Notes

Chapter One: Introduction

1 A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1978), p. 74.

2 E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 6 vols. (London, 1941), pp. 240ff.

3 T Carlyle, Sartor Resartus: On Heroes and Hero Worship (London, 1973), p. 299.

4 S. Reinach, Orpheus: A History of Religion (New York, 1932), p. 176.

5 A. Jeffery, Materialr for the History of the Text of the Quran (Leiden, 1937), p. 1.

6 J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (Oxford, 1977), p. ix.

7 A. Rippin, Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London, 1991), Vol. 1, p. ix.

8 C.J. Adams, “Quran: The Text and Its History,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, editor-in-chief (New York, London: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 157-76.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Guillaume, Islam, p. 189.

14 H. Hirschfeld, New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran (London, 1992), pp. 138ff.

15 R. Bell and W. M. Watt, Introduction to the Quran (Edinburgh, 1970), p. 93. 3.

16 Al-Kindi quoted in A. Rippin, Muslims, p. 26.

17 S. Hurgronje, Mohammedanism (New York, 1916), p. 23.

18 R.S. Humphreys, Islamic History: A Framework for Inquiry (Princeton, 1991), p. 82.

19 C. Snouck Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 24.

20 B. Lewis, Islam, and the West (New York, 1993), p. 94.

21 Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 25.

22 Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 83.

23 Ibid.

24 I. Goldziher, Muslim Studies, trans., Barber and Stern, vol. 2 (London, 1967-1971), p. 19.

25 Ibid., p. 43.

26 Ibid., p. 44.

27 Ibid., p. 108.

28 Ibid., p. 169.

29 Ibid., p. 236.

30 Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 83.

31 J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1959), pp. 4—5.

32 Ibid., pp. 149-63.

33 P. Crone, Roman, Provincial, and Islamic Law (Cambridge, 1987), p. 7.

34 Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 84.

35 J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies (Oxford, 1977), p. 20.

36 Ibid., p. 79.

37 Ibid., p. 51.

38 Ibid., p. 97.

39 Ibid., p. 44.

40 A. Jeffery, “The Quest of the Historical Mohammed,” in The Muslim World 16 (1926): 342.

41 Wansbrough, p. 56.

42 Humphreys, Islamic History, pp. 84—85.

43 M. Cook, Muhammad (Oxford, 1983), p. 65.

44 Ibid., p. 74.

45 Ibid., pp. 75-76.

46 Ibid., pp. 76—82.

47 Ibid., p. 81.

48 Ibid., p. 82.

49 Humphreys, Islamic History, p. 85.

50 M. Cook and P. Crone, Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge, 1977), p. 9.

51 Ibid., p. 8.

52 Ibid, pp. 14ff.

53 Ibid., p. 18.

54 Ibid., p. 21.

55 Cook, Muhammad, p. 86.

56 P. Crone, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam (Oxford, 1987), p. 215.

57 Ibid., p. 230.

Chapter Two: The Koran

1 Since in Arabic also the root RHM signifies “to have pity,” the Arabs must have at once perceived the force of the new name.

Chapter Four: Three Ancient Korans

1 See a striking narration in the annalist Ibn Hisham, pp. 152, 1. 9f., who represents the Prophet as responding to his voice: “What shall I cry?” We cannot help thinking of the following words found in the prophet Isaiah (xl. 6): “The voice of (one) saying, ‘Cry,’ and he said, ‘What shall I cry?’” The very qarā which is used in both texts in the same sense will establish a curious and hardly accidental coincidence.

2 Palmer, Sacred Books of the East, vol. VI., pp. 55, 71, etc.

3 The question whether Muhammad could read and write is discussed but not decided by Nöldeke, Geschichte des Qorâns, pp. 7f.

4 A. Mingana, Narsai Homiliae et Carmina, 1905, vol. I. pp. 115-16 and 177 n. 1.

5 Recueil des actes synodaux de l’Eglise de Perse, edit. Chabot, in “Notice et extraits des manuscrits,” t. XXXVII. pp. 532, 534, 536 et passim.

6 Syn. Orient., p. 275. Cf. on this question Duchesne, Les Églises séparées, pp. 337—52: “Les Missions Chrétiennes au Sud de l‘empire romain, les Arabes.”

7 Zeitschr. für Assyriologie, XII, pp. 189-242.

8 Cf. a passage of Josephus (Ant. XI. 5) which tells his high repute (δ016ξα) with the people.

9 Muhammad often calls himself “the unlettered prophet.” Cf. Nöldeke, ibid., p. 10.

10 G. Sale, The Koran, Preliminary discourse, p. 46.

11 He showed it to him twice in his last year.

12 See Fihrist, ed. by G. Flügel, p. 24.

13 The annalists know them to be ‘Abdallah ibn Zubair, Sa‘id ibn A1-‘As, and ‘Abdur-Rahman ibn al-Hareth, followers of the Prophet (Fihrist, p. 25).

14 Tabari, I. 2952, 10; 11, 516, 5; and Yakut, Dictionary of Learned Men, VI, 300, 499; see D. S. Margoliouth’s The Early Development of Mohammedanism (1914), p. 37.

15 Margoliouth, Mohammedanism, pp. 69-70.

16 Muir, Life of Mahomet (1894), pp. xiv, xxi-xxii.

17 In Arabic jahiliyya.

18 Edit. of W. Ahlwardt, The Divans of the Six Ancient Arabic Poets (1870).

19 Les poètes Arabes chrétiens (1890); cf another Arabic book of the same writer, Le Christianisme et la litterature Chretienne en Arabie avant l’Islâm (1912). Everybody knows the conscientious studies of Sir Charles Lyall, on this subject.

20 Cf. S. Fraenkel, De vocalibus in antiquis Arabum carminibus et in Corano peregrinis (1880), p. 23 et passim.

21 Ita Geiger, Oper. sup. laud., pp. 113-19.

22 This name is perhaps an echo of Shelah.

23 Ita M. Rodwell, The Koran, p. 109.

24 Cf Maracci, Prodr. IV, p. 90.

25 In Niebuhr’s Travels, II, p. 265.

26 The Perisan poet Sa‘di calls him the earth conquering horreman with his chestnut Buraq.

27 Cf. A. Mingana, Sources Syriaques, vol. I, part II, pp. 182f.

28 Chron. Syr., edit. Bruns, p. 120; and edit. Bedjan, p. 115.

29 Recently (1903) edited in Cairo, in 30 parts.

30 Edited in Calcutta (1859) by Nassau-Lees.

31 See A. Mingana, Clef de la langue Araméenne (1905), pp. 33-34.

32 Cf. M. Merx, Historia artis grammaticae apud Syros (Leipzig, 1889). Duval, Littérature Syriaque, 3me edit., pp. 285f.

33 Cf. Evod. Assemani, Acta Martyr. Orient, vol. I, pp. 19, 54, etc. Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden aus der Arabischen Chron. des Tabari, p. 68, n. 1.

34 Quoted in Neubauer’s Géographie du Talmud, p. 320.

35 Cf. Graetz, Histoire des Juifs (translated by Bloch), 1888, vol. III, p. 163 et passim.

36 See Brockelmann’s Gerchichte, der Arabischen Litteratur, I. (Weimar, 1898), p. 100.

37 Edited by H. Derenbourg, Paris, 1881-1889.

38 About the relations of the Mandaeans with Christianity, see Brandt, Die Mandäische Religion, ihre Entwickelung und Geschichtliche Bedeutung, pp. 140—45 et passim.

39 For a general view on Arabic Literature, the reader will find good information in R. A. Nicholson’s A Literary History of the Arabs (1907); for some particular details several articles written, in Arabic, in the review Al-Machriq (Beirut), seem to be well documented and scientific.

40 See Ibn Abi Usaibi’ah, vol. I, p. 175 et passim. Bar Hebraeus, Cbron. Syr., pp. 134 and 162.

41 See Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l‘empire Perse (1904), pp. 219f.

42 See B. Moritz’s Arabic Palaeography (with 188 plates), Cairo, 1906; and L. Cheikho, Spécimens d’écriture Arabe pour la lecture des manuscrits anciens et modernes (Beirut, 1911).

43 Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts etc. Oriental Series, Part II, edited by W. Wright (London, 1877).

44 Cf. the valuable study of Prof. Brockelmann, in the Encyclopaedia of lslâm, vol. I, pp. 383f.

Chapter Five: The Transmission of the Koran

1 “No falsification; the Koran contains only genuine pieces.” Orientalische Skizzen, p. 56.

2 “I agree, however, with Fischer that the possibility of interpolations in the Koran absolutely must be admitted.” Geschichte des.Qorâns, 2d ed. (1909) by Schwally, p. 99, no. 1.

3 The accusation very recently directed against the Arabists of this country by a well-known writer, that they are still living on Muir, is a meager tribute to the leading Arabist of Oxford and his colleagues of Cambridge; to take as examples some second-hand authors and scientifically worthless Islamizers is highly unjust.

4 New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran, p. 139.

5 Mohammed et la fin du monde, 2 ème fascicule, Notes Complémentaires, p. 149-56.

6 Cf. The Moslem World (1915), pp. 380f.

7 Edit. Schwally, II, pp. 112-14.

8 Cf. Casanova, Ibid, p. 109.

9 Geschichte des Qorans (1860), p. 193.

10 Bukhari III, p. 397 (edit. Krehl).

11 The same tradition is copied by “Muslim,” II, p. 494 (edit. Dehli) and by “Tirmidhi,” II, p. 309 (edit. Bulak).

12 Leaves from three Ancient Qurâns (1914). [See chapter 14 of this volume.]

13 The speaker is Zaid ibn Thabit mentioned in the foregoing traditions.

14 This same tradition is reported in III, 257, and in IV, 398.

15 This information has been copied by another traditionist (“Tirmidhi” II, 187) and by many subsequent writers.

16 Var. “torn up.”

17 “As to admitting one tradition to be true to the detriment of the other, that seems to me impossible without falling into arbitrariness.” Casanova, Mohammed et la fin du monde, II, 105.

18 “If they had assembled the whole Koran, why was so much effort needed later to bring the same thing together?” Geschichte des Qorâns (1860), p. 160.

19 “Criticism has highlighted the inadequacy as documentary evidence, if not of the earliest Islamic literature, of at least the rich later development represented by Bukhari’s collection.” R. Dussaud, in Journal des Savants (1913), p. 138.

20 “The details which surround the principal figure of Muhammad are really well-blurred and even end by becoming obliterated in a haze of uncertainty.” CI. Huart, in Journal Asiatique (1913), p. 215.

21 J.R.A.S. (1916), p. 397.

22 “As noted earlier, besides the poets, we possess the Sira [the biography of the Prophet], the Maghazi [the literature describing the war or raids on the infidels], the Sahih [the true or authentic traditions whose chain of transmitters is unassailable], the Musnad [the traditions supported by authorities resting on the Prophet], the Sunan [the deeds, utterances, and unspoken approval of the Prophet], a historical library, unique of its kind, in its extent and variety. To their combined evidence who would dare to deny all value?” Lammens’s Le berceau de l‘Islam, p. 130.

23 Geschichte des Qorâns, p. 189, sq.

24 p. 27 (edit. Flügel).

25 2, 2, 836.

26 Ibid. I, 6, 2952.

27 Ibid. II, 1, 516.

28 History of Muhammad’s Campaigns (1856), p. 68 (edit. Kremer).

29 Vol. I, p. 14.

30 Chron. Arab, p. 194 (edit. Beirut).

31 pp. 227 (edit. Jarrett).

32 Pt. I, 72-74.

33 II, 454 (noticed by Casanova, p. 124).

34 IV, 463 (noticed Périer, “vie d’ al-Hadjdjadj,” p. 257).

35 Vol. I, p. 183 (edit. Barone de Slane).

36 Cf. Fihrist, pp. 26-27.

37 VI, pp. 301-302 (edit. D. S. Margoliouth).

38 Mars-Avril, 1916, pp. 248f.

39 Genesis xix, 24.

40 Nau translates the Syriac expression dla tuhhaya by “sans erreur possible,” instead of “easily, without delay.”

41 Lit. “the writings.”

42 “Christian Arab tribes of Southern Syria.

43 It is very difficult to determine with exactitude the chronology of events at this period of Arab conquests.

44 Cf. W Muir, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline and Fall (1915), pp. 153f.

45 Cf. in Patrologia Orientalis, V, p. 51, the Arabic text edited by B. Evetts.

46 These, however, might have been Jewish or Christian renegades.

47 Edit. Duval, Corp. Script Christ. Orient, tomus LXIV, p. 97.

48 Chronica Minora, Ibid., tomus IV, pp. 30 and 38.

49 A. Mingana, Sources Syriaques, vol. I, pt. 2, pp. 146f.

50 Notice the Syriac word Mashilmanutha “tradition” in its rapport with “a written thing.”

51 i.e., Monophysites.

52 i.e., Nestorians.

53 Pol. und Apol. Literatur in Arab. Sprache (1877).

54 Assemani, B. O. III, 1, 212.

55 1901, p. 150.

56 The Apology of al-Kindy Written at the Court of al-Mamun circa, A.D. 830. An excellent edition of this work has recently appeared in Egypt in the “Nile Mission Press,” whose chairman is Dr. S. M. Zwemer.

57 “In the history of the criticism of the Koran, we must, I believe, place the Christian al-Kindi in the top rank.” Ibid., p. 119.

58 Cf. Muir, ibid., pp. 70.

59 The predominant role of this monk will be carefully set forth in our future studies. The Arab authors who scarcely knew any other language besides Arabic confused his name with the title Bhira given by Aramaeans to every monk; see Nau, Expansion Nestorienne en Asie (1914), pp. 213—23, who showed how misleading was the practice of some scholars who simply availed themselves of the tardy Muslim Hadith.

60 These details will be studied in future.

61 Cf. Geschichte des Qorans, p. 255 (edit. Schwally).

62 This fact receives a direct confirmation from ibn Dukmak and Makrizi quoted on p. 33.

63 The work will be published for the Governors of the John Rylands Library by the Manchester University Press.

64 D. S. Margoliouth, in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VIII, 879.

65 ”In no way did Islam come into existence as a religious system, but rather as an experiment of a sociological nature, designed to counter certain prevailing secular abuses.” H. Grimme, Mohammed, I., Münsrer, p. 14; München, p. 50.

66 Mukaddimah, p. 365 (edit. Beirut).

67 We cannot enter into details on this subject which is a digression from the Koranic theme.

68 New Researches into the Composition and Exegesis of the Qoran, p. 11.

69 “The Prophet was advised by Allah [Koran, Ixxv. 16-17] not to be in a hurry to publish the Koran as a separate collection. The precaution was wise given the inconsistent character of certain revelations.” Fatima et les filles de Mahomet, p. 113.

70 ”But as to the fragments of bone, palm leaves, etc., on which were written, by the secretaries, the verses dictated by the Prophet, and which were used for the first recension under Abu Bakr, what happened to them? I refuse to believe that they would have been destroyed. What extraordinary sacrilege! How could one have treated in such a manner these witnesses, the most direct, of the revelation? In fact if they had existed, how does one explain the fear that ‘Umar and Abu Bakr showed in seeing the Koran disappearing with the death of the reciters [of the Koran]? If they had not existed, all the passages (so numerous) where the Koran is designated (by the word kitab—a book or scriptures) must have been introduced after the event!

“Well, there you have the inherent contradictions in the traditional account, and all are resolved by the conclusion that I adopt: the Koran was put in written form for the first time thanks to al-Hajjaj who was probably relying on the legendary prototype due to ‘Uthman. It is possible that there had been earlier transcriptions, but without any official character and consequently without unity.” Ibid., pp. 141—42.

Chapter Six: Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran

1 Fibrist 36 mentions a number of works on Ikhtilaf al-Masahif, such as those by Ibn ‘Amir (d. 118), al-Farra’ (d. 207), Khalaf b. Hisham (d. 229), al-Mada‘ini (d. 231), al-Warraq and one Muhammad b. ‘Abd ar-Rahman. There was also a work with a similar title by Abu Hatim (d. 248); cf. Fihrist 59(2), a work derived from al-Kisa‘i (d. 189) entitled Kitab Ikhtilaf Masahif Ahl al-Madina wa Ahl al-Kufa wa Ahl al-Basra ‘an al-Kisa‘i, and a Kitab al-Masahif wa ‘l-Hija’ by Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Isfahani (d. 253). Ibn Miqsam (d. 362) is also said to have composed a Kitab al-Masahif (Fibrist 33 [6]), but the three famous Masahif-books were those of Ibn Abi Dawud (d. 316), Ibn al-Anbari (d. 327), and Ibn Ashta al-Isfahani (d. 360); cf. Itqan 13.

2 Vide Massignon’s al-Hallaj, I, 241 and Bergsträsser, Gerchichte des Qorantexts, 152ff. Some account of the man will be found in al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad, V, 144-148, Yaqut, Irshab, II, 116-119, and Ibn al Jazari, Tabaqat, I, 139-142, No. 663.

3 On Ibn Miqsam see Yaqut, Irshad, VI, 499; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat, No. 2945; Miskawaihi, Tajarib (ed. Amedroz), I, 285; and on Ibn Shanabudh see Ibn Khallikan (tr. de Slane), 111, 16-18; Yaqut, Irshad, VI, 302-304 and Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat, No. 2707.

4 The seven were Nafi‘of Madina (d. 169), Ibn Kathir of Mecca (d. 120), Ibn ‘Amir of Damascus (d. 118), Abu ‘Amr of Basra (d. 154), ‘Asim of Kufa (d. 128), Hamza of Kufa (d. 158) and al-Kisa‘i of Kufa (d. 189).

5 To the Seven were added Abu Ja’far of Madina (d. 130), Khalaf of Kufa (d. 229) and Ya‘qub of Basra (d. 205) to make the Ten. Islamic scholarship is still divided over the question as to whether seven only or all ten are canonical.

6 To the Ten were added Ibn Muhaisin of Mecca (d. 123), al-Yazidi of Basra (d. 202), al-Hasan of Basra (d. 110), and al-A’mash of Kufa (d. 148) to make the Fourteen.

7 We hear of books composed on the Eight Readers, the Eleven Readers, the Thirteen Readers, and somtimes these included Readers not in the usual lists as given above. Thus the Raudat al- Huffaz of al-Mu‘addil includes the readings of Humaid b. Qais, Ibn as-Samaifa’ and Talha b. Musarrif (see Pretzl “Die Wissenschaft der Koranlesung” in Islamica, VI, p. 43). Also the Cairo MS of the Suq al-‘Arus of Abu Ma’shar at-Tabari contains numerous mukhtarat beyond the canonical authorities, and the lost Kamil of al-Hudhali, though it is a work on the Ten, is said to have contained readings of forty extra Readers (Nashr I, 90).

8 A possible exception is the case of Abu Musa al-Qazwini to whom my attention has been drawn by Prof. Massignon, and who seems to have prepared a text in which varied colored dots represented alternative readings in the text. Some samples of this process are actually found in some Kufic codices of the third and fourth centuries, but so far as I know never consistently carried out.

9 The Kashihaf, ed. Nassau Lees, Calcutta, 1856.

10 Al-Bahr al-Muhit, 8 vols., Cairo, 1328 A.H. printed at the charges of the Sultan of Morocco, and unfortunately in the latter volumes printed in great haste and consequent inaccuracy.

11 Fath al-Qadir, 5 vols., Cairo 1349. In his MS the author used the text of Warsh ‘an Nafi’, i.e. the Madinan text tradition, but in the printing of this edition the publishers have stupidly changed it in every case to the Kufan text tradition of Hafs ‘an ‘Asim which is the one current in Egypt at the present day.

12 At-Tibyan fi ’l-l’rab wa ‘l-Qira’at fi Jami’ al-Qur’an on the margin of Jamal’s supercommentary to Jalalain, 4 vols., Cairo 1348. (It was also printed separately at Cairo in 1302 and 1306, and with Jamal at Teheran in 1860 A.D.). Of his l‘rab al-Qira’at ash-Shadhdha there is a broken MS in the possession of Dr. Yahuda of London and a complete MS discovered by the present writer in the East and now in the Mingana collection at Selly Oak.

13 Ibn Halawaih’s Sammlung nichtkanonischer Koranlesarten, herausgegeben von G. Bergsträsser, Istanbul 1934 (Bibliotheca Islamica, VII). There are also variants recorded in his l‘rab Thalathin Suwar of which three MSS are known.

14 Nichtkanonische Koranlerarten in Muhtasab des Ibn Ginni, von G. Bergsträsser, Munich 1933. (Sitzungberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wirsenrchaften, 1933, Heft 2). There are good MSS of the Muhtasab now available and it is hoped that the complete text may be published shortly. It is probable that other works of Ibn Jinni would repay examination for there are not a few uncanonical variants quoted in the commentaries from Ibn Jinni which do not figure in Bergsträsser’s lists.

15 Soyuti’s Itqan on the Exegetical Sciencer of the Qur’an, ed. A. Sprenger, Calcutta 1857. (Bibliotheca Indica).

The recent work of az-Zanjani, Tarikh al-Qur‘an, Cairo 1935, may perhaps represent the beginning of a new day. The author is visibly inspired by Western work on the Qur’an, and although bound hand and foot by the necessity of defending the orthodox position, he has made a useful assemblage of material from which others may start.

16 Die Richtungen der islamischen Koranauslegung, Leiden 1920, being the Olaus-Petri Lectures at Upsala, published as No. VI of the De-Goeje Foundation.

17 Erste Lieferung 1926; zweite Lieferung 1929: the third and concluding section has now been issued by his pupil and successor at Munich, Dr. O. Pretzl. Bergsträsser envisaged a much larger plan for a history of the text of the Koran based on an assemblage of materials on a vast scale, and of which the publication of a critical text of the Koran by the present writer was to form part. (See his preliminary statement, “Plan eines Apparatus Criticus zum Qoran” in the Sitzungsberichte Bayer. Akad., 1930, Heft 7). The tragedy of the summer of 1933, which deprived Germany of one of her finest Arabists and the writer of a close personal friend, has necessarily delayed this project and somewhat changed it. Dr. Pretzl, however, has undertaken to continue with the plan and a new scheme for it is being elaborated. (See Pretzl, “Die Fortführung des apparatus criticus zum Koran” in Sitzungsberichte Bayer. Akad., 1934, Heft 2).

18 E.g., the folio edition of 1857.

19 Bergsträsser has given an account of it in Der Islam, XX (1932), Heft I in his article “Koranlesung in Kairo.”

20 Two of these older sources have been made available in careful editions in the Bibliotheca lslamica by Dr. Otto Pretzl, viz. The Taisir and the Muqni of ad-Dani (d. 444), the Spanish Muslim savant.—Das Lehrbuch der Sieben Koranlesungen von Abu Amr ad-Dani, 1930, and Orthographie und Punktierung des Korans: Zwei Schriften von Abu Amr ad-Dani, 1932. In the “Anmerkungen” to this latter text Pretzl notes a number of cases where the editors of the Egyptian standard text have deviated from the older tradition.

21 Itqan, 146.

22 Thus in the preface to the above-mentioned Egyptian Standard edition (student’s edition of 1344) we read—“Its consonantal text has been taken from what the Massoretes have handed down as to the codices which ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan sent to Basra, Kufa, Damascus and Mecca, the codex which he appointed for the people of Medina, and that which he kept for himself, and from the codices which have been copied from them.”

23 There is a Shi‘a tradition (Kashani, Safi, p. 9) that before his death the Prophet called ‘Ali and told him that this material was hidden behind his couch written on leaves and silk and parchments, bidding him take it and publish it in codex form. It is also sometimes suggested that this material assembled by the Prophet was the nucleus of Abu Bakr’s collection. In neither case, however, can we feel much confidence in the statements.

24 There are of course elaborate stories of the amanuenses of the Prophet, and there can be no doubt that he did employ amanuenses for his diplomatic correspondence. That certain of these amanuenses were at times called upon to write out special pieces of revelation is not at all impossible. It is difficult to take seriously, however, the theory that considers them as a body of prepared scribes waiting to take down revelations as they were uttered.

25 Ya‘qubi (ed. Houtsma), II, 152; Fihrist 24; ad-Dani, Muqni’, 4 ff. And cf. Nöldeke-Schwally II, 11 ff. There are many references to material that was lost at Yamama that should have formed part of the Koran.

26 Ibn al-Jazari, Nashr 1, 6; Fihrist, 27; Bukhari (ed. Krehl) III, 397; Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat, II ii, 112-114. See also Nöldeke-Schwally II, 8-11.

27 This name is probably a mistake for Mu‘adh b. Jabal, as indeed Bergsträsser has noted, Qorantext, 173.

28 Assuming that there was a Medinan Codex. The stories of ‘Uthman’s committee in the Muqni and in Ibn Abi Dawud certainly suggest that Medina had depended largely on oral tradition and that this committee of ‘Uthman made a firsthand collection by taking down the material directly from the depositories and demanding two witnesses for every revelation accepted.

29 It will be remembered that the Ibadites made the charge against ‘Uthman that he had tampered with God’s word.

30 Ya‘qubi, Historiae II, 197; Ibn al-Athir III, 86, 87; Qurtubi I, 53.

31 Ibn Abi Dawud, p. 83 quotes from Abu Bakr b. ‘Ayyash (d. 194) the statement that many of the Companions of the Prophet had their own text of the Koran, but they had passed away and their texts had not survived. This same fact is evidenced by the recurring reference to al-harf al- awwal where what is meant is a reading from the time of the Prophet which is different from that in the ‘Uthmanic text.

32 In the accounts of Ibn Shanabudh will be noticed the effort made to paint him as an ignoramus and a weak-minded person. This was the usual procedure with regard to all those suspected of unorthodox views and is not to be taken seriously. It is perfectly clear from the sources that he was a famous scholar and drew large numbers of students, who in those days as in these did not flock to listen to the ignorant and weak-minded.

33 An interesting modern example occurred during the last visit of the late Prof Bergsträsser to Cairo. He was engaged in taking photographs for the Archive and had photographed a number of the early Kufic codices in the Egyptian Library when I drew his attention to one in the Azhar Library that possessed certain curious features. He sought permission to photograph that also, but permission was refused and the codex withdrawn from access, as it was not consistent with othodoxy to allow a Western scholar to have knowledge of such a text.

34 Cf. Itqan 428 and numerous quotations in ad-Durr al-Manthur.

35 Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat II, 184.

36 Itqan 13 and 428.

37 For his life see Ibn Khallikan (Eg. Ed.) I, 268, 269; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabagat, No. 1779; Dhahabi, Liber Class., II, 80; al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad IX, 464-468; Ibn al-‘Imad, Shadharat ad-Dbahab II, 168, 273.

38 He is generally known as the pupil of Mhd b. Aslam at-Tusi and ‘Isa b. Zaghba. Al-Khatib IX, 464, 465 gives a list of his various teachers, and the Readers from whom he drew his Koranic knowledge are listed by Ibn al-Jazari.

39 Fihrist 36 (11) attributes this book to his father Abu Dawud, the traditionist.

40 But see Ibn al-‘Imad II, 273, and ad-Daraqutni in al-Khatib, IX, 468.

41 It was at first thought that Dr. Mingana’s find in the palimpsest leaves published by him in 1914, Leaves from Three Ancient Qurânrs Possibly Pre-‘Othmânic, with a List of Their Variants, might provide us with fragments of one of these earlier codices. Closer examination, however, has shown that neither they nor the curious variants found by him in Syriac in a MS of Barsalibi (see An ancient Syriac Translation of the Kur’an exhibiting new Verses and Variants, Manchester, 1925), have any relation to the text of these old codices with which we are here concerned. See Bergsträsser, Geschichte des Qorantexts, pp. 53-57 and 97-102.

42 Geschichte des Qorantexts, pp. 60-96.

43 Sources for his life are—Nawawi, Tahdhib, 396 ff; Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghaba, III, 256-260; Ibn Hajar, Isaba II, 890-893; Tahdhib VI, 27, 28; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabagat No. 1914; Ibn Sa’d II,ii, 104 ff, III, i, 106 ff.

44 Nawawi, 372; Bukhari (ed. Krehl) III, 396.

45 Ibn Abi Dawud, p. 13 ff.

46 Ibn al-Athir, Kamil (ed. Tornberg) III, 86, 87.

47 On them see Nöldeke-Schwally I, 108 ff. The Fatiha was apparently added to some copies that gave Ibn Mas‘ud’s text. C.f. Itqan, 152, 187 and the statement of Ibn an-Nadim, Fihrist, 26.

48 This is the date he is said to have finished the Fihrist. the date of his death is uncertain.

49 In Tabari, Annales, I, 2963 the sura of Yunus which is the tenth sura in modern editions is called the seventh as here. Schwally suggests a misprint in the text of Tabari ... but against this see Bauer in ZDMG, LXXV, 15.

50 Fihrist says that some gave 52 as coming before 51.

51 Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib II, 75-77.

52 There is a statement in the Fihrist, p. 26 from Mhd b. Ishaq, that there were many codices in existence purporting to be exemplars of Ibn Mas’ud’s codex, but no two of them agreed with one another. Ibn an-Nadim claims to have seen a very old copy in which the Fatiha was included.

53 An alternative theory is that when the ‘Uthmanic text was in general currency the material in Ibn Mas’ud’s codex was arranged in new copies made thereof under the sura headings of the ‘Uthmanic text, though not in the same order. It is obvious, of course, that later writers using material from one of these old codices would quote it according to sura and verse of the ‘Uthmanic text.

54 Sources for his life are—Nawawi, 140, 141; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat, No. 131; Ibu Sa’d III, ii, 59-62; Usd al-Ghaba I, 49, 50; Ibn Hajar Isaba I, 30-32; Tahdhib at-Tahdhib I, 187, 188.

55 One story going back to Abu’ l-‘Aliya (d. 90) is that in the caliphate of Abu Bakr an attempt was made to produce a codex, scribes writing to Ubai’s dictation. This is usually told in connection with Abu Bakr’s so-called recension (Ibn Abi Dawud, p. 9), but it might quite well describe the origin of Ubai’s own codex (see Ibn Abi Dawud, p. 30).

56 Fihrist p. 28; Ya‘qubi, Hirtoriae II, 152; Itqan, 134 ff; Ibn Abi Dawud, p. 10. One finds the usual attempts to prove that ‘Ali’s assembling was only a memorizing, but on the face of it the story demands a written form.

57 A tradition from Ibn ‘Abbas given in the Manaqib of Ibn Shahrashaub from ash-Shirazi’s Nuzul al-Quran. Cf. Al-‘Amili I, 150.

58 Al-‘Amili I, 148.

59 As-Safi, pp. 9, 10.

60 Unfortunately the passage in the Fihrist which gave the sura order of ‘Ali’s codex is missing from the MS from which Flugel’s edition was made.

61 There are numerous references to such codices in Arabic literature, and there are still in Shi‘a hands portions of such codices said to have been written by members of Ahl al-Bait (see al-‘Amili, A’yan ash-Shia I, 150 ff.) but in no case is the genuineness even arguable.

62 Goldziher, Richtungen, 272.

Chapter Seven: Progress in the Study of the Koran Text

1 There is a damning indictment of the commentaries from this point of view in the work of Muhammad Abu Zaid, al-Hidaya wal‘l-‘Irfan (Cairo, 1930), a work suppressed in Egypt by government order. See the account by the present writer in Der Islam XX, Heft 4.

2 Cf. Joh. Mich. Langii—Dissertatio de Alcorani prima inter Europaeos editione Arabica, ante sesquesaeculum et quod excuvit in Italia per Paganinum Brixiensem facta, sed iussu Pontificis Romani abolita (1703), and also Joh. Bern. de Rossi—De Corano arabico Venetiis Paganini typis imprerro sub saec. XVI. dissertatio (Parmae, 1806).

3 Alcoranus Muhammadis ad optimorum Codicum fidem edita (Hamburg, 1694).

4 Alcoranus textus universus, edidit Lud. Marraccio (Paduae, 1698).

5 Corani textus arabicus ad fidem librorum manu scriptorum et impressorum et ad praecipurum interpretum lectiones et auctoritatem recensuit Gustavus Flügel (Lipsiae, 1834).

6 So I learned in conversation with sheikhs in Omdurman. Now, under the influence of Egypt, the Muslim youth in school use and learn the common system of Hafs.

7 Bergsträsser has given a full account of this edition in his article “Koranlesung in Kairo” in Der Islam XX (1932).

8 I suspect that this also is dependent on the Kazan lithographs, but as no exemplar of these Kazan editions is available to me here in Cairo it is impossible to check this.

9 On Dr. Mingana’s palimpsest find—Leaves from Three Ancient Qur’ā ns possibly pre-Othmanic (Cambridge, 1914), see Bergsträsser, Geschichte des Qorantexts, pp. 97ff.

10 A preliminary collection of these was made by Bergsträsser in his Geschichte des Qorantexts, pp. 60-96, and a much larger collection has been made by the present writer to be published in the 017RAS.

11 Later orthodoxy made desperate efforts to obliterate the memory of even these readings, as we can see in the cases of Ibn Shanabudh (Yaqut, Irshad, VI. 302-304; Ibn Khallikan. tr. de Slane. III 16-18; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat, No. 2707), and Ibn Muqsim (Yaqut, Irshad, VI. 499; Ibn al-Jazari, Tabaqat, No. 2945; Miskawaihi, Tajarib, ed. Amedroz, I. 285.)

12 Cf. Bergsträsser, Qorantexts, pp. 2, 3.

13 We have an apt parallel in the enormous authority still exercised, particularly in orthodox circles, by the King James version of the Bible.

14 This number seven was connected with a well known tradition about the Koran having been revealed according to seven ahruf, a tradition which itself had obviously been invented to explain the variant readings of the text known to exist.

15 It should be noted that there is often wide difference of opinion as to the dates of some of these readers.

16 Bergsträsser gave some account of this plan in a paper, “Plan eines Apparatus Criticus zum Koran,” published in Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy, 1930, Heft 7.

17 Das Lehrbuch der sieben Koranlesungen von ad-Dani (Istanbul, 1930).

18 Orthographie und Punktierung des Koran, zwei Schriften von ad-Dani (Istanbul, 1932).

19 This also will appear in the Bibliotheca Islamica very shortly.

20 The results appeared in an article, “Nichtkanonische Koranlesarten in Muhtasab des Ibn Ginni,” in the Sitzungsherichte Bayer. Akad., 1934, Heft 7. The readings are given there in transcription. It is hoped that it will be possible to publish the whole Arabic text of the Muhtasab some day.

21 Full accounts of the manuscript material brought to light there are given in section four of his article “Die Wissenschaft der Koranlesung” in Islamica VI (1933-34).

22 Bergsträsser has dealt with him and his writings in section three of his “Koranlesung in Kairo.”

23 See his account of “Die Fortführung des Apparatus Criticus zum Koran” in the Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy, 1934, Heft 5.

Chapter Eight: A Variant Text of the Fatiha

1 Nöldeke-Schwally, Geschichte des Qorans, I, 110.

2 Mafatih al-Ghaib, V, 281.

3 Ibn al-jazari, Tabaqat, No. 3943 (vol. ii, p. 404). He was Imam of the mosque at Wasit, and a great authority on the isnads of the Kufan reader ‘Asim, and one of the teachers of Abu Bakr an-Naqqash.

4 ‘Abu ‘Ubaid, Fada’il, fol. 434. That Ibn Mas‘ud knew the Fatiha as used liturgically, however, is clear not only from the fact that we have several variants in it from him (see the present writer’s Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’ān, p. 25), but also from the story coming from al-A‘mash († 148) that Ibn Mas’ud was asked why he did not include the Fatiha in his codex, and he answered that if he had included it he would have put it in front of every sura (Qurtubi, Al-Jami‘li Ahkam al-Qur’an, I, 115). This statement shows quite clearly that he considered it to be a liturgical piece to be recited before reading the Koran. Late copies of Ibn Mas‘ud’s codex, made in the next generation or two, added the Fatiha at the beginning (Itqan, 152, 187; Fihrist, 26).

Chapter Nine: Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran

1 On Abu ‘Ubaid see Flügel, Die grammat. Schulen der Araber, p. 85 ff., and particularly Hans Gottschalk’s essay “Abū ‘Ubaid al-Qāsim b. Sallām: Studie zur Geschichte der arabischen Biographie,” in Der Islam XXIII (1936): 245-89.

2 The Berlin MS is Or. Peterman 449, and an edition of the text is now being prepared by Dr. Anton Spitaler.

Chapter 10: Textual Variations of the Koran

1 Umm vii. 60.

2 Ed. Krehl ii. 209.

3 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, p. 201.

4 Tabari iii. 2175, 7; 2176, 17.

5 Irshad al-Arib vi. 94. Cf Aghani iv. 177 end (ea. 2).

6 Mubarrad, Kamil ii. 322 (Cairo ed.).

7 Chronicle iii. 211.

8 See Fath al-Bari vi, 342.

9 Al-Hasan b. ‘Abdallah ‘Askari, Kitab al-tashif (Cairo, 1908).

10 Diwan (Beirut, 1905), p. 215.

11 Ru’bah, ed. Ahlwardt. p. 149. Ahlwardt’s translation, “Der Juden Bibel, drin der Kritzler malte die Züge die sein Griffel schrieb mit Tinte,” most seriously misrepresents the meaning.

12 P. 144, 13. Ahlwardt is again misleading.

13 Igd Farid ii. 166 (ed. 1).

14 Aghani vi. 101, et. 2.

15 Diwan, p. 418.

16 Comm. v. 165, ed. 1.

17 Her private copy is mentioned by Ibn Hanbal vi. 73.

18 Kamil ii. 91 (Cairo ed.).

19 i. 285, Cairo ed.

20 i. 252.

21 i. 422.

Chapter 11: What Did Muhammad Borrow from Judaism?

1 Sura XX. 39. Comp. Ex. II. 3.

2 Comp. Mishna Berachoth V. 4.

3 The Arabians sometimes use tabut as-sakinat also in the meaning of “Ark of the Covenant” (D‘Herbelot, Bibliotheque Orientale, under “Aschmouil.”)

4 Sura II. 249.

5 Hebrew torah, ‘o vóμoς.

6 Later Arabians maintained just the opposite. Ahmad ben ‘Abdu’l-Halim (Maracc. Prod. I. p. 5.) says: “If one says: Instruct me about the allusions to the Apostle of God in the Torah, one understands by that expression all revelaed scriptures, since they are all called Torah”; and further: “It is acknowledged that by the word Torah are meant revealed writings, particularly those which the possessors of the scriptures (Jews and Christians) alike read; therefore it includes the Psalms, the prophecy of Isaiah, and other prophecies, but not the Gospel.”

However this does not alter the conviction which we have already expressed.

7 Arabic al-injilu. Comp. Suras III. 2, 43, 58, 86, V 70, VII. 157, IX. 112, LXI. 6, LXII. 5.

8 The Arabic commentators give widely different meanings to the word, but they know nothing of that given by us just because it is foreign to the Arabic language. Elpherar seems to decide for the view that adn means permanence, as the pious will remain there forever.

9 Muhammad uses it thus in Suras IX. 73, XIII. 23, XVI. 33, XVIII. 30, XIX. 62, XX. 78, XXXV 30, XXXVIII. 50, XL. 8, LXI. 12. See also V 70, X. 9, XXII. 55, XXVI. 85, XXXI. 7, XXXVII. 42, LXVIII. 34, LVI. 88, LXX. 38.

10 Arabic jannatu ‘l-firdausi, Greek Ó παραδεισ0ς.

11 Chagiga fol. 14. Compare Sura XVIII. 107, XXIII. 11.

Among many wrong explanations Elpherar gives the following correct one: “Mujahid says it means a garden in Greek, and Zajaj says it has passed into Arabic.”

12 E.g., σὑv0δ0ς, i.e., Sunhadus and especially γἑεvvα, which is pronounced in Syriac, as Gihano.

13 Suras II. 201; III. 10, 196; IV 58, 95, 99, 115, 120, etc.

14 V. 48, 68; IX. 31, 34.

15 Hebrew ‘am ha-aretz, Greek λαïκoς from λαoς.

16 Sura IX. 31, 34, rubban.

17 Suras III. 73, XXXIV 43, LXVIII. 37, VII. 168.

18 Hebrew shabbat.

19 Suras II. 61, VII. 163.

20 Sura XVI. 125.

21 Hebrew shekinah.

22 Compare Greek λόγoς τo’0 θεoυ.

23 Ex. XXV 8; cf. Deut. XXXIII. 12, 16.

24 Ex. XXV 22.

25 Arabic commentators do not seem willing to recognize this meaning. Elpherar on Sura IX. 26 says the word means security and rest; and on Sura XLVIII. 4 he says distinctly, “Ben ‘Abbas says this word sakinat in the Koran always means rest except in the second Sura.”

26 It is to be observed however that the Targums frequently use this word in the plural for the idols themselves, but not for idolatry.

27 Suras II. 257, 259, IV 68, XVI. 38, XXXIX. 19.

28 Ibn Said according to Elpherar explains this word as follows: “Furqau is help against the enemy.” Sura XXI. 49.

29 Sura VIII. 29.

30 Arabic jahiliyya.

31 Suras III. 2, XXV title and verse 1.

32 Suras II. 50, XXI. 49.

33 Compare under ahbar.

34 Suras XV 87, XXXIX. 24.

The Arabian commentators on Sura XV. 87 differ much in their explanation of this word, but one among them gives what seems to be the true meaning. Elpherar has: “Tawus says the whole Koran is called Masani.” At the same time also a reference is made to the other passage cited by us, viz., Sura XXXIX. 24.

35 Hebrew malkut shamayim, Greeks ἡβασiλἑiα τῶν oυραvῶv.

36 Sura VI. 75, XII. 184, XXIII. 90, XXXVI. 83.

37 Suras X. 3, XI. 9, L. 37, LVII. 4.

38 Sura XLI. 8-11.

39 Sura L. 37.

40 Chagiga 9. 2.

41 Cf. Midrash on the Psalms at the end of Psalm xi.

42 Suras II. 27, XVII. 46, XXIII. 88, XLI. 11, LXV 12, LXVII. 3, LXXI, 14.

43 Sura LXXVIII. 12.

44 Sura XXIII. 17.

45 Sura XI. 9.

46 Rashi on Gen. I. 2. Cf Sura XXIII. 88, XXVII. 26, XXIII. 117, LXXXV. 15.

47 Taanith 10. Pesachim 94.

48 Sura III. 127.

49 See Erubin 19.1.

50 2 Sam, xix. 1-5 (Sota 10).

51 Zohar II. 150.

52 Sura XV. 44.

53 Sukkah 32.

54 Suras XXXVII. 60, XLIV. 43.

55 Othioth Derabbi Akiba, 8. 1.

56 Concerning this intermediate place S‘adi cleverly remarks that it seems to the blessed as hell, to the lost as paradise (D’Herbelot, Bibliotheque Orientale, under A’raf, p. 113).

57 Elpherar comments on this passages as follows:

“These are those whose good and evil deeds are so evenly balanced that the latter preclude them from paradise, while the former save them from hell; therefore they remain standing here until God has declared His pleasure concerning them.” And later, when he gives our explanation of verse 45 in a long chain of traditions, he says:

“Those whose good and evil deeds are equal are the middle men and stand on the road. Thence they can see at once the inhabitants of paradise and those of hell; if they turn to the former, they cry ‘Peace be unto you:’ if to the latter,” etc.

58 “They,” i.e., the men between, not as Wahl and others explain it.

59 Phaedon, chap. 62.

60 Mishna Aboth, IV 17.

61 Suras IX. 88, XIII. 26.

62 Matt. xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 24.

63 Sura LXXV 23.

64 Sura LXXXIX. 27 ff.

65 Take, e.g., the rabbinical saying: “Even in their death the righteous are called living;” and in Suras II. 149, III. 163, it is ordered that those who fall in holy war shall not be called dead, but living.

66 The view that by the expression techiyath hammethim the future world or the (spiritual) continued life of the (bodily) dead is meant is given clearly in the explanation which a Baraitha adds to the quoted utterance of the Mishna. To the words: “He who asserts that the belief in techiyath hammethim is no part of the Jewish religion has no part in the future world,” he adds: “he denies the T. H., therefore he has no more a portion in it.” Here the expression techiyath hammethim and “future world” are taken as identical in meaning. Compare too the Book Ikkarim, IV 31.

67 Hebrew yom ha-dm.

68 Compare, e.g. Sura XXVI. 87. 88.

69 Suras XXI. 104, XXXIX. 67. Cf. Isaiah XXXIV. 4.

70 Sura XLIV. 9 ff.

71 Sura XVII. 60.

72 Sura XXII. 2. Comp. Suras XXVII. 89, XXXIX. 68, LXIX, 13 ff.

73 Ezekiel xxxviii. and xxxix.

74 Sura XXI. 96

75 Sura XVIII. 93.

76 Chagiga 16, Taanith 11.

77 Isaiah xliii. 12.

78 Cf. also Suras XXXVI. 65, XLI. 19.

79 Exodus xii. 12.

80 Sura XXI. 98.

81 Job viii. 7.

82 Proverbs xiv. 12. Kiddushin, 40.2. Compare Derech Erets; Sutta end of chap. II; Aboth of Rabbi Nathan, end of chap. IX; Erubin 26.2; also the Targums and their commentators on Deuteronomy vii. 10.

83 Sura III. 172.

84 Compare Sura IX. 55, 86, XXXI. 23. Elpherar says on IX. 55: “Mujahid and Ketada say that this verse has been transposed; it should run: ‘Let not therefore their riches or their children in this world cause thee to marvel. Verily God intendeth only to punish them by these things in that world.’ ”

85 Psalm xc. 4.

86 Sanhedrin 96. 2. See also preface to Ben Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch where he opposes this view.

87 Sura XXII. 46.

88 Sura XXXII. 4.

89 Cf Sura C, 9.

90 Mishna Sanhedrin X.I.

91 Suras VI. 95, XXX. 49, XXXVI. 33, XLI. 30, XLIII. 10, etc.

92 Taanith at the beginning.

93 Sanhedrin 90. 2, and Kethubhoth III, 2.

94 Jebamoth 49.

95 Sura XLII. 50.

96 Commentators cite this verse as one in which the superiority of Moses is disputed; thus Elpherar says: “The Jews said to Muhammad; ‘By God! if thou art a prophet, dost thou speak with God and see Him as Moses spoke with Him and saw Him?’ Then he said: ‘Moses did not see God.’ And then came this verse: ‘It was not granted to a man that God should speak to him, except in a vision, in a dream or through supernatural inspiration, or from behind a curtain, so that man hears His Voice, but does not see Him; He spoke thus to Moses also.’ ”

97 Arabic ruh qudsi, Hebrew ruah ha-qodesh, Greek τo018 πνε019υμα α020γιoν.

98 Suras LXXVIII. 38, XCVII. 4.

99 I Kings, xxii. 21.

100 Sanhedrin 44.

101 Sura XVII. 87.

102 Compare Suras XXXV. 1, XXXVII. 1, XL. 7, LXXVII. 1 ff., LXXIX. 11 ff.

103 Sura XXXII. 11.

104 Sura XV. 27.

105 “The genii are supposed to be a species of angels, and the devil is their father; he has thus a posterity, which is mentioned with him; the (remaining) angels however have no posterity.” Jalálu‘ddin in Maracc. Prodr. II. 15.

106 Chagiga 16. 1.

107 Suras XV. 17, 34, XXXVIII. 78, LXXXI. 24.

108 The Muslim explanation of falling stars.

109 Sura LXVII. 5; compare Sura XXXVII. 7.

110 Sura LXXII. 19.

111 Fakihat Elcholefa, 94, proves that this is really the Arabic view: “A meritorious man says that in the sins of men there is nothing small, but whatever is done contrary to the Commandment is great with respect to Him who commands, who is exalted and holy.”

112 Jebamoth 6.

113 Leviticus xix. 3.

114 Sura XXIX. 7.

115 Sura II. 240.

116 Sura III. 188.

117 Cf. also Sura IV. 46.

118 Cf. Berachoth X.

119 Mishna Berachoth IV. 5.

120 Sura IV. 102.

121 Mishna Berachoth IV. 4.

122 Sura XXIII. 3. Compare Ecclesiastes v. 1.

123 Sura IV. 46.

124 Berachoth 31. 2. Erubin 64.

125 Suras IV. 46, V. 9. Cf. Mishna Berachoth III. 4.

126 Sura V. 8. Berachoth 46.

127 Suras IV. 46, V. 9.

128 Sura XVII. 110.

129 1 Samuel, i. 13. Berachoth 31. 2.

130 Cf. Sunna 86, 87, 88, 89.

131 Mishna Berachoth I. 2.

132 Sura II. 183. Compare the note in the first section for remarks on the Fast Day, ‘Ashura.

133 Sura II. 228. Cf. Mishna Jabhamoth IV. 10.

134 Sura II. 233. Cf. XXXI. 131.

135 Kethuboth 60.1. Compare Josephus Ant. 2. 9.

136 Sura XXIV. 31.

137 Sura III. 191. Cf. Numbers xxiii. 10.

138 Sura XVIII. 23.

139 Sura XLVI. 14. Cf. Aboth V. 21. That full understanding is not reached until the completion of the fortieth year is observed also by Philo (ἕκτη δὲ [ἕβδομαδι] συνέσως ἀκμη), who here takes the forty-second year, only because he attaches particular virtue to the number 7, in which Solon also agrees with him (Vid. Philo, de Opificio Mundi, pp. 70-72, Ed. Pfeifer I).

140 Sura LXII. 5.

141 Sura IV. 87. Cf. Baba Kamma 92.

142 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 34.

143 Ecclesiastes viii. 8.

144 Psalm xlix. 8.

145 Daniel xii. 13.

146 Proverbs xi. 4.

147 Isaiah lviii. 8.

148 Sura XVII, 4-8.

149 Sura II, 28-32.

150 Midrash Rabbah on Numbers, para. 19. Compare Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, para. 8 and 17, and also Sanhedrin 38.

151 Genesis i. 26.

152 Psalm viii. 5.

153 Suras VII. 10-18, XV. 28-44, XVII. 63-68, XVIII. 48, XX. 115, XXXVIII. 71-86.

154 Cf. Greek διάβoλoς.

155 The legend of the devil’s refusal to worship Adam, given by me as a Christian one, was found by Zunz (“Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden,” p. 291. Note.) in the MS. Midrash of Rabbi Moses Haddarshan, who however lived in the eleventh century.

156 Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, para. 8.

157 Arabic Iblis (διἀβoλoς) instead of Shaytān (Hebrew Shatan).

158 This proper name is never used by Muhammad in this narrative; he uses throughout simply janna (“garden”), which shows that the Jews knew well the distinction between the home of our first parents and Paradise.

159 Suras VII. 18-25, XX. 115-27.

160 Arabic Shaytān.

161 Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, para. 17.

162 Genesis, ii. 21.

163 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, xiii.

164 To the same effect Muhammad ben Kais (vide Elpherar on VII. 21): “His Lord called to him: ‘O Adam, why hast thou eaten of that, when I had forbidden it to thee?’ He replied, ‘Lord, Eve gave it to me.’ Then said He to Eve: ‘Why didst thou give it to him?’ She replied, ‘The snake commanded me to do it.’ Then said He to the snake: ‘Why didst thou command it?’ ‘The devil ordered me to do it.’ ”

165 Genesis ii. 17, and iii. 5.

166 Genesis iii. 22.

167 Sura VII. 19.

168 Sura XX. 118.

169 Genesis iv. 3-9. Cf. Sura V. 30-36.

170 Commonly called Pseudo-Jonathan.

171 Pirke R. Eliezer, chapter xxi.

172 Sura V. 35.

173 Mishna Sanhedrin IV. 5.

174 Genesis iv. 10. Compare the translation of Onkelos.

175 Sura XLI. 92.

176 Suras XIX. 57, 58; XXI. 85, 86. Elpherar on Sura XIX. 57 says: “He is the grandfather of the father of Noah; his name is Enoch.”

177 Sura XIX. 58. Compare Genesis v. 24 and the Tract Derech Erez cited in Midrash Yalkut, chap. XLII.

178 In Maraccio.

179 Idris is drived from darasa, “study.” Elpherar on XIX. 57.

180 Suras XIX. 55, 56; XXI. 85.

181 Midr. Abhkhir quoted in Midr. Yalkut, chap. XLIV. Compare Yoma 67. 2. and Rashi, Zohar on Genesis i. 26.

182 Psalm viii. 5.

183 Sura II. 96.

184 This connection and comparison which might well appear very doubtful, and which seemed even to me at first nothing more than a conjecture, receives full corroboration from that which later Arabian authors, quite in harmony with the Mid. Yalkut, say about the angels. We find in Maraccius Prodromi iv, 82, the following: “Mujáhid says: The angels wondered at the wickedness of the sons of Adam, for apostles had already been sent to them; then their Lord (God) said to them: ‘Choose out two of you, and I will send them that they may judge upon earth.’ Then Harut and Marut were chosen, and they judged righteously, till Zahrah (the star Venus) came in the form of a most beautiful woman and complained about her husband. They were led astray by her and lusted after her, but she fled and went back to where she was before.... Muhammad says: ‘Yahya states on another authority than that of Mujahid, that the woman through whom they were led astray was a human woman.’ The union of these two views is to be found in the passages quoted from Midrash Yalkut.

185 Suras VII. 57-63, X. 72-75, XI. 27-50, XXII. 43, XXIII. 23-32, XXV. 39, XXVI. 105-121, XXIX. 13. 14, XXXVII. 73-81, LIV. 9-18, LXXI. 1-end.

186 Sanhedrin 108. (Comp. Midrash Rabban on Genesis, paras. 30 and 33, also on Ecclesiastes ix. 14.)

187 Sura XI. 40. Cf. Midr. Tanchuma, Section Noah.

188 Sura XI. 42, and XXIII. 27. Cf. Rosh Hashanah 16. 2, and Sanhedrin 108. The Arabic commentators seem to me to have quite misunderstood these passages, since they assume fabulous references. Our explanation, which is justified by a figurative interpretation of the words “And the oven glows,” appears to me sufficiently confirmed by a comparison with the Talmudic utterance.

189 Sura XXIX. 18. Cf. Genesis, ix. 29.

190 Sura XI. 44, 45, 48.

191 Genesis, ix. 22 ff. The commentators actually call this son Canaan (compare Genesis, ix. 25 ff.) although they, like the Bible, do not reckon any son of this name in their enumeration of the sons, but count these three only.

192 Sura LXVI. 10.

193 The world “deliberate” is to be understood in the sense already sufficiently explained in the First Division, Third Section, so that we may use it from now on without further explanatory comment.

194 Sura XXXI. 11 ff.

195 Sura VII. 61.

196 Sura XI. 33.

197 Sura XI. 31, and XXVI. 109.

198 Arabic qul. XI. 37. Cf. XXIX. 19.

199 Compare Mid. Rabbah on Genesis para. 42. “Abram was called the Hebrew because he was descended from Eber.” (Genesis xiv. 13).

200 Yahudi. Among the Arabs sometimes Yahud, more often Hud

201 Suras VII. 63-71, XI. 52-64, XXII. 43, XXIII. 33-44, XXV 40, XXVI. 123-141, XXIX. 37, XXXVIII. 11, XL. 32, XLI. 12-16, XLVI. 20-25, L. 13, LI. 41, 42, LIII. 50, LIV. 18-22, LXIX. 4-9, LXXXIX. 5-9.

202 Sura XXVI. 129.

203 Sura LXXXIX. 6. Cf. Genesis xi. 4.

204 Sura XI. 62. Compare Genesis x. 8, 9.

205 D‘Herbelot, under the heading Nimrod, asserts that the Arabians connect Nimrod with the building of the Tower.

206 Midr. Rabbah on Genesis xi. 2, par. 38.

207 Sura XXVI. 128. Compare Exodus xxxii. 6.

208 Sura XI. 63.

209 Mishna Sanhedrin X. 3. Genesis xi. 8, 9.

210 Suras XLI. 15, XLVI. 23 ff., LI. 41, LIV. 19, LXIX. 6 ff.

211 Sura XXIII. 37.

212 Seder ‘Olam quoted in Midrash Yalkut, chap. 62.

213 Genesis x. 25.

214 Genesis xxv. 22. Midr. Rabbah on Genesis, par. 68. Also par. 68. for Jacob’s sojourn in the home of Eber.

215 Sura XI. 53, XXVI. 127.

216 Sura LXXXIX. 6.

217 Poc. Spec., p. 3.

218 Sura XVI. 28.

219 Maracc. on the passage.

220 Hist. Anteirlamica, pp. 18 and 20.

221 Except in Suras L. 12, and LXIX. 4, where it precedes. In the former of these two passages it precedes the story of the Midianites also, and thus no chronological order is followed. In Suras LI. 43 and LIII. 51, it actually precedes the story of the Deluge, and in Sura LXXXV. 18, Pharoah is placed before Samud on account of the rhyme.

222 Poc. Spec., p. 3.

223 The passages which treat of this are the following:—Suras VII. 71-78, XI. 64—72, XXII. 43, XXV. 40, XXVI. 141-160, XXVII. 46-55, XXIX. 37, XXXVIII. 12, XL. 32, XLI. 12-18, L. 12, LI. 43-46, LIII. 51, LIV. 23-33, LXIX. 4-6, LXXXV 18, LXXXIX. 8, XCI. 11-16.

224 Sura LIV 28, XCI. 12.

225 Sura XXVII. 49.

226 See Genesis x. 24. This is also D’Herbelot’s view. See his Bib. Orient. under Salih.

227 Isma’il ben ‘Ali asserts however that Salih lived after Hud. (Maracc. Prodr., iv. 93).

228 Genesis xlix. 6.

229 Sura XVI. 124.

230 Arabic hanif. Sura II. 129, III. 60, VI. 79, XVI. 121, 124.

231 Sura II. 134.

232 On this Baidhawi has the following: ”The Jews and the Christians disputed about Abraham, and each party believed they could count him on their side. They appealed to Muhammad and thereupon came this revelation. The meaning is that Judaism and Christianity first came into existence by the sending of the law through Moses and the gospel through Jesus.” That this is the Jewish view is shown by the following passage:—”Our forefather Abraham observed the whole Law, for it is written (Genesis xxvi. 5.): ‘Because Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.’ ” (Yoma xxviii. 2).

233 Sura IV. 124.

234 Sura II. 119 ff.

235 Sura XIV. 40.

236 Sura LXXXVII. 19.

237 Suras VI. 74-82, XIX. 42-51, XXI. 52-69, XXII. 43, XXVI. 69-105, XXIX. 15-23, XXXVII. 81-95, XLIII. 25-28, LX. 4-6.

238 Suras IX. 115, XXVI. 86-104, LX. 4. Sunna 395.

239 Suras II. 260, XXI. 69-74, XXIX. 23-27, XXXVII. 95-99.

240 Midrash Rabba on Genesis, para. 38.

241 Abulfeda (Hist. Anteislamica, p. 20) says: “Azar the father of Abraham made idols and served them and bade Abraham sell them, but Abraham said: ‘Who would buy that which harms him and does him no good?’ ”

242 Sura IX. 115.

243 Midrash Rabba on Genesis, para. 38.

244 Sanhedrin 104.

245 Sura II. 128, 135.

246 Suras XXI. 71, XXIX. 25.

247 Sura XXVI. 88-104.

248 Sura XXIX. 17-23.

249 Compare above on Noah.

250 Suras II. 260, XXVI. 81.

251 Baidhawi says on Sura II. 262: “It is said that, after Nimrod had said: ‘I make alive and I kill,’ (II. 260), Abraham answered: ‘Quickening is brought about by the return of the spirit to the body.’ Nimrod replied: ‘Hast thou then seen that?’ Abraham could not answer in the affirmative and had to pass over to another argument. On this he prayed to the Lord for some revelation, in order that his mind might be easy about an answer to this question, if it were put to him again.”

252 Genesis xv. 9. ff.

253 Sura II. 262.

254 Sura VI. 74.

255 Pointed out by Maracc. Prodr., iv. 90.

256 According to the Tarikh Muntakhab, Azar was the father of Tharah (D‘Herbelot, Bib. Orient., under Abraham, p. 11).

257 Vide Maracc. on the passage.

258 Sura XI. 72. Elpherar remarks: “By messengers he means angels.”

259 Genesis xviii. Suras XI. 72-79, XV. 51-61, XXIX. 30-32, LI. 24-38.

260 Qiddushin 52.

261 Baba Mezia 86. 2.

262 Sura XV. 54 ff.

263 Genesis xvii. 17.

264 Sura XI. 74.

265 This is referred to in general terms in Sura II. 118; cf. Mishna Aboth, v. 3.

266 Sura XXXVII. 99-114.

267 Sura XXXVII. 112, 113.

268 Sura XI. 74; cf. two other passages, Sura XXXVII. 99 and 112.

269 Suras VII. 78-83, XI. 79-85, XV. 61-78, XXII. 43, XXVI. 160-176, XXVII. 55-60, XXIX. 27-35, XXXVII. 133-137, LIV. 33-39.

270 Compare especially Sura XXIX. 27-30.

271 Suras XXIX. 31, XV. 60.

272 Sura LXVI. 10.

273 Sura XXV. 42, and other passages.

274 Sura XXVI. 164.

275 On the passage quoted above (Sura XXXVII. 101) Elpherar remarks as follows: “The learned among the Muslims are divided about the lad whom Abraham was commanded to sacrifice; whereas the people of the Book on both sides (Jews and Christians) are agreed that he was Isaac, and common people are at one with them.” Many commentators are then quoted, who also share this opinion. “Other however say that he was Ishmael,” and for this opinion the authorities are not cited: “Both views are supported by the words of Muhammad. Those who maintain that Isaac was the one sacrificed prove it from Sura XXXVII. 99: ‘We brought him the joyful news that he should have a meek son.’ And when he was grown up, then God commanded Abraham to offer up him who had been announced to him. But we do not read in the Koran that any son except Isaac was foretold to him, as it is written in the Sura entitled Hud: ‘And we announced to him Isaac.‘—Sura XI. 74. Those however who maintain that Ishmael was the one sacrificed prove it from the fact that the announcement of Isaac comes after the completion of the story of the sacrifice, when we read for the first time: ‘And we rejoiced him with the promise of Isaac, a righteous prophet.‘—Sura XXXVII. 112. This shows that the sacrificed person was another than Isaac. (The same view is given in detail by Jalalud-din as quoted by Maracc.) Further it is said in Sura Hud (XI. 74): ‘We promised him Isaac and after Isaac’s son Jacob. As he had announced Isaac, so he also announced to him Isaac’s sonjacob.’ How could he then have commanded the sacrifice of Isaac, when he had promised seed through him?” This last proof is truly not to be ranked very high, for a similar contradiction in Holy Scripture in the case of Genesis, xxi. 12, and Genesis, xxii. would then have to be explained. Beyond the first proof adduced, there is no necessity either for this argument, or for still another argument which immediately afterwards is cited in the commentary, viz., that the horns of the ram are preserved in Mecca, the dwelling-place of Ishmael. It will have been noted that in the text I have independently decided in favor of the view that Muhammad believed that it was Ishmael whose sacrifice was ordered by God.

Doubtless all Arabian authorities would have come to this same conclusion, had not the Jews and Christians expressed their opinion so decidedly in favor of Isaac (in which they were followed by the common people). This fact prevented many from giving to the text of the Koran sufficiently impartial consideration, and hence led them to abandon Muhammad’s real view. The method by which these attempted to weaken the proof for the opposite opinion is clear from Elpherar’s comment on Sura XXXVII. 112: “He who takes it that Ishmael was the one sacrificed explains that it was after this event that Isaac a prophet was promised to Abraham as a reward for his obedience; he who takes it that Isaac was the one sacrificed explains that it was only the prophetic gift of Isaac which was announced to Abraham. Akhrama in the name of Ibn ‘Abbás explains that Isaac was announced to his father twice, once before his birth and again at the attainment of the prophetic gift.” In the following verse, however, which upholds our view still more strongly, Elpherar gives an erroneous explanation of one part of the verse, and about the rest maintains a significant silence. In the legends of Islam, Isaac is almost without an exception spoken of as the one led to sacrifice. So also in Elpherar on Sura XII. 36, where Joseph relates his history to his fellow-prisoners, and on Sura XII. 86, where mention is made of a letter written by Jacob to the king who was keeping his son in prison. Here Isaac is always called “The sacrificed of God.” And when Jacob in the course of the letter (quite according to the version of Sepher Hayyashar) alludes to the special protection of God enjoyed by his family he says: “As for my father, both his hands and his feet were bound, and the knife was put to his throat, but God ransomed him.” Compare Abulfeda, Hist. Anteislamica, p. 22.

276 Suras XIX. 55, 56, XXI. 85, 86.

277 Suras II. 130, 134, III. 77, VI. 86, XXXVIII. 48.

278 Sura XIV 41.

279 Sura II. 119.

280 Mid. Rab. on Genesis, para. 38.

281 Baba Bathra 16.

282 Sura II. 127.

283 Sura XI. 74.

284 The Arabic commentators, who may not and will not understand these words as we do, are obliged to seek some other reasons for the unsuitable allusion to Jacob. Thus Elpherar says: “It was announced to her that she would live till she saw her son’s son.”

285 Suras VI. 84, XIX. 50, XXI. 72, XXIX. 26.

286 Sunna 398 and 400.

287 Sura XII. 6, 38.

288 Sura II. 127.

289 On Sura XII. 4. See de Sacy, Anthologie Grammaticale, 125.

290 Elpherar has nearly the same words, with the addition however of a long chain of traditions.

291 Suras III. 87.

292 Israel is Ja‘qub, Baidhawi.

293 Genesis xxxii. 33.

294 Sura II. 126-27.

295 Compare perhaps Genesis xviii. 19.

296 Midr. Rab. on Genesis, para. 98, and on Deuteronomy, para. 2.

297 Genesis xlix. 2.

298 Deuteronomy vi. 4.

299 Comp. the two recensions of the Jerusalem Targum on Deuteronomy vi. 4; also Tract Pesachim, p. 56.

300 Sura XL. 36.

301 Sura XII. 4-108.

302 Genesis xxxvii. 9-36 and chapters xxxix to xlvi.

303 Sura XII. 24.

304 Genesis xxxix. 11.

305 Sotah xxxvi. 2.

306 Elpherar in his comment on the verse quoted gives some of these particulars: “It is said on the authority of Ben ‘Abbas that he said he had undone his girdle and approached her with a sinful purpose.

“Ketada and the greater number of the commentators say that he saw the form of Jacob, who said: ‘O Joseph, though thy name is written among the prophets yet thou behavest like the fools.’ ”

307 Elpherar on xii. 31, agreeing with the Sepher Hayyashar, gives, contrary to Wahl’s forced interpretation, the correct meaning as follows:

“They cut themselves with the knife which they had in their hands, thinking they were cutting the orange, but they did not feel the pain on account of their absorption in the contemplation of Joseph.”

308 An allusion to this fable is found in a passage from the Midrash Abhkir quoted in the Midr. Yalkut, chapter 146.

309 Sura XII. 25.

310 Sura XII. 26.

311 So also Elpherar.

312 Sura XII. 42.

313 Midr. Rabbah on Genesis, para. 89.

314 Proverbs xiv. 23.

315 Genesis xl. 14.

316 Genesis xli. 1.

317 Elpherar has the following: “It is said that the butler did not remember to mention Joseph to the king. The virtual meaning of this is that Satan made him forget the mention of him to his Lord (Pharaoh). But Ben ‘Abbas and most authorities after him say that Satan made Joseph forget the remembrance of his Lord, so that he sought help apart from Him and protection from a creature, and this was an omission to which Satan tempted Joseph.” Then he quotes many other passages which represent this step of Joseph’s as sinful.

318 Sura XII. 67.

319 Midr. Rabbah on Genesis, para. 91.

320 The same reason is given alike by the Arabic commentators and in the Midrash. (Cf. Elpherar on the verse “For fear of envious looks,” which the ancients regarded as very disastrous in their consequences).

321 Sura XII. 77.

322 Mid. Rab., para. 92.

323 Genesis xxi. 19. The Arabian commentators give the most varying accounts. One of these confirms our view of an erroneous confusion with Rachel, viz., the following in Elpherar: “Sa’id Ben Jubair and Ketada say that his grandfather, his mother’s father, had an image which he worshipped. This he stole secretly.”

324 Sura XII. 86, 97.

325 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, section 38.

326 Mid. Tanchuma quoted in Mid. Yalkut, chapter 143.

327 Genesis xxxvii. 35.

328 Sura XII. 69.

329 Sura XII. 11 ff.

330 Genesis xxxvii. 13 ff.

331 Genesis xxxvii. 24.

332 Sura XII. 47, 50.

333 Genesis xli. 14 ff.

334 Sura XII. 84, 93, 96. Cf. Genesis xlviii. 10.

335 Sura XII. 100, 101.

336 Genesis xxxv. 18 ff.

337 Sura XII. 4. Cf. Genesis xxxvii. 10.

338 On Sura XII. 4. De Sacy, Anth. Gramm, p. 127.

339 Sura XII. 100.

340 The Arabian commentators, who are quite conscious of this unsuitability, explain it away very cleverly by saying that Joseph made this digression, because it grieved him to be obliged to foretell evil to one of his fellow-prisoners. Elpherar comments on verse 37 as follows:

“After they had told him the dream, he was unwilling to give them the explanation for which they had asked him, because he recognized in it something that would be disagreeable to one of them. For this reason he put aside their question, and began a different discourse, in which he taught them about the gift of miracle-working and exhorted them to belief in the unity of God.”

341 Suras XX. 37-44, XXVIII. 2-29.

342 Suras XX. 8-37, 44-51, XXVI. 9-17, XXVIII. 29-36, LXXIX. 15-20.

343 Suras VII. 101-25, X. 76-90, XI. 99-102, XX. 50-79, XXIII. 47-51, XXVI. 15-52, XXVII. 13-15, XXVIII, 36-40, XL. 24-49, XLIII. 45-54, LXXIX. 20-27.

344 Suras II. 46-47, VII. 127-39, X. 90-93, XX. 79-82, XXVI. 52-69, XXVIII. 40-43, XLIII. 55.

345 Suras II. 57, VII. 160.

346 Sura VII. 142 and 149. On the first passage Elpherar has: “Ben ‘Abbas says that by Alwah he means the Torah;” and on the second passage he says more correctly: “Wherein is the Torah.”

347 Suras VII. 135-47, 170, II. 52-55, 60, 87, IV 152. In the Koran Mount Sinai is never mentioned in connection with the giving of the law, although it is so mentioned by commentators, e.g., Elpherar on VII. 140. But it was not unknown to Muhammad, seeing that it is mentioned on other occasions. Thus it is used as an oath in Sura XCV. 2. Again it is mentioned in the account of the creation of the olive tree (Sura XXIII. 20), in which passage the commentators cited by Elpherar take the name as an appellation. Among many diverging explanations one is adduced which appears to me right, viz., “It is said that in Syriac it means a place thickly planted with trees.” It is to be noted that those mentioned above who take Sinai as an appellation do not regard it as identical with the mountain on which Moses received the law, which identification is merely cited as a possible view: “Ben Zaid says that this is the mountain from which Moses was addressed.”

D’Herbelot (Biblio. Orient under Sina, p. 793) says: “The Arabs sometimes call this mountain Sinaini (which however should be Sinani) with references to its two peaks Horeb and Sina; in this way Sinina might perhaps be taken as the genitive of the Arabic word Sinuna.

348 Suras 11. 48-52, 87, VII. 148-55, XX. 82-99.

349 Sura VII. 154.

350 Sura V. 23-29.

351 Sura XXVIII. 76-88.

352 Sura XVIII. 59-81.

353 Suras XXVIII. 5, 7, 38, XXIX. 38, XL. 25.

354 Suras XXIX. 38, XL. 25.

355 Midr. Rabb. on Numbers, par. 14.

356 Compare Makarizi in De Sacy’s Chrest. Arabe., p. 143, line 9 of the first edition.

357 Sura XXVIII. 5.

358 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, section 48.

359 Sura XXVIII. 8.

360 Sura LXVI. 11.

361 Exodus ii. 5.

362 1 Chron. iv. 18.

363 Exodus ii. 7.

364 Sotah 12, 2.

365 There is an allusion to this also in Sura XXVIII. 11.

366 Suras XXVI. 19, XXVIII. 14.

367 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 5.

368 Sura XXVIII. 17 ff.

369 Sura XXVIII. 19.

370 Sura XXVIII. 23.

371 Exodus ii. 16.

372 Exodus iii.

373 Sura XXVIII. 29.

374 Sura XXVI. 17 ff

375 Exodus ii. 23, iv. 19.

376 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 1.

377 Exodus ii. 23.

378 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 5.

379 According to Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para 1, Dathan and Abiram were the two disputants, one of whom reproached Moses with the murder of the Egyptian.

380 Suras VII. 108, XXVI. 32.

381 Exodus vii. 8 ff.

382 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, section 48.

383 Suras VII. 110, XXVI. 40.

384 Exodus viii. 15.

385 Sura X. 83. The suffix refers to Moses, as some Arabic commentators cited by Baidhawi (Henzii, Fragm. Arab., p. 103) and by Elpherar take it.

386 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 5.

387 Suras XX. 74, XXVI. 48.

388 Midr. Yalkut, chapter 182.

389 Suras XXVI. 28, XXVIII. 38.

390 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 5.

391 Ezekiel, xxix. 3.

392 Sura XLIII. 50.

393 “Al-Hasan says by my command.”

394 Sura XL. 29 ff

395 Midr. Rabba on Exodus, para. 1.

396 Suras XVII. 103, XXVII. 12.

397 Sura VII. 130.

398 E.g., in Psalm, cv. 28 ff

399 First mentioned in v. 132.

400 Exodus xiv. 10 ff.

401 Sura XXVI. 61. ff.

402 SuraX.90ff.

403 Not one Arabic commentator among those quoted in Elpherar appears to have had a suspicion of the explanation given above, which is so well suited to the words; still it is not a quote unknown to Baidhawi. Along with other explanations he gives (Henzii, Fragm. Arab., p. 201) the following: “And today we save thee, i.e., we will bring thee back from where thy people are sunk—even from the depth of the sea, and we will put thee on dry land.” And further on: “With thy body, i.e., whole and unharmed.” But on the other hand the words “That thou mayest be a sign to those who shall come after thee” are explained by him only in the ordinary way, viz., that he should be a horror and a warning to them.

404 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, Section 43. Comp. also Midrash on Psalm cvi. and Midr. Yalkut, chapter 238.

405 Exodus v. 2.

406 Exodus xv. 11.

407 Exodus ix. 15.

408 Exodus xvii. 6.

409 Exodus xv. 27. Comp. also the two recensions of Jerusalem Targum.

410 Suras II. 60, 87, VII. 170.

411 Abodah Zarah II. 2.

412 Sura II. 52 ff, IV 152.

413 Deuteronomy v. 24 (Heb. v. 21).

414 Canticles v. 6.

415 Psalm xix. 8.

416 Sura VII. 150.

417 Sanhedrin 5. Rashi makes the same remark on Exodus xxxii. 4.

418 Sura XX. 87, 90, 96.

419 Sura XX. 97. Compare the wandering Jew in the Christian legend.

420 Judges xvii.

421 Rashi on Sanhedrin 101. 2.

422 Cf Ahmad Ben Idris in Hottinger’s Hist. Orient., p. 84.

423 Cf Makarizi (in De Sacy, Chrest. Arabe, i. 113 in the second edition, 189 in the first edition).

424 Suras VII. 147, XX. 90.

425 Exodus xxxii. 24.

426 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, section 45.

427 Sura VII. 159.

428 Exodus xxxii. 26.

429 Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, section 45.

430 Sura XXVIII. 76.

431 Ecclesiastes v. 12.

432 Sura XXXIII. 69.

433 Cf. Abulfeda, Hist. Anteislámica, p. 32.

434 See Numbers xvi. 4.

435 Sanhedrin 110.

436 Numbers xx. 29.

437 Numbers xvi. 48. (Hebrews xvii. 13.)

438 Numbers xii. I ff

439 Sura XVIII. 59—81.

440 Zunz (Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, Historirch Entwickelt, 8. 130 u. Anm. d.) has pointed out the Jewish source of this story, in which the servant of God according to the Arabians is said to be Elias (cf under Elias); only that, according to the Jewish source, the traveller is R. Joshua ben Levi, a man who plays a leading part in tales of marvel and adventure (cf Zunz, pp. 140—41) and whom this adventure suits much better than it does Moses, who stands on too high a plane. We may easily recognize therefore the Jewish origin of this legend, which has been embellished quite after the manner of the Koran.

441 Sura XVIII. 82 ff

442 Exodus xxxiv. 29 ff

443 Numbers xix. 2 ff.

444 Sura 11. 63 ff.

445 Sura II. 67.

446 Deuteronomy xxi. 2 ff.

447 Sura II. 68.

448 Sura II. 63.

449 Vid. Midr. Rabb. on Numbers, para. 19.

450 Baba Bathra, 17.

451 Suras LXIV 12, VII. 138.

452 Cf. Sura III. title and verse 30 ff.; Sura XIX. particularly verse 29; Sura LXVI. 12, and Sunna 405.

453 Sura XXVIII. 10.

454 Sura XXVIII. 28 ff.

455 Elpherar on Sura XXVIII. 23.

456 Hist. Anteirlamica, p. 30.

457 Exodus ii. 17.

458 Suras VII. 83-92, XI. 85-98, XXII. 43, XXV 40, XXVI. 176-92, XXIX. 35-36, XXXVIII. 12, L. 12-13.

459 Midr. Rabb. on Exodus, para. 1.

460 Exodus ii. 16.

461 Exodus ii. 17.

462 Suras VII. 83, XI. 86.

463 It seems as though Muhammad had confounded the Midianites with the inhabitants of Sodom, to whom such things are imputed by the rabbis.

464 Sura XXIX. 35.

465 Sura XXVI. 180.

466 Sura XXVI. 186, 187.

467 Suras VII. 83, XI. 85, XXIX. 85, XXII. 43.

468 Suras VII. 83-92, XI. 85-98.

469 It is all very well for Ahmad ben as-Salim (quoted by Maracc. on Sura VII. 83) to assert that this is the opinion of “a heap of fools.” Some regard Jethro as the father of Shu‘aib (as Elpherar on Sura VII. 83); others, as his nephew (cf. the passage quoted above from Elpherar on Sura XXVIII. 23). The difference in the names confuses the commentators, and also their ignorance of the source from which here, as often, Muhammad drew.

470 That Moses obtained the staff from Jethro is asserted also by D’Herb., B. O., under the word Shu‘aib, p. 722, according to the Muhammadan view.

471 E.g. Sura XXVI. 176 ff.

472 Suras XXV. 40, L. 12.

473 Sura L. 12.

474 On Sura XXV 40.

475 On Sura XXV. 40 (vid. Maracc.).

476 Sura VII. 174-75.

477 Sura II. 247.

478 Sura II. 247-53.

479 Samuel viii. 20.

480 Samuel x. 27.

481 Sura II. 249 must be thus understood.

482 Judges vii. 5 ff.

483 1 Samuel xiv. 24 ff.

484 Tālūt probably derived from ti7la, to be tall.

485 1 Samuel ix. 2, x. 23.

486 Sura II. 248.

487 Sura XXXVIII. 16

488 Samuel xii. 1 ff.

489 Sura XXXVIII. 20-23.

490 Sura XXXVIII. 23-26.

491 Sura XXI. 78.

492 Suras XXI. 79, XXXIV 10, XXXVIII. 16-20.

493 Sura XXI. 80.

494 Sura XXVII. 15.

495 Sunna 148.

496 On Sura XXXVIII. 16.

497 Psalms cxix. 62.

498 Berachoth.

499 Suras IV 161, XVII. 57.

500 Suras II. 61, IV. 50, V. 65, VII. 166.

501 Sura XXVII. 15, 16.

502 1 Kings V. 13.

503 Suras XXI. 81, 82, XXXIV. 11, 12, XXXVIII. 35-39.

504 On Esther i. 2.

505 Ecclesiastes ii. 8.

506 Sura XXVII. 20—46.

507 Second Targum on the Book of Esther.

508 1 Kings, x. 9.

509 Sura XXVII. 30.

510 Sura XXXIV 13. Cf. on this point Gittin, 68.

511 Sura XXXVIII. 33-35.

512 Sanhedrin 20.

513 1 Chronicles xxix. 23.

514 Ecclesiastes i. 3.

515 Ecclesiastes ii. 10.

516 Cf. also Midr. Rabba on Numbers par. 11; on Canticles iii. 4; and on Ruth ii. 14.

517 Sura XXXVIII. 29-32.

518 Sanhedrin 21.

519 Deuteronomy xvii. 16.

520 1 Kings x. 29.

521 Sura II. 96.

522 Sura XXVII. 18-19.

523 Proverbs vi. 6 ff.

524 Chullin 57. 2.

525 P. 91.

526 Ilyas: Suras VI. 85, XXXVII. 123. In one place he is called Ilyasin (Sura XXXVII. 80) on account of the rhyme. We find among other opinions in Elpherar the following:

“It is said that Ilyasin is a dialectic change for Elyas, as Ism’ail for Ism’ain and Mikhayil for Mikhayin.” These examples are certainly unsuitable, for in them the change is only from “I” to “n,” while here the complete addition of the syllable in takes place. This the Arabs, in spite of the similar sinina mentioned before, seem to shrink from explaining as a change deliberately made on account of the rhyme.

527 Sura XVIII. 59—82.

528 Suras VI. 86, X. 98, XXXVII. 139, XXI. 87, LXVIII. 48.

529 Suras X. 98, XXI. 87-88, XXXVII. 139—19, LXVIII. 48-51.

530 Suras XXI. 83-84, XXXVIII. 40—45.

531 Sura LXXXV 4 ff.

532 Daniel iii. 8 ff.

533 An intimation that this passage refers to this circumstance is given by the Arabian commentator Muqatil (cited by Elpherar), in that he asserts that there were in fact three “people of the burning fiery pit”; and of the pits one was in Fars, i.e., Persia, and indeed under Nebuchadnezzar; but he adds:

“God revealed nothing in the Sura about this or about the other event which took place in Syria, but only revealed about the one under Dhu-nawas. But this intimation is enough for the strengthening of our opinion.”

534 Ezekiel xxxvii.

535 Sura II. 244.

536 The Arabian commentators know of this but dimly, for Ismail Ben ‘Ali gives out in the name of Ibn Talib that this event took place in the time of the Judge (?), i.e., Ezekiel, who came after the son of Caleb, in this office. (Maracc. Prodr. IV. 83.)

537 Sanhedrin. 92.

538 Sura XXV. 47—48

539 2 Kings XX. 9—12.

540 Sura IX. 30. Sunna, 462.

In D’Herbelot (under the word “Ozair,” p. 691) much is adduced from Muslim commentators and historians to explain this passage, which however, in harmony with the Talmud, only asserts Ezra’s renewing of the law.

541 Sanhedrin 21. 2.

542 Prod. iv. 85.

543 Sura II. 261.

544 Nehemiah ii. 12 ff.

545 Suras VI. 86, XXXVIII. 48.

546 Suras XXI. 85, XXXVIII. 48.

547 1 Kings xviii, 4.

548 Reisebeschreibung II, 265.

549 According to Khondemir (D‘Herbelot, Bibl. Orient., under Elisha ben Akhthob) Dhu’l-Kifl was a follower of Elisha, but Obadiah was contemporary with Elijah.

550 Pocock, Notre Misc., chap. 9, p. 369.

551 Sura V. 85.

552 Suras II. 58, V. 74.

553 Sura V. 21.

554 Suras II. 88, LXII. 6.

555 Sura IX. 30. Sunna 462.

556 Sura II. 128, 135.

557 Sura II. 73, and other passages.

558 Sunna 70 ff.

559 Sunna 97 ff.

560 Sura II. 183.

561 Sura II. 229 ff.

562 Sura II. 230.

563 Deuteronomy xxiv. 1 tf.

564 Sunna 460.

565 Sura II. 223.

566 Sura IV. 158.

567 Matthew xix. 8.

568 Suras III. 44, 87, IV. 158, V. 89, 90.

569 Suras V. 4, VI. 146, XVI. 116.

570 Acts xv. 19-28.

571 Sura VI. 147.

572 Leviticus xi. 3, 7, 27 ff., and 39 ff.

573 Sura V. 49.

574 Exodus xxi. 23 ff.

575 Mishna Baba, Ramma viii. 1.

Chapter 12: The Sources of Islam

1 Sura 1 xxxv. 21; vi. 19.

2 S. xcvii. 1. Sent down, then, as they say, to the lowest heaven, and thence by Gabriel communicated to the Prophet, bit by bit, as occasion required.

3 “What think ye of Allat and al-Uzza and Monat, the other third? ... They are but empty names which ye and your fathers have named goddesses.” S. liii. 19.

4 The story arises out of the strange mistake of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. xv. 7) for the same word signifying an oven or fire.

5 It is worth the while of anyone not familiar with the Koran to read this at length, as given in Surah xviii. 8-24.

6 Aaron’s sister Maryam is curiously confused with Mary of the Gospel.

7 S. iii. 41; v. 19.

8 S. v. 121.

9 S. I xi. 6.

10 S. iv. 156.

11 S. xlii. 16; ci. 5 and 6: “He whose balance is heavy shall live in pleasure; but whose balance is light, his dwelling-place shall be hell fire.”

12 S. xvi. 103: “They say a certain man teacheth him; but the tongue of him whom they mention is foreign, while this is simple Arabic”—hardly an answer in point!

13 I learn, however, from the author that he is not of this opinion, but thinks that the originals, in whatever language, ancient or difficult to decipher and understand, should be printed in full, as otherwise the Orientalist will suspect the translation as an invention of the author; or if not in the text of the work, they might, he thinks, be lithographed and placed at the end of the volume.

14 See also sura vi. 19 and xcvii. 1. Also Ibn Khaldun, i. 194 and ii. 458.

15 Job xxxi. 26-28.

16 Bk. iii. 8.

17 To these the Koran replies, sura L. 14: “Is our power exhausted by the first creation ; for these are in perplexity as to a first creation.”

18 Our author pithily remarks that the Muslims of today who seek forgiveness through the intercession of their holy men are as much polytheists as those old Arabs were.

19 Some say there were 360 around the Ka‘aba. But Ibn Ishaq gives authorities for only fifteen generations of idolators before the Prophet’s time.

20 The two passages given by our author from the Sabaa Mu’allaqat contain several verses, more or less similar to the following texts in the Koran: sura liv.1, xxix.31 and 46, xxxvii.69, xxi.96, xciii. 1; this least “By the brightness of the morning; and by the night when it groweth dark.” The passages noted are the same in both, with occasionally a few verbal differences.

21 What follows is from Abul Feda, who quotes from Abu Isa al-Maghrabi.

22 Sura vii. 156. The word used for illiterate is Ummy. R. Geiger’s view is that this word has an altogether different meaning—viz., that Muhammad held he was of the Ummat or Arab people, and not an Ajemy or non-Arab, as a Jew would be held to be. But seeing that the word has been universally held to mean unlearned (and unable to read), I think we must accept that interpretation. It does not, however, much matter in the present argument.

23 Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah; also the Targum of Jerusalem. In Arabic Cain is called Cabil.

24 Gen. iv. 10, “Bloods” in the margin for blood.

25 Sura ii. 260, vi. 74-84, xxi. 52-72, xix. 42-50, xxvi. 69-79, xxix. 15, 16, xxxvii. 81-95, xliii. 25-27, Ix. 4, and other passages.

26 Such as the Quissas al-Anbia and Araish al-Majalis.

27 Ancient History from the Mukhtasar fi Akhbar il Bashar.

28 Sura vi. 76, etc.; all from the Koran so far is in italic; and so also in the next two pages.

29 Sura vi. 80-85.

30 Sura xix. 40.

31 Sura xxvi. 75-77.

32 Sura ii. 260.

33 Sura ii. 260.

34 xxxvii. 90.

35 Here the text is quoted: “He broke them all in pieces except the biggest, that they might lay the blame on it” (sura xxi. 59).

36 Cotada and al-Sidy are quoted here; and it is added from al-Dzahhak, “Perhaps they may give evidence as to what we should do, and punish him.”

37 A note here added to the following purport: Muhammad on this remarked that Abraham in all told three lies, all on behalf of the Lord, namely, “I am sick”; “the big one hath done this”; and what he said to the king regarding Sarah, “She is my sister.”

38 In the last few pages the quotations from the Koran are all from suras xxi. and xxxvii., and the verses being so numerous and detached are not numbered in detail; but they will be found in passages succeeding verse 52 of the former, and verse 84 of the latter sura. The Koran passages are throughout printed in italics.

39 Sura vi. 74.

40 Same as the present town, Mugheyr.

41 Jonathan ben Uzziel.

42 Sura xxvii. 20-45.

43 See also 2 Chronicles ix. 1-9.

44 Meaning “a lady and ladies,” in Ecclesiastes ii. 8.

45 Sura ii. 96.

46 Cap 44.

47 The origin of the name is traced still further east to the ancient Sanskrit wind-gods the Maruts.

48 The original Babylonian text is here given as indeed the author does in most of the original quotations. A close translation is also given, but only the general purport is here attempted.

49 Genesis vi. 2 and 4: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and took them wives of all which they chose.... There were giants in these days, ... when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” The “sons of God,” according to our author, mean righteous men of the seed of Seth. The commentator quoted is Jonathan, son of Uzziel. There is a Sanskrit story of the similar ascent of two angels, and a Houri like Zohra, from which the Armenians may possibly have taken their tale; and from this idolatrous source the Jews no doubt received it, and from them, the Muslims.

50 The term Nefilim, i.e., persons who fell upon the helpless around them and committed violence and oppression on the earth.

51 Sura ii. 96.

52 From the Jewish story in the Abodah Sarah.

53 Sura xx. 90.

54 Pirke Rabbi Eleazer.

55 No doubt the Prophet thought that the Jews said “Sameri” (Samaritan) when they said “Sammael.” They regarded Sammael as the angel of death.

56 Sura ii. 28; iv. 152.

57 Such as, the Garden of Eden, taghut, furqan, sakina, tabut, bibr, etc., all from one or other of the Hebrew, Syriac, or Chaldean tongues.

58 Sura xv. 44; xvii. 46. Jewish books, Hagigah, and Zohar.

59 Sura xv. 17 and 34; xxxvii. 7; lxvii. 5.

60 Mishnah Berakhoth.

61 Matth. vi. 5.

62 Sura lxxxv. 21 and 22.

63 Qissas al-Anbia.

64 Exodus xxiv. 12; 1 Kings viii. 9; Hebrews ix. 3, 4.

65 From Pirke Aboth, v. 6.

66 Araish al-Majalis.

67 Sura xviii. 8-26: Dost thou consider that the companions of the cave, and al-Rakim, were one of our signs and a great miracle? When the young men took refuge in the cave, they said, “O Lord, grant us mercy from before Thee, and dispose our business for us to a right issue.” Wherefore we struck their ears so that they slept in the cave for a great number of years: then we awaked them.... We will relate unto thee their history with truth. They were young men who had believed in their Lord; and we had abundantly directed them; and we fortified their hearts with constancy when they stood before the judge; and they said, “Our Lord is the Lord of heaven and earth; we will by no means call on any god besides him; for then we should surely utter an extravagance....” And they said to one another, “When ye shall separate yourselves from them, and from that which they worship besides God, then fly into the cave: your Lord will pour his mercy upon you abundantly and dispose your business to advantage.” And thou mightest have seen the sun, when it had risen to decline from their cave to the right hand, and when it went down, to leave them on the left hand: and they were in the spacious part of the cave. This was one of the signs of God.... And thou wouldest have judged them to have been awake, while they were sleeping; and we caused them to turn themselves to the right hand and to the left. And their dog stretched forth his forelegs in the mouth of the cave; if thou hadst come suddenly upon them, verily thou wouldst have turned thy back and fled from them, and thou wouldst have been filled with fear at the sight of them. And so we awaked them out of their sleep, that they might ask questions of one another. One of them said, “How long have ye tarried here?” They answered, “We have tarried a day, or part of a day.” Others said: “Your Lord best knoweth the time ye have tarried. And now send one of you with this your money into the city, and let him see which of its people hath the best and cheapest food, and let him bring you provision from him; and let him behave circumspectively, and not discover you to anyone. Verily, if they come up against you, they will stone you, or force you to return to their religion; and then shall you not prosper forever.” And so we made their people acquainted with what had happened to them.... And they said, “Erect a chapel over them; their Lord best knoweth their condition.... Some say the sleepers were three, and their dog was the fourth; others say they were five, and their dog the sixth, guessing at a secret matter; and others say they were seven and their dog the eighth. Say, “My Lord best knoweth their numbers; none shall know them except a few.” Wherefore dispute not concerning them, unless with a clear disputation, and ask not any (of the Christians) concerning them.... And they remained in their cave three hundred years and nine years over.

68 “Story of Martyrs,” i. 95.

69 Sura xix. 28, 29.

70 Sura lxvi. 12 and iii. 31.

71 Sura xxv. 37.

72 Coptic History of the Virgin.

73 Story of Joseph’s dream.

74 Protevangelium.

75 Protevangelium. It is remarkable that we have the same story repeated in the Rauzat al-Ahbab regarding the birth of Muhammad himself!

76 Sura iii. 41 and 43.

77 Sura v. 119.

78 Matthew xxvi. 20-20; Mark xiv. 17-25; Luke xxvi. 14-17; John xiii, 1-30.

79 It is also possible that the dream of Peter in which food was sent down to him in a sheet may have originated the idea of the table descending from heaven. It was, however, but a dream. Acts x. 9-16.

80 John xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7. Called also the Faraclete.

81 Our author exemplifies this by words begun with two Arabic letters sounding very similar, and liable to be mistaken one for the other.

82 Manes, and hence the Manichaeans.

83 Araish al-Majalis.

84 The argument might have been strengthened by a reference to Ephesians v. concerning the marriage of Christ and the Church.

85 History of Joseph the Carpenter.

86 Sura xxix. 57, and iii. 182.

87 Qissas al-Anbia.

88 John xiv. 30. The Muslims apply the name “Prince of the World” to their Prophet, not understanding its true meaning.

89 Mark ix. 49; 1 Corinthians iii. 13.

90 Matthew xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25.

91 Sura xxv. 6,7.

92 Sura lxviii. 15.

93 Sura xlv. 6, 7.

94 Sirat al-Rasul.

95 Sirat Ibn Hisham.

96 At each ascent the same salutation is repeated, but it has been left out here in all but the first.

97 Mishkat al-Masabih.

98 One of the angels noticed above is said to have led Arta aloft, just as we are told that Gabriel guided Muhammad upwards.

99 This resembles a tree called by the Arabs Tuba, as well as a marvellous tree of the Zoroastrians, similarly named as if from it flowed sweet water.

100 The Targum of Jonathan.

101 Genesis ii. 8-17.

102 Suras 1v. 72; 1vi. 22.

103 The author gives an interesting passage on the derivation of the name Houri or Huri, from the Pahlavi word Hur, or Sun, the same as Khur, still used in Persia with a similar meaing. The Arabs not knowing this, trace the word to hur, or black-eyed.

104 Zarrat i Kainat. called in the Avesta Fravashiyo.

105 I.e., victory of God.

106 The Bundahishnih, capp. I. and II.

107 Qissas al-Anbia.

108 Rauzat al-Ahbab.

109 Qissas al-Anbia.

110 The Minukhirad, as old as the Sassanides.

111 Yesht xix. 31-37.

112 Deratir-i Asmani.

113 It is difficult to explain in English how Chinavad became Sirat, but it comes from the varied sound of the letters—ch being turned into sharp s.

114 Dinkart, an ancient Zoroastrian book.

115 The Dasatir-i Asmani.

116 It has been published both in the original and in the Dari translation.

117 Excepting only the ninth.

118 Dinkart.

119 Rauzat al-Ahbab.

120 Sirat al-Rarul, by Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq.

121 Sirat al-Rasul, or Life of the Prophet.

122 Ibn Ishaq tells us that Muhammad, while believing himself forbidden to pray for his own mother, yet when asked by a female relative of Zaid whether she might pray for him, said: “Yes, for he will be raised as a separate religious community at the last day.”

123 Sura xxxiii. 37.

124 Sura v. 48, 50.

125 Genesis xvii. 19.

126 Genesis xxii. 18.

127 John viii. 56.

128 Galatians iii. 16 and 29.

Chapter 13: The Jewish Foundation of Islam

1 Formally these words are said by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad.

2 See Axel Moberg, The Book of the Himyarites (Lund, 1924).

3 See the references in Horovitz, Untersuchungen, p. 129

4 See the Zeitrchrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. 41, p. 720, and the Encyclopedia of Islam, s.v. “ ‘Isa015”.

5 This explanation is at least as old as the year 1861 (see Rudolph, p. 67, note 25). See also the references in Horovitz, Untersuchungen, 128 f. Rudolph would explain the supposed pairing of Jesus with Moses on the ground that each of the two was the founder of the religion. But Muhammad did not by any means regard Moses as a Religionsstifter, he was a lawgiver—which Jesus was not. A more plausible ground might be seen in the simple fact that both were members of the family of ‘Imran.

6 See Lammens, L‘Arabic Occidentale avant l’Hégire, p. 80, top.

7 This refers to the Prophet’s admonition to pray and (especially) recite the Koran at night—probably the only time when the most of his converts had opportunity to learn the ritual prescribed for them. (The nocturnal prayer was soon superseded, as no longer necessary, by the increased number of daily prayers; see the fifth lecture.) The need of private devotions in the night season was always felt by the especially devout in Israel, from the Psalter onwards; and even public services at certain times were the rule in some medieval Jewish communities, as at Qairawan in the time of Hai Gaon (I owe this reference to Professor Obermann). In Berachoth 14a (bottom) the devotee who spends the night reading the Torah is commended. Muhammad had seen something of the sort at Mecca; see Sura 3: 109, mentioned in the preceding lecture. On the general subject of Jewish asceticism, see now especially Montgomery, “Ascetic Strains in Early Judaism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 51 (1932), pp. 183-213.

8 Probably the fast Ramadan should be excepted, but even this is by no means certain.

9 That is, the Hijaz.

10 The orthodox Muhammadan tradition supplies this lack, to be sure. See for instance Krehl’s Bokhari II, 78, below.

11 Bokhari, ed. Krehl, II, 78, below.

12 Too mild, as the event proved, to make his own children follow the right way!

13 In the oriental texts of the Koran this forms a single verse. In Fluegel’s edition it occupies vss. 31-34, as far as the word huwa.

14 Here, as in the following examples, I refer to the Nöldeke-Schwally, Geschichte, as the standard and by far the most influential work.

15 Hence the now customary assignment of sura 98, plainly a Meccan composition to the Medina period.

16 Interpolations and transpositions have often been postulated by interpreters of the Koran because of failure to take full account of Muhammad’s very individual literary habits. Thus Nöldeke-Schwally, p. 144, will have the words: “So be not in doubt of meeting Him!” an interpolation, “da sie sich auf keine Weise in einen Zusammenhang bringen lassen.” [“because they (the words) in no way fit the context.”] The words are thrown in as the summary of Moses’ teaching; and those who heard the prophet recitethe passage can have been in no doubt as to its meaning.

17 I regard the word jebin as a variation of jebel for the sake of the rhyme, according to the license which Muhammad allows himself in several other places in the older part of the Koran. The verb talla is used of “leading” a beast; see the dictionaries of Hava, Wahrmund, and Dozy.

18 Weil’s Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner (1845) contains both Koranic legends and those of later origin. Dr. Alexander Kohut gave an English translation of a number of them, with notes, in the N.Y. Independent, Jan. 8, 15, 22, and 29, 1891, under the title “Haggadic Elements in Arabic Legends”).

19 On the Jewish and Muhammadan embellishment of the story of Joseph, see especially Israel Schapiro, Die haggadischen Elemente im erzählenden Teil des Korans (1907).

20 Sotah 36 b; Jer. Horayoth 2, 46 d; Tanhuma wayyesheb, 9.

21 According to the Jewish Midrash this was a baby in the cradle; Yashar, wayyesheb 86a-: 89a; see Ginsberg’s note in his Legends of the Jews.

22 Yashar, l.c., 87a—87b; Tanhuma wayyesheb, 5. The former may have used the Koran (Ginsberg).

23 Yalkut I, 146; Midrash Hag-Gadol (ed. Schechter), I, 590.

24 Ber. Rab. 91, 6; Tan. B. I, 193 f., 195; Midrash Hag-Gadol I, 635.

25 Ber. Rab. 102, 8; Tan. B, I 198; Midrash Hag-Gadol I, 653.

26 Observe also the use of this formula in 3: 39 and 28: 44, 46.

27 I omit the references, which are given by Geiger, pp. 181-86.

28 This episode is probably Muhammad’s own creation, based on his hearing of Prov. 6: 6—8.

29 Muhammad of course avoids the number given in the biblical story of Jacob.

30 This curious name, as has already been said (see p. 46), is the result of an easy misreading of the Decinus written in the Aramaic script.

31 For the literature dealing with these ancient folktales and their use in the Koran, see the notes in Nöldeke-Schwally, 140 ff., and Horovitz, Koranirche Untersuchtungen, 141 ff. See also what was said, in regard to the probable form in which these legends were available at Mecca, in the second lecture, p. 36.

Chapter 14: Literary Analysis of Koran, Tafsir, and Sira

1 John Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 116—17; also see his review of Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, Hagarism. the Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies [hereafter, BSOAS] 41 (1978): 155-56. Other interesting reviews of Hagarism are J. van Ess in The Times Literary Supplement Sept. 8, 1978, pp. 997-98 and N. Daniels in Journal of Semitic Studies [hereafter, JSS] 24 (1979): 296-304. Cf. M. A. Cook, “The Origins of Kalam,” BSOAS 43 (1980): 32—43 for a good example of what can be demonstrated by external sources. Also see Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses: The Evolution of the Islamic Polity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980) especially ch. 1; Michael Cook, Early Muslim Dogma: A Source-Critical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), and his Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).

2 This sabab, the author admits (see note 3 below), is not found in al-Tabari’s Ta‘rikh; this fact should have raised the curiosity of the author about the literary qualities of the material with which he was dealing. It should be noted in this regard that al-Tabari015indeed recognized the difference between exegesis and history.

3 Fred McGraw Donner, “Mecca’s Food Supply and Muhammad’s Boycott,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 20 (1977): 249-66; another, slightly different example is found in Uri Rubin, “Abu015 Lahab and Su015ra CXI,” BSOAS 42 (1979): 13-28, esp. pp. 13-15. On the asba015bal-nuzu015l see A. Rippin, “The exegetical genre asba015b-nuzu015l: a bibliographical and terminological survey,” BSOAS 48/1 (1985).

4 Quranic Studies: Sources anl Methods of Scriptural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977). Reviews of QS are as follows: Bibliotheca Orientalis [hereafter BO] 35 (1978): 349—53 (van Ess); BSOAS 40 (1977): 609-12 (Ullendorf); Der Islam 55 (1978): 354-56 (Paret); Journal of the American Oriental Society [JAOS] 100 (1980): 137-41 (Graham); Jewish Quarterly Review [JQR] 68 (1978): 18-84 (Nemoy); Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society [JRAS] (1978): 76-78 (Serjeant); JSS 24 (1979): 293-96 (Juynboll); Muslim World [MW] 47 (1977): 306-307 (Boullata); Zeitschrift der deutschen morganländischen Gesellschaft [ZDMG] 128 (1978): 411 (Wagner); Theologische Literaturzeitung 105 (1980): 1-19 (Rudolph).

5 Major reviews of SM are as follows: BSOAS 43 (1980): 137-39 (van Ess); Journal of the American Academy of Religion [JAAR] 47 (1979): 459-60 (Martin); JSS 26 (1980): 121—23 (Rippin); Der Islam 57 (1980): 354-55 (Madelung); BO 37 (1981): 97-98 (Juynboll); JRAS (1980): 180-82 (Cook); ZDMG 130 (1980): 178 (Nagel).

6 See esp. his review of Josef van Ess, Anfange muslimischer Theologie, BSOAS 43 (1980): 361-63.

7 See SM 58-59; Crone and Cook, Hagarism, pp. 17-18.

8 An example would be the tafsi015rs ascribed to al-Kalbi015 and Muqa015til; for a variety of reasons which he outlines in QS, Wansbrough concludes that the form in which the texts are found today probably stems from a period later than the date of the supposed authors.

9 Examples would be Fiqh Akbar I, and the Risa015la of al-Hasan al-Basri015; see QS, 160-63.

10 See Wansbrough’s review of Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, II, Qur’a015 nic Commentary and Tradition, in BSOAS 31 (1968): 613—16; cf. A. Grohmann, “The Problem of Dating Early Qur‘a015ns,” Der Islam 33 (1957): 213-31; Grohmann’s whole point, of course, is to emphasize the difficulty involved in dating Koranic manuscripts.

11 John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’a015n (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ‘977). See Wansbrough’s review in BSOAS 41 (1978): 370-71.

12 Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quert for the Historical Abraham (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974), p. 328.

13 H.W.F Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (London: Athlone Press, 1978), pp. 65-66.

14 See Wansbrough’s review of Neusner’s work BSOAS 39 (1976): 438-39 and 43 (1980): 591-92 and of Neusner’s students, BSOAS 41 (1978): 368-69 (Zahavy); 42 (1979): 140-41 (Green); 43 (1980): 592-93 (Gereboff). The most important work of Rudolf Bultmann is The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh, 2d ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968). Neusner has published so much it is virtually impossible to select any one writing; his paper, “The Study of Religion as the Study of Tradition in Judaism,” in Methodological Issues in Religious Studies, ed. Robert D. Baird (Chico, Calif: New Horizons Press, 1975), pp. 31-48, is most useful.

15 Neusner’s work, on the other hand, seems to imply that a certain amount of historical information is extricable. Implicitly the debate is over basic concerns of interpretational theory, e.g., H. G. Gadamer, Trutb and Method (New York: Seabury, 1978) vs. E.D. Hirsch Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).

16 Joseph Schacht, “The Present State of Studies in Islamic Law,” Atti dei terzo Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamici (Naples: Instituto Universitario Orientale, 1967), p. 622. Schacht concludes: “I have too strong a confidence in the scholarly competence of the workers in the field of Islamic law, both lawyers and orientalists, to regard this as anything but a passing aberration.” If only that were true!

17 Also out of the common desire (need?) to provide “endings,” i.e., to eliminate ambiguity ; see F. Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), chapter 3; idem, The Sense of an Ending (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).

18 W M. Watt, “The Materials Used by Ibn Ishaq,” in Historians of the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and P. M. Holt (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp. 23-24. Watt quotes C. H. Becker (agreeing with Lammens), “... the Sira is not an independent historical source. It is merely haīth—material arranged in biographical order,” (p. 23) to which Watt retorts: “Since Becker wrote, there has been the important work of Joseph Schacht on legal hadith.... Professor Schacht holds that it was not until the time of al-Shāfi‘ī (d. 820) that it became the regular practice for legal rules to be justified by a hadīth reporting a saying or action of Muhammad.... If this theory is correct... then hadīth as they are found in the canonical collections were not in existence in the time of Ibn Ishāq (d. 768)” (pp. 23-24). Thus, for Watt, the historical validity of Ibn Ishāq’s material is proven since it was written before the fabrication of legal hadth! Cf. P. Crone, Slaves on Horses, p. 211, nt. 88: “Watt disposes of Schacht by casuistry.”

19 Fuat Sezgin, Gerchichte des arabirchen Schriftums (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967), vol. 1.

20 Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, II, Qur’ānic Commentary and Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967); cf. Wansbrough’s review (nt. 10 above).

21 See Sezgin, GAS 1:32; cf. A. Rippin, “Ibn ‘Abbās’s Al-Lughāt fi‘l-Quar’ān,BSOAS 44 (1981): 15-25; also “Al-Zuhrī, naskh al-Qur‘ān and the problem of early tafsīr texts,” BSOAS 47 (1984): 22-43, and Wansbrough, QS, chapter 4.

22 An example of such “additional evidence” appears in QS and SM in the notion of “terminological transfer.”

23 Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), p. 72; see Wansbrough’s review of the work, BSOAS 41 (1978): 156-57.

24 “Islamic Religious Tradition” in The Study of the Middle East, ed. L. Binder (New York: Wiley, 1976), p. 61. 1.

25 Specifically The Qur’ān, Translated, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1937-39), and Introduction to the Qur‘ān (Edinburgh: University Press, 1963 [1953]).

26 Cf. Serjeant’s review of QS in JRAS (1978): 78, and also van Ess’s review in BO 35 (1978): 349.

27 The term is not meant as one of derision but rather as one descriptive of textual method; see James Barr, Fundamentalism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), esp. pp. 11-89. Modern scholarship on the Qur’ān treats that book as textually (if not theologically) inerrant and, more basically, lacking in contradiction. The latter point is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in attempts to understand prayer and almsgiving in the Qur’ān in terms of a (reconstructable!) historical progression; the alternative view that the various passages on these topics represent variant traditions of different localized communities which have been brought into conjunction seems far more plausible in light of our knowledge of Judeo-Christian tradition and its establishment. But to assert this is to contradict the typical Western approach to the Qur’ān.

28 See the well-phrased statements of Franz Rosenthal in the introduction to the reprint of Charles C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam (New York: KTAV, 1967 [1933]).

29 M. Hodgson’s emphasis on the Irano-Semitic background of Islamic culture may prove an honorable exception to this general statement; see Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), esp. vol. 1.

30 For modern studies of South Arabia, see, for example, the following recent works: Jacques Ryckmans, Les inscriptions anciennes de l‘Arabie du Sud: Points de vue et problèmes actuels (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); and J. Pirenne, “La religion des Arabes préislamiques d’après trois sites rupestres et leurs inscriptions” in Al-Bahit Festschrift Joseph Henninger zum 70. Geburtstag am 12. Mai 1976 (St. Augustin bei Bonn: Anthropos-Instituts, 1976), pp. 177-217 and cf the use Serjeant makes of such works in his review of QS, JRAS (1978): 76-77.

31 Adams, “Islamic Religious Tradition,” in The Study of the Middle East (see nt. 24 above), p. 38.

32 Adams, p. 4o, in reference to the “irenic” approach to Islamic studies advocated by W. C. Smith.

33 Jane Smith, in “Islamic Understanding of the Afterlife” [paper presented at the symposium on Islam and the History of Religions (see preface to the present volume)], points directly to the problem very explicitly but seems not to see the solution: “Does the asking of ‘wrong’ questions necessarily mean that answers will be unrelated to the truths about actual Muslim faith and practice?” If the study of Islam continues to be confronted in terms of “actual Muslim faith and practice” then the problem will continue to exist. The question must be asked: “Is that what we are after?” “Are we studying sociology or intellectual history?” We can do either, and both are without a doubt important, but one cannot ask intellectual-historical questions of sociological data.

34 See SM 24-25; QS 1, 40-43, 47-48, 51-52, 57-58 as well as the analysis of haggadic tafsī r in chapter 4 of QS which Wansbrough conceives of as illustrating the point (see SM 24).

35 Geza Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis xxii—The Binding of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus,” in his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2d rev. ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 193-227. Also see P. R. Davies and B. D. Chilton, “The Aqedah: A Revised Tradition History,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (2978): 514—46.

36 And this would include those who attempt to postulate some sort of aberrant Judaism and/or Christianity known specifically to Arabia.

37 This procedure within Qumran is perhaps most clearly enunciated in Bleddyn J. Roberts, “Biblical Exegesis and Fulfillment in Qumran,” in Words and Meaning Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. Peter R. Akroyd and Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 195—207, although such an interpretation goes against the mainstream of Qumranic scholarship where the trend to try to identify characters such as the Wicked Priest and Teacher of Righteousness predominate as in, e.g., Vermes (see nt. 35 above). Also see SM esp. 52-54

38 See QS 49; SM 58, 139, where the notion of the lack of eschatology in the Sīra indicates a secure political position.

39 “An historical circumstance so public [as the emergence of the Qur‘ān] cannot have been invented”: see Serjeant’s review of QS in JRAS (1978): 77. The notion that a “conspiracy” (!) is involved in such a historical reconstruction becomes a rallying point for many objections; see N. Daniel’s review of Hagarism in JSS 24 (1979): 296-304. Contrary to Daniel (p. 298), one could claim that one hundred years is a long time, especially when one is dealing not with newspaper headlines and printing presses but the gradual emergence of a text at first within a select circle, then into ever widening circles. One could point to similar instances of “conspiracies” in the canonization of other scriptures, for example the identification of John the disciple with the Gospel of John in well less than a century after the emergence of the text. Besides, as in so many things, it all depends on which conspiracies one likes or does not like; Serjeant says of John Burton [The Collection of the Qur’ān (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)] that he “argues vastly more cogently than Wansbrough’s unsustantiable assertions, that the consonantal text of the Qur’ān before us is the Prophet’s own recension,” but involved in Burton’s book—if one bothers to read it carefully and not get carried away by its conclusion—is a “conspiracy” to which Serjeant’s objection to Wansbrough’s theory should apply as well. But obviously the conclusions are what count for Serjeant, not the method by which they are reached. (See his review of QS, JRAS [1978]. 76). Cf. also Angelika Neuwirth, Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1981) and my review BSOAS 45 (1982): 149-50.

40 See, for example, Raphael Loewe, “Divine Frustration Exegetically Frustrated—Numbers 14: 34 tenū‘ātī,” in Words and Meanings, ed. Lindars and Akroyd, esp. pp. 137-38; G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition, introduction.

41 The historical appearance of exegetical “lists” of scriptural passages, whether of (apparent) scriptural contradiction, semantic aspects, or legal rulings (see QS, chapter 4 for these types of lists) indicate the emergence of a fixed text of scripture. Note M. R. Waldman’s observation in chapter 6 of this book: “As the Qur’ān itself became ‘listed,’ i.e., arranged in fixed order according to some fixed criteria of listing, further listing of the contents of the Qur’ān according to other principles of listing followed naturally” Precisely, Wansbrough would perhaps say; the earliest evidence of “listing” according to other criteria indicates the likely historical moment of the emergence of the fixed Qur’ānic canon.

42 See my review of SM, JSS 26 (1981): 121-23.

43 See his review of van Ess, Anfänge muslimischer Theologie, in BSOAS 43 (1980): 361-63.

44 MW 67 (1977): 307; the quote from QS is somewhat out of context, although cf. Wansbrough’s review of van Ess, Anfange in BSOAS 43 (1980): 361.

45 Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur’ān (Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980), p. xiv; see my review in BSOAS 44 (1981): 360-63. Rahman incorrectly quotes QS; it should read “... the kind ...”; there is also no explanation point (!) in Wansbrough’s text. The possibility that there could be a difference of opinion over the value of literary analysis per se cannot be overlooked but Rahman’s statements hardly are sufficient to urge such a position; cf however, van Ess’s review of SM, BSOAS 43 (1980): 137-39, where precisely that argument is attempted; one needs to look no further than, for example, Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy (see nt. 17 above) to see the continued vitality of literary analysis, however.

46 G. H. A. Juynboll, in his review of QS in JSS 24 (1979): 293-96, expresses this inability perfectly: “What makes W’s theories so hard to swallow is the obvious disparity in style and contents of Meccan and Medinan sūras” (p. 294). Similar to this are Rahman’s comments in chapter 12, and in Major Themes, p. xvi, about chronological necessity due to the doctrine of naskh (which he conceives of as “removal” of verses alone, not as legal abrogation). The possibility that naskh refers to replaced Jewish practices (Burton) or to abrogated earlier dispensation (Wansbrough) is not even entertained by Rahman; both these alternate solutions obviate the chronological “necessity.”

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!
Previous
Page
Next
Page