, as such, is superficial because it does not attempt to explore the reasons for the choice. The explanation is given by Khalafallāh. The word jānn appears in the sūrat al-Qaṣaṣ, a sūra dominated by the fear of God, so the word used here must also convey this feeling. The considerable difference between jānn and ḥayya reflects the different situations. The latter term, in fact, is used in the sūrat Ṭāhā for an entirely different purpose, to instil tranquillity, ward off anxiety and gain Moses’ trust. Instead, the staff becomes a thuʻbān mubīn in response to Pharaoh’s insolent demands for clear proof.42 There is no doubt, then, Khalafallāh concludes, that the Qur’ān yuṣawwiru al-taṣwīr al-adabī wa-lā al-taṣwīr al-taʻlīmī al-ta’rīkhī.43 The danger of such an interpretation was immediately apparent: the formal inimitability (iʻjāz) of the Qur’ān was effectively undermined. The defence of Khalafallāh, in the name of literary inimitability, evidently weakened the question of the truth of every narrative and every single word of the sacred text.44 The uproar caused by the controversy has not died down even today, and on the issue of repetitions in the Qur’ān we find an abundance of literature in line with the classical theses that often directly calls into question Khalafallāh. A book by al-Saqqā with the indicative title Iʻjaz al-Qur’ān bears an even more explicit subtitle Radd ʻalā kitāb al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī fī al-Qur’ān al karīm.45 Also al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī fī manṭūqihi wa-mafhūmihi by ʻAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb is clearly a response to Khalafallāh.46 The author wonders whether there really are repetitions in the Qur’ān, whether there is use of fantasy and whether, as ‘some’ say, the narrative parts are literary parts.47 All the answers are in line with tradition, and at the end of a long analysis of the numerous verses dedicated to Moses, the question of the various names of the snake is discussed. The different

41 42 43 44

Khalafallāh, al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī, 138. Al-Zamakhsharīʻs comment is at 20:20. Khalafallāh, al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī, 139–140. Khalafallāh, al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī, 140. See al-Qaṣabī Maḥmūd Zalaṭ, Qaḍāyā al-takrār f ī al-qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, Cairo 1977; M. Ibrāhīm Sharīf, Ittijāhāt al-tajdīd f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān f ī Miṣr, Cairo 1982, 452f.; al-Tuhāmī Naqra, Sīkūlūjiyyat al-qiṣṣa f ī al-Qur’ān, Tunis n.d., 111–155; ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Tabbāra, Maʻa al-anbiyā’ fi al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Beirut n.d., 26–28; M.I. Ibrāhīm, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ wa-al-rusul, Cairo 1977, 12–13; Jārallāh al-Khaṭīb, Qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Riyadh 1973, 49f., 62f.; ʻAbd al-Ghānī al-Rājiḥī, “al-Imām Muḥammad ʻAbduh . . . wa qiṣṣat Ādam”, Majallat al Azhar, 43 (1972), 946–947; Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Ghumrāwī, “Min iʻgāz al Qur’ān al-ta’rīkhī: an lam tudhkar Isrā’īl f ī al-Qur’ān”, Majallat al-Azhar, 39 (1967), 508–514. 45 Cairo 1976. Also al-Tuhāmī Naqra directly attacks Khalafallāh (Sīkūlūjiyyat al-qiṣṣa, 147–149). 46 Cairo 1964. 47 ʻAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī f ī manṭūqihi wa-mafhūmihi, Beirut 1975, 42–52.

202

MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION

terms jānn and ḥayya, al-Khatīb argues, complement each other and are both realistic descriptions of what the staff turned into. It was a ḥayya because of its size and a jānn because of its movement, while thuʻbān brings the two terms together, describing both the swiftness and the size of the body.48 Nothing new is said, then: the inimitability of the sacred text also lies in its rhetorical ability to always add something when the subject is repeated.49

5 All the publications that follow Khalafallāh, up to the present day, are heavily conditioned by the unanimous condemnation of his theories. His indebtedness to the Tafsīr al-Manār and Muḥammad ʻAbduh, which are quoted again and again, is evident. It is sufficient to observe the episode under consideration. We have already described the clear stance of Muḥammad ʻAbduh against the Isrā’īliyyāt but in a demythologising function. This attitude, taken to extremes by Khalafallāh when faced with the ambiguity of the three different names of the snake, inevitably leads to the rejection of any simple and classical Haggadic interpretation. The result can be unquestionably, as highlighted by the opposers, the collapse of the dogma of iʻjāz. The practical consequences in modern tafsīr, though not always homogeneous, are nevertheless different from the characteristics analysed during the first half of the twentieth century. Apart from a single exception,50 not only has the tradition of Wahb definitively disappeared, but also the interpretation of the three different names as descriptions of three different states of the transforming snake is avoided. It is a thuʻbān for its size, a jānn for its swiftness and ḥayya is the general term.51 In other cases, the question is either completely ignored52 or gives way to the denunciation, through prophetic miracle, of magic.53 An even more extreme position is adopted, in this regard, by Sayyid Quṭb’s tafsīr, who dismisses the

48 al-Khaṭīb, al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, 52. 49 Al-Khaṭīb directly quotes al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān f ī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān, III, Cairo 1958, 26. Already, however, we find the same considerations in al-Ṭūsī (Tafsīr al-tibyān, VII, Najaf 1963, 17) and al-Ṭabarsī (Majmaʻ al-bayān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, IV, Cairo n.d., 351). 50 Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Munʻim Khafājī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, IX, Cairo n.d., 24, after the usual explanations of the three different names, mentions the tradition of the twenty-five thousand dead without the name of Wahb. A brief mention of the giant jaws is also found in al-Khaṭīb, al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, 450. 51 Al-Khaṭīb, al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, X, 216, 342; AA.VV., al-Tafsīr al-wasīṭ, Cairo 1973f., XXXII, 1014–1015, XXXVIII, 1656, XXXIX, 1767; al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, al-Mīzān f ī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1970–74, VIII, 213, XV, 343 4, XVI, 33; al-Sayyid Ṭanṭāwī, Tafsīr sūrat Ṭāḥā, Cairo 1985, 24–25; Saʻīd Ḥawwī, al-Asās f ī al-tafsīr, Cairo-Beirut, VII, Cairo 1985, 3356. 52 Maḥmūd Shaltūt, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Karīm, Cairo 1960f. 53 Muḥammad al-Bahī, Tafsīr al-Aʻrāf, Cairo 1980, 85–86 and Tafsīr Ṭāhā, Cairo 1977, 10–11. This point had already been underlined by Abul Kalam Azad (The Tarjumān al-Qur’ān, II, Engl. transl. London 1967, 470).

203

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

question by stating that “zoologists distinguish between thuʻbān and ḥayya, but instead it is the same thing”.54 The commentary of ‘Ā’isha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān (Bint al-Shāṭi’) would certainly have been particularly relevant, if she had addressed one of the verses related to the episode in his two volumes of exegesis. Her clear rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt, expressed repeatedly,55 is related to Muḥammad ʻAbduh’s theories of investigating the Qur’ān through the Qur’ān itself and nothing else. It is precisely the opposition to the traditions of converted Jews that becomes particularly heated from the 1960s onwards with specific interventions.56 The episode of the staff transforming into a snake becomes clear proof of the falseness of the traditions attributed to Wahb and, consequently, Kaʻb.57 The consequences of this radical attitude, if extended across the board, are easy to imagine. And this is what Abū Shuhba did.58 Scrolling through the index of his book in which he denounces the Isrā’īliyyāt regarding the meeting of Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, Yūsuf, Dhū al-Qarnayn, the Creation etc., one notices the incredible number of traditions that have been set aside. Unfortunately, the author did not deal with the figure of Moses, except for one other episode, and we do not know his position regarding the episode analysed here. The consequences of this climate are even more evident in the collections of prophetic stories and the qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān. If we make an exception for the widespread collections reconstructed by Ibn Kathīr,59 very few details are accepted and included. The thuʻbān is indeed the great serpent, but the only further information given is Pharaoh’s generic fear.60 Traditional interpretations of the use of three different names are always present.61 Much of the more recent literature of this type, however, shows a further hardening towards any attempts at Haggadic interpretation. Thus we find collections that are nothing more than a series of Qur’ānic verses lined up, with a few words to bind everything together into 54 Sayyid Quṭb, Fī ẓilāl al-Qur’ān, II, Beirut 1985, 1347. 55 Al-Isrā’īliyyāt f ī al-ghazw, and in al-Tafsīr al-bayānī, Cairo 1962, 12 (see in this regard I. Boullata, “Modern Qur’ān exegesis: A study of Bint al-Shāṭiʻs Method”, Muslim World, 64, 1974, 103–113). 56 Naʻnāʻa, al-Isrā’īliyyāt; Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Isrā’īliyyāt; Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa al-mufassirūn, I, Cairo 1961, 165–201; Abū Rayya, Aḍwa’ ‘alā al-sunna, 120–121; A.J. al-ʻImarī, Dirāsāt f ī al-tafsīr al-mawḍūʻī li-al-qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, Cairo 1986, 23f. 57 Al-Dhahabī (al-Tafsīr, 161–162) quotes from the Tafsīr al-Manār and Naʻnāʻa (al-Isrā’īliyyāt, 326–327) rebuked Ibn Kathīr for not condemning the Q. 20:20 traditions. 58 Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Abū Shuhba, al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa-al-mawḍūʻāt f ī kutub al-tafsīr, Cairo 1985 (First edition 1973). 59 Ibn Kathīr, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʻ, ed. ʻAbd al-Wāḥid, II, Cairo 1968, 36; ed. ʻAbd al ʻAzīz, Bayrut 1988, 248. 60 Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib al-Najjār, Taʻrīkh al-anbiyā’ fi ḍawʻ al-Qur’ān al karīm wa-al-sunna al-nabawiyya, Cairo 1979, 194; ʻAbd al-Muʻizz Khaṭṭāb, Maʻa rusul Allāh f ī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, n.p. 1975, 129; Ḥāmid ʻAbd al-Qādir, Muʻ jizāt al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1983, 18. 61 Ḥusayn Muḥammad Makhlūf, Ṣafwat al-bayān li-maʻānī al-Qur’ān, al-Kuwayt 1987, 216; al-Shinqīṭī, Dafʻ īhām al-iḍṭirāb ʻan āyāt al-Kitāb, Cairo n.d., 134.

204

MODERN ISLAMIC EXEGESIS AND THE REJECTION

a comprehensible narrative.62 The result, already foreseen in an earlier period, apart from the complete demythologisation, is the definitive greater prominence given to the episode that took place in the presence of Moses, rather than in front of Pharaoh. Moses throws his staff, which becomes a moving snake that induces terror. God thus reassures His prophet, and the miracle is the definitive proof of his prophetic mission.63 On the other hand, the reference to the challenge between Moses and Pharaoh is very cold and dispassionate, and often only the relevant verse is mentioned without any additional comment.64 From this point of view, the consideration of the two episodes, compared to the classical collections of stories of the prophets, has been definitively overturned.

6 In conclusion, it is only in the last few decades that a complete reconsideration of all traditions and interpretations of the sacred text has taken place. However, the fact that this is not the result of a new approach, as far as the subject under consideration is concerned, is equally evident. The furious opposition to Khalafallāh’s modern and controversial attempt has generated nothing but an indiscriminate sifting of ancient tafsīr texts and an emblematic silence on contentious issues such as that of the three names of the snake. The characteristic elements of this inflexibility, as previously mentioned, are heavily influenced by the increasingly bitter opposition to the Isrā’īliyyāt. The impact of the political situation created by the founding of Israel and the vicissitudes that followed may be the most obvious cause.65 The actual outcome has already been described: the progressive rejection not only of traditions which can be traced back to converted Jews, but of any Haggadic interpretation of the narrative parts of the Qur’ān that does not start from the Qur’ān itself.

62 Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, al-Anbiyā’ f ī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1970 (on this episode, 205–207); Ḥāmid ʻAbd al-Qādir, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʻ, Cairo 1975; ʻAbd al Ḥalīm Maḥmūd, Fī riḥāb al-kawn, Cairo 1973. 63 Sayyid Aḥmad Muḥsib, Ahdāf al-qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, Cairo n.d., 284–285; Maḥmūd Zahrān, Qaṣaṣ min al-Qur’ān, Cairo n.d., 110; ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Tabbāra, Maʻa al-anbiyā’, 225; al-Bayānūnī, al-Īmān bi-al-rusul, Aleppo 1974, 20–22; Aḥmad Bahja, Anbiyā’ Allāh, Cairo 1978, 198–199; Tharwat Abāẓa, al-Sard al-qaṣaṣī f ī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo n.d., 65. 64 ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Tabbāra, Maʻa al-anbiyā’, 230; Maḥmūd Zahrān, 114; al-Najjār, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 194; Aḥmad Bahja, Anbiyāʻ Allāh, 206. 65 Especially after 1967, opposition became bitter and absolute. See the relative annals of the Majallat al-Azhar and also Aḥmad Mursī, al-Fūlklūr wa-al-Isrā’īliyyāt, “al-Turāth al-shaʻbī”, 8/4 (1977), 21–46.

205

13 AT C O C K - C R O W Some Muslim traditions about the rooster

Legends and traditions concerning animals can be found in every genre of Muslim literature. An analysis of this material provides an interesting insight into the study of Muslim tradition and shows the change and development of older beliefs. A number of comprehensive studies dealing with traditions about animals from various angles have been published recently.1 An animal which features in many traditions, but which has never been studied, is the rooster (dīk). In the following pages an attempt to analyse this material is made, pointing out the features of the rooster’s image in Muslim literature. The most striking feature to be noted in the material concerning the rooster (dīk) is the particularly high favour in which this animal is held in Muslim traditions. Suyūṭī (d 911/1505) dedicated a booklet to the rooster,2 collecting many traditions about it, but he was not the first to do this. It is Suyūṭī himself, who, at the beginning of his book, says that Abū Nuʻaym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 430/1038) had already written something (juz’) dealing with the rooster.3 Suyūṭī’s book is a collection of traditions, a sort of book of faḍā’il, about the virtues of the rooster. Another very positive description of the rooster can be found in the famous Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān by Damīrī (d. 808/1405).4 Some relevant ḥadīths attributed to the Prophet account for the positive evaluations of the rooster. In one of these traditions, mentioned by various sources with only slight differences, the Prophet stated:

1 A general introduction to the argument can be found in H. Eisenstein, Einführung in die arabische Zoographie, Berlin 1990; to his rich bibliography the following recent contributions must be added: M. Cook, “Early Islamic dietary law”, JSAI, 7 (1986), 217–277; G. Canova, “Serpenti e scorpioni nelle tradizioni arabo-islamiche”, Quaderni di studi arabi, 8 (1990), 191–207, 9 (1991), 219–244; R. Tottoli, “Il bastone di Mosé mutato in serpente nell’esegesi e nelle tradizioni islamiche”, AIUON, 51 (1991), 225–243, 383–394; M.J. Kister, “The locust’s wing: some notes on locusts in the ḥadīth”, Le Muséon, 106 (1993), 347–359. 2 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk fī faḍl al-dīk, Cairo 1322 H. I would like to thank Prof. J. Sadan who gave me a copy of this book. 3 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 2. 4 Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1978, I, 489–497, see the English translation by A.S.G. Jayakar, Ad-Damīrī’s Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān (A Zoological Lexicon), I, London 1906, 800–811.

206

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-16

AT C O C K - C R O W

When you hear the crowing of the rooster, ask God for His favour, because it sees an angel, but if you hear the braying of a donkey, seek refuge in God from the devil, because the donkey sees a devil.5 In particular the rooster’s crow is held in high esteem in Muslim traditions, because it wakes people for the morning prayer. Another ḥadīth says that the companion Zayd b. Khālid heard the Prophet say: “Don’t insult the rooster, because it summons us to the prayer” (i.e. when it wakes people in the morning).6 In other versions of this tradition, the Prophet said to a man who cursed a rooster that was crowing: “Don’t curse it, because it summons us to prayer”.7 This tradition states very clearly that the rooster is a praiseworthy animal because when it crows it wakes people and invites them to the ritual prayer. The main virtue of the rooster and its most important skill is its ability to know the time during the night.8 The 5 Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, ed. by S.M. al-Laḥḥām, Beirut 1989, VII, 130; Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992, IV, 439 no. 3303; Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991, IV, 2092 no. 2729; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991, VI, 234 no. 10780; Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, Cairo 1975, V, 508 no. 3459; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by A.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991, III, 175 no. 8070, III, 206 no. 8275; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, ed. by H.S. Asad, XI, 128 no. 6254; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1988, IV, 329 no. 5102; Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, I, 267 no. 1037; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, Beirut 1987, II, 175 no. 1001; Ibn Ḥumayd, al-Muntakhab min musnad ʻAbd b. Ḥumayd, Cairo 1988, 117 no. 278, 423 no. 1448; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1979, XII, 333 no. 35272, XV, 421 no. 41662; Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 4; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 490; Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr, Beirut n.d., I, 107 no. 695; Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Manār al-munīf fī ’l-ṣaḥīḥ wa-l-ḍaʻīf, Cairo n.d., 56 no. 79. Ibn Qayyim says that this is the only reliable ḥadīth concerning the rooster, 130 no. 294. 6 Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VIII, 159 no. 21737; Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, IV, 329 no. 5101; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, VI, 234 no. 10781; Ṭabarānī, al-Mu‘jam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d., V, 240–241 nos. 5209–5212; Ibn Balabān, al-Iḥsān, VII, 493 no. 5701; Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, ed. by A.M. Hārūn, Cairo 1965–9, II, 258; Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 3; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 333 no. 35271, XII, 335 no. 35286–35287; ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī, Cairo 1972, XII, 346; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 491; see also Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, VI, Tehran 1379 H., 550. The connection between the crowing of the rooster and the awaking in the morning is well attested in every culture and not only in Muslim traditions, see also in pre-Islamic poetry, for instance, Labīd in Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 298; and see also, for further evidence, Sammlungen alter arabischer Dichter. I: Elaçma’ijjat, ed. by W Ahlwardt, Berlin 1902, 47; al-Aʻshā, in R. Geyer, Gedichte von Abū Baṣīr Maimūn Ibn Qais al-Aʻšā nebst Sammlungen von Slacken anderer Dichter des gleichen Beinamens und von al-Musaiyab ibn ʻAlas, London 1928, 36 (V 15), 51 (VIII, 11); Musayyab b. ʻAlas in R. Geyer, Gedichte, 351 (VIII, 2), 358 (XIX, 2). I would like to thank Prof. A. Arazi and the Concordance of the Arabic Poetry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where I was able to find the verses of pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry concerning the rooster (dīk) during my year in Jerusalem (1993–94); this stay was made possible by a scholarship granted by the Lady Davis Fellowship Trust. 7 ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, Beirut 1983, XI, 263 no. 20498; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, VI, 59 no. 17031; Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, V, 240 no. 5208; Nasā’ī, Kitāb al-sunan al-kubrā, VI, 234 no. 10782; Ḥumaydī, al-Musnad, Beirut 1988, II, 356 no. 814; see also al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 336 no. 35289. 8 Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 489.

207

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

rooster is one of the animals the Prophet forbade the castration of.9 Its crowing is one of the sounds God likes most, along with the voice of the reciter of the Qur’ān and the voice of the man asking God’s forgiveness a little before daybreak.10 Other ḥadīths point to the connection between the crowing of the rooster and the ritual prayer; Muḥammad said that “the crowing of the rooster and the flapping of its wings are its rukūʻ and sujūd”.11 Some traditions even attempt to explain what it says when it crows. One such tradition says that the crowing of the rooster is one of the three voices that please God most.12 And the Prophet, in answer to a question by ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, said that “when the rooster crows it says ʻBear God in mind, o negligent people!’ ”13 Muḥammad’s fondness for roosters, and in particular his preference for the white rooster, is also attested in his words stating that “the white rooster is my friend, my friend’s friend and my enemy’s enemy”.14 In other versions Muḥammad said that “the white rooster is my friend and the friend of every believer”15 or that “the white rooster16 is my beloved and the beloved of my beloved Gabriel . . . ”.17 The virtues of the white rooster are made evident in another ḥadīth, where the Prophet says that “who takes a white rooster at home, Satan will not be able to come near it, nor sorcerer”.18 The white rooster should not be killed, and the believer should keep a white rooster because it preserves one from devils and envious sorcerers.19 Shi’i traditions seem to underline the virtues of the white rooster, describing its beauty and the beauty of its crowing,20 but this cannot be considered

9 Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 492. 10 Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf f ī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 560. 11 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 7,10; Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 550; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 332 no. 35270; about this motif in Jewish traditions, see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia 1909–38, I, 44, V, 62. 12 Daylamī, al-Firdaws, II, 101 no. 2538; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 335 no. 35285; Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 12; and see above, no. 10. 13 Baghdādī, al-Ikhtiṣāṣ, Tehran 1971, 136; Tha‘labī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1954, 295, 413–414. 14 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 6, 7, 8,10; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 333 nos. 35273– 35276, XII, 334 no. 35279, XII, 336 no. 35288. 15 Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, VI, 550; see also Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 259; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 490. 16 Arabic text: al-dīk al-abyaḍ al-afraq, the meaning of al-afraq is not clear; see for its different meanings when relating to the rooster, E.W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, LondonEdinburgh 1863–93, 2386b; see, about the meaning of dreams involving a rooster abyaḍ afraq, Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 497. 17 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 7; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 333 no. 35277, cf. Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 490. 18 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 9; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 332 no. 35268; see also Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 207. About the motif in Jewish Traditions, see Ginzberg, The Legends, I, 152, V, 173. 19 See the traditions in Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 10–11; and also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 560 against killing white roosters. 20 Kulaynī, al-Kāf ī, VI, 549–550.

208

AT C O C K - C R O W

an exclusively Shi’i motif because traditions about the white rooster, as we have seen, are also well attested in Sunni books.21 Some ḥadīth works also include prodigious stories which were not included in the major collections because they were probably considered unreliable. It is said that the Prophet told his companions: God has a white rooster with two wings embellished with chrysolite, sapphire and pearls; one of its wings is in the east while the other one is in the west, its head is under His Throne while its claws are in the air.22 Different versions of this tradition add further particulars and relate that this rooster is in the lower earth, and that while crowing, it says: “Be praised the Most Holy, our Lord, there is no god than Him”;23 it is actually an angel, says another version, looking like a rooster, with his feet on the earth and his head under the Throne.24 Another well attested image connected to the rooster in Muslim tradition relates to its pecking.25 The caliph ‘Umar b al-Khaṭṭāb, in a report, tells his dream of being pecked three times by a rooster. He sees a premonition of his death in this dream.26 A ḥadīth which describes Muḥammad’s companions, says that they used to follow

21 See, concerning the white rooster, Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, all the previous citations; and Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 490; and see Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs f ī aḥwāl anfas naf īs, Beirut n.d., I, 56: it is said that the rooster who praises God, in the tradition mentioned above, is white. 22 The original source of this ḥadīth is Ṭabarānī; Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 4; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 490–491; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 334 no. 35281, see also nos. 35280, 35282–35284. See also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 560. 23 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 4, and see other versions of the tradition and of the words in 5–6, and Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻ jam al-kabīr, VIII, 81 no. 7391; Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 259; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 491; al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl, XII, 334 nos. 35280f.; Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak ʻalā l-ṣaḥīḥayn, Beirut 1990, IV, 330 no. 7813; Maqdisī, al-Bad’ wa-l-ta’rīkh, ed. by C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, II, 11. See, concerning a prodigious rooster found in a treasure in Egypt, Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʻ al-ghurar, I, ed. by B. Radtke, Cairo 1982, 224; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fi ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, I, ed. by I. ‘Abbās, Beirut 1985, 123; Masʻūdi, Murūj al-dhahab, ed. by C. Pellat, Beirut 1966–79, II, 96, no. 823. 24 Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk, 5; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, 1, 491; Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 67; Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 560. 25 See, for instance, Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, III, 185 no. 8112, IV, 493 no. 13590. 26 Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, I, 396 no. 567; Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, I, 165–166 no. 184; Ḥākim, al-Mustadrak, III, 97 no. 4511; Ḥumaydī, al-Musnad, I, 17 no. 29; Tayālisī, Musnad, Hyderabad 1321 H., 11. But ‘Umar dreams of one or two pecks; see the two different versions in Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf, VII, 241; Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 492–493; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, I, 68 no. 186, I, 109 no. 341, and also I, 43 no. 39, and I, 114 no 362, where ʻUmar adds that it was a red rooster; al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, Beirut 1988, I, 444 no. 314. Concerning the dream of the rooster as a premonition of death, see Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, 496–497.

209

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

him one behind the other, “like the comb of a rooster”.27 Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/868) says that the companions used to take roosters with them on their travels.28 The Qur’ān never mentions the rooster, nor do the exegetical traditions that explain the text refer to material concerning the rooster. The only place in the Qur’ān commentaries where there is mention of the rooster is in the well-known episode of the proof of the power of God given to Abraham, when four dismembered birds are restored to life. Exegetes usually point out that one of these birds is a rooster (the others being a raven, a dove and a peacock).29 In Muslim literature many traditions dealing with the virtues of the rooster and, in particular, with its crowing, can be found. According to Ibn ʻAbbās (d. 68/687), it is the animal that Iblīs hates most, and keeping a rooster at home will prevent the devil from entering.30 In a tradition relating a dialogue between a poet and a jinn, it is said that the jinn asked him not to mention the rooster in his poems, because this makes jinn fly away.31 Kisā’ī (V–VII/XI–XIII sec.) mentions another tradition from Kaʻb al-Aḥbār (d. 32/652) when the rooster crows at sunrise, a voice from Heaven cries out and says: where are believers and people making rukūʻ and sujūd?32 Another tradition maintains that roosters are the most numerous birds in Heaven.33 Makḥūl (d. 112/730 ca.) said that he had four favourite things in this world, one of which is the rooster, that wakes him for morning prayer. When he was asked what he knew about the rooster, Makḥūl answered that it is the one that most regularly utters the name of God, and that it is the strongest protection against the devil.34 In other reports, the rooster has five features: its beautiful voice, its ability to awake before daybreak, its sense of honour, its generosity and its frequent sexual activity.35 Further evidence of the virtues of the rooster is to be found in various traditions relating to the figures of prophets. Alongside brief mentions of the rooster, there are legendary reports in which the rooster speaks in a truly Muslim way. God sent a white rooster to the first man, Adam, to prevent him from forgetting the times

27 Aḥmad b Ḥanbal, Musnad, IV, 433 no. 13269. 28 Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 259. 29 See Qur. 2:260; see Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1968, III, 51; Samarqandī, Tafsīr al-musammā baḥr al-ʻulūm, Beirut 1993, I, 228; Muqātil, Tafsīr, Cairo 1979f., I, 219; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, Beirut n.d., I, 471; for further references see R. Tottoli, Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭaraf ī, tesi di Dottorato, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli 1996, 403. 30 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–23, 66. 31 From the Ta’rīkh al-mustabṣir of Ibn al-Mujāwir in G. Rex Smith, “Magic, jinn and the supernatural in medieval Yemen, examples from ibn al-Muǧāwir’s 7th/13th century guide”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 13 (1995), 12. 32 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 67. 33 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 67. 34 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 67. 35 Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ al-Bukhārī, Cairo 1959, VII, 162; ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī, XII, 347.

210

AT C O C K - C R O W

of prayer.36 This cock was able to hear the tasbīḥ of the angels in Heaven and was Adam’s first domesticated animal. When this rooster heard the tasbīḥ in the sky, he started glorifying God on earth and Adam followed him.37 Other versions of this legend say that the rooster used to flap its wings when the time of prayer was coming, and it used to call Adam.38 All the roosters on earth stem from this first rooster God gave Adam, and its invocation is the reason why it is the animal Iblīs hates most.39 The rooster and the dove were Adam’s favourite birds.40 There are also a number of other traditions about the rooster connected to the prophet Noah. Kisā’ī tells that every living thing cried out to God in complaint about the disbelief of Noah’s people. Noah called on his Lord to destroy them, and “Kaʻb al-Aḥbār said that neither would the roosters crow for them nor would the doves brood on their eggs”.41 It was a rooster which each day signalled dawn to the people in the Ark with its crowing.42 Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 110/728 ca.) relates the words of this rooster: “Praise be to the Blessed King. Praise be to Him who has taken night away and brought the dawn of a new creation. To prayer, O Noah! God will have mercy upon you”.43 Its calling to prayer is not the only virtue of the rooster: people can distinguish between day and night through its crowing. There is also material relating to the rooster and the Ark. God inspired Noah to shape the stern and stem of the Ark as the head and the tail of a rooster.44 Moreover the rooster took under its protection the raven, i.e. the animal that failed to inform Noah that the deluge had come to an end and that the flood waters were receding.45 Al-Hayṣam (d. 467/1075) tells the full account of what happened. Noah charged the raven with the above mentioned duty, but added that he wanted a guarantor (kafīl) for it, the rooster guaranteed for the raven. When the raven failed to inform Noah, the rooster was punished by God; this is why he cannot fly like other birds

36 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 66f., Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 55–56; Ibn Iyās, Kitāb badā’iʻ al-zuhūr fī waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, n.p. n.d., 45; Ḥijrī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Alexandria Baladiyya B1249, 58b. 37 Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 55. 38 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 66; Nuwayrī, Nihayāt al-ʻarab f ī funūn al-adab, Cairo 1923 f., XIII, 29. 39 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 66. The tradition tells that the peacock is the favourite bird of Iblīs; concerning the preference of the rooster over the peacock, see Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, II, 243f. 40 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 67. 41 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 91; translated by W.M. Thackston Jr., The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, Boston 1978, 97. 42 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 96; Anonimous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Ms or. quart. 1171, 159b. 43 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 96, transl. by W.M. Thackston Jr., The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 102–103; see also, about the rooster in the Ark, ‘Abd al-Mālik b. Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-ta’rīkh, ed. by J. Aguadè, Madrid 1991, 40 no. 78. 44 Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Oxford, Bodleian Lib., Ms Huntingdon 388, 100b; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 58; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 68; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 55; Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, fac-sim. ed., Amman n.d., XVII, 654. But see Ps-Masʻūdī, Akhbār al-zamān, Cairo 1938, 60: in the shape of a dajjāja. 45 Ps-Aṣmaʻī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Kitāb al-shāmil), London, British Library, Ms or. 1493, 12a.

211

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

and why he dwells indoors.46 The meaning of this tradition is clear – it tries to explain why such a virtuous bird cannot fly. Also when the prophet Ṣāliḥ summoned his people to believe in God, their roosters escaped from them and rushed to the mosque, praying to God and inviting the People to believe in Ṣāliḥ.47 The cock is also mentioned in the traditions relating the destruction of Lot’s people; when Gabriel punished them and cast destruction amongst them, the world was laid waste: the crowing of their roosters was heard by the angels in the sky.48 Abraham knew that Lot’s people had been destroyed by the crowing of their roosters.49 One tradition maintains that there was a rooster under Nimrod’s throne attesting the truth of Abraham’s faith. The words of the rooster are as follows: You are wrong, O Nimrod, and Abraham told the truth; God is the one that created me and created you, God is the one that shaped me and shaped you, He is my Lord, He created Abraham and then He sent him as a prophet: woe unto you if you don’t believe him and if you don’t deem his prophecy credible.50 The Prophet Joseph also had a prodigious rooster that was five hundred years old. This rooster stopped crowing when the tyrant was born and during his reign and started crowing again when the prophet was born.51 We find another prodigious rooster at the time of the prophet Moses. When he was five years old, a rooster flapped its wings and crowed. Moses said to this rooster: “You are right”, and Pharaoh asked him what the rooster said. Moses answered, “It says it is glorifying the Lord with its words ‘Praise be to Him who has graced a shepherd’s son with long kingship!’ ” Then Pharaoh asked again, “What do you mean? The rooster said these words?! It is you who are saying them”. Moses said to the rooster,: “Say what you said before in an intelligible tongue”, and the rooster answered: “On condition that if they kill me you will ask your Lord to restore me to life”. Moses promised it, and the rooster repeated intelligibly what it had said

46 Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Princeton, Ms Yahuda 49, 28a–28b. 47 An., Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cambridge, University Library, Ms Add. 3258, 10b. 48 Other traditions tell that the crowing of the roosters and the barking of the dogs are heard by the angels; all the sources describing the destruction of Lot’s people mention this detail. See, for instance, Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 223; Kisā’ī Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 149; Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 91; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut 1990, I, 43, 182. But see Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, XIV, 639–640, where the crowing of dajjāj is mentioned. 49 Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns al-jalīl bi-ta’rīkh al-Quds wa-l-Khalīl, Amman 1973, I, 36; see also Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍā’il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-l-Khalīl wa-faḍā’il al-Shām, ed O. Livne-Kafri, Shfaram 1995, 333. 50 Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Ms or. quart. 1171, 176b; see also Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 134; this rooster is white, see the version in Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Cambridge Add. 3258, 55b. 51 Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 141–142; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 141.

212

AT C O C K - C R O W

to Pharaoh, who gave order to kill it. God restored its spirit.52 The message of this tradition is clear: whoever kills a rooster is, like Pharaoh, an unbeliever. When the Israelites left Egypt, Pharaoh said he was going to follow them only at cock-crow, but that night the roosters did not crow.53 In another tradition the king Saul drew an evil omen from the crowing of a rooster and ordered that not a single rooster in the town be left alive. So, when he said he wanted to be awakened at cock-crow, he was answered: “Have you left any rooster whose crowing can be heard? Have you left any scholar alive in the land?”54 The blame is upon who kills roosters, because killing roosters is like killing scholars. Solomon, along with Abraham and Moses, was also able to talk with another prodigious rooster. The rooster was the last of the birds to go to the prophet Solomon and it stopped in front of him, flapping its wings and screaming in a high voice. It said to Solomon: “Oh God’s prophet, I was with your father Adam and I used to incite him at time of prayer, I was with Noah in the Ark and with your father Abraham whom I used to hear saying: ‘O God, Master of the supreme authority you give sovereignty to whoever you like, you take sovereignty away from whoever you like’”. After these and other words, Solomon ordered the rooster to stay with him always.55 Finally, the well known episode from Christian tradition, when Jesus foretold that he would be betrayed before the crowing of the rooster, is also widespread in Muslim traditions.56 Some episodes of Muslim history are connected to the rooster, where there are some further indications of the elevated position this animal had in the eyes of the Muslim. We know from Damīrī that a certain Sahl b. Hārūn b. Rāhawayh refused to eat a rooster that was offered to him without the head; he started singing the praises of the different parts of the head of the rooster and refused to eat this

52 Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 204, transl. by W.M. Thackston Jr., The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 218. 53 Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam f ī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-l-umam, Beirut 1992, I, 348, Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān, 412; Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 142; An., Siyar al-anbiyā’, London, Ms British Library or. 1510, 108a. 54 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901, I, 557, transl. by W.M. Brinner, The History of al-Tabari III: The Children of Israel, Albany 1991, 138. See also Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān, 475. 55 Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-ʻarab, XIV, 86. This tradition is also in some manuscripts of Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, see J. Pauliny, “Kisā’ī’s Werk Kitāb Qisas al-anbiyā’”, Graecolatina et Orientalia, 2 (1970), 271; see An., Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Gotha, Ms A1743, 47a–48a; see also the words of the rooster in Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs, I, 241. 56 See, for instance, Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, 1, 736; Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 144b; Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 401; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr I, 875.

213

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

rooster without the head.57 The peck of a rooster caused the death of the son of ʻUthmān, ʻAbdallāh: he was hit in his eyes.58 Historical records also tell that the caliph al-Muhtadī (d. 256/870) decided to kill all the fighting roosters.59 The information is worth noting if the decision of a caliph to kill some roosters is included in historical reports, there can be no doubt that this animal was held in high esteem. Perhaps some other people, who found its crowing before day-break disturbing, did not share in this conviction, but religious circles supported the role of the rooster by spreading traditions about its virtues and connecting its crowing with the call to prayer.

57 Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, I, 492. 58 Masʻūdi, Murūj al-dhahab, III, 76 no. 1577; see also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 560, where another story is related. 59 Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, V, 98 no. 3130.

214

14 “I JUST CAME TO VISIT SOME R E L AT I V E S ” . T H E W O L F I N J O S E P H ’ S S T O RY 1 The Qur’ān mentions the wolf (dhi’b) in the Surah of Joseph in three different passages, first in Jacob’s words, in a premonition of what will happen, and then in those of Joseph’s brothers to justify their return without Joseph to Jacob. In the first case, Jacob is reluctant to let Joseph go with his brothers, and says in annoyance, “It grieves me that you should go with him, and I fear the wolf may eat him” (Q. 12:13). The brothers respond to his words by also mentioning the wolf, “If the wolf eats him (. . .) then are we losers!” (Q. 12:14). Upon their return without Joseph, the brothers justify themselves by telling their father, “We left Joseph behind with our things; so the wolf ate him” (Q. 12:17). In the Qur’ān, the wolf is simply evoked by father and sons, without ever appearing. It can well be said to be an ‘absent’ protagonist, and in the Qur’ān it is such from its first mention by Jacob until the brothers’ defiant statement. The tone of these verses therefore seems to swing between the paradoxical and the ironic. Jacob forms his hypothesis, which is hurtful to his sons, and their reply increases the tension, revealing ill-concealed sarcasm. It was that very hypothetical wolf to have devoured their brother Joseph.

2 A number of studies have proposed various hypotheses on the origin or intertextual relationships of the wolf motif in the story of Joseph, looking primarily at the Jewish and Christian literary tradition. Recently, Meir Bar-Ilan dealt with this issue by looking for possible parallels in the Jewish tradition, starting from the Bible, which speaks of a generic “evil beast” (Gen. 37:33), and hypothesised a poem in Aramaic at the origin of the identification of the wolf as it appears in the Qur’ān, and in later literary elaborations (both Islamic and Rabbinic) that describe it speaking and interacting with Jacob.1 The question of origin is certainly 1 M. Bar-Ilan, “Sūrat Yūsuf (XII) and some of its possible Jewish sources”, in Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception, ed. by A. Houtman, T. Kadari, M. Porthuis and V. Tohar, Leiden-Boston 2016, 189–210, 201–204 regarding the wolf.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-17

215

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

important and Bar-Ilan’s hypothesis plausible, although not supported by any textual evidence. The absence of sources proving a Jewish origin is also underlined by Joseph Witztum’s slightly earlier and more convincing contribution on the origin of the Qur’ānic wolf. Taking up H. Speyer’s hypothesis,2 Witztum speculates that the Qur’ānic identification with a wolf might be related to the fact that Benjamin is compared to a wolf in Gen. 49:27. He states, however, that it is in the Christian reworkings that wolves appear and, above all, Joseph is described as a lamb. Consequently, Witztum considers it more plausible that the origin of the wolf is to be found in Christian literature than in Rabbinic literature.3

3 The character of the wolf in the Sura of Joseph has undergone a development in Islamic literature that is emblematic of a certain direction of the Qur’ānic narratives. The hypothetical Qur’ānic wolf, alluded to and imagined rather than a concrete presence in the dialogue between Jacob and his sons, becomes a real character in post-Qur’ānic reworkings. In some of these narrations, the wolf speaks to Jacob and Joseph’s brothers, interacts as an equal and, as we shall see, the tone is not even submissive. In these reworkings, the wolf proves to be anything but a realistic wolf, losing all its animal connotations and becoming, as is often the case with animals in prophetic stories, a talking animal and a humanised vehicle of religious significance, having lost the characteristics attributed to the animal in the Arab and Muslim tradition. This narrative evolution and the consequent new reality of the hypothetical Qur’ānic wolf is not fully developed until the late medieval elaborations. The wolf is not mentioned by all exegetes and yet, narratives and traditions of this kind must have been circulating since the first centuries of Islam. The Bad’ wa al-ta’rīkh, attributed to Ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (f l. c. 4th/10th), testifies to this as early as the 4th/10th century and confirms that the storytellers (quṣṣāṣ) had wondrous stories regarding the name and colour of the wolf that supposedly ate Joseph (al-dhi’b al-ākil li-Yūsuf ), as they did for another Qur’ānic animal, the dog in the story of The Companions the Cave (Ahl al-kahf, Q. 18).4 It is not explicitly stated in this 2 H. Speyer, Die Biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, Gräfenhainichen 1931, 196. 3 J. Witztum, “Joseph among the Ishmaelites. Q 12 in Light of Syriac sources”, in New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context 2, ed. by G.S. Reynolds, London-New York 2011, 425–448, in part. 334. 4 al-Maqdisī, al-Bad’ wa al-Ta’rīkh, ed. by Cl. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, vol. 3, 70. A tradition by Abū Kaʻb al-Qāṣṣ, who, in his storytelling role, reported the name of the wolf from Joseph’s story (named kadhā wa-kadhā, so and so) is already cited in Ibn Qutayba, ʻUyūn al-akhbār, Beirut 1997, vol. 2, 55 and dismissed by Ibn ʻAbd Rabbihi, al-ʻIqd al-farīd, Beirut 1983, vol. 7, 172, as pertaining to the folly of the storytellers; see also al-Dīnawarī, al-Mujālasa wa-jawāhir al-ʻilm, Beirut 1998, vol. 7, 336 no. 3257; Ibn ʻAbd al-Barr, Bahjat al-majālis wa-uns al-mujālis, Damascus 2005, 120; and Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wa al-mudhakkirīn, Beirut 1988, 324 no. 178; al-Suyūṭī, al-Ziyādāt ʻalā al-mawḍūʻāt, al-Riyadh 2012, vol. 2, 784 no. 997. See in part. Ibn al-Jawzī, Akhbār al-ḥamqā

216

“ I J U S T C A M E T O V I S I T S O M E R E L AT I V E S ”

passage that the identification of the wolf and its participation in the form of a real animal confronting Jacob could have seemed excessive to some Muslim authors and exegetes, but the citation of the wolf in relation to details such as its name and colour points in this same direction. Some caution also seems to be shown in the work of al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad (d. 467/1075), where in conclusion to a quite long narrative of the dialogue between Jacob and the wolf, it is stated that in most of the traditions handed down there is no such story of the wolf (laysa fī kathīr min al-riwāyāt ḥadīth al-dhi’b wa Allāh aʻlam).5 In most Qur’ānic commentaries, a wolf does not come into the story. Nevertheless, its mention in the Surah of Joseph already put the early Qur’ān exegetes to the test in various ways, and pushed them to find answers to questions, such as the reason Jacob evoked a precise animal. This is justified in some commentaries as having originated from a dream Jacob himself had, that a wolf attacked Joseph, or from the territory being infested with wolves, or, in other cases, from the explanation that the brothers, due to their actions, are to be considered as wolves.6 Exegetic and, indirectly, theological requirements also emerge in other cases, regarding the brothers’ mention of the wolf. Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī (d. 373/983) goes a bit too far to mitigate the embarrassment of the brothers’ lie when he states that the brothers did not even know that wolves mauled people, and it was only because of Jacob’s statement that they invented this justification.7 Also mentioned by all the commentaries is the explanation of Jacob’s suspicion (alluded to in Q. 12:17) and the definition of “false blood” (Q. 12:18), which is substantiated by an ironic comment when Jacob comments to his sons that it was a gentle wolf, since it mauled Joseph without tearing or piercing his shirt. It is on this last, interpretative reading that the story of the wolf talking to Jacob is added, in some cases, although only in a minority of the commentaries, and with some uncertainty enforced by expressions of doubt.

wa al-mughaffalīn, Beirut 1990, 142, adding from al-Jāḥīẓ who quoted from Abū ʻAlqama al-Qāṣṣ, that the wolf’s name was Ḥajūn; this story also returns in the Shiʻi literature, see Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Šarḥ Nahj al-balāgha, Cairo 1959, 161. 5 al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān al-Karīm, Amman 2006, 238 (= Ps.-al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh al-anbiyā’, Beirut 2004, 111). The expressions of doubt is about whether the comment had been a later editorial addition, so not by the author himself; cf. al-Samʻānī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Riyadh 1997, vol. 3, 16: in addition Allāh aʻlam; see also al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl fī tasfīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1997, vol. 4, 223. The problem, however, was definitely not the possibility that God had made a wolf talk. Divine omnipotence is beyond question and, furthermore, the Islamic tradition knows many other stories about prodigies involving animals. A tradition that can be traced back to Muḥammad and that also has his imprimatur, and tells of a talking wolf, is in al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 2001, vol. 5, 12 no. 3690; among the many other sources that cite versions of the story, see for example Ibn al-Qaysarānī, Dhakhīrat al-ḥuffāẓ, Riyadh 1994, vol. 3, 1735–1736 and al-Ājurrī, al-Sharīʻa, Riyadh 1999, vol. 4, 1861 no. 1329, to which the people add: “A wolf that talks?” 6 See al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa al-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992, vol. 3, 13. 7 al-Samarqandī, Abū al-Layth, Baḥr al-ʻulūm, Beirut 1990, vol. 2, 183.

217

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

4 However, in the literature on the prophets (qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’) and in the rich and manifold production of late medieval and modern versions of the story of Joseph, the dialogue between Jacob and the wolf is reported with recurring details and other ones that vary depending on the source. The numerous elaborations that this prophetic story has undergone have generated the spread of long biographies of Joseph that make use of Qur’ānic and other more ancient details to elaborate a full-blown novel of Joseph, enriched with elements that combine narrative needs with principles of dissemination of established religious precepts and visions. Precisely in our case, the extreme originality of a wolf arguing with Jacob is a clear sign of an effort to bring in the most debated themes of the Surah of Joseph: the affliction of the father, his relationship with his sons’ lies, the status of the sons themselves and the behaviour that would be required of prophets and men in all these conditions. The combination of themes that these narratives have transmitted to us about the dialogue between Jacob and the wolf is therefore a combination of different motives and impulses in different directions, in productive relation to the irony and paradox that already transpire from the Qur’ānic text. The hypothesised and then invented wolf thus becomes, in Islamic traditions and literature, a wolf that participates, in a different but real way, in the story of Joseph.8 In these later traditions and literature, everything depends on the words of a wolf, captured by the brothers and brought before Jacob, to exonerate himself, an act that is used to convey, as previously mentioned, a series of principles as well as the prodigy of an animal speaking before a prophet like Jacob. As always, in these cases, a prodigious event answers some questions and raises others, thus creating a series of possibilities, although reduced overall, which, through the confrontation between Jacob and the wolf, aim to provide answers in various directions, hovering on the border between the brothers’ duplicity and Jacob’s ambiguity. The narrative cue to the introduction of the wolf, or rather a wolf, into Jacob’s presence is that Jacob cannot believe what his sons have said, partly because the tunic they bring him is not even clumsily torn and Jacob cannot resist making the joke, already reported in the Qur’ānic commentaries, that Joseph must have met a very skilled and careful wolf, if he mauled him leaving his tunic intact.9 Jacob does not know that the blood artfully smeared onto the tunic by the brothers comes

8 See M.S. Bernstein, Stories of Joseph: Narrative Migrations between Judaism and Islam, Detroit 2006, 189, in which he cites al-Thaʻlabī and the fact that it was Jacob himself, with his unrealistic hypothesis, to generate the excuse about the wolf invented by his sons. 9 See al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 237; al-Rabghūzī, Stories of the Prophets, 2nd ed., ed. by H.E. Boeschoten and J. O’Kane, Leiden-Boston 2015, vol. 1, 130/vol. 2, 150: Jacob exclaims, “What a gentle wolf. He devoured Joseph without tearing his tunic”; Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, vol. 1, 344; B. Hickman, The Story of Joseph: A Fourteenth-Century Turkish Morality Play by Sheyyad Hamza, Syracuse 2014, 41: Jacob doesn’t believe in the tunic that they bring him and asks that they bring him the wolf, threatening to curse them if they don’t; Bernstein, Stories of Joseph, 63: Jacob confirms that they have lied to him, otherwise they would have killed the wolf.

218

“ I J U S T C A M E T O V I S I T S O M E R E L AT I V E S ”

from a wolf they killed before returning the tunic to their father, who realises, however, that it is not his son’s blood.10 Faced with such a situation, where the Qur’ān is silent, the later traditions that deal with the incident untangle the beginning of the story that leads to the confrontation between a wolf and Jacob in different ways. In some cases, it is Jacob himself who orders his sons to bring him this wolf that they accuse of having devoured Joseph.11 Or, in most traditions, it is the brothers, who, on their own initiative upon seeing their doubting father, go into the wilderness and capture the first wolf that passes, immobilise it and bring it before Jacob.12 As already mentioned, the brothers smear his mouth with blood, in some cases tie him up, and bring him before Jacob. Having been approached in this way, Jacob asks God’s permission to make the wolf speak so that he can question him, and indeed, Jacob directly invokes God or performs other rituals to this end.13 All this, in different ways, is meant to underline the prophet’s deference to God’s

10 F. Croisier, L’histoire de Joseph d’après un manuscrit oriental, Genève 1989, 119: the brothers kill a wolf to smear its blood on Joseph’s tunic, 122: Jacob sees that the blood is not that of his son; O. Schlechta-Wssehrd, Jussuf und Suleicha, romantisches Heldengedicht von Firdussi, Wien 1889, 70–71: Jacob knows that his sons have told lies. 11 al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–1923, 159–160 (Eng. transl. The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, ed. by W.M. Thackston Jr., Boston 1978, 171); Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya ilā bulūgh al-nihāya f ī ʻilm maʻānī al-Qur’ān wa-tafsīrihi, Sharja 2008, vol. 5, 4, no. 3522: the brothers go in a wādī, find a wolf and capture it; J. Spiro, L’Histoire de Joseph selon la tradition musulmane, Lausanne 1906, 39: Jacob says, “If you are telling the truth, then where is this wolf?” So he orders them to get the wolf and bring it to him; W.W. Johnson, The Poema de Jose: A Transcription and Comparison of the Extant Manuscripts, University, Mississippi 1974, 37. 12 al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1954, 115–116 (Eng. transl. by ʻArā’is al-Majālis f ī Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā’ or “Lives of the Prophets” as Recounted by Abū Isḥāq Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Thaʻlabī, ed. W.M. Brinner, Leiden 2002, 193); al-Bukhārī, Abū Naṣr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, Tehran 2007, vol. 2, 573: The wolf has a bleeding mouth, and they take him because of that; al-Rabghūzī, Stories of the Prophets, vol. 1, 130, vol. 2, 151: the brothers decide to take the wolf to Jacob when they see that he is invoking God and even loses his senses as many as 360 times; they are worried that he intends to kill himself; R.Y. Ebied, and M.J.L. Young, eds., The Story of Joseph in Arabic Verses: The Leeds Manuscripts 347, Leiden 1975, ar. 13, transl. 35–36: it is Simeon that says that they should get a wolf, then the brothers take him to Jacob, who tells them to untie him and let him come to him; al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, Cairo 1950, 34: the brothers bring a wolf saying that it is the one that is tormenting their f locks and is definitely the one that ate Joseph. 13 Al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1964, vol. 9, 151; Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya, vol. 5, 4, no. 3523; Ps.-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr wa-waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, Cairo n.d., 94: Jacob asks God to make the wolf talk; al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34; V.B. Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden: An Anthology of Judeo-Persian Literature, New Haven 2000, 48–50; Ebied and Young, The Story of Joseph, ar. 13, transl. 35–36: various invocations by Jacob; J. Meyouhas, Bible Tales in Arab Folklore, London 1928, 72: invokes and calls, “wolf, wolf!”; Croisier, L’histoire de Joseph, 123: Jacob performs ablutions and asks God to make the wolf talk.

219

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

omnipotence and his prudence in his request, despite his great affliction that transpires in many cases and is explicitly stated. According to some versions of the story, God grants him this prerogative directly, even without an explicit request.14 The wolf reacts cautiously, but firmly, and immediately emerges as a positive figure who, above all, knows how to behave in the presence of Jacob, who is, after all, a prophet. The wolf either bows down in deference to Jacob,15 or simply lowers his head, expressing the same attitude.16 In other cases, he bows his head in submission and kisses Jacob’s feet before Jacob gives him permission to stand up and, consequently, to speak.17 The religious principle, that none of this reflects a fully religious attitude when applied to men (prostration, for example), emerges instead in those traditions that express different attitudes on the part of the wolf. The wolf faces the confrontation with Jacob with his head held high, using another image to portray his dignity and strength.18 Lastly, there are numerous attestations showing the wolf even at ease, sitting on his tail and formally answering Jacob’s questions.19 Apart from his posture and general approach to Jacob, the first words the wolf utters generally reflect his attitude as a devout creature who knows the rules of behaviour. Thus, the wolf invokes God and also Jacob’s name as a prophet and messenger, immediately revealing himself to be well-versed from a religious point of view.20 According to some versions, the wolf also pronounces Lā ilāh illā Allāh and invokes God at the beginning of his first reply to Jacob,21 or he exonerates himself without further ado immediately after swearing on Jacob’s white hair.22 The wolf not only knows how to speak, but does so impeccably. The eloquence of the wolf immediately silences the brothers, who make excuses when he addresses

14 Hickman, The Story of Joseph, 42: Jacob asks the wolf directly, who, thanks to God, can talk; Klenk, La leyenda de Yūsuf, 15: the wolf talks thanks to God’s power; F. Beake, and R. Bukharaev, The Story of Joseph: A Translation of Kol Gali’s Kyssa’i Yusuf, with Commentaries, Kent 2010, 31: God instructs the wolf to tell Jacob everything. 15 Hickman, The Story of Joseph, 42: the wolf then responds that it’s not possible to tell lies to the prophets and therefore he can tell him nothing but the truth; Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, Rawzat-us-Safā ovvero il giardino della purezza, transl. it., Milan 1996, 78: the wolf kisses the ground and exclaims: prophet of God! 16 Al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 115–116 (Eng. transl. ʻArā’is al-Majālis, 193). 17 Ebied and Young, The Story of Joseph, ar. 13, trad. 35–36: the wolf approaches with humility and with his head bowed and kisses Jacob’s feet. 18 Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39: the wolf approaches Jacob, walking like a man. 19 Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya, vol. 5, 4, no. 3523; al-Saf īrī, Shams al-Dīn, al-Majālis al-waʻẓiyya f ī sharḥ aḥādīth khayr al-barriyya (ṣ.) min ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām al-Bukhārī, Beirut 2004, vol. 1, 476: the wolf is brought to him and, as he sits on his tail, Jacob talks to him close up, cheek to cheek. 20 Ps.-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 94; Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya, vol. 5, 4 no. 3523. 21 al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab f ī funūn al-adab, Cairo 2003, vol. 12, 133; Klenk, La leyenda de Yūsuf, 15. 22 al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 115–116 (Eng. transl. ʻArā’is al-Majālis, 193); Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39.

220

“ I J U S T C A M E T O V I S I T S O M E R E L AT I V E S ”

them to reject the accusation.23 If, in some cases, the wolf is not always eager to exonerate himself, the reason is still virtuous. When Jacob asks him why he devoured Joseph and one of Joseph’s brothers, or the brothers in general, press him further, the wolf adopts a prolonged and dramatic silence before exclaiming that he does not speak to sinners.24 The central point that recurs in almost all versions of this story, however, concerns the wolf’s firm response in rejecting each accusation. He does so with such certainty that even leads him to express astonishment at the fact that Jacob asked him such questions, as he knows full well, as a prophet, why he could never have mauled Joseph. As if reproaching him, in fact, the wolf replies to Jacob that the flesh of prophets is forbidden to wild beasts; meat and blood of prophets are forbidden (ḥarām) to animals.25 The same principle takes on a less peremptory tone when the wolf himself declares that he is careful not to devour the son of a prophet or messenger of God.26 Overdoing it a little, some versions have the wolf reply that the question is useless and out of place, since he cannot even approach the prophets’ flocks, let alone eat one of their children.27 Or the wolf even replies, in a less solemn and simpler way, that he has not seen Joseph at all and that that region

23 Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 78; cf. also al-Samʻānī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 3, 16: the wolf responds, “I haven’t even seen your son’s face”; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, vol. 9, 151: the wolf says that he doesn’t know him at all and has not done anything to him. 24 al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 237–238; Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574. 25 al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws, vol. 4, 172 no. 6536; al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 115–116 (Eng. transl. ʻArā’is al-Majālis, 193); al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 238; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, vol. 9, 151; al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 159–160 (Eng. transl. The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 171); al-Rabghūzī, Stories of the Prophets, vol. 1, 130/vol. 2, 151; al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34; al-Minhājī, Itḥāf al-akhiṣṣā bi-faḍā’il al-masjid al-aqsā, Cairo 1984, vol. 2, 89; Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya, vol. 5, 4, no. 3523; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 50; Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 77: the flesh of prophets and saints; Beake and Nukharaev, The Story of Joseph, 31: the wolf argues that wolves can’t eat prophets and says to Jacob that he will round up all the wolves in the region, if he wants, but they will respond the same way, because wolves are not permitted to eat prophets; Bernstein, Stories of Joseph, 63: Jacob asks him why on earth he would eat Joseph, but the wolf answers him back that he didn’t devour anyone’s son and that the sons of prophets are in fact guilty of the whole thing; Ebied and Young, The Story of Joseph, ar. 13, transl. 35–36: the wolf confirms his innocence and the fact that animals are forbidden from eating the flesh of prophets; Meyouhas, Bible Tales, 72: “my jaws have not devoured your son, you are a prophet and your flesh and that of your sons is forbidden to us”; Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39; M. McGaha, Coat of Many Cultures: The Story of Joseph in Spanish Literature, Philadelphia-Jerusalem 1997, 239; Johnson, The Poema de Jose, 38: God does not permit the killing of a prophet; Ibn Shahrāshūb, Manāqib Āl Abī Ṭālib, Najaf 1956, vol. 3 41; cf. al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab, vol. 12, 133: “How could I eat the flesh of the prophets?” 26 J. Knappert, Islamic Legends: Histories of the Heroes, Saints and Prophets of Islam, Leiden 1985, vol. 1, 90: the wolf exclaims, “I would never eat the son of a messenger of God!” 27 Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574; Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 77; al-Khūshābī, ʻArā’is al-Qur’ān wa-nafā’is al-Furqān wa-farādīs al-jinān, Beirut 2007, vol. 1, 378; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 50–51.

221

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

is not his hunting ground.28 As a consequence, in certain cases, the wolf adds that he is the victim of slander, a very serious accusation strongly condemned by religious tradition.29 Nevertheless, when Jacob asks him the reason for the blood on his mouth, the wolf withdraws so as not to accuse anyone and thus be liable in turn to be suspected of slander (by Joseph’s brothers).30 Not all wolves in the countless literary versions stop here and settle with establishing this principle. The eloquent wolf of the Rawḍat al-Ṣafā by Mīrkhwānd (Mirkhond) (d. 903/1498), in his rhetorical impetus and perhaps betrayed by his own faculties, cannot resist adding another surprise effect. When Jacob invites the wolf to stay with him, the wolf refuses and, indeed, upon taking his leave, summons all the wolves to exonerate themselves. The wolves answer the call and come to the house of the prophet Jacob, by the thousands, to protest their innocence, and Jacob accepts their justifications.31 In certain cases, this reason is added to the affirmation of the prohibition of the prophets’ flesh, in order to offer Jacob further proof of the innocence of the wolves.32 Something else seems to disturb the wolf, however, and it is Jacob’s own choice to put such a question to him. Not only should Jacob already know the answer, but, moreover, he should know that an animal is not a suitable interlocutor for a prophet. When Jacob asks if he has seen his son, the wolf replies that he is a prophet and he could ask God directly, since all secrets are revealed to prophets.33 Furthermore, why does he not ask Gabriel directly and not a wolf?34 Again, it is to Gabriel that the wolf sends Jacob to discover where Joseph could be, after the wolf himself has revealed that he is alive, making known something that Jacob himself should know.35 This knowledge is even more evident when Jacob asks the wolf if he has any news of his son Joseph, and the wolf says that he knows what has happened and he knows what has caused him this affliction, but says that he does not want to pass for one who spreads slander and, after all, God knows what must not be revealed.36

28 Beake and Nukharaev, The Story of Joseph, 31: the wolf says that he has never seen Joseph and that that region is not his hunting ground. 29 Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39. 30 al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 238. 31 Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 78. 32 See al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 160 (Eng. transl. The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 171). 33 Beake and Nukharaev, The Story of Joseph, 31: he tells him to ask God; Meyouhas, Bible Tales, 72: “Why are you asking me this? You’re a prophet of God and before you all secrets are revealed”. Jacob was silent at these words, and he set him free. Ps.-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 94: when Jacob asks him if he knows anything, he responds that he doesn’t know the secret. 34 Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574. 35 al-Khūshābī, ʻArā’is al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, 378: Jacob answers the wolf that Gabriel will not tell him, and the wolf, almost angered, responds, “If he won’t tell you why should I know what to tell you?” 36 al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34: the wolf says that he knows something about his son, but he doesn’t want to be considered a slanderer; cf. Croisier, L’histoire de Joseph, 123–124; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 51: Jacob apologises to the wolf.

222

“ I J U S T C A M E T O V I S I T S O M E R E L AT I V E S ”

At the end of the dialogue, which sees the wolf pressing Jacob more than the other way round and is played out on the assertion of incontrovertible religious principles, the wolf adds some further explanation. As if the religious reasons that exonerate him were not enough, the wolf also has some more concrete arguments to convince even those who know nothing about theological principles. The wolf, in response to Jacob’s precise and even malicious question, says that he is not a wolf from that area and that he was captured by chance by Joseph’s brothers. He is a foreign wolf from a distant land,37 originally from Egypt,38 who left Egypt to visit his brother in Sanaa39 – a brother who, according to other versions, is no less distant than in the Maghreb, in the West.40 Different traditions indulge in further variants on the destination of this captured wolf: Azerbaijan is mentioned in a tradition reported in the Firdaws of al-Daylamī (d. 509/1115),41 or, still departing from Egypt, Jurjān42 or Khorasan.43 At this point the wolf explains the reason for his travels far from home and the reason leads back to the story of Joseph. The wolf came all the way there to look for one of his cubs, a son, who has disappeared or been missing for days,44 or one of his brothers, who has disappeared or been missing for years from his land.45

37 al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 159–160 (Eng. transl. The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 171); Ebied and Young, The Story of Joseph, ar. 13, transl. 35–36; Weil, The Bible, the Koran, 78. 38 al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 115–116 (Eng. transl. ʻArā’is al-Majālis, 193); Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, vol. 9, 151; Ps.-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 94; al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34; Klenk, La leyenda de Yūsuf, 15; Meyouhas, Bible Tales, 72; Knappert, Islamic Legends, vol. 1, 90: “I am a foreigner, I am Egyptian and have only arrived here today”; Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39; McGaha, Coat of Many Cultures, 173; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 52: from Syria. 39 Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 78: the wolf kisses the ground and exclaims, “prophet of Allah!” 40 al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 238. 41 al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986, 172 no. 6536. 42 al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 4, 513. 43 al-Minhājī, Itḥāf al-akhiṣṣā, vol. 2, 89. 44 al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 159–160 (Eng. transl. The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, 171); al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab, vol. 12, 133; al-Rabghūzī, Stories of the Prophets, vol. 1, 131/vol. 2, 152: he hasn’t eaten for three days because of this; Beake and Nukharaev, The Story of Joseph, 31: the wolf states that he has just come from Egypt, where he had a son whom he has lost, and he hasn’t eaten for 17 days because of the pain; for this reason he is weak and Jacob’s sons captured him and put blood on his mouth; Jacob concludes that it is true and feeds him and then frees him; G. Weil, The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud; or, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, London 1846, 78; Johnson, The Poema de Jose, 38: a son that he lost; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 53: a son missing for ten days. 45 Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574; al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, vol. 9, 151; Ps.-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr, 94; Ebied and Young, The Story of Joseph in Arabic Verses, ar. 13, transl. 35–36: the wolf says, I am a foreign wolf and I haven’t rested from my travels for a year of looking for my brother, who I lost. I look for him in the deserts and on the plains not knowing if he is alive and hoping to find him still living. Meyouhas, Bible Tales, 72: a younger brother who is lost; Croisier, L’histoire de Joseph, 123; al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34.

223

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

This is evidently, as some versions make clear, a wolf who is far from his family and can understand Jacob’s concern.46 But the understanding of Jacob’s distress is not the primary function of this motive, which is instead emphasised, in some cases, by Jacob’s own words: even such a wolf is more compassionate than his sons towards their brother Joseph.47 The wolf, sometimes, in a somewhat blatant manner, shows himself not only to be theologically well-versed, but also endowed with that piety that distinguishes the pious and merciful. The wolf even says so explicitly in some traditions, in which he says to Jacob, “How could I, who mourn the loss of an animal, cause a prophet to mourn his son?”48 The outcome is, in some ways, paradoxical: the wolf teaches the sons of the prophet, who are therefore potential prophets themselves, a moral lesson.49 Only some versions minimise this aspect, achieving in turn the almost ironic effect of softening the familiar appeal into a generic statement by the wolf, that he is there only to visit some unspecified relatives. The pedantic theological expert wolf, or the desperate wolf who has lost a son or a brother, now becomes the creature who has travelled to visit his relatives for a few days,50 or has left Egypt to travel to Sanaa from the Maghreb to stay with a brother in a picture of trivial normality that serves only to accentuate the absurdity of the situation.51 In other cases, there is a reason and it is not the heartbreak of someone’s disappearance, but the lighter duty of visiting a relative. The wolf justifies himself by saying that he is passing through because he is going to visit his sick brother and immediately, resuming his pedantic tone, adds the religious merits of visiting the sick.52 And he does so even more consciously, when he tells Jacob what he has heard from other prophets, passed on by his wolf ancestors, namely that visiting family and relatives is a religious merit that brings countless benefits.53 46 Hickman, The Story of Joseph, 42: he states that he is also separated from his family and understands his worry. 47 al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 238; Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574; Moreen, In Queen Esther’s Garden, 53: Jacob cries and underlines that the wolf has the same destiny as him and sympathises with him. 48 Weil, The Bible, the Koran, 78; united in their loss, each intercedes on behalf of the missing relative of the other, see al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, 34. 49 The issue is obviously resolved quite radically by those who firmly state that Joseph’s brothers were not prophets: see al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, Beirut 1983, vol. 12, 291. 50 al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 116 (Eng. transl. ʻArā’is al-Majālis, 193): Jacob asks him what brought him to the territory of Canaan, and he responds, “For family ties (qirāba) with the wolves that I am visiting and with whom I have a relationship”; al-Samʻānī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, vol. 3, 16. 51 See Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, 78; al-Hayṣam, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 238; Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39: the wolf states that he has family or a son that he has come to visit. 52 al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws, vol. 4, 172 no. 6536. 53 al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr, vol. 4, 513; al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, vol. 108 112: the wolf in this story is, in fact, one of the animals in Paradise. Cf. in part. al-Minhājī, Itḥāf al-akhiṣṣā, vol. 2, 89: the wolf even confirms this by offering a kind of isnād going back as far as his father,

224

“ I J U S T C A M E T O V I S I T S O M E R E L AT I V E S ”

Faced with these articulate answers from the wolf, Jacob, exhausted by his failure and convinced or even overcome by the wolf’s argument, lets him go. As he leaves, in some cases, the wolf does not miss the opportunity to reiterate his point by showing how scandalised he is at what has happened to him in the land of prophets and with the sons of a prophet like Jacob.54 This reasoning regarding Jacob’s behaviour yet again leaves a sense of embarrassment. Even though the origin of all this is a lie, his sons retort by complaining that he believes one wolf and not ten of his sons.55 In the end, the wolf is let loose by Jacob and, according to some versions, rejects Jacob’s invitation to stay longer. He has to leave and does so without ever returning after this appearance, which is in essence brief but significant in many respects. This episode, as a whole, highlights a series of problematic issues and variations in tone in the story of Joseph, which derive from the Qur’ān, but are further enriched in later literary reworkings.

5 If some conclusive considerations can be drawn from this review of sources, they can only start from the complex literary contents and tones and the possibility of various readings that the version of Joseph’s story already presents in the Qur’ān. Paradox and irony are both present and are possible interpretations of the episode: the mention of the wolf seems to be one of the emblematic elements in this. Jacob’s hypothesis of fearing the wolf for his son’s fate, from being surreal and paradoxical, becomes a sort of further ferocity in the brothers towards their father who, in addition to the disappearance of his son, must even endure the fact that this may have happened precisely in the circumstances and ways he had feared. In the Islamic stories about the prophets, the wolf is as real as it is unreal. It is, in fact, a wolf in flesh and bones, brought in as the realisation of Jacob and the brothers’ hypothesis, but at the same time as a living demonstration of the absurdity of the hypothesis and the accusation. In this absurdity another paradox is played out in the behaviour of the wolf, who turns out to be the true protagonist and the absolute winner in the confrontation with Jacob and the brothers, proving, after having lost all its animal connotations, to be more versed in religious precepts and good behaviour in all its expressions and to be more deserving than everyone in terms of pity. The two poles of concretisation and paradox are further combined when the story turns grotesque, with the wolf’s justification, when he assumes the tones of an ordinary creature, that he is there by chance and is just passing through, on his his grandfather, and previous prophets: to those who visit a brother in God, God has ascribed a thousand benefits and cancels a million bad deeds; Jacob commands his sons to write these words passed down by the wolf (uktubū hādhā al-ḥadīth ʻan al-dhi’b) using the word ḥadīth. 54 Spiro, L’histoire de Joseph, 39: upon leaving, the wolf adds, “I am leaving immediately and I will not stay even a minute in a country where prophets falsely accuse animals”; Cf. also al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ, vol. 9, 151; McGaha, Coat of Many Cultures, 173. 55 Bukhārī, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, vol. 2, 574; al-Khūshābī, ʻArā’is al-Qur’ān, vol. 1, 378.

225

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

way to visit one of the family members he usually visits.56 A wolf can talk, and can therefore even save its own skin by saying, ‘I just came to visit some relatives’. The evidence of the story of the wolf and Jacob is a small but very illustrative example of the power of Qur’ānic content as a source of inspiration for narratives in every direction and, at the same time, a collector of religious imagery. This imagery finds expression in interpretative and narrative lines that move in the most varied directions, attempting to resolve contradictions and problems, but in turn generating others, contributing, as a whole, to the outlining of a literary discourse that does not lack originality and aspects of great interest with regard to understanding the function and role of animals in Arab and Islamic literary history.

56 See P.F. Kennedy, Recognition in the Arabic Narrative Tradition. Discovery, Deliverance, and Delusion, Edinburgh 2016, 295: “Interestingly, the story of the wolf, which speaks eloquently of its innocence before Jacob, serves the dynamic of disclosure: it conjures a magical conversation in which felonious, surreal and, in the end, sublime truth comes to light”. P.F. Kennedy further hinted, elsewhere (P.F. Kennedy, ed., On Fiction and Adab in Medieval Arabic Literature, Wiesbaden 2005, xiii), at the motive of the wolf, when, while describing the literature on the prophets, he stated that “no anecdote, or group of anecdotes, illustrates this fascinating wrapping of truth and fiction into each other better than (. . .) the cycle of Joseph in the Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’. It is characterised by an almost Borgesian absurdity” – a statement followed by the citation of the words attributed to the wolf in relation to Jacob.

226

15 ORIGIN AND USE OF THE TERM ISRĀ’ĪLIYYĀT IN M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E * 1 Isrā’īliyyāt is a term that is often mentioned in works and studies connected to Qur’ān narratives and to the Muslim stories of the prophets. In modern Muslim exegesis Isrā’īliyyāt indicates traditions and materials dealing with cosmogony, patriarchs and prophets, which are reputedly of Jewish origin and thus alien to Islam.1 This term is also used in modern Western studies to indicate material related to biblical subjects, which was collected in medieval tafsīr and ta’rīkh collections. Norman Calder made some interesting though brief remarks in a recent study criticizing the use of Isrā’īliyyāt in modern works.2 Calder emphasised that in Muslim literature the term bears no relation to the actual origin of the material, but is instead a sign of theological opposition to the material and “is mostly used carelessly and polemically”. Calder rightly suggests that the term Isrā’īliyyāt entered into exegetical terminology with Ibn Kathīr to designate material collected by previous generations of Qur’ānic exegetes to which objections were raised. Andrew Rippin also dealt with this matter in the same book,3 pointing out that the rise and employment of this term Isrā’īliyyāt deserves a special study; my impression is that it comes into wide circulation as a pejorative term in tafsīr – material which is not to be accepted as valid in interpretation – only with Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr.

I would like to thank Dr. C. Adang, Prof. M. Lecker and Prof. A. Rippin for their comments on a first draft of this article. 1 See, for a complete definition, I. Goldziher, “Melanges judeo-arabes-IX”, REJ, 44 (1902), 64–66. 2 “Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr: problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with reference to the story of Abraham”, in Approaches to the Qur’ān, ed. by G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, London 1993, 137 no. 37, where he criticizes Newby (see n. 27); see also J. Fück, “Zum Problem der koranischen Erzählungen”, OLZ, 37 (1934), 75. 3 “Interpreting the Bible through the Qur’ān”, in Approaches to the Qur’ān, 258 n. 20. *

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080756-18

227

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

In spite of its wide use in the literature of this century, the history of the term Isrā’īliyyāt has never been dealt with till now. This study will discuss the various instances where Isrā’īliyyāt is mentioned in Arabic and Muslim literature, firstly looking at the earliest uses, then describing its meaning in the works of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathīr, and lastly, briefly reviewing the use of the term after Ibn Kathīr and in modern literature. It is important to note that this article aims to examine the occurrences of the term Isrā’īliyyāt but not the origin of the actual material, which is much older and thus predates the first mentions of the term here discussed.4

2 The first evidence of the term Isrā’īliyyāt can be found in a passage in Masʻūdī’s (d. 345/956) Murūj al-dhahab which had already been noted by I. Goldziher.5 While dealing with reports concerning the creation of the horse, Masʻūdī states that he is relying upon funūn al-akhbār min akhbār banī Isrā’īl wa ghayri-hā (Stories from the stories of the Israelites and others). He further explains that scholars have differing opinions concerning this kind of tradition. These differing opinions concern whether or not this material should be accepted.6 Masʻūdī states that all these traditions should be treated with caution as they are of uncertain veracity, and that hiya lāḥiqa bi-l-Isrā’īliyyāt min al-akhbār wa-l-akhbār ʻan ʻajā’ib al-biḥār (these traditions are connected to the stories called al-Isrā’īliyyāt and to the stories about the wonders of the seas).7 In this passage Masʻūdī makes use of the term Isrā’īliyyāt to indicate a kind of extravagant tradition, which the materials he cites belong to, i.e. a kind of tradition connected to the Banū Isrā’īl, and belonging to historical reports (akhbār).8 It is also clear that Isrā’īliyyāt is not the title of a particular book from which Masʻūdī takes the tradition. It is not one of his sources, and it is not a technical term either, because it cannot be traced beyond this passage. In fact Masʻūdī very often deals

4 The research for this article has taken in consideration many other works dealing with Qur’ānic exegesis, historiography and stories of the prophets apart from those actually mentioned in the article. See the complete list of works in R. Tottoli, “Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭaraf ī”, tesi di dottorato, Napoli 1996, 697–702. Notwithstanding the wide range of sources used, this article should be considered as a preliminary contribution to the history of the term. To complete a full investigation of the term over the centuries, a wider inquiry into the whole body of Arabic and Muslim literature will be necessary. 5 “Mélanges judéo-arabes-IX”, 65. 6 Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʻādin al-jawhar, ed. C. Pellat, Beirut 1966–79, II, 370–372 nos. 1352–1354. 7 Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, II, 372 no. 1354; see Ahmad M.H. Shboul, al-Masʻūdī and His World, London 1979, 97–101, where he deals with biblical traditions and the sources of Masʻūdī’s works. See also T. Khalidi, Islamic Historiography: The Histories of Masʻūdī, Albany 1975, 43, 36 no. 3. 8 See Goldziher, “Melanges judeo-arabes-IX”, 65.

228

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

with this same material in his Murūj al-dhahab, but in this case he does not make use of the term. When he cites his sources concerning biblical history and stories of the prophets – i.e. what is usually called Isrā’īliyyāt – Masʻūdī mentions the “Kutub al-mubtada’ wa l-siyar by Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 110/728 ca.) and others”,9 and states he is referring to “Kutub al-mubtada’ like those by Wahb b. Munabbih and Ibn Isḥāq (d. 151/768)”.10 Moreover, in other passages where Masʻūdī criticizes a tradition which he in any case quotes, he does not mention the term. Thus, for instance, he states that these are stories created by traditionists’ fantasy,11 and he mentions his serious doubts after a tradition dealing with Iram Dhāt al-ʻImād, but without giving a definition of the material that he is quoting.12 But the passage in Masʻūdī’s Murūj al-dhahab, although unique, is very important, because it clearly indicates that the term Isrā’īliyyāt was known in the IV/X sec. and that it was used to refer to a genre of prodigious stories about cosmogony and biblical history of questionable reliability. Further evidence of the use of Isrā’īliyyāt with various peculiarities of meaning can be found in some other sources in the following centuries. The first mention of the term is in the collection of traditions concerning the merits of Jerusalem, Hebron and Syria by Ibn al-Murajjā, written about 430/1040 and recently published.13 Introducing a tradition dealing with Solomon’s offspring, and following the usual list of authorities of the isnād, Ibn al-Murajjā writes these words: ḥaddathūnā fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt ʻan Wahb b. Munabbih (They reported to us in the Isrā’īliyyāt from Wahb b. Munabbih).14 This quotation is somewhat different from that in Masʻūdī’s Murūj al-dhahab, since the term does not suggest a type of material or tradition. Ibn al-Murajjā’s use of the term looks undoubtedly like a direct citation from a book titled Kitāb al-Isrā’īliyyāt, which related to traditions circulating under the name of Wahb b. Munabbih. After Ibn al-Murajjā, Isrā’īliyyāt is quoted by Ghazālī (d. 505/1111), where the term is given as the title of a book. In his main work, the Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Ghazālī introduces some reports without naming transmitter, but instead using the expressions wa yurwā/ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt (it is reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt) or,

9 Murūj al-dhahab, I, 73 no. 126; see also I, 63 no. 104; and cf. I, 12 no. 8. 10 Murūj al-dhahab, II, 292 no. 1204; cf. Maqdisī, Kitāb al-bad’ wa-l-ta’rīkh, ed. by C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919, II, 42, who, citing some very strange traditions, claims that these are the kind of traditions that are contained in the books of Wahb, Kaʻb and Muqātil. 11 Murūj al-dhahab, I, 144 no. 288. 12 Murūj al-dhahab, nos. 1414–1416. Also in the Akhbār al-zamān, wrongly attributed to Masʻūdī, there is an interesting passage quoting the term. While telling Moses’ story and, in particular, when Pharaoh noticed the Israelites’ flight, Masʻūdī says that Pharaoh realized that they had taken the jewels of the Egyptian women. The Israelites took them and gave them to their women. The term used here to designate the Israelite women is Isrā’īliyyāt, see Akhbār al-zamān, Cairo 1937, 250. 13 Faḍā’il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-l-Khalīl wa-faḍā’il al-Shām, ed. by O. Livne-Kafri, Shfaram 1995. 14 Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍā’il, 36 no. 27: the word mentioned in the manuscript is al-isrīīliyyāt, which the editor corrected so that it reads al-Isrā’īliyyāt.

229

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

in one case, dhakara baʻd al-ʻulamā’ fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt (one of the learned reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt).15 These are indeed significant passages since in these cases Isrā’īliyyāt refers to a title of a book, and one which is not connected to the name of Wahb. Finally, it must be noted that Ghazālī does not make systematic use of the term. In fact, Ghazālī does not use the term in the many passages where he quotes traditions about Israelites or the prophets, or in the reports attributed to Wahb or Kaʻb al-Aḥbār (d. 32/652).16 Further evidence comes from Ṭurṭūshī (d. 520/1126), an author who was contemporary of Ghazālī. In his Sirāj al-mulūk he mentions the term in four different places, each of which is similar to the above quoted from Ghazālī. In fact Ṭurṭūshī seems to use a book titled “Isrā’īliyyāt” as his direct source. In three of these passages, Ṭurṭūshī introduces the traditions pointing out that they are taken from Isrā’īliyyāt: wa-ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt anna ʻĪsā . . . (it is reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt that Jesus . . .), wa-ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt anna nabiyyan . . . (it is reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt that a prophet . . .) and wa-min aʻjab mā ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt . . . (and among the most astonishing stories reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt . . .).17 In the last passage it is evident, as was the case with Masʻūdī, that Isrā’īliyyāt are strictly connected with prodigious and astonishing tales (min aʻjab mā). The term is also mentioned in a shorter citation: wa fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt anna l-hadāhid . . . (in the Isrā’īliyyāt that the hoopoes . . .).18 It is remarkable that none of these passages mentions the name of Wahb, whereas in about ten other places, where Ṭurṭūshī relates traditions going back to Wahb, he quotes his name directly without giving further particulars. Ṭurṭūshī seems to rely upon a book bearing the title al-Isrā’īliyyāt. It comes as no surprise that further evidence about the term can be found in the tafsīr of Abū Bakr b. al-ʻArabī (d. 543/1148), since he was one of Ṭurṭūshī’s pupils. Ibn al-ʻArabī mentions the term for the first time while commenting on Qur. 12:18, in a similar way to Ṭurṭūshī: fa-ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt anna Allāh

15 Iḥyā’ ʻulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939, I, 81, IV, 52, 277 (wa-dhakara baʻḍ al-ulama’ . . .), 336, 352, 365 (wa-fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt . . .). See the words by L. Veccia Vaglieri about the use of the term by Ghazālī in Tavola rotonda sul tema: Cristianesimo e Islamismo, Roma 1974, 131: “Per le Isrā’īliyyāt ho la prova che al-Ghazālī le conosceva e le usava: leggendo infatti scritti ghazaliani mi sono più volte imbattuta nella loro menzione”. 16 See, for instance, Iḥyā’, II, 147, 206, 224, 308, III, 9, 37, 89, 107, 163, IV, 161, 191, 219, 344, 375, 411, 439. Many other reports concerning the prophets and Israelites, included in each chapter of the Iḥyā’ are introduced by expressions like wa-yurwā anna, or wa-ruwiya anna; see for instance the Kitāb dhamm al-dunyā (Iḥyā’, III, 196f.), or IV, 335f. It is worth noting that after the mention of the term isrāʻīliyyat in IV, 277 (wa-dhakara baʻḍ al-ʻulamā’ f ī l-isrā’īliyyāt anna Mūsā . . .), Ghazālī introduces a report five lines later with the expression wa-ruwiya f ī khabar akhar . . . . 17 Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk, Cairo 1994, I, 69, II, 713, and I, 87; cf. L. Cheikho, “Quelques légendes islamiques apocryphes”, MUSJ, 4 (1910), 44: jā’a f ī l-Isrā’īliyyāt ʻan Wahb b. Munabbih qāla qara’tu fī kitāb baʻḍ al-anbiyā’ . . . . 18 Ṭurtūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk, II, 715.

230

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

taʻālā . . . (it is reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt that God Almighty . . .).19 In the same way Ibn al-ʻArabī cites a version of the report about Yaḥyā’s refusal to play with some children: wa-fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt annahu qīla li-Yaḥyā . . . .20 In these passages Ibn al-ʻArabī is probably quoting from a book with “Isrā’īliyyāt” as title, but in two other places in his commentary he mentions the term in a different sense. In the first case, while dealing with qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān (Qur’ānic narratives), Ibn al-ʻArabī states that these Qur’ānic narratives are the most beautiful and reliable stories, while the Isrā’īliyyāt (about these subjects) include groundless additions or misleading omissions.21 Finally Ibn al-ʻArabī mentions the term when he deals with the story of Jethro’s daughter who was married to Moses (Qur. 28:27–28). Ibn al-ʻArabī asserts that Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795) relied upon Isrā’īliyyāt on this topic.22 These two last examples are very important. In fact they constitute evidence that the term was not only a title of a book but was also a word used to define a kind of tradition which was regarded as unreliable for the exegete. Mentions of the term Isrā’īliyyāt can also be found in some later works. Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200) quoted the term in his Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wa l-mudhakkirīn, in a report dealing with the ancestors’ dislike of storytelling. ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb once took some excerpts from the Torah to the Prophet who said: “Rid yourself of them, ʻUmar, especially in view of the absurd things included in the Isrā’īliyyāt”.23 This report is significant in a number of ways: firstly, Isrā’īliyyāt is not mentioned in relation to Wahb, but is connected to storytelling; secondly, the term is quoted in the Prophet’s words, as a part of a ḥadīth, and is not the title of a book, but is used to designate unreliable material. In particular, the term is not only used to make a general reference to the Israelites but refers to the Bible and its contents, i.e. stories about patriarchs and prophets. The meaning of Isrā’īliyyat is in fact clearly enunciated in the report: the term indicates stories of ancient peoples which are seldom authentic, especially those concerning Israelites, such as the unreliable story of David and Uriah.24 Moreover, it must be added that this quotation from Ibn al-Jawzī is an isolated case since he does not mention the term in his major works, nor in his tafsīr titled Zād al-masīr fī ʻilm al-tafsīr nor in the beginning of his al-Muntaẓam dealing with cosmogony and the prophets.

19 Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1988, III, 40. 20 Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, III, 249. 21 Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, III, 265: fa-inna l-Isrā’īliyyāt dhakarūhā mubaddalatan wa bi-ziyāda bāṭila mawṣūla aw bi-naqṣān muḥarrif li-l-maqṣid. Then Ibn al-ʻArabī states that only that which is in accordance with the Qur’ān can be accepted. 22 Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, III, 506. 23 Wa-qad jā’a ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb bi-kalimāt min al-Tawrāt ilā rasūl Allāh fa-qāla lahu amiṭhā ʻanka yā ʻUmar khuṣūṣan idh qad ʻulima mā f ī l-Isrā’īliyyāt min al-maḥāl: Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wa-l-mudhakkirīn, ed. by M. Swartz, Beirut 1971, § 4: 10 Arabic text and 97 for the English translation. 24 Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ, §4: 10 Ar. text and 96–97 Eng. transl.

231

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

A further mention of the term occurs in Qazwīnī’s (d. 682/1283) ʻAjā’ib al-makhlūqāt, where it is given once more as a title of an unnamed book, among other reports about the devil, when introducing a tradition: wa minhā mā dhukira fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt ([among these stories] there is what is mentioned in the Isrā’īliyyāt).25 Finally, the term is also quoted by Yāqūt (d. 626/1229), but only to designate the Jewish sources of Wahb b. Munabbih: al-kutub al-qadīma al-maʻrūfa bi-lIsrā’īliyyāt (the old books which are known as Isrā’īliyyāt).26 Some general conclusions can be drawn from these first occurrences of the term, even if it is clear from the evidence discussed here that the authors before VIII/XIV sec. did not use the term systematically. It is important to note that the principal works containing stories of the prophets never mention Isrā’īliyyāt, but, notwithstanding this, the term is well attested from the fourth/tenth century onwards.27 Moreover, the quotations of the term collected here show that Isrā’īliyyāt was used in slightly different senses. First of all, in some of the above passages, as has already been pointed out, Isrā’īliyyāt is probably the title of a book, though no extant work of Arabic literature bears this title.28 Some later sources attest that Wahb b. Munabbih wrote a Kitāb al-Isrā’īliyyāt, but there is no trace of it in the literature other than in these scanty quotations. R.G. Khoury has already discussed the question of Wahb’s Kitāb al-Isrā’īliyyāt, pointing out that early sources never ascribe a book with this title to Wahb, even if they regularly mention his name in relation to other book titles, e.g. his Mubtada’ wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, which dealt more or less with the same subject-matter.29 25 ʻAjā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Cairo 1966, 213. 26 Yāqūt, Irshād al-arīb ilā maʻrifat al-adīb, VII, Leiden 1927, 232; see also J. Horovitz, “The earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors”, IC, 1 (1927), 556. 27 Newby’s assumption that “the term was in general use from after the first century” needs to be corrected; see G.D. Newby, “Tafsir isra’iliyyat”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Thematic Issue 47, 4 (1979), 686. The opposite statement also needs to be corrected, i.e. that the term was not used before Ibn Kathīr; see A.H. Johns, in “David and Bathsheba: A case study in the exegesis of Qur’ānic story-telling”, MIDEO, 19 (1989), 263. R. Firestone, Journeys in Holy Land, Albany 1990, 183 no. 7 states that the term does not appear in works prior to the IX century. 28 It is notable that in earlier sources dealing with the same material the term Isrā’īliyyāt never occurs. See for instance the literature quoted by M.J. Kister in “Haddithū ʻan banī isrā’īla wa-la ḥaraja: a study of an early tradition”, IOS, 2 (1972), 215–239 (also in Idem, Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, London 1980, XIV). 29 See R.G. Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, Wiesbaden 1972, I, 203–205, 247–257. The first attribution is in Hājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʻan asāmī l-kutub wa-l-funūn, ed. by G. Flügel, LeipzigLondon 1835–58, V, 40. It seems more probable that Kitāb al-Isrā’īliyyāt later became an alternative title for the Mubtada’. Regarding the varying titles of Wahb’s Mubtada’, see Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā ‘arā’is al-majālis, Cairo 1954, 102, and what is said by Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, 222; F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, I, Leiden 1967, 306; M. Lidzbarski, De propheticis, quae dicuntur, legendis arabicis, Leipzig 1893, 2–3; A.A. Duri, The Rise of Historical Writing among the Arabs, ed. by L.I. Conrad, Princeton 1983, 126–127; H. Schwarzbaum, Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature, Walldorf-Hessen 1982, 60. See also Ḥājjī Ḫalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn, IV, 518, who mentions qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ and qiṣaṣ

232

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

In the passages discussed above no indication of author or transmitter is given, but there is the simple statement wa-yurwā/ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt (it is reported in the Isrā’īliyyāt). Apart from Yāqūt, only Ibn al-Murajjā mentions the name of Wahb b. Munabbih alongside the term, and in this instance his name appears as the transmitter of a tradition which had probably been taken from a book titled Isrā’īliyyāt: ḥaddathūnā fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt ʻan Wahb b. Munabbih al-Yamanī anna . . . .30 It is thus clear that wa-yurwā/ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt does not indicate a particular book by Wahb,31 but refers to books or booklets bearing this title which deal with popular traditions about cosmogony, prophets and stories of the Israelites. These popular booklets came to be associated with figures such as Wahb, Kaʻb and various other experts in biblical traditions. Early sources contain clear evidence about works of this kind. This is, for instance, evident in the Kitāb albad’ wa-l-ta’rīkh of al-Maqdisī (written in 355/966). While discussing popular traditions of the kind spread by storytellers and of which he firmly disapproves, Maqdisī states expressly that this material can be found in unspecified “books by Wahb, Kaʻb and Muqātil (b. Sulaymān, d. 150/767)”, without offering any further particulars.32 In another passage Maqdisī hints at the same books or booklets in the following terms: kutub al-quṣṣāṣ (books of the storytellers), without giving a precise title.33 The Qiṣaṣ ascribed by Ṭabarī (d. 311/923) to the companion Qatāda are probably a similar type of work.34 That the expression yurwā/ruwiya fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt alludes to a title of book or books is by far the most probable hypothesis, but it is also possible that it

30 31

32 33 34

al-akhyār. Ibn al-Nadīm in his Fihrist doesn’t ascribe any books to Wahb; see, about the Kitāb al-mubtada’ ascribed to his nephew ʻAbd al-Munʻim b. Idrīs, T. Nagel, Die Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’. Ein Beitrag zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte, Bonn 1967, 65; and N. Abbott, “An Arabic papyrus in the Oriental Institute: Stories of the prophets”, JNES, 5 (1946), 171. Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍā’il, 36 no. 27. See above, 229. V. Chauvin, La récension égyptienne des Mille et une nuits, Bruxelles 1899, 75–78 nos. 23–29, collected the traditions from Ṭurṭūshī, Damīrī, Qazwīnī and Ibshīhī where there is mention of the term al-Isrā’īliyyāt, and attributed them to Wahb’s work. The inconsistency of this methodology had been already pointed out by Horovitz, “The earliest biographies of the Prophet”, 556. See also in Khoury, Wahb b. Munabbih, 252–55, in part. 253. Kitāb al-bad’, II, 42; see also Ibn al-Wardī, Kharīdat al-ʻajā’ib wa-farīdat al-gharā’ib, Cairo n.d., 12. Kitāb al-bad’, II, 47. Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, I, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1960–69, I, 13 [= ed. M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901, I, 11]. Different titles from Isrā’īliyyāt for books dealing with the same subject can also be found in later sources; see the Kitāb al-qiṣaṣ ascribed to Ṭabarī in Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, Beirut 1983, XI, 341; and the Kitāb al-mubtadā’ ascribed to Muqātil b. Sulaymān by Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī in his Mir’āt al-zamān f ī ta’rīkh al-a‘yān, I, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985, 195, 202, 205, 208, 210, 263, 340, 404, 415, 458; about Muqātil’s Mubtadā’ see also C. Gilliot, “Muqātil, grand éxègete, traditionniste et théologien maudit”, JA, 279 (1991), 45. See also, about this question, L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane, Paris 19542, 73: “Un certain nombre d’œuvres primitives de l’Islam ascétique paraissent être de libres transpositions d’œuvres chrétiennes: (. . .) Wahb, son mobtadà et ses isra’iliyàt”.

233

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

designates the corpus of traditions apparently collected in these works. In fact Isrā’īliyyāt occurs in some other passages in this sense. In these passages the word is used to indicate a kind of tradition about cosmogony and prophets which was considered unreliable and was thus disapproved of, as is already attested in Masʻūdī, though the use of the word in this sense never reached wide acceptance, as is evidenced by the fact that other authors never make use of it. Ṭabarī, for instance, when he relates that Ibn ʻAbbās charged Kaʻb al-Aḥbār with introducing Jewish traditions into Islam, doesn’t mention Isrā’īliyyāt.35 The same thing happens in a similar passage in the Qiṣas al-Qur’ān of al-Hayṣam (d. 467/1075), where it is stated that a tradition is from mukhtaraʻāt al-yahūd (the inventions of the Jews), an expression which looks like a synonym of the term Isrā’īliyyāt, first mentioned by Masʻūdī, and then by Ibn al-ʻArabī and Ibn al-Jawzī in the passages discussed above.36

3 The next author whose works mention Isrā’īliyyāt is Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328). While speaking in favour of his vision of a pure Islam founded upon the Qur’ān and true traditions, and against misleading popular beliefs, which he sees as unwarranted innovation, on a number of occasions Ibn Taymiyya quotes the term Isrā’īliyyāt when indicating books or traditions he disapproves of or rejects. In a short treatise concerning quṣṣāṣ, after a tradition commenting on a Qur’ānic passage, Ibn Taymiyya adds: hādhā madhkūr fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt laysa lahu isnād maʻrūf ʻan al-nabī (this is mentioned in al-Isrā’īliyyāt and has no known isnād going back to the Prophet).37 The term occurs in a very similar way in one of his fatwās: hādhā mā dhakarūhu fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt laysa lahu isnād maʻruf38 and in a passage dealing with a ḥadīth qudsī, where it is said that neither the sky nor the earth can contain God, but only the heart of a believer.39 The expression madhkūr fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt is somewhat new, but it looks like a synonym of yurwā fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt, and in fact here the term probably designates a title of a book or a category of books. In some other passages the term designates a category of traditions. When dealing with the letters (ḥurūf) coming down (from Heaven) to Adam, Ibn Taymiyya

35 Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul, I, 65 [= I, 62]; see also Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, 18; and D.J. Halperin and G.D. Newby, “Two castrated bulls: A study in the Haggadah of Kaʻb al-Aḥbār”, JAOS, 102 (1982), 631–638. 36 Al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad, Qiṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Ms Princeton, Yahuda 49, 16a. 37 Majmūʻat al-rasā’il al-kubrā, Beirut n.d., II, 354. 38 Majmūʻat fatāwā, Cairo 1988, II, 195. 39 Ibn Taymiyya, ʻIlm al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1985, 524; and see also Id., al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʻīfa wa l-bāṭila, Cairo 1989, 11, and Id., Aḥādīth al-quṣṣāṣ, Cairo 1993, 32 no. 4: ʻan Allāh: mā wasiʻanī samā’ī wa-lā arḍī wa-lakin wasiʻanī qalb ʻabdī al-mu’min, hādhā madhkūr f ī l-Isrā’īliyyāt laysa lahu isnād maʻrūf ʻan al-nabī.

234

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

mentions the term Isrā’īliyyāt in the title of two chapters,40 where he gives a full description of his position in relation to this material. The legend concerning the letters of the alphabet, says Ibn Taymiyya, is one of the Jewish stories and legends (al-aḥādīth al-isrā’īliyya), like the stories of the prophets, which Ibn Qutayba and other authors such as Ṭabarī related under the authority of Wahb, Kaʻb, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 150/767) and others, but which cannot be accepted unless they are in accord with Muslim traditions. The term Jewish stories (al-aḥādīth al-isrā’īliyya) is undoubtedly a synonym of Isrā’īliyyāt, as is evident from another passage later in the same chapter. Discussing the prostration of these letters to Adam, Ibn Taymiyya states that a Jewish story (al-ḥikāya al-isrā’īliyya) which has no sound isnād attests this. Ibn Taymiyya concludes his reasoning saying that “there is no harm in quoting Isrā’īliyyāt: they can be accepted if they conform with what is already known from sound Muslim traditions”.41 Ibn Taymiyya’s last mentions of Isrā’īliyyāt vary somehow from the earlier ones. For him Isrā’īliyyāt is not only the title of a category of books and the name for a kind of tradition, but is also a corpus of unreliable reports of Jewish origin which are quoted in early works and which must, on the whole, be rejected unless they are in accord with sound Muslim traditions. This material is connected directly with the names of experts in biblical stories like Wahb and, for the first time, with that of Kaʻb, Ibn Isḥāq and others. This is indeed the prevailing meaning of the term in Ibn Kathīr’s works and in modern literature, and Ibn Taymiyya was the first to make use of it in this way. Notwithstanding this, it must be stressed that Ibn Taymiyya did not make systematic use of the term Isrā’īliyyāt to refer to this kind of material. For instance, in his treatise about Qur’ānic exegesis, while dealing with this kind of unreliable tradition that can only be accepted if in accordance with Islam, he refers to these traditions as aḥādīth isrā’īliyya and not as Isrā’īliyyāt.42

4 Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), historian and exegete, was the first to make a systematic use of Isrā’īliyyāt in his works. In doing so he followed in the footsteps of his master Ibn Taymiyya, from whom he drew direct inspiration both in the use of the term and in its meaning. Isrā’īliyyāt, as will be seen below, is in fact used in Ibn Kathīr’s works to refer to unreliable traditions dealing with biblical and cosmological subjects which he considers to be of Jewish origin and, to a lesser extent, is also the title of a book or books. In the following pages the many occurrences of

40 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʻat al-rasā’il wa l-masā’il, repr. ed. by M.R. Riḍā, Beirut 1992, III, 382– 383. The titles are: Inzāl al-ḥurūf ʻalā Ādam min al-Isrā’īliyyāt, and Lā yajūzu l-iʻtimād ʻalā l-Isrā’īliyyāt illā mā thabita bi-naṣṣ marfūʻ mutawātir. 41 Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʻat al-rasā’il wa l-masā’il, III, 451. 42 Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr, Cairo 1988, 95; see also 76–77.

235

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

Isrā’īliyyāt in Ibn Kathīr’s main works – the tafsīr and his universal history – will be discussed. Some of the most significant examples of the use of Isrā’īliyyāt in Ibn Kathīr’s works are those designating a corpus of rejected traditions. This is the case at the beginning of his al-Bidāya wa l-nihāya, where he writes: “We shall quote from Isrā’īliyyāt only what does not contrast the Book of God”.43 Thus the Isrā’īliyyāt can be accepted when they are in accord with sound Muslim reports.44 What exactly Ibn Kathīr means by the term is clearly specified in many other passages. First of all, when quoting Isrā’īliyyāt regarding a topic or some reports, Ibn Kathīr often stresses that the term designates material of Jewish origin, introduced into Islam, though alien to it. In a very significant passage Ibn Kathīr even explains how this Jewish material found its way into Muslim reports. It is said that on the day of the battle on the Yarmūk (15/636) ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ (d. 65–70/685–90 ca.) found two camels loaded with books containing the knowledge of the People of the Book from which he spread many Isrā’īliyyāt.45 In this case the term designates material that a figure as ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ took directly from Jewish sources and introduced into Muslim traditions. No doubt Isrā’īliyyāt is here a synonym of other expressions like akhbār banī Isrā’īl, as is evident in another part of the Bidāya where the story of ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ is repeated.46 The direct connection with Jewish sources is clearly hinted at in other passages where it is said that this material is taken from the invention or the fancies of the Israelites, and is inspired by their ignorance.47 In the last passages discussed above the negative bias of Ibn Kathīr towards this material is evident, though he premised that there is no harm in Isrā’īliyyāt which accord with Islam. In fact, when he uses the term, he invariably indicates material he disapproves of vehemently and rejects. For instance, dealing with the sacrifice of Abraham’s son (dhabīḥ), Ibn Kathīr says that the son was Ishmael and that whoever maintains he was Isaac depends on Isrā’īliyyāt.48 Also here Isrā’īliyyāt

43 Al-Bidāya wa l-nihāya, Beirut 1985, I, 6. 44 See for instance Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut n.d., III, 245, where it is said, about a tradition, that Ibn ʻAbbās took part of it from acceptable Isrā’īliyyāt going back to Kaʻb. 45 Al-Bidāya, I, 24: in the text dhāmilatayni must be substituted with zāmilatayni, as in I, 190, where the story is briefly repeated. 46 Al-Bidāya, I, 190: Akhbār banī Isrā’īl; and al-Bidāya, I, 38; see also akhbār isrā’īliyya: Tafsīr, I, 121, III, 233, and al-Bidāya, I, 143 (with Ibn Ishāq); aḥādīth isrā’īliyya: Tafsīr, I, 8, III, 291; [ḥadīth] isrā’īlī: Tafsīr, I, 109, 462; khabar isrā’īlī: Tafsīr, I, 851; . . . aṣluhu isrā’īlī: al-Bidāya, I, 293; see also Tafsīr, I, 208: a tradition attributed to Kaʻb is taken “from the books of the Israelites”; I, 257: min kutub ahl al-kitāb; and II, 400: f ī kutub al-anbiyā’. 47 Al-Bidāya, I, 37: min waḍʻ al-isrā’īliyyīn, I, 38: min akhbār banī Isrā’il . . . min khurāfātihim; I, 278: al-isrā’iliyyāt . . . min waḍʻ juhhāl banī Isrā’il. In another book, al-Nihāya f ī l-fitan wa-lmalāḥim, Beirut 1988, 12, Ibn Kathīr deals with the same subject and says: the Isrā’īliyyāt have no foundation, only God Almighty knows what really happened, and it is certain that this is not mentioned in Jewish books nor in the books of the People of the Book. 48 Al-Bidāya, I, 159: mustanaduhu annahu Isḥāq innamā huwa Isrā’īliyyāt.

236

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

is a synonym for Jewish, and thus unreliable, reports. In his Tafsīr, after the citation of the Qur’ānic verse where David kills Goliath, he says that the way he kills him, with a sling, is taken from Isrā’īliyyāt.49 While dealing with the story of Qārūn, Ibn Kathīr is very clear: wa-qad dhakara kathīr min al-mufassirīn hāhunā Isrā’īliyyāt kathīra (most of the exegetes mention a lot of Isrā’īliyyāt here).50 When he wishes to dismiss the reports handed down about Hārūt and Mārūt, he states that most of them are Isrā’īliyyāt.51 Finally, Ibn Kathīr disapproves of a tradition reputedly attributed to the Prophet, stating that it is strange (gharīb) and that “maybe it is sound or maybe it is from Isrā’īliyyāt”.52 The same bias that is shown towards the material is evidenced in the negative attitude towards those who spread it in Muslim tradition. The name occurring most often in connection with Isrā’īliyyāt is that of Kaʻb al-Aḥbār who, in Ibn Kathīr’s opinion, took material from the books of the People of the Book or directly from Israelite informants.53 Moreover, Ibn Kathīr’s condemnation of the Isrā’īliyyāt is not limited to the strong criticism of a Jewish convert like Kaʻb, but includes other transmitters. As was shown above, the name of ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ is quoted in relation to the spread of this material. Also the name of the father of Qur’ānic exegesis, Ibn ʻAbbās (d. 68/678), is mentioned in connection with the Isrā’īliyyāt. Ibn Kathīr says about a tradition attributed to Ibn ʻAbbās that he took it from Isrā’īliyyāt.54 Other passages are even more significant, e.g. where it is said that also writers of ḥadīth collections, like Bukhārī (d. 256/870) and Bayhaqī (d. 458/1066), included material correlated to the Isrā’īliyyāt in their books.55 The negative attitude of Ibn Kathīr is moderated somewhat in this instance: although

49 Tafsīr, I, 453. 50 Al-Bidāya, I, 311; see also Tafsīr, I, 117: wa yaqaʻu f īhi Isrā’īliyyāt kathīra. 51 Al-Bidāya, I, 48: āthār kathīra ghālibuhā Isrā’īliyyāt; a similar statement in II, 13: hāhunā qiṣaṣan wa-akhbāran aktharuhā Isrā’īliyyāt. 52 Tafsīr, I, 29. 53 See in particular Tafsīr, III, 164, where there is a long description of how Muʻāwiya contested Kaʻb’s tradition about the interpretation of Qur. 18:84. It is said that in Kaʻb’s “papers” (ṣuḥuf ) there are a lot of Isrā’īliyyāt, and most of them are false, corrupting and distorted stories of which people have no need, since they caused a lot of evil. See also al-Bidāya, in particular I, 159, where papers (ṣuḥuf ) of the People of the Book are quoted; cf. al-Bidāya, I, 18, II, 63, 88. 54 Al-Bidāya, I, 21: akhadhahu Ibn ʻAbbās raḍiya Allāhu ʻanhu ʻan al-Isrā’īliyyāt; cf. also I, 156; and Tafsīr, III, 245: Ibn ʻAbbās took part of a tradition from acceptable Isrā’īliyyāt going back to Kaʻb. 55 Al-Bidāya, I, 6, where it is said that the ḥadīth quoted by Bukhārī from ʻAmr b. al- ʻĀṣ, i.e. “ḥaddithū ʻan banī Isrā’īl wa la ḥaraja . . . ”, is maḥmūl ʻalā l-Isrā’īliyyāt al-maskūt ʻanhā ʻindanā; and II, 298, where it is said that Bayhaqī, regarding the building of the Kaʻba at the time of Adam, dhakara mā warada min al-Isrā’īliyyāt. See also Tafsīr, I, 106, about Muslim, where it is said of a tradition that it is min gharā’ib Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and later on Ibn Kathīr states that Abū Hurayra heard it from Kaʻb (but the term Isrā’īliyyāt is not mentioned here). It must be remembered here that Ibn al-ʻArabī had already accused Mālik b. Anas of relying upon Isrā’īliyyāt.

237

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

Bukhārī, Bayhaqī and Ibn ʻAbbās are guilty of the spreading of this material, they are not accused of inventing it. In many other passages, where traditions or opinions are introduced with simple expressions attesting that they are taken from Isrā’īliyyāt, the meaning of the term is not so clear. These occurrences suggest that it could also refer to the title of a book or books, and not only to a corpus of traditions of Jewish origin. This is the case, for instance, with expressions like mutalaqqan/talaqqāhu min al-Isrā’īliyyāt (taken from the Isrā’īliyyāt),56 or, similarly, ma’khūdh min/ʻan al-Isrā’īliyyāt,57 wa hādhā/huwa/kulluhu min al-Isrā’īliyyāt,58 wa ghālibuhā min al-Isrā’īliyyāt.59 In another place in his Tafsīr, concerning the spot where Adam fell down on the earth, Ibn Kathīr states that this kind of tradition yarjiʻu . . . ilā (goes back to) l-Isrā’īliyyāt.60 Only in one place, in his Tafsīr, did Ibn Kathīr make use of the term to indicate the title of a book. Introducing a tradition describing the prodigious creation of the horse and commenting on Qur. 16:8, Ibn Kathīr writes: wadhakara Wahb b. Munabbih fī Isrā’īliyyātihi (Wahb b. Munabbih mentioned in his Isrā’īliyyāt).61 It must be noted that this is the only passage where Isrā’īliyyāt can be found in connection with the name of Wahb b. Munabbih. In fact in all the other places where he quotes the term Ibn Kathīr never mentions him as an originator or collector of Isrā’īliyyāt.62 This occurrence of the term is no doubt very important, and it constitutes evidence that Ibn Kathīr knew of books bearing this title.63 There can be no doubt that Ibn Kathīr was the first to make a systematic use of Isrā’īliyyāt to designate, firstly, a kind of unreliable tradition concerning cosmology and biblical history that he considered of direct Jewish origin, and, secondly,

56 Tafsīr, II, 390, III, 718, IV, 731; al-Bidāya, I, 18, 86, 96, 156, 157, 307, II, 26, 63. 57 Tafsīr, IV, 47; al-Bidāya, I, 21, 158, II, 46; and see Tafsīr, III, 547: man zaʻama . . . akhadha dhālika min al-Isrā’īliyyāt. 58 Tafsīr, II, 691, 747, III, 537; IV, 54: wa-hādhihi kulluhā min al-Isrā’īliyyāt; al-Bidāya, I, 100, 278, 338, II, 31, 51; see also the slightly different expressions in Tafsīr, III, 164; and al-Bidāya, I, 237. 59 Tafsīr, III, 146. 60 Tafsīr, II, 332. 61 Tafsīr, II, 873. 62 See for instance al-Bidāya, I, 222. 63 There is no evidence in the works of Ibn Kathīr that the term is the title of a book of someone other than Wahb. Kaʻb al-Aḥbār, for instance, is quoted in several places in connection with the term Isrā’īliyyāt, and, at the same time, in some other passages which attest that Ibn Kathīr knew his “papers” (ṣuḥuf ), i.e. works or booklets circulating under Kaʻb’s name or collections of material attributed to him. But in no place does Ibn Kathīr state that Isrā’īliyyāt is the title of these “papers”. In fact, when quoting Isrā’īliyyāt together with the name of Kaʻb, Ibn Kathīr always makes use of the term as designating the material attributed to him and not a title of books or booklets. This is evident in a long passage in Tafsīr, III, 164, discussing a contestation laid by Muʻāwiya against a Qur’ānic explanation given by Kaʻb, where Ibn Kathīr states that this question in his “papers” is from al-Isrā’īliyyāt (wa lakinna al-shā’n f ī ṣuḥufihi innahā min al-Isrā’īliyyāt). Mentions of these “papers” by Kaʻb are also made in another passage in the Bidāya, where Ibn Kathīr states that Abū Hurayra took those traditions from Kaʻb ʻan ṣuḥufihi (Kaʻb’s papers); see al-Bidāya, I, 17.

238

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

to designate a title of a book or books. The range of meanings and the uses of the term Isrā’īliyyāt in Ibn Kathīr’s work do not differ from those in the literature discussed above or those in the works of his master Ibn Taymiyya.64 In particular Ibn Kathīr’s objections are theological and are directed against a kind of tradition that in his opinion previous authors uncritically introduced into Islam. His disapproval is not only directed towards those who spread this material, such as Kaʻb al-Aḥbār and Wahb b. Munabbih, but also towards the other transmitters and the authors who collected this material, such as Ibn ʻAbbās and Bukhārī. Finally, the passage in which the term clearly indicates the title of Wahb’s book, while an isolated case, demonstrates that Ibn Kathīr at least knew of a book with this title which contained this material and that he also quoted from it.

5 Mentions of Isrā’īliyyāt can be found in some other authors after Ibn Kathīr. Only comprehensive research in the literature of this period would permit a complete portrait of the use of Isrā’īliyyāt after Ibn Kathīr to be drawn, but the works taken into consideration here are enough to show that no author followed Ibn Kathīr’s example nor made use of the term in the same way as he did. Briefly, the systematic use of the term by Ibn Kathīr did not gain general acceptance. Evidence of this is given for instance by Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), who does not mention Isrā’īliyyāt in his Itqān, where one would expect to find it. While describing the material that is unhelpful for exegesis, Suyūṭī mentions tawārīkh isrā’īliyya which is no doubt a synonym of Isrā’īliyyāt.65 Notwithstanding this, some occurrences of Isrā’īliyyāt show that it indicates either a kind of material or the title of a book or books. Amongst later authors such as Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852/1448) Isrā’īliyyāt is used as a term to indicate Jewish material which entered Islam.66 At the same time some other occurrences of the term indicate that Isrā’īliyyāt was also known as a title of a book or books. Ibshīhī (d. after 850/1446) mentions the term three times in his Mustaṭraf when introducing some traditions with the expressions wa-fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt or wa-ruwiya/wa-yurwā fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt.67 These instances are very similar to Ṭurṭūshī’s. Damīrī (d. 808/1405) mentions the term only once in his Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, when introducing a report

64 See, about these questions, Ismāʻīl Sālim ʻAbd al-ʻĀl, Ibn Kathīr wa manhajuhu f ī l-tafsīr, Cairo 1984, 246f., 314f. 65 Cairo 1978, II, 238; cited by I. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, II, Halle a.s. 1890, 166 [= Muslim Studies, II, Eng. ed. by S.M. Stern, London 1971, 156]. See also Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf f ī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991, 184: al-āthār al-isrā’īliyya. See also Sakhāwī in his Iʻlān, who does not mention the term: F. Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden 1968, 335. 66 This is mentioned by J. Fück, “Zum Problem der koranischen Erzählungen”: from his Nukhbat al-fikar. See also Dhahabī (d. 748/1348): “Kaʻb al-Aḥbār spread many Isrā’īliyyāt”; quoted with no indication of the source by L. Cheikho, “Quelques légendes islamiques apocryphes”, 36. 67 Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf, 785, 787, 827.

239

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

attributed to Wahb: wa qad jā’a ʻan Wahb b. Munabbih fī l-Isrā’īliyyāt.68 The wording in this instance is the same as in Ibn al-Murajjā. Some remarks are now needed to draw a few general conclusions from the material discussed above. In the authors preceding Ibn Kathīr the term Isrā’īliyyāt is sometimes mentioned as a title of a book without being connected to any definite author, and sometimes it is used in a more general sense, to indicate extravagant and unreliable traditions. As has been said above, there is only one possible interpretation of this fact, i.e. that it was the title of some books or booklets collecting popular traditions about prophets and wonders of creation, and that this is how the term gained its general meaning. With Ibn Taymiyya and principally Ibn Kathīr, the term entered into exegetical terminology to designate traditions that in the opinion of these authors had nothing to do with Islam but were of Jewish origin and which had entered Islam through Jewish converts like Kaʻb al-Aḥbār. In some other passages in Ibn Kathīr’s works the term hints at the title of a book or books, but these occurrences of the term can be considered secondary. Finally, no later author until the present century seems to have followed in Ibn Kathīr’s steps in the use of the term Isrā’īliyyāt, though the term has continued to be known and used in a variety of senses.

6 Isrā’īliyyāt reached its widest diffusion in this century, and today it is the most common exegetical term, either in modern Muslim literature or in Western Oriental studies, to designate traditions dealing with cosmogony and prophets. The originator of the revival of the term was Muḥammad ʻAbduh (d. 1905 ce). The term is used many times in the main work of his pupil Rashīd Riḍā’s (d. 1940 ce), the Tafsīr al-Manār, which was directly inspired by Muhammad ʻAbduh’s teachings.69 In fact Muḥammad ʻAbduh completely rejected the authority and validity of the material he called Isrā’īliyyāt, though it had been handed down from the first generations and was spread throughout Muslim literature.70 Rashīd Riḍā followed in his master’s steps and was even more radical in his stringent rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt. In his opinion these traditions had been fabricated with the purpose of undermining Islam by introducing Jewish material.71 His position was so extreme that it was even criticized by other modern Muslim scholars who could

68 Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān, Cairo 1978, I, 446. 69 Tafsīr al-Manār, Beirut 1973, I, 9 and I, 18 in the introductions to the tafsīr; see also the indexes to each volume. 70 See J.J.G. Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1980, 27; and R. Tottoli, “La moderna esegesi islamica ed il rifiuto delle Isrā’īliyyāt: le leggende sul bastone di Mosé mutato in serpente”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Serie Orientale 21 (1990), 26–27 [here no. 12]. 71 See Jansen, The Interpretation of the Koran, 27; and M.Ḥ. al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-mufassirūn, Cairo 19762, II, 588–589.

240

U S E O F T H E T E R M I S R Ā ’ Ī L I Y Y Ā T I N M U S L I M L I T E R AT U R E

not accept a definitive and complete rejection of so many traditions and the consequent criticism of important figures associated with the origins of Islam.72 Following the teachings of Muḥammad ʻAbduh the rejection of the so-called Isrā’īliyyāt has become one of the principal controversies of modern Qur’ānic exegesis and Muslim theology.73 In fact this question, as was explained by Gibb, could be adapted to suit either modernist or orthodox exegetes who felt uncomfortable with this material which they considered embarrassing from their exegetical perspective.74 There is no doubt that this is the reason for the great success of the term in this century which is always used in a negative sense, to indicate material that is rejected by today’s exegetes.75 In the recent decades some authors have dealt with the question of Isrā’īliyyāt in monographs, but without giving a description of the origin of the term and its occurrence in Muslim literature. In these monographs a review of Medieval tafsīr collections can be found, with an analysis of their contents and of the transmitters to whom the Isrā’īliyyāt are attributed.76 R. Naʻnāʻa, for instance, tried to carry out a comprehensive research into this subject but failed to give a complete description of the question of Isrā’īliyyāt.77 There is nothing new in these modern books dealing with Isrā’īliyyāt, but the rejection of the Isrā’īliyyāt also implies the rejection of certain famous medieval authors who included this material in their collections, such as Ṭabarī or Suyūṭī.78 Finally, in the years after the end of World War II, the term Isrā’īliyyāt gained a further secondary meaning in connection with the foundation of the modern state of Israel. It is interesting to note that as early as 1946 one of Rashīd Riḍā’s pupils, Abū Rayya, wrote an article with the significant title “Kaʻb al-Aḥbār, the first Zionist”.79 Similarly, other books with Isrā’īliyyāt in the title, in which the term alludes solely to political questions connected with modern Israel, were published.80 Apart from its secondary meanings, it is clear that Muḥammad ʻAbduh 72 See G.H.A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature. Discussions in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1969, 122f. 73 See Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, 121–138. 74 H.A.R. Gibb, Modern Trends in Islam, Chicago 1947, 73–74. 75 See for instance ʻAbd al-ʻĀl, Ibn Kathīr, 314, who uses the term Isrā’īliyyāt as a synonym of the expression khurāfāt isrā’īliyya (Jewish fables). 76 See, for instance, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Abū Shuhba, al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa-l-mawḍūʻāt f ī kutub al-tafsīr, Cairo 1973; about this work see R. Tottoli, “Nota su una recente posizione critica nei confronti delle Isrā’īliyyāt”, Oriente Moderno, 70 (1990), 115–118; Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, Al-Isrā’īliyyāt f ī l-tafsīr wa l-ḥadīth, Cairo 1986 (first ed. about 1970). 77 Al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa āthāruhā f ī kutub al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1970, 71–105. 78 See ʻAbdallāh Maḥmūd Shiḥāta, al-Qur’ān wa-l-tafsīr, Cairo 1974, 241–275. See also the edition of Mujāhid’s Tafsīr by M. ʻAbd al-Salām Abū l-Nīl (Cairo 1989) where the editor says that he leaves out the Isrā’īliyyāt. See C. Gilliot, “Textes arabes anciens édités en Egypte”, MIDEO, 21 (1993), 440–441, about this edition. 79 Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, 130f. 80 Aḥmad Bahā’ al-Dīn, Isrā’īliyyāt, Cairo 1965, and Isrā’īliyyāt wa-mā baʻda al-ʻudwān, Cairo 1967; ʻĀ’isha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Isrā’īliyyāt f ī l-ghazw wa l-fikra, Cairo 1975. In the works by

241

T H E S TA F F O F M O S E S , T H E P R O P H E T S

inspired the use of the term and the attitude towards the Isrā’īliyyāt in modern literature, and, at the same time, that this attitude, through Muḥammad ʻAbduh, was inspired by Ibn Kathīr’s position. The use of the term in modern Western research followed the success of the term in modern Muslim literature. I. Goldziher was probably the first to quote the term and its definition in his Muhammedanische Studien, where, while dealing with quṣṣāṣ, he defined Isrā’īliyyāt as “invented stories about biblical persons” and “legends of persons in Israelitic times”.81 He also made use of the term in an article dedicated to the question of Isrā’īliyyāt which was mentioned at the beginning of this article.82 Following Goldziher’s steps, B. Heller mentioned the singular “isrā’īlijja” that he translated as “israelitischen Geschichten”, and later he explained the term saying that it designated a corpus of prodigious stories connected, rightly or not, to Wahb b. Munabbih.83 Moreover, in another article Heller mentioned the necessity of collecting the Isrā’īliyyāt stating that they are “les légendes qui se présentent provenant des sources juives”.84 It is not necessary to add anything else about the occurrences of the term in later works, where Isrā’īliyyāt is always used in the same sense. In fact, during this century the term reached a wide diffusion in both modern Muslim literature and Western studies, and it became the term generally accepted as indicating traditions about biblical history and cosmogony.85

81 82

83 84

85

A.ʻA. Mursī dealing with Jewish folklore the term is used to indicate Jewish traditions, without negative connotations: (with F.M. Jūdī), Al-Fūlklūr wa l-Isrā’īliyyāt, Cairo 1977; “Al-Fūlklūr wa l-Isrā’īliyyāt”, al-Turāth al-shaʻbī, 8 (1977), 21–46. See Muhammedanische Studien, II, 167 (= Eng. ed. Muslim Studies, II, 156). I. Goldziher, “Melanges judeo-arabes-IX”, REJ, 44 (1902), 64–66. In his Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden 1970 (first ed. 1920), 68, in a footnote dealing with this subject, Goldziher quoted O. Loth that Kaʻb al-Aḥbār propagated “Judaismen (jahūdijjāt)”: “jahūdijjāt” is here a synonym of Isrā’īliyyāt. And see, after Goldziher, B. Chapira, in “Legendes bibliques attributes a Ka’b el-Ahbar”, REJ, 69 (1919), 93: Israylïat. “Die arabischen Märchen”, in Anmerkungen zu den Kinder– und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm, ed. by J. Bolte e G. Polivka, Leipzig 1930, 381. “Recits et personnages bibliques dans la legende mahometane”, REJ, 85 (1928), 136, where he says that the term Isrā’īliyyāt is discussed by Goldziher, Lidzbarski and J. Horovitz, but M. Lidzbarski (De propheticis, quae dicuntur, legendis arabicis, Lipsiae 1893, 4, 47) and Horovitz (“The earliest biographies of the Prophet”, 556) dealt with it only in relation to the book with this title attributed to Wahb b. Munabbih. For a definition of meaning of the term see also EI 2, s.v. (G. Vajda).

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, N., “An Arabic papyrus in the Oriental Institute: Stories of the prophets”, JNES, 5 (1946), p. 169–180. Abbott, N., “Wahb b. Munabbih: A review article”, JNES, 36 (1977), p. 103–112. ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Tabbāra, Maʻa al-anbiyā’ fi al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Beirut n.d. ʻAbd al-Ghanī Aḥmad Jibr Mazhar, Khuṭbat al-jum‘a, Riyadh 1422 H. ʻAbd al-Ghānī al-Rājiḥī, “al-Imām Muḥammad ʻAbduh . . . wa qiṣṣat Ādam”, Majallat al Azhar, 43 (1972). ʻAbd al Ḥalīm Maḥmūd, Fī riḥāb al-kawn, Cairo 1973. ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd ʻAntar, “Kaʻb al-Aḥbār”, Majallat al Azhar, 19 (1948). ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Muṭāwi‘, Mūsā kalīm Allāh, Cairo 1947. ʻAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭīb, al-Qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī fī manṭūqihi wa-mafhūmihi, Beirut 1975. ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbas, Kitāb gharīb al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1993. ʻAbdallāh b. Aḥmad, Masā’il al-imām Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, ed. Z. al-Shawīsh, Beirut 1988. ʻAbdallāh b. Muḥammad al-Ghunaymān, Sharḥ kitāb al-tawhīd, n.p. n.d. ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb, al-Jāmiʻ (fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān) [= Al-Jāmiʻ. Die Koranwissenschaften, ed. M. Muranyi, Wiesbaden 1992], Beirut 1995. ʻAbdallāh Maḥmūd Shiḥāta, al-Qur’ān wa-l-tafsīr, Cairo 1974. ʻAbd al-Muʻizz Khaṭṭāb, Maʻa rusul Allah fī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, n.p. 1975. ʻAbd al-Rahmān al-Qaḥṭānī, Ḥāshiyat kitāb al-tawḥīd, n.p. 1408 H. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥasan b. Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Fatḥ al-majīd sharḥ kitāb al-tawḥīd, Cairo 1957. ʻAbd al-Razzāq, al-Muṣannaf, ed. by Ḥ. al-R. al-Aʻẓamī, Beirut 19832. ʻAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī, Tafsīr, ed. by M.M. Muḥammad, Riyadh 1989. ʻAbd al-Wahhāb al-Najjār, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā’, Cairo n.d. ʻAbd b. Ḥumayd, al Muntakhab min musnad ʻAbd b. Ḥumayd Cairo 1988. al-Ābī, Nathr al-durr, Cairo 1980f. Abrégé des Merveilles, ed. by Carra de Vaux, Paris 1984. Abū al-‘Abbās, al-Fatāwā al-ḥadīthiyya, Beirut n.d. Abū ʻAwāna, Musnad, Beirut n.d. Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1990. Abū a1-Baqā’, Kitāb al-manāqib al-mazyadiyya fī akhbār al-mulūk al-asadiyya, Amman 1984. Abū Dāwūd, Kitāb al-zuhd, Cairo 1993. Abū Dāwūd, Sunan, Cairo 1998.

243

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī, Kitāb al-aghānī, Cairo 1929f. Abū al-Fidā’, Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar, Cairo 1907; Beirut 1956. Abū Ḥanīfa, Musnad, Beirut n.d. Abū Ḥanīfa, Musnad, in ʻAlī 1-Qārī, Sḥarḥ Musnad Abī Ḥanīfa, Beirut n.d. Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ, Cairo 1910; Beirut 1986; Beirut n.d. Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī, Tanbīh al-ghāfilīn bi-aḥādīth sayyid al-anbiyā’ wa-lmursalīn, Beirut 1999. Abū al-Layth al-Samarqandī, Tafsīr al-Samarqandī al-musammā Baḥr al-‘ulūm, ed. by ‘A.M. Mu‘awwaḍ and ‘Ā.A. ‘Abd al-Mawjūd, Beirut 1993. Abū Nu‘aym al-Iṣbahānī, Ḥilyat al-awliyā’ wa-ṭabaqāt al-aṣfiyā’, Cairo 1932; Cairo-Beirut 1986; Beirut 1987. Abū Nu‘aym al-Iṣfahānī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa, Beirut n.d.; Beirut 1986. Abū Qurrah, Th., La difesa delle icone. Trattato sulla venerazione delle immagini, ed. by Paola Pizzo, Milano 1995. Abū Qurrah, Th., Traité du culte des icônes, ed. by I. Dick, Beirut-Roma 1986. Abū Qurrah, Th., A Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons, ed. by S.H. Griffith, Louvain 1997. Abū al-Shaykh, Akhlāq al-nabī, Cairo 1981. Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-amthāl fī al-ḥadīth al-nabawī, Bombay 1987. Abū al-Shaykh, Kitāb al-‘aẓama, Beirut 1994. Abū al-Shaykh, Ṭabaqāt al-muḥaddithīn bi-Aṣbahān wa-l-wāridīn ‘alayhi, Beirut 1992. Abū al-Suʻūd, Tafsīr, Cairo 1928. Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, Qūt al-qulūb, Beirut 2005. Abū Tammām, Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-l-Akhṭal, ed. by A. Ṣalḥānī, Beirut 1922. Abū ʻUbayda, Naqā’iḍ Jarīr wa-l-Farazdaq, ed. by A.A. Bevan, Leiden 1905–12. Abū Yaʻlā, Musnad, ed. Ḥ.S. Asad, Damascus-Beirut 1982; ed. Aḥmad Ḥusayn Abū ’l-Hawā and Muḥammad Ismā‘īl Ṣandīḥa, Beirut 1987; Beirut 19892. Abū Zurʻa, Ta’rīkh, ed. Kh. al-Manṣūr, Beirut 1996. Abu-Deeb, K., “Studies in the majāz and metaphorical language of the Qur’ān: Abū ‘Ubayda and al-Sharīf al-Raḍī”, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. I.J. Boullata, Richmond 2000, p. 310–353. Abul Kalam Azad, The Tarjumān al-Qur’ān, Engl. tr., London 1967. Adams, C.C., Islam and Modernism in Egypt, New York 1933. Ahlwardt, W., The Dīwāns of the Six Ancient Arabic Poets, London 1870. Aḥmad al-Ḥākim, Shiʻār aṣḥāb al-ḥadith, n.p. n.d. Aḥmad Bahā’ al-Dīn, Isrā’īliyyāt, Cairo 1965. Aḥmad Bahā’ al-Dīn, Isrā’īliyyāt wa-mā baʻda al-ʻudwān, Cairo 1967. Aḥmad Bahja, Anbiyā’ Allāh, Cairo 1978. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Juz’ fīhi musnad ahl al-bayt, ed. ʻA. al-L. al-Anṣārī, Beirut 1988. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-zuhd, Beirut 1986. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, Beirut 2005. Aḥmad Muṣṭafā al-Marāghī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1953–66. al-Aḥsā’ī, Ibn Abī Jumhūr, ʻAwālī al-La’ālī, Qom 1983. ʻĀʻisha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Isrā’iliyyāt fī al-ghazw wa al-fikrā, Cairo 1975. ‘Ā’isha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Tafsīr al-bayānī, Cairo 1962. al-Ājurrī, al-Sharīʻa, Riyadh 1999. Akhṭal, Dīwān, ed. by A. al-Ṣalḥānī, Beirut 1981. al-Albānī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr wa-ziyādatihi, Riyadh n.d.

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Albānī, Silsilat al-aḥādīth al-ṣaḥīḥa, Riyadh 1995–2002. al-Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-maʻānī, Cairo 1934. al-ʻĀmilī, al-Jawāhir al-saniyya fī 1-aḥādīth al-qudsiyya, Najaf 1964. ‘Āmir b. al-Ṭufayl, Dīwān, ed. by C. Lyall, Leiden-London 1913. al-Anbārī, Kitāb al-aḍdād, Beirut 1987. Andrae, T., Die Person Muhammeds in Lehre und Glauben seiner Gemeinde, Stockholm 1918. Anmerkungen zu den Kinder – und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm, ed. by J. Bolte e G. Polivka, Leipzig 1930. Anonymous, Juz’ fīhi majlis min fawā’id al-Layth b. Saʻd, ed. by M.b.R. Ibn al-Ṭarhūnī, Riyadh 1987. Anonymous, Laṭā’if al-anbiyā’, Ms Paris Ms Bibl. Nat. ar. 1926. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Cambridge, Ms University Library Add. 3258. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Damascus, Ms Maktabat al-Asad 3473. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Gotha A1743. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Leiden or. 14027. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Paris Bibl. Nat. ar. 1924. Anonymous, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (Kitāb al-majālis ʻalā ʻilm al-ta’rīkh), Ms Berlin, Ms Staatsbibliothek, or. quart. 1171. Anonymous, Siyar al-anbiyā’, Ms London, British Library, or. 1510. Anonymous, Tawārīkh wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Damascus, Maktabat al-Asad 8228. Anonymous, Waṣiyyat al-nabī (ṣ) li-ʻAlī, Ms. Cambridge Dd. 11. Aptowitzer, V., “Die Paradiesesflüsse des Kurans”, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 72 (1928), p. 151–155. Arberry, A.J., The Koran Interpreted, Oxford 1964. Asín Palacios, M., La escatología musulmana en la Divina comedia, Madrid 1919. Awn, P.J., Satan: Tragedy and Redemption: Iblīs in Sufi Psychology, Leiden 1983. al-Awsī, Zahr al-kamām, Cairo 1950. al-ʻAynī, ʻUmdat al-qārī. Sharḥ ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Cairo 1972. Ayoub, M.M., “Literary exegesis of the Qur’an: The case of al-Sharīf al-Raḍī”, in Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān, ed. by I.J. Boullata, Richmond 2000, p. 292–309. al-ʻAyyāshī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991. al-Azharī, Tahdhīb al-lugha, ed. by ʻA.H. Hilālī and M. ʻA. al-Najjār, Cairo n.d. al-ʻAẓīm Ābadī, al-Taʻlīq al-mughnī ʻalā ’l-Dāraquṭnī, in margin of Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, Beirut n.d. Azmi, M.M., Studies in Early Ḥadīth Literature, Beirut 1968. al-Azraqī, Akhbār Makka wa-mā jā’a fīhā min al-āthār, ed. by R. al-Ṣ. Malḥas, Beirut 19832. al-Baghawī, Maʻālim al-tanzīl fī al-tafsīr wa al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1955; Cairo 1985f.; Maʻālim al-tanzīl fī tasfīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1997; Tafsīr al-Baghawī al-musammā Ma‘ālim al-tanzīl, ed. ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī, Beirut 2002. al-Baghawī, Maṣābiʻ al-sunna, Beirut 1998. al-Baghawī, Sharḥ al-sunna, Beirut 1992. al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. 4B, ed. by M. Schloessinger and M.J. Kister, Jerusalem 1971; vol. 6B, ed. by K. Athamina, Jerusalem 1993. al-Baghdādī (al-Shaykh al-Mufīd), Kitāb al-ikhtiṣāṣ, Najaf 1971; Teheran 1971. Baljon, J.M.S., Modern Muslim Koran Interpretation (1880–1960), Leiden 1961.

245

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bar-Ilan, M., “Sūrat Yūsuf (XII) and some of its possible Jewish sources”, in Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception, ed. by A. Houtman, T. Kadari, M. Porthuis, and V. Tohar, Leiden-Boston 2016, p. 189–210. al-Barqī, al-Maḥāsin, Najaf 1964. Barsūm, L., al-Ta’rīkh al-muqaddas, Cairo 1954. Bausani, A., Persia religiosa, Cosenza 1998. al-Bayānūnī, al-Īmān bi-l-rusul, Aleppo 1974. al-Bayḍāwī, Anwār al-tanzīl wa asrār al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1911; Cairo 1968. al-Bayhaqī, al-Adab, Beirut 1988. al-Bayhaqī, Dalā’il al-nubuwwa wa-maʻrifat aḥwāl ṣāḥib al-sharīʻa, ed. by ‘A. al-M. Qal‘ajī, Beirut 1985. al-Bayhaqī, Kitāb al-baʻth wa-l-nushūr, Beirut 1986. al-Bayhaqī, Shu‘ab al-īmān, ed. by Muḥammad al-Sa‘īd b. Basyūnī Zaghlūl, Beirut 2000. al-Bayhaqī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1994. al-Bazzār, al-Baḥr al-zakhkhār, Beirut-Medina 1988. Beake, F., and Bukharaev, R., The Story of Joseph: A Translation of Kol Gali’s Kyssa’i Yusuf, with Commentaries, Kent 2010. Beck, E., “Iblis und Mensch, Satan und Adam. Der Werdegang einer koranischen Erzählung”, Le Muséon, 89 (1976), p. 195–244. Becker, C.H., “Christliche Polemik und islamische Dogmenbildung”, in Islamstudien, I, Leipzig 1924, p. 432–449. Beeston, A.F.L., “Foreign loan words in Sabaic”, in Arabia Felix. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kultur des vorislamischen Arabien. Festschrift Walter W. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. by Norbert Nebes, Wiesbaden 1994, p. 39–45. Bernstein, M.S., Stories of Joseph: Narrative Migrations between Judaism and Islam, Detroit 2006. Bidez, J., Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte: Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig 1913. al-Biqā‘ī, Maṣā‘id al-naẓar li-l-ishrāf ‘alā maqāṣid al-sūr, Riyadh 1987. Blankinship, K.Y., The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hishām Ibn ʻAbd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads, Albany 1994. Borrmans, M., Jésus et les musulmanes d’aujourd’hui, Paris 1996. Bosworth, C.E., “An ‘Ayyar coin from Sistan”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ser. 3, 3 (1993). Boullata, I., “Modern Qur’ān exegesis: A study of Bint al-Shāṭiʻs method”, Muslim World, 64 (1974), p. 103–113. Brown, J., The Canonization of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, Leiden 2007. Buḥturī, Kitāb al-ḥamāsa, ed. by L. Cheikho, Beirut 1910. al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut 1992; Beirut 2001. al-Bukhārī, Abū Naṣr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Tāj al-qiṣaṣ, Tehran 2007. Burton, J., “Those are the high-flying cranes”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15 (1970), p. 246–265. Calder, N., “Tafsīr from Ṭabarī to Ibn Kathīr: Problems in the description of a genre, illustrated with reference to the story of Abraham”, in Approaches to the Qur’ān, ed. by G.R. Hawting and Abdul-Kader A. Shareef, London 1993, p. 101–140. Canard, M., “Le cérémonial fatimide et le cérémonial byzantin. Essai de comparaison,” Byzantion, 21 (1951), p. 355–420.

246

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Canova, G., “Serpenti e scorpioni nelle tradizioni arabo-islamiche”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 8 (1990), p. 191–207. Carmina Hudsailitarum, ed. by J.G.L. Kosegarten, London 1854. Chadwick, G.A., The Book of Exodus, New York 1900. Chapira, B., “Légendes bibliques attribuées a Ka‘b el-Ahbar”, REJ, 69 (1919), p. 86–107, 70 (1920), p. 37–43. Chartier, M., “Muḥammad Aḥmad Khalaf Allah et l’exégèse coranique”, IBLA, 29 (1976), p. 1–31. Cheikho, L., “Quelques légendes islamiques apocryphes”, MUSJ, 4 (1910), p. 33–56. Chiesa, B., Creazione e caduta dell’uomo nell’esegesi giudeo-araba medievale, Brescia 1989. Chiesa, B., and Lockwood, W., Yaʻqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects and Christianity, Frankfurt 1984. Chauvin, V., La récension égyptienne des Mille et une nuits, Bruxelles 1899. Clement of Rome, Homiliae, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 2, Paris 1857–66. Clement of Rome, Recognitiones, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 3, Paris 1857–66. Colby, F.S., “Constructing an Islamic Ascension Narrative: The Interplay of Official and Popular Culture in Pseudo-Ibn ‘Abbās”, Unpublished PhD dissertation, Duke University, NC 2002. Commentaire d’Ishoʻdad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament. II. Exode. Deutèronome, ed. by C. van den Eynde, CSCO 179, Leuven 1958. Contini, R., “Pidgins arabi nella letteratura italiana del cinquecento?”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 12 (1994), p. 65–86. Cook, M., Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, Cambridge 2000. Cook, M., “Early Islamic dietary law”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 7 (1986), p. 217–277. Cristoforetti, S., Il Natale della luce. Il sada tra Baghdad e Bukhara tra il IX e il XII secolo, Milano 2002. Croisier, F., L’histoire de Joseph d’après un manuscrit oriental, Genève 1989. Crone, P., “Islam, Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine iconoclasm”, JSAI, 2 (1980), p. 59–96. Crone, P., and Hinds, M., God’s Caliph. Religious Authority in the First Century of Islam, Cambridge 1986. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad Illuminandos, 12, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 33, Paris 1857–66. al-Ḍabbī, Dīwān al-mufaḍḍaliyyāt, ed. by C.J. Lyall, Oxford 1918–21. Dā’irat al-maʻārif. Qāmūs li-kull fann wa-maṭlab, ed. by B. al-Bustānī, Beirut 1977. al-Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kubrā, Cairo 1978. al-Dānī, al-Sunan al-wārida fī al-fitan, Riyadh 1995. al-Dāraquṭnī, Sunan, Cairo n.d. al-Dārimī, Naqḍ al-imām Abī Sa‘īd ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd, Beirut 1998. al-Dārimī, Sunan, ed. by M.D. al-Baghā, Damascus 1991. al-Daylamī, al-Firdaws bi-ma’thūr al-khiṭāb, Beirut 1986. De Jong, F., “The works of Tanṭāwī Jawharī (1862–1940)”, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 34 (1977), p. 153–161. Delcor, M., Studi sull’apocalittica, Brescia 1987. Der Koran, tr. by R. Paret, Stuttgart-Berlin 1966; Stuttgart 19792.

247

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D’Erme, G., “Kang iranici e ischie italiche (tracce di uno scomparso epos in Calabria)”, AIUON, 37 (1977), p. 153–186. al-Dhahabī, Mīzān al-iʻtidāl, Beirut n.d. al-Dhahabī, Ibn Qaymāz, al-Kabā’ir, Beirut n.d. Díez Macho, A., M.S. Neophyti I. II. Exodo, Madrid-Barcelona 1970. al-Dīnawarī, al-Mujālasa wa-jawāhir al-ʻilm, Beirut 1998. al-Dīnawarī, Kitāb al-akhbār al-ṭiwāl, ed. V. Guirgass, Leiden 1888. al-Diyārbakrī, Ta’rīkh al-khamīs fī aḥwāl anfas nafīs, Beirut n.d. Donner, F.M., Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton 1998. Dozy, R., Supplement aux dictionnaires arabes, Leiden-Paris 1967. Driver, G.R., “Mythical monsters in the Old Testament”, in Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida, I, Roma 1956, p. 234–249. Duri, A.A., The Rise of Historical Writing among the Arabs, ed. by L.I. Conrad, Princeton 1983. Eisenstein, H., Einführung in die arabische Zoographie, Berlin 1990. Elad, A., Medieval Jerusalem & Islamic Worship. Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Leiden 1995. Elder, E.E., “Parallel passages in the Koran: The story of Moses”, Muslim World, 15 (1925), p. 254–259. Eliade, M., Traité d’histoire des religions, Paris 19702. Elieser ben Yehuda, Thesaurus totius Hebraitatis, New York-London n.d. Enciclopedia delle religioni, Firenze 1970–1976. Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. by E. Yarshater et al., VI, Costa Mesa 1993f. Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edition, ed. by. H.A.R. Gibb et al., Leiden-London 1986– 2004. Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. by J.D. McAuliffe, Leiden 2001–2006. Fahd, T., “Un traité des eaux dans al-Filāḥa an-nabaṭiyya (Hydrogeologie, hydraulique agricole, hydrologie)”, in La Persia nel Medioevo, Roma 1971, p. 277–326. Fanuli, A., “A proposito di un libro sulla composizione del Pentateuco”, Rivista Biblica, 37 (1989), p. 469–485. Farazdaq, Dīwān, ed. by R. Boucher, Paris 1870. al-Farrā’, Maʻānī al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1955–72; n.p. n.d. al-Fayyūmī, Kitāb al-miṣbāḥ al-munīr, Cairo n.d. Firestone, R., Journeys in Holy Land, Albany 1990. al-Fīrūzābādī, al-Qāmūs al-muḥīṭ, Cairo n.d., Cairo 1952. al-Fīrūzābādī, Tanwīr al-miqbās min tafsīr Ibn ʻAbbās, Cairo 1951. Fodor, A., “The rod of Moses in Arabic magic”, Acta Orientalia Hung., 32 (1978), p. 1–21. Francesca, E., Introduzione alle regole alimentari islamiche, Roma 1995. Freytag, G.G., Hamasae carmina, Bonn 1828. Fück, J., “Zum Problem der koranischen Erzählungen”, OLZ, 37 (1934), c. 73–77. Geiger, A., Judaism and Islam, Eng. tr. Madras 1898. Geyer, R., Altarabische Diiamben, Leipzig-New York 1908. Geyer, R., Gedichte von ‘Abû Bas̤îr Maimûn ibn Qais al-’Aʻšâ, London 1928. al-Gharnāṭī, al-Baḥr al-muḥīṭ fī ’l-tafsīr, Beirut 2001. al-Ghazālī, Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn, Cairo 1939. al-Ghazālī, al-Iqtiṣad fī l-i‘tiqād, Cairo 1966. al-Ghubrīnī, ʻUnwān al-dirāya, Beirut 1969.

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gibb, H.A.R., Modern Trends in Islam, Chicago 1947. Gilliot, C., “Muḥammad, le Coran et les ‘contraintes de l’histoire’”, in The Qur’ān as Text, ed. by S. Wild, Leiden 1996, p. 3–26. Gilliot, C., “Muqātil, grand éxègete, traditionniste et théologien maudit”, JA, 279 (1991), p. 39–92. Gilliot, C., “Portrait ‘mythique’ d’Ibn ʻAbbās”, Arabica, 32 (1985), p. 127–184. Gilliot, C., “Textes arabes anciens édités en Egypte”, MIDEO, 21 (1993), p. 385–562. Gimaret, D., Une lecture muʻtazilite du Coran, Louvain-Paris 1994. Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia 1909–46. Gnoli, G., “Arang e Wehrōd, Rāy e Xwarrah”, in Mémorial Jean de Menasce, Louvain 1974, p. 77–80. Goldfeld, I., “The Tafsīr of ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās”, Der Islam, 58 (1981), p. 125–135. Goldziher, I., “Der Dīwān des Garwal b. Aus al-Ḥuṭej’a”, ZDMG, 46/1 (1892), p. 1–53. Goldziher, I., Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden 1970; first edition 1920. Goldziher, I., Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, Princeton 1981. Goldziher, I., “Melanges judeo-arabes-IX”, REJ, 44 (1902). Goldziher, I., Muslim Studies, Eng. ed. by S.M. Stern, London 1967–71. Grabar, O., “Notes sur les ceremonies umayyades”, in Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, ed. by Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, Jerusalem 1967. Green, W.H., “The pentateuchal question. III”, Hebraica, 7, 1890–1, p. 104–142. Greeven, H., “s.v. ηποσκυνὲω”, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, VI, Stuttgart 1957, p. 759–761. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, II, Sources Chrétiennes 1, Paris 1968f. Griffith, S.H., “Islam and the Summa Theologiae Arabica”, JSAI, 13 (1990), p. 225–264. Griffith, S.H., “Theodore Abū Qurrah’s Arabic tract on the Christian practice of venerating images”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105 (1985), p. 53–73. Grünbaum, M., Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sagenkunde, Leiden 1893. Guillaume, A., The Life of Muḥammad, Oxford 1955. Gunkel, H., Schöpfung und Chaos, Göttingen 1895. Haas, S.A., “The creation of man in the Coran”, The Muslim World, 31 (1941), p. 268–273. al-Ḥaddādī, Fayḍ al-qadīr sharḥ al-jāmi‘ al-ṣaghīr, Cairo 1356 ah. al-Ḥaddādī, Ibn Abī al-‘Ābidīn, al-Taysīr bi-sharḥ al-jāmi‘ al-ṣaghīr, Riyadh 1988. Ḥadīth, ed. by H. Motzki, Aldershot 2004. Hājjī Khalīfa, Kashf al-ẓunūn ʻan asāmī l-kutub wa-l-funūn, ed. by G. Flügel, LeipzigLondon 1835–58. al-Ḥalabī, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, Beyrut n.d. al-Ḥallāj, Kitāb al-tawāsīn, ed. by L. Massignon, Paris 1913. Hallaq, W., “The authenticity of Prophetic Ḥadīth: a Pseudo-problem”, Studia Islamica, 99 (1999), p. 75–90. Halperin, D.J., and Newby, G.D., “Two castrated bulls: A study in the Haggadah of Kaʻb al-Aḥbār”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 102 (1982), p. 631–638. Ḥāmid ʻAbd al-Qādir, Muʻjizāt al-anbiyā’, Cairo 1983. Ḥāmid ʻAbd al-Qādir, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʻ, Cairo 1975. Hammām b. Munabbih, Ṣaḥīfa, ed. R.F. ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib, Cairo 1985. Ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. by ʻA.M. al-Darwīsh, Beirut 1991. Hannād b. al-Sarī, Kitāb al-zuhd, al-Kuwayt 1985. al-Harawī, Dhamm al-kalām wa-ahlihi, Medina 1998.

249

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Harper, W.R., “The pentateuchal question. III”, Hebraica, 6, 1889–90, p. 1–48. al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Tafsīr, ed. by M. ʻAbd al-Raḥīm, Cairo 1992. al-Hawwārī, Hūd b. Muḥakkam, Tafsīr Kitāb Allāh al-‘Azīz, ed. by Bālḥājj b. Sa‘īd al-Sharīfī, Beirut 1990. al-Haythamī, Majmaʻ al-zawā’id wa-manba’ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1967; Majma‘ al-fawā’id, Beirut 1988. al-Haythamī, Mawārid al-ẓam’ān ilā zawā’id Ibn Ḥibbān, ed. by Sh. al-Arna’ūṭ, Beirut 1993. Hebbo, A.I., Die Fremdwörter in der arabiscben Prophetenbiographie des Ibn Hischām, Heidelberg 1970. Heller, B., “La légende biblique dans l’Islam”, Revue des Études Juives, 98 (1934), p. 1–18. Heller, B., “Récits et personnages bibliques dans la légende mahométane”, REJ, 85 (1928), p. 113–136. Hickman, B., The Story of Joseph: A Fourteenth-Century Turkish Morality Play by Sheyyad Hamza, Syracuse 2014. al-Ḥijrī (Ps-Wahb), Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Alexandria, Baladiyya B1249. Hirschberg, J.W., “Der Sündenfall in der altarabischen Poesie”, Rocznjk Orjentalistyczny, 9 (1933), p. 22–36. Hirschfeld, H.D., Beiträge zur Erklärung des Korān, Leipzig 1886. Horovitz, J., “The earliest biographies of the Prophet and their authors”, IC, 1 (1927), p. 535–559. Hoyland, Robert, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Princeton 1997. al-Ḥumaydī, al-Musnad, Beirut 1988. al-Ḥurr ʻĀmilī, Wasā’il al-shīʻa, Qom 1409 H [ed. cited in the CD-Rom “Noor 2”, Noorsoft, Qom 2000]. Ḥusayn Muḥammad Makhlūf, Ṣafwat al-bayān li-maʻānī al-Qur’ān, al-Kuwayt 1987. al-Ḥusaynī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ ʻalā ra’y al-imāmiyya, Ms Berlin, Staatsbibliothek No. 1025 (Petermann, I, 633). Huseini, I.M., The Life and Works of Ibn Qutayba, Beirut 1950. Ḥussām al-Dīn b. Mūsā ‘Afāna, Fatāwā (from http://yasaloonak.net), 2010. Ḥussām al-Dīn b. Mūsā ‘Afāna, Fatāwā yas’alūnaka, Jerusalem 2006–2009. Ibn ʻAbd al-Barr, Bahjat al-majālis wa-uns al-mujālis, Damascus 2005. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, al-Kabā’ir, Riyadh n.d. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Masā’il, Riyadh n.d. Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Uṣūl al-īmān, Riyadh 1420 ah. Ibn ʻAbd Rabbihi, al-ʻIqd al-farīd, Beirut 1983. Ibn Abī a1-Dunyā, Man ʻāsha baʻda al-mawt, Beirut 1987. Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, al-Ṣamt wa-ādāb al-lisān, Beirut 1410 H. Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ Nahj al-balāgha, Cairo 1959. Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʻIlal al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1985; Cairo 2006. Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut 1999. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Adab, Beirut 1999. Ibn Abī Shayba, al-Muṣannaf fī l-aḥādīth wa-l-āthār, Beirut 1989. Ibn Abī ‘Udhayba, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Jerusalem, Khālidiyya, 23 Sīra. Ibn Abī Zamanīn, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Azīz, ed. by A.ʻA.A. b. ‘Ukāsha and M. b. M. alKanz, Cairo 2002. Ibn al-ʻArabī, Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, ed. by M.ʻA. al-Q. ʻAṭā, Beirut 1988. Ibn al-Athīr, Jāmiʻ al-uṣūl fī aḥādīth al-rasūl, Beirut 1969f.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fī l-ta’rīkh, Beirut n.d. [an. repr. ed. C.J. Tornberg, Leiden 1867f.]; Beirut 1965. Ibn al-Athīr, al-Nihāya fī gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1979. Ibn al-Bāghandī, Musnad amīr al-mu’minīn ʻUmar b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz, Cairo 1986. Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa jāmiʻ al-ghurar, I, ed. by B. Radtke, Wiesbaden 1982. Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, “Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum” n. 5, Leiden 1885. Ibn al-Jaʻd, Musnad, Beirut 1990. Ibn al-Jawzī, Akhbār al-ḥamqā wa al-mughaffalīn, Beirut 1990. Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-mawḍūʻāt, Beirut 1995. Ibn al-Jawzī, Kitāb al-quṣṣāṣ wa-l-mudhakkirīn, ed. by M.L. Swartz, Beirut 1986; Beirut 1988. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa-l-umam, Beirut 1992. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Nuṭq al-mafhūm min al-ṣamt al-ma‘lūm (as an appendix to Ibn Abī l-Dunyā, Man ‘āsha ba‘da l-mawt), Beirut 1987. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Tabṣira, Beirut 1970. Ibn al-Jawzī, Ṣifat al-ṣafwa, Alexandria n.d. Ibn al-Jawzī, Talbīs Iblīs, Beirut 1983. Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād al-masīr fī ʻilm al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1965; ed. ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad al-Raḥmān and Abū Hājar Muḥammad al-Sa‘īd b. Basyūnī Zaghlūl, Beirut 1987. Ibn al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-aṣnām, Cairo 1993. Ibn al-Mubārak, Musnad, ed. S.al-B. al-Samarrā’ī, Riyadh 1987. Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍā’il Bayt al-Maqdis wa-l-Khalīl wa-l-Shām, ed. by O. Livne-Kafri, Shfaram 1995. Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Zād al-maʻād fī hady khayr al-ʻibād, Cairo 1987. Ibn al-Wardī, Kharīdat al-ʻajā’ib wa-farīdat al-gharā’ib, Cairo n.d. Ibn ʻAsākir, Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq, facsimile edition, Amman n.d. Ibn ‘Aṭiyya al-Andalusī, Muḥarrar al-wajīz fī tafsīr al-Kitāb al-‘Azīz, ed. by ‘A.al-S.‘A. al-Sh. Muḥammad, Beirut 2007. Ibn Balabān, ‘Alī, al-Iḥsān bi-tartīb Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān, ed. by Kamāl Yūsuf al-Ḥūt, Beirut 1987. Ibn Barrī, Kitāb al-tanbīh wa-l-īḍāḥ ʻammā waqaʻa fī l-siḥāḥ, Cairo 1981. Ibn Durayd, Kitāb jamharat al-lugha, Beirut 1987. Ibn Fāris, Muʻjam maqāyīs al-lugha, Cairo 1970. Ibn Furāk, Mushkil al-ḥadīth wa-bayānuhu, Beirut 1985. Ibn Furāt al-Kūfī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1992. Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb waṣf al-firdaws (La descripción del paraíso), transl. and notes by J.P. Monferrer Sala, Granada 1997. Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-muḥabbar, ed. by I. Lichtenstädter, Hyderabad 1942. Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-munammaq fī akhbār Quraysh, ed. by Kh.A. Fāriq, Beirut 1985. Ibn Ḥabīb, Kitāb al-ta’rīkh, ed. by J. Aguadè, Madrid 1991. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-bārī bi-sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. by Ibn Bāz and M.F. ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Beirut 1991. Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, ed. A. Sprenger et al., Calcutta 1856f., repr. Beirut n.d. Ibn Ḥajar, Itḥāf al-mahra bi-l-fawā’id al-mubtakira min aṭrāf ʻashara, Medina 1994. Ibn Ḥamdān, Muʻjizāt al-anbiyā’, MS Ambrosiana CCIX. Ibn Ḥazm, al-Muḥallā, Beirut n.d.

251

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, Kitāb al-majrūḥīn, Beirut 1992. Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. by M. al-Saqqā et al., Cairo 1955; ed. Suhayl Zakkār, Beirut 1992. Ibn Ishāq, Kitāb al-siyar wa-1-maghāzī (riwāya Yūnus b. Bukayr), ed. by S. Zakkār, Beirut 1978. Ibn Isḥāq al-Baghdādī, Musnad al-imām Zayd, Beirut n.d. Ibn Iyās, Nuzhat al-umam fī al-ʻajā’ib wa-l-ḥikam, Cairo 1995. Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, Kitāb al-tashīl, Cairo 1936. Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa-l-nihāya, Beirut-Riyadh 1966; Beirut 1990. Ibn Kathīr, al-Nihāya fī l-fitan wa-l-malāḥim, Beirut 1988. Ibn Kathīr, Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʻ, ed. by ʻAbd al-Wāḥid, Cairo 1968; ed. by ʻAbd al ʻAzīz, Bayrut 1988. Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʻaẓīm, Beirut n.d.; Cairo 1954; Cairo 1971f. Ibn Khuzayma, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.M. al-Aʻzamī, Beirut 1992. Ibn Māja, Sunan, ed. by M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Cairo n.d. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab, ed. by Dār al-ma‘ārif, Cairo n.d. Ibn Muqbil, Dīwān, Damascus 1962. Ibn Qudāma al-Maqdisī, Kitāb al-tawwābīn, ed. by G. Maqdisi, Damascus 1961. Ibn Qūlawayh, Kāmil al-ziyārāt, Qom 1978. Ibn Qutayba, Gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1988. Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb al-shi‘r wa-l-shu‘arā’, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1904. Ibn Qutayba, Kitāb mukhtalif al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1985. Ibn Qutayba, al-Maʻārif, Cairo 1960. Ibn Qutayba, Tafsīr gharīb al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1958; Beirut 1978. Ibn Qutayba, Ta’wīl mushkil al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1981. Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn al-akhbār, Beirut 1998. Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī, Faḍl ‘ilm al-khalaf ‘alā al-khalaf, n.p. n.d. Ibn Rajab al-Baghdādī, al-Takhwīf min al-nār wa-l-taʻrīf bi-ḥāl dār al-bawār, Beirut n.d. Ibn Sabā’, La perle précieuse (al-Jawhara al-nafīsa), ed. by J. Périer, Patrologia Orientalis 16, Paris 1922. Ibn Saʻd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut n.d. Ibn Ṣā‘id, al-Juz’ fīhi musnad ʻAbdallāh b. Abī Awfā, Riyadh n.d. Ibn Sallām, Gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1384 ah. Ibn Sallām, Tafsīr, ed. by Hind Shalabī, Beirut 2004. Ibn Shāhīn, al-Nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh min al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1992; Cairo 1995. Ibn Sharhrāshūb, Manāqib Āl Abī Ṭālib, Najaf 1956. Ibn Taymiyya, Aḥādīth al-quṣṣāṣ, Cairo 1993. Ibn Taymiyya, al-Aḥādīth al-ḍaʻīfa wa l-bāṭila, Cairo 1989. Ibn Taymiyya, al-Amr bi-l-maʻrūf wa-l-nahy ʻan al-munkar, Cairo 1987. Ibn Taymiyya, al-‘Iṣyān al-musallaḥ aw qitāl ahl al-baghy fī dawlat al-Islām wa-mawqif al-Ḥākim minhu, Beirut 1992. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmū‘ al-fatāwā, Cairo 1988; Medina 1995. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʻat al-rasā’il al-kubrā, Beirut n.d. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʻat al-rasā’il wa l-masā’il, repr. ed. by M.R. Riḍā, Beirut 1992. Ibn Taymiyya, Muqaddima fī uṣūl al-tafsīr, Cairo 1988. Ibn Waḍḍāh, Kitāb al-bidaʻ, ed. by M. Fierro, Madrid 1988. Ibrāhīm, M.I., Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ wa-al-rusul, Cairo 1977. al-Ibshīhī, al-Mustaṭraf fī kull fann mustaẓraf, Beirut 1991.

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-‘Irāqī, Abū al-Faḍl, al-Mughnī ‘an ḥaml al-asfār fī al-asfār, Beirut 2005. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III, 8, Sources Chrétiennes 211, Paris 1968f. Isḥāq b. Bishr, Mubtada’ al-dunyā wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntingdon 388. Ismāʻīl Sālim ʻAbd al-ʻĀl, Ibn Kathīr wa manhajuhu fī l-tafsīr, Cairo 1984. al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn, Beirut 1983. al-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-ḥayawān, ed. by ʻAbd al-Salām Hārūn, Cairo 1965–69. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Qāsimī, Maḥāsin al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1958. Jansen, J.J.G., The Interpretation of the Koran in Modern Egypt, Leiden 1974; Leiden 1980. Jārallāh al-Khaṭīb, Qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Riyadh 1973. Jarīr, Dīwān, ed. by I. ‘A. al-Ṣāwī, n.p. 1935. al-Jawharī, Tāj al-lugha, n.p. 1282 ah. Jayakar, A.S.G., Ad-Damīrī’s Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān (A Zoological Lexicon), London 1906. al-Jazārī, al-Nihāya fī gharīb al-athar, Beirut 1979. Jeffery, A., The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’ān, Baroda 1938. Jenkinson, E.J., “The rivers of paradise”, The Muslim World, 19 (1929), p. 151–155. Johns, A.H., “David and Bathsheba: A case study in the exegesis of Qur’ānic story-telling”, MIDEO, 19 (1989), p. 225–266. Johnson, W.W., The Poema de Jose: A Transcription and Comparison of the Extant Manuscripts, Mississippi 1974. Joines, K.R., Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, Haddonfield 1974. Jomier, J., “Le Cheikh Ṭanṭāwi Jawharī (1862–1940) et son commentaire du Coran”, MIDEO, 5 (1958), p. 115–74. Jomier, J., Le commentaire coranique du Manar, Paris 1974. Jomier, J., “Quelques positions actuelles de l’exégèse coranique en Egypte”, MIDEO, 1 (1954), p. 39–72. Jomier, J., and Caspar, P., “L’exégèse scientifique du Coran d’après le cheikh Amin alKhouli”, MIDEO, 4 (1957), p. 269–280. Juynboll, G.H.A., The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature, Leiden 1969. Kaplony, A., Kostantinopel und Damaskus: Gesandtschaften und Verträge zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen 639–750. Untersuchungen zum Gewohnheits-Völkerrecht und zur interkulturellen Diplomatie, Berlin 1996. al-Kashānī, Kitāb al-ṣafī fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Tehran n.d. Kasher, M.M., Torah Shelemah, 9, New York 1954. Keel, O., The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York 1978. Kennedy, P.F., Recognition in the Arabic Narrative Tradition: Discovery, Deliverance, and Delusion, Edinburgh 2016. Khalafallāh, M.A., al-Fann al-qaṣaṣī fī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1974, first edition 1951. Khalidi, T., Islamic Historiography: The Histories of Masʻūdī, Albany 1975. al-Khalīlī, Kitāb al-ʻayn, Baghdad 1982. al-Khansā’, Dīwān, ed. by L. Cheikho, Beirut 1888. al-Kharā’iṭī, Masāwi‘ al-akhlāq wa-madhmūmihā, n.p. n.d.; Jiddah 1993. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Ta’rīkh Baghdād aw Madīnat al-salām, ed. by M.‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā, Beirut 1997. al-Khāzin, Lubāb al-ta’wīl fī maʻānī l-tanzīl, Cairo 1912; Cairo 1955. Khoury, R.G., Wahb b. Munabbih, Wiesbaden 1972.

253

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Khūshābī, ʻArā’is al-Qur’ān wa-nafā’is al-Furqān wa-farādīs al-jinān, Beirut 2007. al-Kīnānī, Tanzīh al-sharīʻa al-marfūʻa, Beirut 1979. Kinberg, L., “What is meant by zuhd”, Studia Islamica, 61 (1985), p. 27–44. Kindermann, H., Über die gutten Sitten beim essen und trinken, Leiden 1964. al-Kisā’ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. by I. Eisenberg, Leiden 1922–23. Kister, M.J., “‘A bag of meat’: A study of an early ḥadīth” (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, VI), BSOAS, 33 (1970), p. 267–275. Kister, M.J., “Ādam: A study of some legends in tafsīr and in ḥadīth literature”, IOS, 13 (1993), p. 113–174. Kister, M.J., “Do not assimilate yourselves. Lā tashabbahū”, JSAI, 12 (1989), p. 321–371. Kister, M.J., “Haddithū ʻan banī isrā’īla wa-la ḥaraja: A study of an early tradition”, IOS, 2 (1972), p. 215–239. Kister, M.J., “Land property and jihād: A discussion of some early traditions”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 34 (1991), p. 270–311. Kister, M.J., “The locust’s wing: Some notes on locusts in the ḥadīth,” Le Muséon, 106 (1993), p. 347–359. Kister, M.J., “On the papyrus of Wahb b. Munabbih”, BSOAS, 37 (1974), p. 547–571. Kister, M.J., “Some reports concerning al-Ṭā’if” (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, no. XI), JSAI, 1 (1979), p. 1–18. Kister, M.J., “Some reports concerning Mecca from Jāhiliyya to Islam”, JESHO, 15 (1972), p. 61–93 (in Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, no. II). Kister, M.J., Studies in Jāhiliyya and Early Islam, London 1980. Kitāb al-Muqaddas, Oxford 1849. Kitzinger, E., Il culto delle immagini, Scandicci 1992 [Italian translation of The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies, Bloomington 1976]. Klenk, U., La leyenda de Yūsuf. Ein Aljamiadotext, Berlin 1972. Knappert, J., Islamic Legends: Histories of the Heroes, Saints and Prophets of Islam, Leiden 1985. al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, Tehran 1957–63; Tehran 1967. Lammens, H., Fāṭima et les filles de Mahomet, Roma 1912. Lane, E.W., An Arabic-English Lexicon, London-Edinburgh 1863–93. Laoust, H., “Ibn Kathīr historien”, Arabica, 2 (1955), p. 42–88. Lecker, M., “Biographical notes on Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 41 (1996), p. 21–63. Lecker, M., Muslims, Jews and Pagans: Studies on Early Islamic Medina, Leiden 1995. Le commentaire sur Genèse-Exode 9,32 du manuscrit (Olim) Diyarbakir 22, ed. by L. Van Rompay, CSCO (= Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium) 484, Leuven 1986. Lecomte, G., Ibn Qutayba, l’homme, son oeuvre, ses idées, Damascus 1965. Lecomte, G., Le traité des divergences du ḥadīṯ d’Ibn Qutayba, Damas 1962. Levi Della Vida, G., “Manoscritti arabi di origine spagnola nella Biblioteca Vaticana”, in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda, Città del Vaticano 1962, p. 133–190. Levi Della Vida, G., Note di storia letteraria arabo-islamica, Roma 1971. Libri carolini, ed. H. Bastgen, MGH Leges 2/111, Concilia, Suppl., Hannover-Leipzig 1924. Lidzbarski, M., De propheticis, quae dicuntur, legendis arabicis, Leipzig 1893. Lowry, J.E., Early Islamic Legal Theory: The Risāla of Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfi‘ī, Leiden-Boston 2007.

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Maḥallī and al-Suyūṭī, Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, Cairo 1876. Maḥmūd Abū Rayya, Aḍwā’ ʻalā al-Sunna al-Muḥammadiyya, Cairo 1958. Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, al-Anbiyā’ fī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1970. Maḥmūd al-Sharqāwī, Ittijāhāt al-tafsīr fi Miṣr fī al-ʻaṣr al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1972. Maḥmūd Muḥammad Hamza, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo n.d. Maḥmūd Shaltūt, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-Karīm, Cairo 1960f. Maḥmūd Zahrān, Qaṣaṣ min al-Qur’ān, Cairo n.d. al-Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār al-jāmiʻa li-durar akhbār al-a’imma al-aṭhār, Beirut 1983. Makkī al-Qissī, al-Hidāya ilā bulūgh al-nihāya fī ʻilm maʻānī al-Qur’ān wa-tafsīrihi, Sharja 2008. Mālik b. Anas, Kitāb al-muwaṭṭa’, ed. M.F. ʻAbd al-Bāqī, Beirut 1988. Mann, J., “A tract by an early Karaite settler in Jerusalem”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, 12 (1921–22), p. 257–298. al-Maqdisī, al-Badʻ wa-ta’rīkh, ed. C. Huart, Paris 1899–1919 [repr. Cairo n.d.]. al-Maqdisī, Taflīs Iblīs, Cairo 1991. al-Maqdisī, Shams al-Dīn, al-Ādāb al-shar‘iyya wa-l-manḥ al-mar‘iyya, Beirut n.d. al-Maqrīzī, al-Mawā’iẓ wa-l-i‘tibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-l-āthār, vol. 1, ed. by A. Fu’ād Sayyid, London 2002. al-Maqrīzī, Maqrīzī – El-mawâ’iz wa’l-i’tibâr fî dhikr el-khitat wa’l-âthâr, Mémoires de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 30, ed. by G. Wiet, Cairo 1911. Markwart, J., Wehrot und Arang, Leiden 1938. Marracci, L., Alcorani Textus Universus . . ., Padua 1698. Massignon, L., Essai sur les origines du lexique technique de la mystique musulmane, Paris 19542. Massignon, L., La passion de Husayn Ibn Mansūr Hallāj, Paris 1975. Massignon, L., Recueil de textes inédits concernant l’histoire de la mystique en pays d’Islam, Paris 1929. Masson, D., Le Coran et la révélation judéo-chrétienne. Études comparées, Paris 1958. al-Masʻūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʻādin al-jawhar, ed. by B. de Meynard, P. de Courteille, and rev. by C. Pellat, Beirut 1966–79. al-Mas’ūdī, al-Tanbīh wa-l-ishrāf, “Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum” n. 8, ed. by M.J. de Goeje, Leiden 1894. al-Māturīdī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘aẓīm, al-musammā Ta’wīlāt ahl al-sunna, ed. by F.Y. al-Khaymī, Beirut 2004; al-Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt ahl al-sunna, Baghdad 1983; Beirut 2005. al-Māwardī, al-Nukat wa al-ʻuyūn, Beirut 1992. McCarthy, D.J., “Moses’ dealings with Pharaoh: Ex.7.8–10.27”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 27 (1965), p. 336–347. McGaha, M., Coat of Many Cultures: The Story of Joseph in Spanish Literature, Philadelphia-Jerusalem 1997. Meyouhas, J., Bible Tales in Arab Folklore, London 1928. al-Minhājī, Itḥāf al-akhiṣṣā bi-faḍā’il al-masjid al-aqṣā, Cairo 1984. Miquel, A., La géographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle. III. Le milieu naturel, Paris 1980. Mir, M., Verbal Idioms of the Qur’ān, Ann Arbor 1989. Mirkhond, La Bibbia vista dall’Islām, Rawzat-us-Safā ovvero il giardino della purezza, Milan 1996. Mittwoch, E., Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des islamischen Gebets und Kultus, Berlin 1913. al-Mizzī, Tahdhīb al-kamāl fi asmā’ al-rijāl, Beirut 1980; ed. B.‘A. Ma‘rūf, Beirut 2002.

255

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Moreen, V.B., In Queen Esther’s Garden: An Anthology of Judeo-Persian Literature, New Haven 2000. al-Mu‘āfā b. Zakariyā, al-Jalīs al-ṣāliḥ al-kāfī wa-l-anīs al-nāṣiḥ al-shāfī, Beirut 1987; Beirut 1993. Mubarrad, al-Kāmil fī l-adab, ed. by W. Wright, Leipzig 1882. Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Munʻim al-Jamāl, al-Tafsīr al-farīd li-al-Qur’ān al-majīd, Beirut 1952. Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Munʻim Khafājī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo n.d. Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Ghumrāwī, “Min iʻgāz al Qur’ān al-ta’rīkhī: an lam tudhkar Isrā’īl fī al-Qur’ān”, Majallat al-Azhar, 39 (1967), p. 508–514. Muḥammad Aḥmad Jād al-Mawlā et al., Qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1946; (first edition 1934). Muḥammad al-Bahī, Tafsīr al-Aʻrāf, Cairo 1980. Muḥammad al-Bahī, Tafsīr Ṭāhā, Cairo 1977. Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib al-Najjār, Taʻrīkh al-anbiyā’ fi ḍaw’ al-Qur’ān al-karīm wa-alsunna al-nabawiyya, Cairo 1979. Muḥammad ‘Ārif Maḥmūd Ḥusayn, al-Naqḍ al-adabī wa-maqāyīsuhu khilāl ‘ahd al-rasūl ṣallā Allāh ‘alayhi wa-sallam wa-‘aṣr al-khilāfa al-rāshida, Medina 1403 ah. Muḥammad b. Muḥammad Abū Shuhba, al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa-l-mawḍūʻāt fī kutub al-tafsīr, Cairo 1973; 1985. Muḥammad Farīd Wajdī, Ṣafwat al-ʻIrfān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1905. Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Isrā’īliyyāt fī al-tafsīr wa-al-ḥadīth, Cairo 1986. Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa al-mufassirūn, Cairo 1961; Cairo 19762. Muḥammad Ibrahim Sharīf, Ittijāhāt al-tajdīd fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān fī Miṣr, Cairo 1982. Muḥammad Maḥmūd Ḥijāzī, al-Tafsīr al-wāḍiḥ, Cairo 1964f. Mujāhid b. Jabr, Tafsīr, ed. by M.ʻA. Abū 1-Nīl, Cairo 1989. Mujīr al-Dīn, al-Uns al-jalīl bi-ta’rīkh al-Quds wa-l-Khalīl, Amman 1973. al-Munāwī, Fayḍ al-qadīr, Cairo n.d. Mundkur, B., “Ḥayya in Islamic thought”, Muslim World, 70 (1980), p. 213–225. al-Muqaddasī, Kitāb aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī ma’rifat al-aqālīm, Fr. tr. by A. Miquel, Damascus 1963. Muqātil b. Sulaymān, Tafsīr, ed. by ʻA.M. Shiḥāta, Cairo 1979–90. Murison, R.G., “The serpent in the Old Testament”, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 21 (1904–05), p. 115–130. Mursī, A.ʻA., “al-Fūlklūr wa l-Isrā’īliyyāt”, al-Turāth al-shaʻbī, 8 (1977), p. 21–46. Mursī, A.ʻA., and Jūdī, F.M., al-Fūlklūr wa l-Isrā’īliyyāt, Cairo 1977. Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by M.F. ‘Abd al-Bāqī, Cairo 1991. al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, Kanz al-ʻummāl fī sunan al-aqwāl wa-l-afʻāl, Beirut 1989. Nagel, T., Die Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā’. Ein Beitrag zur arabischen Literaturgeschichte, Bonn 1967. Naʻnāʻa, R., al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa āthāruhā fī kutub al-tafsīr, Damascus-Beirut 1970. al-Nasafī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1948. al-Nasā’ī, al-Sunan al-kubrā, Beirut 1991. al-Nawawī, al-Adhkār, Beirut 1994. al-Nawawī, Tafsīr, Cairo 1887. Nemoy, L., “Al-Qirqisānī on the occult sciences”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 70 (1986), p. 329–367. Newby, G.D., “Tafsir Isra’iliyyat: The development of Qur’an commentary in early Islam”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 47 (1979), p. 685–697. Nicholson, R.A., Studies in Islamic Mysticism, Cambridge 1921.

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Nīsābūrī, Gharā’ib al-Qur’ān wa-raghā’ib al-Furqān, Cairo 1962; Cairo 1967. Nöldeke, Th., “Die Schlange nach arabischen Volksglaube”, Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, 1 (1866), p. 412–416. Nöldeke, Th., Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, Strassburg 1910. Nöldeke, Th., “Review of Reste arabischen Heidentums of J. Wellhausen”, ZDMG, 41 (1887), p. 707–726. Norris, H.T., “Qiṣaṣ elements in the Qur’ān”, in Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period, ed. A.F.L. Beeston, T.M. Johnstone, R. B. Serjeant, and G.R. Smith, Cambridge 1983, p. 246–259. Nuʻaym b. Hammād, Kitāb al-fitan, Mecca n.d. al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, Cairo 1923–85; Cairo 2003. On Fiction and Adab in Medieval Arabic Literature, ed. by P.F. Kennedy, Wiesbaden 2005. Origen, Contra Celsum, II, Sources Chrétiennes 132, Paris 1968f. Origen, Homiliae in Exodum, IV, Sources Chrétiennes 321, Paris 1968f. Origen, Homiliae in Ieremiam, V, Sources Chrétiennes 232, Paris 1968f. Pauliny, J., “Kisā’ī’s Werk Kitāb Qisas al-anbiyā’”, Graecolatina et Orientalia, 2 (1970), p. 191–282. Perlmann, M., “A legendary story of Ka‘b al-Aḥbar’s conversion to Islam”, in The Joshua Starr Memorial Volume, New York 1953, p. 85–99. Perlmann, M., “Another Ka‘b al-Aḥbār story”, JQR, 45 (1954–55), p. 48–58. Porter, J.R., “Witchcraft and magic in the Old Testament, and their relations to animals”, in Animals in Folklore, ed. by J.R. Porter and W.M.S. Russell, Cambridge 1978, p. 70–85. Preuss, H.D., “s.v. ḥwh”, in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. by G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, tr. by D.E. Green, IV, Grand Rapids 1980, p. 250–256. Pritchard, J.B., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 1969. Ps.-Aṣma‘ī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (in the Kitāb al-shāmil), London, Ms British Library or. 1493. (Ps.)-Ibn Iyās, Badā’iʻ al-zuhūr wa-waqā’iʻ al-duhūr, n.p. n.d.; Beirut n.d. Ps.-Masʻūdī, Akhbār al-zamān, Cairo 1938. Ps.-Philo, Les Antiquités bibliques, XIX, Sources Chrétiennes 229, Paris 1968f. al-Qāḍī ʻIyāḍ, al-Shifā’ bi-taʻrīf ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā, Beirut 1988. al-Qārī, Sharḥ musnad Abī Ḥanīfa, Beirut n.d. al-Qaṣabī Maḥmūd Zalaṭ, Qaḍāyā al-takrār fī al-qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, Cairo 1977. al-Qayrawānī, Kitāb al-jāmiʻ fī l-sunan wa·l-ādāb wa-l-maghāzī wa-l-ta’rīkh, Tunis 1985. al-Qaysarānī, Dhakhīrat al-ḥuffāẓ, Riyadh 1994. al-Qazwīnī, ‘Ajā’ib al-makhlūqāt wa-gharā’ib al-mawjūdāt, Cairo 1966; Cairo 1980. al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-anwār wa-l-marāqib, ed. by L. Nemoy, New York 1939–43. al-Qummī, Tafsīr, Beirut 1991. al-Qurṭubī, al-Jāmiʻ li-aḥkām al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1964; Cairo 1967; ed. by ‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Mahdī, Beirut 1985. al-Qurṭubī, al-Tadhkira fī aḥwāl al-mawtā wa-umūr al-ākhira, Cairo n.d. al-Qushayrī, Kitāb al-mi‘rāj, ed. by ‘A.Ḥ. ‘Abd al-Qādir, Cairo 1964. al-Qushayrī, Laṭā’if al-ishārāt, Cairo 1968. al-Rabghūzī, Stories of the Prophets, second edition, ed. by H.E. Boeschoten and J. O’Kane, Leiden-Boston 2015. Ramzī Na‘nā‘a, al-Isrā’īliyyāt wa atharuhā fī kutub al-tafsīr, Beirut-Damascus 1970. Rashi, Commentary, II:Exodus, Jerusalem 1930. Rashīd Riḍā, M., Tafsīr al-Manār, Cairo 1904–32; Beirut 1973.

257

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rashīd Riḍā, M., al-Waḥy al muḥammadī, Cairo 1956. al-Rāwandī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Beirut 1989. al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, ʻIṣmat al-anbiyā’, Beirut 1988. al-Rāzī, Fakhr al-Dīn, al-Tafsīr al-kabīr (Mafātīḥ al-ghayb), Cairo 1938; Beirut 1990. Ritter, H., Das Meer der Seele, Leiden 1955. Rosenblatt, S., “Rabbinic legends in Hadith”, Muslim World, 35 (1945), p. 237–252. Rosenthal, F., A History of Muslim Historiography, Leiden 1968. Rosmarin, A., Moses in Lichte der Agada, New York 1932. Rubin, U., The Eye of the Beholder: The Life of Muḥammad as Viewed by the Early Muslims, Princeton 1995. Rubin, U., “Hanīfiyya and Kaʻba. An inquiry into the Arabian pre-Islamic background of dīn Ibrāhīm”, JSAI (1990), p. 85–112. Rubin, U., “Morning and evening prayers in early Islam”, JSAI, 10 (l987), p. 40–64. al-Rūyānī, Musnad, Cairo 1995. Saʻadya Gaon, Oeuvres complètes de R. Saadia Ben Josef al-Fayyoûmî, ed. by J. Derenbourg, Paris 1893. al-Safīrī, Shams al-Dīn, al-Majālis al-waʻẓiyya fī sharḥ aḥādīth khayr al-barriyya (ṣ.) min ṣaḥīḥ al-Imām al-Bukhārī, Beirut 2004. al-Ṣaghānī, al-Takmila wa-l-dhayl wa-l-ṣila, Cairo 1971. Saʻīd b. Manṣūr, Musnad, Beirut n.d. Saʻīd Ḥawwī, al-Asās fī al-tafsīr, Cairo 1985. Saleh, W.A., The Formation of the Classical Tafsīr Tradition: The Qur’ān Commentary of al-Tha‘labī (d. 427/1035), Leiden 2004. al-Sam‘ānī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, ed. by A.T.Y. b. Ibrāhim and A.B. Ghunaym, Riyadh 1997. Sammlungen alter arabischer Dichter. I: Elaçmaʻijjat, ed. by W. Ahlwardt, Berlin 1902. Sayyid Aḥmad Muḥsib, Ahdāf al-qaṣaṣ al-qur’ānī, Cairo n.d. Sayyid Quṭb, Fī ẓilāl al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1985. Scarcia Amoretti, B., “Un’interpretazione iranistica di Cor. XXV,38 e L,12”, Rivista di Studi Orientali, 43 (1968), p. 27–52. Schacht, J., The Origins of Muḥammadan Jurisprudence, Oxford 1950. Schick, R., The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical and Archeological Study, Princeton 1995. Schlechta-Wssehrd, O., Jussuf und Suleicha, romantisches Heldengedicht von Firdussi, Wien 1889. Schönborn, C., L’icona di Cristo: Fondamenti teologici, Italian translation, Cinisello Balsamo 1988 of Die Christus-Ikone: Eine theologische Hinführung, Schaffhausen 1984. Schultess, F., Umajja ibn Abi-ṣ-Ṣalt, Leipzig 1911. Schwally, F., “Lexikalische Studien”, ZDMG, 52 (1898), p. 132–148. Schwarzbaum, H., Biblical and Extra-Biblical Legends in Islamic Folk-Literature, Walldorf-Hessen 1982. Seco de Lucena, L., “De nuevo sobre el ‘Naqṭ al-ʻarūs’ de Ibn Ḥazm de Córdoba”, alAndalus, 29 (1964), p. 23–38. Septem Moallakāt. Carmina antiquissima arabum, ed. by F.A. Arnold, Leipzig 1850. Serrano Niza, D., “Los vestidos según la Ley Islámica: la seda”, BAEO, 29 (1993), p. 155–165. Sezgin, F., Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. I, Leiden 1967, II. Poesie, Leiden 1975. al-Shaʻʻār, Sunan al-Awzāʻī, Beirut 1993. al-Sharīf al-‘Awnī, al-Manhaj al-muqtariḥ li-fahm al-muṣṭalaḥ, Riyadh 1996.

258

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, al-Majāzāt al-nabawiyya, Beirut 1986. al-Shāshī, al-Musnad, Medina-Cairo 1989f. al-Shāṭibī, Kitāb al-jumān fī akhbār al-zamān, Ms British Library or. 3008. al-Shawkānī, Fatḥ al-Qādir, Beirut n.d.; Cairo 1968. Shboul, A.M.H., al-Masʻūdī and His World, London 1979. al-Shiblī, Maḥāsin al-wasā’il fī maʻrifat al-awā’il, Beirut 1992. al-Shinqīṭī, Dafʻ īhām al-iḍṭirāb ʻan āyāt al-Kitāb, Cairo n.d. al-Shirbīnī, al-Sirāj al-munīr, Cairo n.d. Shubbār, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo 1966. Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mir’āt al-zamān fī ta’rīkh al-aʻyān, ed. by I. ʻAbbās, Beirut 1985. Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, Fatḥ al-bayān, Cairo 1965–67. Sidersky, D., Les origines des légendes musulmanes dans le Coran et dans les vies des prophètes, Paris 1933. al-Sijistānī, Gharīb al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1982. Sindawi, K.A., “The cult of the Euphrates and its significance among the Imāmī Shī‘a”, Der Islam, 81 (2004), p. 249–269. Sivan, E., Radical Islam, New Haven-London 1985. Soggin, J.A., Introduzione all’Antico Testamento, Brescia 1987. Soverianus, Homilia de serpente quem Moyses in cruce suspendit, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, Paris 1857–66. Speight, R. Marston, “A Look at Variant readings in the ḥadīth”, Der Islam, 77 (2000), p. 169–179. Sperl, S., “Man’s ‘hollow core’: Ethics and aesthetics in ḥadīth literature and classical Arabic Adab”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 70 (2007), p. 459–486. Speyer, H., Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, Gräfenhainichen 1931 [repr. Hildesheim 1988]. Spiro, J., L’Histoire de Joseph selon la tradition musulmane, Lausanne 1906. The Story of Joseph in Arabic Verses: The Leeds Manuscripts 347, ed. by R.Y. Ebied and M.J.L. Young Leiden 1975. Sulaymān b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, Taysīr al-‘azīz al-ḥamīd fī sharḥ kitāb al-tawḥīd, Beirut-Damascus 2002. Sulaym b. Qays, Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays, Najaf n.d. al-Suyūṭī, al-Aḥādīth al-ḥisān fī faḍl al-ṭaylasān, ed. A. Arazi, Jerusalem 1983. al-Suyūṭī, al-Āyāt al-kubrā fī sharḥ qiṣṣat al-isrā’, in Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī and al-Suyūṭī, al-Isrā’ wa’l-mi‘rāj, ed. by M.‘A. al-Ḥakīm al-Qādī, Cairo 1989. al-Suyūṭī, al-Budūr al-sāfira fī umūr al-ākhira, Cairo 1990. al-Suyūṭī, al-Durr al-manthūr fī l-tafsīr bi-l-ma’thūr, Beirut 1983; Beirut 1992. al-Suyūṭī, al-Itqān fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1978. al-Suyūṭī, Jāmi‘ al-ḥadīth, Cairo n.d. al-Suyūṭī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaghīr fī aḥādīth al-bashīr al-nadhīr, Beirut n.d.; Beirut 1981. al-Suyūṭī, al-Khaṣā’iṣ al-kubrā, Beirut n.d. al-Suyūṭī, Kitāb al-wadīk fī faḍl al-dīk, Cairo 1322 ah. al-Suyūṭī, al-La’ālī al-maṣnūʻa fī l-aḥādīth al-mawḍūʻa, Beirut 1996. al-Suyūṭī, Qūt al-mughtadī ‘alā jāmiʻ al-Tirmidhī, Mecca 1424 ah. al-Suyūṭī, al-Ziyādāt ʻalā al-mawḍūʻāt, al-Riyadh 2010. al-Suyūṭī, Zuhr al-khamā’il ʻalā l-shamā’il awṣāf al-nabī, Cair 1988. al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-awsaṭ, Cairo 1995.

259

BIBLIOGRAPHY

al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʻjam al-kabīr, Cairo n.d. al-Ṭabarānī, Musnad al-shāmiyyīn, Beirut 1989. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʻ al-bayān ʻan ta’wīl āy al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1958; ed. by Maḥmūd Muḥammad Shākir and Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Cairo 1968. al-Ṭabarī, Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-l-mulūk, ed. by M.A. al-F. Ibrahim, Cairo 1960–69; ed. by M.J. de Goeje et al., Leiden 1879–1901. al-Ṭabarī, Alī b. Rabbān, al-Dīn wa-l-dawla fī ithbāt nubuwwat al-nabī Muḥammad, Beirut 1973. al-Ṭabarsī [= al-Ṭabrisī], Majmaʻ al-bayān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo n.d.; Cairo 1966f.; Beirut 1992 ; Beirut 1995. al-Ṭabāṭabā’ī, al-Mīzān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Beirut 1970–74. al-Tabrīzī, Mishkāt al-maṣābīḥ, Beirut 1985. al-Ṭaḥāwī, Sharḥ maʻānī al-āthār, Beirut 1996. Tamari, S., Iconotextual Studies in the Muslim Vision of Paradise, Wiesbaden-Ramat Gan 1999. al-Ṭanṭāwī, Tafsīr sūrat Ṭāḥā, Cairo 1985. Ṭanṭāwī Jawharī, al-Jawāhir fi tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1922–35. Taqiyy al-Dīn, al-Awā’il, Beirut 1988. al-Ṭarafī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, Ms Biblioteca Vaticana, Borg. 125; edited in Ibn Muṭarrif al-Ṭarafī, The Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Muṭarrif al-Ṭarafī, ed. by R. Tottoli, Berlin 2003. al-Ṭarafī, Storie dei profeti, It. tr. by R. Tottoli, Genova 1997. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, ed. by J.W. Etheridge, London 1862. al-Ṭayālisī, Musnad, Beirut n.d. Tertullian, De Anima, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina II, CPL17, Tournhout 1954. Thackston Jr., W.M., The Tales of the Prophets of al-Kisa’i, Boston 1978. al-Thaʻlabī, ʻArā’is al-Majālis fī Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā’ or “Lives of the Prophets” as Recounted by Abū Isḥāq Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Thaʻlabī, ed. by W.M. Brinner, Leiden 2002. al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf wa-al-bayān, ed. by Abū Muḥammad b. ‘Āshūr, Beirut 2002. al-Thaʻlabī, al-Kashf wa-al-bayān ʻan tafsīr al-Qur’ān, MS Cairo al-Azhar 2056 tafsīr, IV; al-Azhar MS (136) 2056 tafsīr; MS Dār al-Kutub, tafsīr 797. al-Thaʻlabī, Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ al-musammā ʻarā’is al-majālis, Cairo 1954. Tharwat Abāẓa, al-Sard al-qaṣaṣī fī al-Qur’ān al-karīm, Cairo n.d. Theodoret of Cyrus, Questiones in Exodum, IX, J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, 80, Paris 1857–66. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck et al., 5, Stuttgart-Berlin 1985. Thompson, S., Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, II, Copenhagen 1956. al-Tirmidhī, al-‘Ilal al-kabīr, Beirut 1409 H. al-Tirmidhī, al-Jāmiʻ al-ṣaḥīḥ, ed. by Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir, Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī and Ibrāhīm ‘Atwa ‘Iwad, Cairo 1962–1978. al-Tirmidhī, al-Shamā’il al-muḥammadiyya, Cairo 1996. Toelle, H., Le Coran revisité. Le feu, l’eau, l’air et la terre, Damascus 1999. Torrey, C.C., The Jewish Foundation of Islam, New York 1967; first edition 1933. Tottoli, R., “Alcune considerazioni su ǧānn in Cor. 27:10 a 28:37”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 30/3, Serie Orientale 22 (1991), p. 303–307.

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tottoli, R., “Il bastone di Mosé mutato in serpente nell’esegesi e nelle tradizioni islamiche”, AIUON, 51 (1991), p. 225–243, 383–394. Tottoli, R., “Il Faraone nelle tradizioni islamiche: alcune note in margine alla questione della sua conversione”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 14 (1996), p. 19–30. Tottoli, R., “La moderna esegesi islamica ed il rifiuto delle isrā’liyyāt: Le leggende sul bastone di Mosè mutato in serpente”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 29/3 (1990), serie orientale 21, p. 25–35. Tottoli, R., “Le Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di Ṭarafī”, tesi di dottorato (PhD dissertation), Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli 1996. Tottoli, R.,“L’esegeta coranico e la pluralità di significati: Abū Isḥāq al-Tha‘labī e Dhū alKifl”, in Scritti in onore di Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, vol. 3, ed. by Daniela Bredi, et al., Rome 2008, p. 1183–1190. Tottoli, R., “Muslim eschatology and the ascension of the prophet Muḥammad: Describing Paradise in mi’rāj traditions and literature”, in Roads to Paradise: Eschatology and Concepts of the Hereafter in Islam, ed. by Sebastian Günther and Todd Lawson, Leiden 2016, p. 858–890. Tottoli, R., “Nota su una recente posizione critica nei confronti delle isrā’īliyyāt”, Oriente Moderno, 70 (1990), p. 115–118. Tottoli, R., “Sul vestire abiti di lana nelle tradizioni islamiche”, Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 15 (1997), p. 201–204. Tottoli, R., “Tours of hell and punishments of sinners in mi‘rāj narratives: Use and meaning of eschatology in Muḥammad’s ascension”, in The Prophet’s Ascension: Cross-Cultural Encounters with the Islamic Mi‘rāj Tales, ed. by Christiane J. Gruber and Frederick S. Colby, Bloomington 2010, p. 11–26. Tottoli, R., “Un mito cosmogonico nelle Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ di al-Ṯa‘labī”, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, 18/3, serie orientale 20 (1989), p. 49–59. al-Tuhāmī Naqra, Sīkūlūjiyyat al-qiṣṣa fī al-Qur’ān, Tunis n.d. al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk, Cairo 1994. al-Ṭūsī, al-Tibyān fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān, Najaf 1957–65; Tafsīr al-tibyān, Najaf 1957–63. ‘Umāra b. Wathīma, Bad’ al-khalq wa-qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, ed. in R.G. Khoury, Les légendes prophétiques dans l’Islam depuis le Ier jusqu’au IIIe siècle de l’Hégire, Wiesbaden 1978. van Ess, J. Der Eine und das Andere. Beobachtungen an islamischen häresiographischen Texten, 2 vols., Berlin-New York 2011. Veccia Vaglieri, L., “al-Ghazālī e il cristianesimo”, in Tavola rotonda sul tema: Cristianesimo e Islamismo, Roma, Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 1974, p. 133–165. al-Wāḥidī, al-Wasīṭ fī tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-majīd, Beirut 1994. Wakīʻ, al-Zuhd, Medina 1984. Walton, B., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, London 1653. Wansbrough, J., The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History, Oxford 1978. al-Wāsiṭī, Faḍā’il al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, ed. by I. Hasson, Jerusalem 1979. Weil, G., The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud; or, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, London 1846. Weil, G., Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner, Frankfurt 1845. Wellhausen, J., Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des alten Testaments, Berlin 1899. Wensinck, A.J., A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition, Leiden 1927.

261

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wensinck, A.J., Muhammmad and the Jews of Medina, tr. and ed. by W.H. Behn, Berlin 19822; first edition Mohammed en de joden te Medina, Leiden 1908. Wensinck, A.J., The Ocean in the Literature of the Western Semites, Amsterdam 1918. Wielandt, R., Offenbarung und Geschichte in Denken moderner Muslime, Wiesbaden 1971. Witztum, J., “Joseph among the Ishmaelites: Q 12 in light of syriac sources”, in New Perspectives on the Qur’ān: The Qur’ān in its Historical Context 2, ed. by G.S. Reynolds, London-New York 2011, p. 425–448. Wohlstein, H., “Zu einigen Zaubermotiven in der biblischen Umwelt”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 117 (1967), p. 223–231. Wolfensohn, I., Ka‘b al-Aḥbār und seine Stellung in Ḥadīṯ und in der islamischen Legendenliteratur, Gelnhausen 1933. al-Ya‘qūbī, Ta’rīkh, Beirut n.d. Yāqūt, Irshād al-arīb ilā maʻrifat al-adīb, Leiden 1927. Yāqūt, Muʻjam al-buldān, Beirut 1990. al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-ʻarūs, Cairo 1306–7 H. al-Zamakhsharī, Asās al-balāgha, Cairo 1922. al-Zamakhsharī, al-Fā’iq fī gharīb al-ḥadīth, Beirut 1996. al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf ʻan haqā’iq al-tanzīl wa-ʻuyūn al-aqāwīl fī wujūh al-ta’wīl, Cairo 1972. al-Zanjānī, Tahdhīb al-ṣiḥāḥ, Cairo n.d. al-Zarkashī, al-Burhān fī ʻulūm al-Qur’ān, Cairo 1958. al-Zubayrī, Kitāb nasab Quraysh, ed. by E. Levi-Provencal, Cairo 19823. al-Zurqānī, Sharḥ muwaṭṭa’ al-imām Mālik, Cairo 1961. Zwemer, S.M., “The worship of Adam by angels”, The Muslim World, 27 (1937), p. 115–127.

262

INDEX

‘Ā’isha ʻAbd al-Raḥmān (Bint al-Shāṭi’), 204 ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, 12, 14, 43, 55, 79 ‘Abd al-Razzāq, b. Hammām al-Ṣanʻānī, 14, 24, 59, 105, 118, 127, 159 ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Amr b. al- ‘Āṣ, 142, 143, 144 ‘Abdallāh b. ʻAbd al-Muṭṭalib, 74 ‘Abdallāh Ibn ‘Umar, 59, 62, 66, 67, 128, 132, 136, 138, 155, 156, 157 ‘Abdallāh, 193 ‘Addās, 10, 21, 43, 80 ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, 11, 22, 57, 72, 74, 80, 97, 114, 125, 127, 128, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 208 ‘Alī b. al-Ḥasan al-Barā’, 145 ‘Āmil (king of Elijah), 48 ‘Amr b. ‘Alī Muqawwim, 145 ‘ayy, 141 ‘Umar b. ‘Alī al-Muqaddamī (or al-Maqdamī), 175, 176 ‘Umar b. ʻAbd al-ʻAzīz, 97 ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 15, 22, 29, 58, 59, 62, 63, 69, 74, 94, 125, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 138, 209, 231 ‘uṣfur, 137 (see also safflower) ‘Uthmān b. Sa‘īd, 145 ʻĀ’isha bint Abī Bakr, 60, 93, 94, 95, 96, 121, 122, 129, 132 Aaron, 23, 37, 73, 170 (Aaron’s staff), 171, 172, 175, 176, 178 abāqir, 146 Abbasid, 116 ʻAbd al-Ḥamīd Muṭāwiʻ, 200 ʻAbd al-Karīm al-Khatīb, 202, 203 ʻAbd al-Mālik (caliph), 75 ʻAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʻAwf, 70, 127, 128 ʻAbdallāh b ʻUthmān, 214 ʻAbdallāh b. al-Zubayr, 73, 75, 104, 105, 124 ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ, 236, 237

ʻAbdallāh b. Ibrāhīm al-Madā’inī, 110 ʻAbdallāh b. Wahb al-Rāsibī al-Azdī, 19, 65 ʻAbdallāh, 41, 50, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100, 109, 156 ablutions, 96, 219 abqār, 146 Abraha, 7, 9 Abraham, 13, 17, 36, 40, 42, 45, 47, 55, 73, 83, 86, 87, 123, 210, 212, 213, 236 Abū ʻAbdallāh, 110 Abū al-ʻAbbās Muḥammad b. Ya‘qūb, 145 Abū al-Dardā’, 68, 92, 93 Abū al-Ḥasan, 110 Abū ʻAlqama al-Qāṣṣ, 217 Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, 15, 49, 67, 71, 74, 132 Abū Bakr b. Abī al-Faḍl, 145 Abū Bakr b. al-ʻArabī, 230, 231, 234, 237 Abū Bakra, 72 Abū Baṣīr, Yaḥyā b. al-Qāsim al-Asadī, 110 Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī, 129, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 Abū Dharr, 160 Abū Ḥanīfa, 61, 101 Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī, 186, 191 Abū Hurayra, 24, 63, 66, 67, 68, 94, 112, 122, 126, 135, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 237, 238 Abū Jahlb. Hishām, 15, 17, 55, 72 Abū Kaʻb al-Qāṣṣ, 216 Abū Kāmil, 145 Abū Mūsā al-Ashʻarī, 64 Abū Nuʻaym al-Iṣfahānī, 206 Abū Qays, 13 Abū Qubays, 36 Abū Rayya, 241 Abū Saʻīd al-Khuḍrī, 63, 64, 66, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 Abū Shuhba, 204

263

INDEX

Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī, 148 Abū Ṭālib, 17, 43, 275 Abū ʻUbayd, 95 Abū Uḥayḥa Saʻīd b. al-ʻĀṣ, 54 Abū ʻUmar (rebel), 76 Abū Ya‘qūb (ḥadīth transmitter), 145 Achimaas, 86 adab, 140, 141, 142, 147, 150, 202 (adabī) Adam, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 60, 81, 85, 102, 118, 121, 126, 129, 130, 176, 204, 210, 211, 213, 234, 235, 237, 238 ahl al-kahf, 216 ahl al-kitāb (see also People of the Book), 10, 78, 111, 236 Aḥmad b. ‘Abduh, 145 al-‘Abbās b. Muḥammad, 145 al-‘Askarī, 147 al-aḥmarān, 126 al-Aʻshā, 7, 8, 207 al-asjād, 8, 9, 11, 83 al-Aswad b. Yaʻfur, 9, 83 al-Aswad, 105 al-Azhar, 200, 201 al-Azraqī, 180 Albānī, Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn, 150, 1151 al-Baṭā’īnī, ʻAlī b. Abī Ḥamza, 110 Alexander the Great, 39, 42, 82, 114 al-Farrā’, 176, 180 al-furāt, 107, 109, 110, 115 al-Ḥajjāj, 76 al-Ḥakam, 101, 105 al-Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, 144, 158 al-Harwal (river), 112 al-Hayṣam b. Muḥammad, 33, 211, 217, 234 al-Ḥuṭay’a, 8 ʻAlī al-Riḍā, 110 ʻAlī al-Riḍā, 110 ʻAlī b. ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās, 19 ʻAlī b. ʻAbdallāh b. ʻAbbās, 19 ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 11, 22, 57, 72, 74, 80, 97, 114, 125, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 208 ʻAlī b. Muḥammad, 80 ʻAlī ibn Muḥammad, 80 al-isrīīliyyāt, 229 al-Jāmūrānī, 110 al-Jazarī, 108, 109 al-Kawthar, 112 al-Khansā’, 8 al-Kifl, 153, 156, 157, 158 al-Manṣūr (caliph), 75 al-Marāghī, 199

al-masjid al-aqṣā, 162 al-Muhtadī (caliph), 214 al-Muktafī, 76 al-Musayyab b. ʻAlas, 8, 207 al-Muʻtaṣim (caliph), 75 al-Mutawakkil (caliph), 75 al-Muṭṭalib b. Abī Wadā‘a, 66 al-Najjār, 200 al-Nasā’ī, 100 al-nīl, 109 al-Nuʻmān (king of al-Ḥīra), 9, 83 ʻAlqama, 104 al-Sā’ib b. Yazīd, 58 al-Ṣalt b. Rāshid, 130 al-Saqqā, 202 al-Shāfi‘ī, Muḥammad b. Idrīs, 144 al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, 108, 109 al-Ṭā’if, 15, 55 Ālūsī, 189, 199 al-Walīd b. al-Mughīra, 17, 54, 55, 86 al-Walīd b. Yazīd (caliph), 44, 75 al-Walīd II, 75 al-yamm (sea), 110, 113 al-Zubayr b. al-ʻAwwām, 102, 127, 128 al-Zuhrī, 64, 161 Aman, 4 Amīn al-Khūlī, 201 Amos, 172 ʻAmr b. al-ʻĀṣ, 9, 10, 79, 113, 237 ʻAmr b. Kulthūm, 5, 6, 7 Amran, 183 Amū Daryā, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116 ʻAnan, 86 ʻAnanites, 86, 88 Anas b. Mālik, 21, 72, 93, 97, 98, 104, 127, 132, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 Angel of death, 36 angel(s), 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 46, 61, 81, 82, 83, 85, 111, 136, 207, 209, 211, 212 Apollo, 49 Arabs, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 26, 30, 43, 53, 80, 97, 131, 169, 185, 198 Aramaic, 5, 178, 205 Arazi, Albert, 32, 207 Ark (of the Israelites), 41, 86 ascension (to Heaven, see also miʻrāj), 111, 154, 159, 160, 161, 162 aṣḥāb al-bi’r, 47 aṣḥāb al-kahf, 48 aṣḥāb al-rass, 46

264

INDEX

Asiya, 193 Asmā’ bint Abī Bakr, 73, 102, 103, 104 ʻAtā’ b. Abī Rabāḥ, 60 ʻAṭā’, 104, 134 ʻAyyāshī, 102 ʻazā’im al-sujūd, 57, 63, 68 Azerbaijan, 125, 223 Bābak, 75 Babylonian, 4, 48 Babylonians, 48 Badr, 39, 54, 55, 122 Baghawī, al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd, 157 Baghdad, 116 baḥr, 107, 113 Balaam, 37 balāgha, 141 Balahūt (river), 109 balīgh, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 151 Balkh River (nahr Balkh), 107, 108, 109, 112, 114 Banū Isrā’īl, 228, 232, 236, 237 baqar, 146 baqara, 146 bāqir, 146 bāqira, 146 bāqūra, 146 Barahūt, 107, 109 Bar-Ilan, Meir, 215, 216 Barīra, 93 Barṣīṣā, 49 Bathsheba, 41, 86 Bausani, Alessandro, 179, 181 bayān, 141, 150 Bayhaqī, Aḥmad b. al-Ḥusayn, 163, 237, 238 Bazzār, 144 beef, 96 Ben ʻĀṣhūr, 81 Benjamin, 41, 216 Bettini, Lidia, 140 Bible, 24, 83, 88, 172, 176, 178, 182, 183, 215, 231 Biblical, 84, 88, 114, 121, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 175, 178, 182, 183, 185, 195, 228, 229, 233, 235, 238, 242 Bilqīs, 38 Bishr b. ‘Āṣim al-Thaqafī, 142, 144 Bishr b. ‘Āṣim, 142 Bishr b. al-Ḥārith, 75 Bishr b. Marwān, 44 Blachère, Régis, 178, 179, 181 Black Stone, 14, 107, 111

Book of Esther, 4, 82, 86 Book of Exodus, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 183, 184 Brahmins, 48, 99 brocade, 119, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131 Brown, Jonathan, 157, 158 Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismā‘īl, 58, 111, 112, 138, 141, 143, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 237, 238, 239 Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʻīl, 89, 158, 160, 162, 163, 237, 238, 239 bull, 33, 48, 93 burda, 122 Byzantine, 83, 84, 86, 122, 126, 131 Cain, 46 Calder, Norman, 227 calf (golden), 38, 47, 48 camel, 8, 17 (she-camel), 43, 44, 69, 96, 130, 134 (she-camel), 188, 193, 236 Canaan, 224 Canova, Giovanni, ix, 52 carrion, 92 Chet, 83 Chiesa, Bruno, 51, 88, 169 China, 80 Christ (see also Jesus), 41, 85, 184, 185 Christian(s), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 26, 27, 30, 31, 43, 46, 50, 51, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 98, 111, 169, 170, 173, 182, 184, 185, 186, 196, 197, 213, 215, 216 cock, 206, 211, 212 cockerel, 96 coluber, 202 Contini, Riccardo, 3, 5 Cook, Michael, 91 Corbin, Henry, 115 Cornelius, 82 cotton, 124, 130, 131 cow(s), 48, 130 (cow-leather), 142, 146, 147, 148, 149 Cyril of Jerusalem, 185 D’Erme, Giovanni, 106 Dahās, 107 dajjāj, 212 dajjāja, 211 dalā’il al-nubuwwa, 43, 163 Damascus, 83, 84, Damīrī, 176, 177, 187, 188, 206, 213, 233, 239

265

INDEX

Daniel (prophet), 46, 83 David (prophet), 38, 41, 63, 64, 65, 73, 87, 231, 237 day of Resurrection, 16, 18, 20, 33, 34, 39, 133, 134, 135, 136 Ḍayḥūn (river), 114 Daylamī, 223 Daylūn (idol), 47 Deuteronomy, 172 devil, 4, 42, 46, 49, 50, 60, 82, 136, 207, 208, 210, 232 dhi’b, 215 , 216, 217, 225 Dhū ’1-Kalāʻ, 10, 46, 79 Dhū ’1-Thudayya al-Mukhdaj, 74 Dhū ’l-Kifl, 46, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 163, 164 Dhū al-Qarnayn, 204 Dhubāʻa bint al-Zubayr, 96 dībāj, 119, 125 dīk, 206, 207, 208 Dīnawar, 140 donkey(s), 39, 101, 102, 103, 104, 121, 122, 207 draco, 171, 178 dracones, 171 dragon(s), 201, 203, 204, 205, 209, 214, 216 Egypt, 4, 24, 73, 81, 82, 113, 126, 177, 183, 199, 209, 213, 223, 224 Egyptian(s), 126, 137 (silk), 144, 184, 194, 223, 229 Elijah, 48, 73, 154 Elisha, 118, 185 Ephesus, 39, 48 Esau, 25, 40, 83 Ethiopia, 5, 9, 79 Euphrates, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 Eve, 118, 204 Ezekiel, 183, 184 Ezra, 39 Faḍāla b. ʻUbayd, 104 Fahd, Toufic, 104 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, 177, 186, 188, 201 Farazdaq, 44 fatwā, 149, 151, 234 feathers, 118 fire, 12, 19, 20, 28, 40, 47, 49, 50, 95, 119, 124, 133, 188, 189, 199, 200 Flavius Josephus, 82 Flood, 46

fur, 126 furāt, 107, 109, 110, 115 Gabriel, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 39, 70, 112, 130, 208, 212, 222 Ganges, 112 Garden(s), 92, 110, 118, 119 Gehenna, 107 Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid, 197, 229, 230 Gibb, H.A.R., 197, 241 Gihon, 114 goat, 130 Gog and Magog (see also Hārūt and Mārūt), 112 gold, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126 golden, 12, 46, 47, 148 Goldziher, Ignaz, 142, 228, 242 Goliath, 41, 237 Gospel, 4, 5, 82 Greek, 4, 106 Greeks, 4, 82 Griffith, S. H., 77 Hagar, 36 Haggadic, 170, 182, 185, 186, 189, 203 Ḥallāj, 49 Haman, 45, 82, 86, 87 Hamdān, 72 Ḥammād b. Hārūn, 160 Ḥammād b. Salama, 160 Hammām Ibn Munabbih, 158 Ḥanbalī, 149, 150, 151 ḥanīfiyya, 13, 98 ḥarīr, 119, 125, 129 Hārūt and Mārūt (see also Gog and Magog), 35, 46, 237 Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, 58, 94, 99 Ḥasan b. ʻAlī b. Abī Ḥamza, 110 Ḥasan b. ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 104, 105, 137 Hawdha b. ʻAlī al-Ḥanafī, 7 ḥayya, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 187, 188, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204 Heaven, 16, 33, 34, 37, 40, 61, 62, 111, 112, 121, 154, 159, 160, 210, 211, 234 Hebrew, 4, 5, 171, 175, 178 Hebron, 229 Hell, 19, 20, 29, 33, 37, 48, 60, 111, 136, 154, 159 Heller, Bruno, 242 hemmings, 128 hems, 128

266

INDEX

Heraclius, 10, 11, 79, 80 ḥibara, 131 Hindus, 48 Ḥīra (kingdom), 9, 10, 11, 51, 78, 83 Hishām b. ʻAbd al-Mālik, 75 hishtaḥwāh, 4, 82 Hittites, 86, 87 ḥiwyā’, 171 hoopoe, 42, 230 horse(s), 69, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 115, 137, 187, 228, 238 Houris, 123 Hūd b. al-Muḥakkam, 159, 160 ḥulla, 125, 127, 134, 137 Ḥumayd b. Thawr, 8, 80 hûrmene’, 202 Ḥusayn b. ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 114, 137 Iblīs (see also Satan), 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 210, 211 Ibn ‘Abbās, ʻAbdallāh, 33, 62, 63, 65, 100, 101, 103, 112, 114, 161, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 199, 210 234, 236, 237, 238, 239 Ibn ʻAbbās, 33, 62, 63, 65, 100, 101, 103, 112, 114, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 199, 210, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239 Ibn Abī ‘Āmir, 76 Ibn Abī al-Dunyā, 148 Ibn Abī Ḥātim, 144, 150 Ibn Abī Shayba, 40, 65, 94, 101, 118, 142, 147 Ibn Abī Zamanīn, 161 Ibn al-Athīr, 146, 148, 194 Ibn al-Faqīh, 109 Ibn al-Jawzī, 98, 99, 108, 109, 122, 156, 231, 234 Ibn al-Murajjā, 229, 233, 240 Ibn al-Musayyab, 58 Ibn al-Zubayr, 104, 105, 124 Ibn Fanjawayh, al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad, 155, 157 Ibn Ḥajar, 239 Ibn Ḥanbal, Aḥmad, 61, 65, 111, 112, 143, 156, 160, 190, 191 Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī, 157, 158 Ibn Hishām, ‘Abd al-Malik, 159 Ibn Isḥāq, Muḥammad, 13, 188, 195, 229, 235 Ibn Jurayj, 14, 105, 107 Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, 111, 211

Ibn Kathīr, Ismā’īl b. ‘Umar, 156, 163, 186, 190, 194, 195, 197, 204, 227, 228, 232, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242 Ibn Manẓūr, 109, 176, 177 Ibn Mardawayh, Aḥmad b. Mūsā, 156 Ibn Mas‘ūd, ʻAbdallāh, 53, 64, 146, 65, 66, 127, 135, 162 Ibn Qutayba, 108, 109, 115, 140, 141, 145, 149, 151, 235 Ibn Sabā’, 185 Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī, 59, 64, 161 Ibn Taymiyya, 149, 197, 227, 228, 234, 235, 239, 240 Ibn Waḍḍāḥ, 58 Ibn Waḥshiyya, 115 Ibrāhīm al-Nasā’ī, 105 Ibrāhīm Wāṣif Shāh, 112 Ibshīhī, 233, 239 Idris (prophet), 35, 36, 154 ʻIkrima, 112, 190 Imām, 50, 59, 110, 129, 130, 202 India, 12, 35, 87, 106 Indus, 111, 112, 114, 115 Iram Dhāt al-ʻImād, 229 Iran, 106 Iranian, 106, 116 Iraq, 75 Irenaeus, 184 Isaac, 36, 236 Isaiah, 38, 73 Isḥāq b. Bishr, 112 Ishmael, 36, 73, 154, 236 isnād, 34, 101, 109, 110, 134, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 160, 163, 198, 224, 229, 234, 235 Isrā’īliyyāt, ix, x, 196, 198, 199, 203, 204, 205, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 Israel, 183, 196, 198, 205, 241 Israelite, 49, 237, 268 Israelites, 4, 23, 24, 41, 45, 48, 135, 154, 155, 190, 213, 228, 229, 230, 231, 236 Israelitic, 242 istabraq, 119, 125 izār, 130, 131, 132, 136 Jābir b. ʻAbdallāh, 101, 103, 104 Jacob, 24, 25, 36, 40, 41, 73, 74, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 123, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226 Jād al-Mawlā, 200

267

INDEX

Jaʻfar b. Abī Ṭālib, 126 Jahannam, 107 Jāhiliyya, 13, 15, 46 Jāḥiẓ, 141, 148, 176, 177, 210 Jāḥiẓ, 141, 148, 176, 177, 210 jānn, 170, 175, 179, 180, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 195, 196, 197, 201, 202, 203 janna, 114, 124 Jansen, 199 Jarīr, 44 Jayḥān, 111, 114 Jayḥūn, 111, 112, 114 Jeremias, 39 Jerusalem, ix, 3, 32, 52, 63, 70, 107, 185, 207, 229 Jesus (see also Christ), 4, 39, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 81, 82, 121, 130, 213, 230 Jewish, 5, 6, 13, 14, 33, 50, 51, 78, 81, 84, 86, 95, 97, 111, 169, 170, 173, 174, 182, 184, 185, 186, 196, 197, 198, 208, 215, 216, 227, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 Jews, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 30, 51, 66, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 86, 88, 97, 101, 104, 170, 182, 184, 204, 205, 234 jinn, 29, 42, 44, 66, 179, 180, 181, 182, 210 Jirjīs, 49 Job, 36, 47, 73, 172 John of Damascus, 83, 84, 85 John the Baptist (see also Yaḥyā), 42 Jomier, Jacques, 201 Jonah, 48 Jonas, 34 Joseph (see also Yūsuf), vii, 24, 25, 26, 36, 41, 45, 73, 74, 81, 85, 123, 126, 212, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226 Joshua, 38, 83, 154 jubba, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131 Judaic, 26, 213 Julianus, 82 Junayd, 75 Jurjān, 223 Kaʻb al-Aḥbār, 16, 19, 111, 123, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 210, 211, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 Kaʻb b. Mālik, 71 Kaʻba, 13, 14, 17, 26, 107, 118, 180, 268 Karaite(s), 86, 88 Karbalā’, 114

Khalafallāh, Muḥammad Aḥmad, 197, 201, 202, 203, 205 Khālid b. al-Walīd, 101, 104 Khālid b. Nizar al-Aylī, 145 Khālid b. Nizār, 144, 146 khalīl (attribute of Abraham), 36 kharijite, 74, 75 Khaybar, 95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 khayl (see also horse), 100, 101 Khāzin, 118, 188, 189, 190, 191 khazz (see also silk), 129 Khiḍr, 37, 102 Khorasan, 223 Khoury, Richard G., 232 Kinda, 128 kisā’, 121, 129, Kisā’ī, 193, 210, 211 Kisā’ī, 193, 210, 211, 213 Kister, Meir J., ix, x, 3, 14, 15, 32, 52, 70, 75, 93, 96, 142 Knappert, Jan, 181, 193 Kohlberg, Etan, 110 Korah, 37, 135, 137 Kufa, 110, 114, 116 Kulaynī, 110, 114, 130 Kulaynī, 114, 130 kumma, 121 Labīd, 126, 207 laḥm (see also meat), 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100 lamb, 95, 96, 216 Leah, 40 leather, 121, 122, 130 Lecker, Michael, 3, 52, 70, 227 Leviathan, 172, 183 libās, 118, 119, 120 Lot (prophet), 212 Lote-tree of the Limit (see also sidrat al-muntahā), 112 Maghreb, 223, 224 Majlisī, 111, 114 Makḥūl, 210 Makhzūm (clan), 54, 55 Mālik b. Anas, 61, 68, 73, 94, 101, 118, 122, 231, 237 Mālik b. Dhu‘r, 36 Mālik b. Ṣa‘ṣa‘a, 160, 161, 162, 163 mane (of the serpent), 187, 188, 189, 194, 199 mantle(s), 121, 122, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138

268

INDEX

Maqdisī, Abū Naṣr al-Muṭahhar Ibn Ṭāhir, 216, 233 Maqrīzī, 108, 109 martyr(s), 123 Marwān II, 76 Marwān, 50 Mary (mother of Jesus), 22, 42 Masjid al-ḥarām, 161 Masoretic, 171, 172 Masrūq, 130 Masʻūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʻAlī, 112, 115, 178, 228, 229, 230, 234 Masʻūdī, 112, 115, 178, 228, 229, 230, 234 Māturīdī, Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad, 161 Mazdaic, 124 Meat (see also laḥm), 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 221 Mecca, 9, 12, 14, 53, 54, 55, 57, 66, 71, 72, 75, 104, 107, 161 Meccan(s), 15, 16, 17, 26, 54, 56, 61, 79, 144 Medina, 71, 95, 102, 132 Messiah, 84 Midian (city), 37 midrāʻa, 121 midrashîm, 182, 184, 185 Mihrān, 112, 114 milk, 103, 110, 111, 121, 122 minbar, 63, 125 Miqdām, 145 Miquel, André, 113 miʻrāj (see also ascension), 39, 154, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164 Mīrkhwānd (Mirkhond), 253 monks, 41, 110, 129 Mordechai, 4, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88 Moses, ix, 23, 29, 30, 37, 41, 43, 73, 102, 110, 121, 135, 137, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 212, 213, 229, 231 Mu‘āwiya b. Hishām b. ‘Abdallāh, 44 Muʻādh b. Jabal, 78 muʻallaqa, 36, 37, 38 Muʻāwiya (caliph), 84, 237, 238 mufaṣṣal, 56, 57 Muḥammad ʻAbduh, 196, 197, 198, 201, 203, 240, 241, 242 Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, 145

Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, 150, 151 Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Sarram, 145 Muḥammad b. Jubayr, 176 Muḥammad b. Sinān al-Bāhilī, 174, 176 Muḥammad b. Sirīn, 161 Muḥammad Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, 182 Muḥammad, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27 (light of Muḥammad), 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 39, 43, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 147, 208, 209, 217 Mujāhid b. Jabr, 101 mulabbad, 121 mule(s), 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 Muqaddasī, 111, 115 Muqātil b. Ḥayyān, 112 Muqātil b. Sulaymān, 15, 34, 42, 61, 68, 102, 159, 229, 233 Murison, R. G., 172, 174 Mūsā al-Kāẓim, 110 Mūsā, 95, 141, 182, 187, 200, 231, 261 Muṣʻab b. al-Zubayr, 75 Musaylima, 15, 74 Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, 11, 141, 143, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 237 mustaqa (see also fur), 157 Muʻtazilite, 75 Muttaqī al-Hindī, 109, 157 Nāfiʻ b. ʻAmr, 59, 134, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Nāfi‘ b. ‘Umar al-Jumāḥī, 142 nāḥāsh, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 184 nāhāsh, 171, 172, 178 Nahr Balkh, 107 Najrān, 131 namīra, 153, 161 Naʻnāʻa, Ramzī, 241 Nasā’ī, 131 Nasser (Jamāl ʻAbd al-Nāṣir), 75 Natan, 87 Nawawī, 149 Nebuchadnezzar, 45, 114 Negus, 9, 79, 126 Newby, Gordon D., 227 night journey, 154, 159, 160

269

INDEX

Nile, 37, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 171, 183, 193 Nimrod, 40, 45, 47, 114, 212 Nineveh, 10, 43, 51, 80 Nishapur, 158 Noah, 29, 36, 46, 119, 184, 204, 211, 213 Noah’s Ark, 36, 184, 204, 211, 213 Nöldeke, Theodor, 179, 180 Nun, 83 Og (Byblical giant), 37 Old Testament, 4, 32, 82, 172, 185 Origen, 185 Oxus, 107 Oxus, 107 Paradise, 19, 24, 29, 37, 60, 67, 92, 93, 102, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 138, 224 Paret, Rudi, 179 , 181 peacock, 210, 211 pearl(s), 8, 126, 209 Pentateuch, 172, 174 People of the Book (see also ahl al-kitāb), 10, 111, 236, 237 Persia, 11, 22, 80, 126 Persian(s), 11, 12, 23, 83, 116, 119 Peter (apostle), 82 Pharaoh, 23, 24, 28, 37, 38, 45, 73, 126, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 178, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205, 212, 213, 229 Philo of Alexandria, 4, 82 Phison, 141145 pork, 92 priest(s), 8, 10, 11, 12, 22, 51, 79, 80, 81, 98, 174 (priestly) Procopius of Gaza, 84 proskynesis, 4, 5, 82, 83, 85, 86 prostration(s), i, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 220, 235 Psalm(s), 41, 173 qamīṣ, 127, 131, 163 Qārūn, 237

qaṣaṣ al-Qur’ān, 22, 200, 202, 204, 231 qāṣṣ, 58 qassī (Egyptian silk), 137, 138 Qatāda, 25, 160, 233 Qays b. Maʻdīkarib, 7, 8 Qays ibn Saʻd, 10, 11, 78 Qazwīnī, 115, 232, 233 Qazwīnī, 115, 232, 233 Qirqisānī, 86, 88, 173 Qirqisānī, 86, 88, 173, qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’, i, ix, 24, 32, 35, 40, 42, 45, 48, 186, 192, 195, 200, 218 Queen of Sheba, 22, 42, 48 Qummī, 112 Qurashī, 55 Quraysh, 9, 13, 14, 43, 54, 55, 68, 79, 104, 118 Qurṭubī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, 49, 156, 162, 165 Qurṭubī, 49, 156, 162, 165 Qushayrī, ʻAbd al-Karīm Abū al-Qāsim, 160 quṣṣāṣ, 58, 216, 233, 234, 242 Rabbanite, 88 Rabbi Eleazar, 183 Rabbinic, 40, 41 Rachel, 71, 72 rahbāniyya, 98 Raḥma (river), 112 rakʻa, 19, 72 ram, 95 Rashi, 173, 184 Rashīd Riḍā, 197, 198, 240, 241 reptile, 201, 172, 173, 179, 180 ridā’, 131 Rippin, Andrew, 52, 227 rīshan (see also feather), 118 river of Balkh (see also Amū Daryā), 108, 109, 114 Roman, 4, 82, 106 rooster, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 Rubin, Uri, 13, 14, 52, 53, 72 rukūʻ, 5, 6, 15, 23, 38, 59, 64, 67, 208, 210 Sa‘īd b. Sulaymān, 144 Saʻadya Gaon, 178 Sabians, 87 Saʻd b. Muʻādh, 123, 125 Sadan, Joseph, 206 safflower, 137 saffron, 126, 137, 138

270

INDEX

Sahl b. Hārūn b. Rāhawayh, 213 Saʻīd b. Jubayr, 57, 104 Saʻīd b. Manṣūr, 65 sajada, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 18, 23, 24, 41, 53, 71, 75 sajda, 16, 19, 28, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 85 sajdat al-shukr, 71, 73, 75 Sakhāwī, Shams al-Dīn, 239 Salafī, 150 ṣalāt, 3, 13 (al-ḍuḥā), 14(al-ḍuḥā), 52, 53, 56, 59, 70, 72 (al-ḍuḥā), 76 (al-ḍuḥā), 77 Saleh, Walid, 158 Ṣāliḥ (prophet), 35, 47, 212 Salīm (ḥadīth transmitter), 134 Salmān al-Fārisī, 11 Sam‘ānī, Muḥammad b. Manṣūr, 162 Samarqandī, Abū'l-Layth, 161, 162, 217 ṣammā’, 138 Samura (ḥadīth transmitter), 163 Ṣan‘ānī, Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-A‘lā, 144, 145 Sanaa, 223, 224 sandals, 118, 121 Sarah, 36, 73 Satan (see also Iblīs), 118, 208 satanic verses, 17, 54, 66 Saul, 39, 213 Sayf b. Dhī Yazan, 12, 14, 56, 79 Sayḥān, 111, 114 Sayḥūn, 107, 111, 112, 114 Sayyid Quṭb, 203 Schacht, Joseph, 143 Sergius, 84 serpent(s), 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204 Shāfiʻī, 61, 64, 73 shaqāshiq, 147 shaykh, 17, 25, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56 sheep, 41, 44, 95, 96, 121, 122 Shi‘i, 91, 97, 102, 107, 110 (Imāmī), 111, 112, 113, 114 (Imāmī), 116, 130, 155, 161, 217 Shīʻite(s), 25, 27, 49, 61, 208, 209 Shu‘ayb (prophet), 47 Shurayḥ, 104, 105, 143 Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān, 199 sidrat al-muntahā (see also Lote-tree of the Limit), 112

silk, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 137, 138 silver, 124, 148 Simeon, 219 siyarā’, 125, 126, 127 snake(s), 23, 48, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 Solomon, 38, 41, 42, 48, 73, 87, 114, 121, 213, 229 Sperl, Stefan, 152 Speyer, Herbert, 216 staff, ix, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 Suddī, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195 Sufis, 98, 99 Sufyān (ḥadīth transmitter), 145 sujūd, ix, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 208, 210 sujūd al-Qur’ān, 3, 17, 18, 32, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69, 70 sujūd al-shukr, 3, 32, 42, 52, 70, 71, 72, 73 sujūd al-tilāwa, 56 Sulaymān b. Ḥanzala, 59 sundus, 119, 125, 126 Sunni, 91, 105, 109, 110, 116, 140, 155, 157, 161, 209 Surayj b. al-Nu‘mān al-Jawharī, 145 Surayj, 103 Suwayd b. Ghafla, 104, 126 Suyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn, 55, 148, 156, 162, 163, 165, 197, 206, 239, 241 Syr Daryā, 111, 114 Syria, 10, 43, 78, 80, 125, 126, 128, 223, 229 Ṭabaranī, 54 Ṭabarī, Ibn Jarīr, 69, 80, 159, 162, 177, 180, 190, 194, 195, 233, 234, 235, 241 Ṭabarsī, 190 Tablets (of Moses), 43 Ṭabrisī, Abū al-Faḍl, 192

271

INDEX

Umayya b. Abī l-Ṣalt, 44 Umayya b. Khalaf, 17, 56 Umayyad, 50, 75 Uriah, 231 Usāma (companion), 125 ʻUṭārid, 125, 126 ʻUtba b. Farqad, 125 ʻUthmān b. ʻAffān, 15, 58, 63, 64, 66, 136, 214 ʻUthman b. Maẓʻūm and ʻAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, 97 ʻUthmān b. Maẓʻūm, 97, 99

Tabūk, 71 Taghlib, 7 taḥiyya, 10, 25, 42, taḥiyyat al-anbiyā’, 51 Tamīm, 7, 50, 94 tannîn, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 183, 184 Ṭanṭāwi Jawharī, 199 Ṭarafī, Ibn Muṭarrif, ix, 24, 37, 38, 130, 192, 193 taslīm, 58 ṭawāf, 118, 180 Ṭayālisī, Abū al-Walīd Hāshim b. ʻAbd al-Mālik, 144 taẓrīr, 128 Temple (of Jerusalem), 38 Terah, 40, 47 Tha‘labī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, 155, 156, 157, 158, 180, 218 Tha‘labī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, 33, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161 Thābit al-Bunānī, 160 Thamūd, 47 thawb al-sābirī al-raqīq, 103 thawr (see also bull), 48 thawr, 48 Theodore Abū Qurra, 85 thiyāb, 119, 126 (al-aʻjam), 133 throne, 24, 34, 40, 46, 190, 193, 212 of God, 8, 33, 39, 44, 60, 63, 176, 209 thuʻbān, 48, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204 Tigris, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 tinnīn, 178, 179 Tirmidhī, Abū ʻĪsā, 142, 143, 144, 145, 150, 156, 157, 161 Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ʻĪsā, 142, 143, 144, 145, 150, 156, 157, 161 trousers, 121 Ṭulayḥa, 15 tunic, 121, 122, 218, 219 Turayḥ, 44 turban, 130 turmeric, 137, 138 Ṭurṭūshī, 230, 233, 239

Veccia Vaglieri, Laura, 230 Vulgate, 171 Wādī Barahūt, 109 wādī, 219 Wahb b. Munabbih, 43, 189, 190, 191, 192, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 211, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 238, 239, 240, 242 Wahhābī, 150 Wāḥidī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʻAlī, 157 Wakīʻ b. al-Jarraḥ, 142, 144, 148 Wāqidī, 104 wars (see also turmeric), 137 water(s), 33, 48, 93, 109, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 173, 188, 211 Wellhausen, Julius, 174 Wensinck, Arent J., 178 whale(s), 33, 38, 93, 193 wine, 94, 110, 111, 143, 124, 125 Witztum, Joseph, 216 wolf, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226 wool, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 129, 130, 131 woollen, 117, 121, 122, 131

Ubayy b. Kaʻb, 127 ʻUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, 11, 15, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68, 69, 79, 94, 1125, 26, 127, 132, 231

Yaḥyā (see also John the Baptist), 231 Yaḥyā b. Sallām, 159, 160, 161 Yamāma, 74 yamm, 110, 113 Yāqūt, 113, 232, 233 Yazīd b. ‘Abd al-Mālik, 44 Yazīd b. Hārūn, 142, 145 Yazīd b. Mu‘āwiya, 75 Yazīd III, 75 Yazīd, 143 Yemen, 10, 72, 78, 79 Yemenite, 10, 12, 46, 79, 127, 130, 131, 134, 182

272

INDEX

Yūnus (ḥadīth trnasmitter), 145 Yūnus b. Bukayr, 13 Yūnus b. Muḥammad al-Mu’addib, 145 Yūsuf (see also Joseph), 41, 204, 216 Yūsuf b. Māmil, 145 zaʻfarān (see also saffron), 137 Zakariyā (ḥadīth transmitter), 145 Zakariyā b. Nāfi‘ al-Ramlī, 145 Zamakhsharī, 148, 191, 201, 202 Zamzam, 107

Zani, Antonio, 169 Zayd b Khālid, 207 Zayd b. Aslam, 59 Zayd b. Ḥāritha, 71 Zayd b. Thābit, 97 Zaynab bt. Jaḥsh, 71 Zechariah, 39, 154 Zedekiah, 38 Zionist, 272 zuhd, 98, 120 (ahl al-zuhd), 133, 148, 150 Zulaikha, 121

273